{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1777","title":"Court filings concerning Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report and motion for withdrawal and substitution of counsel.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2004-03-02/2004-03-16"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","School integration","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","African Americans--Education","Teachers","Education--Evaluation","School discipline","Discrimination in school discipline","Student activities","Transportation","School improvement programs","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report and motion for withdrawal and substitution of counsel."],"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/1777"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["82 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt of Appeals, ruling; District Court, letter-order; District Court, order; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report; District Court, motion to withdraw as counsel and for substitution of counsel    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Nos. 02-3867EA, 03-l 147EA Little Rock School District, Appellee, V. * * * * * * * RECEIVED f.;_'.J -J 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Alexa Armstrong; Karlos Armstrong; * On Appeal from the United Khayyam Davis; Alvin Hudson, Tatia * States District Court Hudson, Lorene Joshua; Leslie Joshua; * for the Eastern District Stacy Joshua; Wayne Joshua; Sarah * of Arkansas. Facen; Derrick Miles; Janice Miles; * John M. Miles; NAACP; Joyce Person; * Brian Taylor; Hilton Taylor; Parsha * Taylor; Robert Willingham; and * Tonya Willingham, * * Appellants. * Submitted: September 11, 2003 Filed: March 2, 2004 Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. ----- - -------- - I ' I I I ! I This case consolidates two appeals, both arising from the Little Rock School District's request for unitary status. First, the Joshua Intervenors 1 appeal from the District Court's2 denial of their Motion for Recusal of District Judge and Vacating of Orders, Rulings, and Judgments. We review a district court's denial of recusal for abuse of discretion. See In re Hale, 980 F.2d 1176, 1178 (8th Cir. 1992); United States v. Walker, 920 F.2d 513, 516 (8th Cir. 1990). We conclude that Judge Wilson's representation of Judge Henry Woods at a much earlier stage of the case, and on far different issues, did not involve the same \"matter in controversy\" for purposes of 28 U.S.C.  455(b )(2); thus, we affirm the denial of the Joshua Intervenors' Motion for Recusal. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting the Little Rock School District (LRSD) partial unitary status. The Joshua Intervenors assert: ( 1) that the District Court erred by not requiring and considering additional reports from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM); and (2) that the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was erroneous. We hold that the District Court did not err by failing to require new written reports from the ODM, and that the District Court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous; thus, we affirm the grant of partial unitary status. Because the facts relevant to each issue on appeal are different, we address them separately. In Part I, we address the issue of disqualification. In Part II, we address whether the District Court should have required new written reports from the 1This group of school children and parents are, as a practical matter, the plaintiffs in the case at its present juncture. The Little Rock School District, which actually initiated the case in 1982, is effectively the defendant for purposes of this appeal. 2The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- - ODM. Finally, in Part III, we address whether the District Court erred in finding that LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan in most respects. I. This litigation began in 1982 and has been in and out of this Court and the District Court several times - it is complex to say the least. We briefly highlight the events relevant to the issue of the disqualification of Judge Wilson. In 1987, LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors sought to disqualify Judge Henry Woods,3 who was then presiding over the case. The parties asserted as grounds for disqualification that during Judge Woods's private law practice, one of his partners had represented parties who participated as amici curiae in a related case, and that Judge Woods's impartiality was called into question by his comments at a meeting with students. Judge Wilson, then in private practice, represented Judge Woods for the limited purpose of the mandamus proceedings, defending Judge Woods's decision not to recuse himself. 4 In the current proceeding, begun by LRSD's motion that it be released from court supervision, the Joshua Intervenors sought the recusal of Judge Wilson under 28 U.S .C.  455(b)(2), which requires a judge to disqualify himself \"where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy.\" After Judge Wilson entered an order on September 13, 2002, granting LRSD partial unitary status, the 3The Little Rock School District sought a writ of mandamus asking this Court to disqualify Judge Woods, and the Joshua Intervenors appealed a judgment entered by Judge Woods, asserting, among other things, that the judge should be disqualified. 4This Court found that Judge Woods was not disqualified. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 839 F .2d 1296 (8th Cir. 1988); Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 833 F.2d 112 (8th Cir. 1987). -3- 4t Intervenors filed a Motion for a Hearing Regarding the Relevance of28 U.S.C.  455 to the Present Proceedings. Judge Wilson denied this motion on October 29, 2002. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2002 WL 31465311 (E.D. Ark. 2002). Thereafter, on November 25, 2002, the Joshua Intervenors moved for disqualification of Judge Wilson. Judge Wilson denied this motion because, among other reasons, he had never served, in his view, as a lawyer in the \"matter in controversy.\" Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, No. 4:82CV00866 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 20, 2002). The Joshua Intervenors appeal. We must determine whether Judge Wilson's representation of Judge Woods in the mandamus proceeding in 1987 involved the same \"matter in controversy\" as the present questions before us for purposes of 28 U.S.C.  455(b )(2). Because the mandamus proceeding did not touch upon the merits of the case, we conclude that it was not a part of the same \"matter in controversy.\" The Joshua Intervenors contend that Judge Wilson's participation was part of the same matter in controversy because it was part of a single case. The language chosen by Congress, \"matter in controversy,\" is not defined by the statute. However, Congress easily could have substituted the word \"case\" for the words \"matter in controversy,\" but did not do so. This deliberate choice by Congress demonstrates an intent that the words \"matter in controversy\" mean something other than what we commonly refer to as a \"case.\" In fact, Congress used the words \"proceeding,\" \"case in controversy,\" and \"subject matter in controversy\" in various other subsections of  455(b) to describe situations where a judge must disqualify himself. Thus, we must assume that Congress ascribed a particular meaning to the words \"matter in controversy,\" and we must try to discern that meaning. We note that Judge Wilson represented Judge Woods at the mandamus proceedings, which were given a separate docket number from the rest of the case in this Court. This circumstance, though relevant, is not enough in itself to enable us -4- - to conclude that the disqualification proceeding was not the same \"matter in controversy\" as the present appeal. As we have indicated, the phrase \"matter in controversy\" must mean something other than the word \"case,\" and so we do not rely on this technical distinction. Instead, we look to the substance of the issues argued and decided in the two proceedings. In Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 839 F.2d 1296 (8th Cir. 1988), we discussed, but did not decide, whether a matter in controversy could extend beyond a single case. Even if a matter in controversy could be more extensive than a single case, we concluded that the facts before us did not support such a conclusion because the cases involved, \"to a large extent, different issues and different remedies.\" Id. at 1302. We think this reasoning is useful in determining whether a matter in controversy may be less extensive than a case. Judge Wilson's representation of Judge Woods was restricted solely to the issue ofrecusal and did not go to the merits of the case. Judge Wilson was involved in the case solely for the mandamus proceedings and, in the course of his representation, never addressed the merits of the case or expressed any opinion about them. The issues before Judge Wilson in the present matter are wholly unrelated to his prior representation of Judge Woods. Although the case law is slim in this area, we find support for our position in In re Apex Oil Co., 981 F.2d 302 (8th Cir. 1992). In Apex Oil. Judge Loken found his recusal unnecessary where he and his former law firm were previously involved with plaintiffs' claim for damages from an oil spill and where, later, his law firm filed claims on behalf of plaintiffs in Apex Oil's bankruptcy proceedings. Id. at 304-05. The question was whether the plaintiffs' claim for damages constituted the same matter in controversy as the later claims in bankruptcy when both resulted from the same oil spill. Id. at 303. Although acknowledging that bankruptcy proceedings are atypical because they are conducted under an umbrella proceeding, Judge Loken -5- - ------ - - - --- --- ----------------- - concluded that the cases were not \"sufficiently related\" so as to constitute the same matter in controversy. Id. at 304. Applying this analysis to our situation, we conclude that there is not a sufficient relationship between the recusal proceedings with respect to Judge Woods and the issues now before us on the merits to make them the same \"matter in controversy.\" Nor do we think that any impartial observer could reasonably think that Judge Wilson's impartiality should be called into question. Not only was his prior representation of Judge Woods wholly distinct; the issues before the Judge in the current proceeding involved the current version of the parties' agreement to settle the underlying case, an agreement that was never before Judge Woods, and that was not even in existence until long after he voluntarily relinquished the case. II. As we have noted, this appeal arises from an interdistrict desegregation case filed by LRSD in 1982. As part of that case, the parties agreed to a settlement plan in 1989. However, as time passed, portions of that plan proved unworkable, and the parties agreed to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. This plan was approved by the District Court and this Court. On March 15, 2001, LRSD asked the District Court to declare it unitary under  11 of the Revised Plan. On July 25, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed an opposition to this request. The opposition, App. of Appellants 185-86, made the following argument, among many others: The Joshua Intervenors believe further that the court must have before it a written response to the district's plan or other written analysis regarding that plan from the Court's Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) before the Court can issue a final opinion regarding the matter. Otherwise, any assessment by the Court would be -6- incomplete and not keeping with the expectations of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals when it required the establishment of the ODM to assist the Court in determining and effectuating desegregation compliance. This opposition was filed while the case was still before Chief Judge Wright (who had taken the case after Judge Woods had removed himself from it). She then conducted five and one-half days of evidentiary hearings, ending on November 20, 2001. On January 3, 2002, Chief Judge Wright withdrew from the case, and it was reassigned to Judge Wilson. He held three additional days of evidentiary hearings on July 22, 23 , and 24, 2002. The Joshua Intervenors' second major argument on appeal is that the District Court erred in making findings and entering judgment without directing ODM to prepare additional monitoring reports on LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. The Joshua Intervenors point out that the ODM was created in the first place at the direction of this Court. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1388 (8th Cir. 1990). The District Court had before it some relevant materials from the ODM: a report on LRSD's preparations for implementation of the Revised Plan, filed August 11, 1999, and a report of disciplinary sanctions in the Little Rock School District, filed on June 14, 2000. As to the first report, the Court observed that it \"indicated that, overall, LRSD was doing a satisfactory job of implementing the Revised Plan.\" Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 237 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1048 (E.D. Ark. 2002). The District Court did not view the second report as having much value. The Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court should have had the ODM prepare an additional report or reports before making any findings . They point out that \"ODM had gained considerable expertise, preparing at least 49 reports.\" Brief for Appellants 39. -7- In response, LRSD argues that this point was not properly raised in the District Court. Certainly it is true that the Court never entered a written order expressly disposing of the request that additional monitoring reports be prepared. Before the case was transferred to Judge Wilson, however, Chief Judge Wright effectively denied the Intervenors' request, saying: And of course, you are free, Mr. Walker, to call the Office of Desegregation Monitoring as witnesses, as well, I mean, those people as witnesses to the extent you think they have knowledge on the matters at issue. And furthermore, and I talked information with Ms. Marshall [the head of ODM] about this, I don't mind Ms. Marshall telling you, sharing with you the information that she has, but if she does that I want her to share it with everyone else too. Tr. of June 29,2001 , 27-28. The Joshua Intervenors, in response to this invitation or otherwise, did not call anybody from the ODM as a witness. As we have noted, the request that additional monitoring reports be required was not the subject of a separate motion, but rather a matter mentioned, almost in passing, in a pleading filed by the Joshua Intervenors. App. of Appellants 185-86. As far as we can tell, the request was never renewed on the record, either in writing or in open Court, during the days of evidentiary hearings conducted by Judge Wilson, or in any other manner. We nevertheless assume for present purposes that the point is properly before us, and we hold that it is without merit. The ODM, as the Joshua Intervenors point out, was created at the direction of this Court, at the time of our initial approval of the settlement agreement, but the ODM was to be under the supervision of the District Court and to act as an arm of that Court in ensuring that the settlement agreement was followed. It was and remains the job of the District Court, in its discretion, to determine how the ODM should be used. A choice to rely on the existing materials prepared by the ODM, and to eschew the preparation of -8- ---- - - - - ------------~ additional reports, is certainly not an abuse of discretion. Two further points are important. First, the Joshua Intervenors could have, but did not, call someone from the ODM to testify. Second, no offer of proof was made. We do not know what OD M's position would have been if it had been asked. In this situation, it is simply impossible to say that the decision not to request the production of additional papers had any effect on the outcome of this case. III. The Revised Plan \"supersede[s] and extinguish[es] all prior agreements and orders\" in the case, with limited exceptions. App. of Appellants 87. Unlike the previous settlement agreement, the Revised Plan contains a specific procedure by which LRSD can attain unitary status. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provides: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding the LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state ofLRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. Ifno party challenges LRSD's compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. App. of Appellants 110. Although not required by  11 of the Revised Plan, one year before the final report required by  11 was due, LRSD filed an interim report to demonstrate its progress toward compliance. App. of Appellee 71. On March 15, 2001 , as required by the Revised Plan, LRSD filed its final report, which supplemented and updated the -9- information provided in the interim report. App. of Appellee 245 . The Joshua Intervenors filed objections to this report on June 25, 2001 , challenging LRSD's substantial compliance with various sections of the Revised Plan. App. of Appellants 185. After holding evidentiary hearings on the Joshua Intervenors' objections, the District Court issued an order granting LRSD partial unitary status. See Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d 1086. The District Court denied LRSD unitary status under  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan, requiring LRSD to assess annually the academic programs promulgated under 2. 7. Id. at 1081-82. LRSD has not cross-appealed the District Court's ruling on  2. 7 .1, and it is not before us. This issue remains pending in the District Court. On appeal, the Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court erred in granting partial unitary status to LRSD. Specifically, the Joshua Intervenors challenge the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with the following sections: (1)  2.1, Good Faith; (2)  2.5-2.5.4, Student Discipline; (3)  2.6, Extracurricular Activities; and (4)  2.6-2.6.2, Advanced Placement Classes. We review the District Court's findings of fact for clear error. See Nash Finch Co. v. Rubloff Hastings, L.L.C., 341 F.3d 846, 850 (8th Cir. 2003). Thus, we must affirm unless the findings are, in our opinion, clearly erroneous, which means that we must have a \"definite and firm conviction\" that the District Court was mistaken. Ibid. If \"there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.\" Id. at 851 ( quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 US. 564, 574 (1985)). We also note that the Joshua Intervenors bear the burden of proof. Under 11 of the Revised Plan, \"[a]ny party who challenges the Little Rock School District's compliance bears the burden of proof.\" App. of Appellants 110. Section 11 of the -10- - Revised Plan also compelled the District Court to enter an order granting unitary status to LRSD unless the Joshua Intervenors met this burden. Ibid. We hold that the District Court did not clearly err in finding that the Joshua Intervenors had not met their burden with respect to the four subject-matter areas on appeal. Thus, we affirm. A. The Joshua Intervenors appeal from the District Court's judgment granting LRSD unitary status under 2.1 of the Revised Plan, which provides: LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. App. of Appellants 88. This section places an independent duty on LRSD to exercise its \"best efforts\" and to act in \"good faith\" in attempting to remedy the effects of discrimination. The Joshua Intervenors argue that LRSD did not act in good faith. As evidence, they allege that Central High School is still functionally segregated, although the building itself has been integrated. See Brief for Appellants 44-46. Specifically, the Joshua Intervenors argue that the advanced-placement program segregates students into different classrooms, which are the functional equivalent of different schools. Ibid. Moreover, they assert that the teachers are assigned to advanced-placement courses in a racially segregated manner-white teachers teaching advanced-placement classes and African-American teachers teaching regular -11- -------- - classes. Ibid. The Joshua Intervenors also suggest that segregation seeps outside of the classroom and into extracurricular activities. Ibid. The obligation of good faith under 2.1 of the Revised Plan is separate from, and independent of, other affirmative obligations undertaken by LRSD pursuant to  2 of the Revised Plan. Thus, it is possible for LRSD to have acted in good faith, meeting its obligation under  2.1 , even though it did not meet other affirmative obligations imposed by the Revised Plan. After the Revised Plan was adopted, the Little Rock School Board enacted fifteen different policies related to its obligation of good faith and took steps to ensure that all administrators and teachers were aware of these new policies. LRSD also hired Dr. Terrence Roberts, Tr. of July 24, 2002, at 615-16, and Dr. Steven Ross, Tr. of July 23, 2002, at 539, as desegregation experts. Dr. Roberts testified that he had been actively involved in reviewing policies and procedures. Tr. of July 24, 2002, at 619-20. He also testified that he had developed training programs for teachers and other staff members. Ibid. Dr. Roberts testified that he told the Board that LRSD had directed much energy and effort toward meeting all the criteria in the Revised Plan and that LRSD had the potential for being a model school district for the nation. Id. at 647. Dr. Roberts criticized LRSD for having a \"compliance mentality\" because some individuals were interested only in meeting the requirements of the Revised Plan. Id. at 630-31. However, as explained by the District Court, compliance was exactly the issue at hand. LRSD was under constant scrutiny and had to be very careful that it met its obligations. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1045. Under 8.2 of the Revised Plan, a detailed procedure for addressing compliance issues was established whereby the parties would attempt to solve compliance issues before submitting them to the District Court for resolution. The Board paid the Joshua Intervenors to monitor LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. During the term of the Revised Plan, the Joshua Intervenors raised only five compliance issues, which -12- ---------- - ----------- ~ - were all resolved without resorting to the District Court. App. of Appellee 415. None of the issues raised in opposition to the final report was previously raised by the Joshua Intervenors. The District Court found that the purpose of the dispute mechanism under 8.2 was to avoid any surprises when LRSD filed the final report, and that LRSD reasonably relied on the Joshua Intervenors to raise any problems in a timely fashion. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. The District Court also found that the interim report placed the Joshua Intervenors on notice of all the problems, but they did not respond. Ibid. Although  11 does not require that any objections be previously raised under 8.2, the District Court found that Intervenors' failure to raise these issues was a factor to consider in deciding whether LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan. Id. at 1043-44. For the reasons stated above, we find no clear error in the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with 2.1 of the Revised Plan. B. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting LRSD unitary status under  2.5-2.5.4, relating to student discipline. Although  2.5.1-2.5.4 impose specific obligations with regard to discipline, the Joshua Intervenors assert in particular that LRSD did not meet its obligation under  2.5, which provides: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. App. of Appellants 90. This section requires LRSD to create and implement programs and policies designed to eliminate discriminatory practices from student -13- ___________ _ ___ __________ _. discipline. It does not require, however, that LRSD in fact absolutely eliminate racial disparity from student discipline. The Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court improperly found that LRSD had substantially complied with  2.5 because the Court misconstrued the meaning of the words \"to ensure.\" Brief for Appellants 40. Interpretation of the Revised Plan is a question of law, which we review de novo, and we hold that the District Court did not err in construing the obligation imposed by 2.5. The Joshua Intervenors argue that \"to ensure\" means to make sure that racial discrimination does not occur. Ibid. If \"to ensure\" were the only operative phrase in the provision, the argument might be well taken. But 2.5 does not require LRSD to ensure anything. It merely requires that LRSD \"implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to ensure .. .. \" (Emphasis ours.) The thrust of the provision is that certain programs with the purpose of ensuring that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline be instituted. This does not mean that the programs must be perfectly efficacious. In addition, the object is to eradicate discrimination, which is not necessarily the same thing as disparity. Racial disparity may exist without discrimination. Discrimination, of course, can cause disparity, but it is not the only possible cause. Disparity in discipline is a nation-wide problem. The District Court cited something called \"total suspension index.\" The total suspension index demonstrates disparity in discipline and is calculated by dividing the percentage of AfricanAmerican students expelled or suspended by the percentage of African-American students in the population, and comparing this number with that for white students. The District Court found that LRSD's suspension index was between 1.25 - 1.31 for the years 1997-2001. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1054. In other words, to take 1997 as an example, African-American students were 1.25 times as likely, so to speak, to be disciplined or suspended than white students. The national -14- -------- - ---- --- ----------~ index for 1998 was 2.24, and the Arkansas index was 2.16. The District Court specifically found that the Joshua Intervenors did not meet their burden of proving that disproportionate discipline imposed on African-American students was the result of discrimination. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1057. This finding is not clearly erroneous. LRSD enacted several policies to implement its obligations regarding student discipline and created a Compliance Plan, which outlined how LRSD planned to implement the Revised Plan and who bore responsibility for such implementation. Under the Compliance Plan, Junious Babbs was responsible for monitoring student discipline. An ombudsman, James Washington, was appointed pursuant to 2.5.3 to ensure that students were treated fairly throughout the discipline process. The ombudsman was charged with shepherding students through the discipline process, including making students aware of the rules, acting as an advocate for students involved in the disciplinary process, and investigating parental and student complaints of discrimination. The interim and final reports issued by LRSD focused on the decrease in overall suspensions and expulsions, due in part to programs developed by LRSD, such as behavior modification programs and alternative learning centers. App. of Appellee 85-87, 273-74. Although the reduction in suspensions for African-American students was not so large as that of white students, the District Court found that the proportion of suspensions received by African-American students remained the same. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1051. Neither the interim report nor the final report focused on the fact that racial disparity existed among the students who received suspensions or expulsions, and the District Court found that LR.SD could have sorted the data in such a way as to give a more meaningful analysis. Id. at 1051-52. However, the District Court found that the Joshua Intervenors had access to the raw data and never raised the issue. Id. at 1052. -15- ------ - - - More specifically, the District Court found that the reports did not mislead the Joshua Intervenors. Ibid. The ODM produced a Report on Disciplinary Sanctions in LRSD, which showed that African-American students received a disproportionate number of suspensions and expulsions. However, the District Court specificaHy found that this report was not intended to address the effectiveness of any programs that were instituted to address fairness in discipline. Id. at 1052-53. The District Court also noted that the report suggested that factors outside of the schools might affect which students receive discipline, such as home environment, family values, and whether the home is a single-parent home. Id. at 1052. The report did not contain a specific analysis of the facts of each suspension or expulsion to help determine whether discrimination occurred. Id. at 1052-53. However, the report did conclude that the racial disparity meant that LRSD \"has certainly not eliminated nor even abated racial discrimination in suspensions . . .. \" Id. at 1053 ( quoting Report on Disciplinary Sanctions in LRSD, June 14, 2000). The District Court rejected this conclusion as speculative because it was based on raw statistics. Ibid. Dr. Linda Watson, the Assistant Superintendent for Student Hearings, was responsible for monitoring compliance with the Student Handbook. She reviewed every long-term suspension or expulsion and all appeals from short-term suspensions. Tr. of Nov. 19, 2001, 36-37. If the procedures of the Student Handbook were not followed, Dr. Watson overturned the punishment and removed it from the records. Ibid. Although Dr. Watson acknowledged that African-American students were more frequently suspended than white students, she believed this was due to the fact that they more frequently engaged in conduct prohibited by the Student Handbook. Id. at 83-84. She also testified that she believed this was due primarily to socioeconomic factors. (Some of these factors may be caused by or related to racial discrimination, but they are not the fault of the present administration of LRSD.) The District Court -16- - specifically found that the testimony of all the administrators involved in the disciplinary process was credible. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 23 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1050. For these reasons, we find no clear error in the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with 2.5 of the Revised Plan. C. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting LRSD unitary status under  2.6 and 2.6.3, relating to extracurricular activities. Although  2.6.3 imposes a specific obligation with regard to transportation for extracurricular activities, the Joshua Intervenors assert that LRSD did not meet its obligation under  2.6, which provides: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities . . .. App. of Appellants 90-91. The Joshua Intervenors argue that racial discrimination occurred in extracurricular activities, evidenced by the fact that many extracurricular activities did not have a proportionate share of African-American participants. Brief for Appellants 46. Certain activities' participants, such as tennis, swimming, quiz bowl, mock trial, and cheer leading, were predominantly white. The Joshua Intervenors also assert that there were barriers to participation, including costs of participation and lack of transportation. The Joshua Intervenors argue that racial disparities in extracurricular activities are the result of discrimination. However, as noted by the District Court, nothing in -17- - ------- - - - ------ ------~ -  2.6 of the Revised Plan required LRSD to impose quotas on extracurricular activities. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1058. LRSD undertook to promote the participation of African-American students and to eliminate barriers to participation. As we noted above with respect to 2.5, this provision does not make LRSD an insurer. It requires only that the District \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure,\" et cetera. (Emphasis ours.) The final report noted a marked increase m African-American students' participation in extracurricular activities following the enactment of the new policies. App. of Appellee 276-77. The final report also demonstrated that LRSD attempted to eliminate barriers to participation by having buses transport students to and from extracurricular activities. Id. at 278. Although the record does not establish which students took advantage of the extra buses, the final report stated that \"no extracurricular activity transportation request made by an eligible student has been denied.\" Ibid. As noted by the District Court, the Joshua Intervenors bore the burden of proof on this issue, and they did not provide a single witness to testify that African-American students were unable to participate because of a lack of transportation. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1059. The Joshua Intervenors also assert that the costs of certain activities create a barrier to participation. Although there are costs associated with certain activities, Dr. Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Schools, testified that each school had a discretionary fund which could be used to help students pay the costs of extracurricular activities. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 775-76. The District Court also found that the Joshua Intervenors presented no testimony that any student was denied an opportunity to participate because of costs. Little Rock Sch. Dist. , 23 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1059-60. -18- The Joshua Intervenors asserted that certain schools, which were primarily African-American, did not have the same extracurricular activities as other schools, and that this violated LRSD's duty to promote participation. However, the District Court found that each school determined which extracurricular activities to offer on the basis of student interest, and if enough interest existed, each school offered a stipend to sponsors of those activ'ities. Id. at 1060. The District Court concluded that certain activities were missing at certain schools not because of discrimination but instead because of lack of student interest. Ibid. The Joshua Intervenors presented several students' testimony to support their assertion that African-American students were not encouraged to participate or were prevented from participating in extracurricular activities. The District Court did not find this testimony impressive. Id. at 1061. Questions of credibility and inferences to be drawn from facts must generally be left to the trial court. The Joshua Intervenors bore the burden of proving that LRSD was not implementing programs, policies, or procedures designed to promote participation and ensure there were no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities. We hold that the District Court did not err in determining that the Joshua Intervenors failed to meet this burden. D. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's order granting LRSD unitary status under 2.6-2.6.2, relating to advanced-placement classes and honors programs. While  2.6.1 and 2.6.2 impose specific duties on LRSD to provide training programs for teachers to identify and encourage qualified African-American students to participate in advanced-placement programs and to assist African-American students in being successful in advanced-placement -19- - programs, the Intervenors do not complain that these specific provisions were violated. Instead, they focus on 2.6, which imposes a more general duty: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in . . . advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program. App. of Appellants 90-91. The phraseology of this provision is similar to others discussed above. The Joshua Intervenors assert that the District Court erred in finding no barriers to participation in advanced-placement courses. The low number of AfricanAmerican teachers assigned to advanced-placement courses, they say, is a barrier to participation. Brief for Appellants 43-44. The Joshua Intervenors rely primarily on the testimony of Dr. Michael Faucette, an English teacher at Central High School. Dr. Faucette testified that although there were eight African-American teachers and eight white teachers in Central High's English Department, African-American teachers taught only a few of the advanced-placement sections. Tr. of July 22, 2002, 176-80. Dr. Faucette, an African-American teacher, did not teach any of the advanced-placement sections. Id. at 177. The Little Rock School District Board created a regulation setting forth criteria to help teachers identify African-American students for participation in advanced-placement courses. Although this was one factor used in identifying students for participation in advanced-placement courses, enrollment was still open to any student who showed the proper level of motivation and commitment. App. of Appellee 279. Teachers were then required to monitor performance and behavior to ensure that students placed in those courses would remain there. -20- LRSD studied methods to increase enrollment in advanced-placement courses and determined that pre-advanced-placement courses were necessary to prepare students better and earlier. LRSD implemented pre-advanced-placement courses for sixth and seventh-grade students. These programs have been highly successful, and the District Court found that as a result of these programs, LRSD has added over 600 African-American students to its advanced-placement courses for juniors and seniors. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1063. LRSD has also implemented the SMART Program, a summer program designed to teach algebra to students to prepare them for algebra in the eighth grade. App. of Appellee 112. The District Court found that during the term of the Revised Plan, at least 95% of the students attending the SMART Program were African-American. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1063. Evaluations of the SMART Program determined that it was a success. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 678. LRSD also instituted a \"Teachers of Color\" program to increase the number of African-American advanced-placement teachers. Id. at 671 . The principal at each middle school and high school determined who would be assigned to teach each class. However, the principals were constrained by the collective- bargaining agreement, which required consideration of a teacher's experience and seniority. Tr. of July 22, 2002, 90. An advanced-placement teacher also needed to be qualified through the state. Although Dr. Faucette testified about the racial composition of advanced-placement teachers in Central High School's English Department, he did now know about other advanced-placement sections at Central High School. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1065. The District Court found Dr. Faucette's testimony unreliable. Ibid. The Joshua Intervenors also point to racial disparity in the Hall High School University Studies program, a program developed in conjunction with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock that provided an opportunity for students to earn college -21- credit for classes taken at Hall High School. Admission requirements were developed by the University of Arkansas. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 727-28. In order to receive college credit for the courses, students were required to pay tuition of approximately $150 per course. Tr. of July 22, 2002, 114. The Joshua Intervenors assert that the tuition payments created a barrier to participation for African-American students. Brief for Appellants 42-43. The District Court found that during the 1999-2000 school year, 58% of the students participating in Hall High School's University Studies Program were African-American, while African-American students comprised 71 % of all students at Hall High School. Little Rock Sch. Dist. , 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1066. During 2000-2001, only 35% of the students in the University Studies program were African-American, while African-American students comprised 72% of all students at Hall High School. Ibid. However, the Court found that the Joshua Intervenors presented no evidence that any student was denied admission to the University Studies Program because of inability to pay. Ibid. Testimony also indicates that the school solicited a donation to cover the cost for at least one African-American student who wished to participate but was unable to pay. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 802. For these reasons, we hold that the District Court did not err in finding that LRSD substantially complied with its obligations under  2.6 of the Revised Plan. * * * * * * The judgment is affirmed. It goes without saying, but we say it anyway, that LRSD remains fully subject to the Constitution and all other applicable laws, and that these obligations are enforceable by appropriate legal action. -22- I I I I I I I I I I I - HEANEY, Circuit Judge, concurring. I concur in every aspect of the majority's opinion except insofar as it holds that the LRSD has implemented \"programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline,\" as required by section 2.5 of the Revised Plan. In my view, the LRSD has failed to meet this obligation. It is true that the LRSD has implemented several programs with regard to student discipline: the LRSD provided every student, parent, teacher, and administrator with a copy of the Student Handbook; the LRSD trained students, teachers, and administrators on provisions in the Handbook; the LRSD created the position of Ombudsman to investigate student complaints of race-based mistreatment in student discipline; Dr. Linda Watson, the Assistant Superintendent who was responsible for implementing section 2.5 of the Revised Plan, reviewed every longterm suspension and expulsion, and any short-term suspensions that were appealed; Dr. Watson prepared and reviewed quarterly Discipline Management Reports from each school, used these reports to identify problems, and met with the schools' administrators to discuss solutions; the LRSD established alternative learning environments to allow students with behavioral problems to remain in school; the LRSD offered training in classroom management and effective discipline; and the LRSD followed a progressive discipline approach by imposing lesser sanctions before suspending students. It is also true that the LRSD has reduced the total number of disciplinary sanctions of students during the time of the Revised Plan from 5 ,3 12 total sanctions in 1998, to 5,080 total sanctions in 2001.5 During that same period, however, the 5 All 1998 statistics are from the LRSD' s 1998-1999 Annual Disciplinary Management Report (Ct. Ex. CX679) and the 2001 statistics are from the LRSD's -23- ----- - - - -------------- - number ofblack students receiving disciplinary sanctions actually increased. During the 1998-99 school year, there were 4,470 disciplinary sanctions of black students compared to 842 disciplinary sanctions of white students. Put another way, in the first year of the Revised Plan, 65% of the student population in the LRSD was black, while 84% of the disciplinary sanctions were ofblack students. By 2001, the year the LRSD sought unitary status, the disparity was even greater. In the 2000-01 school year, there were 4,534 disciplinary sanctions of black students compared to 546 disciplinary sanctions of white students. In other words, black students consisted of 68% of the student population, but accounted for 89% of the disciplinary sanctions. Therefore, from 1998 to 2001, disciplinary sanctions ofblack students increased from 84% to 89%. It is undisputed that the programs instituted by the LRSD to address disciplinary issues have had no positive impact on the racial disparity of student discipline in the district. If you compare the discipline statistics in the individual high schools for the same period they track in very similar ways with almost all of the schools experiencing an increase in disparity. It is worth noting, however, that Parkview High School, the most integrated high school in the district, has the lowest racial disparity in student discipline in the district. In 1998-99, Parkview's student population was 51 % black and the percentage of disciplinary sanctions of black students was 49%. In 2000-01, Parkview' s black student population was still 51 %, but the percentage of disciplinary sanctions of black students rose to 66%. Even at 66%, however, Parkview still had the lowest disparity in student discipline in the district that year. I agree that the Revised Plan does not require the LRSD to absolutely eliminate racial disparity from student discipline. The majority and the district court, however, rely heavily on the fact that section 2.5 requires the LRSD to implement programs 2000-2001 Annual Disciplinary Management Report (Ct. Ex. CX681). -24-  - ------ --- - - ----- - ------ \"designed to ensure\" that there is no racial discrimination in student discipline. The implication is that because the LRSD implemented programs which would effect student discipline, the actual impact of those programs does not matter. I disagree. It is not enough for the LRSD to list the programs it implemented to address the disparity in student discipline, when the result of those programs was an increase in the racial disparity in student discipline. The mere implementation of programs, no matter how many or how impressive sounding, that have virtually no impact on the racial disparity in student discipline is not enough to meet the district's obligations under the Revised Plan. This lack of impact on the disparity in discipline is really no surprise when you review the testimony of Dr. Watson. Dr. Watson testified that: she was never instructed that there needed to be a reduction in the racial impact of suspensions in the district; she never prepared a monitoring report with regard to disparities in discipline; she did not prepare any reports which track whether certain teachers or administrators have a pattern of disciplinary actions based on race; nor did she recommend any programs to address the continued disparate impact of discipline. (Nov. 19, 2001, Unitary Status Hr' g Tr. at 25-163 .) Dr. Watson also testified that the percentage of black students being suspended did not decrease, that disparate patterns of discipline still exist based on race, that there are no plans to reduce the disparate impact of student discipline in the district, and that the LRSD is not even looking at student discipline based on race. (Id.) The majority, and the district court, seem to take solace in the fact that racial disparity in student discipline is a national problem. According to the district court, in 1998, the national \"total suspension index\" was 2.24 and the Arkansas \"total suspension index\" was 2.16, whereas the LRSD's \"total suspension index\" remained constant at 1.26 from 1997-2000. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 237 F.Supp. 2d 988, 1054 (E.D. Ark. 2002). The majority and the district court consider the fact that the LRSD' s index is lower than that of the nation -25- ------- - - - - -- ~ - and the state significant, and the fact that the LRSD' s index did not change over the period of the Revised Plan insignificant. I disagree. The Revised Plan said nothing about the LRSD's racial disparity in student discipline in comparison to the state or the nation. The Revised Plan did, however, require the LRSD to implement programs designed to ensure that the racial disparity in student discipline in the district would decrease. This, they failed to do. The majority and the district court also assert that Joshua did not meet its burden in proving that the racial disparity in student discipline was the result of discrimination. This was not Joshua's burden. According to section 11 of the Revised Plan, Joshua bears the burden of proving that the LRSD failed to comply with its obligations as set forth in the plan. Joshua met this burden by showing that the programs the LRSD implemented to address the racial disparity in discipline were ineffective. As I read the Revised Plan, it was the LRSD's obligation to determine whether the continued disparity in discipline was the result of racial discrimination or merely socioeconomic factors as suggested by Dr. Watson. Here again, the LRSD failed to meet its obligation and rested merely on the fact that it implemented programs. Programs that, in the end, had no effect on the racial disparity in student discipline. It is true that Joshua could have done more to raise concerns about the failure of the LRSD's programs earlier, but this does not remove all responsibility from the LRSD. The statistics compiled and reports filed by the LRSD lack valuable data. I have found no useful statistics on recidivism among students to determine how many students, and of what race, are receiving multiple disciplinary sanctions. The record does not contain statistics that separate offenses involving the discretionary judgment of staff from objective offenses. The record lacks any reports which show whether there is a correlation between the race of the teacher administering the discipline and the race of the student receiving it, or whether certain teachers have a higher rate of discipline than others. Dr. Watson testified that she was able to access some of this -26- --------- --- - - ----------~ information and that she knew which schools had high rates of disciplinary sanctions and which teachers issued more suspensions than others, but I cannot agree that her personal, undocumented knowledge was sufficient to meet the court's mandate that the district implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with respect to student discipline. Absent the necessary records, there is no way the district court, or this court, can reach an informed conclusion as to whether blacks are disciplined more frequently for legitimate reasons or because they are judged by different standards than white students, at least by some teachers. I would remand this case to the district court on the disciplinary issue, along with the issue of student achievement retained by the district court, to require the district to comply with our original mandate. -27- March 9, 2004 LETTER-ORDER Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Clay Fendley 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Froachell 11800 Pleasant !Ridge Road Little Rock, AR 72222 Mr. John Walker Mr. Samuel Jones, Ill 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201 172 . is Hansen Mr. Stephen W. Jones 1 Ce r Street, Suite 1200 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 L le Rock, AR 72201 little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Dear Counsel: 4:82CV00866 Q As you know the September 11 , 20 emorandum Order requires that the LRSD file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with the obligc1tions under  2. 7. 1 on or before the 15th of this month. Then, Joshua, or any other party, has thirty days {until April 15, 2004) within which to file objections to LRSD report. This mis:;ive is simply to notify all counsel that a request for any extension will likely be denied. If there are objections, they will be heard on April 26 and 27, 2004. cc: Original: The Honorable Thomas Ray Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM Cordially, Wm. A. Wilson, Jr. Mr. James W. McCormack, Clerk March 5, 2004 ------ - - --- --------- --- RECEIVED 4t MAR 11 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAlVSAS Telephone 501-604-5140 Fax Number 501-604-5149 DATE: J .. I ) .. otj FAX NO.: There are Z-pages, including this Cover Sheet, bein1~ sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: A;~~~ Office of Judge Wm. ll W~Jr. U. S. District Coun 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Direct Phone Numbers: Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk Janet Pulliarn, Law Clerk (odd case numbers) Caf'oline Curry, (even case numbers) Macy Johnson, Courtroom Deputy Ch.-ista Newburg, Court Reporter 604-5141 604-5142 604-5148 604-5144 604-5145 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTNO.1,ETAL. RECEIVED {i,,, h'trWJt-lf/t1 {/) h /J.o/ MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. MAR 1 ' 2004 KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORlNG MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER ORDER u.fo1\\kif J?uRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 1 12004 JAM5S W McCORMACK, CLERK ~y: -----D=-=E=p....,_C ~LE_ A _K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. I have received a copy of Mr. Walker's March 10, 2004 letter to Ms. Ann S. Marshall. A copy of the letter is attached to this Order. The letter appears to be an anticipatory objection to a report that has not been filed; and a request for \"facilitation\" by Ms. Marshall as the Director of the ODM. ,, .. . 2. When the LRSD report is filed, in the next few days, if Joshua perceives deficiencies in it, I would anticipate that, at that time, appropriate objections would be made, which might or might not include the points mentioned in the March 10 letter. 3. I note parenthetically that the meeting in Ms. Marshall's office, referenced in the first paragraph of the March 10 letter, does not give a date of the meeting, and does not mention what compliance issues were discussed, nor does it identify the \"numerous areas of disagreement.\" Any objections filed after the LRSD report is in existence should be shot through with specificity and precision. \"'.;.,?.' 6 '\\~'\u0026lt;{).1-t \u0026lt; -~j 1  .. 4. Any suggestion of \"facilitating\" at this point, if there is such a suggestion to be read into the letter, is late -- far too late. I am going to take the LRSD report, the objections, if any, by Joshua, and decide the issues presented on April 27, or soon thereafter. 5. Consistent with the specific directions given to the ODM, I would expect that office to file a report on the progress under 2.7.1. soon, so that the parties will have ample time to study it, and determine whether they want to rely on it at the April 26 - 27 hearing, or want to object to it or parts of it. 6. As I think can be discerned from the above, I expect reports and objections from the parties and the ODM to be timely filed , so that we can wrap the matter up during the April hearing. To this end, I invite your keen attention to my letter dated March 9, 2004. I point out that this letter contains directives, not goals or suggestions. IT IS SO ORDERED this / [71f day of March, 2004. WM. R. WILSON, JR. / i / I . I ,I.e JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATI'ORNEY kr LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 _FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. Ms. Ann S. Marshall, Monitor Office of Desegregation monitoring 124 West Capital, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Via Facsimile - 371-0100 March 10, 2004 Re: Little Rock School District Dear Ms. Marshall: DONNAJ. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITTLE ROCK, AllKANsAS 72210 PHONE: {501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net Now that we have the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, it is very clear that the court is concerned, as we are, about improving the academic achievement of African American students. Our beliefis that all of the components of the Plan were intended to work 'hand in glove' to that end. When we last met with your office after having invoked the process set forth in the Plan regarding compliance issues, there were numerous areas of disagreement with respect to the District's obligations. Those areas have not been resolved. Moreover, we did not reach agreements on whether all programs as set forth in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report were to be evaluated or which ones indeed were to be evaluated. Little Rock took the position that it would only evaluate literacy and math. We resisted that position then and we do so now because such limitation does not address the very purposes of the evaluations in the first place. Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Chris Heller were the District's representatives at the conference with you. Joy Springer, Bob Pressman and I (for a short while) represented Joshua. Since Dr. Lesley has left the District we have had no further contact with anyone from the District for the purpose offollowup discussions regarding the subject. On or about January 15, 2004, I received two lengthy reports from the District entitled: 1) Little Rock Literacy Program Evaluation; and 2) An Evaluation of Mathematics \u0026amp; Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003. They were sent without explanation or an invitation for discussion. Mr. Heller was aware that we had invoked the process outlined in the Plan and that apparently your office was awaiting more responses from LRSD before having more followup meeting between Joshua and Little Rock. We have received the updates you have sent the parties as you have monitored LRSD's program evaluation. 1 We have now completed our initial review and discussion regarding those evaluations and find not only do they fail to address all of the programs that we negotiated to be evaluated but, that inter alia, the evaluations are keyed to ''No Child Left Behind\" mandates or State accountability mandates. They appear to be less keyed to the explicit outcome objectives of the plan or to the evaluation processes the district adopted in its compliance plan and regulations. While Mr. Heller has contended that there are no outcome requirements of the plan, it was certainly a promised expectation that programs would be altered, modified, and improved upon their inadequacies and then nonworking programs which failed to remediate achievement disparity would be eliminated and replaced. The objective we expect is t hat achievement of black school children will be not less than 90% of the achievement of white school children. I believe that the program evaluations that have been presented miss their mark on many counts, some of which I now bring to your attention as the process facilitator with a notation that these comments are also being delivered to Mr. Heller for the District's use. These evaluations address only literacy, math and science which certainly are not all the programs that are related to improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students. I call your attention to the Court's Order of September 13, 2002, page 168. I am also informing Judge Wilson of our serious concerns regarding the deficiencies of the program evaluations. Our list is not comprehensive because we need to 1) thoroughly review the evaluations, 2) have discussions via the process and the study itself and 3) have more information regarding the District's intentions. 1) Joshua remains concerned about the lack of achievement for African American students at virtually all grade levels. 2) The literacy report does not identify any significant relationship or correlation between the literacy programs implemented by LRSD and the achievement of African American students. 3) Neither the literacy report nor the math/science report addressed African American student achievement by grade level, achievement by school or specific remediation mastery by student, grade level or school. None of the curricular programs in the study had a significant impact on student achievement in 5th grade, for example. 4) The literacy report (page 45) makes the 'surprising' notation that substantial differences exist in the overall achievement of African American students and other students in the Little Rock School District. This conclusion is, in large part, what this action is intended to correct. Joshua interprets that notation to mean that the programs that have been utilized have not successfully addressed African American student achievement nor have they been modified or replaced by others which promise greater success. It surely cannot mean that the objective is impossible to attain. 2 5) The control groups utilized for the literacy report raise another concern. In this report, a significant number of the students, almost half of them, in the District appear to be eliminated from the study. 6) The literacy report contains formative information through a few teacher focus groups, however, this data is not inclusive of the total teacher population responsible for remediation of African American student achievement. Therefore, Joshua must conclude that such information is skewed at best. 7) Joshua recalls the representations of Dr. Bonnie Lesley during her court testimony that the achievement gap in grades K-2 had been eliminated according to her DRA assessments during the 2001-2002 school year. The 2003 literacy evaluation submitted by the District now contradicts her findings in that approximately half of the African American students during 2002-2003 in 4th grade were performing Below Basic. Those second grade students would appear to be the 4th graders now performing below basic. Surely there are sufficient data to prepare an evaluation of literacy in these grades (K-2) and for the District to be able to track their individual performances through Dr. Lesley's data. I read that the Court's Order, Page 170, paragraph A, contemplates the use ofthis data, i.e., \"LRSD now has over three years of testing data ..... \" 8) Joshua remains concerned regarding the District's ability to accurately record, collect, retain and retrieve student achievement data. 9) There is no discussion regarding the. participation of African American students in Pre-AP and AP courses which were allegedly instituted to address African American achievement. Nor is there any evaluation of the District's tutoring programs or other programs aimed at improving African American performance. I 0) The report indicates that African American students had substantially lower absolute performance than did other students. The academic gains on literary tests were lower for African American students than for other students. The evaluations do not compare the achievement of Benchmark exams of 4th or 8th grade students for 2001 or 2002 scoring Below Basic in successive years. Moreover, the SAT 9 test results for higher grade students reflect a need for more information. 11) The District was inconsistent in providing the necessary support for teachers to attend necessary literacy training (Reading Recovery, Effective Literary and ELLA).  12) The evaluation reports discussed professional development in literacy and mathematics while ignoring the three major professional development commitments in the March 15, 2001 compliance report. 3 The foregoing list is merely suggestive; it is not exhaustive. Because of your designated role, I am requesting that Judge Wtlson involve your office in preparing a comprehensive monitoring report of the District's compliance with its student achievement commitments by use of the evaluation process. That I believe was a role envisioned for ODM by both the Court Of Appeals and by the District Court as well. I will be filing the necessary papers to that end, but in the meantime would you ldndly advise me as to the status of our having already invoked the process set forth by the plan. JWW:js cc: Honorable Judge William R. Wilson Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Robert Pressman All Other Counsel Sincerely, ,.. / ,,. -- / _ -,  I , --\": /_.,,  ,:1,: - . i ? / // c . ~ V\"'--'\"'--c/r .. \u0026gt;-i,-v L-\\... ((__, \\ ,, . ~f-  I \\ ,__.,, fohn W. Walker  4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED MAR 1 :; 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLIANCE REPORT Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Compliance Report states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception of Revised Plan  2. 7. 1. The Court's Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan  2. 7 .1. 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD' s Board of Directors (\"Board\") adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD filed the Compliance Plan with the Court on March 14, 2003, as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy. 3. Joshua initially raised concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. The LRSD addressed these concerns in an October 25, 2002 letter to counsel for Joshua, attached hereto Page 1 of 6 as Exhibit A. Joshua invoked the \"Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set for in Revised Plan  8.2, and the Joshua and the LRSD met with Ms. Ann Marshall to facilitate an agreement. The last meeting was February 28, 2003 . At that meeting, the LRSD agreed to provide Joshua several documents. The last of these was mailed to Joshua on March 6, 2003. The parties never reached any agreement related to Joshua's concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. Joshua waived any objections to the Board-approved Compliance Plan by failing to present them to the Court as required by Paragraph \"D\" of the Compliance Remedy. 4. The Board-approved Compliance Plan interpreted Paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Compliance Remedy as requiring the LRSD to: (1) continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04; (2) develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; (3) maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program, (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs, and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process; and ( 4) prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. See Compliance Plan, p. 3. 5. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003- 04. Page 2 of 6 plan. To meet this requirement, the LRSD implemented the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment 6. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to 2. 7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board adopted regulation IL-RI when it approved the Compliance Plan. Regulation ILRl set forth the written procedures for evaluating the 2.7 programs. 7. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. Regulation IL-Rl outlined the criteria to be used to evaluate each program. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD continues to maintain a computer database with the results - of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. Exhibit B attached hereto identified the members of each team. Exhibits C, D and E document informal modifications of the mathematics, elementary literacy and secondary literacy programs, respectively. 8. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District 's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of 2003 and are attached hereto as Exhibit F. Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through Page 3 of 6 a National Science Foundation (\"NSF\") grant; Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction; and Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003 and is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 9. The LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the Court's Compliance Remedy by implementation of the Board-approved Compliance Plan. 10. By letter dated January 12, 2004, copies of the comprehensive evaluations were provided to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, and counsel was asked to advise the District of any \"questions or concerns\" about these evaluations. In a fax dated March 8, 2004, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors wrote: I have reviewed your evaluations and find that they are grossly inadequate and incomplete. In addition to that I am still awaiting the evaluations of the other remaining programs which were contemplated by our agreement. Because we have already invoked the process required by the court, I am putting ODM on notice of our position. The LRSD denies that it agreed to prepare evaluations other than those described in the Boardapproved Compliance Plan. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits the program evaluations as required by paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD prays that the Court find that the LRSD has substantially complied with Revised Plan  2. 7 .1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy; that the LRSD is unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations; and that it be released from all further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts. Respectfully Submitted, Page 4 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376- Page 5 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on March 12, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Banlc Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 HERSCHEL H. Fa.lDAY (lf7219'4) WIWAM K. Stn\"TON, P.A. BYJ.ON M. EISEMA)(, JL. P.A. ,o~ D. BELL r .A. J~ UTTI.Y, P.A. PU S. UI.SER.Y, P.A. O AVIS. JL. P.A. JAM . LARX.. JL, P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill, P.A. LA,IJ.Y W. BUIX.S, P.A. A. WYCKl.lPP NISBET, JR.., P.A. JA.Mf.S EDWAJtD HAJt.11S, P.A. J. PKIWP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SKEPHEltD 1.USSEU 111. P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WIWAM THOMAS BAXTER. f\".A. IJCHAJlD D. TA YLOll. P.A. JOSEPH 8 . HUUT, JL, P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MUUAY, P.A. CHRJSTOPHER KELLER.. P.A. LAUR.A HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERTS. SHAPER.. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill. P.A. MICHAELS. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MAO.EV, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL 111. P.A. UVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WtU.IAM A. WADDELL JJL, P.A. SCOTT J. LA}ICA.STER.. P.A. I.OBERT B. BEACH. JR.., P.A. J. LEE Bl.OWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAUR.. Ul.. P.A. HAJUt.Y A. LIOKT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PR.ICE C. GARDNER.. P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID 0 . WIUON. P.A. JEFPR.EY H. MOOR.E, P.A. DAVID M. GR.AF, P.A. ( By Hand Delivery) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP WNW.frldayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703,.C811 TELEPHONE 47$-.895-2011 FAX .C7$-.H521'7 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 170.7822198 FAX 170.782, 2911 October 25, 2002 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Bank of America Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ( By Hand Delivery ) Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: CAJlLA Gl.JN'NELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOKN C. FDIDLEY. Jk., P.A. JOHANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P.A. R. CHIUSTOPKER LAWSON, P.A. FRANC. HICK.MAH. P.A. BETTY J. DEMOkY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMJTtl P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DA.NIEL L. HEJUUNGTOH, P.A. MAI.VIN L CHILDEJt.S K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. COI.HWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON 8 . HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. K.A.JtN'EY KELLY MUI.PHY MCQUEDI JOSEPH P. MCUY ALEXANDR.A A. IPR.AH JAY T. TAYLOR MA.Jl TIN A. KASTEN Mr. Steve Jones BRYAN W. OUX.E JOSEPH G. HlCHOU ROBEJ.T T. SMITH I.YAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTifY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR LU.ENS. HALBERT SAi.AH M. COTTON PHILIP 8 . MONTGOMERY C.IJSTEH S. RJGGIHS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY WITCH.AM SLOAN lKAYYAM M. EDDJ'NGS JOKN F. PEISUJCH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BR.ANDON J. ttA.R.RJSON orCOUNsu D.S. a..u..r. WIWAMLTEUY WlWAM L PATTON. JR.. tl T. LARZELU.E. P.A. JOHN C. EOfOLS. P.A. A.D. MCAUJSTER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501J70.JS2l FAX 50124'5$41 f  ndleyOf c . net Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hanson Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 In our letter dated October 11, 2002, we asked the parties to specifically identify in writing any perceived deficiency in the Board-approved Compliance Plan on or before Monday, October 21, 2002. No responses were received on or before that date. However, Mr. Pressman called on October 21, 2002, and advised that Joshua would rely on the comments contained in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002, facsimile. On October 24, 2002, additional comments were received from Mr. Walker. All of Mr. Walker's comments will be addressed in turn. EXHIBIT A I All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page2 October 10, 2002 Facsimile 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as \"implementat[ ed] pursuant to Section 2.7 ... \", which are to be subjected to \"comprehensive program evaluation . .. \" Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions/ \"scaffolding\" - areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of African-Amen.can students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2.7. Mr. Pressman clarified this concern during our October 21, 2002 telephone conversation. Mr. Pressman explained that Joshua was concerned that interventions designed to assist low achieving students, for example SAIPs, were not being fully implemented and wanted some assurance that the comprehensive program evaluations would assess implementation of these programs. LRSD RESPONSE: On October 24, 2002, the Board approved the Division of Instruction's \"Plan to Support Low-Performing Schools,\" a copy of which is enclosed for your review. Under that plan, the LRSD will conduct curriculum, instruction and classroom management audits at low performing schools. Data gathered through these audits and other monitoring under the plan may be used by a program evaluation team to identify possible causes of poor performance, including poor implementation of interventions such as SAIPs. The LRSD lacks the resources to implement this plan at every school. Approximately 10 schools will receive the full compliment of services outlined in the plan. Those 10 schools will be identified based on the priority system set forth in the plan. 2. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing [before] Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the PreK-2 literacy program was not adequate. The notation on page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation Survey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the LRSD argument (page 11) that the existing evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the Court's remedy. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD considering the PreK-2 literacy evaluation to have been completed pursuant to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Attached are the comments received by the LRSD from Dr. Ross related to that evaluation. As can be seen, Dr. Ross did not advise the LRSD that the evaluation was \"inadequate.\" Moreover, it does not make sense for the LRSD to expend resources to have this evaluation \"completed\" by an outside expert while it also prepares a new, comprehensive evaluation of the same program with the assistance of an outside expert. All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 3 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the court's order regarding the evaluations mentioned at page 148 of the compliance report does not seem to take account of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD not completing the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report in a manner consistent with IL-RI. As the LRSD understands Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the District Court simply wants the LRSD to do what it said it did and complete the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. That is what the LRSD intends to do. It is true that those evaluations, even after being completed, may not be model program evaluations as envisioned by IL-RI. The LRSD decided, however, that the most prudent use of its limited resources would be to focus on the new, comprehensive evaluations of programs designed to improve African-American achievement. 4. We question the period of implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD is willing to agree that any agreement between the LRSD and Joshua related to implementation of the Compliance Remedy will not prejudice Joshua's appeal of the District Court's September 13, 2002, Memorandum Opinion. October 24, 2002 Facsimile 1. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be given to the quality of the data. In the past, LRSD has used results on the [D]RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In addition, because teachers provided scores for their own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the district's recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-RI that \"Conflict of Interest\" must be avoided. LRSD RESPONSE: Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to use all available data in its evaluations. It will be the responsibility of the evaluation team to weigh the reliability and validity of the available data. The Arkansas Department of Education and national organizations with expertise in early literacy recommend the use of the DRA and Observation Surveys. The primary purpose of those assessments is to determine whether students are learning the essential components of the reading curriculum. As to the integrity of the data from those assessments, the LRSD monitored student scores year-to-year to discourage teachers from inflating scores in an effort to show improvement. Moreover, the ultimate success of the LRSD's early literacy program will - --- - - - ------ - ------ All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page4 be judged by performance on the State's Benchmark examinations, rather than the DRA and Observation Surveys. 2. We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the \"team\" process for preparing evaluations, again in the context of\"conflict of interest.\" In order to insure that \"conflict of interest\" is avoided, the \"external consultant\" needs to write the report and control the -context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the \"Program Evaluation Procedures\" do not guarantee that the external expert will have these roles. Of course, if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD rejects the implication that LRSD personnel cannot be trusted to write an honest program evaluation. The LRSD's commitment to improving student achievement is second to none. To fulfill that commitment, it is in the LRSD's best interest to effectively evaluate its programs. The success of the programs and program evaluations will ultimately be measured by the State's Benchmark evaluations. All evaluation team members will be actively involved in the evaluation process and are expected to provide a check against the self-interest of any one team member. The evaluation team will decide who writes the report based on the expertise of team members. The outside expert will be asked to take to the Superintendent any concerns about the evaluation not being addressed by the evaluation team. The outside expert will also be asked to be present when the evaluation is presented to the Board so that the Board can be advised of any concerns the outside expert may have about the final evaluation. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example, the Board has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performance is below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or a representative sample of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because class members are so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. A satisfactory description by the School Board of the evaluations which it requires the staff to undertake should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation activities in district schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see \"Accuracy Standards,\" para. 2). LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this comment, it is a restatement of the first number paragraph in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002 facsimile, and the LRSD hereby incorporates its response thereto. ------ All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 5 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be particularly directed to achievement of African-American students for the indefinite term, not simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Board's assurance that this is the case. LRSD RESPONSE: The Board's approval ofIL-Rl was not limited to the term of the Compliance Remedy, and at this time, the Board anticipates continuing to evaluate programs pursuant to Policy IL after the term of the Compliance Remedy. Conclusion The LRSD hopes that it has been able to address all ofJoshua's concerns. Ifany party has any questions about the LRSD's responses to Joshua's comments, we ask that those be submitted in writing, and the LRSD will promptly provide a written response. If Joshua continues to have concerns about the LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua should consider this the LRSD's written response to alleged noncompliance in accordance with Revised Plan 8. Pursuant to Revised Plan 8.2.4, Joshua has 15 days ofreceipt of this letter to submit the issue to ODM for facilitation of an agreement. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, cc: Dr. Ken James (via hand-delivery) PROGRAM EVALUATION TEAMS Elementary Literacy Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy-Team Leader Pat Busbea, Literacy Specialist Judy Teeter, Literacy Specialist Judy Milam,;Literacy Specialist Melinda Crone, Literacy Specialist Ann Freeman, Literacy Specialist Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Secondary Literacy Suzi Davis-Director of Secondary English, Team Leader Sarah Schutte, Middle School Literacy Specialist Dr. Karen Broadnax, Supervisor of ESL Eunice Smith, Supervisor, Special Education Dr. Mona Briggs, Safe Schools Grant Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Mathematics and Science Vanessa Cleaver-Team Leader Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Marcelline Carr Beth Clifford Annita Paul Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Don Wold, NSF Program Evaluator Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator ~  EXH 18 IT I B - ---- - ------ - - --- - I I I I I I I I I I I Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Elementary Mathematics 2001-02  An item analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 reveals that students perform lowest on the geometry strand. (Note-The State Math Framework and NCTM National Standards for Mathematics contain 5 strands: number sense, geometry, probability and statistics, algebra, and measurement.) The analysis of data from the Benchmark Exam consisted of identifying the strand of each item, ranking the items from highest to lowest, and looking for trends in the data.  Program modifications made based on the low performance on geometry items was:  Train teachers to do item analyses for their own schools.  Work with teachers to discern reasons why students struggled with the specific geometry items (the released items were available for review).  Develop strategies for increasing the focus on geometry in the elementary mathematics curriculum.  School by school analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 (and prior years) revealed different levels of achievement by schools that were demographically similar. Classroom observations in these schools by elementary math/science lead teachers confirmed that the level of implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum was different from school to school. Schools with a higher level of implementation were having higher student achievement than schools who were not implementing the curriculum at that high level.  A program modification made based on uneven achievement at similar schools was to have principals identify a lead person in their schools to receive intensive and sustained training to serve as a \"coach\" for other teachers (See list of Math Support Personnel for LRSD).  Sara Hogg, UALR Mathematics Specialist, was utilized to provide monthly \"coaches\" training so that additional implementation support would be available at each school. A variety of types of training has been provided by Ms. Hogg, much of it directed at greater knowledge of strategies for implementing our elementary mathematics curriculum.  Another program modification made as a result of uneven achievement among schools was to begin a process of changing the way professional development for teachers is structured. In the past most professional development for elementary mathematics has been district-led (e.g., all third grade teachers go to a district-led training on the 3rd grade mathematics curriculum). The modification has been to shift more focus on site-based professional development. The \"Lesson Study\" and \"Study Group\" approach was begun with elementary mathematics teachers to allow them more responsibility and accountability for their own training needs. 2002-03      The same item analysis was completed for 2001-02 4th grade Benchmark Data . Results of this analysis showed that students had gained in the area of geometry . The lowest strands were probability and statistics, measurement, and algebra. Staff and teachers reviewed the LRSD elementary mathematics curriculum to determine if there was a correlation between extend to strand coverage in the curriculum and student performance on those strands on the Benchmark Exam. The curriculum analysis revealed that there were some gaps in the curriculum that likely resulted in low performance on certain items on the exam. Staff and teachers worked over the summer of 2003 use the Benchmark data to determine the \"big ideas\" or concepts students need to have a deep understanding about in grades K-5. Using several years worth of data, grade level teams of teachers in grades 1-4 (see list of teachers who worked on curriculum revision) revised the mathematics standards and benchmarks according to the five strands listed in NCTM Standards and the State Framework. Kindergarten and fifth grade will do similar work during the summer of 2004. Curriculum resources in grades 1-4 were aligned to those standards assessed most frequently on the exam. Supplemental curriculum resources were identified from several sources for use to broaden the scope of the curriculum at certain grade levels. Internet resources, Marilyn Burns and Associates materials, and other materials were identified and compiled into a notebook for use by teachers.  Benchmark results show that district students generally perform less well on the open-response test items compared to the multiple choice items.  Program modifications based on this data were:  Developed packets of open-response items for teachers to use with students.  Trained teachers to score open-response items using a rubric.  Developed and administered District-developed end-of-quarter or end-ofsemester exams that included open-response items.  4th grade Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark Results over a period of three years caused some schools to be given \"School Improvement\" status by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). Schools in which the total population or one or more sub-populations (white, African-American, Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, Low Socioeconomic Status, and Special Education) did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress as defined by ADE were sanctioned with Year 1, Year 2, or Year 3 School Improvement Status.  A thorough and detailed School Support Audit was done for schools in Year 2 or Year 3 School Improvement. (An attachment explains the school audit process). The schools that were audited were Fair Park, Baseline, Mabelvale Elementary, Wakefield, and Southwest Middle School).  A variety of program modifications were made in schools on School Improvement as a result of the audit findings .  One major common finding from the audits was that effective questions strategies were not being routinely used in the audited schools. The modification made was to bring in an expert on questioning strategies (Dr. Lee Hannel-author of Highly - -------- --- --- Effective Questioning: Developing the Seven Steps of Critical Thinking) to lead a workshop for all LRSD principals. 2003-04  All grade level teachers were trained in the use of these new curriculum resources that were developed by the math staff and teachers during the August, 2003 , preschool conference.  Item analyses of the 4th Grade Benchmark Exam showed that the statistics and probability strand was the lowest area for students.  A program modification made was to strengthen concept development in probability by added a replacement unit on probability from Marilyn Burns' s materials. Twenty-six primary teachers and coaches and twenty-five intermediate teachers and coaches participated in full-day training on the Marilyn Burns materials.  Three elementary schools on School hnprovement Status collaborate to bring in Dr. Hannel to provide training for all teachers in the schools.  Dr. Hannel provided full day training for all elementary principals.  21 of 24 principals responded that they were interested in having the questioning strategies training for all faculty in their schools.  Additional schools received School Support Audits-Chicot, Bale, Mitchell.  Program Modifications made by selected schools were to hire math coaches to assist with professional development and training related to implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum.  Uneven achievement among schools was evident in the results of the 2002-03 4th Grade Benchmark Exam.  A Program Modification strategy used was to hire Dr. Linda Griffith to check the alignment of the mathematics curriculum, grades K-8, to the State Framework. The results of this alignment will include recommendations for improving the alignment in the curriculum. Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Mathematics 2001-02              Item analyses of 6th , 8th , Algebra Land Geometry Benchmark Data for 2001-02 Continued District-wide end-of-quarter tests for Algebra I - Pre-Calculus District-wide end-of-module tests for grades 6-8 TI-83 plus calculator training provided for all secondary math teachers Full implementation of high quality standards-based instruction/materials in math for all students in grades K-12 District leveraged support of professional development for all math teachers by providing funds to pay substitute teachers and stipends for teachers receiving trainings Lead teachers continued to provide technical assistance inside and outside the classroom by conducting professional development workshops and classroom observations; Continued partnership with University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR.) to develop and offer graduate courses based on the needs of the District. The following course was developed and offered during the 2001-02 SY: o Strategies for Teaching Geometry Developed and distributed pacing guides for secondary mathematics and courses to address the issue of student mobility within the District High school mathematics courses (Algebra I - Precalculus) were revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and :frameworks; The SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) program is an academic student support program for students who will be enrolled in Algebra I the upcoming fall semester. Project THRIVE, the follow-up component of SMART, is a Saturday academy for students currently enrolled in Algebra I. These programs are aligned with the State Goals for Algebra I. Algebra I EOC results of students who participate in these programs are compared with the overall District results o SMART /Project THRIVE served more than 200 students in Algebra The agendas for horizontal team meetings (each grade/subject level 6th gradeCalculus) are developed around the results of the benchmark exams. Teachers concentrate on areas of weakness for students and work on modifications in instructional strategies to improve those areas. In addition, trends and patterns are studied to measure the impact of instructional practices in the classroom. Implemented instruction in Algebra I through Riverdeep software in all high schools 2002-03  Changed format of pre-school conference meeting to involve more teachers doing presentations on standards-based activities;  Purchased Texas Instruments APPs Suite for Algebra I for all middle and high schools; - - --- - ------ ----- - -    -  : ..   Provided training from College Board Pacesetter for Algebra I - Pre-calculus teachers - over 80% of secondary math teachers were trained  Continued District-wide end-of-quarter test for 6th grade - Calculus;  Continued to provide professional development for all secondary math teachers on topics including: o Riverdeep Interactive Software o TI-83 plus calculators o UALR Graduate Courses  Strategies for Teaching Algebra  Integrating the Graphing Calculator  Revised and enacted procedures for ensuring that students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and LRSD;  Continued to implement high-quality standards-based instruction for grades 6-12 mathematics;  Continued to hold monthly vertical team meetings for secondary math teachers  Held horizontal team meetings (one per semester) for each secondary math course; 2003-04  Classroom sets of graphing calculators provided for all Algebra I- Calculus teachers;  Offered UALR graduate course on Using Handheld Technology to Enhance the Mathematics Classroom- used the TI-Navigator system;  Continued vertical and horizontal team meetings including 6th -8th  Workshop by Dr. Linda Griffith for calculus teachers on integrating calculator to teach calculus;  Continued end-of-quarter tests;  6th -8th grade curriculum revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks; Marcelline Carr and Vanessa Cleaver FY 2002-03 Actions of the LRSD Elementary Literacy Department related to Literacy Program Evaluation The LRSD Elementary Literacy Department continued to provide professional development (ELLA, EFFECTIVE LITERACY, Reading Recovery) to all LRSD schools to support implementation of the LRSD Pre-K-3 Literacy Plan. The Elementary Literacy Department examined the Spring 2002 CRT Literacy data to identify the schools most in need of assistance in the area ofliteracy with particular attention to the academic achievement of African American students and their needs. The data indicated that the writing program was the weak component of the literacy instructional program. The Elementary Literacy Department provided staff development related to writing instruction, and the writing programs in schools were modified to include \"best practices.\" The Spring 2003 CRT Literacy data from several schools reflected the schools' efforts to improve their students' academic achievement in writing. The District used the assessment data to also provide the low performing schools with the opportunity to participate in the LRSD Reading First Project. The project, which is federally funded, provides significant funding to schools to implement research-based instructional strategies. Twelve schools chose to participate in the project to begin in the fall of 2003 . The project requires the schools to follow an assessment schedule related to program improvement. Because of lack of movement in student achievement in literacy, three schools on school improvement decided to move from the Success for All program to the research-based instruction recommended in Reading First. FY 2003-04 August - December 2003 Response to the Literacy Program Evaluation The Elementary Literacy Department reviewed the literacy program evaluation report developed by Dr. Ross and developed a plan to continue program evaluation in the future which included the following:   Continue the use of focus groups for each of the professional development programs (ELLA, Effective Literacy, Reading Recovery, Literacy Coaches, Success for All) and develop a table of the most and least effective elements. The information from the focus groups will then be used to modify the District's professional development plan. Compare student data from the CRT and District assessments in each school to compare the academic achievement of African-American students with others as related to the instructional program and provide specific professional development based on the identified needs of the students. ...  EXHIBIT ID The staff also reviewed the section of the report related to the most effective and least effective elements of each staff development offered by the District. The following actions were taken to address the weaknesses of the professional development:  Provided additional guided reading materials to all schools to support small group instruction to ensure equitable instruction for all students.  Provided a diverse collection of books to low perfonning schools to ensure that a variety of texts is available for independent reading.  Modified the testing schedule ( except in Reading Excellence and Reading First schools) to accommodate the need for a more streamlined assessment plan. Literacy Achievement Data Review Dr. Ed Williams met with the Elementary Literacy Department regarding the 2003 Primary Literacy Benchmark Exam with attention to the academic achievement of African American students as compared to other students. Schools most in need were identified and assigned to specific Literacy Specialists who had the task of reviewing the testing data more closely with the assigned schools. The Elementary Literacy Department employed the services of a consultant to discuss with the Literacy Specialists the most effective approach to use with the schools in examining their data and using it to make program modifications or changes. After the consultant's visit, the staff developed a plan for working with the schools. Assistance provided to the schools was varied based on the needs of the school but included inservice on the Primary Benchmark Exam and data analysis. In some schools, the principal and staff had already examined the data and outside assistance was not requested. Results of the data review confirmed that the professional development provided by the Elementary Literacy Department should include heavy emphasis on content area reading and writing. In addition to the professional development being offered on an ongoing basis to teachers grades 2-4, the Elementary Literacy Department and the Social Studies Department began working collaboratively to provide the training, resources, and materials for 5th grade teachers to integrate reading and social studies instruction. Three training sessions were held in January 2004 to model for teachers how to integrate the two areas. LRSD Reading First Project Schools The Reading First Project Schools have been visited several times during the year (2003-04) by the LSRD Reading First Coordinator, District Literacy Specialists, and the ADE Reading First Technical Assistant. The purpose of the visits is to provide assistance and to monitor the instructional program of the schools. Monitoring was done using a structured observation protocol and assistance was provided to schools in various ways such as the following:  Classroom demonstrations  Classroom observations with post observation conference  Colleague visits to exemplary classrooms  Sessions for problem-solving various aspects of the instructional program L 3 - The Reading First Literacy Coaches and classroom teachers administered assessments in addition to those required by the district. In the fall of 2003 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification; first grade students were given the letter identification and phoneme segmentation tests; and the second and third grade students were given the oral reading fluency test. The coaches and classroom teachers used this information to determine students in need of intervention, and intervention plans were developed for each school. Progress monitoring was conducted on those students considered at risk or some risk in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions and to make needed changes. In January 2004 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification and phoneme segmentation; first grade students were given the DIBELS phoneme segmentation and oral reading fluency test; and second and third grade students were given the DIBELS oral reading fluency test. The Developmental Spelling test was also administered to K-3 students in January 2004. The Literacy Coaches entered all of the LSRD Reading First schools' data and intervention plans into the Arkansas Reading First Data Bank. Pat Busbea and Renee Dawson, Reading First Technical Assistants monitored the data input and the development and implementation of the intervention plans. Because the Reading First Schools are predominantly African American, particular attention is being given to how the students are responding to the intervention and technical assistance is provided to schools when the data indicates it is needed. Professional Development Specialized Training Based on examination of CRT, DRA and Observation Survey data, as well as teacher observation, it was determined that support and services were needed in the following areas of literacy in the lowperforming schools: phonemic awareness/phonics, spelling, oral language, and reading comprehension. Both local and nationally recognized experts in these areas of literacy were contracted to provide professional development to teachers of PreK through Grade 5. Ongoing Professional Development Ongoing professional development in literacy instruction is made available to all PreK - Grade 5 teachers. This professional development, a component of the State Smart Start Initiative, includes: Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) for grades K-2 Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 The LRSD Effective Literacy 5 for grade 5 Pre Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (PreELLA) Pre-Kindergarten. Benchmark Preparation In response to requests from principals of the identified schools, District literacy specialists provided State Benchmark Exam preparation training to the teachers of grades 3-5 focused on the areas of - \"Writing On Demand\" and \"Constructed Response\" . Technical Assistance Technical Assistance in Literacy was provided to classroom teachers at the Elementary Schools identified for School Improvement. The focus and the intensity of the assistance were based on the particular needs of each teacher related to instruction during the 2  hour Literacy Block - Reading Workshop, Writing Workshop and Word Study. Reading Specialists visited each classroom in need of assistance to meet with the teacher. The specialist and teacher identified the specific needs from the following areas:  Physical Setting/Context for Instruction Explicit Phonics/Spelling/Word Study Literature Circles/Literature Discussion Groups Guided Reading Instruction Shared Reading Shared Writing Strategy-Based Mini Lessons Literacy Comers Teacher Read Aloud Writing Workshop Reading Workshop Independent Reading Benchmark Prep The specialists then addressed the areas identified, including: setting up Literacy Comers, rearranging classrooms, organizing and categorizing reading materials, teaching students in both whole and small group, modeling instructional approaches, demonstrating the use of materials, assessing students and developing instructional plans. Professional books, independent reading books and sets of books for guided reading, as well as organizational materials and center supplies are also provided. Approximately 20 of the schools have employed literacy coaches to help support and accelerate change in literacy instruction to improve the achievement of all students in the area of literacy. ---- - - - - - - --------- 4 2001-2002 Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Literacy 1. Teachers attended after school meetings with director to examine data and conduct analysis of scores of ACT AAP tests. 2. English faculty of each school spent a day together with English director and building principa,I in session devoted to best practices for improvement of Ii teracy program. January - March 2002. 3. All building assistant principals at middle school were inserviced by director in literacy program in order to provide for more consistent supervision and coordination by including all administrators in literacy program. 4. Monthly collaboration sessions were held at all middle schools, taking turns hosting, with dedicated topics related to modifying literacy program and practices. 5. Recognizing that secondary teachers have never been trained in the teaching of reading, Dee Bench, consultant from Denver Coalition of Business and Education was employed to lead staff development during summer of '02 for teachers to modify reading strategies and instruction. Four weeks of training took place with teachers (approximately 75) from all four core subjects in attendance. This summer inservice was a modification to include all cross curricular teachers in literacy program. 2002-2003 1. Teachers met with director to assist in production of curriculum for writing in order to be able to consistently deliver quality program elements. Evaluation of current practice and focus on optimum results were goals. Spring - Summer '02. New Writing Curriculum was put into use 02-03. Teachers were inserviced school by school during preschool work days on use of new curriculum. Committee of teachers for curriculum development: Brenda Bankston, Mabelvale Middle School Barbara Brandon, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Sarah Schutte, Cloverdale Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Dr. Rhonda Fowler, Central High School Emily Lewis, Parkview High School Carol Carter, Hall High School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Sandra Nichols, McClellan High School Karen Shofner, McClellan High School 2. Director met with building principals during early morning sessions to introduce new curriculum for purposes of effectively evaluating classroom instruction and to provide basis for collaborative program evaluation. Fall '02. 3. Analysis of data from all tests and sessions with individual schools to modify areas of emphasis according to areas of need. It was discovered that our students do well on the ~  EXHIBIT I F mechanics and usage areas while the writing in content areas is weaker. Strategies were developed to practice and teach these skills. 4. Practice kits were developed by the English office and distributed to every middle school teacher for use in modification of literacy program in terms of test preparation. 5. Consultation with outside expert in reading comprehension for older readers to evaluate next steps and current status of lowest achieving students. Summer '02- ' 03 . (Need for literacy coaches in high school was determined and, as a result, three are now in place at three lo:west performing high schools , based on ACT AAP.) 6. Teachers met during swnmer 2003 to evaluate and modify urriculum producing an amending document. Survey given to all English teachers prior to meeting and results discussed and useful for changes made. Committee to revise English Curriculum: Wes Zeigler, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Billie Wallace, Parkview High School Beverly Maddox, Henderson Middle School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Louisa Rook, Cloverdale Middle School Carol Carter, Hall High School Joan Bender, ALC Jennifer Moore, Forest Heights Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Cherry Robinson, McClellan High School 7. ESL Supervisor and director met to discuss and evaluate materials as they relate to program's effectiveness for ESL and low-level learners. Materials were purchased for these students as a result. Summer '03. 8. Consultant from Denver Coalition returned for one week of further training in reading instruction strategies for secondary students. 2003-2004 1. Based on being placed on School Improvement list, Associate Superintendent and director met to discuss literacy program at low performing middle school and to write plan for improvement following detailed audit. 2. Director has met with middle school principals and high school principals separately to discuss progress and evaluate future steps for increasing effectiveness of program and greater achievement of lower-achieving students. . September '03 . 3. Personnel involved with audit of middle school met with building principal and vice principal to evaluate literacy program and discuss focus for improving student achievement through literacy program. 4. Bi-Monthly meetings to evaluate programs and problems and collaborate on strategies for improvement held with director and high school literacy coaches. Five meetings held, August - October '03 . 5. Session was held for disaggregating data - school by school and teacher by teacher - for recent performances on SAT 9 and ACT AAP to evaluate successes and areas and students and teachers needing improvement for high schools. August - September '03. - ---- - ---------- ---- 6. Meeting with department chairs and director to disaggregate data for middle school to evaluate successes and denote areas needing improvement in program. Sept. '03 . 7. SREB consultant meeting with literacy coaches to evaluate effectiveness of test preparation strategies and plan for improvements. Sept. '03 . 8. In response to data, sessions have been held at most schools with some or all of faculty in open-ended responses. Teachers have made many modifications to classroom instruction based on the experiential sessions involving reading, writing, and scoring with a rubric. 9. Implem~tation ofreading intervention for lowest performing ninth and eighth graders at three high schools and two middle schools began. One middle school uses same intervention for sixth and seventh as well. 10. Information and evaluation session held February 04 for all building principals and key administrators on reading intervention with proposals for expansion of program in 04-05 . 11 . All middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review workshop structure for literacy program. April - May 04. On-going 1. Director and Middle School Specialist meet often to discuss and evaluate progress, problems, and to set trainings, meetings, and interventions to correct and further progress . Attention to both lowest achievers and highest achievers is focus of discussions. Calendars are aligned and coordinated at these meetings. 2. Director and Middle School Specialist meet after school visits to evaluate implementation of literacy program strategies and content and to determine plans for improvement, especially as it relates to lower-achieving students. Weekly, at least. 3. Director communicates often and as requested to address individual problems in buildings with principals and teachers. 4. Middle School Specialist works intensely with new teachers to improve implementation of curriculum and literacy program. 5. Continue to provide training in preparing teachers in ACTAAP open-ended responses. 6. Middle School Specialist working closely with social studies department in providing literacy best practice training to assist in reading in social studies content. 7. Participation in faculty meetings by director and specialist to modify program implementation across curriculum. 8. Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches in all secondary schools. 9. Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. (In May 04 set date for survey June 04) 10. Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers Spring 2004. 11. Department Chairs meet monthly to discuss hurdles, issues, celebrations, and to communicate openly about the literacy programs. These meetings are separate for middle school and high school. These meetings serve as a means of communicating curriculum items, special events, new developments, and reminders to all English teachers from the district office as well as collaboration. Secondary Literacy Evaluation Team January 16, 2004 Suzi Davis, Chair Prograi Modifications as a Result of Analysis of the CREP Report  Continue to provide training to whole faculties in ACT AAP open-ended responses and rubric scoring. January, February, March, 2004  continue cross-curricular unit development and training in workshops  Communicate with principals on the need for intense support for the literacy program. January,2004  Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches for all secondary schools  Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. A date will be set in May for a June meeting to discuss the results of this survey.  All eight middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review the Read/Write Workshop structure. During this inservice, plans will be made for collaborations among schools for next year. April, 2004  Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers. Spring 2004 Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE March 16, 2004 RECEIVED MAR 1 7 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed the State's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel which we filed today. 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Page 2 of2 March 16, 2004 MAH Enclosures ~~-~  MARK A. HAGEMEIER r Assistant Attorney General - - - - _ _ ___________ ___ __. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL RECEIVED MAR 1 7 2004 . OfflCE DF ~ nrm fdDN!fOfl:Ji'J:G PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education, by and through their attorneys, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney Mark A. Hagemeier, for their Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel, state: 1. Chief Deputy Attorney General Dennis Hansen is no longer actively participating in day-to-day litigation at the Attorney General's office. 2. This matter has been reassigned to Assistant Attorney General Mark A. Hagemeier, who now represents the Arkansas Department of Education and should be substituted as counsel of record. 3. Defendant requests that the Court and parties direct all future services and correspondence to Mark A. Hagemeier. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel and that Mark A. Hagemeier be substituted as their counsel of record. By: Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General Assistant Attorney Gen 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, this _J_.b_ day of March 2004, addressed to: Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Ann Brown Marshall  ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 - - - - - - - ------------------~    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1046","title":"\"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District\"","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Ross, Steven M."],"dc_date":["2002"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["\"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District\""],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1046"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["28 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nUSCHEL H FR10AY(lt22-1'94) JLLIAM H SUTTON, P.A iON M EISEMAN. JR, P.A  O BELL, PA JAMES A BUTTRY, PA FREDERICK. S URSERY,,. A. ,..SCARE DAVIS, JR, P.A MES C. CLARJC, JR , PA. OMAS p LEGGETT, P.A t{N DEWEY WATSON, PA PAUL B BENHAM Ill.PA LARRY W BUJlK.S, P A  WYCK.LIFP NISBET, JR..., P.A MES EDWARD HARRJS, P.A PHILLIP MALCOM, PA MES M SIMPSON, P A JAJllfES M SAXTON, PA J SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill, PA DONALD H BACON. P.A ILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P A (HARD D TAYLOR.PA SEPH B HURST, JR.., PA ELIZABETH ROBBEN MUR.llAY, PA CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A LAUR.A HENSLEY SMITH, PA ROBERT S. SHAPER. P A WILLIAM M GRIFFIN Ill, P.A MICHAELS MOORE, P.A DIANE S MACKEY, PA WALTER M EBEL 111, P A KEVIN A CRASS, PA WILLIAM A WADDELL, JR., PA SCOTT J LANCASTER. P.A ROBERT 8 BEACH, JR . P A J LEE BROWN, P.A JAMES C. BAKER, JR.PA HAR.AV A LIGHT, PA SCOTT H TUCKER. PA GUY ALTON WADE, PA PRICE C. GARDNER.PA TONIA P JONES, P A DAVID D WILSON, PA JEFFREY H MOORE, P A DAVID M GRAF. P .A RECEIVED 1/'11/M DEC - 4 2002 j-/?Vid - Oc /,vu e cL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ( By Hand Delivery) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FRlDA Y ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3'25 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703-41!111 TELEPHONE 479-l!llil5-2011 FAX 479-l!llil5-2147 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 1!170-7\u0026amp;2-2898 FAX 870-7152-2911!1 December 4, 2002 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ( By Hand Delivery) Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel \u0026amp; Ms. Marshall: CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P A JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR, PA JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P A R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P A FRAN C. HICK.MAN, P A BETTY J DEMORY, P.A LYNDA M JOHNSON, P A JAMES W SMITH, PA CLIFFORD W PLUNKETT, PA DANIEL L. HERRJNGTON, P A MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR ALLISON J_ CORNWELL ELLEN M OWENS JASON B HENDREN BRUCE B TIDWELL MICHAEL E KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P MCKAY ALEXANDRA A IFRAH JAY T TAYLOR MARTIN A KASTEN Mr. Steve Jones BRYAN W DUKE JOSEPH G NICHOLS ROBERT T SMITH RYAN A BOWMAN TIMOTKY C. EZELl T MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M COTTON PHILIP B MONTGOMERY KJUSTEN S RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN KHAYYAM M EDDINGS JOHN F PEISERICH AMANDA CAP'PS ROSE BRANDON 1. HARRISON OFCOUNS[L BS CLARK. WILLIAM L TERJt.Y WILLIAM L PATTON, JR H T LARZELERE, P A JOHN C. ECHOLS, P A A O MCALLISTER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-l70ll23 FAX 5D1244-5341 f  ndl  yOftc.n  t Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hansen Ofc of the Attorney qeneral 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Enclosed please find, \"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District\" prepared by Dr. Steven M. Ross. The Little Rock School District intends to retain Dr. Ross, Dr. Larry McNeal and Dr. William Moore to complete the eight evaluations identified on page 148 of the Little Rock School District's March 15, 2001 compliance report that were not completed with the assistance of an outside expert. These were identified on page 12 of the Compliance Committee's proposed compliance plan previously provided to you. F \\HOME\\BBrown\\Fmdley\\LRSD\\dcseg\\counsel2 It. wpd n :o ro 0::, ~rt n\"\"\" ' ro l\"1 \u0026lt;  H'I tn 0 l\"1 l\"1 ro ~ en ro g~ ::, Cl C/l l\"1 ro n ::,' ,... = rt,, (I \u0026gt; Cl ~::r 00 n::, I\"\" Cl Qt All Counsel December 4, 2002 Page2 Little Rock School District hopes that its decision to follow the guidelines prepared by Dr. Ross will eleviate the Joshua Intervenors concerns about the preparation of these evaluations. If not, we respectfully request that ODM schedule facilitation related to the preparation of these evaluations as soon as possible so that the District may meet the court's March 15, 2003, deadline for Board approval and submission of the evaluations to the Court. Also enclosed for your reference are the responses to the RFQ submitted by the experts identified above. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) cc: Dr. Ken J arnes F:IHOME\\BBrownlfendleyll.RSDldcseg\\counscl2 h wpd Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr. () \"\"'1) 0 :, 1--' rt ~-Cl) n l'\"1 \u0026lt;  HI en o l'\"1 l'\"1 '1) ,:j en ro \"'Cl en 0 '1) :, Ill en l'\"1 ro n ::r Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in Little Rock School District Prepared by Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. The present guidelines are based on my review of the Revised Compliance Plan, the LRSD standards for program evaluation, and evaluation report drafts and associated materials related to the eight programs identified as requiring \"final\" evaluation reports. My analysis of this material, combined with my experiences as an educational researcher and familiarity with the Joshua case as it affected LRSD, was influenced by the following assumptions:  Invalid or questionable evaluation results can be much more detrimental than helpful to efforts to improve educational practices, and should not be disseminated without strong cautions and qualifications. Accordingly, studies that lack proper controls against bias or contamination from extraneous factors (e.g., differential sampling, history, diffusion of treatments) have limited value for guiding policies.  Program evaluations that focus predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data have reduced value due to inability to determine the nature of the \"treatment.\" The study will also fail to inform policymakers about the practicality of the program, how it was used and reacted to by stakeholders, or whether and/or how it needs to be improved to impact atrisk learners.  Evaluations of programs that have been discontinued in the district are of much less interest relative to ones that are presently being implemented or informing ongoing practices.  To raise the achievement of African American students in LRSD, attempting to resuscitate existing studies that have insufficient data available, limited relevance to current practices, or require substantial time and resources with little promise of yielding useful information for policy decisions would be less productive than employing the \"lessons learned\n' from the prior evaluation work to support high quality and informative future studies. One such lesson is that the LRSD research department (formerly PRE) was understaffed to perform evaluations of the quality and quantity needed. Based on the above assumptions, I will recommend below a basic strategy for the third-party evaluators to use in preparing the eight identified evaluations for approval by the school board. Four of the evaluations concern programs that are no longer in use by LRSD and have limited or no relevance to programmatic decisions (Lyceum Scholars, Elementary Level Summer Schools, Vital Link, and Onward to Excellence). Of the remaining four evaluations, two have limited available data (Middle School Transition and Campus Leadership Teams) that, even with supplementary analyses, would not permit confident (valid) decisions to be made about program effectiveness (') \"ti (I) 0:::, ~rt ~-(I) 0 l\"1 \u0026lt;  HI en o l\"1 l\"1 (I) !:C en ro -c, en 0 (I) :::, Ill en l\"1 (I) 0 ::r 2 in general or about African American student achievement resulting from program participation. A seventh evaluation (Extended Year Education) could possibly yield informative evidence about an ongoing program, but to be sufficiently refined would require time and resources extending significantly beyond the current conditions for project completion. An eighth evaluation (HIPPY) also deals with an ongoing program, but unlike the others could possibly provide useful evidence through revisions completed within the available time frame. Accordingly, the HIPPY report is currently being rewritten by Dr. Ed Williams from LRSD. The suggested plan for the third-party evaluators is presented below followed by a brief review of each evaluation. A. Submit the current evaluation report as an attachment to a supplemental document as described in B-D. B. The supplement should begin with an expanded description of the program, its goals, and its history in LRSD. It should then describe the evaluation methodology and summarize and interpret the key findings. C. Most importantly, the supplement should discuss the limitations (and any strengths where indicated) of the evaluation with regard to: (a) informing current practices in LRSD\n(b) using appropriate methodology\nand (c) addressing student achievement effects, especially in reference to African American students. D. Finally, the supplement should present suggestions for conducting stronger studies of similar programs in future evaluation studies. 1. Middle School Transition (Moore) Thi/evaluation is in near-completed form and needs mostly editing and expansion. Because the middle school program is current and continuing, this evaluation study can be useful (mostly for guiding professional development and implementation improvement) for informing district strategies. The achievement results are fairly minimal and uninformative, but at the time of the evaluation (1999-2000), only baseline data existed. Thus, aside from providing additional description of the results (the tables and the narrative are sparse) and a more meaningful interpretation of trends (especially with regard to African American vs. Caucasian students), there is probably little more that needs to be done for this essentially baseline time period. The survey data appear to be reasonably analyzed and reported, but the interpretation and discussion should be extended to provide more meaningful conclusions and recommendations. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. (') \"O Cl) 0::, .... rt\" I-'('!) n ~ '\u0026lt; t-'11 en o ~ ~ Cl)?:-' en m \"Cl en 0 Cl) ::, Ill en ~ m n ::r )\" en en 0 n I- Ill Q rt Cl) 3 2. Lyceum Scholars (McNeal) The Lyceum Scholars' High School Program, which was evaluated in 1998-99 and 1999- 2000, is no longer being implemented in LRSD. The latter consideration, coupled with the obvious limitations of the evaluation design with regard to rigor, depth, and meaningfulness of the data, substantially reduce the value of the study and the need for devoting more than minimal resources to it, beyond perhaps a supplemental summary and explanation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 3. Elementary Level Summer School (McNeal) Similar to the Lyceum Scholars' High School Program (#2 above), the Elementary Level Summer School program is no longer being implemented in LRSD. In addition, the evaluation study conducted in the summer of 2001 is limited in its design and methodology. Among the major concerns are the lack of: (a) implementation data to describe the program strategies and the degree to which they were actually used by teachers, (b) an adequate control group or norms to which the achievement scores of summer school students could be compared, and (c) qualitative data to describe the experiences of students and teachers in the program. Due to \"differential sampling\" the multiple tables provided are neither overly meaningful nor informative regarding the progress of summer school students in general and African American summer school students in particular. Seemingly, there is little useful information to be gained for informing future policies by. investing substantive resources in revamping the study. While more suitable control samples might be established using archival data, the absence of implementation assessments would still make the \"treatment\" essentially unknown. Therefore, suggestiJns similar to those made for the Lyceum Scholars program are also offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 4. Vital Link (Ross) The Vital Link program, designed to provide students with on-the-job experiences, was offered to 394 middle school students in the summer of 1999. Because the program was of very limited duration (only one week) and is not focused on either academic curriculum or learning strategies, it is highly unlikely to have affected students' academic achievement. Although such a program would still potentially serve a useful purpose for fostering student motivation to achieve and complete school, it is no longer being implemented in LRSD. Further, the evaluation study conducted was so limited (a brief post-test only, closed-ended survey) that the policy implications of the results are minimal and even potentially misleading if derived. Therefore, suggestions similar to (\") \"Cl ro 0 ::, ~M' n'\"'' lr'oi -\u0026lt;  1'11 en o l'i l'i ro ~ en ro ~ en o ro ::, QI en l'i ro n ::,' 4 those made for the Lyceum Scholars Program and the Elementary Level Summer School Program (#'s 2 and 3 above) are again offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 5. Onward to ExceIJence CSRD Program (Ross) The OTE model was implemented at Watson Elementary School for several years, starting in 1999. It has since been discontinued and was never formally evaluated, except for achievement data reports sent by the principal to ADE. Thus, in essence, there is no longer any program in LRSD to evaluate and no evaluation report to revise, expand, or redraft. It would seem wasteful of resources to reexamine historical data from this program, especially since implementation data are lacking. That is, if positive or negative results were found, it would be impossible to determine whether OTE or numerous others factors were the main cause. Suggestions, therefore, are similar to those for #'s 2-4 above. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 6. HIPPY (Ross) Because HIPPY is a continuing program, this evaluation can be potentially useful to LRSD by providing initial program results on student achievement and benefits to African American children. A limitation of the study, which unfortunately cannot be remedied retroactively, is the lack of implementation data to describe the fidelity with which HIPPY program components were actually used. The quantitative achievement results must therefore be viewed cautiously, but should sti11 be at least suggestive regarding program influences. Substantive expansion and revision, however, are needed to increase the readability and meaningfulness of the report. For example, there is inadequate description of the program, context, methodology, and analysis design. Tables and findings need to be presented in a more readable (\"user-friendly\") manner. Suggestions: A. Reorganize and expand the introduction and methodology to be in line with district evaluation standards (i.e., more context, more detailed methodology, clearer questions and organization). B. Ed Williams needs to run the revised analysis and write up results by January 31, 2003. A program description needs to be provided. Results need to be disaggregated, if possible, for African American and Caucasian students. Expand the Results sections to provide more informative reporting of outcomes, clearer tabular presentations, etc. C\"l \"O Cl) 0::, ~ rt' ~-Cl) n l'1 ~ - H'I en o l'1 l'1 Cl) ,:I en m \"O en 0 Cl) ::, llJ en l'1 m n ::,' ~- ::, t:l .0, C. Expand the Conclusions section to: (a) directly address whether there are implications for the achievement of African American and other disadvantaged groups (there probably are not at this stage), (b) more fully discuss implications and recommendations associated with the findings, and ( c) propose further evaluation research that will validly determine both implementation quality and influences of HIPPY on student achievement. D. The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy in expanding this report. 7. Extended Year Education (EYE) Report (Moore) 5 The EYE program is relevant to LRSD's current interests in improving academic achievement of its students. Unfortunately, the present evaluation design does not seem sufficiently sensitive to detect effects that might be attributable to EYE. Specifically, usage of whole-school data compared descriptively to district norms gives only a very surface examination of the schools' progress, with susceptibility to contamination by student mobility, differences in SES, etc. A more precise analysis would match students at the three schools to similar students at comparable schools not using EYE, and then examine progress using a multivariate-type (regression or MANOV A) analysis. It is questionable, however, that such analyses could be completed in the time remaining for the required submission of the final report. Also, the findings would be limited by having only two years of post-program data. Aside from the design limitations, the organization of the report is difficult to follow due to the many tables and brief but not very informative narrative descriptions. The survey data might be interpretable, but also need a much clearer and better organized presentation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. , 8. Campus Leadership Teams (Ross) This initiative seems highly relevant to current and future goals of LRSD. However, the \"evaluation data\" collected to date consist of only results from two district-wide surveys that assessed team members' reactions to various activities. No information exists to verify the representativeness of the samples, the validity of the data collection in general, or the implementation of the CL Ts at the various schools. The aggregate survey results on the 24 combined items (14 in the team member survey\n10 in the certified/noncertified staff member survey) do not appear overly interesting or meaningful with regard to informing practice. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. C\"'l \"d Cl) 0::, r-' rt\" .... Cl) n l\"1 \u0026lt; - Hi tll 0 l\"1 l\"1 Cl) ~ Ill Cl) 'Cl Ill 0 Cl) ::, 0J Ill l\"1 ro n ::,\" .... ::, t'l .Q , ~The University of Memphis Memphis, Tennessee 38152-3340 A State of Tennessee Center of Excellence Center for Research in Educational Policy 325 Browning Hall October 28, 2002 Director of Procurement Little Rock School District 1800 East Sixth Street Little Rock, AR. 72202 Dear Mr. Paradis, RECEIVED 'j : I 2p rvJ DEC - 4 2002 I f.t,i,,J . /)C'l1 ~ ~~ c J., OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Local 901/678-2310 Toll 866/670-6147 FAX 901/678-4257 Enclosed are five copies of the Center for Research in Educational Policy's response to RFQ #23-010: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Program Evaluation Consultant. If additional information is needed or ifl can be of further assistance, please contact the Center toll free at 1-866-670-6147. il~ Steven M. Ross Director A Tennessee Board of Regents Institution An Equal Opponunity/Afflrrnsliw Action University Response from the Center for Research in Educational Policy at the University of Memphis to: RFQ Number: 23-010 Title: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Program Evaluation Consultant Opening date/time: ovember 6, 2002 (2:00 p.m.) CREP Response to RFQ23-010 1. Curriculum vitae with specific documentation of successful experience in education program evaluation. PERSONAL DATA Steven M. Ross 224 Eagle Spring Cove Cordova, TN 38018 Institution Pennsylvania State University Undergraduate Major: EDUCATION Psychology Home (901) 755-6654 Office (901) 678-3413 Degree-Year B.A. 1969 M.S. 1972 Ph.D. 1974 Graduate Major: Educational Psychology PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS American Psychological Association, Fellow American Educational Research Association, Member Mid-South Educational Research Association, Member Association for Educational Communications \u0026amp; Technology, Member International Congress for School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Member EXPERIENCE Instructor, Continuing Education, 1973-74, Pennsylvania State University Instructor, Psychology, Spring Semester, 1974, Lock Haven State College, Lock Haven, Pennsylvania Evaluator, Summer, 1974, Mitre Corporation, McLean, Virginia Assistant Professor, Educational Psychology, 197 4-79, University of Memphis Associate Professor, Educational Psychology, 1980-1985 Professor, Educational Psychology, 1985 - Present Senior Researcher, Center for Research in Education Policy, University of Memphis, 1995-2001 Director, Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, 2001 - present COURSES RECENTLY TAUGHT Theories of Learning (undergraduate) Individual Differences and Learning (Graduate) Educational Statistics (Undergraduate and Graduate) Educational Research (Graduate) Computers in Education (Graduate and Undergraduate) Thesis Writing (Graduate) Educational Assessment (Graduate) CREP Response to RFQ23-010 2 HONORS AND DISTINCTIONS 1. NDEA Fellowship for graduate study at the Pennsylvania State University, 1971-1973. 2. Graduate Student Associate, Southwest Regional Laboratory, Summer, 1971. 3. Distinguished Teaching Service Award, University of Memphis, 1980. 4. Phi Delta Kappa Professional Research Award, Memphis Chapter, 1983. 5. Elected Fellow, Division 15, American Psychological Association, 1986. 6. Visiting Scholar, National Center for Research on Improving Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. University of Michigan, Summer 1987. 7. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1987. 8. Distinguished Teacher Service Award, University of Memphis, 1988. (First eligibility since 1980\nno longer eligible) 9. Memphis State University nominee, CASE Professor of the Year Award, 1989 10. Superior Performance in University Research (SPUR) Award, University of Memphis, 1990, 1991, 1992 11. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1993. 12. Board of Visitors Eminent Faculty Award, University of Memphis (first recipient), 1993 13. Editor, Educational Technology Research and Development, 1993-present 14. Editorial Board, Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk. 1995-present 15. Editorial Board, Computers and Human Behavior, 1994-present 16. Invited testimony, U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and Families, Committee on Education and the Workforce, June 26, 1998. 17. Invited panelist on comprehensive school reform, discussion with Secretary of Education Richard Riley, March 16. 1999. 18. Lillian and Morrie Moss Chair of Excellence in Urban Education, 2001 Publications in Refereed Journals Books Book Chapters SCHOLARSHIP Papers Presented at Professional Meetings 122 7 28 224 SELECTED RECENT PUBLICATIONS Ross, S. M., Henry, D., Phillipsen, L., Evans, K., Smith L., \u0026amp; Buggey, T. (1997). Matching restructuring programs to schools: Selection, negotiation, and preparation. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,~' 45-71. Ross, S. M., Troutman, A., Horgan, D., Maxwell, S., Laitinen, R., \u0026amp; Lowther, D. (1997). The success of schools in implementing eight restructuring designs: A synthesis of first-year evaluation outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8_, 95-124. Ross, S.M., Smith, L. J., \u0026amp; Casey, J. (1997). Preventing early school failure: Impacts of Success For All on standardized test outcomes, minority group performance, and school effectiveness. Journal for Research on Students Placed At Risk, i, 29-54. CREP Response to RFQ23-010 3 Stringfield, S., \u0026amp; Ross, S. M. (1997). A \"reflection\" at mile three of marathon: The Memphis restructuring initiative in mid-stride. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8, 151-161. Ross, S., \u0026amp; Smith, L. J. (1997). Improving the academic success of disadvantaged children: An examination of Success For All. Psychology in the Schools, ~..1, 171-180. Jayasinghe, M. G., Morrison, G. R., \u0026amp; Ross, S. M. (1997). The effect of distance learning classroom design on student perceptions. Educational Technology Research and Development,~ 5-20. Ross, S. M., \u0026amp; Smith, L. J. (1998). Improving school achievement and inter-group relations for children placed at risk. European Journal oflntercultural education, 9_(2), 141-154. Smith, L. J., Ross, S. M., McNelis, M, Squires, M., and others (1998), The Memphis restructuring initiative: Analysis of activities and outcomes that impact implementation success. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 296-325. Stringfield, S., Datnow, A., Ross, S., \u0026amp; Snively, F. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring in multicultural multilingual contexts: Early observations from Sunland County. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 326-357. Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., \u0026amp; Casey, J.P. (1999). \"Bridging the gap\": The effects of the Success For All Program on elementary school reading achievement as a function of student ethnicity and ability level. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, lQ(2), 129-150. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., \u0026amp; Kemp, J.E. (2000). Designing effective instruction (3'd ed.). New York, tN: Macmillan College Publishing. Ross, S. M., Alberg, M., Smith. L., Anderson, R., Bol, L., Dietrich, A., Lowther, D., \u0026amp; Phillipsen, L. (2000). Using whole-school restructuring to improve educational outcomes: The Memphis story at year 3. Teaching and Change, 1(2), 111-126. Ross, S. M., \u0026amp; Seidel, S. (2000). The introduction to the NEA Teacher Education Initiative. Teaching and Change,~' 5-9. Nath, L.R., \u0026amp; Ross, S.M. (2001). The influence of a peer tutoring training model for implementing cooperative groupings with elementarJ students. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49(2), 41-56. Ross, S. M., Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., Stringfield, S., Wang, L. W., \u0026amp; Alberg, M. (September 2001). Two- and three-year achievement results from the Memphis Restructuring Initiative. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1]_, 323-346. CREP Response to RFQ23-010 4 Summary of Interests During the past ten years, I have worked extensively with school districts, both regionally and locally, to develop and evaluate programs for improving student achievement. The primary focus of these studies bas been schools predominantly serving disadvantaged inner-city minority children. Currently, I am working on the formative and sumrnative evaluation of Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) projects at schools in various states. Additional ongoing research projects are studies of school restructuring designs as they are implemented in Memphis City Schools and other school districts and of professional development schools in seven national sites as part of the NEA Teacher Education Initiative (NEA-TEI). 2. Capacity and capability to perform education program evaluations including a writing sample (see appendix for writing sample). The Center for Research in Educational Policy (referred to in this document as the Center or CREP) is funded by the State of Tennessee as one of five Centers of Excellence located at The University of Memphis. The mission of the Center is to implement a research agenda associated with educational policies and practices in the preK-12 public schools of Tennessee and the nation, and to disseminate research findings so that they inform decisions made by educational practitioners and policymakers. Since 19.89, the Center bas served as a mechanism for mobilizing community and university resources to address educational problems and to meet the I University's commitment to primary and secondary schools. Functioning as a part of the College of Education, the Center seeks to accomplish its mission through a series of investigations conducted by Center personnel, College and University faculty, and graduate students. The Center's research agenda is developed through analysis of persistent or emerging issues in schools and their communities, changes occurring in teacher education programs, and recommendations from educational authorities. In order to plan and conduct inquiries relevant to issues associated with public schools, the Center supports research reflecting the following characteristics: potential for contributing to the solution of educational policy and practice issues\nan applied research and development focus\ncollaborations and partnerships with schools and other external organizations\ninterdisciplinary research teams\nmultiple modes of inquiry\nCREP Response to RFQ23-010 5 immediate and long-range planning\nand creation of databases to foster secondary analyses. Research outcomes are intended to provide a knowledge base for use by educational practitioners and policymakers by providing insight into the complexities of educational phenomena and offering recommendations for action. Through work in schools for over a decade, the Center has contributed to Tennessee policy decisions regarding teacher preparation and licensure, school governance and site-based decision making, and public school reforms. Additionally, the Center has gained national recognition for its contribution to discussions of issues such as reform of teacher education, educational equity, educational technology, school reform and restructuring, urban and multicultural education, interventions for at-risk students, and using formative evaluation methods for school improvement decision-making. In summary, the Center for Research in Educational Policy has extensive experience in evaluating diverse educational programs. The Center has developed numerous valid and reliable evaluation tools that have been effectively used by hundreds of schools and districts to examine the extent to which programmatic goals are being realized, and also fotmaking data-based improvement decisions. The Center's professional expertise, available evaluation resources, and proximity to the Little Rock School District all make it likely that CREP can assist the District in complying with the court order related to its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 3. Indication of the amount of available time between November 11, 2002 and March 1, 2003 for consulting and active work on this project. Dr. Steven Ross and staff from the Center for Research in Educational Policy can initially commit to ten hours per week for this project. This commitment is flexible, however, and can be negotiated based on the needs of the Little Rock School District. CREP Response to RFQ23-010 6 4. Two professional references who can attest to quality of work and ability to meet schedules and deadlines. RickBasoin Deputy Executive Director of Planning and Development SERVE 915 Northridge St., 2nd floor Greensboro, NC. 27403-2112 (800) 755-3277 RBASOM@serve.org Doris Redfield Director of Research AEL P.O. Box 1348 Charleston, WV. 25325-1348 (800) 624-9120 redfield@ael.org 5. Pending Lawsuits. None. IC !3: C Ill ll ::, ~ Ill., ..a r ro ~ 5ro1 c, ::, C: rt i: r. I \u0026gt;en lrl en., 0 C n....: : Ill Q 1\nCREP Response to RFQ23-010 7 Appendix Writing Sample 1 1 The writing sample is an executive summary. The full report will be provided upon request. PROGRESS AND OPTIONS REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECT INSTRUCTION AND SUCCESS FOR ALL IN TOLEDO PUBLIC SCHOOLS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Prepared by: Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) at the University of Memphis www .memphis.edu/crep July 30, 2002 :J:\u0026gt;'lll t/l rl t/l 0 C (l ::i I ~- Ill Q rt 1m Progress and Options Regarding the Implementation of Direct Instruction and Success for All in Toledo Public Schools EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose and Background The major goals of this research study were to evaluate the outcomes and provide recommendations on the implementation of two improvement models being used by multiple schools in the Toledo Public School (TPS) district. The district has taken bold steps to turn around some of its lowest performing schools, including the investment of about $2 million over the past four years to adopt two research-based comprehensive school reform models with solid national track records of effectiveness. These models, Direct Instruction (DI) and Success for All (SF A), have been implemented in a total of nine Toledo elementary schools. The design and methodology of the study, to be described below, was oriented towards answering the following research questions.  How do \"program\" (i.e., DI and SFA) schools compare to \"control\" (i.e., similar) schools in student achievement outcomes over time?  How well are program schools implementing their chosen models?  How do program schools compare to control schools in measures of school climate that make a difference in program implementation or student achievement?  What are key stakeholder reactions (e.g., district leaders, principals and teachers) to the effectiveness of the programs and their schools' ability to fully implement the programs?  Which factors appear to differentiate between program schools that are most and least successful in raising student achievement? Study Design The design of this project relies on a number of different approaches to determine program implementation. The findings and options for action reported here draw on multiple data sources consisting of:  Comparisons of student achievement results at program schools against similar TPS schools\n Targeted observations of the extent and quality of DI and SPA implementation\no Interviews of district and union leadership\n School climate inventories administered to teachers at program and control schools\n Teacher questionnaires administered to teachers teaching reading at program and control schools\n Focus groups comprised of program teachers that explored issues related to program implementation\nand  Interviews of principal and building representative. Nine schools participated in the evaluation, including three DI schools that began implementation in 1997-1998\nthree DI schools that began implementation in 1999-2000, one that began in 2001-2002\nand two SFA schools that began implementation in 1999-2000. (Note: As data was not yet available, the DI school that began implementation this year was not considered in the analysis of student achievement.)  For the student achievement study, the comparison sample consisted of all other (not SF A and DI) schools in the District, the scores for which (as explained below) were adjusted for school and student characteristics.  For the implementation analyses, experts in the school district selected matched control schools for DI and SF A sites based on prior achievement, SES factors, and ethnicity. There were six DI control schools and two SF A control schools. Again, the DI school that began implementation this year did not have a control school. Results Achievement Analysis Student achievement data was gathered from all available sources, including the Ohio proficiency test and the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-9). Student results on these standardized tests in schools implementing DI and SF A were examined as well as results for all other (not DI and SFA) district schools. Results were compared for program and control schools and the analysis revealed the following. Overall Results. DI and SF A program schools included in the evaluation posted student achievement gains nearly equal to what would be expected of other Toledo schools serving similar student populations. DI Results.  Achievement gains tended to improve in DI schools from 1999 to 2001 in 2nd and 6th grade, but were still slightly below what would be expected given the pf)verty rate and pretest levels of the schools.  In 2001, DI schools as a whole produced a statistically significant negative effect for fourth grade.  Among the schools that implemented DI in 1997-1998, Mt. Vernon second grade students tended to post higher achievement gains than would be expected. Fourth and sixth grade achievement gains improved at Mt. Vernon from moderately below to roughly equal to the district average. Among 1999-2000 DI schools, student achievement improved substantially at King, particularly in 2nd and 6th grade. Second grade student performance declined precipitously at Warren from 1999 to 2001. 2 3: Ill ::, Ill IQ m 5l m ::, rt- ,~\u0026gt; 0 (') ~- Ill rtm SF A Results.  In both SF A schools, students at each grade level made achievement gains at a rate nearly equal to the district average for each year considered. School Climate Inventory (SCI) The main purpose of the School Climate Inventory (SCI) is to assess impacts of reform initiatives in relation to seven dimensions logically and empirically linked with factors associated with effective school organizational climates. 1 The inventory contains 49 items and responses are scored using a five-point scale ranging from strong disagreement (1) to strong agreement (5). Overall Results. SCI results showed no unusual positive or negative trends for any of the program or control groups, with the exception of one of the two SF A sites that had negative school climate results. DI Results. DI teachers reacted comparably to their control counterparts. SF A Results. SF A teachers reacted significantly more negatively than did the control teachers on three out of the seven dimensions (Environment, Leadership, and Order). One of the SF A schools bad very positive school climate results, while the other SF A site bad negative school climate results compared to both the controls and to national norms. Reading Teacher Survey (RTS) All teachers of reading at each DI, SF A, and control school were asked to complete the RTS, which contains 20 items teachers respond to using a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree ~). Items identified the specific program in the case of DI and SF A, but referred generically to the \"reading program\" for the control schools. Among the areas assessed were professional development, impacts on students, changes in teaching, support for the program, effects on technology use, and involvement of parents and the community. Overall Results. Findings for both DI and SF A sites indicated significant favorable teacher attitudes toward the DI and SF A reading programs relative to control group impressions of the district's general reading program. DI Results. DI teachers expressed more positive attitudes toward their reading program than did control teachers of their schools' approaches. Significant differences were obtained on 12 out of 20 items, with the largest effects indicated for: (1) external guidance and support\n(2) 1 The dimension on the Environment addresses pride in the school and caring about others\nthe Order dimension focuses on student behavior, discipline, and attendance\nthe Leadership dimension deals with the degree to which the administration is supportive, communicative, and effective\nInvolvement concerns the extent to which parents and the community are involved in the school\nthe dimension on Instruction considers the extent to which the instructional program is well developed and implemented\nthe Expectations dimension is the extent to which students are expected to learn and be responsible\nand the Collaboration dimension is the extent to which the administration, faculty, and students cooperate and participate in problem solving. 3 the reading program changing classroom learning activities a great deal\n(3) external professional development being valuable\nand, ( 4) student achievement being positively impacted. SF A Results. SF A teachers were significantly more positive than their control counterparts on 13 of the 20 items. The largest effects were obtained for items indicating a more positive teacher evaluation of: (1) the guidance provided by the school facilitator, support team, or others\n(2) changes in learning activities due to the reading program\n(3) the school's plan for evaluating the reading program\n( 4) the value of the professional development\nand, the involvement of parents. Interviews and Focus Groups Interviews were conducted with key stakeholders ( district leadership, union leadership, and a school board member), principals of schools implementing DI and SF A as well as Control schools, building level union representatives, and DI and SFA school facilitators. Teacher focus groups of about one-hour in length were held to provide background information about schools' usage of their selected programs to support more informed interpretations of outcome measures such as student achievement. Questions addressed teachers' experiences with and reactions to program implementation with regard to such areas as program appropriateness, resources, professional development, and outcomes. The principal at each of the nine schools participated in a one-hour, on-site interview. Interview questions addressed the principal's experiences and reactions to the program implementation and the associated outcomes for the school, students, faculty, and parents/community. Interviews with control school principals were conducted via telephone, using the same instruments. Results from DI Interviews and Focus Groups According to respondents (principals, teachers, and teacher union building representatives), the strengths of DI appear to be in the primary grades, especially with regard to phonics. The model also appears to them to be highly positive for special needs children, attributed to DI's structure, repetition, and appropriate ability grouping. Weaknesses in DI were perceived in the intermediate grades, including a lack of instruction in comprehension and higher-order thinking skills. Implementation, according to one teacher focus group, has gone well in the lower grades, but as reported by one building representative, the program lacks support among intermediate grade teachers. Almost all principals, building representatives, and teacher focus groups perceived a positive impact of DI on reading and interest in reading. High student mobility was identified as one of the biggest obstacles to DI implementation, since new students enter the school with no DI experience. Large class size was mentioned as another perceived impediment to implementation. A third impediment reported at some schools was high teacher turnover. In some schools, boredom and lack of interest during DI was identified as an issue, although others report increases in student motivation and enthusiasm about reading. 4 3: Ill ::, ill \"\" IQ (D s ~ g rt ~ :t\u0026gt;'P. tll \" ~ a n  I-' Ill ,~ Most respondents viewed initial DI training as positive. Several noted that training was inadequate for new/transfer teachers. Model developers appeared to have inconsistent contact with the schools. Across all schools, there appeared to be a need for improved district training and support, which was reported to be minimal and unspecific. In summary, teachers and principals in DI schools perceive the program to be very effective, especially in grades K-3, at teaching larger numbers of students to read. Teachers and principals indicate that students are more motivated and interested in reading and that they see progress in their classrooms on a regular basis. There appears to be a weakness in the training provided by model consultants and the district, particularly for new teachers entering the program buildings. Results from SFA Interviews and Focus Groups According to respondents, SF A implementation has been improving, but has been highly dependent on the rate of teacher turnover. The most effective elements of the SF A model were perceived to be the 90-minute block of reading time, ability grouping for reading, the use of phonics and tutoring at the primary levels, and program consistency from grade to grade. The least effective SFA elements were reported as the lack of nonfiction materials (an issue identified at both \"program\" and \"control\" schools), limited writing emphasis, time constraints, large class sizes, the scripted lessons, and the lack of alignment to Ohio standards. Focus groups in both schools perceived that SFA supports cooperative and team-based approaches. Other SF A classroom changes identified include smaller reading groups, flexible levels, individualized learning, interdisciplinary and project-based instruction, improved partnering, and more student enthusiasm for learning. Staff reported that special\"needs SF A students are ability-grouped according to reading level, and are given extra tutoring if necessary. I In summary, staff observed that students in both SF A schools appear to be more motivated to read. SF A schools reported that, according to SF A assessments, more students are reading on level, and students are reading more often. SF A principals reported increasing proficiency scores, although teachers in one school reported that test scores are down: One SF A school also noted improved communication, stronger student relationships, and fewer discipline problems during SF A implementation. In both SF A schools, teacher collaboration and teacher collegiality has reportedly improved, despite high teacher turnover in one of the schools. According to the focus groups, professional development and SF A training have been helpful overall at both schools. However, follow-up training and training for new teachers were viewed to be inadequate. Targeted Observations Independent, out-of-state consultants with expertise in the implementation of DI and SF A conducted site visits to the Toledo schools implementing these models. Targeted observations for each model follow. 5 IQ xi::: 0J 0J ::, 0J 1- -0 ro~I s ('I) ::, Cl rt C: 0 :x:,. 0J en rt en .... 00 0 ::i I-' 0J QI rt ('I) DI Targeted Observations In-depth observations of Toledo's DI schools by outside experts in the program indicate a rather inconsistent and incomplete level of implementation of the components of the DI model that are critical for accelerating student progress to reach grade-level performance. These expert observers noted that implementation is not yet geared to produce significantly more than a year's progress each year so that children can close the \"academic gap.\" On an encouraging note, the observers reported that school staff nearly unanimously identified a significant reduction in the number of children who are nonreaders, and a significant increase in the number of children who are encountering success during reading instruction. Specific recommendations to improve DI implementations are as follows: 1. Place more emphasis on accelerating student performance in kindergarten and first grade. 2. Increase reading instructional time to accelerate and expand student reading proficiency. 3. Provide children who are functioning below grade level with daily extra DI reading instruction. 4. Provide for structured reading in a wide variety of materials. 5. Place more emphasis on implementation of the DI language curricula. 6. Provide professional development to enable all teachers to reach high levels of proficiency in teaching DI. 7. Provide training and support for building principals to take a more active role in supporting implementation of DI model. 8. Provide more of a sense of urgency from the district level to ensure implementations are producing desired levels of student learning. This recommendation further stres,ses the need to establish a district-wide DI coordinator to monitor implementation and 'ensure consistency and quality in uses of DI across schools. 1 SF A Targeted Observations According to the SF A expert who visited the program schools, implementation in Toledo is uneven. While observations revealed that implementation of the SF A program is generally above average in curricular areas and both schools provided the requisite 90-minutes of reading instruction each day, several concerns exist. Implementation of the \"Reading Wings\" reading component in one school was below average. Both schools are below average in family support implementation and one school needs to improve in the area of teacher training. 6 ' tO 3:C:: Ill Ill ::, Ill 1- IO (I) I\u0026lt; El (I)~ ::, c:1 rt Cl \u0026gt;en r en 0 (\"l I-' Ill rt I (I) In terms of student performance, based on their analysis of SF A-provided student assessments, both schools report approximately 90% of first graders reading at or above grade level and close to 70% at or above grade in most second through sixth grades.2 According to the expert observer, teachers at each school appear to be working together to successfully implement the program in the face of implementation challenges. For instance, one site has been without a permanent facilitator for most of the 2001-2002 school year. The other SF A site has two facilitators, however, program implementation is challenging there as well due to the large student population and other conditions. The observer noted that the district appears to lack attention and focus to ensure that high quality program implementation is o.ccurring at each SF A site. Specific recommendations to improve SF A implementation are as follows: 1. Improve the alignment of SFA with the Ohio Proficiency Standards. 2. Ensure that adequate program facilitation is provided. 3. Improve the quality of professional training that SFA teachers receive. 4. Strengthen the implementation of SF A's writing component. 5. Implement fully the family support program component of the SFA model. Options for Action Our research team's goal in conducting this analysis was to support the ongoing efforts of all stakeholders in Toledo to engage in effective, evidence-based action to improve student achievement. We hope this report will provide the District the information it needs to weigh its options regarding the future implementation of two research-based, research-proven reading/school improvement programs. This report does not seek to promote or discredit either program or any alternative approach, or to call into question the well-intended and hard work of many district administrators and school staff. Rather, it lays out the available faqts, analyzes them and, on that basis, provides the following, forward-looking options. The District has several options regarding the future of Direct Instruction and Success for All in these schools. They range from the abandonment of the models entirely to their full, sustained, and potentially expanded implementation. At one end of this spectrum, before abandoning the models completely, the District would have to answer two key questions: 2 This statement on grade level performance refers to an SF A student assessment. This information contradicts other student assessment data provided by the Toledo Public Schools Office of Research showing that on the district assessment one SFA site has about 50% of its first graders and 60% of second graders performing on grade level while the other site has about 80% of first and second graders performing at grade level. 7 1. Have we done all that we could at the district and school level to fully implement these two programs in order to achieve successful student outcomes? 2. If we do decide to drop these programs, what do we have in hand, ready to go, that will produce better results? Given the observations detailed in our report, it would appear that the District could talce several more steps to assure high-quality implementations of these models. Furthermore, while the district may develop equally, or more effective, alternative approaches for raising reading achievement in these program schools, and perhaps across the entire district, no such option currently exists. Therefore, the district may wish to explore ways in which these programs could continue to operate-for a limited period of time, and with increased support and monitoring. The programs that the District has adopted have demonstrated success in many similar settings across the country. Therefore, given the right circumstances they may yet yield the desired-but as yet unattained---outcomes in Toledo. Based on the results of this study and our experiences as consultants and researchers in the area of comprehensive school reform, the following recommendations are offered for consideration by the TPS School Board and Superintendent. Improving Model Implementation this School Year. In the event the District decides to continue to operate these two models, for the 2002-2003 school year, there are a number of actions that should be considered in order to improve implementation. The District should:  Carefully review the detailed findings of the targeted observations provided in this report and make every possible suggested change in implementation. In the future, the district should monitor and act on the information provided by DI and SF A ongoing implementation checks and consider supplementing this data with other formative evaluation tools.  Establish a support, accountability and monitoring structure at the district level with one administrator charged with oversight of these models. This would ensure an ongoing focus on providing the support required for success. This individual-knowledgeable in the research-based programs and, preferably, about literacy instruction as well.-would oversee the quality of implementation across sites. The administrator would work closely with principals and school staff to meet their needs, and should have the authority and budgetary power to: a. Identify and oversee high quality providers of technical assistance, professional development, and supplies and materials\nb. Help identify and support school-based facilitators of the model\nc. Malce certain that materials and supplies are provided in a timely fashion to appropriate school staff\nd. Set and keep a master schedule for training new teachers, current teachers, and school-based program facilitators that complements District-provided training\nand 8 I-' 0J rt Cl) e. Increase principal involvement in and preparation for implementing models.  Negotiate and hold models and consultants to clear, transparent, performance-based agreements that specify what it is the District expects of the model provider(s), and consequences for success and failure. Improving Medium and Long Term Model Implementation. At the other end of the spectrum, indefinitely continuing and/or expanding implementation, would not appear to be a wise option given the limited academic success so far experienced, and the program implementation improvement needs noted in this report. Despite a national track record of success, unless a program can demonstrate substantial, long-term success in raising student achievement for Toledo's children, the program may not be the best option for meeting student needs. The District, and program advocates, must answer some tough questions before the programs are deemed worthy of long term support, including: 1. Why are we seeing less than adequate student progress in some of the program schools implementing these models? How can we track student achievement more accurately? 2. What is our capacity, interest, and commitment to fully implementing these models? Does the continuation of these models best serve the interest of Toledo's children? 3. How can we better monitor and assess the implementation of the models at the District level? 4. In the long term, what are the better solutions to meet the educational needs of Toledo's children? Other, intermediate and perhaps more viable choices exist for the District. For example, it might decide to choose a path of cautious optimism and allow the implementation of these models to continue for one or two more years-pending more results, and with additional supports. In our view, all schools wanting to continue their selected models should be given at least one year to show tangible progress. Presently, teacher support for the models being used is fairly strong at most schools. There are also community stakeholders who are both active and vocal in their advocacy of their chosen model. Using the present, third-party evaluation as a starting point for requiring tangible progress to be demonstrated within the next school year should present ostensibly a fair and reasonable plan to all stakeholder groups. The District should consider making subsequent policy decisions about model continuance on a case-by-case (school specific) basis. Even if, for example, the District chose to install a research-based, districtwide reading curriculum and approach, a decision could be made at that time whether the results at any given school were sufficient to justify allowing the particular school to continue with its current program. Some districts have chosen to allow schools to pursue individual program options, as long as they can demonstrate performance success, and prepare their students for further success in case they transfer, or when they graduate to their next grade level. 9 3: Ill ::, Ill IQ Cl) s Cl) ::, rt :i,,i tll tll .. 0 C C'l::, I-' Ill Ir 1~ Specific Options for DI Implementation. Although some DI schools have had sufficient time to achieve full implementation and raise student achievement, applications of DI still appear to be weak in many critical areas. Schools and the District need to show in the coming year that they are able and willing to achieve the effective program implementation required to significantly improve student achievement. Otherwise, there is little reason to believe that results will be more successful than shown in the present analysis. Over time the District might consider reducing the number of DI sites based on the different schools' performance and the quantity of teachers willing to make a long-term commitment to implementing the program. Creating more structures like the magnet schools reviewed in this study may be desirable both to promote greater teacher \"buy-in\" and reduce student mobility. Also, the District might consider whether to limit DI to the lower (preK-3) grades and phase out implementation in the intermediate grades ( 4-6). Alternatively, the District should provide substantially better and more consistent training to teachers working with the older primary students. The DI model has a track record of effectiveness in the intermediate grades, but only when proper, regular teacher training is conducted and a literature-rich student environment is cultivated. Specific Options for SF A Implementation. In the case of SF A, more time is needed for schools to gain experience in implementing the model. On the whole, SF A implementation is uneven and the district must pay more attention to implementing the model with fidelity. Before scaling up with any further SF A sites, the district should ensure full program implementation at both current sites. Particular attention must be paid to placing a trained SFA facilitator at each site, providi~g adequate professional development for all staff, and fully implementing the family support component of the model. Creating more structures like the magnet schools reviewed in this study may be desirable both to promote greater teacher \"buy-in\" and reduce student mobili~ The district should expect mixed student achievement results across SF A sites if implementation is not improved. Conclusion. Several years ago, the Toledo Public Schools initiated an exemplary pilot effort to implement two reading improvement programs that have among country's best track records of effectiveness in raising student achievement. The leadership of the District was to be commended then, for making the commitment to take on \"evidence-based\" reform. It has continued that commitment by commissioning this impartial, rigorous, and thorough examination of the results to date of those decisions. While there is room for disappointment that student outcomes are less than anticipated, and concern that program implementation needs to be improved, the District's reliance on following the trail of evidence to appropriate conclusions should provide hope that-whichever options are taken in the coming months and years-the result will be a better education for Toledo's children. 10 Quality Education and Management Associates A CONSULTANT COMPANY P.O. Box 26166 Little Rock, Arkansas 72221-6166 (501) 221-1178 or lxmcneal@netscape.net Dr. Kathy K. Franklin, Principal Consultant Dr. Larry McNeal, Principal Consultant Dr. Tom E. C. Smith, Principal Consultant Dr. Gordon E. Watts, Principal Consultant RECE:VED ./'/2pn7 DEC - 4 2002 / /,\n11/- /).:..I, 'v ( v, .f. OfACEOf DESEGREGATION IIONiTORJNG I \"For every complex problem there is a simple solution that is one hundred percent wrong. QEMA knows the right solution.\" cfQ...uahut cgdcawuv QM\n~ ~~ A CONSULTANT FIRM P. 0. Box 26166 Little Rock, Arkansas 72221-6166 (501) 221-1178 or lxmcneal@netscape.net November 4, 2002 Darral Paradis, CPPB, C.P.M. Director, Procurement and Materials Management Department Little Rock School District 1800 East 6th Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Dear Mr. Paradis: 1bis letter is to introduce the consulting finn of Quality Education \u0026amp; Management Associates (QEMA) of Little Rock, Arkansas. Members of the firm are university faculty with specialized expertise in educational issues, P-12, as well as postsecondary. Firm members have actively consulted with public school districts, private businesses, and institutions of higher education in a variety of areas. Members of the firm are offering their services to the Little Rock School District in the area of program evaluation. In particular, members of the firm are able and prepared to assist Little Rock School District personnel in evaluating the various programs outlined in the recent school desegregation court ruling. We are looking forward to assisting the Little Rock School District as it moves forward to address the program evaluation issue. Sincerely, r'..__ 'L~\\ ~ Dr. Larry McNeal Principal Consultant 2 1. Curriculum Vitae Quality Education and Management Associates (QEMA) Vitae A summary of Quality Education and Management Associates (QEMA) members' evaluation activities are listed below. Dr. Kathy K Franklin 2001 to 2004, Evaluator, Alternative Classroom Experience Project (Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp) 1998 to 2000, Evaluator, Freshman Year Experience program (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1998 to 1999, Evaluator, Adult First Year Experience course (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1998 to 1999, Evaluator, Learning Communities Program (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1997, Evaluator, Learning Community Experiment (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) Dr. Larry McN eal 2001 to 2004, Evaluator, Alternative Classroom Experience Project (Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp) 2000 to 2001, Evaluator, Little Rock Scliool District Charter Elementary School (Little Rock School District) 2001 to 2002, Evaluator, Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School 1998 to 2000, Chair, College of Education Assessment Committee (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1997 to 1998 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School, Gales Public School District (Galesburg, Illinois) 1997, Evaluator, Title 1: Summer School Evaluation - Peoria Public School District (Peoria, Illinois) 3 1995 to 1996, Evaluator, Illinois School for the Visually (Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services) 1995 to 1996, Evaluator, Illinois Center for Rehabilitation and Education (Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services) 1995 to 1996, Evaluator, Illinois School for the Deaf (Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services) Dr. Tom E. C. Smith 2001 to 2004, Evaluator, Alternative Classroom Experience Project -Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp 1999 to Present, National Evaluation System 2001, Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District Dr. Gordon E. Watts 2002 to 2004, Evaluator, Alternative Classroom Experience Project (Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp) 2002, Program Evaluator, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant (Delta Teacher Education Consortium) 2000, Program Evaluator, Higher Education Consortium for Careers in Early Childhood (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1992 to present, Consultant/Evaluator, Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools 1998 Program Reviewer (Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education) The curriculum vitae for individual QEMA members are in Appendix A 4 2. Capacity And Capability To Perform Program Evaluations. QEMA has both the capacity and capability to perform program evaluation within the timelines identified in the recent school desegregation court ruling. The capacity and capability of QEMA is imbedded in its structure as a research based consulting firm with specialized expertise in educational issues, P-12, as well as postsecondary. Principal Consultants of QEMA have conducted a variety of types of program evaluations at the public school, community college, and university levels. The unique backgrounds and experiences of the principals enable them to bring together a wide spectrum of program evaluation models and statistical methodologies in order to create a program evaluation that is specifically tailored to their client's needs. - Currently, firm members are engaged in conducting a multi-year evaluation of the Alternative Classroom Experience Project for the Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp in Little Rock, Arkansas. The project provides educational services to at-risk elementary children from the Little Rock School and the Pulaski County Special School Districts. The experience acquired from this venture enhances QEMA's understanding and ability to provide program evaluation services to public school districts in Central Arkansas. A copy of a program evaluation completed by a QEMA principal consultant in Appendix B 5 3. Time Available For Consultation In response to the timeline requirements, QEMA consultant principals can be available between November 11, 2002 and March 1, 2003 on the following dates. The actual dates are subjected to mutual agreement between Little Rock School District personnel and QEMA personnel. Dates after March 1, 2003 are also available upon request. November 11-15: November 18-22 November 25-29 Pecember 2-6 December 9-13 December 16-20 January 6-10 January 13-17 January 20-24 January 27-31 February 3-7 February 10-14 February 17-21 February 24-28 4. Professional References A. QEMAGroup: Sanford Tollette Director Joseph Pfeifer Camp 5512 Ferndale Co I Little Rock, AR 72208 501.821.3714 Sanford@pfeifercamp.com B. Dr. Kathy Franklin Dr. Thea Zidonowitz Hoeft Division Chief for University College Director of Academic Advising Coordinator of First Year Experience University of Arkansas at Little Rock 501.569.3386 tmhoeft@ualr.edu 6 C. Dr. Larry McNeal Dr. Jean Brown Principal Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School Galesburg, Illinois 309. 691.8023 343.0409 D. Dr. Tom Smith 5. Pending Lawsuits There are no lawsuits or any other legal actions pending on Quality Education and Management Associates as a.consulting company or any of its principal consultants as individuals. I 7 Appendix A Curriculum Vitaes For Dr. Kathy K. Franklin Dr. Larry McNeal Dr. Tom E.C. Smith Dr. Gordon E. Watts 8 I EDUCATION KATHY K. FRANKLIN, Ed.D. Department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Technology Studies The University of Alabama Box 870302 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0302 kfranldi@bamaed.ua.edu 205-348-2470 Kathy K. Franklin 1 Ed.D. Educational Leadership with a concentration in higher education. Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee, 1996. Dissertation: Exploring the Congruency Between Student Satisfaction and Institutional Effectiveness in Higher Education. Utilized a qualitative research design with a focus group method of inquiry to explore the congruency between criteria used by students to determine satisfaction with the higher education experience and criteria used by administrators to evaluate institutional effectiveness. The purpose of this research was to investigate the validity of using student satisfaction assessment as a definition of institutional effectiveness. M.B.A. Concentration in marketing and economics. Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1991.  B.S. Commerce and Business Administration with a concentration in marketing. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 1977. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Associate Professor of Higher Education Administration, Department of Educational Leadership, Policy\nand Technology Studies, The University of Alabama, 2002 to present. Associate Professor of Higher Education Administration, Department of Educational Leadership, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 1999 to 2002. Taught courses on the following topics: history and philosophy of higher education, governance and public policy in higher education, finance of higher education, leadership theories in higher education, and qualitative research methods. Chair, Department of Educational Leadership, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 1999 to 2001. I Assistant Professor of Higher Education, Department of Educational Leadership, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 1996 to 1999. Taught courses on the following topics: history and philosophy of higher education, overview of higher education in the United States, college teaching problems and issues, designing a college curricula, qualitative research methods, dissertation seminar\nand advanced research methods. Team Instructor, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, East Tennessee State University, Spring 1996 and Summer 1996. Taught the following courses in collaboration with senior faculty from the ELP A department: Professional Needs of Individuals and Groups\nGraduate Internship Program\nand Theories of Educational Administration. Instructor, Kathy K. Franklin 2  East Tennessee State University, College of Business, Department of Management and Marketing, Johnson City, Tennessee\n1992 to 1996. Full-time Temporary faculty status -Taught Principles of Marketing, Sales Force Management, Retail Management, Introduction to Business, and Organizational Behavior to undergraduate students.  Milligan College, Adult Education Program, Johnson City, Tennessee\n1994 to 1996. Adjunct faculty status -- Taught Marketing Communications in the adult accelerated M.B.A. program.  Northeast State Technical Community College, Blountville, Tennessee\nJanuary 1992 to August 1992. Adjunct faculty status -- Taught courses in business economics, finance, and marketing.  Tusculum College, Greeneville, Tennessee\nJune 1992 to October 1992. Adjunct faculty status -Taught graduate courses in strategic marketing management to adult students in the accelerated M.B.A. program. Graduate Assistant, Office of the Dean, College of Education, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee\nMay 1995 to August 1995. Worked with the Associate Dean to prepare for the 1995 NCATE visit. Assistant Director, Bell South Exemplary Superintendent Training (BEST) Program, East Tennessee State University, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, Johnson City, Tennessee\nAugust 1994 to May 1995. Coordinated all activities related to the professional development of forty Tennessee educational leaders in preparation for a future superintendency position. The BEST program was a collaborative effort with the Bell South Foundation and East Tennessee State University. PUBLICATIONS Journal and Newsletter Publications Franklin, K.K. (2002). Qualitative coding: The allegory of the quilt. Research in the Schools 9(1 ), 65-71. Franklin, K.K. (2001, winter). The \"Mikey\" phenomenon: Reflections of a first year chair. The Department Chair 11(3), 26-28. Franklin, K.K., Chesser, J.S., Edleston, R.J., Edwards-Schafer, P., Marvin, S.R., \u0026amp; Satkowski, T. (2001). Faculty attitudes about instructional technology in a metropolitan university classroom. _Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum 12(1), 50-61. Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Lowry, C. (2001). Computer-mediated focus group sessions: Naturalistic inquiry in a networked environment. Qualitative Research 1 (2), i 169-184. Franklin, K.K. (2000). Shared and connected learning in a freshman learning community. Journal of the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition 12(2), 33-60. Conners, N.A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (Spring, 2000). Using focus groups to evaluate client satisfaction in an alcohol and drug treatment program. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 18, 313-3\nW. Franklin, K.K. (1999). A theoretical framework for metropolitan student satisfaction. Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum 10(3), 81-88. Franklin, K.K. (1999). Forging the bonds: learning communities on an urban campus. The First-Year Experience Newsletter 11(3), 8.  Franklin, K.K. (1998). Looking in the looking glass: How administrators describe the effectiveness of the metropolitan university. Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum 9(3), 9-18. Manuscripts in Press Kathy K. Franklin 3 Franklin, K.K., Cranston, V., Perry, S.N., Purtle, D.K., \u0026amp; Robertson, B.E. (in press). Conversations with mTreatnrosiptioolnit.a n university freshmen. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience and Students in Manuscripts in Blind Review Perry, S.N. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (2002). I am not the Gingerbread Man! Exploring the Experiences 'of College Students Diagnosed with AD/HD. The Journal of Research on Learning Diabilities. Manuscripts in Progress Franklin, K.K. A Tale of Four Freshman Friends: The Urban University Experience. Trawick, K. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. Responsibilities for the Effective Metropolitan University Department Chair. Franklin, K.K. Assessing a Freshman Year Experience Program. Franklin, K.K. The Freshman Year Experience: Increasing Confidence in the Ability to Succeed Crum, C. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. Mentoring Female Graduate Students. Kondrick, L. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. Predicting Success for Female Graduate Students Enrolled in Math, Science, and Engineering Programs. Marvin, USn. i\u0026amp;ve rFsritayn. klin, K.K. Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences: Students in Transition at an Urban Franklin, K.K., Conners, N.A., \u0026amp; Perry, S.N. Teaching Naturalistic Inquiry: A Constructivist Approach. ERIC Publications Perry, S.N. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. An Analysis of College Students with AD/HD at a Private and Public Institution in Arkansas using a Grounded Theory Approach. (submitted, November 2002) Conners, N.A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (November, 1999). Fostering research by female graduate students through mentoring. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERJC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 435 757). Lowry, C. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (November, 1999). Utilizing networked computer workstations to conduct electronic focus group sessions. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center E(EDR I4C3)5 C7l6e2a)ri.n ghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Marvin, S., Franklin, K.K., Edleston, R., Oberste, C., Routen, I.J., \u0026amp; Satkowsk.i-Harper, T. (November, 1999). Faculty attitudes about the use of technology in the college classroom. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. Reference number IRO 19901. Franklin, K.K., Boggs, K.J., Conners, N.A., Crum, C.B., Nawarat, P., Ramirez, C.T., \u0026amp; Trawick, K.C. (1997). Defining institutional effectiveness for a metropolitan university. (Report No. HE 030 940). Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERJC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 416 747). Kathy K. Franklin 4 Chamberlin, G.D. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (November, 1997). Implications of the baby boom echo in arkansas. (Report No. HE 030 872). Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 418 610). Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Shemwell, D.W. {1995). Disconfirmation theory: An approach to student satisfaction assessment in higher education. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 199). Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Knight, W.H. (1995). Using focus groups to explore student opinion. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 200). Franklin, K.K., Shemwell, D.W., \u0026amp; Witta, E.L. (1994). Hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of a student satisfaction survey. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 694). Franklin, K.K. (1994). Multivariate correlation analysis of a student satisfaction survey. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 695). Workbooks Published for Conference Workshops Franklin, K.K., (1999). The search for a needle in a haystack, Part II: The art of coding. Workbook published for the annual meeting of Mid-South Educational Research Association, Point Clear, AL. Franklin, K.K., Donaldson, C.W., Hoeft, T.M., \u0026amp; Chapman, C.A. (1999). Assessing the service-learning component in a freshman year experience course. Workbook published for the American Association for Higher Education Assessment Conference. Denver, CO. Franklin, K.K., Donaldson, C.W., \u0026amp; Hoeft, T.M. (1999). Inspiration and perspiration: Combining service-\nlearning with the freshman year experience. Workbook published for the annual meeting of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. New Orleans, LA. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Nawarat, P. (1998). The search for a needle in a haystack: Qualitative data analysis. Workbook published for the annual meetipg of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. i Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Hoeft, T.M. (1998) Assessing the learning community: A survival kit. Workbook pSupbrilnisghse, dA Rfo. r the annual meeting of the South Central Freshman Success Initiatives Association. Hot Franklin, K. K. \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (June, 1998). Assessing the learning community: A survival kit. Workbook published for the American Association for Higher Education Assessment Conference. Cincinnati, OH. PRESENTATIONS International Kathy K. Franklin 5 Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (1999, April). An analysis of two postsecondary learning environments: Learning communities and freshmen year experience courses. Poster session at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Conners, N.A. (1999, April). Mentoring female graduate students in a qualitative research methods course. Roundtable discussion at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. National Marvin, S., Franklin, K.K., Chesser, J.S., Edleston, R., Edwards-Sharer, P., Oberste, C., Routen, I.J., \u0026amp;  Satkowski-Harper, T. (2001, October), Traveling through the Land of Oz: Teaching Qualitative Research. Poster Session at the Nursing Research Conference sponsored by Gamma Xi Chapter, Beta Chi Chapter, Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing, the University of Arkansas for Medical Services College ofNursing, and the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System. Nursing Service. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K, Donaldson, C.W., Hoeft, T.M., \u0026amp; Chapman, C.A. (1999, October). Assessing the servicelearning component in a freshman year experience course. Presentation at the annual meeting of the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. Boise, ID. Franklin, K.K., Donaldson, C.W., Hoeft, T.M., \u0026amp; Chapman, C.A. (1999, June). Assessing the servicelearning component in a freshman year experience course. Workshop presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Higher Education Conference on Assessment. Denver, CO. Franklin, K.K., Hoeft, T.M., \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (1999, March). Inspiration and perspiration: _ Combining service-learning and the freshmen year experience. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. New Orleans, LA. Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (1998, November). Developing the assessment strategy for a linked course learning corf-zmunity. Poster session at the Assessment Institute Best Practices Fair, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. Indianapolis, IN. Conners, N.A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1998, November). Using focus groups to evaluate client satisfaction in an alcohol and drug treatment program. Poster session at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association. Chicago, IL. Franklin, K.K. (1998, June). Assessing the learning community: A survival kit. Workshop conducted at the 1998 American Association for Higher Education Assessment Conference. Cincinnati, OH. Franklin, K.K. (1998, February). Explaining student satisfaction with a metropolitan university.  Grant funded research presented at the annual meeting of the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. San Antonio, TX. Franklin, K.K. (1996, April). Exploring the congruency between student satisfaction and institutional effectiveness in higher education. Dissertation research presented at the 17th annual National Graduate Student Research Seminar in Educational Administration sponsored by the University Council for Educational Administration. New York City, NY. Re~ional Perry, S.N. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (2002, November) .. College Students with AD/HD. Presentation made at the 2002 annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Chattanooga, TN. Kathy K. Franklin 6 Trawick, K. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (2002, November). Exploring Department Chair Roles in Metropolitan Universities. Presentation made at the 2002 annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Chattanooga, TN. Hoeft, T.M., Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (2002, April). Conversations with First Year Students: Implications for Teaching and Learning. Presentation made at the 2002 annual meeting of the Arkansas Academic Advising Network. Jonesboro, AR. Franklin, K.K., Cranston, V., Peny, S.N., Purtle, D.K., Roberston, B.E. (2001, November). Conversations with metropolitan freshmen. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K. (1999, November). The search for a needle-in-a-haystack, Part II: The art of coding. PWooinrkt sCholepa rp, rAesLe.n ted at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Conners, N. A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1999, November). Fostering research by female graduate students through mentoring. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Point Clear, AL. Lowry, C. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1999, November). Utilizing networked computer workstations to conduct electronic focus group sessions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Point Clear, AL. Marvin, S., Franklin, K.K., Edleston, R., Oberste, C., Routen, I.J., \u0026amp; .Satkowski-Harper, T. (1999, November). Faculty attitudes about the use of technology in the college classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Point Clear, AL. Franklin, K.K., Conners, N. A., Edleston, R., Marvin, S., Oberste, C., Routen, I.I., \u0026amp; Satkowski-Harper (1999, November). Traveling through the Land of Oz: Teaching qualitative research. Poster pArLes. ented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Sotith Educational Research Association. Point Clear, Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Hoeft, T.M. (1998, October). Assessing a learning community: A survival kit. Workshop conducted at the South Central Freshman Success Initiatives Association. Hot Springs, AR. Franklin, K.K., Nawarat, P., \u0026amp; Ramirez, C. (1998,\nNovember). The search for a needle-in-a-haystack: Qualitative data analysis. Workshop conducted at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. Franklin, K.K., Chamberlin, G.D., Kennedy, R.L., \u0026amp; Sewall, AM. (1997, November). A dissertation survival Mkite. mPpahpise,r TprNe.s ented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Franklin, K.K., Boggs, K.J., Conners, N.A., Crum, C.B., Nawarat, P., Ramirez, C.T., \u0026amp; Trawick, K.C. (1997, November). Defining institutional effectiveness for a metropolitan university. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Memphis, TN. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Chamberlin, G.D. (1997, November). Implications of the baby boom echo in the midMsouemth. p hiPsa, pTeNr p. resented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Kathy K. Franklin 7 Chamberlin, G.D., \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1997, November). The baby boom echo: Implications for two-year colleges in Arkansas. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Arkansas Association of Two- Y ear Colleges. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Knight, W.H. (1997, February). Exploring the congruency between student satisfaction and institutional effectiveness in higher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association. Hilton Head, SC. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Knight, W.H. (1996, November). Exploring the definition of institutional effectiveness in higher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Tuscaloosa, AL. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Bartell, N.O. (1996, November). How to survive a qualitative dissertation. Training session- for graduate students at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Tuscaloosa, AL. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Shemwell, D.W. (1995, November). Disconfirmation theory: An approach to student satisfaction assessment in higher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Biloxi, MS. Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Knight, W.H. (1995, November). Using focus groups to explore student opinion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Biloxi, MS. Franklin, K.K., Shemwell, D.W., \u0026amp; Witta, E.L. (1995, March). Hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of a student satisfaction survey. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Education Research Association. Hilton Head, SC. Franklin, K.K. (1995, March). Relationship between student satisfaction and assessing program effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Education Research Association. Hilton Head, SC. I Franklin, K.K. (1994, November). Multivariate correlation analysis of a student satisfaction survey administered at East Tennessee State University. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the MidSouth Education Research Association. Nashville, TN. Local Franklin, K.K. (2000, January). Faculty attitudes about the use of instructional technology in the metropolitan. university classroom. Presentation of research findings to the University of Arkansas AatR L. ittle Rock (UALR) Strategic Planning Committee on Instructional Technology. Little Rock, Franklin, K.K. (1999, January). Explaining student satisfaction with a metropolitan university.\nPresentation of research findings to the UALR Retention Committee. Little Rock, AR. Conners, N.A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1999, January). Using focus groups to evaluate client satisfaction in an alcohol and drug treatment program. Poster session at the University of Arkansas Medical School, Department of Psychiatry, Grand Rounds. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K. (1998, August). Assessing learning communities. Faculty development workshop at UALR. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K. (1998, April). Explaining student satisfaction with a metropolitan university. Presentation of research findings to the UALR Faculty Senate. Little Rock, AR. Kathy K. Franklin 8 Franklin, K.K. (1998, April). Explaining student satisfaction with a metropolitan university. Presentation of research findings to the staff of the UALR Office of Educational and Student Services. Little Rock, AR. SPONSORED RESEARCH Evaluator for the Freshman Year Experience program sponsored by a grant from the Office of Educational and Student Services at UALR. Completed a two-year student learning assessment for the PEA W 1300 courses based on the six learning objectives identified for the course by the PEAW 1300 Curriculum Committee. The assessment included a freshmen profile survey administered to approximately 1100 students, a freshman attitude survey administered to approximately 900 students, a service-learning evaluation, and course portfolio evaluation (n = 161). Data provided evidence to support that the six learning objectives were accomplished. 1998 to 2000. Evaluator for the Adult First Year Experience course sponsored by a UALR Curriculum Development Grant. 1998 to 1999.   Evaluator for the fall and spring, 1998-1999 learning communities sponsored by a UALR Curriculum Development Grant.. 1998 to 1999. Conducted four focus group sessions with administrators and four focus group sessions with students on the University of North Texas campus to explore student perception of educational satisfaction and administrator perception of institutional effectiveness. Purpose of research was to explore the congruency between the criteria used by students to determine student satisfaction and the criteria used by administrators to evaluate institutional effectiveness. Research sponsored by a Coalition of Metropolitan and Urban Universities. 1997. Conducted four focus group sessions with administrators and seven focus group sessions with students on the. University of Arkansas at Little Rock campus to explore student perception of educational satisfaction and administrator perception of institutional effectiveness. Purpose of research was to explore the congruency between the criteria used by students to determine student satisfaction ai\nid , the criteria used by administrators to evaluate institutional effectiveness. Research sponsored by a UALR Faculty Development Grant. 1997. Evaluator for a learning community experiment, conducted during the 1997 fall semester, linking three freshmen core courses: speech communication, rhetoric and writing, and anthropology sponsored by an UALR Assessment Grant. 1997. ' PROFESSIONAL SERVICE Service to the Profession Continuous Service Member, Editorial Board, Research in the Schools, Mid-Sou.th Educational Research Association. 2002 to present. Member, Editorial Board, Journal of the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, University of South Carolina Press. 1999 to present Member, Editorial Board, The Qualitative Report. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QRJindex.html. 2001 to present. Referee, Qualitative Research, Sage Publications. 2001 to present. Research Coordinator, Coalition for Urban and Metropolitan Universities. Responsible for managing the Ernest Lynton Research Grant Program and Paige E. Mulhollan Dissertation Award Program. 1999 to 2002 2001 Kathy K. Franklin 9 Panel Member, Plenary Session, Developmental Education - Issues and Expectations, Arkansas Association for Developmental Education 2001 Fall Conference. Hot Springs, AR: October, 2001. 2000 Accepted an invitation to serve on the Strategic Study Committee for Roanoke College, Roanoke Virginia as a member of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) Visiting Team. November, 2000 . Mid-South Educational Research Association - 2003 President Mid-South Educational Research Association - 2002 Vice-President and President-Elect, 2002 Chair, Outstanding Paper and Dissertation Awards Committee Mid-South Educational Research Association - 2001 Site Coordinator, 2001 Annual Meeting, Little Rock Arkansas Member, Program Review Committee for the 2001 annual meeting Representative-at-Large, Board of Directors Mid-South Educational Research Association - 2000 Nominated by Board of Directors to serve as Secretary/Treasurer for MSERA. 2000 Site coordinator for the 2001 annual meeting to be held in Little Rock, Arkansas. Member, Program Review Committee for the 2000 annual meeting. Mid-South Educational Research Association - 1999 Elected by members of the Board of Directors to serve as a Representative-at-Large for MSERA. Member, Program Review Committee for the 1999 annual meeting. Mid-South Educational Research Association - 1998 Chair, Graduate Student Advisory Committee. Member, Program Review Committee for the 1998 annual meeting. Discussant, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference, Discussion on Teaching and Learning. November, 1998. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Discussion on Early Childhood Education. November 1998. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Discussion on Teaching and Leaming. November, 1998. Mid-South Educational Research Association - 1997 Chair, Graduate Student Advisory Committee. .. Member, Program Review Committee for the 1997 annual meeting. Panel member, Mid-South Educational Research Association. Training session for graduate students titled: Life After Graduation: More Things You Need to Know About the Job Market. November 1997. Panel member, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Training session for doctoral candidates titled: Dissertation Survival Kit. November 1997. g r. i ~ rt 01 .r.t. g Kathy K. Franklin I 0 Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference, presentation of the 1997 Outstanding Paper awards. November 1997. Mid-South Educational Research Association - 1995 to 1996 Member, Graduate Student Advisory Committee. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Discussion on Higher Education. November, 1996. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Discussion on Test-Ta.long. November, 1996. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. November, 1995. Service to The University of Alabama Member, Department of Educational Leadership, Technology, and Policy Studies Assessment Committee. 2002 to present. Service to the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Service to 2002 Member, UALR Department of Excellence Selection Committee. Jan. 2002 to April 2002 Service to 2001 Completed a two-year assessment of the PEA W 1300 courses at UALR for the Office of Educational and Student Services. The final assessment report included a detailed profile of approximately 1100 UALR freshmen emolled from the fall 1998 to spring 2000. The report also included the findings from a pre- and post-administered attitude survey, evaluation of course portfolios, and evaluation of service-learning activities. Data were analyzed using SPSS-PC v.9. Vice-Chair, UALR Graduate Council. 2000 to 2001 Chair, UALR Graduate Council Personnel Advisory Committee. 2000 to 2001 Evaluator, Freshman Year Experience Program at UALR. Responsible for developing and implementing an assessment strategy for all PEA W 1300 courses taught as a component of the Freshman Year Experience Program at UALR. 1998 to 2001 Member, Advisory Committee to the UALR Chancellor.  Serving on a committee of approximately 25 UALR faculty and administrators providing the Chancellor with feedback on proposed policies designed to enhance the metropolitan mission of the university. 1997 to 2001 Member, UALR Graduate Council. 1996 to 2001 Service to 2000 Member, elected by the Faculty Senate to serve 3$ a member of the UALR Research Committee. Responsibilities of the committee include  reviewing grant proposals written by UALR faculty for funding by the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs. 1998 to 2000. Chair, UALR Graduate Council Curriculum Subcommittee. 1998 to 2000. Evaluator, Service-Learning component of the Freshman Year Experience Program at UALR. Responsible for developing and implementing an assessment strategy for the service-learning component of PEAW 1300 courses. Member, UALR Faculty Appeals Committee. 1998 to 2000. Member, UALR Retention Committee. 1998 to 2000. Member, UALR Graduate Council Subcommittee on Graduate Curriculum. 1996 to 2000. Service to 1999 Member, Freshman Year Experience Brochure Development Committee. Spring, 1999. Member, First-Year Experience Curriculum Committee. 1998 to 1999. Member, UALR Academic Appeals Committee. September 1997 to 1999. Service to 1998 Member, Grant writing team to develop a grant proposal for the Kellogg Foundation visit. April 1998. Kathy K. Franklin 11 Member, UALR World Humanities Core Assessment Group. Served as the Core Assessment Committee liaison on this committee. Responsibility of the committee was to develop a core assessment strategy. March 1997 to 1998. Member, Advisory Subcommittee to the UALR Chancellor. Purpose of subcommittee was to provide s1u9p9p8o. rt for the development of a grant proposal for a 1997 Kellogg Foundation grant. 1997 to Member, UALR Core Assessment Committee. 1996 to 1998. Member, UALR Core Assessment Subcommittee on Implementing the University Core Assessment Plan. 1996 to 1998.  Co-authored the nomination packet for the John Templeton Award for the Freshman Year Experience Program at UALR. December, 1998. Attended the First-Year Experience Seminar hosted by the National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition and the University of South Carolina held in Little Rock, AR. April 6 - 7, 1998 Attended the Developing Larning Communities conference sponsored by the University of Miami in Miami, Florida. January 1998. Service to 1997 Developed and implemented an assessment strategy for a learning community experience at UALR at the request of the Office of the Provost and sponsored by a UALR assessment grant. The learning community linked three freshmen courses: Anthropology, Rhetoric and Writing, and Speech Communications. This course was designed based on the research of Vincent Tinto. Summer 1997 Conducted a focus group session of student leaders at UALR, analyzed the data, and drafted an executive summary of the findings for UALR administrators at the request' of the Office of the Provost. The purpose of the focus group session was to explore student leader attitudes concerning the strengths and weaknesses of UALR. The information was used to develop a SWOT analysis for the UALR five-year strategic plan. July 1997 Attended the 1997 Service Learning retreat sponsored by the Office of the Chancellor and the Office of the Provost. Invited by the Chancellor to join 65 UALR faculty and administrators in a daylong retreat discussing service-learning strategies for UALR. Attended the Critical Thinking Weekend Workshop, featuring Dr. Stanley Paul, at the request of the Office of the Provost in Seattle, Washington. May 1997. Visited with key change agents at Portland State University at the request of the Chancellor for the purpose of \"bridge-building\" between the two metropolitan campuses. May 1997. Service to 1996 Attended the Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis Assessment Conference~ held in Indianapolis, Indiana, at the request of the Office of the Provost. November 1996. Service to the College of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Service to 2002 Chair, Department of Educational Leadership Annual Review Committee. Spring, 2002. Service to 2001 Department Chair. 1999 - 2001 Attended the annual conference for the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. Dallas, Texas. 2001. Member, Annual Peer Review Committee. 2001 Member2, 0F0a0c.u lty Search Committee to select an Associate Professor of Higher Education Administration. Member, Faculty Search Committee to select an Assistant Professor of Higher Education Administration. 1999 to 2001. a ( E g r: Q Service to 2000 Member, Faculty Search Committee for the Vision Education Program. Spring, 2000. Member, Admissions, Retention, and Exit Committee. 1998 to 2000. Service to 1999 Kathy K. Franklin 12 Discussant, Millennium Forum, Metropolitan Focus Lecture on Instructional Technology, Dr. James In.man, featured speaker. September 30, 1999 Chair, UALR, College of Education Assessment Committee. Responsible for the on-going assessment of ANuCgAuTstE 1 s9t9a7n dtaor d1s9 9a9n.d the implementation of continuous-improvement strategies for the college. Chair, College of Education Assessment Readers Team to critique the college 1999 assessment reports. 1999 Elected by faculty in the Department of Educational Leadership to serve as the faculty reporter for all faculty meetings and to serve as acting chair for the department during the absence of the department chair. 1998 to 1999. Service to 1998 Chair, College of Education NCATE Readers Team. Responsible for reviewing and critiquing the NCATE report for the 1998 spring visit. August 1997 to April 1998. Member, Readers Team for the 1997-98 UALR Annual Assessment Progress Report. May, 1998 Member, College of Education NCATE Steering Committee. Coordination of the preparation for the NCATE 1998 spring visit. August 1997 to April 1998. Guided College of Education faculty through a S.W.O.T. analysis to develop the five-year strategic plan. September 1998. Service to 1997 Chair, Department of Educational Leadership Assessment Coordination Committee. 1996 to 1997. Submitted an application to serve as a Research Mentor for the McNair Scholars Program. FebI1\n1ary 1997. PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS Member, Arkansas Academic Advising Network. 2002 to present. Member, American Association of University Women. 2000 to present. Member, Mid-South Educational Research Association. 1994 to present. Member, The American Educational Research Association. 1999 to present. Member, The American Association of Higher Education. 1997 to 2001. Member, Eastern Educational Research Association. 1995 to 1997. PROFESSIONAL HONORS Kathy K. Franklin 13 Nominated for the 2001 Faculty Excellence Award in Research for the College of Education at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. December, 2001 A warded the 1999 Faculty Excellence Award in Service for the College of Education at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. April, 1999. Nominated by students in the Higher Education Administration program for the 1997-1998 Faculty Excellence Award in Teaching. December 1997. Awarded the East Tennessee State University, College of Education, 1997 Outstanding Dissertation Award. Nominated by Dr. Hal W. Knight, Associate Dean, College of Education. Selected by the University Council for Educational. Administration to attend the 17th annual National Graduate Student Research Seminar in Educational Administration held in New York City, 1996. I CURRICULUM LIST East Tennessee State University Higher Education Administration ELPA 6581 Internship with the Office of Enrollment Management ELPA 7820 Administration in Higher Education ELP A 68 80 Higher Education Finance and Law ELP A 6810 Theory of Educational Admjnistration ELP A 6010 Seminar in Education Administration and Organizations HDAL 5720 Student Personnel Services ELPA 6957 ELPA 6957 ELPA 6957 ELPA 6957 ELPA 6957 Special Topics - \"Leadership in Professional Development Centers.\" Special Topics - \"Program Planning in Continuing Education.\" Special Topics - \"Proposal and Grant Development.\" Special Topics - \"Politics of Higher Education.\" Special Topics - ''Leadership Studies.\" Education Foundations ELPA 6730 History and Philosophical Foundations of Education ELP A 6906 History and Philosophical Issues in Higher Education HDAL 5200 Human Relations and Group Processes Education Statistics Advanced Research and Analysis Kathy K. Franklin 14 Research ELPA 7810 ELPA 6950 ELPA 6901 MKTG5900 MKTG 5900 Independent Study - \"Multivariate Correlation Analysis\" Independent Study - \"Hierarchical Confirmatory Factor Analysis using LISREL 7.0\" Independent Study - \"Investigating the Use of Disconfirmation Theory to Measure College Student Satisfaction\" Middle-Tennessee State University Management and Marketing MGMT0660 Study of Organizations MGMT0665 Seminar in Operations Management BAD 0698 Business Policy MKT MKT MKT MKT 0680 0683 0685 0682 . Marketing Strategy Marketing Systems International Marketing Seminar Marketing Behavior General Business Theory ECON 5110 Economics and Business Decisions (East Tennessee State University) ECON 5240 Applied Macro Economic Theory (East Tennessee State University) FIN 0671 Advanced Financial Analysis lNFS 0671 Systems Analysis ACTG 0691 Accounting and Business Decisions REFERENCES Dr. Candace W. Burns, Chair Department of Educational Leadership University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 South University Ave. Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Phone: 501-569-3367 E-mail: cwbums@ualr edu Dr. Larry McNeal, Professor Department of Educational Leadership University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 South University Ave. Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Phone: 501-569-3552 E-mail: lxmcneal@ualr.edu Dr. Gordon E. Watts, Professor Department of Educational Leadership University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 South University Ave. Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Phone: 501-569-3267 E-mail: gewatts@ualr.edu Kathy K. Franklin 15 DR. LARRY MCNEAL BUSINESS ADDRESS University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 S. University Avenue Department of Educational Leadership Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Office 501-569-3552 Fax 501-569-3547 lxmcneal@ualr.edu HOME ADDRESS 15806 Patriot Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212-2606 501-221-1178 lxmcneal@netscape.net or 1.mcneal59@hotmail.com PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION Ph.D. Educational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (1990) Emphasis: Fiscal and Community Support for Public Education Concentrations: Educational Finance, School-Co=nity Relations, and Public School\\ Administration M. S. Educational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (1989) Emphasis: Administration and Organization of Public Education Concentration: Educational Administration (Public School) M. A. Public Affairs. University oflowa, Iowa City (1976) Emphasis: Public Administration Concentration: Urban Administration B. A. Business Administration and Political Science, Dakota Wesleyan University, Mitchell, SD {1975) Emphasis: Political Economics Concentrations: Business Administration, Political Science and Economics Licensure: School Business Management (No longer active) Insurance Agent (No longer active) Entrepreneurship: Quality Education and Management Associates, President PROFESSIONAL WORK EXPERIENCE Professor, Department of Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1998 to the present Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Management \u0026amp; Development, Graduate School of  Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 2000 Educational Administration and Supervision Program Coordinator, Department of Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1998 to 2001 Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Management \u0026amp; Development, Graduate School of Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 1998 Associate Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995 to 1998 Visiting Professor, Bellver International College, Trenton State College (now College of New Jersey), Graduate School of Education, Palma de Mallorca, Baleares, Spain, Summer 1996 Associate Director, Office of Educational Finance, Center For Higher Education and Educational Finance, qraduate School of.Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995-1997 State Coordinator, Illinois Education Policy Fellow Program, Institute for Educatio~ Leadership, Graduate School of Education, lliinois State University, Normal, lliinois 1994-1996 Research Associate, Center for the Study of Educational Finance, Graduate School of Education, lliinois State University, Normal, lliinois, 1993-1995 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, lliinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1993-1995- Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, University ofNorthern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa, Summer 1993 Research Associate, Center for the Study of Small/Rural Schools, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1992-1994 Adjunct Fellow, Center for Research on Multi-Ethnic Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1992 Danforth Principal Preparation Program Co-Facilitator, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Normal, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 Coordinator of Multicultural Affairs, Wisconsin Alumni Association, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1990-1991 Budget Analyst Intern, University of Wisconsin System Administration, Madison, Wisconsin, 1989-90 Equal Rights Officer, Division of Care and Treatment Facilities, Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall/Spring, 1988/1989 Budget and Management Analyst Intern, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Madison, Wisconsin, Summer, 1988 Marketing Manager, WarBuc Educultural Publications, Madison, Wisconsin, 1985-1987 Business Mathematics Instructor, Business Department, Madison Area Technical College, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall 1985 and Spring 1987 Finance Marketing Representative, John Deere \u0026amp; Company, Moline, lliinois, based in Madison, Wisconsin, 1978-1984 Commercial Service Representative, Honeywell, Incorporated, Minneapolis, Minnesota, based in Des Moines, Iowa, 1977-1978 Public Administration Intern, Mayor's Office, City of Davenport, Davenport, Iowa, 1976 2 DISSERTATION McNeal, L. (1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment programs. University of Wisconsin-Madison. RESEARCH INTERESTS School Cornrnunitarianism (the fundamental relationship between schools and their co=unities) Organizational Change (change processes and organizational effectiveness) Educational Finance ( adequacy and equity of funding for public education) Program Assessment and Evaluation GRADUATE COURSES TAUGHT Administration and Organization of Schools Advanced Administrative Theory and Behavior Administrative Problem Solving Organizational Change Educational Politics and Policy Dissertation Proposal Development Educational Finance School Business Administration Human and Fiscal Resources Management Educational Public Relations Introduction to Doctoral Studies Organizational Development PUBLICATIONS: REFERRED McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (In Press, 2003). The locus of control issue in standard-based accountability. Educational Considerations. Christy, W .K. \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2002). Influence of school board members on state legislation in Arkansas. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EA 031517. McNeal, L. (2002). The school-community relations profile model: Combining school district and community-based data. In J. Thomas Owens and Jan C. Simmons (Eds.), In creating quality reform: Programs, communities, and governance (67-81). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Chesser, J.S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Educational community study circles: How superintendents can enhance school improvement through community dialogue. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 446 370. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2000). Implications oflegislative policy development for public school districts. F. Kochan (Ed~). Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Yearbook Chesser, J.S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (1999). School improvement through community dialogue: The first community study circles on education in Arkansas and Oklahoma. ERIC Document Re:production Service No. ED 436 694..  Mogilka, J, Ashby, D.E, \u0026amp; McNeal, L., (Eds.). (1996). Planning \u0026amp; Changing, 27(1\u0026amp;2). McNeal, L. (1995). Fulfilling promises in the land of Will Rogers: A look at performance indicators in selected school districts since the enactment of Oklahoma house bill 1017. School Finance Policy Issues in the States and Provinces: Annual Update 1995 (135-138), C. Edlefson (Ed). The Ohio State University: Policy Research for Ohio-Based Education. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Reed, R. (1995). Building a school-community relations profile through sociological inventorying. People \u0026amp; Education: The Human Side of Schools, 3(3), 371-386. 3 McNeal L., et al. (1994). National Sallie Mae winners and their principals. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 11(3), 3-10. McNeal, L. (1994). Focusing on at-risk students: Case study of John Wilkinson Elementary School. Illinois School Research and Development Journal, 31(1), 7-10. McNeal L., \u0026amp; Ashby, D. (1993). Site-based management and changing relationships. Illinois School Research and Development Journal, 31(1), 7-10. McNeal L., \u0026amp; Lehman, B. J. (1993). A vision of the future: The full-service school. Planning and Changing, 24(3/4), 140-154. BOOK PROPOSAL IN PROGRESS Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Working Title: The Superintendency: Theory to reflective practice. To be submitted to Wadsworth. Belmont, CA. MANUSCRIPTS IN PROGRESS McNeal, L. (2001). The contextual world of education for children and the school-co=unity: James coleman and the effective schools movement. To be submitted to Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development. McNeal, L., \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (2001). Rethinking the school district model of funding for individual schools: Co=ents about site-based management of resources. To be submitted to Planning and Change. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Implications of charter schools and home schooling for the funding of public schools. To be submitted to Journal of School Leadership. PUBLICATIONS: MONOGRAPHS , McNeal, L., et al. (1993). Common sense: Plain talk to legislators about school finance. Center For the Study of Educational Finance. Illinois State University. PUBLICATIONS: NON-REFERRED McNeal, L. (December, 1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment programs. Dissertation. McNeal L. (1993). The education of African-American children in Oklahoma. State of Oklahoma: Annual Report. Urban League of Greater Oklahoma City, Inc., 36-45. McNeal, L., First, P. F., \u0026amp; Knudson, D. P. (1993). Evaluating the University of Oklahoma Danforth Principal Preparation Program. Connections. 1 (2), 3. McNeal, L. (1992). University of Oklahoma report. Danforth Programs for the Preparation of School Principals Newsletter, 1 (2). 3.  McNeal, L. (1987). From the desk of. National Multicultural Banner, 5 (6), 2. McNeal, L. (1986). From the desk of: Literacy, who's problem is it anyway? National Multicultural Banner, 5 (3), 2. 4 McNeal, L. (1986). The Black collegians guide to graduate fellowships for minority students. National Multicultural Banner, 5 (2), 9. CITED IN EDUCATION WEEK In the area of educational finance, Education Week has quoted me on several occasions. I have been quoted in the following articles: 11/26/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Get One More Try To Pass School Funding Reforms 6/11/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Duck Vow To Revamp Funding 3/26/97 in News ILL. Audit Questions Oversight of ILL. Education Agency 2/5/97 in News ILL. Odds Seen Better for F1.lllding Reform in ILL. REPORTS McNeal, L. Little Rock school district charter elementary school evaluation report for the 2001- 2002 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District, November, 2002. McNeal, L., et. al. The college of education assessment report: 2000-2001: University. of Arkansas at Little Rock. Prepared for the Provost's Advisory Group on Assessment, June, 2001.  McNeal, L. Little Rock school district charter elementary school evaluation report for the 2000- 2001 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District, June, 2001. McNeal, L. Projected student enrollment for the 2000-2001 school year: 6th and 7th grade student racial make up report. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., April, 2001. McNeal, L. Enrollment trends in the Little Rock, North Little, and Pulaski County Special school districts: 1995-1996 to 1999-2000. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., November, 2000. Coleen, B.C., Driskill, G., Leslie, S., McNeal, L., Mitchell, W., Taylor, C., \u0026amp; Webb, R. Provost's advisory group on assessment: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Summer 2000 report, July, 2000. I McNeal, L., et. al. The college of education assessment report: 1999-2000: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Prepared for the Provost's Advisory Group on Assessment, June, 2000. McNeal, L. Student enrollment needs assessment study of the Illinois school for the visually impaired, Illinois Center for Rehabilitation and Education and Illinois School for the Deaf. Prepared for the Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services, Odober, 1995. McNeal, L, First, P., Walker, V., \u0026amp; Hobson, B. An inquiry into alleged cultural insensitivity at Capitol Hill High School. Prepared for Oklahoma City Public School District, March, 1993. McNeal, L, et al. School choice: Open enrollment and post secondary options. Prepared for the Association of Wisconsin School Administrators, March, 1990. McNeal, L. County veterans service officer training manual. Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, June, 1990. McNeal, L. A Review of health care and medical services provided by the United States department of veterans affairs. Prepared for the Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, August, 1989. McNeal, L. A review of health care grants and the Wisconsin Veterans Home in King, Wisconsin. Prepared for the Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, August, 1989. 5 McNeal, L. Mendota mental health institute: An analysis of an organization in crisis. Prepared for the Division of Care and Treatment Facilities of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, December 1988. PRESENTATIONS: REFERRED McNeal, L., Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; Lewis, R. (2002). New leaders and new implications for educational administration. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Kansas City, MO. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2001). Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Little Rock, AR. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W .K. (November, 2001 ). A discussion of change theory, systems theory, and state designed standards and accountability initiatives. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Jackspnville, FL. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (November, 2001). State designed standards and accountability initiatives in the southwestern regional educational development laboratory service area. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Jacksonville, FL. McNeal, L. (2001, July). The institutionalization of the assessment process: One story in one college of education. The Consortium for Assessment \u0026amp; Planning Support. San Juan, PR. MeNeal, L. (2001, July). Faculty perceptions of their involvement in the assessment (evaluation) process. The Consortium for Assessment \u0026amp; Planning Support. San Juan, PR. Chesser, J., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2000). The use of the study circle in school reform: Bringing all the voices to the table. Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Bowling Green, KY. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (November, 2000). Charter schools under construction: An analysis of a charter school evaluation plan. Southern- Regionaf Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2000). Implications of charter schools and home schooling. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. I Christy, W.K. \u0026amp; McNeal. L. (November, 2000). The process of making sausage in the factory of program reform. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. Michaelis, K, \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April, 2000). From indifference to injustice: The politics of teen violence. American Educational Research Association for the Spring 2000 Conference in New Orleans, LA.  Caram, C. A., Christy, W. K., Altom, B, \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April, 2000). The sausage factory: The process of planning for accountability. Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Little Rock, AR. Caram, C. A., Christy, W. K., Altom, B., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April, 2000). Responding to the call for accountability of a school leader preparation program Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Little Rock, AR. Chesser, J. S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (March, 2000). Educational community study circles in Arkansas: How superintendents can enhance school improvement through community dialogue. American Association of School Administrators 11 th Annual Conference Within A Conference, San Francisco, CA. 6 Chesser, J. S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. {November, 1999). School improvement through connnunity dialogue: The first community study circles on education in Arkansas and Oklahoma. Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Clear Point, AL. McNeal, L., \u0026amp; Christy, W. K. (November, 1999). From preparation to practice in Arkansas: The relationship between program preparation standards and entry-level administrators' success. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC.  Christy, W. K., McNeal, L. (November, 1999). Implications oflegislative policy development for public school districts. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC. McNeal, L., Gonzalez, M. L., \u0026amp; Noley, Grayson. (October, 1999). The ethics of silencing in school accountability: Listening to the voices of Hispanic, Native American, and African-American Researchers. University Council for Educational Administration Convention, Minneapolis, MN. Christy, W. K. \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (March, 1999). Future policy implications of an Arkansas referendum initiative. American Education Finance Association, Seattle, WA. McNeal, L. (March, 1998). The link between quality and school cormnunitarianism. Creating the Quality School: 7th Annual National Conference, Arlington, VA. McNeal, L., Place, A. W., Tilbnan, L.C., Beaumont, J. J. \u0026amp; Sanders, E. T. W. (October, 1997). A cross-cultural discussion of the 1997 UCEA conference theme. University Council for Educational Administration Convention, Orlando, FL. McNeal, L. (October, 1997). The contextual world of education for children and the schoolconnnunity: James Coleman and the effective schools movement. MidW estem Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (March, 1997). Influencing instructional strategies. to enhance leartti.ng by using the school-connnunity relations profile model. Creating the Quality School: 6th Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNeai L. (1996, March). The implications of community based information for caring schools: SCRPING along. Creating the Quality School: 5$ Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNe~ L. \u0026amp; Chi, J. (1996, March). Performance indicators and curriculum offerings: Is there a connection in Oklahoma? American Education Finance Association Conference, Salt Lake City, UT. McNeai L., Parks, J., Watson, L., Jackson, D., Midgette, T., \u0026amp; Glenn, E. (1996, March). Our pedagogy: Culture as a major variable. Pedagogy of the Oppressed Conference, Omaha, NE. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Ashby, D. (1995, October). School-community relations profiling: Re examining leadership for community. University Council for Educational Administration, Salt Lake City, UT. McNeal, L. (1995, April). Fulfilling promises in the land of Will togers: A look at performance indicators in selected school districts since the enactment of Oklahoma house bill IO 17. Sponsored by the Special Interest Group on Fiscal Issues, Policy, and Educational Finance (FIPEF). American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco, CA. McNeal, L. (1995, March). Promoting quality in education through the SCRPING of schools. Creating the Quality School: 4th Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. 7 McNeal, L., Higham, R, \u0026amp; Boyd, M.A. (1994, October). Establishing community between higher education, public education, and self:. An effort of compromise in infusing multiculturalism. Midwestern Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (1994, April). The state of educational finance in Oklahoma. American Educational Research Association Conference, New Orleans, LA. McNeal, L. (1994, March). Governance structures in decentralized schools and school improvement: Lessons from Chicago school reform. Creating the Quality School: 3rd Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNeal, L. (1994, March).\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eRoss, Steven M.\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_251","title":"City of Little Rock Beacon School Initiative","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1994/1995"],"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","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School administrators","Educational planning","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["City of Little Rock Beacon School Initiative"],"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/251"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"dcterms_extent":["216 pages"],"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\nSchool based centers managed by community-based organizations that offer children and adults a mix of recreation, social services, education enrichment, vocational activities, health education, and referrals.\nOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 November 4, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: Lately Ive been hearing the term Beacon\" schools used in reference to a subcommittee of the LRSD Board of Education and certain district schools. That is a term with which 1 am unfamiliar. Id appreciate your forwarding any information that can help me and my staff become better acquainted with the concept. I am particularly interested in specifically where and how you plan to implement and fund the Beacon idea in the LRSD. New programs or projects invariably have an impact on desegregation. When 1 am informed about the districts activities and potential new ventures, 1 am better able to answer any questions which members of the community or Judge Wright may ask me. Thanks for helping me keep up-to-date. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown   c Eif?\n: \u0026gt; Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT November 11, 1994 RECE5VEP Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 NOV 2 2 1994 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Ann, In collaboration with the City of Little Rock and New Futures for Little Rock Youth, the Department of Health, and the Division of Children and Family Services, the Little Rock School District has participated in the planning process for the Rock Beacon School Initiative. City of Little The Beacon Initiative of New York City, a highly successful program, has provided a framework to guide the local effort. need The fundamental principle of the Beacons Initiative is the for partnerships between schools organizations to meet the needs of youth and community-based society. in today's complex The Beacons Initiative seeks to link community-based youth organizations with schools to increase the presence of supports for youth to meet their needs and to assist them in building academic and social competencies. A Beacon School Program is managed by a organization working collaboratively with the school district, local school principal, and their own community advisory council. The school facility is utilized for Beacon programming during the evening hours, on weekends, holidays, and in the summer. community-based A Beacon Program offers children, youth and adults a mix of recreation, social services, educational enrichment and vocational activities, health education and referrals, and the opportunity for community meetings and neighborhood social activities. Cloverdale Junior High School has been recommended to the planning committee as the site for the first Beacon School. The new Stephens has been proposed as the second site. Funding for the Beacon Program will be provided primarily by the city of Little Rock. The school district will nrovide the soace for the DT-DCT \"r a-m provide space program. Further information will be provided to you as the planning process proceeds. Sil X\nC 2. re^ I P. Williams, Su^rintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-3000RATIONAL BEACON SITE-SELECTION The Little Rock School District carefully examined the site-selection criteria that were developed by the Beacon Initiative Steering Committee and provided to the district for use in the selection process. The school characteristics were reviewed and Cloverdale Junior High School successfully fulfilled the necessary criteria. Listed below are the site-selection criteria and the specific characteristics for Cloverdale Junior High School. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ADEQUATE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES  Cloverdale Junior High School has a renovated gym, newly constructed cafetorium, paved walking track, and several outside recreational activity areas. SUFFICIENT HEALTH FACILITIES  In the recent building renovations of Cloverdale, the health services area was expanded and updated. It is sufficient to handle expanded health care services. AMPLE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES  Ample educational classroom space is available as well as specialized areas such as an art room, band room and choir room. The design of the school provides pleasant outdoor courtyards that can be used for a variety of outdoor activities when the weather is conducive. ADEQUATE OFFICE SPACE  Office space for the director of the Beacon Program has been identified by the building principal. TOTAL ACCESSIBILITY  Cloverdale Junior High is located less than a block from Geyer Springs Road which serves as a main traffic artery for the Southwest Little Rock community. Cloverdale Elementary is located adjacent to the junior high which will enhance accessibility for elementary age students. SATISFACTORY DAY CARE FACILITIES  Space within the building could be adapted and designated for a child care area while parents are participating in Beacon activities.CITY OF LITTLE ROCK BEACONS INITIATIVE MISSION STATEMENT: To establish comprehensive, neighborhood-based safe havens for children and families support, located in public school buildings and operated by community organizations. Neighborhood residents will be actively involved in the planning and implementation of a range of services that stress youth development and strengthen school, family and community linkages. STRUCTURE: Beacons school-based community centers are managed by non-profit community-based organizations (CBOs) working collaboratively with the Little Rock School District (LRSD), principals, City of Little Rock and their own community advisory boards. Each Beacon must have a Community Advisory Council whose membership must include the school principal, parents, youth, and community residents. Advisory councils may also include teachers, neighborhood service providers, community police officers, districts School Board member and Wards City Board member. These councils work closely with the coordinating agency to plan and assess programming and community events.SCHOOL/BEACONS PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT A viable School/Beacons Partnership Agreement will be an integral aspect of the overall success of the Little Rock Beacons Initiative. This agreement will be a result of collaborative efforts between the LRSD and the Beacons. Clear agreements on specific operational issues between the parties as well as a spirit of collaboration, belief in negotiations of issues and a commitment to flexibihty will provide a sound foundation on which to build this innovative program and partnership. Listed below is an initial list of major points that are recommended for inclusion in the final School/Beacon Partnership Agreement which will be formalized in the early stages of the implementation process. The LRSD will ensure that facilities are available and suitable for the accomplishment of the Beacons goals and strategies. LRSD will commit to office space on full-time basis. The use of selected school facilities and equipment will be agreed to mutually between the two entities. A schedule of dates for the use of school facilities will be developed in advance by the Beacons and the LRSD. This schedule will be arranged in order to avoid conflict between the two entities. The Beacons will supply all consumable materials and supplies necessary for the operation of the program. Arrangements to protect the daily work of teachers and students wiU be developed by the Beacons. The Beacons will develop adequate security measures. The Beacons will insure that school facilities are cleaned and ready for school the next day. The LRSD will insure clean space will be available for Beacon programming. The Beacons will be responsible for repair or replacement of school property damaged by Beacon program participants during operational hours. The LRSD will provide adequate space for programming, office space for the director of the Beacons program, access to educational and recreational equipment, utihty costs, and phone services. The issue of insurance coverage and liability is still under review by the LRSD in consultation with its earner. scbeagrDATE: TO: FROM: RE: Proj ect. LITTLE ROCK BOARD SCHOOL O F DISTRICT DIRECTORS MEMORANDUM November 30, 1994 School Board Members John Riggs, IV Beacons Project RECEIVED DEC 21994 Office of Desegregation Woniioring Attached for your review is additional information on the Beacons The committee that is putting together this proposal is moving ahead with as much of the detail work as possible prior to submitting this proposal to both the LRSD Board and the City Board. ODM has been informed of this initiative and has an understanding of the concept. I assume they will pass along information to Judge Wright it becomes available to them. as Funding is still a major source of concern. The goal we have for funding is fairly straight forwardredirect existing funds that are being used for similar projects to this specific project. Attached are some funding ideas developed by the City staff on how they may be able to contribute funds. We need to be investigating the same avenue. particularly since we all understand that new revenues will not be available for next year. I have asked that this initiative be placed on the agenda for I apologize in advance for missing the agenda meeting, but my \"REEl\" job has certain needs that I can not avoid this time of year. I am December. always available to answer any questions you may have between now and December 15. It is my understanding that the City Board will vote similar resolution at their December 20th board meeting. on a CC Dr. Williams Vice Mayor MasonCITY OF LITTLE ROCK BEACONS SCHOOL INITIATIVE AGENDA NOVEMBER 29, 1994 I. Subcommittee Reports A. School/Beacon Partnership Agreement Linda Young B. New Futures' Role Don Crary C. Community Involvement John Riggs D. Funding . Brenda Donald n. Resolution of Support A. Little Rock Board of Directors B. Little Rock School Board m. General DiscussionSCHOOL/BEACONS PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT A viable School/Beacons Partnership Agreement will be an integral aspect of the overall success of the Little Rock Beacons Initiative. This agreement will be a result of collaborative efforts between the LRSD and the Beacons. Clear agreements on specific operational issues between the parties as well as a spirit of collaboration, belief in negotiations of issues and a commitment to flexibility will provide a sound foundation on which to build this innovative program and partnership. Listed below is an initial list of major points that are recommended for inclusion in the final School/Beacon Partnership Agreement which will be formalized in the early stages of the implementation process. The LRSD will ensure that facilities are available and suitable for the accomplishment of the Beacons goals and strategies. LRSD will commit to office space on full-time basis. The use of selected school facilities and equipment will be agreed to mutually between the two entities. A schedule of dates for the use of school facilities will be developed in advance by the Beacons and the LRSD. This schedule will be arranged in order to avoid conflict between the two entities. The Beacons will supply all consumable materials and supplies necessary for the operation of tiie program. Arrangements to protect the daily work of teachers and students will be developed by the Beacons. The Beacons will develop adequate security measures. ^e Beacons will insure that school facilities are cleaned and ready for school the next day. The LRSD will insure clean space will be available for Beacon programming. The Beacons will be responsible for repair or replacement of school property damaged by Beacon program participants during operational hours. The LRSD will provide adequate space for programming, office space for the director of the Beacons program, access to educational and recreational equipment, utility costs, and phone services. The Beacons will provide a general liability insurance policy. KbeagrTHE NEW FUTURES ROLE IN DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING A BEACONS PROJECT The proposed Beacons Project seeks to address critical issues around youth development, family involvement neighborhood and community life, and multi-level partnerships. These notions are central to the New Futures mission of systems reform and improved outcomes for at-risk youth. New Futures has promoted a model of broad based collaboration across diverse constituencies in order to achieve better planning, resource allocation and service provision for youth and families. The New Futures experience in this regard can be particularly helpful in moving the Beacons project ^rough the strategic planning, development and implementation phases. The role would mclude convening the appropriate representatives, fostering the collaborative process\nidentifying resources: mediating issues, researching information and developing strategies. During the development and implementation phases, the on-going role would include the provision of training and technical assistance and documentation of the process. New Futures could also provide assistance to the funders in developing an evaluation system that would generate program outcome and effectiveness data. New Futures for Little Rock Youth will assume multiple roles in the Beacons Initiative. The major functionswill include (1) providing technical assistance to the lead community based organization(s), (2) providing professional development and training opportunities, (3) documenting the implementation process and (4) facilitating the development of a system of documentation of enrollments, participation, activities and events. The function of technical assistance will include such activities as assisting community based organization(s) in building and maintaining internal capacity, providing information on specific programmatic development, serving in a liaison role with the local school(s) and school district, creating networking opportunities, and providing information and best thinking on processes of community-based planning, youth development and inter-governmental/agency collaboration. New Futures will provide professional development and training on specific topics as needed or requested. Specific development activities will be designed for the initial stages of the Beacons Initiative process. Additional development activities will be designed in response to the articulate needs of the agencies involved. In order to provide written documentation of the implementation process. New Futures proposes to produce a summary report which would reflect all aspects of the project New Futures will also assist in the development of a process and suggested procedures for program evaluation. L0Z14/94POTENTIAL CITY FUNDING SOURCES FOR CLOVERDALE BEACONS Summer Playground Program $ 15,000 FUTURE-Little Rock - YIP Site (Relocate existing program) 30,000 FUTURE-Little Rock - Our Club (Relocate existing program) 25,000 FUTURE-Little Rock - PIT Grants (Co-locate 2 neighborhood-based programs) 100,000 FUTURE-Little Rock - Expanded Community Center Funds (Replace Southwest Center Program) 30,000 JTPA Summer Youth Workers (10) 15,000 FUTURE-Little Rock Educare Program 100,000 JTPA Year-Round Program (RFP March 1995) 50,000 TOTAL $365,000 OTHER POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES DHS Crime Bill Programs (Justice) United Way Youth Build (HUD) Foundation GrantsSTAFFING The core element of a successful Beacons Program will be the staff. Experienced and qualified staff is critical to the development and enhancement of a successful program. Each Beacons School will have a full time director and, in some cases, assistant directors hired and supervised by the CBO. Directors may come from varied backgroimds, including teaching, school admimstration, counseling, program management, social services and public administration Experience in working with youth programs and schools is essential. Diverse populations and programmatic demands may require the appointment of co-directors. This will ensure coverage over extended hours and reduce the likelihood of burnout. Activity coordinators will be responsible for the educational, recreational and volunteer programming components. If possible, staff who can do outreach to teens, and have community organizing skills should be engaged to work with hard-to-reach youth such as school dropouts, teen parents and gang members. Volunteers are integral aspects of successful Beacons Programs. Parents, college students and community residents can be utilized in this capacity. In addition, college internships and co-op programs could be a valuable resource for staffing purposes. Stoff development will be a key issue in the overall success of the program. Staffs will face a diverse population and a variety of complex issues, and will need the opportunity to enhance their skills and learn new techniques. This can be accomplished by having staff participate actively in retreats, seminars, networking meetings and training opportunities. RECOMMENDED STAFFING REQUIREMENTS\n1. 2. 3. 4. Full-time Director - Responsible for providing administrative leadership for the Beacons Salary: $30,000 Assistant Director - Responsible for overall administrative program and service coordination Salary: $25,000 Activity Coordinators - Responsible for coordinating educational, recreational and volunteer services Salary: $18,000 x 3 = $54,000 Office Assistant - Responsible for office administration Salary: $15,000 Fringe Benefits @ 25% - $31,000 Total stalTing cost: $155,000EK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I-, BOARD DIRECTORS O F MEMORANDUM DATE\nNovember 10, 1994 TO: Members of the Community Involvement Sub CommitteeBeacons Project: Jan Chaparro, Dorthy Nayles, Zenobia Harris, Leon Modeste FROM: John Riggs, IV RE\nCC: Notes from Meeting, November Sth Cassandra Mason, Fredrick Fields, Joan Adcock, Linda Joyce, O.G. Jacovelli, Bruce Moore, Ellen Yeary, Jan AlmanThanks to those who could attend our meeting yesterday at Cloverdale Junior High School. The consensus of the group was to schedule a \"feed and inform\" meeting at the school with community stakeholders. This meeting should be held after official action has been taken by both the LRSD board and the city board, and its goal should be to educate the community about the Beacon's project and to ask for participation. Some of the community groups identified include: 10-12 neighborhood groups Rotary, Kiwanas, Lions Clubs SW Ministerial Alliance PTAsParents, Teachers, Students Other interested groups that need to be targeted are: McClellen Community School UALR Philander Smith In addition, Linda Joyce and Joan Adcock may identify other groups that need to be added to the list. Linda and Joan will put together contact names for the neighborhood groups, SW Ministerial Alliance and service clubs. Leon Modest will put together a contact list of PTA presidents, building administrators, and teachers. If you have any additional names please forward those to either Leon Modest at the school district or Bruce Moore at the city. If possible at the \"feed and inform\" meeting we will show the video tape from NYC and possibly have someone from the Fund for New York (Alfonso Wyatt?) share information. We anticipate that some official action can take place in December, so perhaps our community meeting could be planned for January. In summary, the community involvement committee is convinced that early and vigorous involvement by community essential for the success of this initiative. stakeholders is needed and is 2RATIONAL BEACON SITE-SELECTION The Little Rock School District carefully examined the site-selection criteria that were developed by the Beacon Initiative Steering Committee and provided to the district for use in the selection process. The school characteristics were reviewed and Cloverdale Junior High School successfully fulfilled the necessary criteria. Listed below are the site-selection criteria and the specific characteristics for Cloverdale Junior High School. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ADEQUATE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES  Cloverdale Junior High School has a renovated gym, newly constructed cafetorium, paved walking track, and several outside recreational activity areas. SUFFICIENT HEALTH FACILTTIES  In the recent building renovations of Cloverdale, the health services area was expanded and updated. It is sufficient to handle expanded health care services. AMPLE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES  Ample educational classroom space is available as well as specialized areas such as an art room, band room and choir room. The design of the school provides pleasant outdoor courtyards that can be used for a variety of outdoor activities when the weather is conducive. ADEQUATE OFFICE SPACE  Office space for the director of the Beacon Program has been identified by the building principal. TOTAL ACCESSIBIUTY  Cloverdale Junior High is located less than a block from Geyer Springs Road which serves as a main traffic artery for the Southwest Little Rock community. Cloverdale Elementary is located adjacent to the junior high which will enhance accessibility for elementary age students. SATISFACTORY DAY CARE FACILITIES  Space within the building could be adapted and designated for a child area while parents are participating in Beacon activities. care7. PRINCIPALISTAFF SUPPORT  The principal and staff are very supportive and excited about the idea of being involved in the Beacon Initiative. The principal and staff see this type of partnership as a way to provide needed additional services to students and families as well as a way to strengthen the community /school connection which is a major goal of ^e Cloverdale staff. 8. HISTORY OF COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS WITH YOUTH PROGRAMS  Cloverdale Junior High School has a long and successful history of working effectively with community youth serving agencies. For the past four years, Cloverdale has worked on a daily basis with school-based case managers from five different local and state youth serving agencies through the New Futures for Little Rock Youth case management program.Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 November 9, 1994 To\nBoard of Directors From\nSubject\n^enry y. (jrnniamff, ^ftfperTntendent of Schools Beacon School Iriitiative Update collaboration with the City of Little Rock, New Futures for Youth, the Department of Health, and the Division of Children and Family Services, the Little Rock School District has continued to actively participate in the planning process for the City of Little Rock Beacon School Initiative. The Beacon Initiative of New York City, a highly successful program, has provided a framework to guide the local effort. has provided The fundamental principle of the Beacons Initiative is the need for partnerships between schools and community-based organizations to meet the needs of youth in today's complex society. The Beacons Initiative seeks to link community-based youth organizations with schools to increase the presence of supports for youth to meet their needs and to assist them in building academic and social competencies. society. A Beacon School Program is managed by a communitybased organization working collaboratively with the school district, local school principal, and their own community advisory council. The school facility is utilized for Beacon programming during the evening hours, on weekends, holidays and in the summer. A Beacon Program offers children, youth and adults a mix of recreation, social services, educational enrichment and vocational activities, health education and referrals, and the opportunity for community meetings and neighborhood social activities. Cloverdale Junior High School has been recommended to the planning committee as the site for the first Beacon School, new Stephens school has been proposed as the second site. Fu.mxu  Beacon Program will be provided primarily by the City of Little Rock. --' -* * The Funding program. The school district will provide the space for the Attached for your review is the mission statement and a brief description of the structure of the Beacon Initiative. Further information will be provided to you as the plannina process proceeds. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK BEACONS INITIATIVE MISSION STATEMENT\nTo establish comprehensive, neighborhood-based safe havens for children and families support, located in public school buildings and operated by community organizations. Neighborhood residents will be actively involved in the planning and implementation of a range of services that stress youth development and strengthen school, family and community linkages. STRUCTURE: Beacons school-based community centers are managed by non-profit conununity-based organizations (CBOs) working collaboratively with the Little Rock School District (LRSD), principals, City of Little Rock and their own community advisory boards. Each Beacon must have a Community Advisory Council whose membership must include the school principal, parents, youth, and community residents. Advisory councils may also include teachers, neighborhood service providers, community police officers, districts School Board member and Wards City Board member. These councils work closely with the coordinating agency to plan and assess programming and community events.I CITY OF LITTLE ROCK I BEACONS INITIATIVE I I I J I I. AGENDA SEPTEMBER 27,1994 I Dissemination of Committee Reports U. Site-Selection Criteria A. Existing Programs B. CBO Identification and Assessment in. RFP Process A. City Attorney's Office IV. SchoolXBeacons Partnership Agreement V. Discussion of Lead Agency's Role -* VI. Additional Sub-Committees A. Funding B. CBO Identification and Assessment IBEACONS GOALS AND STRATEGIES The goals of the Beacons Initiative are to create conditions for youth development and to improve school/home/community linkages. I. Create conditions for Youth Development A. B. C. D. E. F. G. Develop opportunities for caring relationships between role models and young people Establish high expectations and clear standards Offer opportunities for young people to engage in high quality activities Create opportunities for young people to make a contribution Offer continuity of relationship supports to young people Empower youth and families to contribute to own well being and development in the community Provide safe havens for youth and families IL Improve School/Home/Community Linkages A. B. C. D. E. F. Increase family presence and involvement in the school and on advisory councils of individual sites Offer educational activities for families and other community adults Offer culturally diverse programs for youth and adults Offer informal educational activities (classes, workshops, events) that emphasize communication skills Hire family members as staff for after-school and evening programming, and in some instances as outreach workers, to involve other families in Beacon/school activities Involve Beacons directors as participants, at the invitation of schools. on school-based management teams 5' G. H. 1. J. Provide support programs that reach the most vulnerable families and children in the school population Maximize use of space in school buildings to offer a diversity of services to all community members Coordinate transportation services to insure access to services for all community residents Encourage community organizations to actively participate in the Beacons.STAFFING The core element of a successful Beacons Program will be the staff. Experienced and qualified staff is critical to the development and enhancement of a successful program. Each Beacons School will have a full time director and, in some cases, co-directors hired and supervised by the CBO. Directors may come from varied backgrounds, including teaching, school administration, counseling, program management, social services and public administration. Experience in working with youth programs and schools is essential. Diverse populations and programmatic demands may require the appointment of codirectors. This will ensure coverage over extended hours and reduce the likelihood of burnout. If possible, staff who can do outreach to teens, and have community organizing skills should be engaged to work with hard-to-reach youth such as school dropouts, teen parents and gang members. Volunteers are integral aspects of successful Beacons Programs. Parents, college students and community residents can be utilized in this capacity. In addition, college internships and co-op programs could be a valuable resource for staffing purposes. Staff development will be a key issue in the overall success of the program. Staffs will face a diverse population and a variety of complex issues, and will need the opportunity to enhance their skills and learn new techniques. This can be accomplished by having staff participate actively in retreats, seminars, networking meetings and training opportunities.City of Little Rock Beacons Initiative (Safety \u0026amp; Security) Safe and secure environments are essential to the Beacons School Based Community Centers, as well as, protection of Beacons site school property. Beacons staff and youth/adults participating. A multi-faceted approach should be taken when developing security techniques for the Beacons School Based Community Center. Encouraging family participation in Beacons site activities increases security as youth tend to act more responsible when parental influence is in the building. In addition, working with local police precincts and establishing safe corridors in and around the Beacons site is imperative. Suggested security tech- niques to use for Beacons School Based Community Centers may include but not be limited to the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 8. 10 . 11. Placement of school security and resource officers at each Beacons site. Neighborhood youth trained in conflict mediation should be utilized when arguments between Beacons youth participants occur. Establishment of a Beacons Teen Youth Council. youth outreach workers from the neigh- Employment of borhood where the Beacons site is located. Involving intergenerational programing at each Beacons site location. Establish a Beacons Communit Advisory Council. Family participation in Beacons School Based Community Center must be a requirement. One entrance and exit location should be designated for youth, family members, staff, guest, etc. Q Hire community residents trained in security to assist Beacons school security officers and resource officers. Install security monitoring devices to include hand held metal scanners/detectors and purchase other communication devices that can be used to monitor, report and coordinate youth movement activity within and without the Beacons project. Develop a Beacons site sign in and sign out register.TRANSPORTATION Beacons School- Based Community Centers will be offered in locations where youth and their parents can access by walking. However, during inclement weather, car pooling, bus tokens and church van services can become transportation alternatives. If program staff and volunteers have adequate insurance coverage then often times they can pick-up and transport youth and parents to the Beacons site. The idea of using church vans in order to transport youth and their family members to Beacons sites should be studied thoroughly. Church vans will have the proper insurance coverage but in most cases insurance coverage is only effective when the van driver is a member of the church. A stipend could be provided to the church to cover the driver's time as well as to offset the cost of gasoline. In scheduling the use of church vans for transporting youth and their families to the Beacons sites, scheduling will need to center around the van availability.BEACONS INITIATIVE: PLAN OF ACTION I. MISCELLANEOUS A. B. C. Evaluation Mechanism: It is recommended that an evaluation conducted by a nonpartisan entity be pursued. The reason for this recommendation is to provide an evaluation of the Little Rock Beacons Initiative that can be viewed as objective, based on the fact that none of the organizations involved in planning and development are directing the review of the goals and objectives of the programs. It is recommended that a search be conducted for an organization that is familiar with or can become familiar with the Beacons model and that has done evaluations of school-based programs such as Beacons. This search can begin by contacting the following organizations: Center for the Study of Social Policy Harvard Project on Effective Services National Center on Education and the Economy National Alliance for Restructuring Education Public Relations: It is recommended that the City of Little Rock and the LRSD take the lead as the spokesperson for the Beacons initiative. Currently out of the entities involved in program development, the City probably has the most positive and upbeat image that would gamer public support. This recommendation means that a representative of the City would address questions from the general public, media, other political groups, etc.\nand would act as the spokesperson for the entire group of planners. Until the other sections of the plan of action are identified and agreed upon, it is difficult to come up with a strategy for public relations. This task group will put together such a strategy at that time. Board and Agency Resolutions: It is recommended that the following boards and agencies be requested to provide resolutions/and or letters of support  Little Rock City Board of Directors\nLittle Rock School Board\nArkansas Department of Health\nArkansas Department of Human Services\nArkansas Department of Education. URji-reD fJtvJ FWZ- J The larger planning group should agree on the specifics of what to ask for from each of these organizations, based on other sections of the plan of action. This task group will then formulate requests for resolutions and other documents of support.A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE BEACON SCHOOL INITIATIVE\nDIRECTING THE SUPERINTENDENT TO CONTINUE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK AND VARIOUS OTHER ORGANIZATIONS\nAND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Whereas, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors continues to support the development of quality programming for the youth in our City\nand Whereas, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors continues to promote the development of collaborative efforts with the City of Little Rock and various other community-based organizations\nand Whereas, the School District supports the utilization of existing resources, i.e. public school facilities and existing programming, to develop community-based initiatives that strengthen school, family and community linkages\nand Whereas, the Beacons School is a comprehensive, neighborhood-based safe haven for children and family support, located in public school buildings and operated by community-based organizations\nand Whereas, Cloverdale Junior High has been identified as the first Beacons site, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Section 1. The Board of Directors supports the recommendations of the Steering committee and directs the Superintendent to continue the development of an implementation plan.To: Little Rock School District Board of Directors From: John Riggs, IV Re: Beacons Initiative Date: December 13, 1994 Below is additional information on the Beacons Initiative that a Steering Committee has been diligently working on since August. If you should have any questions, please call myself or Leon Modeste. The City board will be voting on a similar resolution on Wednesday, December 14. I solicit your support for this innovative concept in collaboration. Board Action Recommended: Adoption of a resolution directing the Superintendent to continue the development of a Beacons School implementation plan in partnership with the City of Little Rock, New Futures, United Way, Department of Human Services, Department of Health, Junior League of Little Rock, community-based organizations and area businesses. The target date for the opening of the first Beacons School is the summer of 1995. Background Information: The Beacons School, based on a model initiated in New York City, is a comprehensive, year-round, after-school program located in public school buildings and operated by community-based organizations. The Beacons School is an example of a program that develops a nexus between existing resources and community-based organizations to develop viable neighborhood-oriented programming. Neighborhood residents will be actively involved in the planning and implementation of a range of services that accentuate youth development and strengthen school, family and community linkages. After an examination of New Yorks Beacons Programs, the City formed a Steering Committee to explore the feasibility of operating a similar program in Little Rock. The Steering Committee, chaired by Vice Mayor Mason, included myself, Leon Modeste and Linda Young from LRSD, City Directors Keck and Joyce, Xavier Heard of Systematics, Leon Matthews of the United Way, Don Crary of New Futures, Zenobia Harris from the Dept of Health, Jan Chaparro from the Dept of Human Services, Rev. Bill Robinson, and others. The committee examined the following major areas: Site-Selection, Community Involvement, Funding, school/Beacons Partnership Agreement and New Futures Role.  Site-SelectionThe Beacon Steering Committee developed a comprehensive list of criteria to be used by the school district for the selection of appropriate sites for a Beacons School. The following criteria were examined: adequate recreational facilities, sufficient health facilities, ample educational facilities, adequate office space, total accessibility, satisfactory day-care facilities, principal/staff support and a history of collaborative efforts with youth programs. The Little Rock School District reviewed the school characteristics, and Cloverdale Junior High School successfully fulfilled the necessary criteria. Cloverdale Junior high School has ample educational classroom space available, as well as specialized areas such as an art room, band room, and choir room. The design of the school provides pleasant outdoor courtyards that can be used for a variety of outdoor activities when the weather is conducive. In addition, Cloverdale has a renovated gym, newly constructed cafetorium, paved walking track and several outside recreational areas. Cloverdale Junior High School has a long and successful history of working effectively with community youthserving agencies. For the past four years, Cloverdale has worked on a daily basis with school-based case managers from five different local and state youthserving agencies through New Futures. The Steering Committee has identified Stephens Elementary as a potential site for the second Beacons School. Other sites will be considered after the first two Beacons are implemented and evaluated.  Community Involvement Community involvement will be a key aspect of a successful Beacons Program. The Beacons Initiative employs a neighborhood-focused approach to service and community development so that the specific combination of services and activities at any Beacons is unique. Therefore, early and vigorous involvement by community stakeholders is imperative. This will ensure that the community will decide what they want and need in a Beacons Program. The Steering Committee recommends holding an informational meeting in the target community after official action from the Little Rock Board of Directors and the Little Rock School Board. Funding Various potential funding sources have been identified for the Beacons School Initiative. These include but are not limited to the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The City of Little Rock has initiated, or is in the process of developing various programs that could easily become a part of a Beacons School. These include: Summer Playground Program, YIP Program, Our Clubs, FUTURE-Little Rock Prevention, Intervention and Treatment grants, JTPA Summer Workers and FUTURE-Little Rock Educare Program. These programs are already funded and could be relocated in the Beacons. The Little Rock School District can provide programming facilities, office space and utilities. In addition, The School District could agree to extend its after-school educational enhancement program to Beacons participants. The Department of Human Services has identified the following funding possibilities for a Beacons School: Intensive Family preservation Services, Parenting Education Classes, Victim Support Groups and Family Centered Counseling. These services are currently contracted out by DHS, which would allow the RFP process to be structured around the Beacons initiative. The United Way will assess its funded programs to encourage colocating services in the Beacons. Prospective candidates include Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Big Brothers/Big Sisters and other similar programs. The Junior League of Little Rock has agreed to explore providing various volunteer services to a Beacons. In addition, the Junior League will also consider a possible cash contribution to support the programming efforts. Other potential funding sources include the Department of Health, crime bill programs, YouthBuild, foundation grants and area businesses. School/Beacons Partnership Agreement A viable partnership agreement will be an integral aspect of the overall success of the Beacons. This agreement will be the result of collaborative efforts between the City, LRSD and the Beacons. Clear agreements on specific operational issues between the entities, a spirit of collaboration, and a commitment to flexibility will provide a solid foundation on which to build this innovative program and partnership. LRSD should commit to providing adequate space for programming, administrative office space, access to educational and recreational equipment, utility costs and phone services. Discussions are continuing regarding janitorial and maintenance services.  New Futures Role The Steering Committee has determined that there must be an entity to provide technical assistance to the lead community-based organization and facilitate professional development and training. In addition, this agency must also chronicle the implementation process and assist in the development of a system of documentation of enrollments, participation, activities and events. These endeavors are consistent with New Futures goals and objectives. The New Futures experience in fostering collaborative efforts will be particularly helpful in moving the Beacon Project through the strategic planning, development and implementation phases. Upon approval of the attached resolution, a time-line will be developed by the City and Steering Committee to include the following action steps:  Initiating informational meeting in the target community  Developing a comprehensive budget  Securing program agreements  Disseminating RFPs  Conducting a proposers conference  Conducting CBO assessments  Developing Cloverdale/Beacons agreements  Securing programming facilities and office space  Developing job descriptions (director and staff)  Hiring of director and staff jr4:bmKOBBBBit LmTj: Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT November 11, 1994 RECEIVED Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 NOV 1 6 1994 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Ann, In collaboration with the City of Little Rock and New Futures for Little Rock Youth, the Department of Health, and the Division of Children and Family Services, the Little Rock School District has participated in the planning process for the City of Little Rock Beacon School Initiative. The Beacon Initiative of New York City, a highly successful program, has provided a framework to guide the local effort. need The fundamental principle of the Beacons Initiative is the for partnerships between schools and community-based organizations to meet the needs of youth in today's complex society. The Beacons Initiative seeks to link community-based youth organizations with schools to increase the presence of supports for youth to meet their needs and to assist them in building academic and social competencies. A Beacon School Program is managed by a community-based organization working collaboratively with the school district, local school principal, and their own community advisory council. The school facility is utilized for Beacon programming during the evening hours, on weekends, holidays, and in the summer. A Beacon Program offers children, youth and adults a mix of recreation, social services, educational enrichment and vocational activities, health education and referrals, and the opportunity for community meetings and neighborhood social activities. Cloverdale Junior High School has been recommended to the planning committee as the site for the first Beacon School. The new Stephens has been proposed as the second site. Funding for the Beacon Program will be provided primarily by the city of Little Rock. The school district will provide the space for the program. Further information will be provided to you as the planning process proceeds. Si 11 ire Su iW P. Williams, ferintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Aikansas 72201  (501)324-2000j Arkansas Democr^^ (gazette ( 1 FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1! Cooynght O Little Rock Newspaoer Beacon schools keep lights on late for pupils, parents San Francisco Examiner SAN FRANCISCO - Imagine a school that is open for 16 hours a day. Where neighborhood kids can get tutoring or extra help in their studies after school. Where their parents can take parenting classes and bring their children for immunizations. On Tuesday, the San Francisco school board took the first step toward developing such community or beacon schools. It voted unanimously to give Superintendent Bill Rojas the go-ahead to begin working on the project Beacon centers are not a program but a strategy that place youth, their families and community as central participants in the personal and civic vitality of a school district. said Debbie Alvarez, director of the Office of In- tergovemmental and School Linked Services for the district Were targeting discretionary time, she said, all those hours youth spend watching television or maybe doing their homework in an unstructured environment Much of that discretionary time, studies say, is when juvenile crime occurs. The district said the program would probably start slowly to save money.\u0026lt;2^ Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT TIECEIV!^T\u0026gt; JIN 1 11995 Office of Desegregation teu.-------g January 6, 1995 Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann, As a follow up to my letter of November 11, 1994 regarding the Beacons additional information Initiative, for attachments: 1) you I in am providing the following Little Rock City Board of Directors resolution of support for the Beacons School Initiative and, 2) Little Rock School District Board of Directors resolution of support for the Beacons School Initiative. Both the city board and the school board voted unanimously to support the respective resolutions. Further information will be provided to you as the planning process proceeds. Sirserely, I He: y P. Willies, Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 824-2000 f Arkansas Democrat gazettej   SUNDAY, JULY 23, 1995 Public Notice Beacons School Steering Committee Notice of Request For Qualifications The Beacons School Steering Committe is accepting proposes IT* io, the role of lead agency. The W agency would wort cooperatively with principals and Community AdvBOiy Boards of parents, teachers, church leaders, youth and private and public schools to promote, implement and administer a Beacons School Program in the Southwest Junior High School ^Tproposer's Conference will be held on August 4,1995 at Southwest Junior High School from 2:00 - 4:00 application or information on call: the Beacons Program please R Joe Bailey City Managers Office 500 W. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 (501)371-4510 Ri Arkansas Democrat (gazette  WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 1995  Beacons program eyes Southwest Junior High The Beacons School Steering Committee will accept proposals during the next 30 days for the role of lead agency in promoting and implementing the Beacons School Program in the Southwest Junior High area. The Beacons concept involves school-based community centers managed by commimity organizations. Services are designed to respond to each neighborhoods needs. Beacons schools offer recreation and educational enrichment for youths. Many also offer adult basic education, social services, health education and referrals, inter-generational programs and community meetings and social gatherings. The lead agency would work with principals and advisory boards of parents, teachers, church leaders, youths and benefactors. A conference is scheduled from 2 to 4 p.m. Aug. 4 at Southwest Junior High School, 3301 S. Bryant St. Admission is free. Proposals are due by 5 p.m. Aug. 25. The Steering Committee is made up of representatives from the city of Little Rock, United ' Way, the Junior League of Little Rock, New Futures, the Little Rock School DistricL the state Department of Human Services, the state Department of Health, neighborhood organizations and area businesses.OVERVIEW The Beacons Initiative is a strategy directed at addressing critical issues for the future of New York Citys youth and New York Citys neighborhoods. It is based on the belief that to remain a great city, New York must ensure the safety and viability of neighborhoods and community life, and it must ensure that young people develop the skills and attitudes and practice the behaviors that will lead to their becoming competent and responsible adults. The Beacons Initiative seeks to link community-based youth organizations with schools to increase the presence of supports for youth to meet their needs and to assist them in building academic and social competencies and adopting values that will enable them to become economically self-sufficient and successful parents and citizens. It also seeks to engage youth in making contributions to their families, their peers, and their neighborhoods as the vital resource for the present and future that they are. The Youth Development Institute (YDI) of the Fund for the City of New York received a grant in May, 1992 from the Aimie E. Casey Foundation to document implementation of the Beacons Initiative and produce a report. The foundation was particularly interested in the evolution of the Beacons through the processes of community-based planning and inter-governmental collaboration, and as a promising model for improving youth outcomes through neighborhood-based strategies that build on the strengths of schools and community-based organizations. YDI worked with the New York City Department of Youth Services (DYS) and each of the Beacons lead agencies to develop a system of documenting enrollments, participation, activities, and events. YDI provided training to Beacons directors on the documentation process. DYS required agencies to report monthly using the documentation formed developed by the project. See Appendix A. In addition, documentatron staff and consultants from YDI reviewed program documents, observed activities and events at all Beacons, and conducted interviews with all Beacons directors. Interviews were also conducted with principals, staff, and parents at a sample of Beacons, and focus groups with youth were held. Community school district superintendents and principals of schools with Beacons operating for one year or more were surveyed. The following report documents the history, goals and strategies, implementation status, and implementation issues associated with the Beacons. The data on implementation status reflects the 20 Beacons begun before October, 1993. The 17 new Beacons are currently in start-up phases and are just beginning to carry out documentation activities. The report discusses impacts of the Beacons on youth, neighborhoods and schools based on interview reports and observations. It answers the central question about whether and how such a complex school/commumty collaboration can be established. It does not, however, address specific outcomes and attempt to correlate these with interventions. It has taken two years of collaboration among schools and a variety of city and state agencies for Beacons schools that have developed comprehensive sets of services and neighborhood/community improvement strategies to become fully operational. Now that models exist of the full range of implementation, it is important that city government and all the participating partners establish impact goals and articulate measures for assessment A. Context: The Need for School/Community Collaboration A fundamental principle of the Beacons Initiative is the need for partnerships between schools and community-based organizations to meet the needs of youth in todays complex society. Unlike the relatively recent past of 20 years ago, there are major missing personal and social linkages for large 1numbers of young people today. Significant changes in family composition and greater stresses on family life resulting from economic demands, crime, poverty, substance abuse and homelessness have weakened traditional family supports. Religious groups have fewer contacts with youth, and neighborhoods have become less safe, less cohesive, and weaker as venues for transmitting values and standards of behavior to children and adolescents. Exposure to crime and violence has taught too many youth that life can be very short and that the means to survival and even success are found in selfprotection and self-interest To meet this challenge New York City must provide youth with the academic and social supports that will enable them to meet their needs for survival and security and build their skills. In addition to families, schools are the central institution responsible for young peoples development. During the past decade there has been a growing recognition that the needs of children and youth require more sustained attention and complex solutions than schools can alone provide. In 1992, the Council of Chief State School Officers adopted \"Student Success Through Collaboration\" as its priority theme. The Council reviewed its decade long commitment to improving the quality of American public education, and called for new strategies that recognize a broad definition of educational success that \"encompasses childrens continuing intellectual, physical, emotional and social development, and well-being.\" The Council argues that educators must recognize that factors outside the education system affect the life chances of children and youth, and that schools and other social institutions rarely work together to respond to the multiple, inter-related needs of children and families. In A Matter of Time: Risk and Opportunity in the Non-School Hours, the Carnegie Task Force on Youth Development also stresses the need for new kinds of partnerships between schools and community organizations. Co- Chair Dr. James Comer summarized the Task Force findings: \" Families and schools represent two sides of a triangle of human development. The third side is surely those conununity organizations that provide safe havens and caring role models, especially during the out-of-school hours. Excellent schools combined with actively involved families are necessary, but they are often not the reality. Even when schools are available, they are not sufficient in todays complex world. All major instinitions of the society affecting young people must become partners with strong community organizations to bring young adolescents into their mutually protective embrace. Additional evidence from evaluations of a wide range of prevention programs indicates the importance of strengthening commumties. Interventions that are most effective in preventing dropping out of school, substance abuse, juvenile delinquency and teenage pregnancy engage youth in forming relationships with adults, mastering a skill, and contributing to their own well-being and their communitys. (Dryfoos, 1990). These effective strategies situate services for youth in a conununity context, and build on the existing strengths in neighborhoods including families and community-based organizations. Evidence from national longitudinal studies indicates that among youth with economic disadvantage, increased social resources are associated with positive life outcomes and with minimizing the negative effects of disadvantaged backgrounds. (Sugland. Brown, Moore, 1993.) On a practical level, linking community-based organizations and schools also made good sense to city government. In many neighborhoods, schools are often not only the best, but also one of the only decent and safe places for children and their families to be. Yet, most school buildings are open only between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. For over a decade many individuals and organizations in New York City and across the country have started and maintained efforts to transform schools into neighborhood 2centers in the non-school hours. With the rise in crime and the lack of low-cost and secure space for voluntary youth organizations to offer services, school buildings offered an opportunity to increase services and at the same time link these to the school. B. Development of the Beacons Initiative Beacons are School-based Community Centers operating in neighborhoods across the five boroughs of New York City. The first ten Beacons were established in 1991, in response to the recommendations of a study group, chaired by fonner Attorney General Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, to develop a coordinated anti-drug strategy for New York City. Their intent was to create safe havens for children, youth and families and to stand as a symbol of hope and opportunity in the neighborhoods considered the poorest and most affected by substance abuse, crime and violence. The Katzenbach Report recommended: The City target nine neighborhoods during the next year in which resouires would be strengthened and coordinated for the immediate purpose of reducing drug use and for the long-range purpose of providing a vehicle for community organization and development Schools transformed into community centers available to children and adults 365 days a year would be the centerpiece of this effort. The Mayor's budget allocated $10 million of the Citys \"Safe Streets, Safe Cities\" funds for 1991 to establish 10 School-based Community Centers, through the Department of Youth Services (DYS), the city agency with the most extensive experience contracting and monitoring youth-serving commumty-based organizations. Under the direction of Commissioner Richard L. Murphy, who had many years of experience in providing youth services in schools and had been a consultant to the Katzenbach study group, DYS developed a Request for Proposals (RFP) inviting not-for-profit agencies to submit proposals to operate School-based Community Centers. These centers would keep school building open seven days a week, 16 hours a day, 365 days per year in ten defined neighborhoods. Agencies were directed to propose how they would offer safe, structured, supervised activities for children, youth and families. Agencies to implement these School-based Community Centers were selected through a two-tiered process involving an initial scoring by program reviewers from DYS, and a review and scoring of eligible proposals and formulation of recommendations by the Interagency Coordinating Council on Youth (representatives of all city agencies concerned with youth including the New York City Board of Education). In June, 1991 10 agencies were selected to operate these seven day a week School-based Community Centers. Due to the Citys fiscal problems, the budget for \"Safe Streets, Safe Cities\" was reduced. The School-based Community Centers were placed on an options for elimination list along with a prison barge for New York harbor. The Mayor chose to support establishment of the centers over the prison barge although funding was reduced to $5 million. The Department of Youth Services then faced the choice of cutting in half the number of School-based Community Centers or reducing their budgets by 50 percent DYS made the decision to fund 10 centers and to work to find ways to increase services through collaboration and co-location of services with other city agencies. At this time, DYS also realized the importance of communicating the mission of the School-based Community Centers to the neighborhoods where they would be located and to the public. The Commissioner decided that a name was needed that symbolized the positive force these centers were meant to be, especially in the lives of young people, and the centers were re-named Beacons. 3In July, 1992 the City made funding available to double the number of Beacons to 20. DYS selected neighborhoods for this based on similar criteria of poverty, substatKe abuse and juvenile crime, but the process for selecting schools and for identifying programming needs was substantially altered to increase the involvement of Commumty School Districts and potential Beacons schools in decisionmaking. The RFP was also changed to stress the importance of proposing co-located services from the lead agency or partners that would not need additional funding but would enrich the school and commumty. Each school district was asked by DYS to submit a list of priority needs defined by the school to be included in the RFP. Agencies applying to manage a Beacon were instructed to address the needs identified for the specific school in their neighborhood. In 1993, a third round of Beacons funding was allocated to establish 17 additional centers so that every Commumty School District in New York City would have a Beacon school. Some districts with large geographic spreads or intense needs were also selected for a second Beacon. DESCRIPTION OF THE BEACONS SCHOOL-BASED COMMUNITY CENTERS A. Structure The Beacons school-based commumty centers are managed by non-profit community-based organizations (CBOs) working collaboratively with the Community School Boards, principals, and their own community advisory boards. Each Beacon is required to have a Community Advisory Council with membership that must include the school principal, parents, youth, and community residents. Advisory councils also include teachers, neighborhood service providers, community police officers, arxl the district s City Council member. These councils work closely with the lead agency to plan and assess programming and community events. Beacons operate with the support and cooperation of the New York City Board of Education and the Community School Districts. B. Funding Each Beacon center is funded with $450,000 from the New York City Department of Youth Services. These funds support managers of the Beacons and program staff and activities costs for recreation, educational enrichment, cultural arts, adult education programs, family activities and summer and school vacation programming. Space and maintenance costs for using the schools are paid centrally by the Department of Youth Services. DYS funds are used as matching funds in many Beacons to state and federal funding streams to increase social services programming. Yet, the range and intensity of services and programs that are needed to make a comprehensive center has required co-locating and integrating funds from many federal, state and local government sources and private corporate and foundation supports. Examples of funding sources include: the New York State Departments of Social Services. Health, and Alcohol and Substance Abuse Services: the New York City Child Welfare Administration, the Board of Education, the Departments of Employment and Health, and the Community Development Agency. C. Programs Individual Beacons now offer children, youth and adults a mix of social services\nrecreational, educational, and vocational activities. Through Beacons young people have opportunities to participate in diverse activities such as drama groups and sports, leadership development and entrepreneurial 4programs, choruses and instrumental music lessons, peer education and counseling programs, and community service. In addition to recreational and after-school programs. Beacons offerings are diverse. Family support programs, health services, and employment preparation are offered by several Beacons. Parenting education is offered by most Beacons, and four Beacons have linked with local colleges to offer on-site courses as transitions to higher education. Lead agencies in Beacons are responsible for managing space in the non-school hours, and make it available to legitimate community groups for meetings and forums. Beacons sponsor community meetings and social activities. Many serve as organizing centers for neighborhood safety and revitalization. Beacon agencies and schools work with local police precincts to create drug free zones of safety around the school. Each Beacon uses a neighborhood approach to providing services to insure that programs services are tailored to the needs of each community. A listing of the neighborhoods served by each of the Beacons, with the names of each of the Beacons schools, their principals, directors, and the lead agency managing the Beacon is attached in Appendix B. Detailed descriptions of each Beacon can also be found in Appendix B. GOALS AND STRATEGY OF THE BEACONS INITIATIVE The strategy underlying the Beacons Initiative is based on research findings and practitioner experience indicating that positive outcomes for youth result from individual developmental opportunities combined with community-wide support, and that educational achievement of youth from low-income communities is improved by strategies that decrease the gaps between home and school culture and strengthen parent and community involvement in the schools. The framework for documentation efforts with the Beacons has been drawn fiom research on youth development and resiliency, educational achievement, and urban sociology and community studies. It attempts to set the Beacons Initiative in a theoretical context with the dual purpose of providing both a guide to programmatic development and as a framework for assessment A. Conditions for Youth Development and Resiliency Research findings on youth resiliency in high risk environments and findings from evaluations of effective prevention programs addressing substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, and teenage pregnancy point to the need for social interventions that take a youth development rather than a youth deficit orientation. This approach views youth as central actors in their lives rather than as passive clients of services. It defines youth development as \"an ongoing process in which all young people are engaged and invested, and through which young people seek ways to meet their basic physical and social needs and to build the competencies and connections they perceive as necessary for survival and success.\" (Pittman and Cahill, 1992.) Youth development theory implies that whether or not communities offer young people positive ways to meet their basic needs such as safety, a sense of belonging, a sense of contribution and mastery, and legitimate opportunities to build skills and make contributions, young people still need to meet these needs. In the absence of positive supports and opportunities, youth will often engage in risky or negative behaviors to meet their survival and developmental needs. Gangs are the most commonly cited example of such negative behavior. Gangs typically involve violence and result in negative outcomes 5for young people. Yet, from an iimer city youths perspective they may be the only support within his or her reach that promises safety and protection, a sense of belonging, a mentoring relationship, and the opportunity to gain skills (even if these are car theft or drug selling). Research on resiliency indicates that in order to strengthen youth in high risk environments adults need to help them gain a \"sense of autonomy, an internal locus of control where they are able to manage their lives and influence their environment\" (Coppersmith, 1967). They need to learn how to solve problems creatively, tolerate frustration, persist in the face of failure, resist being put down, and forgive and forget (Brentro, Brokenleg, Van Bockem,-199O). Social psychologists have identified \"protective factors\" in communities that promote this positive development, decrease the risk of engagement in negative behaviors, and promote rebounding from traumas among youth in high risk environments. (lessor, Connell, Spencer, Benard). Increasing the presence of the five protective factors, listed below, in the lives of young people is a central objective of the Beacons as a youth development strategy. Document review, site visits to observe Beacons activities, and interviews with staff, parents and youth form the basis of the following assessment. I. Opportunities for caring relationships Beacons increase the number of youth workers and volunteers who are present in distressed urban neighborhoods offering guidance and role models to young people. Beacons open schools in the afterschool, evening and weekend hours and during summer and other school vacations. They offer the opportunity for young people to be in a safe space where adults serve as coaches, teachers, activity advisors, and counselors. Most Beacons have staffs who represent diverse backgrounds, with many staff members coming from the communities where the children and youth live. Beacons also place strong emphasis on parent arxl family support, providing activities that support parents in strengthening their relationships with their children and adolescents and their roles as the primary influences on their childrens lives. Several Beacons have developed mentoring programs for students with college students and/or adult service organizations. For example, in the Central Harlem Beacon, we observed youth workers conducting after-school educational enrichment, sports and recreation programs for approximately 200 children from 3 to 6 p.m. Between 5:30 and 6 p.m..in addition to parents picking up their children, about 20 parents arrived to participate in parent support groups. These parents and others shared a family night dinner with their children in the school cafeteria. At 7 p.m., about 40 teenagers arrived to participate in Youth Leadership group activities. Twenty adults spent from 7 to 9 p.m. in adult education classes, and over 100 parents and children gathered in the gym for a joint African dance class. Simultaneous to these activities adolescents who have been designated as PINS by the courts often will be attending individual or group counseling sessions, sometimes with their parent or guardian, arxl later joining their peers in recreational or cultural activities. This Beacon developed a campaign to involve more fathers in activities with children and teens. Their outreach efforts culminated in a Mens Unity Day that was attended by over 300 men. The day long event featured workshops on a number of issues including: employment, violence, relationships, effective parenting and being substance free. In the Beacon in Red Hook, Brooklyn, an isolated neighborhood struggling against drug-related 6gun violence, in addition to evening classes and teen activities, 20 parents consistently plan and staff weekly \"family nights\" in which 40-60 parents and their children and teenagers come to the school for an evening of food, educational and recreational activities. The Beacon serves as the only safe place for residents to gather for \"normal\" family activities during the week. Community police officers, staff and volunteers at the Beacon together provide escort services and ensure that young people and families arrive at the Beacon and home again safely each evening. At the Staten Island Beacon which primarily serves a public housing site community, staff organized a basketball program with the housing police to help diffuse tensions between community youth and housing police officers. This offered an opportunity for youth to see police officers in a different role, and for the police to get to know teenagers in a structured positive experience. 2. High expectations and clear standards Most Beacons use a number of practices to set a tone of high expectations for behavior in order to maintain safe and productive centers. At most Beacons community advisory councils of youth and adults work together to develop rules to govern behavior in the centers and guidelines for participation and membership. Security staff are usually adults and young people from the neighborhood who have participated in training in conflict resolution, mediation and safety standards. At the Washington Heights Beacon, in a neighborhood with the highest incidence of drug-related homicides in New York City, about a dozen teens serve as security every afternoon and evening for the 200 to 300 participants in the Beacon arts and culture, sports and educational programs. They carry \"walky-talkies\" throughout the building and conduct peer rap sessions in which youth discuss how to keep the Beacon a safe and neutral space for all youth in the community. Youth leadership groups have been organized at 22 of the Beacons. Through these groups, diverse groups of youth including high school dropouts, former drug dealers and gang members, and honor students are challenged to contribute to their communities. Many engage in community service and orgamzing such as voter registration, neighborhood beautification, and infant/child immunization campaigns. Families at six Beacons participate in the SHARE program, where members provide service to the neighborhood several hours per month in exchange for participation in a reduced price food cooperative program. In Hunts Point, a group of male high school dropouts, first encountered by Beacon staff through a summer \"midmght basketball\" type program, volunteered to help with the recreation program and to help young children with reading, and eventually enrolled in GED classes. Expectations for educational achievement are communicated through the after-school education and homework help programs, through Beacon agency policies, and through educational eruichment activities. Teens who are hired by Beacons in part-time positions are required to enroll in school or a GED program. Approximately one-third of the Beacons offer SAT preparation courses and sponsor college tours to encourage youth to set high educational goals. Several have college bound clubs to engender pieer support for high achievement in junior high and high school among neighborhood youth. 3. Opportunities to engage in high quality activities Many Beacons offer educational activities in addition to homework help that stimulate young peoples curiosity and creativity. The Bushwick Beacon emphasizes \"opportunistic teaching\" and has trained staff to integrate math and literacy skills into recreation and sports programs. The South Jamaica 7Beacon offers a science enrichment program in collaboration with Science Skills Center, a nationally recognized hands-on science program, and a cultural program for youth on African-American contributions to science. Some Beacons offer instrumental music lessons and choroses. Through a collaboration with the New York City Eiepartment of Employment, six Beacons offer LEAP programs. These programs provide 100 youth per site (aged 14 to 21) with career education, internships, academic skills, guidance and family support over a year. At the Morrisania Beacon m the South Bronx 140 teens are involved in health internships and community service in a collaborative program involving the Beacon, a local hospital and community clinic. Many LEAP youth have become pan-time staff at Beacons and in other community agencies while they are in school. Most Beacons involve youth in trips to museums, plays and other cultural events, and to business centers such as the New York Stock Exchange. Staff emphasize the need to familiarize youth with traveling outside their neighborhoods, and to increase their comfort level in unfamiliar settings. 4. Oppominities to make a contribution Beacons sponsor many commumty projects developed by community advisory council members, youth leadership groups, teachers, school administrators and parent groups and staff. In Central Harlem, the youth leadership group conducted a neighborhood beautification project, where they swept the street, playground and sidewalks every morning to make a playstreet for younger children every day during the summer. The youth group also spearheaded a successful petition drive to get all block residents to agree to move their cars every morning to make the play street functional, and finally, a campaign to change a billboard on the comer from a cigarette ad to a public service ad for the United Negro College Fund. In Washington Heights and the South Bronx teens at several Beacons organized door-to-door to ask parents to bring their children to be inununized at a health fair resulting in the immunization of more than 500 children. Parents, children and teens at the Highbridge Beacon collaborate with tenant and block associations to clean empty lots in the areas surrounding the school. They also created a community garden in an empty lot across the street from the school. Several Beacons have sponsored Stop the Violence campaigns and events that have been designed and nm by youth with support from adult staff members. Youth in Central Harlem made a gun control video with messages and a style geared to their peers. In Far Rockaway. East New York, the South Bronx and Southern Queens several Beacons have sponsored \"if we can play together we can live together\" sports events in which hundreds of youth participated and pledged to end the violence. At the Washington Heights Beacon 15 young men. all of whom were stealing and/or selling drugs when they were recruited off the streets, participate in a twice weekly group offered collaboratively with Mothers Against Violence where they encourage one anothers struggles to gain an education and stay with their recently acquired part-time jobs. The Beacons staff worked to find the jobs and assist the young men to enroll and persist in education programs. 5. Continuity of supports Beacons offer a continuity of supports in the lives of young people through the presence of staff and volunteers over long hours and every day. Positive youth and adult role models are available through the schools, commumty agencies and adult volunteers to counter the culture of violence and despair present in many highly distressed neighborhoods. Youth are offered opportunities to feel safe. 8to build skills, to have fun creatively, and to contribute to their neighborhoods. B. Improved School/Home/Community Linkages Beacons school-based community centers aim to increase the likelihood of children and youth achieving educational success by building communities of support for learning that include students, parents, social networks of youth and adults in neighborhoods including churches, voluntary groups, and peer groups, and linking these with school efforts to promote educational success. Beacons are not a pedagogical strategy. Rather the emphasis is on building or strengthening ties between families, schools and youdi\narticulating and celebrating the cultures of students and their families and building on cultural and family resources to promote motivation in learning and affiliation with school, and directly offering resources to support youth in setting high expectations, attending school, solving problems, and sustaining effort Beacon centers exist in a variety of schools with diverse instructional emphases and widely varying strengths. Some have experienced and outstanding principals\nothers have had 2 or 3 interim principals in two years. Some Beacon intermediate schools are organized around instructional themes and have strong curricula and teaching staffs. Some have serious instructional problems such as the absence of any licensed science teachers. The home/school/commuruty linkages goals of Beacons are based in the educational theory of Dr. James Comer as well as studies by educational researchers such as John Ogbu and Jim Cummins on the relationship between minority group student school success and strategies that value minority cultures and engage families in the educational process. Comers assessment that the problems of urban schools stem from the loss of the schools deeply embedded place in the community and the consequent growth of alienation and mistrust between school staffs and families who feel themselves disempowered, implies that strategies are needed that build on community institutions to mobilize families and bridge the gaps between traditional schooling and minority communities. Specihcaily, Comer has founded the School Development Program (SDP) which is being implemented in many schools in New York City, some of which are also Beacons. The Beacons strategy, however, responds broadly to this educational analysis by attempting to re-build commumties and focus their attentions on education. Beacons aim to meet the challenging goal set forth in Comers work: to make communities \"so cohesive and their fabric, the people, so tightly interwoven in mutual respect and concern that, even in the face of the potentially deleterious effect of poverty, their integrity and strength are maintained.\" (Haynes and Comer. 1990, p. 108-109). Beacons strive to increase home/school/community linkages in the following ways: increasing parent presence and parent involvement in the school  offering of educational activities for parents and other community adults offering arts programs for youth and adults that celebrate the culture of families offering informal educational activities (classes, workshops, events) that emphasize reading and writing and other communication skills\nto a lesser extent offering such activities that suppon math and science skills hiring parents as staff in after-school and evening programming, and in some instances as outreach workers to involve other parents in Beacon/school activities. 9 involving Beacons directors as participants, at the invitation of schools, on School-based Management Teams and Beacons family support workers in Pupil Personnel team meetings  providing family support programs that reach the most vulnerable parents and children in the school population. All Beacons include parents as members of their Community Advisory Councils. About two- thirds have parents as staff members, usually part-time in roles such as Activity Specialists and Outreach Workers. The Highbridge Beacon offers EPIC courses to strengthen parenting skills. In addition this Beacon not only has parents on staff but offers parents the opportunity in each program cycle to propose programs, courses or single activities that they would like to offer to other parents and/or children. The Community Advisory Council selects and fimds a number of these mini-projects. The Bushwick Beacon offered a Health and AIDS education course which was taken jointly by 25 parents and teachers to improve their knowledge and skills in promoting healthy and responsible behavior by their adolescent children/students. The Red Hook Beacon involves parents in a literacy program to promote reading with children in the early grades. The Morrisania/Corona Beacon received a grant from a private foundation to establish a parent support and involvement component which will provide parents with workshops, rourxltables, and forums on issues in parenting adolescents such as sexuality, health, nutrition, and conflict mediation, and with guidance on educational issues such as the High School Admissions process. Parents at 80 percent of the Beacons are involved in activities such as GED, ESL and/or literacy classes. Most Beacons have found increased parent involvement in support groups and educational programs for their children by offering them in conjunction with activities that recognize the needs of parents, many of whom work all day and have full parenting responsibility. Beacons offer aerobics, volleyball, dance, and other cultural programs for parents and other adults, increasing their comfort and familiarity with the school, as their involvement is sought in contributing to school success. At the Highbridge Beacon in the South Bronx, 30 young parents, who themselves had experienced abuse as children, took part in a Youthful Parents Seminar Series. The series provided information on \"how to\" practices in child health and nutrition, discipline, dealing with daily conflicts, and building self-esteem. At the conclusion of the series the parents and their children participated in a weekend retreat to help one another practice their new knowledge. A unique collaboration in the Beacons initiative addresses the needs of those parents who have the least resources to meet their childrens needs. The Department of Youth Services and the Child Welfare Administration have developed an interagency agreement that has allowed foster care prevention services to be developed at Beacons. This collaboration, begun with four centers, has expanded to 12. The family support services are directed toward preventing out-of-home placement by providing family support and social services to families at serious risk of abuse or neglect or where a parent has filed a PINS petition, considering their adolescent child to be unmanageable. The programs are staffed by M.S.W. level social worker supervisors, case managers, and parent aides who provide emergency help, clinical services, home visits, counseling, and practical help in finding housing, jobs and childcare. Staffs of the preventive programs work flexible hours, including weekends, so they are particularly valuable in responding to the most high risk families in the school and the neighborhood. 10Locating Preventive Programs at Beacons offers other advanuges also. Parents, children and teens can have substantial informal contact with social workers through paiticipation in any of the other Beacons activities, and they can also have extended follow-up contact when the risk of placement has passed. One goal of the program is to integrate these high risk families into all aspects of Beacon programming so that they can build on their strengths and experience positive relationships over time. At most Beacons the staff work closely with the schools Parents Association on such activities as sponsoring weekly \"family nights\" where parents and children can share meals and activities, or sponsoring educational workshops. Beacons often provide childcare for school parent meetings. At each of the Beacons where the school has adopted the Comer School Development Program, Beacons staff are members of school teams atxl participate in activities such as retreats. IMPLEMENTATION STATUS A. Participation Beacons typically enroll approximately 1,000 community residents as on-going participants. The highest annual enrollment is 1,848. The lowest for a fully implemented Beacon is 628. Average daily attendance, based on activity attendance records, at the 20 fully implemented Beacons is 203. All Beacons have afterschool programs. These programs have average daily attendances of 120 to 150 elementary and/or intermediate school students. All offer youth educational enrichment and homework help, recreation and cultural arts activities. Twenty-one Beacons have youth leadership programs that enroll from 50 to 200 teenagers. Twenty-seven Beacons offer adult education programs itKluding GED preparation, English as a Second Language, and/or Adult Basic Education/ literacy. Enrollments range from 250 in centers offering several sections of different courses to 20 adults in each cycle of a GED preparation program offered four times per year at one center. Typically Beacons serve 40 to 60 adults per week in adult education. Other adult programs include: computer literacy, conversational English, Spanish as a Second Language, and entrepreneurship courses. Five Beacons have A. A., Al Alon/Alateen groups meeting at least weekly and two host Narcotics Anonymous meetings. Most Beacons organize participation by membership. Youth, parents and other community residents are asked to join the Beacon in order to participate in activities. Beacons issue picture identification cards both as a security measure and also to encourage an affiliation rather than a consumer or client relationship. Membership is open to all community residents, and is offered to everyone the first time that they come to a program or event At most Beacons members are asked to volunteer in a range of roles such as assisting with security, tutoring children, plarming and facilitating family nights, and participating in neighborhood projects. No fees are charged for activities. B. Hours Seventeen of the first 20 Beacons are open seven days a week including evenings until 9 or 10 p.m. (Most close at 6 p.m. on Sundays.) Three are open six days a week. The original Beacons budgets estimated twice the costs for seven day a week programming than the programs were allotted, and a few Beacons have not yet been able to find replacement funding or enough co-located programs to open seven days. All are open throughout the summer and on all school vacations. Twelve Beacons have an active presence during the school day. 11Beacons are open throughout the summer and on school vacations, usually operating day camps as well as evening activities. All Beacons participate in the Summer Youth Employment Program and on average they develop placements for 50 adolescents. Many Beacons develop specific neighborhood improvement projects during the summer that involve SYEP youth. C. Special Events Beacons serve as venues for community meetings and special events. Beacons report between 2 and 6 special events per month with an average of 4.4 over a year. These are in addition to regularly occurring events such as family nights. The following represent the types of events held across the Beacon centers: performances of plays and musicals. Street Outreach Program meetings. Summer Youth Employment Program Enrollments, block association and tenant meetings, Health Fairs. STD/ AIDS Education workshops, PAL and other awards presentations, candidate nights and debates, civic group monthly meetings, teen talent shows, basketball tournaments. Congressional Representative Town Meetings, a Community Housing Court forum, a Police Precinct Youth Speakout, trips to plays, museums, and cultural events, commemorative events such as for Martin Luther King Day, social service and community program training sessions, parent/staff meetings, childrens holiday parties. Gospel and other concerts, information exchanges for area businesses, conflict resolution workshops, fashion shows, grantwriting/ business planning seminars, cultural programs such as African and Latino dance programs, community meetings such as on redistricting. Youth Leadership conferences, vocational workshops. College Fairs, benefit cotKerts, Men's Unity Days, Parents Recognition Days, child advocate workshops, citizenship drives, immigration workshops, health days, legal clinics, playground clean ups. Community Thanksgiving Dmners, education workshops. Community Board meetings, drug/alcohol education workshops. Human Services Council meetings, anti-violence vigils and marches, film festivals, community policing meetings. Little League/ Soccer/Softball registration. Womens History celebrations. Landmark \u0026amp; Land Use Hearings, visits by the Mayor and other city, state and federal officials, commumty safety rallies. Project SHARE food distribution, workshops for staff and parents on teaching mathematics/writing/reading to kids, nutrition workshops, and test preparation workshops such as for the Fire or Police exams. D. Staffing Beacons arc staffed by full time directors and, in some cases, co-directors. All have at least two other full time staff members. Depending on the extent of core and collaborative programming Beacons may have as many as 30 full-time and 40 part-time staff. Directors from the first twenty Beacons come from varied backgrounds including teaching, school administration, counseling, program management in commumty-based organizations, social services, and youth work. All had previous experience working with youth programs and in schools, although that experience ranged from more than 15 years to 5 years. Some of the part time staff in Beacons are teachers who now stay until 5 or 6 p.m. Others arc parents, college students and commuruty adults who began as volunteers in Beacons programs. More than half of Beacons employ youth staff members in order to offer cross-age tutoring and role models for younger teens and children and to provide job experience for neighborhood youth. E. Community Advisory Councils All the Beacons report that they have organized community advisory councils. Most advisory councils include the school principals, but in two schools the principals have declined invitations to become members. All Beacons Community Advisory Councils include parents and youth 12 representatives. The City Council representative from the district in which the Beacon is located is an ex officio member. School custodians are members of about half the advisory councils. Membership on advisory councils across the Beacons is diverse, but typically membership may also includes teachers, neighborhood service providers, community police officers, religious leaders, and civic leaders. Community Advisory Councils are strongly involved in program planning in more than half of the Beacons. In some Beacons, the advisory council is more active in recruiting participation, organizing events, and addressing neighborhood concerns such as safety. Community Advisory Council members have provided a great deal of assistance to Beacons staffs in start-up and implementation problemsolving. Through their own particular city-wide or neighborhood connections, members have played important roles in raising resources for the Beacons, negotiating neighborhood turf issues, ensuring security, enriching programs and events, and reaching diverse populations in the Beacons neighborhood. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES A. Safety and Security A key difficulty in providing extended hours of programming has been to ensure a safe and secure envirorunent for those youth and adults participating in activities and to protect the school buildings from damage. Most Beacons employ a multi-faceted approach to security. School security officers are often employed for the 3 to 5 p.m. period, followed by trained community residents. About half the Beacons employ youth who have received training in security procedures and conflict mediation as security assistants. Directors report that the key principles of ensuring security are that all staff and parents think of themselves as having security responsibilities, having clear lines of authority, rules and procedures, and setting a tone with young people that the Beacon is there for their benefit and that it is their responsibility to maintain its safety. In neighborhoods where turf is an issue, and groups of young people have rivalries such as between two public housing complexes. Beacons staffs have enlisted teen youth councils, youth outreach workers, and recreation staff to broker the Beacon as neutral space. Most Beacons have hired youth staff from each of the \"turfs\" as members of the same work teams to foster relationship building. The major security issues occur between the hours of 6:00 and 10:00 p.m. During this period most centers double their security staffs. Some suggest that security can also be improved through scheduling policies such as having programs for 14 and 15 year olds earlier in the evening and programs for the 16 to 18 year olds to follow. Inter-generational programming is also credited with making the buildings safe. Parents and grandparents participate in evening activities and also serve as coaches and volunteers for youth programs. All Beacon directors interviewed concurred that encouraging family participation increases security as youth tend to act more responsibly when their mothers or the mothers of their peers are in the building. A final security strategy has been to work with local police precincts and. in particular, community policing officers, to establish safe corridors around the school. These relationships have varied across the city. - Some Beacons directors report good collaborations. Two describe their relationships as \"struggling,\" complaining alternately of police lack of response or over-reaction. Forging these kinds of relationships is a new endeavor for both parties, who are working under difficult conditions. This is an area that will require continued attention and commitment. Several Beacons have also done considerable outreach through their Community Advisory Councils and youth councils to move drug dealers and other negative behaviors away from the areas around the Beacon schools. This 13is a continuing struggle in some neighborhoods. B. Space Expanding the use of school buildings required tackling a variety of space issues. The primary issue is cost In the Beacons Initiative space costs are paid centrally by the Department of Youth Services to the Board of Education. Space costs are charged at the building level through the permit system operating in New York City public schools. Uses of space must be approved by the school principal arxl custodian who sign off on the permits. The system for arriving at costs is currently being reviewed in a city government inter-agency project called SPACEMAX. In some instances, renovations were needed in unused areas of schools in order to build program offices or program rooms. This was especially true in Beacons where the lead community based orgamzation was effective in brokering services. Schools that have been offered such programs as health climes, computer learmng centers, media or performing arts rooms, and LEAP programs have worked with lead agencies to find and renovate space. The most difficult space for Beacons to find has been office space, especially to have a presence during school hours to offer social services and other supports to the school. The primary barrier has been school overcrowding. Another important space issue has been accessibility to youth with disabilities. Most Beacon schools were not found to be fully accessible. In some instances small changes could make certain areas accessible, but in the long term, major changes were needed. The Department of Youth Services advocated for the Office of Management and Budget to allocate fimds to the citys capital budget for these renovations, and has worked closely with the Office of School Facilities of the Board of Education, the School Constmetion Authority, and the Mayors Office for People with Disabilities. Renovations on the first ten Beacon schools are now past the design stage and scheduled for implementation by the School Construction Authority in early 1994. J.P. Morgan \u0026amp; Company has contributed fimds to be used to renovate the playgrounds in each of the 10 original Beacon schools. Parents, teachers, principals, youth and Beacon staffs have worked together on the design and implementation of these new playgrounds at most sites. C. School/Community Collaboration School/commumty collaboration issues range from the highest policy levels to the most mundane actions. Changes in the Beacons selection process and the growth of programs and activities integrated with the schools reflect an increasing conunumcation at all levels in the city between youth services and education and increasing acceptance by schools of roles for external agencies. In the first round of Beacons selection (1991) schools were targeted based on neighborhood conditions (high crime, substance abuse, lack of services for youth). Community-based organizations developed proposals for services at the Beacon without consultation with the school or community school board. Commumty School Boards could reject a Beacon, but were not a part of the development process. One Commumty School Board, CSD 14, rejected a Beacon in the first round. The same district also rejected a Beacon in Round n after participating in the selection process. In Round I the proposed Beacon for this neighborhood was moved to an adjacent neighborhood in another Community School District. In Round II, implementation of a Beacon for this neighborhood, Williamsburg, was delayed for more than six months, and then opened in a high school in the same neighborhood. 14After the initial acceptance of Beacons, and the addressing of implementation issues, an improved selection process was developed. In Rounds II and in of Beacons selection, the central Board of Education, the Community School Districts and the schools have been involved. The Central Boards Office of External Programs has worked with District superintendents to select schools within targeted neighborhoods and together the schools and districts have presented the Department of Youth Services with their assessment of service needs for the school community. The Department of Youth Services has then included these individual needs assessments as part of its Request for Proposals to community agencies applying to operate a Beacon. District and school representatives also now can present their views to the Interagency Coordinating Council on Youth during the selection process to augment school input beyond the vote of the Board of Education representative. These changes have resulted in more comprehensive proposals. Many include activities and services during the school day and, in some instances, services are linked to changes the school is making such as implementing the Comer model of school reform. On the day-to-day level, the single greatest area of tension in Beacons school/community collaborations has been the use and maintenance of classrooms. Many after-school, evening and weekend classes and activities take place in classrooms. Arrangements to protect the work of teachers and students completed during the day, and to have classrooms cleaned and ready for school the next morning have been essential for Beacons to succeed. Most Beacons agencies have given specific staff responsibility for inspecting rooms before leaving, and keep a supply of chalk, blackboard erasers, pencils and papers, staplers and other such materials available as immediate replacements for missing items. The principle that most experienced directors work from is that teachers deserve to have their classrooms protected arxl ready for work in the morning.\" It doesnt matter how a mistake might have occurred, just that it be fixed immediately.\" Implementing this policy has resulted in dramatic reductions in complaints from the first year of the Beacons. Relationships between teachers and Beacons staffs have varied widely, with most relationships improving over time. In some schools, teachers immediately welcomed the Beacons staffs as helpful supports with a shared mission. In others, many teachers questioned the mission of Beacons, raising concerns about agencies bringing in teenagers and adults at night who were neither students nor parents at the school. In addition, both Beacons schools and lead agencies vary greatly. Some schools are neighborhood elementary schools. Others are large intermediate or junior high schools drawing students from several neighborhoods. All have predominantly students from low income families, but some have very stable and others somewhat mobile populations. Some have safety issues\nothers do not Some commumty-based organizations have far more experience than others in working in schools. Within limits, some view themselves more as advocates for youth and others more as partners with schools in youth development The key factors in improved relationships seems to be initiation of joint activities that lead to contributions from each of the professional communities, participation in one anothers activities, tangible contributions by the Beacon agency to the school such as computers, library books and gym equipment, services contributions such as augmented counseling and social work services, and an increase in parent involvement in the school attributed in part to the presence of Beacon supports. In a June, 1993 survey of the principals and superintendents of community school districts who had experience with Beacons for at least one year, all but one rated the Beacon as either excellent or satisfactory. One Beacon agency received a needs improvement rating. Principals made comments such as\n\"It has been a positive program. We have created a team approach to the school. \"The staff of the Beacon form an outstanding group of people. They do a tremendous job in their program for our children and families.\" \"The Beacon has been a total asset to PS (number). Obviously , it takes a 15 school commumty and parents to enhance and enrich a youngsters education. (Agency name) continued dialogues with the students and their parents provide a vehicle of concern for the whole family. Their willingness to work with teenagers has provided a beacon for all members of our family.\" \"A very valuable program at the intermediate school level.\" \"The (Beacon name) program is a vital service to District (number) students and their families.....Adults in the community also benefit from the services tl H provided by the Beacon. Through this program individuals are able to obtain their GED and also gain valuable infoimation regarding employment opportunities.\"\" The Beacon staff has gotten the custodian and the Board to make improvements 1 have been trying to get for years.' (I Two principals made negative comments as well as positive ones. These comments included\n\"I would like to see better supervision of many of their programs which have been sub-contracted \". \"The program needs to tighten security.\" \"I would like the program to serve more of the children from my school. Too many resources are going to programs for teenagers and adults.\" \"The program needs to increase spaces in the afterschool program for intennediate school students. They only serve 150 out of our 900 students, and seem to prefer serving younger elementary school children. It n school would get more resources.\" I thought my One area of tension reported by some community agencies concerned school climate and discipline practices. Beacons staff and school administrators sometimes had opposing views on issues such as school suspensions which became areas of conflict when a student was suspended from school but interested in participating in Beacons activities, or when a parent sought the assistance of a Beacons counselor regarding a conflict with a school staff member. These types of conflicts have generally been resolved through dialogue and commitment by school administrators and staffs and Beacon agency directors and staffs to open communication and respect Sometimes conflict has lead to new strategies. In one intermediate school with a large number of suspensions, the school and agency formed a Task Force on Discipline which examined school/center climate issues, and alternative methods of conflict resolution. The school initiated an in-school suspension program, \"time out\" room, and the Beacons agency shared the cost of staffing the program with the district. The Beacons agency also paid for staff development for agency staff and teachers in conflict mediation techniques in working with adolescents. As more Beacons agencies have responded to direct needs put forth by schools, and developed resources to offer schools services during the school day, there has been increased communication and joint activities. D. Expanding the Range of Services Beacons are charged with augmenting core services supported by Department of Youth Services funding with collaborative and co-located services. Depending on their size and comprehensiveness, lead agencies are also encouraged to sub-contract to ensure that a wide range of activities are available at the Beacon. Moving the Beacons towards comprehensiveness has been a significant challenge for lead agencies and schools. The service ranked as the top priority by all Beacons directors and most principals has been health. In a survey, three-fourths of the Beacons directors named health services as their top priority in terms of unmet needs. Almost all of the first 20 Beacons are located in neighborhoods designated by the New York City Department of Health as \"health crisis zones\" because of the high incidence of hospital admissions for children and adolescents that could be prevented or mitigated by primary care. In response to these health needs Beacons have tried to establish linkages with health providers to 16increase access to services for participants. Since 1991 they have made some progress\n 90 percent of Beacons provide health workshops and health fairs on a regular basis throughout the year, these are offered in collaboration with local hospitals,and neighborhood family health care centers (affiliates of HHC hospitals). Some agencies already knew these health providers: others were introduced through Beacons technical assistance activities in which local primary care providers were contacted and the potential benefits of offering health services through the Beacons explained.  Seven Beacons have health services at least four times per week offered in conjunction with hospitals or health centers. Three have full health clinics.  Three Beacons in Brooklyn have joined together with Sunset Park Family Health Center to try to develop comprehensive family health services at their sites. The Department of Youth Services has worked with most of the agency members of the Interagency Coordinating Council on Youth to encourage co-location of programs and staffs. These efforts have resulted in family support and youth employment programs in one-third of the Beacons. The coilabortion with the Child Welfare Administration has enabled social workers and outreach staff to be on-site at eight Beacon schools in the afternoons, evening and weekends. These staffs provide foster care prevention/family support services including home visits and emergency assistance. They also offer parent/grandparent support groups, teen groups and individual and family counseling. In three of the Beacons these social workers or the Beacons directors (where they are part of the social service support team) meet regularly with the Pupil Personnel team of the school. In two schools there have been difficulties with finding enough space for the programs. The Departnient of Employment has co-located LEAP programs at five Beacons that enable teenagers to participate in career education and internships and receive support services to remain in school and achieve academically. There are many barriers to integrating funding streams and co-locating services. The Beacons experience indicates that success depends on commitment and perseverance from at least one government agency in the partnership, preferably more than one, and flexibility and responsiveness on the part of the community-based organization. The process of overcoming barriers in the Beacons co-location experience also seems to have been helped by the presence of a brokering agent, separate from goventment and the community-based organizations, which could focus on keeping the process moving at all times.  E. Staffing Experienced and qualified staff are critical to effective services. Also providing long hours, weekend programrmng and rich and diverse services is very expensive without extensive use of volunteers. Recruiting staff and volunteers has been a challenge for a number of Beacons. Programming that is culturally competent requires multi-cultural staffs, and diverse populations requires staff who can work with different age levels. The management and programmatic demands of the Beacons model have led several agencies to appoint co-directors, in particular to ensure coverage over extended hours, and to reduce the liklihood of burn-out. This appears to be a positive arrangement. 17Location and hours have posed problems for some Beacons. Several experietKed delays of several months in starting their Family Support/foster care prevention programs because they were unable to hire social workers who would come to their neighborhoods for evening work. Typically, youth programs enlist interns from colleges or graduate schools as volunteers. While more than half of the Beacons have been able to do this, several in more isolated and high crime neighborhoods have had difficulty in recruiting interns. Two Beacons esublished partnerships with the City Volunteer Corps, that have involved teams of trained volunteers, working full-time at Beacons for twelve week penods. Hiring staff who can do outreach to teens and who have community organizing skills appears to be crucial to the effectiveness of Beacons that have succeeded in involving hard-to-reach youth such as school dropouts and teen parents. Reaching these youth requires staff who can respond to immediate needs, and set high standards of behavior while respecting youth autonomy, and motivating youth to meet challenges. The story of a Beacons Cheerleading team, illustrates the complex skills needed by Beacons staff. A group of teenaged girls would hang around the entry but refuse to register for any of the activities or programs. They characterized themselves as too \"bad\" for this kind of stuff. The Center director told the girls that they could not just hang out, but they could have their own table in the cafeteria where they could sit together and play cards or games. They agreed to sit at the table \"but not to do anything they didnt want to do.\" A Beacon youth worker began talking with the girls each evening and challenging them to name something that they wanted to do and would work at They finally stated that they wanted to be cheerleaders. The youth worker agreed to coach the girls, if they would come to practice faithfully and maintain a code of behavior as a team. The girls agreed, and they began. The youth worker enlisted some volunteers and parents to make uniforms for the team. She found a tournament that they could enter in six weeks. She helped the team negotiate with a boys basketball team to share their gym time so the cheerleaders could have extra practices. In the final nights before the competition, the director kept the center open late for marathon sewing by parents and staff and continuous practicing. The team entered the Bronx borough-wide competition and placed second. Girls who had never experienced a success, earned their own through setting a goal and putting forth effort to meet it The original group of six girls all had experienced school and family problems. They have stayed with the team and have improved their school attendance, and become involved with the peer counseling and other services at the Beacon. They report that they no longer hang out with older guys involved in illegal activities. Membership on the team has increased to 65, with the original girls now in leadership positions. Most Beacons consider it very important to hire direct service staff who live in the neighborhood. Many hire parents and young adult or senior citizen volunteers who have given their time to Beacons programming as part-time activity specialists or program aides. More than half also stress the importance of having youth staff members and volunteers who can model appropriate behavior and commurucate a sense of options and future directions to their peers. Staff development is a key issue. Staffs face complex youth and family issues and need opportunities to improve their skills and to learn 18new practices. Beacon staffs have participated actively in the retreats, seminars, networking meetings. and trainings offered through the Youth Development Institute, with support from the Aaron Diamond Foundation and Annie E. Casey Foundation. However, many directors expressed a desire for site-based staff development so that more staff could participate. F. Engendering Community Participation Beacons directors repeatedly characterized the missions of their programs as community-building. They want the Beacons to serve as a force for budding a climate of safety, increasing the number of adults focused on helping children and youth achieve positive educational and social outcomes, building positive peer groups among youth, and stimulating and supporting neighborhood improvemenL It appears that meeting this community-building goal requires Beacons to engage in multiple strategies that go beyond provision of services. Beacons that have been most effective in mobilizing community support for youth activities (such as play streets) and who have involved the hardest to reach teens (dropouts, teen parents) in positive activities have had outreach or community organizing staff. Mote than half of the Beacons enlisted their commimity advisory council members as recruiters for Beacons activities with good results. It appears that Beacons also stimulate and sustain participation by community residents by undertaking neighborhood improvement projects. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE BEACONS MODEL Implementing Beacons on a large scale obviously poses complex challenges. Because the Beacons attempt to meet individual youth needs and impact on neighborhood environments simultaneously, lead agetKies for Beacons must be able to deliver both strong youth programming and effect community change. Because they involve opening schools for long hours and seven day a week programming. Beacon agencies must develop and manage \"safe spaces\" as well as offering quality programs. The connection to school presents the challenge for agencies to develop partnerships in which they contribute to improving educational outcomes. The choice for Beacons to be developed and managed by lead community-based organizations has brought many strengths to the initiative. The sector represented by community-based organizations offers much promise for finding solutions that meet the needs of disconnected youth and families under stress. Because their development has been rooted in communities and neighborhood, many of these organizations have characteristics that are closer to the home cultures of the children and youth they serve than schools or other formal service systems. Leadership in many community-based organizations tends to more closely represent the racial/ethmc and cultural backgrounds of participants in their programs than do schools or public sector service agencies, and to be oriented to building on the strengths of families and youth rather than treating their deficits. Together these characteristics make their services ^th more accessible and supportive. The community-based organization culture, stressing accessibility (including long hours) and flexibility, makes them an especially good choice as providers of services to youth who have fared poorly in school, or live in particularly vulnerable families. However, the Beacon model is very demanding. It requires agencies to deliver high quality recreation, educational enrichment, and arts programming (itself or through sub-contractors) and to manage complex relationships with the school  administrators, teachers, parents, students  and with diverse members of the community from elected officials, neighborhood leaders, and religious and civic organizations to the police and drug dealers. Selection of agencies is a critical factor in detennining whether a successful Beacon can be established. 19Another two-sided aspect of the Beacon model is its flexibility. The lack of eligibility constraints and rigid program requirements have fostered creativity, energy and the tailoring of programs and strategies to the needs of the schools and communities. Where there is a strong agency flexibility has enabled the Beacon to be responsive, responsible, and innovative. Where there is educational leadership, the model allows the school to enhance its improvement efforts with significant supports. On the other hand, the fluidity of the model demands skill and agency commitment to community/school based planning, staff recruiting, and supervision. It also requires agencies to display leadership skills in handling the various political demands that accompany publicly-funded programs without recourse to the protection of rigid rules. If an agency lacks competence or commitment there are many pitfalls. This places an extra monitoring burden on city government since assessment is more complicated than in a traditionally structured program. The complex challenges of the Beacons Initiative require it to be accompanied by a technical assistance component and multiple opportunities for staff development Agencies need opportunities to share program ideas, explore best practices, and strategies for addressing political and community issues. Successful Beacons exist across a range of types of schools, neighborhoods and agencies. Their policies, practices and strategies need to be incorporated into a guide or handbook to be disseminated across the initiative. Inter-visitation has taken place with productive results and needs to be increased arxl supported. When community-based organizations and schools build strong collaborations, as had happened in several Beacons, this is a powerful force for orienting neighborhood'and youth culture towards educational achievement. The major limitation of the Beacons model to date is its limited linkage with instructional strategies to improve educational outcomes for youth. Since the initiative did not originate with schools, it is not surprising that it has involved limited dialogue with teachers and school administrators about education in the classroom. Beacons agencies have taken a support role through after-school tutoring, homework help and enrichment activities, and through provision of computers and other such tools. A few have developed direct plans with the school, for example, concentrating enrichment efforts on a particular grade level at the schools request, or working to bring a science enrichment program (through NSF funding to the school). Yet. there is far more potential that has not yet been tapped for collaboration to support educational achievement. If a dialogue does not grow between schools and Beacons agencies about educational achievement, in the long run the potential of the model will not be reached. However, at this point in time, the models openness also allows for many options. Beacons services and activities can be supportive, or even, integral to a range of different school improvement strategies such as the School Development Program, cooperative education models, or accelerated schools. The invitations from schools for Beacons staffs to become involved in school-based management teams and the School Development Program are promising developments for the future. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Beacon School-based Community Centers should be maintained at least at the current level of core funding, ensuring that at a minimum one exists in each Community School District. Beacons are clearly meeting a strongly felt need for youth activities, educational support and commumty participation. More than 30.000 New Yorkers have participated in Beacons services and many thousands do so daily. Principals and school district administrators report high degrees of support, and parents and youth have high levels of participation. 202. The role of Beacons as neighborhood development agents should be supported. The Beacons are a promising model of schools and community groups working together to foster safety and stability in neighborhoods. They offer important opportunities for the development of social networks that can aid parents in supervising their children and provide links for teenagers to education, jobs and positive peer groups. An emphasis on these types of activities should be maintained. Linkages with community policing should be supported. 3. City and state government should continue and strengthen efforts to increase collaboration, integrate funding streams, and increase and improve the co-location of services that support the Beacons mission. The collaborations developed between the Department of Youth Services and the Child Welfare Administration appear to be extremely valuable to supporting the most vulnerable families in Beacons neighborhoods. They have been well-implemented and should be expanded to all neighborhoods where there is an unmet need for family support services to prevent foster care placements. Co-location of Department of Employment LEAP programs should be continued and expanded. Beacons where LEAP placements are well-integrated with youth development activities should be used as models for expansion. Additional collaborations and co-Iocations that have developed should be examinf^ for possible expansion, with the caveat that every Beacon is serving a distinct neighborhood and school, and every service is neither needed or productive at every site. 4. Development and expansion of health service linkages should be the highest priority for the next stage of Beacons development. The Department of Health, the Health and HospiUls Corporation and the Department of Youth Services should form a partnership with public and private funds to stimulate linkages with community-based organizations and their local primary health providers. Health care, especially for adolescents, is considered the most serious and prevalent unmet need by Beacons directors and principals interviewed. Much effort by Beacons agencies, the Department of Youth Services and YDI has alr\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_514","title":"Incentive Schools: Recommendations","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":["1992/1997"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: Recommendations"],"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/514"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["17 pages"],"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\nODM INCENTIVE SCHOOL RECOMMENDATIONS Student Assignment 1. Assign students with sensitivity to the relationship between placement stability and academic progress as well as the need to measure the impact of incentive school programs on student achievement. Student Recruitment 1. Use the recruitment section of the desegregation plan as a basis for a strategic plan that reflects a well thought-out, interrelated process rather than single activities or events that are loosely interconnected. 2. Establish a firm timetable as part of the strategic recruitment plan and stick to it, continually expediting to stay on time and on track. 3. Increase the number and variety of specifically targeted recruitment activities. 4. Establish a tracking system to determine the success of particular awareness and recruitment efforts, especially with identified geographic areas and specific groups. 5. Use the help of the Biracial Committee to monitor implementation of the recruitment plan as outlined in the districts desegregation plan. Expand the Committees monitoring instrument to include recruitment assessment. Staffing 1. Reinstate the Incentive Schools Staffing Committee and resume the original hiring process as a means of maintaining quality control. 2. Work toward racially balancing both the certified and non-certified incentive school staff. Modeling the desegregation we strive to achieve is a powerful reminder and reinforcement of the pledge of the settlement plan. Staff Development 1. Develop a long-term strategy for meeting the plans minimum staff development requirements. Additional training programs should be based on helping staff meet the academic and social needs of the incentive school student population as determined by up- to-date needs assessments that reflect input from the entire school community. Page 12. Record School Profile staff development data in a format that specifically reflects the amount and scope of each staff members training. Since individual teachers staff development hours must be recorded to comply with state standards, school profile staff development reporting could be expanded to include the exact training subjects and hours for each staff member. 3. Evaluate the degree to which staff utilize their inservice training in the classroom. 4. Evaluate the quality, relevance, and overall adequacy of the staff training programs that are presently available to LRSD staff. A Class Size and Instructional Aides 1. Provide an instructional aide for each classroom in compliance with the May 1992 court order requiring at least one full time instructional aide per classroom in schools where any classroom contains more than 20 students. 2. Limit enrollment in the four-year old program to 18 students per class. As a member of the North Central Association (NCA), the LRSD is required to adhere to NCA class size standards, including Standard 24.04C which states that pre-kindergarten classes for children two to four years of age are not to exceed 18. 3. Limit enrollment in grades K-6 to class sizes that are consistent with state standards. Student Grouping 1. Promote staff awareness of the importance of heterogeneous grouping and insist that all teachers receive training that enables them to practice effective grouping. The district should ensure that all incentive school staff members have participated in the full Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement (TESA) training as required by their plans provisions. 2. Consider adopting Gender/Ethnic Expectations and Student Achievement (GESA) training as part of the districts staff development curriculum. 3. Strive for racial and gender balance within each classroom and avoid the racial isolation of any child. Although late student registration and class size restraints can make it difficult to prevent imbalances and isolation, every effort should be made to create student groups where no child might feel that she or he is a \"token\" racial representative or vastly outnumbered by children of the opposite sex. Page 2Multicultural Education 1. Develop and submit to the Board of Directors for adoption a definition and policy regarding multicultural education that provides a rationale and clearly defined goals. 2. Initiate a procedure to field-test new curriculum as it is being developed, providing an opportunity to evaluate the program strengths and weaknesses prior to districtwide usage. This approach would also foster the support of classroom teachers while utilizing their expertise. 3. Reach out to community groups and establish an ongoing dialogue dealing with issues of multicultural curriculum infusion. 4. Involve community representatives in the curriculum revision and infusion process, incorporating diverse perspectives. Such involvement can also provide the community with greater insight into the complex challenges facing the district. 5. Closely coordinate the process of curriculum development and staff development. Staff training should entail not only introductory workshops, but also ongoing maintenance and individual assistance. Staff development should focus on both instructional content and delivery with special attention to the student populations being served. Instructional Practices 1. Emphasize staff development training that will enable teachers to facilitate students active learning at all grade levels. 2. Stress the need for principals to emphasize to their faculties the importance of variety in teaching techniques and grouping. Encourage principals to give teachers regular feedback on how effectively they are diversifying their approaches to instruction. 3. Make full use of the wide range of resources and specialists available at the LRSD Instructional Resource Center. Materials and Equipment 1. Streamline purchasing procedures for incentive schools in order to meet supply needs in a timely manner. 2. Undertake a comparative study of library resources among the incentive schools as well as other schools of comparable size to bring about parity of holdings through an equitable purchasing policy. Page 33. Modify building space to increase library capacities at Mitchell and Garland. To help add space in the short-term, purge the shelves of outdated and well-worn materials. At Mitchell, books most frequently used by the four-year-old program, kindergarten, and first grades could be permanently placed in the individual classrooms since those grades are all housed in structures that are detached from the main building. The space thus relinquished would create room in the main library for other use. 4. Provide the means for students to study science in the fullest sense. Children who should be able to plan and execute long-term, longitudinal experiments cannot experience science to such a depth when equipment must be stored under counters in media centers. Early Childhood Education 1. Emphasize the developmental levels of preschool children and developmentally appropriate activities in staff development, the instructional program, and classroom management. Make clear to all administrators, teachers, and parents the developmental philosophy and approach reflected in the settlement plan, the LRSD Four-Year-Old Long- Term Plan, and the curriculum handbook. 2. Provide regular inservice for staff members, including administrators and aides, led by early childhood education professionals. Stress the importance of a developmental approach at all staff training and incorporate such information into parent meetings. Both the Early Childhood Education Curriculum Handbook and the Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan recognize the importance of an appropriate curriculum and ongoing staff training. 3. Stress training for principals in the qualities that distinguish a developmentally sensitive program. As the instructional leaders, principals must understand the characteristics of a developmental program so they can sensitively monitor early childhood education in their buildings. 4. Support the continued work of the LRSD Early Childhood Task Force as a valuable avenue for parent, teacher, and community input. Special Education 1. Monitor special education referrals to ensure that placements are consistent, objective, and made without racial or gender bias. 2. Tailor gifted and talented education to challenge, exercise, and enlarge students individual talents and intellectual aptitudes. Page 4Supplemental Programs 1. Develop a comprehensive long-range strategic plan for implementation of the incentive school program. 2. Make field trips an integral part of student life in every incentive school. Having made the commitment to field trips, the LRSD should assure that the principals and staff of each incentive school are fully aware of the budgeted amount allotted their school for trips. Then staff members must include field trip experiences as an integral part of their curriculum. Field trips must also furnish the incentive school children with racially desegregated experiences as stipulated in the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. 3. Establish fresh, imaginative themes at each incentive school, teaching the school community how to identify and develop an intriguing theme idea that builds on their unique strengths and interests. Discipline 1. Involve all those affected by a discipline policy (staff, students, and parents) in its development. Such involvement promotes ownership of the rules and is consistent with the incentive school portion of the desegregation plan that provides for student participation in the process of developing school-based management rules. 2. Be specific about what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate behavior as well as the consequences of both types of behavior. Arbitrary enforcement of the rules and \"situational rule-making\" are two of the biggest causes of student discipline problems. 3. Make sure policies and procedures are well publicized so that all who are involved in a school for even a brief time (such as parents, guest speakers, and monitors) understand the schools rules. Both children and adults are more comfortable and productive in any setting when they know the prevailing expectations and norms. A clear understanding of policies and procedures also facilitates accurate assessment by all monitoring groups. 4. Insist upon fair and consistent enforcement of discipline policies. Discipline is not punishment\nit is the process of teaching human beings to internalize the behavior codes that enable them to operate comfortably and successfully in society. 5. Provide teachers comprehensive training in techniques for dealing with disruptive students. Such inservice would be especially beneficial to less experienced teachers since they more frequently refer students for disciplinary actions. 6. Carefully collect discipline data and closely monitor the discipline program to make modifications that are indicated by formative as well as summative information. Page 5Extended Activities 1. Conduct a study to determine what types of activities would be most appealing to students and their parents for incorporation into future extended activities. The extended programs should be based upon information gleaned from the SEPs and other input from school staff, parents, and the students themselves. From this composite information, the extended programs can be planned as a logical reinforcement and expansion of the individual plan created to meet each students learning needs. 2. Adopt a uniform method of recording attendance to accurately reflect student participation in the extended week program. Records should indicate the number of participating children from each school by grade level, race, and gender for each Saturday. A school should maintain records not only for the host Saturday, but should also be able to account for its students participation when the partner school is host. Cumulative documentation should record the number of participants on any given Saturday, the total number of incentive school students who have participated at least once, and the number of times any one student has participated. 3. Include strategies for incorporating parental involvement into the extended week activities. 4. Develop an extended year program that is an extension of the educational process, not merely a remediation supplement. In such a program, students who are in danger of being retained or are behind their peers can continue their education and \"catch up\" at the same time. The program should also provide children an extension of the academic enhancement experiences that are integral to the incentive school philosophy and instructional approach. 5. Offer extended programs that are site-specific rather than merely generic in nature. Each student population has its own identity and needs. Programs that serve the incentive school children should be designed to reflect the unique characteristics and requirements of each school community. Homework Hotline 1. Evaluate the relationship of homework hotline use to the Homework Centers and to awareness of the hotline. Parents may need to be made more fully aware of the phone service at the beginning of school with periodic reminders thereafter. A thorough evaluation of the service may indicate that adjustments in the number of teachers who regularly staff the phones or changes in the nature of the service itself are appropriate. Guidance and Counseling 1. Develop written guidance plans with measurable goals and objectives for each school that relate to the four main counseling areas: personal growth, social development, career awareness, and educational development. Clear guidance plans help the district achieve its desegregation plan provisions related to college and post graduation awareness, study skills, and individual and group counseling. Page 62. Encourage a closer working relationship between counselors and the states Departments of Human Services and Health to enable counselors to better assist students with non-school related problems. 3. Place social workers in all schools where their specialized services are needed as determined by a current school needs assessment. Wellness Program 1. Allow funds generated through Medicaid reimbursements to be used at the local building level to purchase services for non-Medicaid eligible students. 2. The Health Services Coordinator and the incentive school nurses should develop a strong working relationship with the Departments of Health, Employment Security, and Human Services to increase opportunities for holistic services to students and their parents. Mentoring Program 1. Mount an intense mentor recruitment campaign. 2. Individual school volunteer mentoring programs should be coordinated with VIPS in order to ensure that all volunteers are screened and trained prior to being matched with students. 3. Document the mentors and their students by race, gender, participation hours, and types of activities shared by the students and mentors. Likewise, records of training participants by race, gender, and classification (i.e. student, mentor, parent, teacher) should be maintained. Such documentation will enable evaluation of progress within the program and help determine where any adjustments might be needed. Student Achievement In order to reduce disparity and enable the district to meet their desegregation commitments, the district should consider the relevance and potential impact of the following: 1. Stress meaning and understanding in all academic instruction, keeping in mind the relationship between what is taught, what is learned, and what is tested. 2. Include a combination of teacher-directed and learner-directed instruction. 3. Develop classroom management approaches that support the kind of academic work being done. 4. Employ student grouping practices that mix ability levels and allow flexibility in grouping arrangements. Page 75. Emphasize continuous growth in mathematics understanding and application, reducing computation isolated from application context along with redundancy across grade levels. 6. Encourage reading for meaning from the earliest grades with correspondingly less attention to discrete skills taught out of context. 7. Use materials that connect with students backgrounds and experiences to enable children to more readily identify with that which is familiar and understood from the context of their own lives. 8. Understand that in some cases effective learning techniques are not synonymous with effective test-taking techniques. 9. Help students prepare for tests by teaching the information needed to pass the test, imparting test-taking wisdom, and providing an atmosphere that fosters self-confidence. 10. Disaggregate test results to enable an assessment of the short- and long-term correlation between test performance and such variables as how long a student has been enrolled at a particular school, behavior and attendance records, and participation in such programs as early childhood and extended day, week, and year. 11. Ensure that student transfers into the incentive schools are not a \"push out\" correlated with negative deportment or achievement at a students previous area or magnet school assignment. Retention 1. Make special efforts to teach \"mainstream\" language skills, recognizing that cultural and language differences are often present with disadvantaged children. Teachers should find out and respect the culture of their students, in addition to determining what they lack, and explicitly teach children how to function in the culture of the school and society. 2. Develop school staffing teams whereby teachers can work out a plan with the next grades receiving teachers on how to address the learning deficits of each student who was a candidate for retention. Parent and Community Involvement 1. Maintain records of volunteer participation that are sufficiently detailed to reflect an accurate picture of community involvement overall as well as at each school. LRSD should compile monthly documentation identifying the number of volunteers, their race and gender, the total hours they serve, and the types of services they provide. 2. Consistently document volunteer training, including the type of training, when and where the training was offered, and session participants by race, gender, and school service site. Page 83. Document the number and date of visits to each students home, along with who made the visit, so it is possible to determine that each family is visited at least twice each year as envisioned in the plan. 4. Maintain complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities including sign-in sheets that reflect parents race, gender, and the school their child attends. Meeting agenda and minutes should be a matter of routine record. All of this information helps reflect an accurate picture of parent involvement in each school as well as the district overall. 5. Establish a mechanism at each school to ensure that parents sign homework regularly as outlined in the plan. For example, Ish uses assignment notebooks. Rockefeller has developed homework forms, and Mitchell teachers prepare homework packets. 6. Have contracts ready for parents to sign when they register their children in the incentive schools. Follow up with a procedure that reminds parents of the commitments they made in the contract. 7. Make parent and volunteer recognition an integral, ongoing, and highly visibly part of school life. Conveying to the community an \"attitude of gratitude\" is a continuous process, not a one-time event. Students and staff should unleash their energy and creativity in collaboratively finding ways to continually praise and reinforce parent and community involvement in their school. 8. Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and childs school. Also, regularly collect and analyze participants feedback on how well the session was conducted, their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training, and what further training they desire. Without thorough documentation and evaluation, it is impossible to accurately assess the scope of parent training, compliance with the plan, and implications for any appropriate change. 9. Actively seek parents recommendations for resources to include in the Parent Centers and find ways to incorporate as many of their suggestions as possible. To determine if each center is living up to its envisioned purpose, regularly document how many parents use the centers and which resources they find most useful. Parent workshop evaluations can also yield ideas for welcome additions to the centers. 10. Implement the parent internship program and parent/teacher mentorships as outlined in the plan in order to strengthen the bond between school and home. 11. Establish scouting membership lists that include a category for race so changes in each troops racial balance can be determined. Records of troop meetings and activities will yield a composite picture of what students are experiencing in scouting. 12. Assure that students have access to a wide spectrum of any needed community-based service programs and maintain documentation of program use. Forge compacts with universities and colleges that will enhance the quality of services the incentive schools can offer, such as pre-professional education students who can assist with academic and extracurricular activities while gaining first-hand experience with children. Page 9Faciltites Franklin: Repair or replace the roof on each level of the building. Replace all ceiling tiles damaged by water leaks. Repaint interior walls as needed. Garland: Determine the feasibility of adding bathrooms on the second floor of the building, increasing the size of the media center, and relocating the buildings main entrance. Ish: Professionally evaluate the structural condition of the building and correct the many problems caused by the leaky roof. Since many attempts have been made in the past to patch the flat roof, it may be necessary to add a new sloped roof to the building. The unsightly classroom bathrooms should be repaired at once by those qualified to deal with asbestos. The exterior lighting should be repaired or replaced and the buildings trim painted. Once the roof no longer leaks, the entire interior should be repainted. Mitchell: Correct the drainage problem and then replace the water-damaged carpeting in the GT room. Address the shortage of media center space, possibly by adding book shelves to the second floor hallway near the librarians office which is located in a kiosk in that area. Consider adding more shelves to create storage space within the existing media center. Rightsell: Eliminate the moisture problem at the school. Professionals with restoration experience should be involved to help solve the problems of a fine old building. The playground should receive major improvements including additional age-appropriate equipment. Rockefeller: Install a new heating and cooling system if the ineffectiveness of the present system is not corrected by the recently replaced room thermostats. Stephens: Install shades to cover the unsightly classroom skylights. Correct the CBI classroom shortcomings or move the class to a room where there is an indoor heated restroom with proper changing facilities. All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, the custodial staff should be trained in proper plant care. Many LRSD schools have lost mature plantings to improper and overzealous pruning by district workers or to underwatering in times of summer heat and drought. Double Funding 1. When making student assignments, keep in mind that there is a relationship between double funding and enrollment figures that represents the greatest return on investment. Class enrollment that is below the fixed cost amount results in wasted dollars\nenrollment above that amount can result in exorbitant spending. Page 102. Ensure that a portion of the incentive school funding fulfills the plans commitment that \"the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/ activities.\" 3. Give the incentive schools priority in the districts sequencing of capital improvement projects since double funding does not cover capital improvements and maintenance. If student enrollment at the incentive schools is to become desegregated, the buildings must be sound, attractive, and well-maintained. Page 116 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Rockefeller Elementary School 700 East 17th Phone 374-1226 Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 .s' To: r Through: From: Subj ect: Date: 0^ O Office of Desegregation Monitoring ODM Monitors: Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin, Connie Hickman, Bob Morgan, Margie Powell, and Horace Smith James Jennings, Associate Superintendent of\"^^ Desegregation Anne Mangan, Principal, Rockefeller Incentive School Corrections of Review of the Incentive School Monitoring Guides June 1, 1992 Please note the following corrections: ,y4^Page 7 - POSITION - Change Registrar to Bookkeeper Page 40 - #67 are social STATUS: worker, The recommended positions not filled alternative supervision aides and program soec-ialist classroom specialist, q# _ Participants included the principal, primary teacher, an intermediate teacher. Page 54 parent and one grandparent a specialist, . a one 7 Page 56 #55 ' in Camp Pfeifer. Four students from Rockefeller participated Page 56 #67 order would be followed, particularly discussed but Principals were told that the recent court Individual positions mentioned. not were were all in general Rockefeller Incentive School has an assistant rulings an principal so a commitment regarding this position was not necessary. (The last two sentences on #67 do not necessarily reflect the situation at Rockefeller and could be deleted on our individual school report.) was do FILED ' 3 niSTHfCT ASTFPN OsrR,W ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF .ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL  U 1992 CARL ^'^NTS. CLERK 3y: I, 'cl*- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL 1, ET AL. DEF END All T 3 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER On June 5, 1992, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring [ODM] filed its 1991-92 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report. The parties filed no objections, and on June 3 0 and July 1, 1992, the Court held hearings to discuss the report. No objections to the report were raised in the hearings. The Cour' hereby adopts the recommendations of the ODM contained in the Incentive Schools Monitoring Report. These recommendations, which are made in a spirit of support, should help the Little Rock School District achieve the goals of the desegregation plan. DATED this f0 day of July, 1992. United state s, DISTRICT?JUDGE mis DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET tN :OMPtlANCE_WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 7S{a) FRCP JN -BY I 4 F.Y.I. Date: Q Ann Bill q/ Bob Cernnie Horace  Linda Margie Melissa CT Polly Return to: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS June 22, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor hROM: Janet Bernard, Associate Superintendent for jdiicL ociiiaiu, oupci k y School Operations and Climate SUBJECT: Incentive School Recommendations Ann, here are a few recommendations I have to improve the operation of the Incentive Schools in the Little Rock School District: 1. Bi-monthly meetings should be held with all associate superintendents and the assistant superintendent for the Incentive Schools to discuss plan implementation. Status reports from every division should be shared at these meetings, with a major focus on ODM recommendations. 2. A long-range comprehensive staff development plan needs to be developed for the Incentive Schools. The focus in this area should be on improving the instructional delivery process and maximizing time on task for both students and teachers. 3. Curriculum supervisors need to make routine visits to each school in order to gather data for establishing on-going technical assistance. 4. The theme of each school should be included in the official title (i.e.. Garland Multimedia Technology Elementary School). The term \"Incentive\" has taken a negative connotation and therefore should be dropped. To further rationalize this recommendation, we do not refer to Terry Elementary School as Terry Area Elementary School.Incentive School Recommendations Page 2 5. 6. Catherine Gills job description and role in the parent involvement component needs to be clarified and re-defined. Confusion does exist as to what she actually does and what she should be responsible for. As discussed with Horace Smith, the long-range strategic plan should be developed collaboratively with all top-level administrators, principals, and staffs. Parent input is also necessary. I hope these suggestions are helpful to you, Ann, as you monitor the Incentive Schools for plan implementation. Best regards and remember, it has been a pleasure knowing and working with you. Keep in touch!LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS June 22, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor FROM: Janet Bernard, Associate Superintendent for K Y School Operations and Climate SUBJECT: Incentive School Recommendations Ann, here are a few recommendations I have to improve the operation of the Incentive Schools in the Little Rock School District: 1. Bi-monthly meetings should be held with all associate superintendents and the assistant superintendent for the Incentive Schools to discuss plan implementation. Status reports from every division should be shared at these meetings, with a major focus on ODM recommendations. 2. A long-range comprehensive staff development plan needs to be developed for the Incentive Schools. The focus in this area should be on improving the instructional delivery process and maximizing time on task for both students and teachers. 3. Curriculum supervisors need to make routine visits to each school in order to gather data for establishing on-going technical assistance. 4. The theme of each school should be included in the official title (i.e.. Garland Multimedia Technology Elementary School). The term \"Incentive\" has taken a negative connotation and therefore should be dropped. To further rationalize this recommendation, we do not refer to Terry Elementary School as Terry Area Elementary School.Incentive School Recommendations Page 2 5. 6. Catherine Gills job description and role in the parent involvement component needs to be clarified and re-defined. Confusion does exist as to what she actually does and what she should be responsible for. As discussed with Horace Smith, the long-range strategic plan should be developed collaboratively with all top-level administrators, principals, and staffs. Parent input is also necessary. I hope these suggestions are helpful to you, Ann, as you monitor the Incentive Schools for plan implementation. Best regards and remember, it has been a pleasure knowing and working with you. Keep in touch!.a. JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. JOHN w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVED JAN 1 2 1996 Office oi Desegregation Moniionna January 9, 1996 Dr. Henry Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: I am reviewing the desegregation plan with an eye toward considering changes in the Incentive schools. It would be helpful to me if either you or Dr. Mayo would provide me a list of the incentives that your administration has put into operation in those schools in the past three years. It would also be helpful if you would provide me any written assessment of the success or failure of the incentives which were in place when: you: came here. you found them. By the way, would you kindly list those incentives as I need this information before we began any discussion regarding plan revisions at the Incentive schools. Very truly yours, ihn W. Walker JWW:j s cc: Ms. Linda Pondexter (for herself and Board members) Mr. Chris Heller, Mr. Jerry Malone Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Travis CreedOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United Slates District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 February 14, 1996 Dr. Russ Mayo Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Russ\nIn an Order dated July 10, 1992, the Court adopted the recommendations of ODM which were contained in the Incentive Schools Monitoring Report of June 1992. On page five of that report, we recommended that the district \"Identify the factors that are working to make Rockefeller a II desegregated school and adopt or adapt them for the other incentive schools.' Tlie same recommendation has appeared in subsequent ODM monitoring reports, and has also been discussed by Judge Wright during hearings. As the district is poising itself to consider changes in the desegregation plan, and perhaps particularly in the incentive schools, it seems especially important that we know the results of the districts analysis of the factors that have worked to desegregate Rockefeller. Tlierefore, please immediately forward to me the results of the districts identification of the Rockefeller success factors. Also explain how the identification process was conducted, including when it was undertaken, who participated in it, the analysis criteria and methods used, and how the results have been applied to the other incentive schools. Tliank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely yours. Ann S. Brown cc\nHank Williams Chris Heller 'SCO /.(SC'SC.: . CP Little Rock School District To\nFrom\nDate: MEMORANDUM Ann Brown, Ojjice of Desegregation and Monitoring Dr. Don Roberts. Superintendent December 6, 1996 RECEIVED DEC 2 0 1996 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: LRSD Responses to Incentive School Monitoring Report (1995-96), July 12, 1996 - Attached you will find a report stating the status of each recommendation the Office of Desegregation and Monitoring recommended in their 1995-96 Incentive School Monitoring Report. If you should have questions, please contact me. C: Chris Heller. LRSD Atlome\u0026gt;12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 1 Little Rock School District INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96), July 12,1996 Summary of Recommendations DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR MR NO 1 2 3 4 PG 6 7 28 28 ___________________________________________________RECOMMENDATION The incentive program Is successfully desegregating each Incentive school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 149) Make recruiting white students to the incentive schools among district priorities, focusing the energy and resources necessary to ensure that the incentive schools become fully desegregated. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. S)________________________________________________________ The incentive program is successfully desegregating each Incentive school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 149) Identify the factors that are working to make Rockefeller a desegregated school and adopt or adapt them for the other incentive schooj^ODM 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 6)_ ______ Students in grades 3-6 have access to either mobile or permanent science labs with adequate materials that allow children Io execute long-term experiments and study science in ttio fullest sense. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153\nJuly 10,1992 Court Order: ref. June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 15) Schedule science Inservice training for teachers who need or want help improving their science instruction. Principals should be able to determine which teachers are not fully using the science labs and steer them to staff development sessions devoted to enlivening science in the classroom. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 49)_______________________________________________ thecurriculum at each school Incorporates foreign language Instruction using the foreign language lab and the total physical response\"method of Instruction. Emphasis Is on basic vocabulary, conversation, and cultural materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 156) Each building operates foreign language labs with appropriate equipment and materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153) Capitalize on the district's resident expertise and experience to assist the Incentive schools In establishing a foreign language program as an integral part of the overall school program. (ODM 1992- 93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 61) RESPONSE:' Oeni 8-11418, ofnftTfbralfln lariouflig# profjrarn and the problems LRSD facod. LRSD continuos to face the eome problems that wore outlined in Porkcr'e teetimony to thl courts. .Ui - Needo to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report t In Progroon * Completed PERSON Rather Principals Gremlllion Gremlllion Principals Glasgow Gremilllon DONE 8/06 +12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 2 DATE 7/12/96 DOC MR NO 5 PG 28 RECOMMENDATION The curriculum at each school incorporates foreign language instruction using the foreign language lab and the total physical response\" method of instruction. Emphasis is on basic vocabulary, conversation, and cultural materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 156) Each building operates foreign language labs with appropriate equipment and materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153) Place as many qualified foreign language teachers as needed to provide Spanish instruction to incentive school students as part of the regular school day instructional program. Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 51) ODM 1992-93 Incentive RESPONSE: Gene Parker gave court testimony 8-11-96, on the foreign language program arid 7/12/96 7/12/96 71^2/QQ MR MR MR 6 7 8 28 28 28 problems LRSD faced. LRSD continue# to face the same problem? that were outlined in Gene Parker's The curriculum at each school Incorporates foreign language Instruction using the foreign language lab and the total physical response method of instruction. Emphasis is on basic vocabulary, conversation, and cultural materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 156) Each building operates loroign language labs with appropriate equipment and materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153) Encourage the Spanish teachers to develop a series of Spanish \"mini-lessons\" for each grade level to help the regular classroom teachers reinforce foreign language instruction across the curriculum. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 51) RESPONSE: Geno ^arkeF gave oduh^t^^ 8-11*96, on tho foreign language pfdgram and thd problems LRSD faced. LRSD continues to face the same problems that were outlined In Gene Parker's testimony to the The curriculum at each school Incorporates foreign language Instruction using the foreign language lab and the total physical response\" method of instruction. Emphasis Is on basic vocabulary, conversation, and cultural materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 156) Each building operates loroign language labs with appropriate equipment and materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153) Increase the amount and improve the quality of Spanish language materials available in each school. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 61) RESPONSE\nGene Parker gave court testimony 8-11-96, on the foreign language program and the problems LRSD faced. LRSD contiinios to face the aemo problems that were outlined In Gene Parker's testimony totho courts. Cumulative rocoixJs document both host and guest school's parflclpallon In SnIurdny programs. (ODM 1902 Report, pg. 25) Saturday programs will bo developed Io onhnnco learning. Those programs will Includo but shall not be limited - Naedu to be done *Dnotoa recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progreuu * Completed PERSON Gremillion Parker Gremillion Parker Grornilllon Parker Grornilllon Principals DONE +12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summaiy of Recommendations 3 DATE DOC NO PG 7/12/96 MR 9 29 ___________________________________________________RECOMMENDATION to field trips, enrichment activities, tutoring, parent/child make-and-take sessions, book fairs, and physical education activities. (LRSD Plan, pg. 179) Standardize the reporting process for Saturday school. Data should be cumulative and reflect race, gender, and grade of participating students. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 60) Cumulative records document both host and guest school's participation in Saturday programs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25) Saturday programs will be developed to enhance learning. These programs will include but shall not be limited to field trips, enrichmont activities, tutoring, parent/child mako-and-tako sessions, book fairs, and physical education activitlos. (LRSD Plan, pg. 179) PERSON Gremlllion Principals 7/12/96 MR 10 29 Perform annual evaluations of the Saturday programs, using the Information to design programs that appeal to the students and their parents. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 60)___ Cumulative records document both host and guest school's participation In Saturday programs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25) Saturday programs will bo developed to enhance learning. Those programs will Include but shall not bo limited to field trips, enrichment activities, tutoring, parent/chlld make-and-take sessions, book fairs, and physical education activities. (LRSD Plan, pg. 179) Gremlllion Principals 7/12/96 7/12/96 MR MR 11 12 29 40 DONE Perform regular evaluations of the Saturday program, both during and at tho end of the school year, asking staff, parents, and students for feedback. Use the garnered information to design activities and events that coincide with the interests of all participants. (ODM 1994-95 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 37)__________________________________________________________________________________ Cumulative records document both host and guest school's participation In Saturday programs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25) Saturday programs will bo developed to enhance learning. Those programs will Include but shall not bo limited to field trips, enrichment activities, tutoring, parent/chlld mako-and-tako sessions, book fairs, and physical education actlvlllos. (LRSD Plan, pg. 179) Promote collaboration among the Incentive schools and between tho Incentive schools and the district's area and magnet schools to plan Joint field trips and other collaborative activities during the regular academic wook. Thu district can thus do a bottor Job of fulfilling its obligation to provide Incentive school students with more opportunities for desegregated learning experiences. Tho purpose of tho Incentive school program Is to promolo and ensure academic oxcollonce In schools that have boon dldicult to dosogrogato, (LRSD plan, pg. 149) With proper resources and oxpoctallons, tho Incentive school program will servo as a model of oxcollonco (or tho county, stalo, and tho nation. (LRSD plan, pg. 149) Base staff development activities on areas of domonstrated need. Some toachors many naod more - Needo to bo done *Danotas racommandatlon appeared In prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progreoij * Completed Asst Supls. Principals Gremlllion Principals +12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1996-96) Summary of Recommendations 4 DATE DOC NO PG I 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 MR MR MR 13 14 15 40 46 54 [ RECOMMENDATION___________________________________________________ training than others in areas such as classroom management and organization and effective discipline. It is incumbent upon the building administrator and the individual teachers to identify areas of need and access the resources necessary to address them. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, 3115)_________________________________________________________________________________________ The purpose of the incentive school program is to promote and ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. (LRSD plan, pg. 149) With proper resources and expectations, the incentive school program will serve as a model of excellence for the county, state, and the nation. (LRSD plan, pg. 149) Better define the role of phonics instruction in the incentive schools and convene a meeting of those administrators in charge of the incentive schools and the reading supervisor and his staff to communicate that role to all teachers so that phonics instruction will conform to the board-adopted LRSp^ curriculum._______________________________________________________________________________ the schools use a Career Skills Development Program to develop career choices using written information, guest speakers, films, and Interest inventories. (LRSD Plan, PG. 172, 180) Study skills training enhances skills In test-taking, listening, and studying. Test-taking skills are being taught and students practice test taking. (LRSD Plan, pp. 153, 176, 183\nJuly 10, 1992 Court Order ref. Juno 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 32) Students receive individual and group counseling and are taught conflict resolution. The school uses poor facilitators. (LRSD Plan. Pp. 176, 184) The staff has developed writfon building guidance plans to address personal growth, social development, career awareness, and educational dovolopmont. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: Juno 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 27) Require counselors to have bullding-lovel guidance plans that reflect activities and projects for the current school year. Clear guidance plans help teachers and administrators achieve school improvement goals, reflect an assessment of the schools guidance needs, and show how the counselor plans to address those needs, bisag'^rogato data rolatod to studont disciplino and review student data to address issues of racial disparity. (Interdls. Plan. pg. 27) Carefully collect disciplino data and closely monitor the discipline program to make modifications that are indicated by formative, as well as summativo, information. The district would bo wise to analyze the factors that contribute to some schools having fewer overall discipline problems and loss disparity in disciplino between black and white students. Identifying and emulating those factors and closely scrutinizing progress should result in Intorvontions that reduce the number of students suspended or expelled, as well as Iho disproportionate number of black students referred for disciplinary action. (ODM 1992, Report, pg. 23) Attendance and behavior guidelines include time-out rooms that are staffed with trained personnel. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) - Neodo to bo done Denotes reconmondntion appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report I In Progreao A Completed PERSON Gremllllon Principals Parker Elston Gromllllon Principals Watson done:12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 5 DATE DOC NO I PG ___________RECOMMENDATION_______________ Students help develop school-based management rules and receive help with problem solving. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) Staff, parents, and students cooperatively design discipline policies. (ODM 19923 Report, pg. 23) Discipline policies and procedures are well publicized, clearly indicate what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and spell out consequences for infractions. Policy enforcement is fair and consistent. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23) Classroom management approaches are appropriate for the work being done. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) PERSON DONE 7/12/96 MR 16 54 Hold periodic \"summits\" to develop a forum for an exchange of ideas and successful techniques for handling disciplinary problems. Incentive schools have similar characteristics and staff members who, along with parents and students, are valuable resources for ideas to combat problems. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 29)_______________________________________________________ Disaggregate data related to student discipline and review student data to address issues of racial disparity. (Interdis. Plan. pg. 27) Carefully collect discipline data and closely monitor the discipline program to make modifications that are indicated by formative, as well as summative, information. The district would bo wise to analyze tho factors that contribute to some schools having fewer overall discipline problems and loss disparity In discipline between black and white students. Identifying and emulating these factors and closely scrutinizing progress should result in interventions that reduce the number of students suspended or expelled, as well as the disproportionate number of black students referred for disciplinary action. (ODM 1992, Report, pg. 23) Attendance and behavior guidelines include time-out rooms that are staffed with trained personnel. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) Students help develop school-based management rules and receive help with problem solving. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) Staff, parents, and students cooperatively design discipline policies. (ODM 19923 Report, pg. 23) Discipline policies and procedures are well publicized, clearly Indicate what Is appropriate and Inappropriate behavior, and spoil out consoquoncos for Infractions. Policy onforcomont Is fair and consistent. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23) Classroom management approaches are appropriate for the work being done. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) Gremilllon Watson 7/12/96 MR 17 54 Explore ttio foasiblllty of doveloping permanent altornativo educational sitos dosignod specifically for chronically disruptive students. The presence of chronically misbehaving and disruptive students In the classroom hinders teaching and learning for the rest. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 29) RESPONSE: Tho Asslutrint Suporlntondent ovor incentive Schools, LRSD Hearing Officer, along with tho Incontivo School Principals are currently dlacussing the losue and exploring alternative educational sites designed tor chronically disruptive students.s\u0026lt;.i:tiJSil31^ Disaggregate data related to student discipllno and rovlow student data to address issuos of racial disparity Gremilllon - Nocdo to tio done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progronn * Comploteii12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 6 DATE /12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC I MR MR MR NO 18 19 20 I PG 60 60 60 RECOMMENDATION (Interdis. Plan. pg. 27) Carefully collect discipline data and closely monitor the discipline program to make modifications that are indicated by formative, as well as summative, information. The district would be wise to analyze the factors that contribute to some schools having fewer overall discipline problems and less disparity in discipline between black and white students. Identifying and emulating these factors and closely scrutinizing progress should result in interventions that reduce the number of students suspended or expelled, as well as the disproportionate number of black students referred for disciplinary action. (ODM 1992, Report, pg. 23) Attendance and behavior guidelines include time-out rooms that are staffed with trained personnel. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) Students help develop school-based management rules and receive help with problem solving. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) Staff, parents, and students cooperatively design discipline policies. (ODM 19923 Report, pg. 23) Discipline policies and procedures are well publicized, clearly indicate what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and spell out consequences for infractions. Policy enforcement is fair and consistent. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23) Classroom management approaches are appropriate for the work being done. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) Provide ongoing training in behavior management for school district employees who are responsible for supervising children for any period of time. RESPONSE: The Assistant Superintendent over incentive Schools, LRSD Hearing Officer, Staff Dvslopmn1 Supervisor, along with Incentive School Principals and teachers will be planning inaervices for LRSD employees responsible for supervising children on behavior management.________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Franklin - Investigate the cause of the failing paint and take corrective action. The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are Installed, train tho custodial staff In proper plant caro Io prevent loss of plantings Io improper pruning or undor-watoring. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) F ran Id in Co rrect drai nage problems on all affected levels of the bul Iding. Tho district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven Incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progreao * Completed PERSON Watson Eaton Eaton Eaton done: 8/96 8/96 12/9612/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 7 DATE DOC NO I PG ___________________RECOMMENDATION plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) PERSON DONE 7/12/96 MR 21 60 Garland - Attend to the peeling paint on the exterior doors.___________________________________________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Garland Principal 7/12/96 MR 22 60 Garland - Improve cleanliness in the cafeteria and bathrooms. The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Eaton 8/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 MR MR MR 23 24 25 60 60 60 Garland - Correct the problems with floor tiles in the large downstairs bathrooms.______________________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff In proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Mitchell - Replace the worn lunchroom tables.______________________________________________________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from tho addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff In proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to Improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Mitchell - Remove or replace the malfunctioning urinal in the bathroom located on the second floor landing. RESPONWtrid^ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would bonofit aesthetically from the addition of attractivo landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff In proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to Improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progress * Completed Moran Eaton Eaton 8/96 8/96 8/9612/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 8 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR MR NO I PG 26 27 28 29 60 60 60 60 RECOMMENDATION Mitchell - Replace or reattach the loose tiles in the hallways._________________________________________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Rightsell -Determine the cause of the leaks found throughout the building and correct the problems. RESPONSE: LRSD is committed to repairing leaks In the roof, but due to the age and condition of the building, leaks ra likely to b^^a^eocciyifMng bt^blem dntlt funds are available to replace the roof._______ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Rightsell - Repair and repaint damaged ceilings.____________________________________________________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Rightsell - Assess water damage to carpets and replace as needed. RESPONSE: Maintenance of the carpete will be accessed by school personnel while roof repair Is In The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff In proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Rightsell - Repair any broken partitions and fittings in the bathrooms. PERSON Eaton Eaton Eaton Eaton DONE 11/96 12/96 - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progreso * Completed12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 9 DATE 7/12/96 DOC MR NO 30 PG 60 _________________________________________________RECOMMENDATION The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Rightsell - Evaluate the schools plumbing needs and complete work needed to make all bathrooms fully functional. 7/12/96 MR 31 60 Tho district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the Incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven Incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are Installed, train the custodial staff In proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to Improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) 7/12/96 MR 32 60 Rightsell  Eliminate the Insect Infestation._________________________________________________________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain tho Incontivo schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven Incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from tho addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff In proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to Improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) 7/12/96 7/12/96 MR MR 33 60 Rockefeller - Repair the small area of damaged tile in the boys bathroom before the problem escalates. The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the Incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from tho addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Rockefeller -Replace carpeting throughout all areas of the building. Before releasing as RFP, representatives from the plant services and the purchasing departments should consult with the principal and staff regarding details of carpet replacement, such as the replacement schedule, the carpet color, and the areas to be carpeted, including the carpet-covered furnishings. 34 78 RESPONSE\nDue to budWftnilnte th cSnart cannotWrepiacaOw PERSON Eaton Eaton Eaton Eaton A Parent Center In each school provides resources and materials, recommended by a parent and staff Eaton committee, that can bo loaned Io parents. A parent has been trained to operate the center, which Is to be tho - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progreao * Completed DONE 11/96 8/96 8/9612/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 10 DATE DOC I NO I PG _______________________recommendation source of a monthly communications packet that is distributed to parents. (LRSD Plan. pp. 206. 208) The schools actively seek parent recommendations for resources to be housed in the Parent Centers, incorporating as many of their suggestions as possible. The school documents the degree to which parents use the center and its resources. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Keep more accurate and complete records of Parent Center use by consistently using sign-in sheets. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 77) ______________________________________ 7/12/96 MR 35 78 A Parent Center in each school provides resources and materials, recommended by a parent and staff committee, that can be loaned to parents. A parent has been trained to operate the center, which is to be the source of a monthly communications packet that is distributed to parents. (LRSD Plan. pp. 206. 208) The schools actively seek parent recommendations for resources to be housed in the Parent Centers, incorporating as many of their suggestions as possible. The school documents the degree to which parents use the center and its resources. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Develop strategies and arrange events to encourage greater use of the Parent Center. For example, design boxes or bags containing materials on a certain topic that could be checked out. Highlight Parent Center Resources in the school newsletter, bulletin boards, and PTA meetings to heighten awareness and increase interest in the centers. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 7/12/96 MR 36 79 ni The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) 7/12/96 MR 37 79 Team with community organizations (such as churches and civic clubs) and other programs (such as HIPPY and New Futures) to explore ways to cooperate in offering parent training. Such collaboration can help coordinate and strengthen resources to focus on targeted audiences. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 79)______________________________________________________________ The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities Is maintained, Including sign-In sheets that reflect - Needo to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progress * Completed PERSON Gremlllion Principals Gremlllion Principals Gremlllion Principals DONE +12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 11 DATE DOC NO I PG I RECOMMENDATION parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) PERSON DONE 7/12/96 MR 38 79 Offer sessions on timely and intriguing topics at times, dates, locations, and circumstances that haven't been tried before as a means to increase participation. (ODM 1994-94 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 79)_______________________________________________________________________________ The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent mootings and activities Is maintained, including sign-in shoots that reflect parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Gremillion Principals 7/12/96 7/12/96 MR MR 39 40 79 79 Ask workshop participants to evaluate each session at its conclusion and make candid suggestions for training improvements and future session topics. Then carefully analyze the feedback to assess the quality and relevancy of the training to make changes accordingly. (ODM 1994-95 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 62)_______________________________________________________________________ The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents In understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, disciplino, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Evaluate the parent workshops offered to determine if they are meeting the goals of helping incentive school parents understand and carry out school expectations. Use the feedback to redesign offerings as necessary to ensure progress toward the goals. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive School Monitoring Report, -Pfl.??! The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and dovolopmontal learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with Iho number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities Is maintained. Including sign-in shoots that reflect - Needo to be done *DnotB racommndation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progrouij * Completed Gremillion Principals Gremillion Principals12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 12 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR MR NO I PG I 41 79 _________________________RECOMMENDATION parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) In order to standardize reporting and minimize the burden of documentation, schools could use a simple form identifying the contact date, type of contact (such as parent/teacher conference, home visit, interim or monthly report, phone call, success or alert card), which staff member contacted whom (parent, grandparent, guardian, or other), and a brief description of the results of the contact or any other pertinent information. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 105)_______________ Develop and expand the parent volunteer programs and school/business partnerships. (LRSD Plan, pg. 132) PERSON DONfi 42 79 Expand contacts with and widen access to the variety of community-based programs, designed to support children and families. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 78)______________ The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) 43 79 Develop transportation policies and procedures, ensuring that principals are aware of this service, know how to identify parents transportation needs, and understand how to arrange for it to support parent participation where needed. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 105)________ Each school provides community role models and a mentoring program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 157) The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29) Individual school volunteer mentoring programs are coordinated with VIPS and all volunteers are screened and trained prior to being matched with students. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29) The school maintains mentor-student records that include the race, gender, participation hours, and types of activities shared by the mentors and their students. Records of training participants by race, gender, and classification (i.e. student, mentor, parent, teacher) are also maintained. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 30) 44 79 Consider having VIPS train incentive school principals to serve as instructors for new mentors so these building leaders can conduct their own streamlined, on-site mentor training. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 78)________________________________________________________________ speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exists in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210, 213) - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progress * Completed Milam Cheatham Principals Milam - Gremillion Principals Ratherill  INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) 13 buminary of Recommendations DATE I DOC I NO | POf 7/12/96 MR 45 80 ___________________________________________________RECOMMENDATION___________________________________________________ Develop and implement a comprehensive plan for using the services of the speakers bureaus and key communicators that includes specific goals, objectives, the persons responsible, and evaluation criteria to determine success and where changes need to be made. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 86)__________________________________________________________________________________ A speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exists in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210, 213) 7/12/96 MR 46 80 Develop job descriptions for the speakers bureaus and key communicators that clearly identify the job goal, qualifications, performance expectation, the participant and district responsibilities, and the amount of time that will likely be required to successfully perform each job. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 86) ____________________________________________________________ The districtwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendents senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committee's monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) 7/12/96 MR 47 80 Engage in a recruitment campaign that is broad and intense enough to ensure that the district can select a Biracial Committee membership that is racially balanced and also fully representative of the districts geography. (ODM 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 26)_____________ The districtwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports - Needs to be done Denotes roconunendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progreso * Completed PERSON DONE Rather Supt. Supt.12, iMCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) 14 Summary of Recommendations DATE DOC NO I PG I RECOMMENDATION that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendents senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committees monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order\nref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) I person' DONE 7/12/96 MR 48 80 Define Biracial Committee goals and then develop and carry out specific objectives and timelines for reaching them. (ODM 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, P2^2y The dislrictwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of\nincentive school principals, the superintendents senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. (LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committees monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Supt. 7/12/96 MR 49 80 Coordinate Biracial Committee monitoring activities with other internal district monitoring groups to eliminate duplication and ensure that no part of the desegregation efforts go unscrutinized. (ODM 1992- 92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees., pg. 28) The districtwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will Supt. monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) - Needo to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In ProgreoQ * Completed Jackson12/19/96 jMCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 15 DATE DOC I NO PG I RECOMMENDATION I PERSON DONE 7/12/96 MR 50 80 7/12/96 MR 51 80 The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendents senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committees monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Design Biracial Committee monitoring instrument that correlate specifically with the desegregation plan provisions so each district can measure its progress in plan implementation. (ODM 1992-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 28)________________________________________________________ The districtwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendents senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committees monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Regularly update Biracial Committee monitoring instruments to reflect all modifications to the desegregation plans. (ODM 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 28)____________ The districtwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will I monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) Supt. 8/96 - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progress * Completed Supt. Jackson12/1b/3- JCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summaiy of Recommendations 16 DATE DOC I NO I PG I ______________RECOMMENDATION The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendents senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committees monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) I PERSON DONE 7/12/96 MR 52 80 Make evaluation an integral part of the Biracial Committee monitoring process so that conclusions and recommendations for improvement are used to both prevent and correct problems. (ODM 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 29)______________________________________________ The districtwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendents senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committee's monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Supt. Annually evaluate the role, operations, and accomplishments of the BIraclal Committee In relationship - Needs to be done Denotes racommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report * + In Progreoo Completed12/19/9t jCENTIVE school MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summaiy of Recommendations 'il DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR i NO I PG 53 54 80 80 RECOMMENDATION to specific settlement plan provisions and overall desegregation goals. (ODM 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 29) I person' RESPONSE: An annual evaluation of the Biracial Committees role, operations, and accomplishments at the end of each fiscal year beginning with the 1996-97 school year. ............. ........... The districtwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendents senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committees monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Regularly ask Biracial Committee members to review and rate the type and quality of support the district is furnishing them, and solicit suggestions for new or improved support services. (ODM 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 29) RESPONSEr tJRSD will develop a survey for Biracial Committee members to review and rate the quality of support LRSD IS \"providing and asking for suggestions for new and Improved support services. This survey will be distributed to members during the 3rd quarter of the 1996-97 school year. Beginning with the 1997-9B school year LRSD will survey members during the 1 st end :3fd quarter of each school year. The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progress * Completed Supt. Gremillion Principals DONE12/19/96 JCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 18 DATE DOC NO I PG I ___________________________________________________RECOMMENDATION____________________ parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) PERSON DONE 7/12/96 MR 55 80 Standardize the method staff uses to document and report home and school communication to promote data consistency and accuracy.__________________________________________________________________ Each school provides community role models and mentoring program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 157) The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (July 10, 1992 Court Order\nref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 29) Individual school volunteer mentoring programs are coordinated with VIPS and all volunteers are screened and trained prior to being matched with students. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 29) Milam 7/12/96 MR 56 80 Focus on the schools where community involvement is lagging and intensify efforts to increase volunteer support in those buildings. Pay particular attention to targeting those schools which fall far behind the others in volunteer activity.____________________________________________________________ The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Each school provides community role models and mentoring program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 157) The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 29) Individual school volunteer mentoring programs are coordinated with VIPS and all volunteers are screened and trained prior to being matched with students. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 29) Strengthen the communication between school and community by considering placement of an outreach coordinator in each incentive school to function as a liaison. This position, which should require at lease half-time and preferably full-time attention, could be paid or voluntary and filled by an employee, a volunteer, or an intern. The outreach coordinator would be supervised by the principal and work closely with all aspects of the school, as well as the districts offices of student assignment and communications. Any funding necessary for such a position could be sought from a grant or come from the extra money provided through the schools' double funding. The outreach coordinator could perform a number of tasks that could include, but not be restricted to, the recommendations listed below. Gremillion Principals RESPONSE: LRSD is exploring the possibility of using a volunteer to serve as an outreach coordinator - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progress * Completed12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 19 DATE 7/12/96 DOC I NO I PG MR 57 81 ___________________________________________________RECOMMENDATION___________________________________________________ A speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exist in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210,213) Develop a school communications plan that includes specific objectives as well as methods to measure results. Each school should write objectives that answer the following questions: Who will benefit from this activity and how will they benefit from it? How will the activity be implemented, who will do the work, when will the work start, and what is the implementation schedule? When will the benefits be visible and what will they look like? How will we know if were successful? 7/12/96 MR 58 81 RESPONSE: LRSD Assistant Superintendent for Incentive Schools. Parent Recruiters, Communications Director and Incentive School principals are currently working together to develop a communications plan, _____________________ ' '_________________________________________ A speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exist in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210,213) 7/12/96 MR 59 81 Produce a monthly school newsletter that targets the community, with distribution to parents, volunteers, partners, and residents of the neighborhood. These neighbors would include churches, shops, fire stations, nursing homes, hospitals, professional offices, etc. The newsletter should stress the success of students and teachers, herald coming events, and highlight individuals who live or work in the community. Use the publication as a means to more broadly recognize students, teachers, parents, and volunteers. Students could write some of the articles, striving to create a friendly, chatty communique that conveys a positive and enthusiastic attitude. Make this publication a banner of school pride.___________________________________________________________________________________ The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29) 7/12/96 MR 60 81 Work the territory by actively reaching out to the neighborhood and beyond. Instead of waiting for the community to come to the school, the school can energetically extend itself to the community. Contact local businesses and other organizations to explain the school and its place in the neighborhood. Personally extend an invitation to attend an open house or any other special function being held in the school. If a class is presenting a play, invite the neighbors in for the fun and assign student hosts to guests._________________________________________________________________________________________ A speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exists in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210, - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progress * Completed PERSON Gremillion Principals Rather Gremillion Principals Vann Rather Gremillion Principals Vann Rather Rather Principals DONE12/19/96 ir iENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 20 DATE DOC NO I PG RECOMMENDATION PERSON DONE 7/12/96 MR 61 81 7/12/96 MR 62 82 213) Develop the speakers bureau into a proactive ambassadorship for the school. Members of the bureau can be parents, teachers, students, and community volunteers. Give the speakers a special title (such as Goodwill Ambassadors, Outreach Angels, etc.) and help them focus on a specific theme or point of school pride. Arrange for them to meet frequently with small groups at a well known nearby place, such as a church, fire station, or community alert center. Such experiences are prime learning opportunities for students, helping boost their self esteem while also polishing their schools image.________________ A Parent Center in each school provides resources and materials, recommended by a parent and staff committee, that can be loaned to parents. A parent has been trained to operate the center, which is to be the source of a monthly communications packet that is distributed to parents. (LRSD Plan. pp. 206. 208) The schools actively seek parent recommendations for resources to be housed in the Parent Centers, incorporating as many of their suggestions as possible. The school documents the degree to which parents use the center and its resources. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Gremillion Principals Actively manage the Parent Centers to become the catalyst and focal point of parent resources and services they were intended to be. Suggestions for strengthening the centers include the following: foster the ongoing involvement of a strong Parent Center Committee in each school, using the Committee to establish a means for determining what special parent needs exist, such as materials and equipment, home visits, extended center hours, etc.\nconsider relocating the centers to a place of prominence and easy access, where parents can meet and chat without fear of disturbing classes\ndevelop a monthly theme of parenting emphasis that is carried throughout the school in such way as a featured bulletin board and the school newsletter, then follow up with appropriate workshops on the themes\nequip the centers with welcoming and comfortable furniture that invites parents to linger awhile\nconsider the feasibility of merging the faculty lounge and the Parent Center into a combined building resource center to promote frequent and sustained interaction between teachers and parents.___________________________________ The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Each school provides community role models and mentoring program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 157) The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 29) Milam Principals - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progress * Completed12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 21 DATE I DOC I NO | PG~r ___________________________________________________RECOMMENDATION___________________________________________________ Individual school volunteer mentoring programs are coordinated with VIPS and all volunteers are screened and trained prior to being matched with students. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 29) PERSON DONE 7/12/96 MR 63 87 Intensify efforts at the school level to coordinate the services of volunteers and school partners in the school, making them an integral part of the school family. Routine operation procedures should include follow-up to determine the degree of volunteer satisfaction, because these very important people need consistent guidance, support, encouragement, and thanks. Keep in contact with them through meetings, phone calls, and notes. Invite them to the special functions at the school and assign a student host to escort them. Spend time training the children who are selected as hosts, showing them how to be courteous and respectful. Make these students a part of the symbols of school pride. The district will inform the community about the incentive schools and their special features by providing informational sessions to special interest and community groups, including churches. Additional strategies will include conducting Saturday information booths at malls and neighborhood stores, securing special media coverage, and developing an incentive school telephone hotline. The district will distribute highlight sheets to all elementary parents and local businesses. (LRSD Plan, pp. 215, 218-219) Recruitment will be an ongoing process with each incentive school establishing a parent recruitment team to encourage voluntary assignments that enable the schools to comply with desegregation requirements. (LRSD Plan, pp. 132, 135, 215\nInterdist. Plan, pg. 57) The districts recruitment strategies will include public service announcements, billboards, a media blitz, videocassette recordings, flyers, open houses, targeted neighborhood blitzes, small group tours, a special designation from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), and celebrity endorsements. Each school will establish a speakers bureau and help the district develop a brochure highlighting their school. Meetings will be held with NLRSD and PCSSD parents and PTA groups to encourage M-to-M transfers. (LRSD Plan, PG. 215- 216, 220-222) Parent recruiters will focus on recruiting white students to desegregate the incentive schools and conduct recruitment activities. (LRSD Plan, pp. 216, 222) All parties have made firm commitments to assist the LRSD in desegregating the incentive schools. (May 1992 Order, pg. 29) The LRSD will establish a strategic plan, based on the recruitment section of the desegregation plan, that reflects a well-thought-out, interrelated process\npresent a firm timetable in its recruitment plan and strictly adhere to it\ndevelop a tracking system to determine the success of particular awareness and recruitment efforts, especially with identified geographic areas and specific groups\nincrease the number and variety of specifically targeted recruitment activities. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pp. 4, 5) Gremillion Principals Rather Millhollen Establish a budget that is adequate to underwrite an aggressive and sustained recruitment program that encompasses the special needs of the incentive schools, investing that allotment in high-quality, high- energy strategies that result in steady progress toward the desegregation goals. - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progress * CompletedRECE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT DEC 3 0 1996 Office of Desesieijaiici\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION jAMtS q\u0026gt; I**- \\O5\u0026lt;VIS4?\u0026gt; .\u0026lt;- 27i996 \u0026gt;\\maGK, CLcni DE?T. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * * vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * * Intervenor. * ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD\") for approval of a plan development period to which the Joshua Intervenors have responded. Upon careful review of the motion, the Court finds that the motion should be granted. A. On numerous occasions, the Court has expressed the view that modifications of the LRSDs desegregation plan might be appropriate. In an attempt to assist the parties, the Court itself called experts who testified concerning potential areas for modification. However, the 290Court has noted that the parties themselves must develop and present any proposed modifications. By its motion, the LRSD seeks a six to nine month period during which it would concentrate its efforts on developing plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district. Specifically, the LRSD asks the Court to authorize the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) to act as a consultant and a participant in the development of a modified plan. The LRSD asks that the Court redeploy monitors to provide assistance to the district in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignment, and resolution of discipline issues, and to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD desegregation plan for a six to nine month period. The LRSD states that the Knight Intervenors support the effort to develop a modified plan for the LRSD, and that the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District support the effort described in the motion. While the Joshua Intervenors respond generally in a favorable manner to the new superintendent and the motion, they also express some reservations. Because the ODM operates as an arm of the Court, the Joshua Intervenors urge that the ODM not participate in negotiations between the parties, unless the ODM agrees not to report the content of such negotiations to the Court. Further, the Joshua Intervenors urge the Court to appoint additional monitors to work on matters of particular concern to them, namely alleged ill-treatment of class members. See docket entry 2885. The Court finds that the parties, particularly the LRSD, will benefit from a temporary hiatus from monitoring and from the expertise of the ODM, in order to develop proposed modifications to the LRSD desegregation plan. The ODM has assured the Court that the 2functions of monitoring and assistance can and will be kept separate during this period. The Court declines at this time to direct the ODM to employ additional monitors to handle complaints about mistreatment of class members. Should the ODM determine during the course of this plan development period that it needs additional staff, the Court will address the issue at that time. The Court will not prevent the ODM from advising the LRSD or other parties durin: g negotiations for plan modifications. However, neither the ODM nor the Court is a party to this litigation and the ODM cannot be a negotiator for any party. The ODM may participate in negotiations as a facilitator. The Court will rule on any plan modifications on the basis of the evidence and the record in the case, including orders of the Eighth Circuit. B. Pending before the Court are the Joshua Intervenors motions for relief concerning the incentive schools, for implementation of recommendations of the ODM, and for a hearing on those motions. In light of the Courts approval of a period during which the LRSD intends to develop a modified education and desegregation plan, the Court denies without prejudice the motions filed by the Joshua Intervenors. Should the Joshua Intervenors wish to refile the motions, they must do so within thirty (30) days following the submission by the LRSD of its modified plan. C. Also before the Court is the motion of the LRSD to withdraw its motion to reconsider the Courts ruling on the LRSDs motion to end federal court jurisdiction. The motion is 3granted. The LRSD has until and including September 30, 1997, within which to refile its motion for reconsideration. D. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the LRSDs motion for a plan development period [docket entry 2878] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joshua Intervenors motions [docket entries 2680, 2705, \u0026amp; 2812] are denied without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the LRSDs motion [docket entry 2890] to withdraw the motion for reconsideration [docket entry 2831] is granted. SO ORDERED this day of December 1996. / 'UNITED STATES RIOT JUDGE 'HIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN .(MPUANC^ WITH RULE 58 ANDXDR 79(a) FRCP ON 4  BlEw\u0026amp;i ty JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. dAN 2 9 1997 OFFICE OF desegregation M0NIT0RIM8 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 REP\" VW ffnn rJL LT?' JSSEGAfGahbi. iVMiaiiUnJjyll DATE: ENCLOSURE MEMORANDUM January 27, 1997 TO: Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock. AR 72201 Richard Rcachs.'l, Esq. Roachell \u0026amp; Streett 401 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 504 Little Rock, AR Ms. Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. WaSker^.^^^) RE: ENCLOSURES: LRSD, et al. v. PCSSD, et al.\nNO. LR-C-82-866 Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File Notice of Appeal IF ANY OF THE ABOVE LISTED DOCUMENT(S) ARE NOT ENCLOSED, PLEASE CALL THE ABOVE NUMBER. THANK YOU.* Ct-\u0026lt; IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL. RECEVO DEFENDANTS MRS LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL JAN 2 9 1997 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFiCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FH.E NOTICE OF APPE AT The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court for an extension of time of thirty (30) days in which to file Notice of Appeal herein in the event that they choose to do so. The reason for the request is that counsel has been ill much of late December and early January and has not had a full opportunity to consider the propriety or merits of an appeal from the Order of the Court entered on December 27, 1996. There is no prejudice to the defendants by granting the motion. WHEREFORE, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  2107c, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray the Court for an Order extending the time in which to file Notice of Appeal to and including, February 27, 1997. Respectfully submitted. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758By: Joi iu. . Walker, Bar No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served upon all counsel of record, by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail with sufficient postage prepaid, on this ,5^ '9 day of January, 1997. Jol^5 WalkerC.P RECESVED JAN 2 9 1997 U.S OIS- --------COURT EASTcRN DiSTF,!, * Ai\\sANSAS OFFICE OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT f^lSBSflEGAJIQfi MONITORtNQ 2 8 1997 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES By._ McCormack, clerk ' OP CLa LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. No. LR-C-82-866 * * * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * * Intervenor. * ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal of the Courts Order of December 27, 1996. For good cause shown, the motion is granted. The Joshua Intervenors have until and including February 27, 1997, within which to file a notice of appeal. SO ORDERED this day of January 1997. UNITED states DISTRICT? RICT JUDGE n-WS DOCUMENT afsTTREO ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 56 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY 2918Office of Desegregation Monitoring United Slates District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 May 20, 1997 Mr. John W. Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear John: Through communication with this ofiBce by mail (a copy of your letter to Chris Heller dated May 14, 1997) and by phone (your conversation with my associate. Gene Jones, last week), you asked for information about the LRSD work group that is concentrating on the incentive schools. You also wanted to know what recommendations ODM has made regarding the incentive schools. The only formal recommendations ODM has made about the incentive schools are those which appear in our numerous monitoring reports on those schools, all of which have been filed with the Court. I have sent representatives from ODM to sit on each of the LRSD work groups that Dr. Roberts established earlier this year, including the group looking at the incentive schools. My associates participate in each groups discussion and research, but make no formal recommendations as representatives of ODM. However, fi-om time to time, they do make suggestions. For example, in response to some members ideas of completely doing away with the extended day program at the incentive schools, Gene Jones suggested that such a drastic step would have negative consequences. Instead, he urged the groups to consider ways to improve the program to better meet the needs of the students. The group is now researching ways to enhance the extended day program. I have contacted Chris to ask that you be kept informed of the work groups activities through minutes and invitations to attend the meetings. He has agreed to contact you to share this information. Although I have no objection to keeping you posted, I believe it is more appropriate for the district to do so in the spirit of cooperation and open communication. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Chris Heller\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_345","title":"Curriculum","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":["1990/2003"],"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","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Educational planning","Education--Curricula","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Curriculum"],"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/345"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["78 pages"],"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\n4 / ATTENTION PARENTS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CURRICULUM AUDIT A curriculum audit ol the LRSD Is being conducted by the American Association ol School Administrators (AASA). This process Includes opportunities lor parents ol children In the district and other members ol the community to meet with the auditors to express their views and make comments. YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND AN ADDITIONAL OPEN MEETING FOR PARENTS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1990 4:00 - 6:00 P.M. OR 7:00 - 9:00 P.M. PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM If you are unable to attend these meetings, you may express your comments in writing and send to: Dr. William K. Poston Iowa State University Dept, of Professional Studies N229 Lagomarcino Hall Ames, Iowa 50011 ATTENTION TEACHERS AND OTHER PERSONNEL A curriculum audit ol the Little Rock School District is scheduled ior September 17-21. 1990. The audit will be conducted by the American Association, ol School Administrators \u0026lt;AASA).- This process wiH Include an\" Independent, external analysts ol the design and delivery oi our school system's curriculum in attaining desired  results within the context and cost parameters which it iiio ono COST porometers must function. The auditors will be gathering data from multiple sources, including interviews. FOR INTERESTED PERSONNEL. WALK-IN TIMES ARE POSTED BELOW. TUESDAY. SEPTEMBER 18 3:00 - 5:30 P.M. ill WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19' 3:30 - 4:30 P.M. INTERVIEWS WILL BE HELD IN THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 810 WEST MARKHAMI ATTENTION TEACHERS AND OTHER PERSONNEL A curriculum audit of the Little Rock School District is scheduled for September 17-21, 1990. The audit will be conducted by the American Association of School Administrators (AASA). This process will include an independent, external analysis of the design and delivery of our school systems curriculum in attaining desired results within the context and cost parameters which it must function. The auditors will be gathering data from multiple sources, including interviews. For interested personnel, wsik-in times are posted below. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19 3:00-5:30 3:30-4:30 INTERVIEWS WILL BE HELD IN THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AT 810 WEST MARKHAM CURRICULUM AUDIT/REVIEW Reported by Sterling Ingram and Estelle Matthis (RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTED FROM NASE) RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Develop and adopt a comprehensive Board polity framework for curriculum management Action Taken\nThe LRSD Board of Directors created and adopted a comprehensive policy framework for curriculum management. 2. 3. To Be Completed: The development of a policy that establishes criteria for decisions on school facility remodeling, replacement, and closure. Reorganize the administrative structure for effective instructional management Action Taken: A. Partially implemented as supervision of the schools remains unevenly divided into three regions of approximately 17 schools each. LRSD has not added a fourth assistance superintendent position due to budgetary constraints and changes in administration. B. Separate and consolidate key curriculum and instruction operations from school operations. The Board approved the reorganization of the central administration to provide concentrated effort in curriculum development. Consolidate and restructure business services and support services. Action Taken: Partially completed. A director of human resources has been employed to provide appropriate control over persoimel hiring and to maintain overall supervision of key managerial functions in support services.Board labor relations responsibilities are no longer the responsibility of the director of human resources. 4. Establish administrative stability and integrity in management functioning. Action Taken: Improvements have been noted in this area. The district has employed two superintendents since the curriculum audit was conducted. With the employment of the current superintendent, the Board of Directors will need to review and address this recommendation. Noted improvements:  Board members professionally remind each other that they do not speak for them unless it has been authorized through action by the Board in legal sessions or as legally directed by the Board.  Limit Board authority to that stated in Board-adopted policies. Board members provide directives to the Superintendent\nstaff receives their directive from the Superintendent and/or their immediate supervisor. The chain of command is acknowledged by the Board through their actions and communications with staff.  Characterize relationships with administrators with respect and courtesy, both in public and in private. Some improvement has been made in this area. There may exist a need for this area to receive additional attention so that we are in compliance with LRSD policy BBA-R.  Develop a close-knit team with joint Board-Administration planning and collaboration. Beginmng with the 1993-94 school year, the Board, interim superintendent, and immediate staff entered into a very positive and productive relationship. Our superintendent and boards, work in harmony, both professionally and personally. A workshop to facilitate the initiation and accomplishment of this strategy will need to be scheduled and held within the very near future. 25. Adopt and follow a polity for improved Board governance. Action Taken: This recommendation has not been implemented. The Board of Directors has reduced the number of requests for information and is more sensitive to the working conditions of staff. 6. Purge the Professional Negotiations Agreement of provisions which unduly limit Board control of key educational programs and practices. Action Taken: Recommendation #5 has not been addressed. 7. Improve educational facilities based upon a district-wide needs assessment. Action Taken: A comprehensive facilities needs assessment conducted by an outside third party has not been completed. A facilities needs assessment has been recently completed by Plant Services. 8. Develop and implement functional curriculum documents. Action Taken: Functional and user-friendly curriculum and resource guides have been developed and have been utilized by staff for nearly two years. Teachers played a major role in the development of these curriculum documents. Teachers have a complete set of guides. Old guides were collected district-wide and disposed of to prevent confusion and misunderstanding regarding our Board-approved curriculum. T^e revised guides, customized test item bank, and the newly-installed instructional management system should facilitate the accomplishment of this recommendation. 9. Develop and implement a participative curriculum management process. Action Taken: A curriculum management process has been established in policy. Given the mandates from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) regarding the establishment of a new curriculum framework that determines the basis for district curriculum as well as the states 3initiatives regarding assessment, the district has aligned its curriculum development and assessment with the ADE. Recommendation #9 was utilized as the curriculum was revised. 10. Consolidate curriculum functions to facilitate curriculum planning, development, and delivery. Action Taken: The curriculum functions have been consolidated as of March, 1991 (refer to \"No More Excuses\"). Formation of a district-wide testing program has been delayed as the ADE is establishing a state-wide focus on assessment. The Program Planning and Budgeting Document presently serves as written procedures for course additions, deletions, or changes in curriculum. Quality staff development to support and enhance the newly-adopted programs of curriculum offerings remains a major concern that must be addressed by the district if we are to increase achievement for all students, which should result in the reduction of disparity between black and white students. 11. Establish a functional assessment program and expand testing. J Action Taken: A comprehensive plan to address expansion of district testing was developed during the 1992-93 school year. The decision was made to delay further development and/or expansion of tests pending the outcome of the ADEs initiatives regarding assessment. The district has developed and is using a customized test item bank and other authentic assessment measures to determine the effectiveness of our revised curriculum. See EPS codes IL and IM (also AFE). 412. Establish consistency and equity in educational programs. Action Taken: The issues raised in recommendation #12 are being addressed within the context of our court-approved desegregation plan. However, areas exist that have not been totally resolved and/or remediated. 13. Move toward greater involvement in budgeting with curriculum linkages. Action Taken\nThe development and utilization of the districts Program Planning and Budgeting Document affords us a mechanism for addressing this concern. The completion of Phase 11 of the Desegregation Audit, including non-desegregation programs, will establish curriculum linkages and allow district personnel to constructively monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of all of our programs. 14. Develop and use long-range strategic planning process. Action Taken: The Superintendent has committed to the districts development of a long-range strategic plan. A number of components needed in this process are currently in place. 5Ui, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 SEP 2 ?ssg OfffCEOf August 31, 1998 ' ^^^^SR^SATlONMOfjlTOnifjQ TO: Ann Brown, ODM FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent - Instruction SUBJECT: Promised Documents As I promised, I am sending to you a couple of documents: 1. A copy of the Executive Summary of the Kansas City, Kansas, Exit Plan 2. A copy of a draft of our Division 1998-99 Work Plan. Wed welcome your feedback. Im looking forward to our meeting at ODM and to my lunch with you and Liz. Thanks to for your Friday phone cal. I enjoyed the conversation! BAL/rcm1998-99 Work Plan for the Division of Instruction Little Rock School District SEP 2 iaL8 OFFICE OF OESEGREGATIOfJMOfilTORIFlG STANDARDS 1. Review and recommend revisions of the Boards Instruction policies. 2. Complete the 7-12 curriculum standards in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. April 1999 Bonnie Lesley Linda Young Report to Dr. Carnine of recommended changes. Board approval of recommended changes Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Goals 2000 Jan. 1999 3. Review and revise elementary, middle, and high school Curriculum Catalog\nconduct orientation sessions for central office staff, principals, and counselors. 4. Begin implementation of K-6 curriculum standards in English language arts and social studies. .S. Implement new science curriculum in grades K-8. Dec. 1998 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. NSE Project. Goals 2000. 1998-99 1998-99 Gene Parker, Team Leader Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Lucy Lyon ADE Bonnie Lesley Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Lucy Lyon Carol Green Jo Evelyn Elston Gene Parker Marie McNeal Pat Price Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Pat Price Board approval of Standards documents. Publication of curriculum standards. Publication of new K-12 Curriculum Catalog. Agendas and meeting dates for orientation sessions. Professional development agendas and meeting dates. Publication of curriculum documents. Teacher familiarity with K-6 standards as measured on end-of-year survey. Professional development agendas and meeting dates. Publication of curriculum documoents. Teacher familiarity of K-8 standards as measured on end-of-year survey. 16. Implement new mathematics curriculum in grades K-8. NSF Project. Goals 2000.    / ''ilr i-'Hiu 1998-99 7. Complete plan for middle school curriculum for fall 1999. 8. Publish Middle and High School Student/Parent Curriculum Handbooks. 9. Define and establish Delivery Standards. 10. Align school schedules. Pre- K3 reading curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, assessment, professional development, monitoring/ coaching, and parent information/ education with Strategic Plan and Desegregation Plan. 11. Align school schedules, mathematics curriculum, and professional development with Strategic Plan and Desegregation Plan. \" Strategic Plan: Strategy 3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Goals 2000. Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. Strategic Plan: Strategy 3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: Sections 5.2.1,5.2.2, and 5.2.3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: Sections 5.3, 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5. NSE Project. Oct. 1998 Jan. 1999 Jan. 1999 Nov. 1998 Nov. 1998 Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Pat Price Linda Young Gene Parker Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Jo Evelyn Elston Marian Lacy Bonnie Lesley Gene Parker Gene Parker Pat Price Linda Young Marion Woods ADE Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Pat Price Linda Young Marion Woods ADE Professional development agendas and meeting dates. Publication of cuniculum documoents. Teacher familiarity of K-8 standards as measured on end-of-year survey. Publication of committee recommendations. Board approval of recommendations. Publication of Curriculum Catalog and Middle School Student/Parent Curriculum Handbook. Publication of Middle and High School Student/Parent Curriculum Handbooks. Agendas and meeting dates for committee meetings. Publication of committee recommendations. Board approval of Delivery Standards. Agendas and meeting dates for professional development sessions for principals. Report on review of school schedules. Agendas and meeting dates for teacher training. Publication of curriculum documents. Board adoption of proposed Reading Curriculum goals. Report on review of school schedules. Agenda.s and meeting dates for teacher training. Publication of curriculum documents. Board adoption of proposed Reading Curriculum goals. 212. Develop in collaboration with Linda Watson a list of behavior standards\nadopt a discipline/ classroom management/ character education program and curriculum for teaching the behavior standards to all students. 13. Propose for Board adoption revised Graduation Standards and revision of tlie core curriculum requirements to align with new state requirements. 14. Implement Year One of NSF grant project: Extended Year Alg. 1\nAP examinations\nnew teacher training\nVital Link\nand Family MatlVScience programs. 5 . '(tiiiaii 15. Develop Early Childhood Education plan for fall 1999. 16. Develop plan to improve G/T, honors, and AP student enrollment and success (e.g., Project AVID). Strategic Plan: Strategy 10. Goals 2000 State law. Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. Goals 2000 NSF Project Strategic Plan: Strategy 8. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Goals 2000 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. NSF Project Mar. 1999 Jan. 1999 June 1999 Feb. 1999 Nov. 1998 Marie McNeal Jo Evelyn Elston Patty Kohler Terrence Roberts Kathy Lease Jo Evelyn Elston Marian Lacy Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Pat Price Marian Shead-Jackson Patty Kohler Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Mable Donaldson Terrence Roberts ADE Agendas and dates of committee meetings. Board approval of Behavior Standards. Board approval of character education curriculum. Publication of curriculum documents. Agendas and dates of teacher training during summer 1999. Board adoption of new Graduation Standards. Publication of new requirements in Curriculum Catalog and in the Middle/lligh School Student/ Parent Curriculum Handbooks. Records relating to Extended Year Alg. 1. Board adoption of policy relating to AP examinations. Agendas and dates of teacher training. Agendas and dates of meetings with Vertical Teams. Agendas and dates of Family Math/Science meetings. Copy of report submitted to NSF. Report on current status of Early Childhood programs. Publication of Early Childhood Improvement Plan. Board adoption of Early Childhood Improvement Plan. Publication of reorganization of Early Childhood programs and services as per Plan. Agendas and meeting dates of committee. Publication of recommended revisions to current policies, procedures, and programs. Board adoption of recommended changes. 3PERSONALIZED EDUCATION 17. Review Title I programs and services to align with COE, Smart Start, Campus Leadership Plan, NSF, Strategic Plan, and Desegregation and Education Plan. Strategic Plan: Strategy 3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan NSF Jan. 1999 1S. Complete planning for middle schools and smooth transitions from elementary and to high schools._________________________ 19. Assess ESL program and services and develop program improvement plan with estimated budget._________________________ 20. Review special education programs, policies, and/or procedures to ensure no racial discrimination in referral and p I a e e me nt______________________ 21. Begin needs assessment and initial planning for implementation of Smart Start program from ADE. Strategic Plan: Strategy 3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Goals 2000 State laws. Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Goals 2000 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Arkansas initiative Dec. 1998 June 1998 Dec. 1998 March 1999 Bonnie Lesley Leon Adams Kathy Lease Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Pat Price Steve Ross Phyllis McClure ADE___________ Kathy l.case Linda Young Gene Parker Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Patty Kohler Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Leon Adams Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Pat Price Publication of revised Quality Index that included requirements of Title I Publication of consolidated School Improvement Plan format to include requirements of Title I Report from consultant, Phyllis McClure Documentation of changes in Title I programs and services Publication of committee recommendations Board approval of committee recommendations Publication of report and improvement plan Copies of recommended changes in programs, policies, and/or procedures Board approval of recommended changes Publication of implementation plan Report to Board-minutes 4PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 22. Complete planning and begin implementation of middle school professional development program. 23. Conduct in collaboration with Sadie Mitchell the Year One training for Campus Leadership Plan. 24. Restructure the districts professional development program and services so that they build professional learning communities at the district and school levels. Strategic Plan: Strategy 3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Campus Leadership Plan Goals 2000 Jan. 1999 June 1999 Linda Young Marion Woods Bonnie Lesley Marion Woods Gene Parker I Publication of committee recommendations Agendas and meeting dates for professional development sessions Publication of training plan Agendas and meeting dates for sessions 25. Implement Year One of ASCD's UPDl project with focus on school change and improving achievment in reading and mathematics. 26. Provide training in prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity. 27. Consolidate COli, Campus Leadership, Title 1, and Instructional Technology planning requirements in collaboration with Sadie Mitchell\ndesign format and plaii'deliver training for Campus Leadership Teams. 28. Provide appropriate training for certified and clerical staff of Division of Instruction to improve productivity and communication. Strategic Plan: Strategy 7 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: Sections 2.6.1,2.12.1, 5.2.1j, 5.2.2g, 5.2.3e, 5.3.1 Campus Leadership Plan NSE ASCDs UPDI ASCDs UPDI Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. COE Campus Leadership Plan Title I Instnictional Technology Plan Strategic Plan Oct. 1998 June 1998 June 1999 Jan. 1999 June 1999 Bonnie Lesley Director, Professional Development Marion Woods Bonnie Lesley Director, Professional Development Marion Woods Marion Woods Terrence Rnhertx Bonnie Lesley Sadie Mitchell Leon Adams Lucy Lyon Director, Professional Development Marion Woods Bonnie Lesley Marion Woods Lucy Lyon Agendas and meeting dates of team meetings Copy of restucturing plan Board approval of plan Agendas and dates of activities Copies of quarterly reports to ASCD Agcnilas and dates of sessions \u0026lt;?opics of new planning format and process Publication of training plan Agendas and dates of training sessions Copies of needs assessments Agendas and dates of training sessions 5BUILDING COMMUNITY SUPPORT 29. Restructure the districts parent/community programs and services to align with the Strategic Plan, the Desegregation and Education Plan, tlie Campus Leadership Plan, the NSF project, and the requirements of Title 1. Strategic Plan\nStrategy 2. Strategy 8. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Campus Leadership Plan Goals 2000 Dec. 1998 Bonnie Lesley Debbie Milam Leon Adams Catherine Gill Linda Young Patty Kohler Pat Price Paulette Martin Marian Shead-Jackson Marian Baldwin Vanessa Cleaver Terrence Roberts Agendas and meeting dates of restructuring team Publication of reorganization and restructuring plan Board approval of reorganization and restructuring plan 6COMMUNICATION 30. Communicate curriculum standards so that all parents and students understand the expected knowledge and skills by grade level and course. Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. May 1999 31. Communicate aspects of middle school planning to smdents, parents, and community for fall 1999. 32. Provide second-language translations of key documents for students and parents. 33. Implement From Inside the CIA,\" a weekly publication for principals from the Division of Instruction. 34. Conduct quarterly meetings of all clerical staff in the Division of Instruction. Strategic Plan: Strategy 3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Goafs 2000______________ Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 May 1999 May 1999 September 1998 August 1998 June 1999 Bonnie Lesley Suellen Vann Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Maric McNeal Terrence Roberts Kathy Lease Linda Young Terrence Roberts Agendas and meeting dates of team Publication of communications plan Agendas and publications to implement plan Agendas and meeting dates of team Publication of communications plan Agendas and publications to implement plan Gene Parker Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Anita Gilliam Regina Moore Bonnie Lesley and designated staff Publication of documents in second languages Copies of weekly publications Agendas and dates of meetings 7ASSESSMENT 35. Design CRTs for fall 1999 in reading and mathematics. 36. Establish Perfonnance Standards in reading and mathematics. 37. Pilot HBJ CRTs in reading and mathenratics during 1998-99. 38. Reinvent PRE programs and services to support the Campus Leadership Plan. 39. Refine the Quality Index indicators and develop district and school profiles according to the proposed Quality Index. 40. Embed Title 1 and Smart Start accountability requirements into the Quality Index. Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 8 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: Sections 5,2.1g. 5.2,2c. 5.2.3r, and 5.3.2 Campus Leadership Plan NSF Title I and Smart Start COE Campus Leadership Plan Campus Leadership Plan Title 1 requirements Feb. 1999 Feb. 1999 May 1999 Dec. 1998 Dec. 1998 Dec. 1998 Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Kathy Lease Kathy Lease Dennis Glasgow Gene Parker Kathy Lease Dennis Glasgow Gene Parker Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Steve Ross Kathy Lease Steve Ross ADE Kathy Lease Leon Adams Steve Ross ADE Publication of CRTs Agendas and dates for training sessions Publication of communications plan for staff, parents, and students Agendas and date.s of team meetings Publication of proposed Performance Standards Board approval of proposed Performance Standards Copies of communication to teachers and principals (.'opies of assessments Summaries of results Copy of reorganization plan Copy of revised Quality Index Copy of revised Quality Index 841. Redesign the student grading and reporting system to reflect the standards-based focus of the district. May 1999 42. Design waiver form and process for schools seeking waivers from policy relating to Campus Leadership. 43. Redesign end-of-year climate suivey to include items relating to measuring progress of refonn. Campus Leadership Plan Campus Leadership Plan October 1998 Feb.1999 Kathy Lease Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Pat Price Patty Kohler Mable Donaldson Steve Ross Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Agendas and dates of team meetings Publication of report and recommendations Board approval of changes in grading system and reporting system Plan for teacher/principal training Budget for redesign of report cardselectronic and paper Copy of proposed waiver form and process Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Sadie Mitchell Copy of new survey instruments 97 i u PXg$^ J} LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 19, 1998 TO: Board of Directors FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Dr. Bonnie Lesiey, Associate Superintendent for Instnjction Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent Approval of Middle School Curriculum The staff recommends approval of the five attached documents: Area Middle Schools Curriculum and Parameters Dunbar Middle School Curriculum and Parameters Henderson Middle School Curriculum and Parameters Mann Magnet School Arts Curriculum and Parameters Mann Magnet School Science Curriculum and Parameters These course requirements for grades 6-8 were derived from and are aligned with the Middle School Program Standards\" adopted by the Board of Directors on October 22,1998. The process used to gather input on these documents included the following:  Initial proposal of course requirements and options developed by staff of the Division of Instruction and then review of drafts at each step of input.  Two reviews by the Superintendents Cabinet.  Three one-half day meetings with all eight middle school principals, Marian Lacey, and Linda Young to discuss and refine the initial drafts.  Input from counselors, teachers, assistant principals, and registrars as principals solicited feedback at the school level.  Presentation to all principals at their October meeting.  Meeting with and feedback from the Middle School Curriculum Committee, chaired by Gene Parker.  ODM was sent copies for review./\"hrrt LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 19, 1998 TO\nBoard of Directors FROM\nTHROUGH\nSUBJECT\nDr. Bonnie Lesley. Associate Superintendent for Instruction Les Gamine, Superintendent, Little Rock School District 1999-2000 High School Curriculum Board Policy IFD states the following\nChanges and improvements in curriculum offerings may be suggested and implemented administratively, as deemed necessary and educationally sound by the superintendent of schools but shall be reported to the Board prior to implementation. However, before new courses are added to the total offerings, such courses must be approved by the Board of Education. Courses may be dropped during one year because of few enrollees in the course, but reoffered and reinstated the following year by administrative action. This agenda item, then, does two things\n1. It reports on curriculum changes and improvements that are planned for fall 1999 implementation. 2. It requests the Board's approval of new courses added to the curriculum. The Division of Instruction has been engaged since August, in collaboration with school principals, counselors, and registrars, in a comprehensive review of the LRSD high school curriculum. We have examined and updated the 1991-92 curriculum catalog that was the last one published. We have made every effort to determine the list of all courses currently being offered and/or taught at each of the five high schools and Metropolitan. And we have given the curriculum supervisors, principals, and teachers the opportunity both to suggest new courses and to drop obsolete and unpopular courses. 14, New numbers have been assigned to make the numbers more meaningful. The first two digits designate the subject area. The third digit designates the first grade level at which the course may be taught (1= freshmen, 2= sophomore. 3= junior, 4= senior, and 5= advanced placement). The last digit is an odd number if the course is taught for only one semester and even if taught for a full year. 15. The Division of Instruction will publish soon a new edition of the High School Curriculum Catalog. It will include information on policy and regulations governing curriculum, graduation requirements, articulation agreements, course descriptions of all approved courses, and guidelines to advise students on course selection. When this publication is completed, the staff will provide copies to members of the Board. Request for New Course Approval The following twenty-two new courses are proposed for the Boards approval\nArt 1. Three-Dimensional Design (Sculpture) Grades: Credit\nSchool: 11-12 1 Parkview Magnet Business Education 2. Multimedia Applications in Business Grades: Credit: 11-12 3. Banking and Finance Principles Grades: Credit: 11-12 % 4. Banking and Finance Operations Grades\nCredit: 11-12 5. Banking and Finance Marketing Grades: Credit\n11-12 6. Banking and Finance Law Grades: Credit: 11-12One important source to examine was the IMS master course list. However, courses unique to one or two schools or courses added in fall 1998 did not necessarily appear on that list. Therefore, the attached tables do not always list a prior course number or title even though the course had prior Board approval. Information Report The attached report of high school courses for 1999-2000 allows the Board, staff, and others to see the following changes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Some regular-level courses previously open to only one or two schools are now open to high schools if recommended by the Campus Leadership Team and approved by the principal, if adequate funding is available for materials and equipment, and if adequate numbers of students enroll. All advanced placement courses offered by the District at any school are now available at five high schools to ensure equitable access to this valued curriculum. Previously designated honors/GT/enriched/Pre-AP/AP courses are now all consistently designated Pre-AP or AP. (AP is an abbreviation for Advanced Placement.) Some course titles changed, as the report shows, due either to a need for consistency, to an issue of clarity, to changes in the states vocational course titles, and/or to a need to align with standard course titles. Ninth-grade courses previously taught in the junior highs have been moved to high school, thereby requiring some re-numbering of course sequences. Adopted core curriculum courses for second-language students at Hall High have been clarified and listed both under ESL and the respective subject areas. Full-year courses in a sequence have been consistently titled as I, II III, etc. One-semester courses in a sequence have been consistently titled as A, B. In some cases, due to the new four-year high school, prior gradelevel designations have been changed to include freshmen. 10. The Rationale/Notes column indicates courses or special groupings that are being deleted. 11. One-quarter courses have been eliminated or changed to one- semester courses. 12. The new University Studies courses at Hall High have been designated as APU (in English, Social Studies, and Science). 13. Special Education course titles have been changed to reflect new regular education curriculum and sequences.Journalism 17. Journalism III Grades: Credit: 11-12 1 18. Journalism IV (to be implemented in fall 2000) Grades: Credit: 12 1 JROTC 19. Air Force JROTC IV Grades: Credit: School: 12 1 Central High 20. Naval Science JROTC IV Grades: Credit: School: 12 1 Parkview Magnet Mathematics 21. Calculus Grades: Credit: 12 1 Trades and Industry 22. Computerized Commercial Art III Grades: Credit: School: 12 1 Parkview Magnet Please note that many, many courses have been deleted. They are indicated at the end of each subject area. Attachments BAL/rcmCommunications 7. Debate II Grades: Credit\n11-12 8. Debate III (to be implemented in fall 2000) Grades: Credit: 12 1 Dance 9. Young Mens Dance \" Grades: Credit\nSchool: 9-12 1 Parkview Magnet Drama 10. Drama II Grades: Credit: 10-12 1 11. Drama III (to be implemented in fall 2000) Grades: Credit: 11-12 1 English 12. The Bible as/in Literature Grades: Credit: School: 10-12 Pilot at Hall High in 1999-2000\nthen open to all Family and Consumer Science 13. Managing Resources Grades: Credit: 9-12 14. Food Science Grades: Credit: 11-12 72 15. Child Care and Guidance Management Services Grades: Credit: 10-12 1 16. Parenting Grades: Credit: 9-12 72Art 020400 020500 020800 020900 020600 021100 021100 020525 020575 020675 020160 020260 020300 020301 020302 020350 020375 Xbbrey?Mi^ thia INTRO TO ART ARTDESIGN GFtAPHC DESGN INTRO PAINT ART WATERCOL GREAT ART 12 FNE ARTS\nART DRAWING l-PM DRAWING II STUDIO ARTAP LAB ART I 9 LAB ART II 9 ART I 9 ART II 9 ART III 9 LAB ART III SCI ILLUS 9 ilDMcriptloni'^'M^^SSW^ Introduction to ArtGrades 10, 11,12 ArtDesign - Grades 10,11, 12 Graphic DesignGrades 11, 12 Introduction to Painting Grades 11,12 ArtWatercolorGrades 11, 12 Creative ArtGrade 12 onlyfor Adv. Fine Arts SurveyArt, Grades 10-12 Drawing IParkview Magnet, Grade 10 Drawing IIParkview Magnet Studio Art APParkview Magnet Lab Art l-Grade 9 Lab Art ll-Grade 9 Art l-Grade 9 Art ll-Grade 9 Art Ill-Grade 9 Lab Art III Scientific Illustrations (Art Elective) High School Course Changes Little Rock School District iV9\n|2000$ 'Cburse^J 021000 022000 022002 022004 022006 024000 022001 021008 022008 025000 025002 Abbroy.^f^ Title M INTRO TO ART ARTDESIGN GRPHC DSGN PAINTING WATERCOLOR GREAT ART SURVEY ART DRAWING 1 DRAWING 2 STUDIO ART AP ART HIST AP ^piidriptloh'fifcf^,^ bd Introduction to Art ArtDesign Graphic Design Painting Watercolor Creative Art Survey of Fine Arts Drawing I Drawing II Studio Art AP Art History AP {f-V-:*'' Simplified title. Simplified title. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 1ArtParkview Magnet only LCpuree^ 020572 POTTRY I \u0026amp; II i*-*! '''W It 020585 020660 020555 020582 020590 020595 020700 022000 AV CRAFTS JL DRAWING III OILSPM CRAFTS FIBER PRINTMAKING ART HISTORY ART CRAFTS SCR PRNT AIR ^*99\u0026gt;2oqo.^ ,Cout i rseA t\"SitVy Pottery I \u0026amp; IIParkview Magnet 022003 023003 022010 ^Abbrev^ POTTERY A KM POTTERY B POTTERY Pottery A Pottery B Pottery Ratlofiiale/Ndtesls Advanced Crafts/ Jewelry- Parkview Drawing III (Comb)  Parkview Magnet OilsParkview Magnet- Semester Crafts FiberParkview Magnet 022012 024008 023002 022014 023004 JEWELRY DRAWING 3 OILS CRAFTS FIBER 3-D DESIGN Jewelry Drawing III Oils CraftsFiber PrintmakingSemester- Parkview Art HistoryParkview Magnet Art Crafts- Grades 11,12 Screen Printing/ /Mrbrush Techniques 022005 021010 PRINTMAKING ART HIST Three-Dimensional Design Printmaklng Art History Separate numbers required. Parkview Magnet only. Separate numbers required. Parkview Magnet only. Number to schedule fullyear course. Simplification of titles. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 2 Business Education 030500 030300 ^Description1^?j:?7^ [*99\n2000W 030425 030200 030455 030460 030800 030900 031175 032017 031200 031205 030700 031450 031600 031675 031650 KEYBOARDING KBD APP I 9 KEYBRD l/ll COMPUTER TI WORD PROC\nI WORD PROCJI COMP ACCT I COMP ACCT ii COMP APPL:DB CA\nSPRDSHEET SUPERWRiTE SUPERWRITE II BUSINESS LAW JREXECTRNG COE-RELATED COEEARLY COECOOP ii  - tv Keyboarding 9th__________ Keybbarding Applications I 9 Keyboarding and Keybbarding Applications I Computer Technology Introduction Word Processing I 11-12- Semester Word Processing II- Semester Computerized Accounting I- 10 Computerized Accounting II- -11 Computer Applications Data Base-Semester Computer Applications Spreadsheet Supenwrite-Semester Superwrite II (Magnet) 10 Business LawGrades 10, 11,12 Junior Executive Training Grades 11 Cooperative Office Education-Related Cooperative Office Education-Related Cooperative Office Education-Coop 031001 031003 031004 031019 031005 032005 032002 032004 033004 032007 032009 033002 032011 032013 033004 033006 033008 033010 033012 '\nAbbreV^SK' Is? Pescripllpn^ ^patlohBle/ ^btes^ KEYBOARDiNG KEYBD APPLS KEYBD/APPL COMPTECH INT WORD PROC A WORD PROC B WORD PRO A/B COMP ACCT 1 COMP ACCT 2 DATABASE MGT SPREADSHEETS OFFICE MGT RAPID WRTG A RAPID WRTG B BUSINESS LAW JR EXEC TRNG COE-RELATED COE-RELATED COE-COOP OJT Keyboarding________ Keyboarding Applications Keyboarding and Keyboarding Applications (full year) Computer Technology: Introduction Word Processing A Word Processing B Word Processing I Computerized Accounting I Computerized Accounting II Database Management Spreadsheet Applications Office Management Rapid Writing A Rapid Writing B Business Law Junior Executive Training Cooperative Office Education- Related Cooperative Office EducationRelated (Early Bird) Cooperative Office Education -OJT Word Processing A\u0026amp;B 3CT\" 030225 COMPUTER TBP 031100 COMP PG:AD B 030400 KEYBD:APP II Computer Technology Basic Programming_____________ Computer Programming: Advanced Basic___________ Keyboarding /Applications II- -Semester 032000 DESKTP PUBL 032005 Desk Publ II Computer Desktop Publishing-Semester Advanced Desktop Publishing (Magnet) ^T^31?AbbrwI^^^^Rbo5cHpti5ril .99-2000.? tCourseUi 1N^ 031015 032015 032006 031017 032017 033001 033003 033005 033007 033009 ^Abbrev.M V .W' PROGAMMING A PROGRAMMING B COMP BUS APPL DESKTOP PUB A DESKTOP PUB B MULTIMEDIA BANK/FIN PRIN BANK/FIN OPR BANK/FIN MKG BANK/FIN LAW Programming A Programming B 032040 032045 BUS ETIQUET INTR TO BUS Business Etiquette (Magnet) Introduction to Business (Magnet) 032019 032021 B ETIQUETTE INTRO TO BUS 032050 BUS FINANCE 032065 INT BANK II 032020 030100 ENTREPRNSHP CLERICAL REC 030450 030475 KEY/KEY APP I WRD PROCI/II Business Finance (Magnet)_______________ International Business and Banking II______________ Entrepreneurship (Magnet) Clerical Record Keeping, Grade 10 033014 034002 033011 032023 031050 OFC TECH LAB Word Processing l/ll Grades 10, 11,12_______________ Office Technology Lab Grades 10-12 ECONOMICS BUS FINANCE INTRN BUS ENTREPRNSHP Computerized Business Applications_____ Desktop Publishing A______________ Desktop Publishing J_______________ Multimedia Applications in Business Banking and Finance Principles Banking and Finance Operations Banking and Finance Marketing Banking and Finance Law______ Business Etiquette Introduction to Business Economics Business Finance International Business_______ Entrepreneurship Simplified title. Simplified title. New course New course. New course. New course. New course. McClellan High only. McClellan High only. McClellan High only McClellan High only. McClellan High only. McClellan High only. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 4031150 032010 032015 171375 COMPTECH CP PROG: LOGO CP PROG:RPG GLOBAL ECON iL *7  ''u'Vv*- ** \"!(-f ,^'i S !if99-2000^ .Course^ 'NoS' Abbrey. f sif Title,' 5. i* - {DescHptldnr\u0026lt;W yS*.^ Computer Programming: Basii^Logo (Magnet) Computer Programming:RPG (Magnet) Global Economics-Central Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 5Communications ^CoUrse\u0026gt;^\nAbbrev.')\u0026gt;fS iij-r' SNo/t'Jij'iife' :\u0026lt;ntia j: TT * Description VeiVJtT^'^k^ ^^f\"J',' ' 99-^VW'f^ CourseW 052570 COMM/SPEECH9 JL. Communication/ Speech Grade 9 051100 COMMUNICA 1 Communication i 053000 053100 053400 055020 055030 051300 051102 ESL COMMON 1 ESL Communication i COMMUNCTR i COMMUNCTR it DEBATE PUB SPEAKiN GRP DYNAMiC COMMUNiCA il jRatldpaWNdt^l^'^ Hall High only\nfor second-language students Communications IGrades 10-12 Communications II Grades 11-12 DebateGrades 11-12 Public Speaking (Magnet), Grade 10 Interpersonal Skills and Group Dynamics 052100 053100 052102 053102 054102 052104 052106 COMMUNiCA 2 COMMUNiCA 3 DEBATE 1 DEBATE 2 DEBATE 3 PUB SPKG GRP DYNAMiCS Communication ii Communication lii Debate I Debate II Debate iii Pubiic Speaking Interpersonal Skills and Group Dynamics New course to build program. New course to build program\neffective fall 2000. Dupiication. Deieted. 6DanceParkview Magnet Fl 23498\nA-''\"'-'- '   No.  t\"*-^ TvvVtV''*''/,-. DANCE TECH I Dance Techniques I- 121000 DANCE TECH 1  ~ D^re %chnioues I ' ' 123505 123510 123520 123500 123487 123492 123495 123501 DANCE TECHII DANCE TCHIII DANCE ENSBLE HISTRY DANCE DANCE I 9 DANCE II 9 DANCE III 9 DANCE TECIII Park view___________ Dance Techniques II Park view___________ Dance Techniques III- Parkview Dance Ensemble^ Parkview History of Dance Parkview Magnet Dance I 9 Dance II 9 Dance III 9 122000 123000 124000 123002 122002 121002 DANCE TECH 1 DANCE TECH 2 DANCE TECH 3 DANCE TECH 4 DANCE ENSBLE HIST DANCE MEN'S DANCE Dance Techniques I Dance Techniques II Dance Techniques III Dance Techniques IV Dance Ensemble History of Dance Young Men's Dance Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. 1 n 7Drama WWW No. v?  053500 053510 053525 053550 053600 053300 DRAMA DRAMA IS DRAMA II DRAMA III STAGE CRAFT INTERP COMM DramaInternational StudiesCentral______ Drama IIGrades 10-12 Drama IIIGrades 11-12 Stage CraftGrades 10-12 Interpretation Communication 051200 051202 052200 053200 052202 052204 DRAMA 1__ DRAMA 1 IS DRAMA2 DRAMA 3 STAGE CRAFT INTERPCOMM Drama I Drama I International Central High only. Studies Drama II Drama III Stage Craft Interpretative Communication New course to build program.__________ New course to build program\neffective fall 2000. I I 8DramaParkview Magnet fmgoooWBBraOT^ 'Counsel 050720 MIMEPM 050750 CLASS SCENE 050715 ACTINGPM 050755 CHILD THEATR 050760 THEATR HIST 053460 053560 DRAMA 9 THEATR/ARTS MimeParkview Magnet full year Classic Scene Study Parkview ActingParkview Arts Magnet Children's Theater- Parkview Magnet Theater HistoryParkview Magnet DramaGrade 9 Theater and ArtsGrade 9 052206 052208 052210 052212 052212 MIME CLASSIC STDY ACTING CHILD THTR THTR HISTORY i'\n:' ** '**.\u0026lt;' Mime Classic Scene Study Acting Children's Theater Theater History Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. 9\nNoJ '?vt^' '''\" ' ' - noinnV '\" .tis jJoAii 081000 I DRIVER ED Driver Education Semester 081001 i DRiVER ED iS^ Driver Education IBSiSa Taught in summer school only. 10English 6CpU(ej 180709 180710 180711 180712 050302 050304 s3t\u0026gt;' y\nra y. f- ''Course\n^ .'.Title Idsa 050402 050406 050502 050504 050506 050602 050615 050605 050611 050603 050612 050700 055010 LANG ARTS-r LANG ARTS-rQ LANG PLUS 11 LANG PLUS 12 ENGLISH R 9 ENGLISH GT 9 ENGLISH 10 R ENG 10 GT/H ENGLISH 11 R ENG 11 GT/H ENGLISH GT ENGLISH 12 R ENG 12 REB ENGLISH GT ENG 12APEB ENGLISH IS R ENGLISH IS/G CREATIV WRIT TECH WRITING Language Arts -i- 9 Language Arts Plus 11 Language Arts Plus 12 English Regular 9 English GT/ Enriched 9 English Regular 10 English GT/ Honors Grade 10___________ English Regular 11 English GT/Honors Grade 11__________________ English GT 11 Hall, Fair_____________ English Regular 12_____ English 12 Regular (Early Bird) English GT/Honors Hall, Fair, Central_____ English 12 AP (Early Bird) 12 English/lntemational Studies Regular________________ English GT/Honors International Studies Creative Writing 12 (Magnej) Technical Writing (Magnet)______ No\n5?\" 051000 052000 053000 054000 051002 051004 052002 052004 053002 053004 055004 055006 054002' 054004 055008 055010 054006 055012 054008 053001 ww LANG ARTS 1 + LANG ARTS 2+ LANG ARTS 3-I- LANG ARTS 4+ ENG 1________ ENG 1 PRE-AP ENG 2_______ ENG 2 PRE-AP ENG 3_______ ENG 3 PRE-AP ENG 3 AP ENG 3 APU ENG 4 ENG 4 ENG 4 AP ENG 4 AP ENG 4 IS ENG 4 IS AP CRT WRTG/MAG TECH WRTG 21S Language Arts Plus I Language Arts Plus II Language /Vts Plus III Language Arts Plus IV English I___________ English I Pre-AP English II______ English II Pre-AP English III______ English III Pre-AP English III AP English III AP English IV_________ English IV (Early Bird) English IV AP English IV AP (Early Bird) English IV International Studies____________ English IV International Studies AP Creative Writing and Magazine Production Technical Writing 3 Pre-AP courses Include GT/EnrIched. Pre-AP courses include GT/Enriched. New Advanced Placement course. Hall High only, Dual CTedil with UALR. This number 1$ needed to schedule zero-hour course._____________ Pre-AP courses include GT/Enriched. This number needed to schedule zero-hour course. AP courses include GT/Enriched. Central High only._________ Course includes production of literary magazine._________ Course is open to all schools. 11mS}|B :ppur*ej\u0026lt;^ No.^a'vv isll 'Course'.\"-*' 053006 l^^sSOI RESEARCH 053008 052001 052003 MULTICUL LIT BIBLE AS/IN LIT ACT PREP ENG Research for the 21 Century fW- 4^ ROSS 180310 180410 180510 160610 180713 050310 050311 050315 050325 050406 050407 050505 050610 READING/ENG READ/ENG ASST READING/ENG READING/ENG LAP 12________ ENGLISH GT 9 I SKILLS GT9 ENGLISH EN 9 TECH WRIT 9 ENGLISH HONR ENGLISH GT ENGLISH HNRS ENG 12 GT/AP Reading/Engllsh Assistance Reading/Engllsh Assistance Reading/Engllsh Assistance English GT 9 Introductory Skills Seminar, Grade 9 English Enriched 9_______ Technical Writing9 Semester English Honors 10 Hall, Fair______________ English GT 10 Hall. Fair English Honors 11 Hall, Fair English 12 Adv. Placement, 12 Multicultural Literature The Bible as/ln Literature ACT Preparation Hall High only. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted No longer taught. Duplication. Deleted Not taught at grade 9. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication, peleted. 12 IrWc^sw :ZiJ I Ol BR9'^P*'?V^i?^'????^t^5PU'W4000.*|JAbbr '4 .Course?^^ -Title 051500 052500 053500 054500 051502 052502 053502 054502 051102 151000 151002 152002 153002 154002 131000 132000 133000 bbrevj W ESL English 1 ESL English 2 ESL English 3 ESL English 4 ESL LA PLUS 1 ESL LA PLllS 2 ESL LA PLUS 3 ESL LA PLUS 4 ESL COMM 1 ESL INTRO SS ESL CIVICS ESL WRLD HIST ESL US HIST ESL US GOVT ESL PHYS I ESL BIOL I ESL CHEM I ESL English I______ ESL English II_____ ESL English III_____ ESL English IV_____ ESL Language Arts Plus I_____________ ESL Language Arts Plus II____________ ESL Language Arts Plus III __________ ESL Language Arts Plus IV___________ ESL CommunicaBon I ESL Introduction to Social Studies ESL Civics ESL World History ESL United States History_______ ESL United States Government ESL Physics I ESL Biology I ESL Chemistry I Hall High only Hall High only. Hall High only. Hall High only. Hall High only. Hall High only. Hall High only. Hall High only. L't.vi.fcH \u0026gt; ? Hall High only. See also In Communications.* Hall High only. See also In \"Social Studies*_____ Hall High only. See also In Social Studies.*_____ Hall High only. See also in Social Studies.*_____ Hall High only. See also in *Social Studies.*_____ Hall High only. See also In *Soclal Studies.*_____ Hall High only. See also In *Science.*_________ Hall High only. See also In Science.*__________ Hall High only. See also In *Sclence.* i I 13Family and Consumer Science \u0026lt; 1999-^95'^1'\nCour\nivS  \u0026gt;Titi^\n^rf^\u0026gt; 090210 HOME EC 9 090500 HSE MANAGMT 090811 INTPERS REL 090810 090600 090900 090700 090650 090400 090655 090750 091000 FAMILY DYNAM FPS \u0026amp; NUTRI CHDVL/PRT-RE CLOTH \u0026amp; TEX FD PROD MGTI HUMAN DEVEL FD PRD MGTII CONSUMER ED CHDVL/PTG KG Description I \u0026lt;99-2000 f.\n-.' 1 Course i :_ Home Economics 9 No\nfi \u0026gt;4i' 091000 AbbrrW^ i FAM\u0026amp;CONSCI Housing Management- semester___________ Interpersonal Relations Family Dynamics Foods and Nutrition Child Development/ Parenting Related Clothing and Textiles Semester Ftxxl Production, Management, and Services____________ Human Development- Semester____________ Food Production/ Restaurant Management Consumer Education- Semester Child Development/ Parenting Kinder 091001 091003 091005 091002 091007 093007 091009 092010 091011 091013  093008 094008 H\u0026amp;INT DSN HUMAN REL MNG RSRC FAM DYNAMICS FD \u0026amp; NUTRI FOOD SCI CHILD DEVEL CHILD CARE PARENTING CLOTH MGT FD PROD MGT 1 FD PROD MGT 2 Family and Consumer Science Housing and Interior Design____________ Human Relations Managing Resources Family Dynamics Food and Nutrition Food Science______ Child Development Child Care and Guidance Management Services___________ Parenting__________ Clothing Management Food Production, Management, and Services I_______ Food Production, Management, and Services II______ McClellan High only. McClellan High only. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 14Foreign Languages C*99-2p00T AJJirwk 061100 061200 FRENCH I 9 FRENCH II 9 Frenct) IGrade 9 French IIGrade 9 -Ul^ Course 'WSPittsa 061100 062100 FRENCH 1 FRENCH 2 s i* 061300 FRENCH III French IIIGrades 9-12 061401 FRENCH IV AP French IV APGrades 10- 12 063100 064100 065100 FRENCH 3 FRENCH 4 FRENCH 4 AP French I (Grade 9) French II (Grades 9- 12)______________ French III French IV________ French IV AP 061501 FRENCH V AP French V APGrades 10- 12 064102 065102 FRENCH 5 FRENCH 5 AP French V French V AP 061510 061750 061755 061760 062200 062210 062220 062265 062267 062270 062501 062601 060400 060500 FRENCH VI AP GERMAN I 8\u0026amp;9 GERMAN II GERMAN III GRMN GT/AP GRMN GT/AP GRMNVI GT/AP LATIN I 9 LATIN II 9 LATIN III 9 LATIN III AP LATIV/AP/VIR SPAN I 9 SPAN II 9 French VI APGrade 12 German I German II____________ German III Latin I 9 Latin II 9 Latin III 9 Latin III AP Latin IV GT/AP Spanish IGrade 9 Spanish IIGrade 9 064104 065104 061200 062200 063200 064200 065200 064202 065202 064204 065204 061300 062300 063300 065300 064300 065302 061400 062400 FRENCH 6 FRENCH 6 AP GERMAN 1 GERMAN 2 GERMAN 3 GERMAN 4 GERMAN 4 AP GERMAN 5 GERMAN 5 AP GERMAN 6 GERMAN 6 AP LATIN 1 LATIN 2 LATIN 3 LATIN 3 AP LATIN 4 LATIN 4 AP SPAN 1 SPAN 2 French VI French VI AP______ German I_________ German II_________ German III________ German IV________ German IV AP German V________ German V AP______ German VI________ German VI AP_____ Latin I____________ Latin II____________ Latin III___________ Latin III AP________ Latin IV___________ Latin IV AP________ Spanish I (Grade 9) Spanish II (Grades 9- J2) 15060600 SPANISH III Spanish IIIGrades 9-12 063400 SPAN 3 -Si t \\ * ) .p.' 060701 SPAN IV AP Spanish IV APGrades 10- 12 064400 065400 SPAN 4 SPAN 4 AP 060801 SPAN V AP Spanish V APGrades 10- 12____________________ 064402 065402 SPAN 5 SPAN 5 AP ! 060810 060125 061900 062000 062100 062300 062400 060190 062700 062800 062900 064020 064030 064035 065030 065040 065050 SPAN VI AP IN LANGLIAGE9 GERMAN I GERMAN II GERMAN III LATIN I_______ LATIN II______ SKLS SPANISH CLS GREEK I CL GREEK II CLS GREEKIII RUSSIAN III 9 RUSSIAN 18-9 RUSSIAN II 9 JAPAN I JAPAN II JAPANESE III Spanish VI APGrade 12 Introduction to Language/CulturesGrade 9 __________________ German I German II______________ German III_____________ Latin II Classical Greek I Classical Greek II Classical Greek III Russian III Russian I_______ Russian II______ Japanese I______ Japanese II_____ Japanese III_____ 064404 065404 SPAN 6 SPAN 6 AP Spanish III (Grades 9- 12)_______________ Spanish IV_________ Spanish IV AP (Grades 10-12)_____ Spanish V_________ Spanish V AP (Grades 10-12)_____ Spanish VI_________ Spanish VI (AP) Not taught. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. DupllcaUon. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 16J Health and Physical Education T  Ik .'  ' '  V -I ./ 080920 080500 080520 080800 080540 080550 080510 HEALTH SM PE 9______ PE 9-12 SM  'U'v. .i '! PE 9-12 PE ELEC GIRL PE ELEC BOYS INT SPORTS 9 Health-Semester________ Physical Education9 Physical Education- semester______________ Physical Education (Grades 9-12)_________ Physical Education Elective (Giris) Physical Education Elective (Boys) Intramural Sports-Semester Course/K  .. -No. '\u0026gt;\n-.i. '\u0026gt;,' 081001 081003 081005 081002 201000 202000 203000 204000 201002 202002 203002 204002\nii\u0026lt;\nHEALTH PHYS ED 1A PHYS ED IB PHYS ED 1 ATHLETICS G1 ATHLETICS G2 ATHLETICS G3 ATHLETICS G4 ATHLETICS Bl ATHLETICS B2 ATHLETICS B3 ATHLETICS B4 , ViC *ei.5ire\"r Health and Safety Physical Education lA Physical Education IB Physical Education I Girls Athletics I Girls Athletics II Giris AthleUcs III Girls Athletics IV Boys Athletics I Boys AthleUcs II Boys Athletics III Boys Athletics IV Wttdhel^Noi^^^ V* 1  V  1 Required course. Required course. Elective course. Full-year course No credit toward satisfaction of graduation requirements. No credit.________ No credit.________ No credit.________ No credit toward satisfaction of graduaUon requirements._____ No credit.________ No credit.________ No credit.________ Not taught. Deleted. 17Journalism/Writing 054000 054100 054200 054250 055000 055005 020560 JOURNALISM I JOURN II JOURN II YB JOURN II SP MASS MEDIA MS MEDIA II PHOTOG-PM :. jiifu Jourrfalism IGrades 10-12 JourrlBlism IIGrades 11- 12 Journalism II (Yearbook) Grades 11-12 Journalism II (School Paper) Mass Media (Magnet) Grade 11 Mass Media IIGrades 10- 12 PhotographyParkview Magnet-Semester *g9\u0026gt;?ooQX Course,^: 'iPtl 051400 052400 JOURN 1 JOURN 2 Journalism I Journalism II 052402 052404 053400 053402 053404 054400 054402 054404 053405 054405 051406 JOURN 2 YB JOURN 2 NP JOURN 3 JOURN 3 YB JOURN 3 NP JOURN 4 JOURN 4 YB JOURN 4 NP MASS MEDIA A MASS MEDIA B PHOTOGRAPHY Journalism II (Yearbook) Journalism II (Newspaper) Journalism III Journalism III (Yearbook) Journalism III (Newspaper) Journalism IV Journalism IV (Yearbook) Journalism IV (Newspaper) Mass Media A Mass Media B Photography Some schools schedule both yearbook and newspaper together. Number needed to schedule Yearbook dass. Number needed to schedule Newspaper class. Third-year course allows program growth. Effective fall 2000. Number needed to schedule Yearbook dass. Effective fall 2000. Number needed to schedule Newspaper dass. Effective fall 2000. Fourth-year course allows program improvement. Effective fall 2001. Number needed to schedule Yearbook dass. Effective fall 2001. Number needed to schedule Newspaper dass. Effective fall 2001. McClellan High only McClellan High, only. Parkview Magnet only 18JROTC 260200 260400 260600 260100 260300 260500 AF ROTC I 10 AF ROTC II AF ROTC III NS ROTC 10 NJ ROTC II NJ ROTC III Air Force ROTC ICentral Air Force ROTC IICentral Air Force ROTC IIICentral Naval Science ROTC Parkview Magnet Naval Science ROTC II Naval Science ROTC III W-2000,V Course ',  No. 261000 262000 263000 264000 'AbbreVj (Titled\n. AF JROTC 1 AF JROTC 2 AF JROTC 3 AF JROTC 4 Air Force JROTC I Air Force JROTC II Air Force JROTC III Air Force JROTC IV 261002 262002 263002 264002 NS JROTC 1 NS JROTC 2 NS JROTC 3 NS JROTC 4 Naval Science JROTC I Naval Science JROTC II Naval Science JROTC III Naval Science JROTC IV a Central High only. Central High only. Central High only. Central High only. Effective fall 2002. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only.___________ Parkview Magnet Q!)L___________ Parkview Magnet only. Effective fall 2002. 19Marketing Education aeicflptl^ \u0026lt;lJ 171500 MARKET REL I Marketing Education 173000 MARKET ED 1 Marketing Education I 171700 MRKTG COOP I Related I_______________ Marketing Education Coop I 171750 171600 MRKTG COOP lAFT________ MRKTG REL II 171800 MRKTG COOP II Marketing Education Coop I (afternoon) Marketing Education Related II  ________ Marketing Education Coop II 173002 173004 174000 174002 171850 MRKTG COOP IIAF Marketing Education Coop II (afternoon) 174004 032080 032085 032030 032035 032080 171510 MRKTG COOP 1 MRKTG COOP 1 MRKTG Ed'2 MRKTG COOP 2 MRKTG COOP 2 fashion MDS ADVERTISING RETAILING SALESMNSHIP INSURANCE MARKET REL I Fashion Merchandising (Magnet)________ _____ Advertising (Magnet) Retailing (Magnet) Grades 1011__________ Salesmanship (Magnet) Grade 10_____________ Insurance (Magnet)_____ Marketing Education Related I (Early Bird) 172001 172003 173001 172005 FASHION MDS ADVERTISING RETAILING SALESMNSHIP Marketing Education Coop I____________ Marketing Education Coop I___________ Marketing Education II (Management) Marketing Education Coop II (Management) Marketing Education Coop II (Management) Fashion Merchandising Advertising_______ Retailing Salesmanship Afternoon class. Afternoon class. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 20 Mathematics 110501 110900 110904 111000 111004 111010 111300 111100 111104 111200 111250 111301 111351 110400 181000 110401 110402 110850 ALG I 9 R ALG II ALG lIGT GEOMETRY R GEOM GT/HNRS CONCEPT GROM PRE-CALCULSU TRIG/A ALG R TRGALG GT/H STATISTICS STATIS AP CALCUL GT/AP CALCUL BC AP PR-ALGEBRA 9 GEOM R APP MATH I 9 APP MATH II INTM ALGEBRA Algebra I Regular Algebra II 9________ Algebra 11 GT/Honors Geometry Regular Geometry GT/Honors Concepts of Geometry Trigonometry/ Advanced Algebra Regular T rigonometry/ Advanced Algebra GT/Honors Statistics Statistics AP Calculus AB AP Calculus BC AP Pre-Algebra 9 Applied Mathematics I 9 Applied Mathematics II Intermediate Algebra 111000 112000 112002 112004 112006 112008 113002 113004 113006 113008 115000 114000 115002 115004 112001 ii ALG I_________ ALG II_________ ALG II PRE-AP GEOMETRY GEOM PRE-AP CONCEPT GEOM PRE-CALCULUS TRIG/ADV ALG TRIG PRE-AP STATISTICS STATS AP CALCULUS CALC AB AP CALC BC AP ACT PREPiMATH Algebra I_______ Algebra II_______ Algebra II Pre-AP Geometry______ Geometry Pre-AP Concepts of Geometry Pre-Calculus Pacesetter Mathematics Trigonometry/ Advanced Algebra Trigonometry/ Advanced Algebra Pre-AP_________ Statistics Statistics AP Calculus Calculus AB AP Calculus BC AP ACT Preparation: Mathematics iti 'gr-\nThis course can substitute for Geometry. Need regular level of course. Deleted. Deleted. Deleted.__________ Deleted.__________ Not taught. Deleted. 21Music (Vocal, Band, Orchestra) Bo5535Mi?iIhhn5SjTJS!?35T75Serinnnn^5\u0026gt;3^ 'Coui 'Xoiiras^ 123100 123200 123300 CHOIR III CHOIR II CHOIR I Choir III Choii II Choir I 122900 121500 MADRIGALS BG BAND I 9 121530 BG BAND II 9 121600 121550 INT BAND 9 BG BAND 1119 122400 122500 FIRST BAND JAZZ BAND Madrigals Beginning Band I Woodwinds Beginning Band II Brass Intermediate Band Beginning Band III Percussion First Band (Concert) Jazz Band 121000 121002 122002 123002 124002 122004 121100 121102 122102 123102 121800 121900 122000 BG ORCHESTRA INT ORCH 9TH ADV ORCH 9TH Beginning Orchestra 021101 FNE ARTS:MUS Survey of Fine Arts--Music 124102 122006 123006 121200 121202 122202 123202 124202 121001 122880 MUSIC APPRECI Music Appreciation 121006 NOVICE CHOIR CHOIR 1 CHOIR 2 CHOIR 3 CHOIR 4 MADRIGALS NOVICE BAND Novice Choir Choir I Choir II Choir III Choir IV Madrigals Novice Band Beginners section Beginners' section BAND 1 BAND 2 BAND 3 BAND 4 JAZZ BAND 1 JAZZ BAND 2 NOVICE ORCH ORCHESTRA 1 ORCHESTRA 2 ORCHESTRA 3 ORCHESTRA 4 SURVEY MUS MUS APPREC Band I Band II Band III Band IV Stage Band I Stage Band II Novice Orchestra Orchestra I Orchestra II Orchestra III Survey of Fine Aris- Music Music Appreciation Beginners' section 22MusicParkview Magnet Si998:95^'1 i'Atbrev.-cwS^#\n Description' ' iCourseTitle': \\ s' tNo\nTitle: 35 jrs^^app^ 'CourseiS, :_ tNo? 122450 ENSEMBLE SM Small Ensemble Parkview Magnet 121300 122300 121302 122302 123302 124302 122304 123304 124304 121306 Abbrev -iiwjor Title , CADET BNP 1 CADET BNP 2 VARSITY BANP CONC BANP 1 CONC BANP 2 CONC BANP 3 SYMP BANP 1 SYMP BANP 2 SYMP BANP 3 INST ENSEM * pescrlp06n'j-\n| sgSilg^-w Cadet Band I Cadet Band II Varsity Band________ Concert Band I______ Concert Band II______ Concert Band III_____ Symphonic Band I Symphonic Band II Symphonic Band III Instrumental Ensemble Parkview Magnet only. 122870 123350 123325 123375 122865 120682 120685 121700 MUSIC THRY I MUSIC THRY II LAB SINGERS ARRANGING MUSIC HST AP PIANO I 9 PIANO II 9 ADV BAND 9 Music Theory IParkview Magnet Music Theory IIParkview Magnet Lab SingersParkview Magnet ArrangingParkview Magnet______________ History of Music AP Parkview Magnet Plano/Basic Musicianship I Piano/Basic Musicianship JI____________________ Advanced Band 122306 121400 122400 123400 125400 125402 123308 124308 VOC ENSEM MUSIC THRY 1 MUSIC THRY 2 MUSIC THRY 3 MUS THRY 3AP MUS THRY 4AP LAB SINGERS 1 LAB SINGERS 2 Vocal Ensemble Music Theory I Music Theory II Music Theory III Music Theory III AP Music Theory IV AP Lab Singers I Lab Singers II Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 23i 122050 122070 122080 122100 122200 122300 122800 122805 122810 123360 \u0026gt;  CHOIR 9 BOYS CHOIR 9 G B MUSIC III BAND III BEG BAND BAND II_______ ORCHESTRA INT ORCHESTR ADV ORCHESTR MUSIC T IIIAP Choir Boys 9_______ Choir Girls 9 Basle Musicianship III Band III Band II Interrliediate String Orchestra Advanced String Orchestra Music Theory III AP Coiiis* No. s S3^ Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 24I Science 'CptlrMf^ ' Counwiy'?^ No. 130600 130700 130401 130875 130500 130880 130801 130825 130901 130512 130750 130725 130861 PHYSICS UNIF PHYS I BIOLOGY BIOLOGY GT/H CHEMISTRY CHEM GT/HON UN PHYS II AP PHYSIOLOGY AV BIO GT/AP AP CHEMISTRY GEOLOGY/SCI ENVIRONM SCI AVSC T I GT Unified Physics I Biology_________ Biology GT/Honors Chemistry_______ Chemistry GT/Hon Unified Physics II AP Human Physiology- Semester Advanced Biology AP Advanced Placement Chemistry Physical Geology/Environ- mental Science Environmental Science AP Advanced Science Theoretical Research I 131000 131002 131004 132000 132002 132004 133000 133002 133004 135002 135004 133006 135006 ' 135008 134000 135010 133008 133010 X ESL PHYS I PHYSICS I PHYS 1 PRE-AP ESL BIOL I BIOLOGY 1 BIO 1 PRE-AP ESL CHEM 1 CHEMISTRY 1 CHEM 1 PRE- AP___________ PHYS 2 AP PHYS 2 APU ANAT\u0026amp;PHYS BIOL 2 AP CHEM 2 AP EARTH SCI ENV SCI AP ADVSCI RSRCH ARSRCH PRE- AP ESL Physics I________ Hall High only. Physics I________ Physics I Pre-AP ESL Biology I____ Biology I________ Biology I Pre-AP ESL Chemistry I Chemistry I______ Chemistry I Pre-AP Physics II AP Physics II APU Human Anatomy and Physiology Biology II AP Chemistry II AP Earth Science Environmental Science AP________________ Advanced Science/ Theoretical Research Advanced Science/ Theoretical Research Pre-AP Hall High only. Hall High only. Hall High only. University course._____ Combined two semesters for a full-year course. New senior-level course. Only one level is taught. 25)wo?g\u0026lt;^ 130310 130315 130350 130351 130850 130862 130886 130887 I P SCI 9 GT I P SCI ENR 9 INT SCI 9R I PHYSCI M 9 SCIENCEZreCH ADVS T II GT APP BIO/CHMI APPBIO/CHMII Integrated Physical Science GT 9 Integrated Physical Science Enriched 9 Integrated Science Regular 9 . Integrated Physical Science Magnet 9 Science/ Technology_____ Advanced Science Theoretical Research II Applied Biology/ Chemistry I Applied Biology/ Chemistry II Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 26ScienceParkview M agnet xCouree'^i i'No.: 1*99-2000! Course J No. )\u0026lt; i TAbbrWi\ni APDfWiJv l^b^ptlb^ 130885 130895 130905 130896 130828 130897 130260 130265 130304 I MICR BIOLOGY QL ANALYSIS ST/WRITING ENV HEALTH PHYSIOLOGY ORG CHEMSTRY LB SCIENCE 9 LB SCIENCEGT INT SCI 9 GT Microbiology--Semester Qualitative Analysis- Semester Applied Statistics/ Technical Writing- Semester___________ Environmental Health- Semester___________ Physiology-Semester Organic Chemistry- Semester Lab Science 9 Lab Science GT/ Enriched 9____________________ Integrated Science GT/EnrIched 9 133101 133103 133105 133107 133109 133111 MICROBIO QUAL ANALY STATS/WRTG ENV HEALTH ANAT\u0026amp;PHYS ORG CHEM Miaobiology Qualitative Analysis Applied Statistics and Technical Writing Environmental Health Human Anatomy and Physiology Organic Chemistry Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 27Social Studies Coursesft No.y\n' 151000 Atbre'v? ESL INT SOCST 11 150300 150304 150502 150402 150401 150405 150412 150802 150750 150600 150875 150880 150975 150760 CIVICS 9 CIVICS 9 GT/E WLD HISTORY AM HISTORY AMER HIST EB AM HISTRY GT AM HST/AP EB AM GOVERNMEN GLBL STUDIES WLD GEOGRAPH PSYCHOLOGY SOCIOLOGY EUR HST AP/G WRLD CULTURE Civics 9 Civics GT/Enriched World History 151002 151004 151006 152002 152004 152006 153002 ESL CIVICS CIVICS CIVICS PRE-AP ESL WRLD HST WORLD HIST W HIST PRE-AP ESL US HIST American History________ American History Regular (Eady Bird) American History GT 11-12 American History AP Early Bird American Government Global Studies Worid Geography Psychology Sociology_________ European History AP World Cultures GT 153004 153006 155006 155008 155010 154002 154004 155001 155003 151008 151010 151012 153001 155012 153003 155014 154006 US HIST US HIST US HIST AP US HIST APU US HIST AP ESL US GOVT US GOVT GOV\u0026amp;POL AP COMP GVTAP GLBL STUDIES WRLD GEOG WRLD GEOG PRE-AP PSYCHOLOGY PSYCH AP SOCIOLOGY EURO HIST AP WRLD CULTURE ESL Introduction to Social Studies ESL Civics Civics Civics Pre-AP ESL Worid History World History______ World History Pre-AP ESL United States History United States History United States History (Early Bird) United States History AP United States History AP United States History AP (Early Bird) ESL United States Government United States Government US Government and Politics AP Comparative Government AP Global Studies Worid Geography World Geography Pre-AP Psychology_______ Psychology AP_____ Sociology_________ European History AP World Cultures iiali Elective credit only. Hall High only. Hall High only. Hall High only. Hall High only. University course. Hall High only. One semester. One semester. 28'No.':sa,hK- 150215 150905 150340 150420 150225 150310 150315 150411 150420 150325 150327 150330 150505 150650 150805 150850 150860 150900 150950 AFR STUDIES9 ECONOMICS II GLBL STDS IS AM HIST IS ESL INTRO SOCST I SKILLS GT9 CIVICS GT9 CIVICS EN9 AM HIST GT/AP AM HIST IS UNITED NATNS INT ISS 9 LDS 20'\" CEN IS/AFRIC HST ARK STUDIES COMP GOVERMNT CT AM HISTRY INT RELATION ECONOMICS AM STUDIES African Studies 9-Dunbar Economics II (Maflnel) Global Studies IS American History GT AP O' hour ESL Introduction to Social Studies Introductory Skills Seminar GT 9 Civics GT9 Civics Enriched 9 American History GT 11-12 American History GT AP \"O' hour United Nations (1/2) International Issues 9 Leaders of 20'\" Century (1/2) Arkansas Studies Comparative Government Contemporary American History International Relations/ Contemporary Economics American Studies Seminar 152008 153008 153009 153010 151012 153012 X ?Abl^ Riisms^ a TWI*^ .V**\nAFR/AFR AM H ECONOMICS SERV LRNG PEER HELP GLBL STDS IS US HIST IS African/African American History Economics Service Learning Peer Helping and Facilitation Global Studies IS United States History IS McClellan High only. Hall High only. Central High only. Central High only. Changed to ESL Civics. Not taught. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught Defeted. 29Tracies and Industry 5 161460 170800 172300 172550 172400 172500 171000 171200 171250 171100 171300 171350 172600 172800 172850 172700 WRKPL READY CARPENTRY EX DRAFTING BAS AV MECH DRFT ARCH DRAFTING ENG DRAFTING CCE REL I CCE COOP I CCE CP AFT I CCE REL II CCE COOP II CCE CP HAFT ICT REL I ICT COOP I ICT COOP I AFT ICT REL II Workplace Readiness Carpentry Exploralion DraftingBasic Mechanical Drawing Advanced Mechanical Drafting Drafting-Architecture Drafting-Engineering Coordinated Career Education Related I Coordinated Career Education Coop I Coordinated Career Education Coop I- aftemoon Coordinated Career Education Related II Coordinated Career Education Coop II Coordinated Career Education Coop II- aftemoon Industrial Coop Training Related I Industrial Coop Training Coop I Industrial Coop Training Coop l-afternoon Industrial Coop Training Related II No., 172103 171100 172100 171001 172102 173102 173104 174104 173108 173110 173112 174108 174110 174112 173120 173122 173124 174120 WRKPL READY EXP IND TECH CARPENTRY EX EAST LAB BASMECHDRAW ADVMECHDRAW Af\\CH DRAFT ENGIN DRAFT CCE REL 1 CCE COOP 1 CCE COOP 1 CCE REL 2 CCE COOP 2 CCE COOP 2 ICT REL 1 ICT COOP 1 ICT COOP 1 ICT REL 2 Workplace Readiness Exploring Industrial Technology________ Carpentry Exploration Environmental and Spatial Technology Lab Basic Mechanical Drawing Advanced Mechanical Drawing___________ Architectural Drafting McClellan High only. Engineering Drafting Coordinated Career Education I_______ Coordinated Career Education Coop I Coordinated Career Education Coop I (afternoon) Coordinated Career Education II Coordinated Career Education Coop II Coordinated Career Education Coop II (afternoon) Industrial Coop Training I Related Industrial Coop Training I Coop Industrial Coop Training I Coop (afternoon) Industrial Coop Training II Related 30172900 ri' ICT COOP II ' \ni. ''r 172950 170250 170252 170251 170253 170900 160050 160055 160060 160401 160402 160705 161100 161200 ICT COOP HAFT GCE REL I GCE COOP I GCE REL II GCE COOP II CAREER ED EX AIR\u0026amp;HEAT TCI HEAT AIR EX AIR\u0026amp;HEAT TH APPL MATH 11 APPL MATH 11 COMM FOOD EX COMP TECH I COMP TECH II Industrial Coop Training Coop II Industrial Coop Training Coop ll-afternoon General Coop Education Related I General Cooperative Education Coop I General Cooperative Education Related 11 General Cooperative Education Coop 11 Coordinated Career Education Exploratory Air Conditioning and Heating Technology I Air Conditioning and Heating Technology II Applied Mathematics II Computer Technology I Computer Technology II '.Course yU 174122 lUbbi^ ICT COOP 2 174124 173126 173128 174126 174128 172130 173130 174130 ICT COOP 2 GCE REL 1 'AS GCE COOP 1 GCE REL 2 GCE COOP 2 COMM ART 1 COMM ART 2 COMM ART 3 3131 Industrial Coop Training 11 Coop Industrial Coop Training 11 Coop (afternoon) General Coop Education Related I General Cooperative Education Coop I General Cooperative Education Related 11 General Cooperative Education Coop II Computerized Commercial Art I Computerized Commercial Art II Computerized Commercial Art HI fol Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magriet only. Parkview Magriet only. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 31Metropolitan Courses 1 Metropo SCourseTE  164360 ^Abbrsv??^ WRKP RDNS sa. 7 'CourseiTiiii '' No. niti* ss\n160100 160200 160300 160400 160700 160800 160550 160650 160900 161100 162150 162250 AUTO BODY I AUTO BODY II AUTO TECH I AUTO TECH II COM FOODS I COM FOODS II CMP GRAPIC I CMP GRAPH II COMP DRFTG I CMP DRFTG II COMP PRTG I COMP PRTG II Workplace Readiness- Metro Auto Body/Paint Techhology I Auto Body/Paint Techhology II Automotive Technology I Automotive Technology II Culinary /Vts I Culinary Arts II Computer Graphics/ Commercial Art I Computer Graphics/ Commercial /Vt II Computer-Aided Drafting I Computer-Aided Drafting II Computer Graphics/Printing Technology I Computer Graphics/Printing Technology II 162000 162100 163100 164100 162102 163102 163102 162104 163104 164104 162106 163106 164106 162108 163108 164108 162110 163110 164110 WRKP READY AUTO BODY 1 AUTO BODY 2 AUTO BODY 3 AUTO TECH 1 AUTO TECH 2 AUTO TECH 3 CULINARY ART1 CULINARY ART2 CULINARY ART3 COMMER ART 1 COMMER ART 2 COMMER ART 3 C-A DRAFT 1 C-A DRAFT 2 C-A DRAFT 3 PRINTING 1 PRINTING 2 PRINTING 3 Workplace Readiness Auto Body/Paint Technology I Auto Body/PaInt Technology II Auto Body/Paint Technology III Automotive Technology I______ Automotive Technology II Automotive Technology III_____ Culinary /Vts I_____ Culinary Arts II_____ Culinary Arts III Computerized Commercial Art I Computerized Commercial Art II Computerized Commerical Art III Computer-Aided Drafting I Computer-Aided Drafting II Computer-Aided Drafting III Computer Graphics/ Printing Technology I Computer Graphics/ Printing Technology II Computer Graphics/ Printing Technology III Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. 32No, 1 161300 161400 161700 161800 161900 163100 163200 162700 162800 162300 161400 162500 162600 162430 162440 161450 161500 161600 161850 162900 163300 '_A__M__\u0026gt;M COSMETOLOGY I COSMETOLOG II ELECTRONICS I ELECTRONIC II ELEC III HEALTH OC I HEALTH PC II WELDING I WELDING II RADIO BRD I RADIO BRD II CONSTRUCTN I CONSTRUCT II TV PROD I TV PROD II COSMETOL III COMP PROG I COMP PROG II INDS CONTRLS WORD PROC I I WORDPROCT Cosmetology I Cosmetology II_____ Electronics I Electronics II Electronics III Medical Professions I Medical Professions II Metal Fabrication I (Welding) Metal Fabrication II (Welding) Radio Broadcasting I Radio Broadcasting II Residential Construction I Residential Construction II TV Production I TV Production II Cosmetology III________ Computer Programming I Computer Programming II Word Processing I Word Processing II 1994000 '.Cot^y 162112 163112 164112 162114 163114 164114 162116 163116 164116 162118 163118 164118 162120 163120 164120 162122 163122 164122 162124 163124 164124 162126 163126 164126 rabBs i Title j i^  COSMTLGY 1 COSMTLGY 2 COSMTLGY 3 ELECTRONICS 1 ELECTRONICS 2 ELECTRONICS 3 MED PROFS 1 MED PROFS 2 MED PROFS 3 WELDING 1 WELDING 2 WELDING 3 RADIO BRDCT 1 RADIO BRDCT 2 RADIO BRDCT 3 CONSTRUCT 1 CONSTRUCT 2 CONSTRUCT 3 TV PROD 1 TV PROD 2 TV PROD 3 DIESEL TECH 1 DIESEL TECH 2 DIESEL TECH 3 Cosmetology I______ Cosmetology II_____ Cosmetology III_____ Electronics I Electronics II_______ Electronics III_______ Medical Professions I Medical Professions II Medical Professions III________________ Metal Fabrication I (Welding)__________ Metal Fabrication II (Welding) Metal Fabrication III (Welding) Radio Broadcasting I Radio Broadcasting II Radio Broadcasting III Residential Construction I_______ Residential Construction II Residential Construction III TV Production I_____ TV Production II TV Production III Diesel Technology Services I Diesel Technology Services II Diesel Technology Services III Metropolitan only._____ Metropolitan only._____ Metropolitan only._____ Metropolitan only._____ Metropolitan only._____ Metropolitan only._____ Metropolitan only._____ Metropolitan only._____ Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan orily. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Not taught. Deteted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 33 I- t 163055 163250 163260 163325 163350 163425 163450 163550 163575 I 1 AIR COND:EX HEALTH COOP HEALTH OC EX COSMO LEXNC COSMO LEXCR COSMO ILEXNC COSMO ILEXNC AUTO TECH:EX AUTO BODY:EX Air Conditioning Technology and Repair Extended Health Occupations _^ucation Coop Medical Professions ^Extended Day Cosmetology I Extended DayNo credit Cosmetology I Extended Day-Credit_________ Cosmetology II Extended DayNo credit_______ Cosmetology II Extended DayNo credit_______ Automotive Technology Extended Day Auto Body/Paint TechnologyExtended Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Day Not taught. Deleted. 34J 163625 i COMP ART:EX wo tlpa J. -No\nSi\njTKto 163650 163700 163705 163750 163800 163805 163810 163850 163900 163910 170675 170700 172200 COMP PRTG:EX COMP DRFT:EX COMM FDS:EX WORD PROC:EX COMP PROG:EX RES CONST:EX CP CONSTR:EX COMP ELEC:EX TV PROD:EX RADIO BRD:EX IND TECH II BUS/TYPWRITE COMM ART Computer Graphics/ Comrherical ArtExtended Day Computer Graphics/Printing Extended Day Computer-Aided Drafting Extended Day Culinary ArtsExtended Day Word Processing Extended Day Computer Programming Extended Day Residential Construction Extended Day Computerized Construction T echnologyExtended Day Computer Technology/ ElectronicsExtended Day TV ProductionExtended Day Radio Broadcasting- Extended Day Industrial Education Technology II Exploratory Business/ Typewriting Commercial Art Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught Deleted. Not taught Deleted. Not taught Deleted. 35Special EducationResource Room ^*99:20001!? 'Course Course' ^Abbre^J 190900 191400 191800 192200 190950 191750 192150 193000 191100 191600 192005 192405 191200 191700 192510 192050 191000 192320 191910 192300 192310 191300 191500 191510 191775 191900 192505 ENGLISH RR 9 ENG 10 RR ENG 11 RR ENG 12 RR READING RR 9 READING RR LEARNING RR LEARNING RR MATH RR 9 MATH RR BUS MATH RR BUS MATH RR PHY SCI RR 9 BIO RR HEALTH RR EARTH SCI RR CIVICS RR 9 WO HIST RR WO GEOG RR A HISTORY RR GOVERNMENTRR LRNG ST RR 9 AM GOVT RR AM HIST RR LRN STRAG RR A HISTORY RR PHYS SCI RR English RR 9________ English 10 RR_______ English 11 RR_______ . English 12 RR_______ Reading RR 9________ _ Reading RR 10_______ Learning Strategies RR 11 ' Learning Strategies RR 12 _______ Mathematics RR 9 Mathematics RR 10 Business Mathematics RR______________ Business Mathematics RR 12 _______ Physical Science RR 9~ Biology RR IQ________ Health RR___________ Earth Science RR Civics RR 9 World History RR 10 World Geography RR American History RR 12 American Government RR 12_______________ Learning Strategies RR 9 American Government RR American History RR Learning Strategies RR 10 US History RR-11 Physical Science RR No. Title ENG 1 RR ENG 2 RR ENG 3 RR eng 4 RR READ 1 RR READ 2 RR READ 3 RR READ 4 RR MATH 1 RR MATH 2 RR MATH 3 RR MATH 4 RR PHYS SCI RR BIOLOGY RR HEALTH SCI RR EARTH SCI RR CIVICS RR WRLD HIST RR W GEOG RR US HIST RR US GOVT RR i 36Special EducationSelf Contained M#98-99S|f, 'No.  I  Abbrey, '.Title\nVDescrfptlon^ 193900 194400 194800 195200 193950 194750 ENGLISH SC 9 ENGLISH SC10 ENGLISH sen ENGLISH SC12 READING SC 9 READING SC English SC 9 English SC 10 English SC 11 English SC 12 Reading SC 9 Reading SC 10 ' \n|i*9-2000!^  No. 194100 194600 MATH SC 9 G MATH SC 10 195000 G MATH 11 195505 G MATH SC 12 194200 194700 195510 PHY SCI SC 9 BIOLOGY SCIO HEALTH SC 12 Mathematics SC 9_____ General Mathematics SC 10__________________ General Mathematics SC 11__________________ General Mathematics SC 12 _______________ Physical Science SC 9 Biology SC 10_________ Health SC 12 191000 192000 193000 194000 191002 192002 193002 194002 191004 192004 2k^i ENG 1 SC ENG 2 SC ENG 3 SC ENG 4 SC READ 1 SC READ 2 SC READ 3 SC READ 4 SC MATH 1 SC MATH 2 SC 193004 194004 MATH 3 SC MATH 4 SC ^TMOeSefii - tfe- !.:i' 194000 195320 194910 195300 195310 CIVICS SC 9 W HISTORY SC GEOPHERAPHY SC____________ A HISTORY SC GOVERNMENTSC Civics SC 9__________ Worid History SC 12 World Geography SC 11 191006 192006 193006 194006 191008 192008 192010 PHYS SCI SC BIOLOGY SC HEALTH SCI SC EARTH SCI SC CIVICS SC WRLD HIST SC W GEOG SC 194220 194225 194230 194235 COM DOM 9 DOM DOMAIN 9 VOC DOMAIN 9 REC/LEISUR 9 American History SC 12 American Government SC 12 _____________ Community Domain CBI 9 Domestic Domain CBI 9 Vocational Domain CBI 9 Recreation/Leisure CBI 9 193008 194008 US HIST SC US GOVT SC 194825 COM DON CBI 194830 DOMES DN CBI _________ Community Domain CBI SC 11_______________ Domestic Domain CBI SC 11 191010 191012 191014 191016 192010 192012 192014 192016 193010 193012 COMM DOM 1 DOMT DOM 1 VOC DOM,1 REC/LEIS 1 COMM DOM 2 DOMT DOM 2 VOC DOM 2 REC/LEIS 2 COMM DOM 3 DOM DOM 3 37194835 '*.............. No. VOC DOMN CBI Vocational Domain CBI 194840 REC/LESR CBI SC 11______________ Recreation/Leisure CBI SC 11 193014 193016 VOC DOM 3 REC/LEIS 3 V^r Si \u0026gt;8i!i\u0026lt;i^*.'\u0026gt;*^A\n' 194900 195100 195500 194500 194510 A HISTORY SC SCIENCE sen P SCIENCE SC A HISTORY SC GOVERNMENTSC American History SC 11 Science SC 11_______ Physical Science SC 12 American History SC 10 American Government SC 10 194010 194012 194014 194016 COMM DOM 4 DOMT DOM 4 VOC DOM 4 REC/LEIS 4 38Non-Credit KCoureW BNo. 200100 200200 280100 220100 220150 270100 270300 270300 200400 200401 200309 STUD COUNCIL MONITOR MONITOR STUDY HALL STUDY HALL HOMEROOM HOMEROOM HOMEROOM ORN TCH PROF INTR EDUC LEARN FOUND9 V* Student Coungl MonitorLibrary____ MonitorOffice_____ Study Hallfull year Study Hall-semester HomeroomGrade 10 HomeroomGrade 11 HomeroomGrade 12 Orientation to the Teaching Profession Learning Foundations 9 Course' No.r . 201000 201002 201004 201006 201001 201008 202008 203008 204008 STDT COUN LIB MONITOR OFF MONITOR STDY HALL STDY HALL HOMEROOM1 HOMEROOM2 HOMEROOM3 HOMEROOM4 Student Council Library Monitor Office Monitor Study Hall Study Hall Homeroom I Homeroom II Homeroom III Homeroom IV Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 39F. MIDDLE SCHOOL CURRICULUMLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 December 15, 1999 HE(^ TO: Dr. Terrence Roberts Dr. Steve Ross Ann Brown. ODM Clementine Kelly (CTA) John Walker DEC 1 6 V9S3 OFFiGEOF FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley .'Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Instructional Standards One of the major projects that we are working on currently is a definition of instructional standards. Such standards are called for in Strategy 2 of our Strategic Plan and are implicit in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan in several sections, as well as in the other critical planning/accountability documents that guide the Districts work. Few districts, if any, have adopted such a concept, but we are committed to doing so to provide a focus for professional development, to use as criteria in evaluating external instructional programs, to guide program evaluation, to provide criteria for teacher evaluation, and so forth. The standards that we adopt/adapt/create must be research-based and must attend to the needs of cultural minorities. We initially looked at the following models: 1. Dimensions of Leamina by Robert Marzano. et al 2. A Guide to Authentic Instruction and Assessment: Vision, Standards and Scoring by Fred Newmann. Walter Secada, and Gary Wehlage 3. Handbook of Reseach on Improvinci Student Achievement by Gordon Cawelti 4. Pedapoov Matters: Standards for Effective Teaching Practice by Stephanie Dalton 5. Educating Everybodys Children: Diverse Teaching Strategies for Diverse Learners, edited by Robert Cole 6. Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching by Charlotte Danielson Instructional Standards December 15, 1999 Page Two We then added two more models to consider\n7. The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children by Gloria Ladson-Billings 8. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, published by the National Research Council Finally, we are excited about some brand new researcha meta-analysis of studies on the effectiveness of instructional strategies by Robert Marzano. This study, available on the web at www.mcrel.ora. is the best research synthesis that I have seen on effect size and with correlations of specific strategies with instructional goals. You may want to read the entire study, but I am attaching only the summary chapter. Our goal is to either adopt, adapt, or create (synthesize) a set of instructional standards to be presented to the Board of Education by May. We will, of course, be consulting representative principals and teachers, once we on the committee fully understand the available research and our task. We invite your study of the accompanying documents and any advice you might have for us in the front end of completing this task. Please e-mail me, call, or write any suggestions or questions that you may have. Attachments cc: Dr. Les Carnine Junious Babbs Brady Gadberry Sadie Mitchell Dr. Marian Lacey Frances Jones Chris Heller Clay FendleyA.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge February 21, 2000 BECBVED Ms. Ann Brown ODM 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: I am sending to you a bundle of recent LRSD publications that I know youll be interested in. Also, 1 hope youll share them with your staff. K-8 Refrigerator Curriculum (Grade-Level and Course Benchmarks for Parents) Middle School Curriculum Catalog Middle School Student/Parent Guide High School Curriculum Catalog High School Student/Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements Please call if you have questions or feedback for improvement. Sincerely, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D /rem Cc\nJunious Babbs Brady Gadberry 810 W. Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032) Kindergarten Standards, Benchmarks RECBVEO MAR 1 0 2000 November 1999 Dear Kindergarten Parents or Guardians: OfflCEOf DfSfSRffiATOKOJIfTOflj,S This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in kindergarten. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurements will be used at the elementary school level:  daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher\n teacher-made tests and examinations\nadministration of the State Benchmark examinations in grade 4\nadministration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 5\nand  LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades K-5. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the students will score at or above the Profi- cienf level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your child's teacher or the principal of the school. Sinosrely, Dr. Bonnie A. Lesl^, Associate Superintendent for Instructionpt GRADE Standards, Benchmarks RECI U 1 Cft r 1 November 1999 Dear Grade 1 Parents or Guardians: This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in first grade. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurementswill be used at the elementary school level:  daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher\n teacher-made tests and examinations\nadministration of the State Benchmark examinations in grade 4\nadministration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 5\nand  LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades K-5. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the students will score at or above the Proficient level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Si rely, 7, Associate Superintendent for InstructionSR A DE Standards. Benchmarks RECSiV MAR 1 0 Office cf \u0026gt;*4 f: , 1 iJsia p[^.RGftriOHMOiTORi^S November 1999 Dear Grade 2 Parents or Guardians: This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in second grade. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not ail. students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurements will be used at the elementary school level:  daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher\n teacher-made tests and examinations\nadministration of the State Benchmark examinations in grade 4\nadministration of the Stanford 9. a norm-referenced examination, at grade 5\nand  LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades K-5. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic. Basic. Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the students will score at or above the Proficient level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Siricerely, Sirjcerely, Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley. 7. Associate Superintendent for InstructionNovember 1999 3\" SRAOE Standards, Benchmarks MAR i 0 .or *. J GFi'wH Cf KSESREGAWnyesr i5:5\u0026gt;5 Dear Grade 3 Parents or Guardians: This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in third grade. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know ifyour child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurementswill be used at the elementary school level: daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher\n teacher-made tests and examinations\nadministration of the State Benchmark examinations in grade 4\nadministration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 5\nand LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades K-5. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the students will score at or above the Proficient level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction 4*\" GRADE  3 November 1999 Standards, Benchmarks d. 'J Ji' OsSEGFiEGATiCil ijKiiinGaiiiu Dear Grade 4 Parents or Guardians: This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in fourth grade. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurements will be used at the elementary school level: daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher\nteacher-made tests and examinations\nadministration of the State Benchmark examinations in grade 4\nadministration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 5\nand LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades K-5. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the studentswill score at or above the Proficient level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your child's teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Sincerely, Dr. Bonnie A. Lesl^, Associate Superintendent for InstructionS' GRADE Standards, Benchmarks November 1999 Dear Grade 5 Parents or Guardians: This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in fifth grade. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and homework together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurements will be used at the elementary school level: daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher\nteacher-made tests and examinations\nadministration of the State Benchmark examinations in grade 4\nadministration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 5: and LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades K-5. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the students will score at or above the Proficient\" level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Sincerely, Dr. Associate Superintendent for Instruction6* GRAOE November 1999 Standards, Benchmarks MAS ] 0 ZGCil Office a? DESEGRE(3ATi0ijM0WT0fl|S Dear Grade 6 Parents or Guardians: This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in grade 6. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurementswill be used at the middle school level:  daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher  teacher-made tests and examinations administration of the State Benchmark examinations in grades 6 and 8. administration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 7.  LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades 6-8. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the studentswill score at or above the Proficient level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Sincerely, Associate Superintendent for InstructionI'\" GRADE ,v.\u0026gt;. /SD Standards, Benchmarks \u0026gt;UJ Illi: ~ 'J DESEGSrGAiiCfl November 1999 Dear Grade 7 Parents or Guardians: This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in grade 7. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurements will be used at the middle school level:  daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher teacher-made tests and examinations administration of the State Benchmark examinations in grades 6 and 8. administration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 7.  LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades 6-8. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the students will score at or above the Proficient level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Sincerely, Associate Superintendent for Instruction 8* GRADE BKES .1 Standards, Benchmarks !\u0026lt;iAR 1 ( GFr: 5^. November 1999 Dear Grade 8 Parents or Guardians\nThis publication includes the Little Rock School District's newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in grade 8. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurementswill be used at the middle school level: daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher teacher-made tests and examinations administration of the State Benchmark examinations in grades 6 and 8. administration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 7.  LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades 6-8. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the students will score at or above the Proficient level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Sinaerely, 5 A.. Lestev T. Bonnie A. Lesfey, Associate Superintendent for Instructionf-n-oc C.P-Office of Desegregation Monitoring United Slates District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501 \u0026gt;371-0100 /i'Ct-lfd April 13, 2000 Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Bonnie: This note is to let you know that we received your February 21, 2000 letter and attachments (various LRSD curriculum guides and catalogs) on March 10, 2000. We thank you very much for sharing the documents and inviting our feedback. Well be glad to look them over. As you know, I was involved in a car accident on March 1. I returned to work for the first time yesterday, so please forgive me for just now acknowledging your correspondence. I havent found the bottom of my desk yet and am slowing working my way through the accumulated piles. Please give me a call when you can and lets schedule some time,to spend together catching up. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Date: April 17, 2000 To: Gene, Horace, and Melissa From: Ann Re: Recent LRSD Publications Attached are some LRSD publications that Bonnie Lesley recently sent us, asking for our feedback. Please review each document individually according to the assignments below, answering the seven review questions in writing for each document. Note that these publications are the originals, so please dont mark them up. If youd like to jot notes on them (edits, etc.), work on a copy. Id like to have your reviews by this Thursday. April 20. Thanks. Gene: Horace: Melissa: High Schools:  High School Curriculum Catalog 2000-2001  Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2000-2001 Middle Schools:  6* Grade Standards, Benchmarks  7* Grade Standards, Benchmarks  8* Grade Standards, Benchmarks  Middle School Curriculum Catalog 2000-2001  Guide to Learning in Middle School Elementary Schools:  Kindergarten Standards, Benchmarks  1 Grade Standards, Benchmarks  2\"' Grade Standards, Benchmarks  3\"* Grade Standards, Benchmarks  4\" Grade Standards, Benchmarks  S* Grade Standards, Benchmarks Review Questions 1. For which audience is the publication intended? 2. What is the stated purpose of the publication? 3. List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. 4. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. 5. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why? 6. What suggestions do you have for improving the publication so that it can better fulfill its purpose? 7. Additional comments.at- Office of Desegregation Monitorinq United Stales District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: April 25, 2000 To: Bonnie Lesley From: Ann Bro\nRe: Feedback on LRSD Curriculum Documents I took you at your word when you invited our feedback on the various curriculum documents you kindly sent us last month. I asked my staff to look them over, and their responses are attached Their consents ^e unvarnished and strictly FYI, so take them ofS^m, but please accept them in the spirit nt pnllpoiQiitxz of collegiality in which we offer them. Listed below are the questions I asked the staff to use as their guide in reviewing the documents. By the way, weve have gotten several calls from frustrated parents wanting to know, \"Whats a a Evidently that undefined phrase appears in a recent district publication on behalf of the millage, and perhaps elsewhere on parent-directed documents. We tell them refiigerator cumculum enables them to learn how to fix their refrigerator, or in the alternative we say It s a curriculum their refrigerator can study in order to become a smart refrigerator No we dont' (Just kidding.) Actually, we have to tell them the truth: In-house education-speak is one of lifes continuing mysteries, and none of us at ODM know what a refrigerator curriculum is either. is one of lifes Another point of bewilderment has knows, maybe teachers too) are come to our attention. Many parents and students (and who very confused about the difference between standards and benchmarks. We think we know how to define those words, but maybe the district needs to differentiate between the two terms and to widely broadcast definitions that will to work from the same understanding. to take care enable everyone Review Questions 1. For which audience is the publication intended? 2. What is the stated purpose of the publication? 3. List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. 4. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. 5. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why? 6. What suggestions do you have for improving the publication so that it can better fulfill its purpose? 7. Additional comments.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: April 25, 2000 To: Bonnie Lesley From: Ann Bro\nRe: Feedback on LRSD Curriculum Documents I took you at your word when you invited our feedback on the various curriculum documents you kindly sent us last month. I asked my staff to look them over, and their responses are attached. Their comments are unvarnished and strictly FYI, so take them or them, but please accept them in the spirit of collegiality in which we offer them. Listed below are the questions I asked the staff to use as their guide in reviewing the documents. By the way, weve have gotten several calls from fiustrated parents wanting to know, \"Whats a refrigerator curriculum?\" Evidently that undefined phrase appears in a recent district publication on behalf of the millage, and perhaps elsewhere on parent-directed documents. We tell them a refiigerator curriculum enables them to learn how to fix their refrigerator, or in the alternative we say its a curriculum their refiigerator can study in order to become a smart refrigerator. No, we dont! (Just kidding.) Actually, we have to tell them the truth: In-house education-speak is one of lifes continuing mysteries, and none of us at ODM know what a refiigerator curriculum is either. Another point of bewilderment has come to our attention. Many parents and students (and who knows, maybe teachers too) are very confused about the difference between standards and benchmarks. We think we know how to define those words, but maybe the district needs to take care to differentiate between the two terms and to widely broadcast definitions that will enable everyone to work from the same understanding. Review Questions 1. For which audience is the publication intended? 2. What is the stated purpose of the publication? 3. List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. 4. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. 5. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why? 6. What suggestions do you have for improving the publication so that it can better fulfill its purpose? 7. Additional comments.Comments regarding LRSDs High School Student and Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2000-2001 1. For which audience is the publication intended? The guide is directed at high school students and their parents. Though the document does not explicitly say so, it would be useful also to middle school students as they decide whether or not to take high school courses as 8* graders. For example, students who wish to take calculus in high school must take algebra I in grade 8 as explained in the guide. 2. What is the stated purpose of publication? A convoluted sentence on page 2 in a section captioned Where do I start? says the guide is intended to assist students and parents by providing information that will help them to plan next years courses, meet graduation requirements, and to know college admission requirements. 3. List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. It is complete. Few details regarding student placement have been omitted. 4. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. The guide is not clear enough for its intended audience because the language is garbled and the layout is inconsistent. For example, the table of contents lists Purpose for Guide and indicates it is on page 1. No heading on page 1 says Purpose. Instead there is a two-paragraph section titled Where do I start? in which the first paragraph extols the quality of LRSD. The second paragraph contains three items, not parallel, in what could be called a statement of purpose. Language used in the curriculum discussions is often vague. For example, the Unconditional Admission section on page 2 does not state a requirement and then list the courses by number and title which could fulfill it. Instead, for example, the natural science admission requirement section says, Three units, with laboratories, chosen from Physical Science, Biology, Chemistry, or physics. Only one unit may come from a life science. Few students could complete the course selection sheet accurately from this information, and the guide is full of examples similar to this. Frequently, supplemental information is included with course requirement listings and is introduced by a question. Page five has the question, What may I take to satisfy the technology requirement? The first paragraph following explains that the keyboarding class will not count. The second paragraph explains that students can test out of keyboarding, and the third explains something else. Nowhere, in this section, is the question answered clearly.The document is sprinkled with items enclosed in boxes but the boxes do not signify a single and consistent purpose. Some enclose quotes while others enclose significant information in thumbnail fashion, but the reader cannot tell the difference without close reading. The layout should help the reader focus on the key elements quickly. 5. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why? If the guide fails to meet its purpose it will be because of the weaknesses described in section 4 above. As it is rewritten and republished the mistakes will be taken care of. 6. Suggestions! Clean up the language with clear declarative sentences that avoid ambiguity. Courses should be identified by name and number. The layout should help readers find information quickly and easily by using symbols consistently for information types. For example, if bold type indicates a particular meaning in one place, it should do the same in every place. Rhetorical questions used to draw attention to certain types of information should be answered directly and in sensible fashion. 1. Additional comments The guide is a useful publication that meets an important need. LRSD should be commended for the effort.Comments Regarding LRSDs High School Curriculum Catalog 1. For which audience is the publication intended? Apparently, the catalog is intended for staff use in assisting students with course selection. Some directives are clearly intended for staff, but students could use the catalog with little assistance from staff members. 2. What is the stated purpose of the publication? The purpose is not explicitly stated, but its title. Curriculum Catalog, probably makes a statement of purpose unnecessary. J. List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. The catalog is detailed. It includes information for every circumstance imaginable from specialty courses in unique schools to correspondence courses available for dual credit, high school credit, or college credit. The only observable omissions are the regulations for administration. These omissions are explained in a foreword. 4. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. Other than the occasional typographical error or missed heading (Board Policy), the catalog appears to be accurate and to offer everything needed for general student assignment. It does not include special education student assignment procedures, but they probably should not be contained in this catalog. 5. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why? The Curriculum Catalog fulfills its purpose completely. Except for the omission explained in the foreword, it contains everything the school staffs need for student placement. 6. Suggestions! The format could be spiffed up with illustrations or humor. 7. Comments! LRSDs instructional department is making good progress in formalizing its curriculum. The ill-defined courses and arbitrary student placements seem to be disappearing.LRSD b\"\", 7\"', 8', Grade Standards, Benchmarks Audience: Parents or Guardians Purpose: To help parents or guardians to monitor student progress in learning and to help reinforce at home what the students are learning at school. Strengths: Various guides are color coded. For parents with more than one child, this makes it easier to differentiate the guides. The general layout of the document makes it easy to use and attractive without being overly simplistic or juvenile. The explanatory cover memo from Bonnie is detailed enough to clearly state the purpose of the document, but also avoids excessive details which might lose the attention of the reader. For the most part, the benchmarks within subject areas are brief and relatively self-explanatory to even the reader with a very basic level of knowledge in various curriculum areas. Weaknesses: I may be confused, but where are the standards? Somewhere, the documents need to differentiate standards and benchmarks. Some benchmarks are not clearly expressed. In some cases, I got the impression that some benchmarks were condensed in order to keep the documents brief. However, condensing seems to have made some statements confusing or tremendously vague. Fuifdls Purpose: Generally, these documents fulfill the purpose of being simple and informative. It is quite a task to write an informative document that will inform a broad spectrum of individuals without being either insultingly simplistic or confusingly pedantic. I feel that the writers avoided the extremes in most cases. Suggestions: Define and give examples of standards. Parenthetical examples would have helped clarify some of the benchmarks. Are the curriculum documents printed in any other language other than English?A Parent and Student Guide to Learning in Middle School LRSD 2000-2001 Audience: Purpose: Strengths: Weaknesses: Middle school students and their parents To explain the progression of required and elective middle school courses. The guide is less formally formatted than the curriculum catalog. The question and answer arrangement should make the guide more user-friendly. The pages aren t numbered! It seems that if you were discussing the content with a teacher or counselor, you would have difficulty with references. In reality, the question and answer format is not as effective as it should be. The guide should have followed the format consistently rather than varying off into specific course descriptions. The more specific descriptions might have been more appropria\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_356","title":"Desegregation: ''Little Rock School District Proposed Desegregation Plan,'' Volume II","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":["1989-03-23"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation: ''Little Rock School District Proposed Desegregation Plan,'' Volume II"],"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/356"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["124 pages"],"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\nOutside dated January 31, 1989, inside dated March 23, 1989.\nII 10 APPENDIX 2196-234 I II n LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSED DESEGREGATION PLAN I 1 JANUARY 31, 1989 VOLUME II I 11 I n II II I I I-I JI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I PROPOSED DESEGREGATION PLAN n MARCH 23, 1989 II VOLUME II 02196 I TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume II ( 1, student Assignments I 2. Student Assignment Handbook I 3, Facilities 4. Incentive School Program 1 J 5. Monitoring and Evaluation 6. Transportation 7. Data Processing I n NOTE: I An asterisk (*) Indicates a part of the Plan that must change if grandfathering is not permitted. h I t I i I 02197STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS I. MAGNET SCHOOLS The assignment process to magnet schools will not change under this Plan. II. INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLS LRSD and PCSSD agree to establish interdistrict schools as described in the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. III. ELEMENTARY ACADEMIES I 1. Students will be assigned to the Elementary Academies by attendance zones. The attendance zones are shown on the map I which is attached to this Plan. 2. The Elementary Academy attendance zones are drawn to establish a racial balance at each school of 55% black and 45% white with a variance of 5%. The recruitment of white students 1 I I to Elementary Academies may increase the percentage of white students at these schools but no school shall have a racial composition of greater than 60% white. I 3 . Students presently assigned to Elementary Academies will be glve.n the option to remain in these schools (grandfathered).* I 4. After grandfathered students have been identified and assigned, students in the attendance zone will be assigned to the Elementary Academies.* I 5. If there is no space available at student's zoned a school or if assignment of the student'to the school would put I the school out of compliance with racial balance requirements. I 1 I 02198the student will be assigned to the closest which meets racial balance reguirements. school with capacity 6. The elementary school zones will provide tern for elementary students going to junior high junior high school students going to high school. a feeder patschool and for As a result, all LRSD students can determine which schools they will attend for the entire course of their education in LRSD. Attached to ! ( this Plan are maps of the elementary, junior high school and high school attendance zones. 7. Students in Elementary Academy zones will be given the option to select an Incentive School. u IV. INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1. Each Incentive School will have an attendance zone that I encompasses the neighborhood around the school dance zone) . (primary atten- I 2. Each Incentive School will also have a districtwide attendance zone (secondary attendance zone). 3. Students presently assigned to Incentive Schools will be given the option to remain in these schools After grandfathered students have (grandfathered).* been identified and 4 . assigned, students in the primary attendance zone will be assigned to the Incentive Schools.* All Incentive School students will have the option to be 5. assigned to an Elementary Academy to be selected by LRSD in accordance with desegregation considerations. 021996 . Students in the secondary (districtwide) attendance zones will be given the option to fill any vacancies in the Incentive Schools after grandfathered* and primary attendance zone students have been assigned. 7, In order to assist in meeting the desegregation require- ments, a certain number of seats for black and white students will be reserved for each pre-kindergarten and kindergarten class, V. DESEGREGATION TRANSFERS 1. Junior and senior high school students may transfer to another school as long as the reassignment allows both the sending and receiving school to comply with the desegregation requirement and a seat is available. The minimum black percen- tage is twenty-five percent (25%) below the district-wide percenu I tage of blacks in grades 7-12. The maximum black percentage is I twelve and one-half percent (12-1/2%) percentage of blacks in grades 7-12. above the district-wide The minimum and maximum black percentages constitute the desegregation acceptable range) for a desegregation transfer. requirement (or The desegrega- tion requirement in secondary schools is that all schools will remain within a range of 12-1/2% above to 25% below the districtwide percentage of black students at each organizational level (i.e., high school and junior high school). 2. Elementary students may transfer to an Incentive School only if such a transfer enhances desegregation at the Incentive School. 02200 f ' 3 i3. A student may make two (2) desegregation transfers at each organizational level (elementary, junior or senior high school). The purpose of the second desegregation transfer is to allow a student to return to his or her previous school ment. 4 . assign- II Desegregation transfers will be granted during a limited period once each year. 5. LRSD will provide transportation for desegregation I, transfer students where it is cost effective to do so. VI. SIBLING TRANSFERS* 1. 2. Sibling transfers do NOT apply to magnet schools. Students entering the Little Rock School District after u I the 1991-92 school year will not be allowed to make a sibling preference transfer to a school outside the student's attendance zone. 3. Any student who makes sibling preference transfer a before the 1991-92 school year may remain at the school to which the student transferred until graduation to tional level. the next organiza- 4. Sibling preference transfers will be granted if a seat I is available and the transfer will allow both the sending and receiving schools to comply with the desegregation.requirements. 5. Sibling transfer applicants must have sibling a currently enrolled in LRSD. Sibling transfers will be granted only to siblings of grandfathered students. 4 02201VII. REASSIGNMENT PROCESS 1. Every effort will be made to install portable buildings in order to accommodate overflow situations at a particular grade level. Only if a portable building cannot be installed. the student will be reassigned to the nearest school that has a seat available in the student's feeder zone. If the student cannot be assigned to any of the schools in the student's feeder zone, the student will be reassigned to a school in a contiguous feeder zone. The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for all reassignments. Reassigned students will be placed on the waiting list for the appropriate attendance zone school. 2. The minimum black percentage for each elementary academy is 40% black. Any assignment that causes a school to fall below the minimum black percentage will not be granted. In such cases. ri u I the student will be reassigned to the nearest school that meets the minimum black percentage requirement and has seat available. If the student cannot be assigned to any of the schools in the student's feeder zone. the student will be a I reassigned to a school in a contiguous feeder zone. VIII. STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 1. The Student Assignment Office will: monitor new assignments\nprocess all data entry work for elementary schools\nprocess interdistrict M-M transfers and magnet assignments\nreassign students because of overcrowdedness or desegregation require- ments\nconsider appeals\nconduct recruitment efforts\nand process desegregation transfers. I 5 02202I 2. New students to the District who enroll after May 17, 1989 will not have to come to the Student Assignment Office to obtain an assignment. Each school will be authorized to enroll students who live within the attendance zone of that school. 3. Th student Assi^rnnent Hendbook which shows the process to be used by the Student Assignment Office in assigning students and the School Selection Form which will be sent to each student as a part of the assignment process are found in the Student Assignment Handbook section (Volume II, Tab 2) of this Plan.* I u I I 11 6 02203IX. I DUNBAR COMPUTER SCIENCE/MUSIC SCHOOL Effective the 1989-90 school year, the Little Rock School District will implement an enrichment program for Dunbar Junior High School. The enrichment component will have two purposes: (1) to implement a program to promote effective desegregation of Dunbar Junior High School\nand (2) to broaden the total school program to enhance the academic achievement of all students. Based on input from parents and faculty at Dunbar Junior High fl School, the enrichment component will focus on computer science and fine arts. Courses offered at the school will utilize computers, other technology and expanded use of materials to augment the instructional program. u The enrichment program will have the following major areas of emphasis: 'i (1) Expanded School Day - The school day for Dunbar will be lengthened from six (6) to seven (7) I I periods per class day. (2) Course Offerings - Additional courses will be added to enrich the computer science and fine arts programs. (3) Ecruioment - Some of the traditional courses, in addition to the computer science and fine arts I* (4) courses, will utilize technology to assist in the delivery of instruction. Staff Development - The principal and staff will identify inservice needs (summer and regular school 7 02204I year) to effectively restructure the Dunbar. program at (5) Staffing - it is projected that all of the course offerings can be implemented with the existing staff. (6) Supplies and Materials - The principal and staff I will collaboratively disburse meet the needs of the enriched budgeted funds to program areas. 1 I I' li: f'.. r I I s 022051 NEW FUTURES FOR LITTLE ROCK In addition to the enrichment programs, Dunbar is a full ticipant in the New Futures for Little Rock Youth Among the program components for the 1989-90 school par- Initiative. year are: Clustering for 7th and Sth grade students to allow students to have teachers in common in the core subject areas, providing for an advisor-advisee support system. Youth specialists for advocate for an work with students in helping to meet their special needs. Incentive programs and partnerships with munity businesses to encourage and comreward achievement, attendance and good citizenship. Homework Center and Hotline Early morning tutorials for students needing assistance in subject areas. Saturday morning detention for students to help them \"work off\" disciplinary sanctions, to keep them in school, and to provide additional tutorial support. B I 9 02206 II !i KJ I o I 0 ( NEW COURSE OFFERINGS COMPUTER SCIENCE Advanced Computer Applications (Grade 8) Keyboarding/Introductory Programming (Grade 7) Advanced Programming (Grade 8) Programming in BASIC (Grades 8,9) Computer Applications (Grades 7,8) ENGLISH hj I. i I I I Literature of the Adolescent (1 semester) (Grade 8) Composing Process (1 semester) Grade 8 Composing Process II (1 semester) Grade 9 Speech/Drama (1 semester) Grade 8 MUSIC Piano Lab (Grades 7,8 S. 9) Limited to 12-18 Students Class Handbells I (Grades 7, 8 \u0026amp; 9) Handbells II (Grades 8,9) Jazz Band (Grades 8, 9) Orchestra (Grades 7, 8 \u0026amp; 9) FOREIGN LANGUAGE per I a German I (Grades 7, 8 or 9) German II (Grades 7, 8 or 9) German III (Grades 8 or 9) Any student who has completed German at the elementary level may take an exam to qualify for entrance into German MATHEMATICS Geometry (Grade 8) READING Reading Exploration (Enriched) SCIENCE Science 7 - Life Science (Laboratory) Science 8 - Physical Science (Laboratory) SOCIAL STUDIES II. Social Studies courses for grades 7-8 will have topical headings for each nine (9) week unit to reflect the concentration of study each quarter. Units will be revised/expanded to reflect the area of concentration. Units will be 19 02207 II SPECIAL EDUCATION Computer-aided Education Program instruction will be added to the Special VOCATIONAL EDUCATION Industrial Technology Education II This laboratory course, funded through the Arkansas Department of Education will provide the student with a learning experience in modern industrial technology. tu I I I I I I 1 1 I 02208 a IH I COURSE DESCRIPTIONS course. manipu- Advanced Computer Applications (Grade 9) Semester 2 Open to students from tHe fall course. Students will learn advanced word processing applications, how to create and manipulate a data base, how to create and forecast with a spreadsheet and how to use at least one desk-top publishing program^ Students will have the option of creating a LOGOWRITER project involving music and animation. I I Keyboardlng/Introductory Programming (Grade 7) Seventh graders will learn to touch type at least 50 percent faster than they can handwrite. Students will learn to write simple basic LOGO commands, to construct programs using algorithms and write procedures, document their projects. commands, to They will use LOGO Tools to A hands-on, one semester course. Advanced Programming, Grade 8 this course will be Year 1, similar to the 7th grade Year 2, programming course, using BASIC as well as LOGOWRITER, open to students who completed 7th grade course and/or with teacher consent. it will become an advanced course. using Programming in BASIC (Grades 8,9) Programming in BASIC is a one-semester be determined. course, prerequisites to Computer Applications (Grades 7,8) Second semester course in computer applications, focusing on word-processing and cross-curriculum projects (example: using LOGOWRITER Tools to create a Science Video based on research in library or field). This is a project-based course. This is a project-based course. Literature of Adolescent Literature of the Adolescent and the Composing Process I are to offered simultaneously with students changing courses at the end of the semester. These course are to be considered prerequisites for the Composing Process II and Speech/Drama, will be offered only to 9th grade students. which The Composing Process I The Composing Process I and Literature for the Adolescent are to be offered simultaneously with students changing courses at the end of the semester. These courses are to be considered prerequisites for The Composing Process ll and Speech/Drama, will be offered only to 9th grade students. which The Composing Process II The Composing Process II and Speech/Drama are to be offered simultaneously with students changing courses at the end of the semester. These courses are for only those 9th grade students who have taken Composing Process I and Literature for the are Adolescent as eighth graders. 02209 I 12 C I o I[i The Composing Process II will review and expand upon those writing skills taught in The Composing Process I course. The Composing Process will emphasize planning, writing, editing, and publishing stages of writing paragraphs and I course. essays. Speech/Drama Speech/Drama and The Composing Process II are to be offered simultaneously with students changing courses at the end of the semester. These students are for only those ninth grade students who have taken Composing Process I and Literature for the Adolescent as eighth graders. have and 1 Is) I 0. The purpose of the Speech/Drama course is to show students that communication through public speaking is a means to improve learning, to^ enhance personal development, to organize thoughts, to develop listening skills, and to interpret human behavior. J 4 Piano Laboratory Students who have music ability, aptitude and interest in learning to play the piano. A semester course (or year) where students learn to read music notation and symbols and to transfer reading to playing the keyboard, coordination. - -- ability. A semester course (or year) where Students will learn hand-eye Students will learn simple melodies and chord Students will learn self-discipline and proper care of the piano. Students will learn how to add various sound effects as background to songs, stories and drama groups. w the interest in keyboards today, the students have expressed interest in a class for keyboard. accompaniments. proper With an I a I Handbells I (Grade 7) A beginning course in art of ringing English handbells, will learn the technique of ringing bells - will learn to read music notation and symbols - will learn \"team-work\" by playing their part with othe students to perform a piece of music - will learn self-discipline along with proper care of equipment and bells Students r I I - will learn the value of concert performance with other groups from other schools. I Handbells II (Grades 8,9) Beginning course of the first year. Second year students will be on music aptitude, behavior and from 7th grade bell Second year students will study and perform more advanced music, plus attend Arkansas and Regional Handbell Festivals, perform for the community and civic organizations. selected group. and Jazz Band (Grades 8,9) A course designed to introduce Junior High School students to the idiom of jazz music as an American Art -form. 1 level. Orchestra (Grades 7,8,S9) In this course, basic fundamentals are studied on the beginner's Detailed instruction is given for correct hand positions. I 02210 12(a)bowing techniques, accurate tuning, correct posture, and mechanics of technical proficiency. Beginning classes are not perfor- but are directed toward developing skills for mance oriented, advanced study. German I in the first year, students are introduced to the Germanic well as to the basic German language, the student with actual experiences cuisine. hO as Effort is made to provide of German customs and German II The second year expands the command of vocabulary and grammar and continues to acquaint the student with the history i _ - \".-w.. vi.si I. y, geography, and literature and other aspects of German-speaking countries. German III Students continue to develop oral skills through programs and speaking practice. Under the teacher's direction, cultural literature at appropriate level is read and discussed. GL. write five compositions with the help of guide questions, vious oral discussion, and/or pictures. __ correctly in context all common grammatical structures formerlv studied. Students Students learn to pre- use I 4 I Geometry the Regular Geometry is taught using This course presents the basic ideas of geometry including th= nature of angles, triangles, congruence, geometric inequalities perpendiculars, and parallels. Regular Geometry is taught using postulates and theorems in an effort to teach the nature of direct and Indirect proof. 9 1 Reading Explorations Reading Explorations is . . - - an enriched reading class designed for students who are reading at or above grade level. The focus will be placed on enriching and building upon current reading and study skills\nin-depth novel study\nand reading for enjoyment. be placed The focus will Supplemental work will be interfaced with computer applications. Both individual and group will be included. Science 7 - Life Science (Laboratory) Lab Science \" ' 7 , _, designed to teach students science skills and the scientific method. process , , ---- Students will perform experi- analyze videotapes to gain experience in using the thinking processes and skills that are characteristic of science. fl Upon completion of Lab Science - 7, the student will be able to: - make accurate qualitative and quantitative observations about natural events\n - - make metric measurements for length, volumes, mass, and temperature\n- make inferences and conclusions about natural events based upon relevant observations\n12(b) 02211,1 - design an experiment to test a hypothesis\n- collect data and organize it in charts and graphs- - form operational definitions\n- accept or reject a hypothesis based upon results\nrecognize problems that are subject to investigation\n- ask questions relevant to a problem\n- manipulate variables in an investigation. Science 9 - Physical Science (Laboratory) :2 - 9 develops concepts and laboratory skills in the areas of chemistry and physics. Students investigate the phvsi- Lab Science or physical and chemical properties of matter, light, '  - -  simple machines. electricity, and Industrial Technology Education II . _ designed to provide the student with a learning experience in modern industrial technology. Curriculum content is directed toward four major clusters: communication, construc- 0*2' manufacturing, and EPT (energy, power, and transportation). Students will be exposed to using computers, robots, lasers, pneumatics, telecommunication and other modern equipment and CtS This course IS con- ho I bJ I 0 1 1 I o I I I 02212 12 (cX. DESEGREGATION PLAN TIMELINE Nov. 11 Contact for FOCUS Donna Creer/request submission Nov. 15 Jan. 26 Review computer program needs with Data Processing Dec. 5 Dec. 22 Develop LRSD magnet application used for rising students to be Jan. 3 Jan. 10 Plan strategies for contacting tive K/New students prospec- Jan. 17 Order window envelopes Jan. 23 Feb. 22 Prepare FOCUS (Communications) Jan. 30 Mar. 1 Write Computer Programs Feb. 1 Request mailing labels for mailing FOCUS Feb. 1 Feb. 15 Coordinate publicity for magnet Open Houses through MRC and other districts Feb. 6 Mar. 20 Kindergarten/New Student Registration Feb. 17 Mail letter to PTA Presidents w/info about Open Houses \u0026amp; suggested recruiting techniques to PTA Presidents Feb. 20 Order through DP PIF's\norder selection forms Feb. 20 Mar. 3 Coordinate Open House publicity Commun i c a t i ons with Mar. 1 COURT APPROVAL Mar. 1 Mail letter to school secretaries RE: details of K/New Student registration Mar. 1 Mar. 6 Run program simulations j i I I .J  \u0026gt;1 1 ( J a fl 1  Mar. 6 Mar. 6 Mar. 8 Mar. 15 Mar. 10 Mar. 23 Make adjustments to computer programs/ train SAO Coordinate preparation of zone maps for each school Deliver FOCUS to printer FOCUS to mailing service I 1 I 13 02213 aIII , Hi ' Mar. 17 Mail FOCUS Mar. 20 Deadline for PIF's to SAO returning K/New Student Mar. 21 Mar. 31 Enter K/New Student PIF's Apr. 3 - Apr. 7 tv' Apr. 4 Apr. 5 Apr. 6 Apr. 9 Apr. 11 Apr. 24 Apr. 24 Apr. 25 - Apr. 28 Apr. 25 - May 1 Apr. 25 - May 8 May 1 - May 12 Print : mailing selection forms and prepare for Elementary Open Houses 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. Junior High Open Houses 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. Senior High Open Houses 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. Magnet Open Houses 2:00 - 5:00 p.m. Mail selection forms to all students Deadline for returning selection forms Final pick-up of selection forms Prepare and scan selection forms Run assignment simulations Process prepare waiting lists\nmake mandatory assignments 5 forms\nSend assignment ___ Transportation for route adjustments final list to 1 u. 4 I 9 May 13 - May 17 May 17 Print assignment letters and prepare for mailing I Mail final assignment letters i 11 02214SECTION ONE A. Overview (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) STUDENT ASSIGNMENT HANDBOOK ASSIGNMENTS Each non-magnet school has an attendance zone. m some cases, are used in order to meet the desegregation requirements. satellite zones zone. Students have the option of remaining in their current school (grandfathering) or they ma/sele^'their at\\eS schnni school, an incentive school, or a magnet Students living in the attendance\nschool have the option of attending school to be selected by LRSD desegregation considerations. zone of an incentive a in racially balanced accordance with (elementary academy) attendance zone of an elementary Sool^lf selecting an incentive school if it aids desegregation. an I VlJ II  I, I L h matriculating) students, grades 6th and 9th niHn? zone schools. Rising students will have the magnet school. option to apply for a I (6) Every effort will be made to install in order to accommodate overflow ticular grade level, be installed. I nearest school that has feeder zone. portable buildings situations at a par- a portable building cannot the student will be reassigned to the -- a seat available in his/her J a on (7) complete a Pupil Asfio^^eit^nFF^'\" (P^S'J^egister) in order for the StudLt Assignment Office to begin the assignment process. new students must a Pupil (9) Self-contained students will be Education Department. assigned by the Special 1 I (9) Any student may apply for a magnet application. a magnet school by completing I i (10) Sibling preference to a non-attendance zone (non-magnet) school will only apply to students entering Pork nuy apply to students entering the Little Rock School District before ths-1991-92 school year.  (11) Each student will receive through the mail. a final assignment letter 15 02215 I' iI (12) Each school will be zone assignments after^May making attendance I (13) B. C. I D. I I I The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for all reassignments, magnet assignments SSt! minority transfers and desegregation transfers. Grandfathering* (1) (2) (3) CO All students ments, may remain at their present school The Special Edition assignment process. The FOCUS will be all students FOCUS will explain assign- the student sent through the mail to in the Little Rock School District. parents of J Reassignment Process Every effort will be made to install portable buildings in overflow situations at a particular oroer grade to accommodate installed, level. Only if a install at portable building be reassigned to the a seat available If the student cannot be the student will Student Assignment Office will be resoonsiblp reassignments. Reassigned students will ^be xl waiting list for the appropriate aVtnSiL zone slSoiT reassigned to a school in Office I. in the assigned nearest I zone. be Reassigned students will be appropriate attendance a The minimum black for The all 1 elementary academy is  --- causes a school to fall below cases, the student S-'-ted. In .JS 40% black. Any assignment that the minimum black granted. \"Desegregation Transfer\" for desegregation secondary schools.)    Transfers* (1) (2) zone. (See requirement for Students may recruest school. , a transfer to the attendanc an incentive school, a magnet school. The Special Edition FOCUS process for transfer e zone an interdistrict school or witl explain the assignment requests. 02216I (3) Selection forms will be mailed to parents by April 11. (4) Selection forms must be returned to schools by Aui Principals are expected to deliver selection fo by April 24. the Student Assignment Office immediately. rms to I (5) All selection forms will be considered at the same time. (6) High school kindergarten students rioni-n ,4. vt --~3nd kindergarten stu- given preference for first grade seats in academies and incentive schools. (7) Final assignment letters May 17. will be mailed to parents by u I SEE PROCEDURES I E. Return of Forms (School Selection Forms) Completing Selection Forms Required Assignments ( I (1) An assignment is required when: (a) a student is rising from Sth or 9th grade 14. 1 ? ^-tsxng rrom 6th or 9th grade. Rising of selecting a magnet I (2) school by completing a magnet application. Parents of 6th and 9th grade students will also the Special Edition FOCUS. receive I I (3) Final assignment letters will be May 17. mailed to parents by a F. SEE PROCEDURES  Distribution of Foirms Kindergarten and New Students I I (1) Parents of kindergarten and Pupil Information Form  new students must complete Information Form in order for the Student Assignment Office to begin the assignment the a (2) process. A Pupil Information Form can be obtained from and returned to any school. any school I (3)  a particular school school does not guarantee assignment to tnat scnooi. i or returning a (4) Open Houses will be scheduled in all schools April 9. April 4 I (5) Kindergarten/New Student I March 20 in order to receive April 11. PIFfs must be returned by J a school selection form by 17 I s 02217 JiG. (6) Selection forms can be returned to Little Rock School District. returned by April 24. any school in the Selection forms must be SEE PROCEDURES  Kindergarten/New Student Pre-registration  Return of Forms (School Selection Completing Selection Forms Forms) Self-Contained Students I The location of self-contained classes will remain the samp for the 1989-90 school year. The major factor regarding the . ... , t^se student's Individual will be the decisions will year. site for the implementation Wxll uc uhe aecisions made by the lEP team Every ^^ffart %ill Pfar'^a^de i^eview conferences GJ H. I fl I I. II I I --- to minimize changes in st-hnni secondary students ind^ca?e that they attend three or more special classes. These stu- special education teachers, therefore their needs can be met in any secondary schnnl . ONLY STUDENTS WHO DAY WITH A SPECIAL The lEP's of dents rotate to or more special classes. -  any secondary school. SPEND MOST OR ALL OF THEIR INSTRUCTIONAL EDUCATION TEACHER WILL BE ASSIGNED TO EDUCATION OFFICE. A SCHOOL BY THE SPECIAL I iC I Sibling Preference* (1) (2) (3) (4) Sibling preference does NOT apply to magnet schools. District after the 1991-92 school year will not be allowed preference transfer to - a sibling a non-attendance zone school. Any student who makes a before the 1991-92 school .... to which the student transferred the organizational level. sibling preference transfer year may remain at the school until graduation from A sibling preference transfer will be granted if transfer will allow both sending and receiving u, desegregation requirements. schools I I I I o I a seat to comply with the the Magnet and Interdistrict School Assignments (1) (2) (3) All assignments to magnet and interdistriet schools be made by the Student Assignment Office. The Student Assignment Office will will Assignment Office will be responsible for maintaining all magnet and interdistrict lists. _ school waiting All students on the 1988-89 waiting lists . - , , will receive preference for magnet and interdistrict vacancies. January 27, 1989, as of 1989-90 IS 02218(4) A computerized random selection the selection forms. on (5) All magnet and interdistrict U* deSg/eglTton et^ la. either the ^end/ng'Vr reJeitYnV^AoVr receiving school. (6) Sibling preference DOES NOT apply to magnet schools. (7) I Sixth and ninth grade magnet students preference for , - --- will NOT be given organizational leJel?^''^^ schools at the next I (8) Students who are denied interdistrict school for that school. J,, to a magnet or will be placed on a waiting list I (9) a I J. Interdistrict Maj orlty-to-Minority Transfers (1) All M-M assignments Assignment Office. M-M Will (2) II K. --nd Sole: be made by the Student PCSSo'or^Sq^Vn  Student in the majority isS ?Se^nSrSy? S?-.'.--  S.-hool where he'^'she in LRSD can transfer to r he/she is in the minority, vide transportation for Likewise, I O' in 1 Desegregation Transfers (1) I I 1 a student in the majority a school in NLRSD or PCSSD where The home district must pro- M-M transfers. Junior and senior high school another school as long as the the sending and f desegregation requirement and students may transfer to reassignment allows both receiving school to comply with the i a seat is available. The minimum black percentage is twenty-five percent bl-dcks in grades percentage is twelve and one- 7-12. half percent (12-1/2%) tage of blacks in grades 7-12. black percentages constitute ment (or acceptable The desegregation requirement that all schools will (25%) a^ove the district-wide percen- The minimum and maximum the desegregation require- range) forna desegregation transfer. u-r .XX schools Will reweln wA^hl^ erah7e below the dlstrlctwlde percentage cf black 02219 19(2) school incentive School desegregation at the (3) A student desegregation transfers uL ~  (elementary, junior or senior 4  4. P^i^Pose of the second desegregation transfer is to allow a student to rshim +*n b 4 e h,Gr each organizational level high school). a student to return to his previous school assignment. at (4) Desegregation transfers will be period once each year. granted during a limited GJ (5) LRSD will provide transportation transfer students where it is will for desegregation cost effective to do so. I I fl I L I O' I a 20 1 02220r w t I, PROCEDURES Distribution of Forms (School Selection Forms) Parents of students requesting transfers and the Little Rock School District will have the select a school by returning the School students new to opportunity to Selection Form. For parents of students currently enrolled in LRSD schools: 1. Parents of students receive A. B. , currently enrolled in a School Selection Form through the LRSD will mail, u selSctions^^^ complete the form with their school Forms should be returned to the child's LRSD school no later than April 24. For parents of students new to the LRSD: 1. Parents of students new to the LRSD School Selection Form by completing A. B. 2. 3. current I i 4 may also receive a PIF. a ( Pict-uP 3 PIF at any LRSD school or from the Student Assignment Office. New students may return the PIF at by April 24. any LRSD school New students' School Selection Forms may be returned any LRSD school or the Student Assignment Office. Every effort will be made to tion, however, and desegregation limitations.  grant the parent's selec- axi assignments are subject to capacity I a I II. Return of Selection Forms Parents will be mailed their :  attending the LRSD for school year should return the forms 1^*4 ^Students wno did not attend the Little Rock Students school selection forms on the 1908-89 u ,--- their current school who any LRSD school by April 24. I use 1. As the selection forms three categories: are returned, separate them into I I 21 02221 Jil V A. Students requesting to grandfather at their present assignment (students currently attending B. Transfer requests ' (students LRSD).* currently attending 2. C. Kindergarten/New Students to the LRSD. As forms are received. I ,, , , remove them from the envelones Use paperclips only to attach \u0026lt;  ----- envelopes, the forms. Do NOT taoe or staple damaged forms\nthe ill replace damaged forms as tape Student Assignment Office any notes or letters to I needed. f - I Check the fo to be sure it has been comoleted correctly and signed by the parent or guardian, form IS correct. Skip to step it has 3 . Return incorrect 4 . If the 4 I or unsigned forms to the parent with an Schools are urged to contact thf\u0026gt; KO n ku I Urged to contact the parent by phone if possible to resolve the problem. Note when the form was received and when it . = uorr brief description of the problem, the Selection Form List. was returned for correc- on 4. I Place the forms (in alphabetical order) _ 1_  (Selection ForrnEistV of the forms that are returned to your school. area of the office. in a designated 0 I allaing: the deadline) do the a. I With a number 2 pencil ONLY, go over any bubbles that ink marked by the parent or that vere marked in ink. Also go over the bubbles pre-marked by the com- Office Use Only section. (This s^tep can be checked.) any time after the forms are received and b. Place the forms (in alphabetical labelled order) in an envelope STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE SCHOOL SELECTION FORMS !! ':\nl I c. On the day following the deadline, the Selection Form List in the Assignment Office. include one copy of envelope to the Student V d. Send the envelope to the Student diately. Assignment Office imme- I 02222I III. Kindergarten/New Student Pre-Registratlon Children who will be 5 I , . , , , . . years old by October 1 are eligible to attend kindergarten in the LRSD. yioie make school selections and receive children, they must pre-register. In order for parents to assignments for their A. Distribution of Forms I 1. I 2. 3. I B. I I I flyers to be sent home yarencs kindergarten pre-registration and These flyers should be sent home as soon as possible after they are received. the deadline. to parents UJ Parents pre-register their children by completinq Pupil Information Form\nt'-- ---   - from any LRSD school. ' a they may pick-up a form Make CERTAIN that the Pupil Information marked KINDERGARTEN PRE-REGISTRATION cr  PRE-REGISTRATION at the top of the form. Form is or NEW STUDENT After the deadline. Information Forms. Instead, instruct parents to to the Student Assignment Office their children. DO NOT hand out ANY Pupil I I. been completed responsible for registering and dergarten and new students. - go to pre-register Alter the assignment process has (May 17), each school will be assigning kin- Return of Forms 1. 2. 3. Parents may Information Forms to return the deadline. their completed Pupil any school in the LRSD until For each form received, write labelled OTHER INFORMATION PARENT WANTS SCHOOL TO KNOW on the right side of the form. II RECD\" and the date The following information MUST be form: First and Last Name Race Sex Address Date of Birth supplied on the If any of this information is missing, cannot be processed. the form 23 02223 I aI I I I I I I I I I I ni 5. 4. 5 Check the birthdate birth certificate.  ! on the form and the child's Check off either the birth certificate box or passport/visa and initial in the area at the bottom of the PiF labelled of legal name and birthdate by\". the child will NOT be 5 years old by October advise the parent that the child will be too to attend kindergarten next year. PUPIL INFORMATION FORM TO THE STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE UNTIL THE BIRTHDATE HAS BEEN VERIFIED. PIF If young DO NOT SEND THE Check the address on the form. supply their permanent residence office boxes CANNOT be used. The parent must address\npost , , , -  ---- Require proof of address lease agreement, rent receipt, contract or Personal Property Tax Bill), the Address Verification Form and attach the PIF. (lease sales Complete a copy to When the PIF has been completed correctly, (or appropriate grade for 1989-90 school xxi the GRADE box and code the student's race in the ?sraOOt'BOX) SCHOOL NUMBER IN ETHNIC box. SUBMITTED BY box. UI write K year) in Initial and date the form in the Information Form(s) in an envelope laDelled: STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE KINDERGARTEN/NEW STUDENT PRE-REGISTRATION SEND THE ENVELOPE EVERYDAY IN THE SCHOOL MAIL 24 02224 1 I o II LITTLE POCK SCHOOL Si 7 CHOOL DISTPICr ct:on form  I OFrICE USE C^JLY Wl (NAME) (ADDRESS) V (I .O./RACE.'ZS) Next Year's Grade VI Dear Parent. *0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0* *0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0* *0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0* *0 00000000 0* *0 00000000 0* *0 00000000 0* *0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0* *0 0 0 0 0 : 1 0 0 0* *0 00000000 0* *0000000000* I I I, \u0026lt; 1 This IS your school selection form for the school var rP,?-  before completing this form. THAT YOU REiURN THIS FORM TO YOUR CHILD'S PRESENT Please review IT IS VERY IMPORTANT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT SY INSTRUCTIONS: ONLY MARK ONE of the following boxes, turn it to your child's present school PENCIL ONLY. sign this form, and re- assignment. USE ^^2 n 0 Please allow my child to remain at school year. school for the 1989-90 Wl 0 q 0 I VI VI Please assign my child to his/her attendance zone school I understand that my child will remain at his/her a seat is not available at school. Please assign my child to I understand that my child will remain at his/her a seat is not available at INCENTIVE SCHOOLS - ONLY CHECK ONE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Frankli n Gari and Ish Mitchel 1 Rightsell Rockefel1 er Stephens Washington present assignment if present assignment i f If you wish to request sibling preference, please indicate bel complete the information on the back of this form. OOES NOT APPLY TO MAGNET SCHOOLS ow and SIBLING PREFERENCE I request sibling preference. ******************. PARENT'S SIGNATURE DATE 24(a) 02225 I' il? 4 1' I 11 il\n!| 0 II LEASE LIST THE MAMES OF ALL SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN BELOW. NAME DATE OF BIRTH I PRESENT SCHOOL i ASSIGNMENT PLEASE PRINT. I GRADE SIBLING PREFERENCE OPTIONS: (Please mark ONLY one ootion) J 0 Two or more siblings requesting to transfer together. District requesting assignment to a zone school with a sibling who '- to a zone school.   - - non-attendance IS currently assigned to the I a non-attendance I 0 Assign siblings who presently same non-magnet school. attend different non-magnet schools to the I (NOTE: Definition of siblings: .no enrol,ed ff I 24 (b) 02226FACILITIES LRSD will have thirty-one non-magnet elementary schools. The magnet schools will continue to operate under present court orders. I Elementary Academies There will be twenty-two Elementary Academies. The name reflects LRSD's commitment to provide an excellent desegregated education program in each of these schools. The Elementary I 1 I Academies with the capacity and projected racial composition of each, are listed below: .11 School Capacity Black Non-Black Total % Black I Badgett 275 82 73 155 53% Bale 394 188 124 312 60% O' Baseline 417 206 125 331 62% Brady 420 190 172 362 52% Chicot 563 255 231 486 52% Cloverdale 420 213 141 354 60% Dodd 424 198 164 362 55% Fair Park 351 154 130 284 54% Forest Park 436 203 180 383 53% Fulbright 607 267 236 503 53% Geyer Springs 235 120 98 218 55% Jefferson 490 226 205 431 52% Mabelvale 541 261 231 492 53% McDermott 531 260 216 476 55% Meadowcliff 465 237 208 445 53% I I I 25 I 02227I School Capacity Black Non-Black Total % Black Otter Creek 383 183 162 345 5 3% Pulaski Heights 328 159 119 278 57% Terry 537 260 224 484 54% Wakefield 472 215 184 399 54% Watson 472 227 157 384 59% Western Hills 328 165 140 305 54% Wilson 409 228 170 398 57% I Totals 9,501 4^ Incentive Schools There will be eight Incentive Schools which are listed below I with the number of classrooms in each as well as the capacity of each at twenty-five students per classroom: s School Franklin Garland Ish Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens Washington Totals  Classes 28 16 11 14 12 16 13 42 136 Capacity at 25 700 400 275 350 300 400 325 1050 3800 II 02228 I w I m a I 26Interdistrict Schools I LRSD and PCSSD will establish Romine as an Interdistrict School for the 1989-90 school year. Romine School has a capacity I of 490 students. Up to 49% of the Romine seats would be allocated to PCSSD and at least 51% of the seats would be allocated  to LRSD. LRSD is committed to work with PCSSD and the other parties to this case to establish for the 1989-90 school year the Baker and Harris Interdistrict Schools. LRSD will recruit black students 4: to fill its share of the Home-Mart Baker and Harris seats in accordance with the Interdistrict Plan. Capacity I The nonmagnet elementary enrollment for the 1988-89 school I I year is 8,327 black students and 3,835 non-black students for a O' total of 12,162 students. I Without the enrollment in LRSD of a significant number of students who are presently enrolled in private schools, LRSD would expect about two percent growth in the number of black students and very little growth in the number of non-black students. I I I The projected enrollment would be 8,500 black students and 3,850 non-black students for a total of 12,350. The capacities of the Elementary Academies are determined in accordance with Arkansas accreditation standards'which have the following limits: I I I I 02229h Grade Maximum Number of Students Per Class (Average) Maximum Number of Students in Any Class Kindergarten 20 20 First-Third 23 25 Fourth-Sixth 25 28 I The total capacity of the twenty-two Elementary Academies Is 9,501. The Incentive Schools will have a maximum pupil/teacher ratio of 20 to 1. There may be more than 20 students per classroom. 4k however, there will be a certified aide in each class and V possibly a second teacher in those classes. The capacity of the Incentive Schools is 3,800 at 25 students per class. The total nonmagnet elementary capacity of LRSD exceeds the projected enrollment (12,350) by 1,266 seats. (13,616) The overall racial composition of the Elementary Academies and the space available for recruitment at those schools depend I I a I upon the number of students who enroll in Incentive and I Interdistrict Schools. The initial racial composition of the Incentive Schools is expected to be predominantly black. It is expected that at least 400 black ih LRSD students will attend Interdistrict Schools. The chart below shows the impact of black 1 Incentive and Interdistrict School enrollment upon the Elementary Academies: 2S 02230II Black Enrollment in Incentive and Inter- dlstrict Schools Total Enrollment in Ele. Aca. Racial Composition of Ele. Aca. Recruitment Capacity for Ele. Aca. 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 3,600 Construction 10,350 9,850 9,350 8,850 8,650 1988-89 62.8% 60.9% 58.8% 56.5% 56% \u0026lt;89\u0026gt; 411 911 1,411 1,511 Washington School is closed for the 1988-89 school year. new Washington School is being built at the jected capacity of 1,050 students. same site with a proThe students who were origi- nally assigned to Washington for the 1988-89 been reassigned to Ish, Mitchell, school year have Rockefeller and Rightsell. These students (166) will have a preference to return to the Washington in the 1989-90 school 1989-90 O' new year. A new wing is being added to Franklin School and will be completed prior to the start of the 1989-90 school year. Franklin's new capacity will be 560. Woodruff has a capacity of 245 students and is situated in a neighborhood that has no real potential for white growth. Woodruff is presently 75% black. Probably the best use of this I I V I I I I I I A * I I I facility is to use it as the Instructional Resource Center (IRC) or as an alternative school. Woodruff will be closed as an ele- I mentary school at the end of the 1988-89 school year. I 29 022311990-1991 It is proposed that the District relocate Stephens Elementary near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue. The new Stephens will house pre-kindergarten through sixth grades and will have capacity of 600 students. It serves as an Interdistrict school. to downtown office The new Stephens will be easily accessible workers, state department employees and University Medical Center personnel. The Little Rock School District also proposes to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little Rock. The facility a 4k I would be located in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and I University Avenue. In addition to being an Interdistrict school, an attraction for this school will be its early childhood program and childcare facilities. This location is expected to sez^e as Ia a natural magnet for Individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little Rock. I The parties have had discussions with realtors regarding speII cific school construction sites and existing buildings. The Master will be provided a separate progress report negotiations for school sites. concerning I 30 02232 INCENTIVE SCHOOL PROGRAM I INTRODUCTION Beginning in the 1989-90 school year, the Little Rock School Lj District will have eight (8) schools providing the incentive school program. Rockefeller may become an interdistrict school, but would continue to provide the incentive school program. The purpose of the incentive school program is to promote and ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. It is believed that the incentive school program will not only compensate the victims of segregation, but the program will also serve as a tool for promoting meaningful and I long-lasting desegregation in these schools and in the entire school district. I The following schools will provide the incentive school a I program: I -Franklin -Garland -Ish I -Mitchell -Rightsell -Rockefeller -Stephens I -Washington In order to be successful, the incentive program must address the academic, social and emotional needs_ of all student participants . The incentive program must also serve as a recruit- 31 02233ment tool for meeting the desegregation requirements in these schools. With the proper resources and expectations, the incentive school program will serve as a model of excellence for the county, state and nation. The success of the incentive school program is directly related to the success of the long-term desegregation plan in the Little Rock School Distri rict. 1 I In addition to the ongoing comprehensive programs in the incentive schools. the incentive school program committee will explore the possible use of a trust fund to provide future college scholarship incentives. By the end of October, 1989, the committee will determine the costs of implementing a scholarship program for the students who attend incentive schools and will determine the feasibility of using trust funds to provide such an Incentive. I If feasible. the committee will have the respon- o sibility for establishing the guidelines and criteria to be used in allocating any resources to the students. The trust fund I would be used to provide an academic achievement incentive to students and would also assist parents and students in setting realistic goals for attending college. I i 3 02234Incentive School Program r^CEMTIVE SCHOOL PROGRAM COMMITTEE The bb-eorint for the incentive school orogram was develooeb by a committee of administrators. tives ano oarents. teachers, ccmmunitv reoresenta- The blueorint will be used as the framewors specific activities that are expected to occur after'^court approval of the incentive school program. for sceci The following areas were considered in the development of the incentive school program: I I I A. S. c. D, E. F. G. H. I. 0. K. L. Staffing Parent Involvement Staff Development Academic Programs and Curriculum Development Social Skills Support Programs Monitoring and Evaluation Special Student Activities Parent Recruitment School Administration School Policy and Procedures Counseling/Social Work I I 0 The Incentive School Program Committee divided into five (5) subcommittees to address the above areas: -Subcommittee 1 - Academic Programs - Special Student Activities - Social Skills I -Subcommittee 2 - Supoort Programs - School Administration - Counseling/Social Work - Monitoring and Evaluation - School Policy and Procedures I -Subcommittee 3 - Staffing - Staff Development -Subcommittee 4 - Parent Involvement I -Subcommittee 5 - Parent Recruitment I I I - _ 33 02235Incentive School Program I BLUEPRINT FOR EXCELLENCE The purpose of this document is to clearlv define the mission and expectations for the incentive schools.  ' Committee did not. however. The Incentive School Program .  attempt to specifically define c incentive school This document merel witfi the parameters for excellence in education concerns for each individual incentive s-hool must be developed by the local practitioners.  are the princioals. orogram. every y rur- The local practitioners teachers, parents and community representatives in each incentive school area. The District firmlv hPli^voc th.t rs- The District firmly believes that the success of any program depends on the opportunity for the practitioners local level. This document is hereby rrPn r.n roHopal 5rz4 _____-j... submitted to the federal court and the that further details will be develoced. community with the understanding the Incentive School Program Committee will continue to function until AUQUSt 1, 1 989. -------. _ - I UIIV V I Ull UHt I I committee will be expanded to include at least one parent from each incentive school attendance zone. w pareiiu rrom eacn On August 1 the function as a district-wide council council will have two parent representatives from each incentive school. Also, four members at-lArop of incentive school parents. I ------ Also, four members at-large will be appointed by the Joshua Intervenors. The Incentive Srhnni o I a a a a va a n oe School Program Parent Council will be responsible for monitoring all activities related to the incentive school program. The Parent Council will report to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors Joshua Intervenors on a quarterly basi program. s. and I Academic achievement is the result of commitment, high expectations. strong belief that all children can learn, and broad-based c..... \" support, .'/hen these ideals are couoled with the availability of financial resources, educational excellence prevails. U Ij vei wi the belief of the District that all of these ideals will be evident in each incentive school. support. communi ty a It is certainly 02236 34 tI I I I SECTION ONE I ACADEMIC PROGRAMS ANO CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT c I I  35 02237I.NCZN7I7 CCLS ACACE.'IIC PROGRAMS ANO CORRICUL'JM DEVELOPMENT Schools have the responsibility for expanding the scope of knowledge and fl for developing the rational, reflective, and critical capacities of all childre II The content of the education must be true, en. appropriate, and relevant. The oro-education are expected to be democratic and humane. cation is to be the complete development of the lence in education must person. Tne aim of eduIn addition, excel-prepare a student for self-knowledge and to bee contributing problem-solving member of his or her society as well. ome a own community and the global (Saving the African-American Child, 1984) The goals, the content of the academic programs. the instructional methodologies , and the use of instructional technology in the Incentive Schools be reflective of the intent to have excellence in education. Augmenting the academic program will be special social skills building programs implemented to emotional, and interest needs of the students. will I student activities and meet the cognitive, social, However, the primary goals of education shall be attained through the mastery of a core curriculum of worthwhile knowledge, important skills, and sound ideals. ACADEMIC PROGRAMS General Areas for Imolementation Old Program (Early Childhood Education) - The Little Rock School 5 Four-Year Old Program will be operative in each Incentive The High/Scope Curriculum will be the content model, and a mandatory District-developed parent component model will be incorporated into the program model. School. c 2. L^iting to Read, an instructional tec -ology\n3rogram, will be implemented at eacn Incentive School for K-2 students. 3. ^ndergarten - The Little Rock School District Early Prevention of School Failure mooel will be operative in each Incentive School. fl raiiurs moaei will oe operative in each Incentive School. Release time and flexible scheduling will be utilized to conduct regularly scheduled mandatory parent-teacher conferences. fl - _ 36 02238 4. Each suoject area pleasure of and 2 ^i|^i5_2c=|lJ?ie_Curr2C^ will be a major emphasis for developing reading ,.rpr .ciency and critical reading skills. will alsoutilize strategies to increase students appreciation for reading (Pre-kindergarten-6). I 5. Ora] Expression Across the Curriculum will -------------------------  Ol'*er instructional objectives and.strategies in eacn suoject area designed st. 'H eaun suoject area designed to increase the oral munications and American English skills of the com- students (Pre-kindergarten-5). 6. gaming Styles Inventories will be used in each Incentive School to .eacners in diversirying tneir teaching styles to match the learni or the students. assist ng styles 7. School Themes will be developed at the local ,. -.------------- - -- - - ----- school level by parents and Sua.r ana are recommended to be integrated into the total curriculum. I I 8. Semi-deoart.mentalization will be the recommended organizational structure ror grades 3-o. -------- ...  uu.uic : ,. , , .,,'^5 organization will facilitate the development specialised s\u0026lt;ills for \"subject area\" teachers for the respective grade levels.  area of 9. Instructional Technology will be available in in individual classrooms. specialized laboratories and 10. equipped with adequate equipment and materials/supplies will be available for students in grades 3-6. CgF-Outer Laboratories for remediation and enrichment will be expanded for a minimum of 24 stations in each classroom. 12. Foreign Language Laboratories with appropriate equipment and materials will be operative in each scnool. 13. S_\u0026gt;.udy andlest-takinc Skills will be taught in an integral component of the curriculum at eacn grace level. 14. 15. 16. 17. Computer Loan Program - portable computers will be available for loan to students (grades 4-6) for use at home. Remediation and enrichment software will be available for home-based learning experiences. Parent Home Study Guides will be developed in each core subject area for each grade (1-6). Computer-Managed Instructional Technology will be used for continuous tracking of student progress. Individualized Education Plans will be developed, implemented, and monitored for each student. I c 18. Specialized Programs - Federally or state mandated programs (remedial, special education, gifted and talented) will be available during the core instructional day, with reinforcement activities available through the extended day, week, or year programs.*(seg p^gg 7) 37 022393 19 . ^entive Programs - each school will establish an incentive program for recognizing academic excellence and improvement. academic 20. Homework - homework is required according to Little Rock Scnool District policy and regulations. 21. Criterion-Referenced Testing - formative criterion- referenced test will be computer generated fo assessment of students. r the ongoing 22. Hetereogeneous grouping will be utilized u.  in each subject, and instructors will utilize whole gro small group, and individualized approaches to teaching. at each grade level group, 23. Effective Schools model will be operative in each incentive scnool, with appropriate training provided for implemen- ration. 24. African and African-American History - each school will establish a sequential program to include the study of African and African-American history and culture. SPECIFIC SUBJECT AREA EMPHASIS I I c The core curriculum for pre-kindergarten through grade 6 fl will be the Little Rock School District emphasis/expansion have been Identified areas. model. Areas for for each of the content READING fl  Literature, with emphasis on -Basal testbooks will be used to augment the classics reading program (K-6) -Strong emphasis on critical reading skills (grades 4-6) -Increased motivation and learning with oral tenVnn reading, studeht^story-^ telling, debate, drama, etc.) (K-6) fl ENGLISH/LITERATURE ARTS fl fl Read as an instructional component for K-2 -Writing Across the Curriculum will be used writing skills of students (K-6) -Latin Program will be used to increase the end wordattack skills of students -Oral Language Expression will be reading and English/language arts to enhance the (5-6) vocabulary a major emphasis in the areas (K-6) fl 3S 02240-Penmanship will be emphasized at each level, with appropriate recognition of the developmental level of the individual student (K-6) -Language Modeling will be expected in the oral expression, vocabulary, and usage skills of the teachers (K-6) SOCIAL STUDIES -Emphasis on the study of history from a subject area context--World History, American History, and Arkansas History (4-6) I I I \u0026lt; 02241 33 (a)4 -emphasis on introductory concepts in history, geography, and civics (:\u0026lt;-3) -Geograony will be taught through active learni -each subject and grade level in social multi-ethnic curriculum (K-6) ng strategies studies wi11 include a -Learning strategies and activities will promote studies (K-6) 1iving social I I I I I I I I emphasis on American and Arkansas History (4-5) emphasis on World History (6) Celebrations/caremonies will be integrated into the curriculum MATHEVATICS imphasis on use of word or story problems {2-5} introduction to basic concepts in geometry and algebra (2-6) -Extensive use of manipulation (?re-k-3) -Use of computers for organizing and utilizing mathematical data {*-0) -Empnasis on critical thinking in addition to methodology and results (K-o) SCIENCE -Instruction will utilize a hands-on discovery and exploration approach to the learning of scientific concepts (K-3) -Classroom and textbook work will be supplemented with practical demonstrations and experiments that reinforce the principles of scientific method and suggest the applications and possibilities of science -Emphasis in the upper grades will be on the life physical sciences (4-6) sciences and -Nastery of concepts should culminate with an annual project- i.e.. Invention Convention, Science Fair, etc.  1 .e. -nomework assignments will include prepared information packets describing experiments parents and students can do together to reinforce what has been taught in the classroom FINE ARTS -Content will include an introduction to basic concepts in music and art -Art and music instruction will be sequential and cumulative in the content, knowledge, and skills -Emphasis in the earlier grades will be on the enjoyment and creation of music, painting, and crafts (Pre-k-3) -Emphasis at the intermediate level will expand and understanding to cultural and historical di ments (4-6) creative expression erences and develop- -In-school performances and/or exhibits and field trips will be used to reinforce the learning of concepts 02242 39 Is FORE-GN UNGUAGe -each school will select study, with Spanish and a choice strong recommendations at least one foreign language for of an Asian language as -The instructional II methodology for each language will be a :otal physical response\" approach -e.TiDnasis will be on basic vocabulary, conversational, and cultural materials for K-3 II -A foreign language laboratory will be used for instruction including computers where appropriate -Emphasis will be on transcribing and translating foreign language age-appropriate material (4-6) -Provision of practical experiences and interactions with a native language user -Emphasis wi11 be on vocabulary, grammar, reading, writing and cultural materials (4-6) PHYSICAL EDUCATION/HEALTH -Family Life Education will be included in the total elementary curriculum (1-6) -Nifty Nutrition available for all grades (1-6) -Emphasis on \"wellness\" for the young (K-6) -^phasis on the development of an understanding of and respect for the handicapped\ni.e., disabilities simulations (5-6) -Emphasis on team sports and lifelong leisure skills (K-6) SOCIAL SKILLS Social skills will be taught, where appropriate, through the core instructional program. The total staff at each school will be expected to model exemplary behaviors toward each other, the students, and the total community. Specialized activities will be used to emphasize the development of appropriate social skills\nFamily Folklore -Students will learn the values and mores of tneir ancestors and family as a way to focus on personal positive behaviors. Positive Imaging - Structured lessons in self-esteem building will be taugnt in small group sessions. Interpersonal Skills - Structured grouo sessions will focus on prooiem-solving, decision-making, peer pressure, etc. 11 40 02243 I I6 Rites of Passage - A structured program will be initiated to ------   7 wx-ux kjc xiixuxdiueu uo respond to the emotional, physical, and social developmental changes in the young students.  - - Separate programs may be established for male and female students. Role Models Programs - Individuals (international, national state, local and community) will be used for presentations at the school in every area of the program to provide role models for the students. Special emphasis will be placed on African-American role models for males. com- Mentoring Program - utilizing local resources in the community and the Partner's Program, a mentoring program will be established for intermediate-age students (4-6) Additional or other social skills activities may be developed at the local school level. However, all academic programs. social skills programs/activities and special activities must be clearly and broadly articulated to the school community. SPECIAL ACTIVITIES Special activities may be focused on academic reinforcement, special interest clubs, and/or units of national or state organizations. Academic Reinforcement Activities may include (but not limited to) the following: Peer-Tutoring Program - Peer tutors will be assistants to teachers in the Homework Program or during the regular school day. Students will be compensated for after-school peer tutoring (see Support Programs). Academic Reinforcement Clubs - Chess Club, Computer Programming Club,Debate Club, Thesbian (Drama) Club, M Club (Math Olympiads), Odyssey of the Mind, Great Books Club, Science Club, Annual Knowledge Bowl (elementary level). Foreign Language Club Math Special Interest Clubs Photography Newspaper Yearbook Choir/Glee Club may include the following: Band Swimming Club Bowling Club Skating Club 41 02244 II Tennis Club Archery Club Camping Club String Instruments Sign Language Club Aerooics Club Cooking Club Art Club Horsaoack Riding Gymnastics Club Dance Club Great Decisions International Pen Pal Club Sewing Club trips will be used to enhance learning, to broaden cultural experiences, to provide hands-on experiences for knowledge of the world, and to assist in the development of coping skills for students. Local field trips (see Support Programs) may be supplemented with a state or national trip. Examples include the following: I I I I I fl Houston Space Center (Houston, Texas) Smithsonian Institute (/Washington, DC) \u0026gt;artin Luther King Center (Atlanta, Georgia) George_Washington Carver Museum (Tuskegee, Alabama) Gulf Snores (Gulfport, Mississippi) Each school will incorporate special activities into the total school program. Choices for each school will be determined by the needs/interests at the building level. Staff and parents will determine when and how activities will be implemented. However, School Program Plans must be submitted to the 3oard and administration for approval on an annual basis. Documented school-based involvement in the needs/inte rest assessment and planning process must accompany each School Program Plan, budget must accompany each plan. A projected I  I 02245 4I L.ATIM E.'IRIChME.MT PROGRAM EME.i.nRi' L.RMGuAGc ARTS CLASSES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I I. Sacksrsund I, I I I  I I V H 0 II. fl fl II fl In tne ear.y ISSO's, the Philadelphia (PA) School Oist and.vocabulary scores of elementary school childr Latin in language arts classes. Latin teachers language arts ...trict raised reading sn through a program usinq The program was developed by a team of , but the materials were designed to be used by elementary teachers\nthe proqram did not dpnpnd n n n e 4 n i i j the,program depend on using trained Latin Since that time programs of this sort have been implemented in many other school distri Indiana\n'Washington, O.C.\nSt. Louis, Missouri\nAngeles, California\nKansas City, Missouri. teacners in the elementary classes. Uashington, hew York City, Mew York\nlets, sue.h as Indianapolis,\nDallas, Texas\nLos developed heir own materials. teaching formal Latin grammar\nmeans to improve English skills. - -4 .  .w.^\nOakland, California\nSome use the Philadelphia materials\nOLhers In these programs the focus is not on and others have it is on using Latin words and myths as a These programs have also resulted in improved self-image among learners. \"he ini : a 1 implemen fied dis 3 on of the program by Philadelphia and later in t'e schools with a large minority ? tar.e-.ed levels were grades five and six or orade six only xeports concermng students' performances on standardiz- ' above ident population. iden :c ied districts reveal at least a one sd tests in the above year growth reading and vocabu- .--------- yiuMi-ii in reaainq a lary and a significanu amount or growth in other content areas (see attached\n. In all districts, a team of Latin teachers trained the elementary language apt? tflsrna'-c in ma * \u0026lt; .. ___ __ arts teachers in using the materials and served background in Roman and Greek culture. as resource persons for As the program grew, many of these A corresponding elemen.aryteachers studied to become proficient in Latin. program using the Greek language has also been develooed\nthe same methods and approach. this program uses The materials focus on using Latin and Greek word roots as a basis to incre English reading and vocabulary skills. c:iyi.3\ni rsiuinu anc vccaouiary SX1HS. Materials are varied\nthe two basic courses are designed for fifth and sixth grades and are based on classical 7T\"\"'\"T '\"7 Supplemental courses cover a wide variety of subjects, including science, math, astronomy, and blacks in antiquity. mythology and life. Rationales More than focusing\nedge of E, read n prov: Ab i1i t areas more s livino school se 3 n L cu  d of word tin wcr 1 i s h V e.nr: y OU 3  n he E.nglish language a-e based on Latin words\nary. ots and word-building elemen Many f h and sixt icula include mythology and the Grec hme.nt. a-facts SU 3 3 U I n i n 'T. era 3 will increase kncwl- social studies and .dv c 3 his subject ma will 1 :an worlds a an lea vocabul ng and a rv IS not limited to i^ncuage arts and other academic ass in life itself\nduals who feel comoe an unusual subje iS ths 3 an unus ! IS no 1 and \u0026gt;' 4 ror s s an oved self increasing ability creates a a - J t focus ad on le iffe-eno' subje 3 deal with school and 3, especially in elementary ring and s he Latin language pe- ma he learne aeing success in s . 44 02247Latin Enricnment Program -- Page 2 1 The program itself is easy to implement. Th, ,,,, .........a, ment of time by elementary teachers to learn't.hrmaterials\"i?limi- ihe materials are easy to ----- ' imi ihs coSi- is niinirndl, dnd invsst* use.  - .......eed. mey are inexpensive to purchase and - distribution to teachers. The program's b aVsuc^^ fully usjd by many areas with educational situations similar to Lit15 Rock. ,ne uniqueness of the program should appeal to parents as weil as Students\nno other public or private schools in Arkansas, certainly ij th, metropolitan Little Rock Ar^:,. h\n,va ...............- Area, have such a program. The program would in the serve the desegregation plan for the incent?veschools anS wouid J^p m achieving t..e targeted objectives of raising standardi2=d tst eliminating disoarity between scores and scores of the major ethnic elements of the [_ 5 . ------w . \u0026gt;\u0026lt;v. iMwjMi ClCuIcni-j or cnP emphasis on multiethnic education within School Oistnct, materials can be developed locally to include this empnasis. Using the existing materials as models, L.RSO teachers ran rraa^a i\u0026lt;nn*e * k L. - J  _ .  . .  wwawinsi i can create units that use their unique talents and skills and directed to the special interests and needs of Arkansas students. that are III. PrODOSal It Is proposedthat the Little Rock School District implement ' Latin programj'n the^elementary language arts classes at the fifth aim six- grade levels in t.he incentive schools for the purpose of increasing readino and vocabulary sxills, imoroving standardized test -------- ... the self-image of learners. an elementary h and sixtn scores, and enhancing IV. Program Descriotion ( After teachers for the incentive schools have been identified in t.h of 1989, these teachers will the summe.' mented at  . -- - - e spring receive six hours of inservice training during 4,u The program will be imple- vhe 1989--0 year and will be incorporated int\nof 1989 in implementing the program, ne start of the 1989-90 school vear I t.he fift.n and sixt.h grade language arts instru fifteen to twentv minutes OPr Th rni r 11 teen twenty per day. ictional block for approximate'.' Throughout the 1989-90 school year. ...... iiiruugnout cne yar -eacne-s wnl be involved in foirr (i) additional inservice workshops (two ^er se.meswer). Also, these teachers will have the opportunity to become i proficient in Latin by enrolling them\ni\"' \" ' fTors in a college course designed especially for\na nH ______ ums^course will be optional and at the teacher's own expense. Throughout the year, the principal in each building will At the end of the 1939-90 school the program will be made\ndata. monitor the prograr year, a formal district-wide assessment this assessment will be based or on surveys and test I 5 I 45 m O224S 1Latin Enrichment Program -- Page 3 r Budget Summary (Per Teacner) ri Instructional Materials Pri nting $ 30 60 ri  Inservice Materials 30 IT ri  Inservice Consultant Fee College Course Materials College Course Instructor's Fee Inservice Stipends 15 20 '30 60 ri  TOTAL S 245 rj 1 Budget Summary (Program in all Sth and 6th grades in all incentive schools) 7 schools with teachers each  28 teachers 1 school with 10 teachers = 10 teachers $6,860 2.450 TOTAL $9,310 . _ 46 02249OBJECTIVE ACTIVITIES IMPLEHENTATIOH PLAN participants 1. To provide the Latin i PERSON RESPONSIBIt COHPIETION DATE ! awareness of program to In- centive school principals And staffs l.a. Present Implementation plan proposal to associate superintendents and assistant superintendents l.b. Schedule awareness meeting wlth principals of Incentive schools l.c. Develop agenda for principals' meeting l.d. Conduct awarenesi meet- Ing with principals l.e. Schedule awareness meeting with current Sth A 6th grade teachers 1 Incentive schools n I l.f. Conduct awareness meeting with current Sth A Sth grade teachers l.g. Identify Sth A 6th grade teachers who wish to EVAl NATION . To provide Inservice to participating teachers 1 I I a Angela Sewall Beverly White Arma Hart Rfchel Myers Harle HcNeal Harvin Zimmerman Principals of Incentive schools Sth A 6th grade teachers at Incentive schools PrInc I pa I $ remaln at Incentive scho\u0026gt;ls l.h.' Recruit and fill ties vacan- 2.a. Requisition Instructional materials COST (per teaclier) Harle McNeal Marvin Zimmerman January 30, 1989 Plan Presentation -0- Angela Sewall March I, 1989 Meeting on Calendar -0- Angela Sewall Beverly White Harch I, 1989 Printed agenda -0- Marie McNeal Marvin Zlmmerma Gayle Cloud Rachel Myers n March 15, 1989 March 15, 1989 Concerns/qiies t ions expressed by principal Meeting on Calendar s -0- -0- Harle HcNeal Marvin Zimmerman Gayle Cloud April 14, 1989 Meeting agenda -0- Principals Richard Maple Prlnclpals Richard Maple Harle McNeal May 1, 1989 July 1, 1989 May 1, 1989 List of identifled Sth A 6tli grade teachers IdentITied Sth A 6lh teachers at incenti schools for 1989-90 ve Arr i va I of ma ter i a 1 $ -0- -0- I I S?0 materials ( per teacher)OBJECTIVE ACTIVITIES 2.b. Duplicate copies of above materials 2.C. Schedule 2 inservice meetings of 3 hours eaci 2.d. Develop agenda for abovi 2 meetings Z.e. Conduct above 2 meeting\n2.f. Contact UALR about offering college course 2.g. Schedule above college course I 2.h. Implement above college course 2.1. Schedule four two-hour Inservice workshops In local bulIdings/cluster district-wide IMPLEHENTATIOH PLAN PARTICIPANTS Teachers and Principals Gayle Cloud UALR official Teachers / Ioilf ? IERSON RESPONSIBLE COMPLETION DATE EVAl DAT I ON Harle HcNeal Harle McNeal Harie HcNeal Gayle Cloud Harle HcNea! Gayle Cloud Harle HcNeal Gayle Cloud Principals Harle HcNeal July I. 1989 June 1, 19B9 July 15, 1989 August 18, 1989 June 1, 1989 December 1, 1989 hay, 1990 September 1, 1989 i I 2.J, Conduct above four Inservice Morkshops Teachers Principals Gayle Cloud Hay I, 1990 (2 per semester) I One copy for each teacher Heelings on Calendar Printed agendas Agendas and materials Course proposal Identified dales/times/ place Completed course Heelings on Calendar Heeling agendas C05I _(pnr lea die I ) 150 printInq (per leaclier) -0- -0- 120 materials (per teacher) 1200 consultant feeds |\u0026gt;er tcatliei 160 st ipends jicr te.icher (110 per hour) -0- -0- I/O Hia I er i a I s (per teacher) 11 200 i ns I rue tor lee (51(1 per leaclier) -0- 110 ma ter i a Is (per teacher) 1400 I ee Aonsi'tlanl IID per teacher) I 1^ 00OBJECTIVE ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PARTICIPANTS T PERSON RESPOliSIBL f COMPLETION DATE EVAlHAT I ON 3. To Implement the elementary Latin program In Sth  6th grades at Incentive schools 3.a. Schedule time for classroom Instruction 3.b. Purchase/dupIIcate/ create student material\n3.C. Incorporate Latin pro- gran Into district's language arts program Teachers Teachers Teachers Principals Harle HcNeal . Principals August 15. 1909 School's Instructional scheduIe ungo I ng ongoing COST (per teacliei ' -0- Materials ready fur classroom use Lesson plans . To evaluate the elementary Latin progran I J o I I I ZD $10 materials (per teacher) -0- A.a. Honltor classroom activlties A.b. Identify student growth on standardized tests A.c. Develop student, teacher, parent assessment survey A.d. Disseminate above surveys A.e. Compile survey results A.f. Submit final evaluation report to associate superintendents Teachers Teachers Teachers I Principals Hay 1, 1990 Identi tied strengths and weaknesses -0- Principals Harle HcNeal Gayle Cloud Principals Harle HcNeal Harle HcNeal Hay 30, 1990 Aprll 15, 1990 Hay I, 1990 Hay 30, 1990 June 15, 1990 Test data Printed forms Completed forms returned Survey data Submitted report -0- $10 print ing (per teacher) -0- -U- -n-PUn son Responsioie 198B-B9 (Spring t Suninei ft.,) :K?LK:r, E V L 1 develop and implement a quality academic program for Incentive Schools Pro......... ision Cut' r Ku t uHi nnd Spec id I rrozniT./krti lucentive Schnnls OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ activities SEGlhhiNG DATE completion DATE COSTS Rspoi\ns:b:li7t EVALUATIOU O IO IO O1 I. To promote/enhance leadership and staff understanding of the Incentive School concepi I.a. Provide an indepth pre-orientation session on each coo- ponent of the Incentive Schools for principal. l.b. Develop In cooper- atlon with the principals a detailed rocess arid format or developing the Individual Incentii School Plan ve 1 tn 4^ I I l.c. Assist each building principal in presenting an Indepth pre-onenta- tion session for staff on each com- pontni.. I.d. Assist each principal and staff with orientation session for parents in the Incenliw* Srhnnic February IS, 1969 February 28, 1989 -0- Superintendents cabinet Assistant Superintendent-Incentive Schools March 3, 1989 March I, 1989 March I. 1989 March IS, 1969 March IS, 1989 March IS. 190* -0- -0- -0- Superintendent's Cabinet Assistant Superintendent-Incentive Schools Superintendent's Cabinet Assistant Superintendent-Incentive Schools Superintendent'\u0026lt; nel Principals Cabi - Assistant Superinteu' dent Schools Incentiver.il Plan -f'son Reiponsioie S:l: (vttr) OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ activities BECItllilNG DATE :K?LiK: :0K I'dge 2 -\nIi s icn rro\nrdir./Area COMPLETION DATE COSTS k-spoksibilitt 2. To develop Incentive School Plan for each school 3. To develop curriculum specific to the Incentive Schools I evaluation 2.a. Identify Incentive School Plan teams 2.b. Develop the detailed Individual Incentive School Plan 2.C. Review and approve School Plan 3.a. Identify each area in need of curriculum development 3.b. Identify teachers for curriculum teams 3.C. Plan orientation ant format for curriculum development June I, 1969 June IS, 1969 -0- June, 1989 June, 1989 June IS, 1989 June 1, 1989 June I, 1989 July. 1989 July, 1989 July 31, 1989 June IS, 1989 June IS, 1989 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- O IO IO UI 00 I cn cn Principals i Assistant Superintendent Incentive Sciiools All Divisions Superiniendent's Cabine Board of Directors Principals Assistant Superintendent - Incentive School Curriculum Division Supervisors Principals Assistant Superinten- dent - Schools Incentive Curriculum Division Supervisors Principals Assistant Superinlen* deni - Schools Incent ive Curriculum Division Superv i sors\nTxal Plan trson Rtspontloic j:il: X OBJECTIVES I (V*tr) STRATECiES/ activities BEGIIihlNG DATE iCK 7:Kl:i\nx COHPIETION DATE COSTS RESPOKSIBIllVr fagt 3 -:V 1 s ion rrocr ic./krtt 4. To procure equipment and furniture for Incentive School Programs O ro M UI (O I I 3.d. Review prelImlnary draft of revised curricular for llttb Rock School District f June I, 1989 June 30, 1989 -0- Curriculuni leanis tVAlUAllOK 3.e. Develop additional components for each curriculum area 3,f, Proof and type Incentive School Curriculum Guides 3.g. Print Curriculum Guides 3.h. Distribute and vide inservice pro- on the Implementation of the curriculum guides 4.a. Develop specification for bld for equipment and furniture June 1, 1989 July 1, 1989 July 20, 1909 August I, 1989 Kerch IS, 1989 June 30. 1989 July 20, 1989 July 30, 1989 -0- 13.000 (Est.) Clerical Support) 110,000 (Est. (Printing Cos August 30, 198S April IS, 1989 Curr.iculum leants Curriculum Division Prine ipal s ) t (Cost to be Included in Individual School Plans) -0- Curriculum Division Curriculum and Scliool Division Principals Director of Purchasing Assistant Superintendent - Incentive School Staff-Curriculum--rt-al Plan a'son Rciporsiblc 3:11: (hir) t:o t\nkl:\nx I 4qc 4 OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ activities BEGItihiNG DATE COKPIETION Dkli COSTS vision crren-./ATTi A.b. Did for specific equipment and furniture A.c. Order furniture and equipment 4.d. Instmll end Inventory to ensure tdequicy of all equipment and furniture April 15, 1989 H*y 15. 1989 I Io be determined H*y 15, 1989 August 1, 1989 p.Espoi\ns:B:ti\nr tVAtUATlOH ugust I. 1989 I To be deter- I mined Principals, Oireclor Purchasing. Assistant Superintendent - Incentive Schools. Staff - Curriculum of Principals, Direclor of Purchasing. Assistant Superintendent - Incentive Schools. Staff - Curriculum August 15, 1981 -0- 5. Io effect facility modifications for tan piementation of the Incentive School I ipecltllied progrtns. 5.a. Review the detailed Incentive School Plans with the Support Services Oi.vislon 5.b. Identify modlflca- tlons timeline (S April 15, 1989 April 15, 1989 April 30, 1989 April 30, 1989 -0- -0- O to IO o\u0026gt; O I I I cn Principals, Oireclor Purchasing, Assistant Superintendent - Incentive Schools, Staff - Curriculum ot Oivision of Schools - Associate Superintenden Assistant Superintenden Principal previously collabo- I rated In the devel- I opment of the plan. I 5.C. Contract for service! April 30 1989 as needed/1 dent I- fled In the Plans. Oivision of Support Services H*y 15. 1989 -0- Oivision of Support Services M:-rul Plan ^s'fon Responsioie S\na 1\n(rttr) 6. :0K v\nkl\ni.e Civ 1 s ion ?ro\nri.7./Aria PdiJC S OBJECTIVES strategies/ activities S-CII.TGNG DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS To ensure the availability of adequate 5.d. Implement the andl- Tlcatlon plan for the facilities 5.e. Hake final Inspection on the work for the facilities modification 6.a. resources to Implement I academic programs I Initiate Identirica- tlons of materials and textbooks needed for the 1989-90 school year 6.b, Involve school teams I Staff and parents li reviewing the needs Identified as required for core and special programs 6.C. Identify any materials or text- i\u0026gt;ooks that must be ordered prior to fiscal year '89 n M*y 15. 1989 15. 1989 May 1. 1989 May 1. 1989 May 1. 1989 6.d. Maintain P.ISPOrsiBlLITv tVALUATlau August 15. 1983 (To be August 15. 198! out- lined in the Plan) -0- June 30. 1989 llo be deter- Imlned June 30. 1989 May 20. 1989 -0- To be determined Principals Prlnclpal/School Teams Principal. Assistant Principal. All Divisions. with major input from Purchasing O I I building record of requisitions for the 1989 May 1. 1989 Ongoing -0- Prlncipal IO IO (7\u0026gt; I C/l OD school year.Plan ton Rtipor.tioit (Veer) CH 7\nkl:i.5 Page t :(1: - V 1 s 1 on r.-ocriir./Arc? OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ activities BEGII.'IUNG Df.7t COMPLETION Df.:i COSTS RiSPOKSIBlLITT O to IO at IO i I I cn C) 6.e. Monitor and approve requisitions at requested from Incentive Schools 6.f. Maintain audit Tor *11 materials ccived re- 6.9- Cross validate with purchasing all order not received 6.h. Obtain requirements Tor participation In all special programs 6.1. Pay participation Tee and order all I necessary materials Tqr special activity 6.J- Select sponsors for I each special pro- I grim activity I pproved in the I Incentive School I Plan. ' I Except for articl c'VALUATlOH H*y 20, 1989 July 1, 1989 Ouly 1, 1989 March IS, 1989 April 30, 1989 April 30, 1989 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing April 30, 1989 Oxly 1. 1989 Only 30, 1989 -0- -0- -0- To be determined To be determined es requjrlng a much longeJ time period, al I requisition Appropriate Associate Superintendenl Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal re signed on or inmediJiely following July |.-\"..al Plan_____  arson Rcsponsioic S:tl: (Vetr) OEJCTIVS STRAT-GI-S/ ACTIVIIIiS 4.k. Complete special tracts with all \u0026lt; tended day eaiployees for the 1989-90 school year. 6.1. Complete Master Schedule for total I school prograai I 6.B Revlew/revlse as .K?LiK CK T\nkL I'iyc 7 - : V i s 1 c n rrocric./Area I I BCG 1 tJH J NG OATt COKPltTION OATt COSTS RtSPOKSiEILlTr t'VALUAllOH 1 conj August 1, lg89 oa* I necessary the staff development plan for the fall (September. December) April 30, 1989 August 30, 1989 August 30, 198! August 15,1989 (As necessary bi i Septeaiber 15, 1989 once each seaiestir) at least -0- -0- Principal Principal Prine ipal O IO M Ol (a) (X o--r.uil Plan 1988-89 ?iron Rtipontioit (Spring and Summer! --------------------------------- (*r) .'KHiH-KTATJCN 7:KiL:i. g fleveiopmen-TTor ImpleBenttHon of Incent I ve School Plans OBJECTIVES strategies/ activities beginning OATE COKPIETION DAit COSTS 1. To Inplement staff development activities Tor Incentive Schools I.e. Identify the staff development needs of eech Incentive Schoo April 30, 1989 Hiy 15, 1989 To be deter- eiined RESPOliSieiLITT Prine ipals Director of Staff Development - vision Cm'i i( III um Si*Ci ?rocrir./Are4 I I l oni ams lal iKeiilive ScImiiTv' [VALUATION O IO M I Ol l.b. Develop Inservice schedule In collaboration with building principal I.C. Notify each school I staff of proposed Inservice dates Tor pre-school I training I l.d. Plan details for I delivery of In- I service - I.e., I site, time, arrange-! Bents, etc. | l.t. Obtain services of I consultants (as | required) I I 1 .f. Implement, fall training cycle Mey 15. 1989 Hey 30, 1989 Hey 30, 1989 Hey 30, 1989 August 1, 1989 Hey 30, 1989 August 30, 1989 July 30, 1989 \u0026gt;luly 30, 1989 -0- -0- -0- August 30,1989 To Be Deter- I mined Principals Director of Staff Development Principals Prine ipals Assistant Superintenden Director of Staff Development Prine ipals Assistant Superintenden Director of Staff Development Prine ipals Assistant Superintenden Oireclor of Staff Development-r.r.ua) pim trjon Rtipor.tibie _____ (r*r) TiOK TiK5L\ni\n rayc ? division ___ rrczrca./l,rti objectives strategies/ activities BEGIhlliNG Dfi7t COUPIETION DATE COSTS KtSPOl.'SIBiLllT tVAlUAilOH I I I 1 o K\u0026gt; IO O) Ol I \u0026lt;Xl '.g. Evaluate staff developoent actlvltyi through Survey response froa each staff August h 1969 Ongoing HO Be Oeter- nlned Prine ipaU Assistant Superintenden Director of Staff Development bm B SECTION TWO SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION _ 63 022661 INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION The focus, function and guiding process of the Incentive Schools will be to provide excellence in an environment of academic support\nindividualized education and flexibility These schools shall exemplify the close partnership between parents and the school community which is a motivational factor for students. The school program will address student success and development of potential from affective, skill based and demic perspectives. aca- SUPPORT PROGRAMS The following items will be components of every incentive school:  A. HOMEWORK CENTERS - Although it is anticipated that the school day shall extend from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 pm Homework Centers should be extant in each schoola*' least two (2) days per week to assist students who in need of specific help with class material. school communities, i.e., parents, staff and students may opt for more days per week for students who are not otherwise involved in activities during the last two hours of the day, Monday-Thursday). at are (Some (2) It will be necessary to provide transportation home for students who remain at the Homework Center so that students whose parents cannot supply transportation and/or who live outside of the area which is reasonable walkinq distance may avail themselves of the Center, dents choose not to attend Homework Centers, options for student assistance will be explored. Staffing for the Homework Centers will be in the form of classroom teachers who will be available on a 'volunteer\" rotating basis, community volunteers and peer tutors. Staff will be compensated. If Stu- other on a Homework Centers will have u c 1. 1 certified teacher working. If the number of students reaches 25, t. aide shall be added to assist students, wh of students attending regularly reaches 50, tional certified teacher will be hired, thereafter, as each additional increment of students attends, c^ullfl.^ instructional aides and teachers will be added on an alternating basis. an instructional when the number an addi- certified 1 1 I I! ( B. HOMEWORK HOTLINE - Homework Hotlines should also be put into place to be open from 6:00 - 8:00 Monday - Thursday evenings. This too will be staffed by teachers on a rotating basis such that each incentive teacher will provide one (1) evening's service approximately every 45 class days. Staff will be paid for this time. 6^ 5 02267c. dents. I PEER TUTORING - Peer tutors will be selected from among a group of self-nominated and teacher nominated students. The role of peer tutors will not be limited only those students with outstanding academic averages but will also be open to achieving students who work well with other students and who can verbalize an understanding of subject matter to be covered. Id D, E. Peer tutors will be compensated with reeL ^^^^ors wul 06 Compensated with coupons which can be redeemed for donated items for purchased goods such as games, books magazine subscriptions, school supplies and other items the family may not be providing as athletic equipment, hats, sweatshirts, will be assigned by subject area and c.\\ I in order to allow all students who wish to tutors the opportunity to do so. as well Tutors on a rotating basis serve as peer RETIRED TEACHER MENTORS - Efforts will be made to identify a feasible time for retired teachers to come into the schools and to work with individual students as tutors\nto sponsor clubs such as future teachers and to provide additional extra support such as story telling time with and for students. Mentors can work vohm. as tarily or may be paid needs. Mentors can work volun- a stipend depending on their own INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES - There will be a certified instructional aide available in every classroom. Qualifications for the aide positions will include demonstrated commitment to work with students in an urban setting as well as a minimum of 60 hours of earned college Applicants must be working toward a degree. Aid provide extra assistance for individual students groups of students. Aides will also assist teachers with monitoring of student progress, communication with parents and preparation of supplemental instructional materials. Qualifica- credit. Aides shall and I etc. F. CAREER SKILLS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM - A program will be developed within each school whereby written information, guest speakers, films and other presentations will be provided to students on topics relevant to possible career choices. Among the information given in each presentation will be skills needed, academic background required, career planning recommendations, expected earning potential and a general \"mapping\" of how a student can progress from elementary school to the desired career goal. Other components of this category will be interest inventories and opportunities for students to participate in programs sponsored by the Boy Scouts of America. 55 02268G. YEAR ROUND SCHOOL - Both summer remediation and enrichment options will exist through the summer at all incentive schools. This program will be in two 5 to 6 week segments. Students will participate in the program generally in an elective basis with prescription for attendance from teachers of students who are behind grade level in core curriculum areas. The summer options will be at no cost for students normally A few seats may be open to other students on a space available and paying basis well. attending those schools. as Transportation may be provided. ___:___________ schools at which summer programs will be held'will''*be based on identified student needs and interests. The number of incentive words. Students participating in the summer \"year round\" option will be placed in classes at their own academic levels rather than by means of a specifically identified grade designation. In other words, a student functioning at grade 2 level in math would study with peers at that level but may also study with Sth grade peers in summer reading programs, regardless of his/her actual designated grade level. H. COMMUNITY ACCESS/FIELD TRIPS - A plan will be developed and implemented at each incentive school which provid field trips and community access for students together with students from other LRSD schools. trips and access will include the opportunity for student experiences with: es Field *   historical events and displays cultural events and exhibits scientific/mathematical events and exhibits to include both child oriented activities such Lh Arkansas Arts Center Children's Theatre and also the opportunity to attend cultural events such Arkansas Symphony Orchestra performance. as the as an Some such exhibits and performances will also be brought to the schools. Students will also have the opportunity to visit industrial complexes to view the actual manufacturing process and to gain information relative to the world of work by means of visits to actual work sites and some shadowing experiences in the middle school grades, i.e., sth and 6th. Among opportunities in the community which exist are: *  * several major manufacturing corporations a symphony a repertory theatre an arts center a ballet company 66 02269 ic ie it a museum of nature science and history three previous state/territorial capitol a planetarium at UALR a zoo s a lock and dam (part of the McClellan-Kerr river project) an inland sea port a major research/teaching medical center I Among other opportunities for students including, but are not limited to, banks, stock/bond houses, hospitals and a law school. I. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT - Opportunities to participate in both Boy Scouting and Girl Scouting will exist at each incentive school with existing troops at each building. Explorer post access/membership will also be available as noted earlier. J.  SPECIAL SKILLS PROGRAMS - During the 3:00 - 5:30 p.m. time period (or whatever the designated time for extended day activities), scheduling should be provided not only for the Homework Center and Peer Tutoring activities but also for students to receive special skills training. Students finishing activities early shall report either to the Homework Center, to CARE or leave the campus with a parent or guardian. These skills shall be defined as the opportunity to participate in: * *  choir (voice) music (instrumental) dance Assistance will be after school, one (1) day per week. Assistance will be sought from area colleges and university schools of fine arts and local organizations to provide these services at no cost to the child (and hopefully to the program), but certainly at minimal cost to the school. SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION A.  STAFF RECRUITMENT - Staff recruitment and certain specific experience will be desired of all staff at the outset (relative to work in an urban setting with at risk youth)\nand ongoing training will be provided on a regular basis for all staff at each school.  1. A nationwide search will beconducted for staff. Principal and staff will be asked to who documented  I evidence of commitment to working in an urban district\nto working with youth at risk and to mitting the time necessary to provide the kinds of support and services provided at incentive schools. com- 67 022701 2. Staff will be hired on a one year basis with parent representation on the interview team. At the end of I that year, an involuntary transfer or other district decisions may be put into effect depending on the IB   II 02271 (a) it ! ii I 1' 1 ( i'1   R I I I V     continued - Incentive Schools page 5 performance and the success cf '^forking with students and the individual in prccedures. Thi s ------ * Hl . inis one ve^r contrac.ua1 feature will also apply to the positfons of aides, clerical and custodial workers, completion of the with the District. , Successful year may lead to a long-term contract 8. c. D. SPECIAL TRAINING - Ongoing training will be provided for star- in areas ike human relations skills\nleaning anS interactive styles\nTE3A\nPET\n working in an urban setting and analysis and enhancing student achievement. . learning and working,with yout.h at risk\nuse of data for I n All staff, including support staff, will be involved in training.  Patrons also will receive ac-ess in working with their students.  nutrition and human growth and developments special training assisting with homework, aisoluta sar-.ners in the learning process. Parents will be asked to sign aH homework assignments on a daily basis. d will take place, both through written and oral means. Regular communication arranged to come to school y -------- .... pa. cHUi Will De arrangeo to come to school to ?\nstudents as well as to visit their children's classes, will be held at the school. Regular meetings, monthly, Parental access will be provided th\nschool nity\"\" P encouraged to provide classroom support in the general assistance and may be paid a stipend for this. LEARNING TIME SCHEDULES - Daily schedules for 3:00 - 5:30 will be set to meet the needs of students to include the Homework Center, special skills training and leisure time activities. * Homework Center * Special Skills * Leisure Activities - Monday-Thursday - Tuesday ------- - Thursday (volleyball, basketball, table tennis, dance, karate, chess, checkers, soccer, tennis, etc. based on student interest and access to appropriate playing fields etc.) _  Clubs, Extra Curriculars - Wednesday E. HOME/SCHOOL COMMUNICATION - Monthly reporting to parents will 1 ---------- - ' ui.iy pu paic.lUJ WII take P'3ce. Early indicator and early intervention programs will be formulated with \"alert\" and \"success\" cards to be achfevements\"^^ update them on their student's needs and 02272 1 ii I! 1 i I: I Ii I ! 6S I I I II H continued - Incentive Schools page 6 N R H EXTRA CURRICULAR PROGRAMS - Extra cur establisraU to allow students ular programs will be ------- recognition, leadersnio experience and a cnance to be involved in sen  Among these will be future teachers programs\" J \"S\":-----------------------------------------------------The office,' libra'ry wuh the flag, sa.ety patrol, fire marsnalls and student  council memoerships. col activities. ust Say No lira marsnalls and student I * at racass or lunch time, not class 11 ui8 G.  ATTENDANCE AND SE.rAVIOR GUIDELINES guicelines will provide unique gcp students and keeo them in scnool. Attandanca and benavior ocportunitias tc assis  , --------- Time-out rocms staffed with trained personnel will help students with problem solving H Students will participate in the process of developing school based management rules. Students and parents will sign a contractual agreeement to be at scnool ano on -- I. ne eacn day. H. H H SUBuECT RELATED EXTRA CURRICULAR ACTIVITI - Other options K H for students may include, but not be limited to, activities like math olympiad, junior great books, young authors' club young scientists, Olympics of the mind, elementary band and' a string program. informed of all of these options. 11 H ue uirormea or ail of these options. Students will be encouraged to participate in these activities and a activfties'^^'^'J^^ exist for club/academic related  Q COUNSELING/SOCIAL WORK i\n B COMMUNITY SERVICES ACCESS - There shall be access to  B B B community based support programs provided to students who attend the incentive schools. Among these supports will be projects to be negotiated and/or secured bv compact such as the availability of students from area colleges and universities to teach music, dance and choir in the schools' volun- teers^and pre-professionals from Philander Smith College to assiSu with teaching activities and extra curricular activi- tisSi assistanca frcrn social a^sncias to intarvena i  - -------------.. w... o^c\niK,ic3 Lj HiLBrvene ir Students need assistance in health and/or personal need situations.  fl 8. COLLEGE/POST GRADUATION AWARENESS - A mentoring program will be established which will provide interactive time for students to work with young professionals to enhance aware- ness of skills necessary for successful entry into the world I of work. The program will also serve to heighten student expectations with regard to their own abilities and potential to attend college and to graduate. also receive this information so that they may be aware of the options which truly are open to their students. Parents will B 69 02273continued page 1 Incantive Scrccls I c. STUDY SKILLS - Counselors and teacners will wording with stucents to ennanc= t^st tk'^ s:\u0026lt;i 1 Is and study skills.  be rasDonsible for mg skills, 1 i stani ng 0. I E. students in test taking, i.e,, bubble seme class tests and ?raci\n:c3 ',*111 ie providag for by teacners. . - sneets will be used on a variety or questicn HCME/NEIQHSORHGCO MEETINGS --------- - Meetings wi always be held at tne scncols. Othe- grouos of parents, will be scheduled'a uTe scncols types will be used parents will not eatings, for s.nall comnunity locations sucn as cnurcnes and seme homes as invited bv parantr These scncol environment may be mo?e ClI e and can help lorge a school/neighborhood partner- SniD. it ciirnocraH -j-.- _  .  pai Ulier Shi p Jt is suggested that local part of th he school partnership and community. INDIVIDUAL ANO GROUP COUNSELING - ministers be considered as Individual and group counseling as well as peer facilitators will be employed at ney attempt to work throui concerns and Students will also be taught li F. INCcNTIVE/RECOGNITION PROGRAMS - Incentive/recognition developed by students, staff and patrons at each school. Ideas (suocestions 1 nroconraw in suggestions) presented the subcommittee meeting included: awards programs, recognition to co^unr^y and tangible rewards such as a book of the student's choice for academic growth and the like. I  ' program - wellness program will be in place at each building with availablity of a full time nurse be screened for physical health and will also receive informal tion on topics like self-estaem. nutrition, druo prIIemiSI and awareness and first aid. Presentations will likewise be T--?.-on similar topics for their information on a Students will I continuing education basis. I H. CAMP PFEI _ P - Students in need of additional academic assis'-anca_wi 11 have access to programs such as that currently in place at Camp Pfeifer, whereby, t.hey spend somi time in residence at a program away from the school and the home wnich provides counseling, intensive academic support and time management skills, r* they spend some Parepix-invol vement is an inherent  u i - 2.- . --..w.T CUI?\n. J I. I J au tiiiieie par^ of this program in assisting them to work with students on homework and academics.  70 fl 02274\"i continued - Incentive Schools page 3 MONITORING ANO SVALUATICN A. VERIFIA6LS .MONI\",ING Or SOOENT G.^CWTH ment of the dis Trie tasting depart_ ICC wi11 be assigned the a plan for verifiable monitoring of student or-'wth'ann'f^r\"rHa develocment of reliaole procedures to accomplish theS  tas\u0026lt; of developing to accomplish these tasks. Tnis pjan and its accompanying procedures should account not only test scores achieved on norm r_ ______ but also class achievement as evidenced by teacher tests and ake into s enced tests curriculum/cr:tenon referenced tests. There should bea'lono- nng wmch also takes into account tional patterns. term moni\nion student matura- s. REGULAR TRACKING OF STUDENT ATTENDANCE I' C. D. AND ACHIEVE.MENT - Recuiar 0ISCIRLINE/3EHAVI0R ANU AUdi^yEMENT Regular tracking of student attendance' diStipline/benavicr and acnievement shall be accomplished through the development of and use of ' ' ' ndance, proriles Py classroom teachers and individual and class ne building acministrator I his assessment will be done on a minimum of a quarterly basis. Individual student planning, selection of interventions and/or programmatic changes will be predicated on identified needs or enrichment indicators determined througn ongoing review of data. EXCELLENCE PLANS the development development of STUDENT EDUCATIONAL I - The school staff shall involve parents in of student educational excellence plans. Tc- students and see them Parents are the first teachers of their in a context outside of the school. In the parental capacity, , . 's potential, talents As such this input is extrememly important in reviewing not only academic programs but also extra curricular, special skills and extended day activities. there is special awareness of a child and interests. QUARic.xLY RE.'ORTi ANO VISIiATICNS - Quarterly reports will be made and visitations will take place for the purpose of assessing student progress, facility upkeep and car of grounds and equipment. -   The monitoring team will be composed OF discricu Starr, school staff, patrons and representatives from the community. All staff shall write goals, not only for the school in general, but also personal goals since Stafr member has a duty to orovide a rlimara r.inHuriva i-. Sta.r.member provide climate conducive to learning and should hold and model high expec students.  a r ii: every ions for all Students will also be involved in the goal setting process and will Formulate \"contracts\" for their own achieve.ment. 71 02275f t I continued page 9 Inc3nt:ve Scr.cols S\"UCN7 cVAL'JATCRS - , , .dent evaluators will be asked to complete evaluations relati - * ve to the school, its climate and experience twice a year. Students will be their educational =Auei lence twice a year. wm random to participate in this process based on   F. G. 5X involvement from each grade level. a Srade level. Students will be involved questionnaires to be used, analysis of data collecd and t..e generation of conclusions. Reports will be 91 ven uacx uO^the students regarding cnanges made in response to Suudeni, issues raised in this evaluation process. COMPUTERIZED DATA ACC ,. ,, . 2 - Computerited data reality in all' incentive schools access will be a so that student data is easily accessible and access can be immediate which mignt be needed relative to all scnool'\nfor reports program aspects. COL SITE TEAMS - School site teams will 1.0 implemenu needed programmatic modifications which will be of greater benefit to the students. teams will be rotating and on c,' de created to work Memcership on t.hese  a semester basis so that staff (including custodial, aides and cafeteria workers), patrons and students have an opportunity for input. SCHOOL POLICIES ANO PROCEDURES A. FLEXIBLE PROGRAMS - Every student will receive some individualized instruction every day. Programs will be flexible such that team teaching and extended time blocks for additional student assistance as needed will be provided. 8. AOOIiIONAL 11iMS - It is reccnroended t-bat eacn incentive scnool have: * a permanent assigned substitute who is familiar with and dedicated to the building and program philosophy * at least a half assistant principal depending on school population (where there '  scnool is a part time assistant, that person will devote the rest of his/her time to working with program development and community outreach ) * uniforms for students (such as blue jeans and a white shirt) * dress code for staff * required PTA attendance, at least jwo (2) meetings per year, one of which shall be the Open House 72 02276 I 1continued - Incentive Schools page 10 m * student handbooks available at every building which are produced in and reflective of the philosophy and program at that building a science lab tv nv a computer lab (to be used for other than remediation) * a playground for PE purposes additional compensation will be given to teachers/ principals who work these extra periods of time at the incentive schools * community education classes should be investigated for presentation at incentive schools on a rotating basis for parents in those communities to enhance their skills * Saturday programs will be developed at each school site to enhance learning. ' but shall not be limited to: These programs will include LL field trips enrichment activities tutoring parent/child \"make \u0026amp; take\" sessions book fairs  r n IS I 73 IM 02277 I. COAL: OBJECTIVE SCHOOL OPERATIONS IKPLEKEluATION PLAN To develop support programs and procedures which .. . STRATEGIES/ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 1989 1990 Page ) RESPONSIBILITY o to to 00 To provide Homework Centers and Homework Hotlines for the students at these schools. To establish training for peer tutors and an ongoing peer tutoring program for students. To use the skills of retired teacher mentors to tutor and sponsor clubs. I To enhance student (earning through extensive use of classroom based Instructional aides. S - STUDY I 1991 1992 1993 1994 I R - RECOMMEND Schedules will be set at the schools to meet their students' needs, needs. Hours will meet student Teachers and students will receive training In peer tutoring. A model will be put in place. Teachers will supervise the process Mentors will either volunteer or be paid a minimum amount. They provide extra support to students ______ supplement teacher work. Certified Instructional aides with a minimum of 60 college hours will be employed one to a classroom to assist teachers and students. E - EVALUATE 0 - ONGOING 1991 P - PLAN 1^ Fall-(P) Spring - (1) Budget- ____Lai Summer- (P) Fan-{ 1) Summer- (P) Pa)l-(l) Pilot B - BUDGET ITEM Ongoing wi th evaluation Ongoing with evaluation Ongoing with evaluation (1) Ongoing wi th evalua- t ion All Divisions VIPS Budget Item (f( staff) Some b dgetary Jxpenditu e Budget 1 Budget.I tem tem I - IMPLEMENT  PI - PILOT Staff Development Asst. Supts. Office of Deseg Div of Schools VIPS Human Resources Sch PrincipalsI. GOAL: (continued) OBJECTIVE STRATEGIES/ACTIVITIES SCHOOL OPERATION'S IHPLEKEKTATION PLAN implementation SCHEDULE Page 2 responsibility 19fi9 1990 ISl91 1992 To develop and implement a career skills development program which will help students develop awareness and motivate them to enhance skills leading to specific careers. To develop a program for round school Including enrichment and remediial opti year ons. Community access/fi'eld trips are to be arranged for enhanced experience for students. S - STUDY 1993 1994 199: r I R - RECOMMEND Written Information, guest speakers, films will be used to make students aware of career choices. Sumner segments In remediation/ enrlcfnent, prescriptions for courses to be taken Transportation may be provided Visits to historical, scientific and cultural events and exhibits within the city and around to state and region with appropriate chaperones to provide educational input. E - EVALUATE P - PLM Summer- (P) Fall- (I) Ongoing with evaluation Maybe budget I tern VIPS Sumner- (P) Pal)-(l) 1989-90 plan t pilot at one school o to (D I cn 0 - ONGOING B - BUDGET ITEM Ongoing wi th evalua- tion Implement at all Incentive schools Budget I tern Divisions of Schoo)s Curriculum Budget i tern I - implement I VIPS I Division of I Schools  J Curriculum 5 Desegregation PI - PILOTSCHOOL OPERATIONS Page 3 IKPLEHENTATION PLAN 1. GOAL: (continued) OBJECTIVE To build a program of community involvement to be provided for students with access to community organizations and volunteer experiences. Special skills programs to be offered after school on a four day per week basis. I S - STUDY STRATEGIES/ACTIVITIES Establish Girl/Boy Scout and Explorer programs at each school Establish offerings to include some of the following: or choir, music A dance In addition to jiamewprk Center S peer tutoring E - EVALUATE P - PLAN 4 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE RESPONSIBILITY 1969 IT?\" 1990 1^91 1992 1993 1994 I 199\nQuapaw Council Asst Supts for Schools Pall-(I) Ongoing with evalua- lion Maybe budget Cem Principals School Staff O ro M 00 O I I R - RECOMMEND 0 - ONGOING I - implement B - BUDGET ITEM PI - PILOT III. GOAL: OSJECTIVE o to to 00 B B B B B B SCHOOL OPERATlOh'S IKPLtHiNTATlON PLAN To establish procedures for administration and staffing of the thabrought to bear for the benefit of students at these schools. To establish a viable for staff recruitment. program To provide special training for staff on an ongoing basis and special training .for parents. , S - STUDY Page 4 STRATEGIES/ACTIVITIES IHPLEKEHTATION SCHEDULE RESPONSIBILITY 1989 1990 1^91 1992 1993 1994 199: I I I R - RECOMMEND  Nation-wide search  Hire staff on a one year basis Parents to be Involved In the interviews.  Staff will demonstrate commitment to working with at risk\" youth TESA, PET. working with youth at risk, analysis and use of data human relations skills - parent training on assisting with homework, nutrition and human growth and development.  - EVALUATE 0 - ONGOING P - PLAN Spring/ Summer- (I) Ongoing Budge item Human Resources Div of Oeseg CurrIculum School Principal Summer* (1) Ongoing - Budge i tern B - BUDGET ITEM =aBKT 1 - IMPLEMENT PI - PILOT TiII. GOAL: (continued) OBJECTIVE STRATEGIES/ACTIVITIES To establish meaningful attendance and behavior guidelines.  Time-out rooms staffed with trained personnel  Student/parent contractual agreement for attendance To provide subject related activities to enhance student learning. To include some or all of: S - STUDY R - RECOmENO I o IO IO co IO I CD a a SCHOOL OPERATIONS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN implementation schedule Page 5 RESPONSIBILITY 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 199: IO include some or all of: math olympiad, junior great books, Olympics of the mind and the like.  - EVALUATE 0 - ONGOING P - PLAN Pilot at one school (I) (I) Bud let i tem Ongoing But jet item I - IMPLEMENT B - BUDGET ITEM PI - PILOT Principal School Staff Principal School StaffHi. GOAL: OBJECTIVE SCHOOL OPERATIOKS IMPLEMEKTATION PLAN To create a program of counseling/social work to provide extra support to students to ensure them opportunity for To provide community services access for all students who need additional support. To provide college/post graduation awareness via a mentoring program with role models to help students plan for the future To provide student training in study skills, testing skills and listening dkills. To hold home/neighborhood meetings to increase parental/ neighborhood involvement in student learning. S - STUDY R - RECOMMEND success. Page 6 STRATEGIES/ACTIVITIES IHPLEKEMTATIOM SCHEDULE RESPONSIBILITY 1969 1990 1^91 1992 1993 1994 Compacts with community agencies universities to assist with student opportunities.  Parental information  Mentoring program  Special emphasis on schools recruiting minority students Testing, listening and study skills will be provided to students as well as particular experience in testing.  Meetings at neighborhood sites with small groups of parents  Meetings at homes with of parents .. Involvement of E - EVALUATE groups ministers P - PLAN 199: o to IO 00 u I 0 - ONGOING I to Study and recommend Smal Training Summer Fail-( I) (I) B - BUDGET ITEM Implement on a pi lot basis Ongoing at all - schools VIPS Div of Deseg Curriculum Uiv of Schools Spring (I) Ongoing cost item Ongoing Cost. i tern Ongoing I - IMPLEMENT Pl - PILOT Pupil Personnel Counselors VIPS Div of Schools Staff Develop Div of Schools Principals School Staff 1SCHOOL OPERATIONS Page 7 II. GOAL: (continued) OBJECTIVE To Increase parental involvement so that parents become true partners in the learning process. To establish learning time schedules for the afternoon's extended day. To Improve home/school comnunication I To establish meaningful elementary extra-curricular activities for students. S - STUDY STRATEGIES/ACTIVITIES implekentation plan IMPLEKENTATION SCHEDULE RESPONSIBILITY O to IO co R - RECOMMEND oon  Parent assistance at schools  Parents will sign homework  Regular communication between school and home will take place  Day visits for parents  Schedule settings Schedule (settings) weekly extended day programs based on individual school needs  Early indicator and early intervention programs  Alert A Success cards sent regularly to parents Give students recognition and leadership opportunities via clubs and monitoring responsibiIi ties E - EVALUATE 0 - ONGOING 19B9 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 199: F11-(I) fa1l-(I) (I) (I) 1 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing P - PLAN I - IMPLEMENT B - BUDGET ITEM PI - PILOT Principal School Staff Principal School Staff Principal School Staff Principal School Staff III. COAL: (continued) OBJECTIVE To implement individual and group counseling for all students. Incentive/recognition programs will be implemented by 1990-1991 To structure and begin wellness program for students school. pt each 10 work with community programs like Camp Pfeifer to suppl ment school programs for students. e- STRATEGIES/ACTIVITIES  Peer facilitators  Counselors doing individual and group counseling  Conflict resolution will be taught_____________  Student recogniton programs  Good Citizen programs  Community involvement in recognition S - STUDY R - RECOMMEND SCHOOL OPERATIONS imEKENTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Page 8 1989 Fall- Train students Spring- - (11 (P) Pilot one Schoo) 1990 Ongoing Budget (I) 1991 1992 1993 1994 199:  RESPONSIBILITY Pupi 1 Personnel  full time nurse at each building  Student screening  Parent presentations  Study success of Pfeifer program  Mork with Director to target Incentive students  Work with other community groups to undertake ' similar projects E - EVALUATE P - PLAN (I) (P) t (S) (Budge Implement on a pilot basis I tem) (I) (Budget I tem) (Possil I e Budge I tem) VIPS Partners Program Health Services  o ro 00 O1 0 - ONGOING I - IMPLEMENT B - BUDGET ITEM PI - PILOT OD Pupil Personnel District divisions B sIV. GOAL: OSJECTIVE {2 ES SCHOOL OPERATION'S ihplemektation plan picture of student achievement \u0026lt; ..r^er, at these buildings. Page 9 STRATEGIES/ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE RESPONSIBILITT 1989 To develop a process for obtaining verifiable information regarding student growth. 1990 1991 1992 1993  Development of valid/reliable monitoring instrument(s) Establish training for monitoring teams in use of the Instrument (S) t (R) Spring semester (I) 1994 199: To provide a systematic program for tracking student attendance, discipline, behavior and achieveiiiqnt. To Involve parents In the development of student excel lence plans ' To be done on IO oe done on a quarterly basis * profiles will be I k6Dt in ronard * __ kept in regard to attendance ... regaro to attendance, be- bjvior. discipline t achievement Summer (P) Ongoing wi th evaluation Testing/Eval Assoc Supts To plan and set parameters for quarterly reports and visitations by a multi faceted moni toring team.  Develop EEP format  Involve parents In writing plan based on student needs ' curricular activities alsn_________________  Develop reporting format  Involve staff, patrons 'monitoring ' in  Involve all staff in goal setti  tvdtuate goal achievement 09 (I) Develop plan Ongoing with evaluation Sprini Ongoing Budget Summer- (P) fall- .JI) (I) o IO 00 I 1 Ol S - STUDT E - EVALUATE 1 (Budg t Item) * I GO ^0 R - RECOMMEND 0 - ONGOING P - PLAN I - implement B - BUDGET ITEM Pl - PILOT Testing/Eval Div of Schools Curriculum School Staff Pupil Personnel School Staffs PTA Officers lesting/Eval Div of School School Staff Convnuni ty sB B B B IV. GOAL: (continued) OBJECTIVE To establish a student evaluator program for student input and ideas. To establish a program for computerized data access at each incentive school. To establish site tfeams at each school to implement programmatic modifications to benefit the students. STRATEGIES/ACTIVITIES SCHOOL OPERATIONS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Page 10 RESPONSIBILITY 1969 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 o M to aa S - STUDY I I R - RECOMMEND I QD CJ  Random selection of students to participate each year  Student \"training\"  Student generation of questionnaires  Analysis of data collection  Conclusions generated  Report back to students on response to student evaluation 199: (S) with students (R) Fall- Il) Ongoing \u0026gt; Testing/Eval School Staffs Principals  Install computers  Tie into mainframe  Write programs for reporting Student data in a variety of mode\n Include representatives of all school departments (custodial, , food service, aides A teachers)  Team membership to be rotating and-on a semester basis  Plan for parent/student for input E - EVALUATE 0 - ONGOING meetings P - PLAN (6u\u0026lt; get Item) alHP) S (S) Spring (R) (I) 1990-91 school - yearJ  Plan for implementation ot changes  Make recommendations for changes  Implement changes  Evaluate changes (Each aspect will occur on with a semester for each. B - BUDGET ITEM I .e. Data Processing School Staff Assoc Supts Plan Evaluate a regular and rotating basis I - IMPLEMENT PI - PILOT Reconi Implement Il iieni fa IM V. GOAL: OBJECTIVE SCHOOL OPERATIONS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Page II To reassess individual school policies and meeting the needs of all students. procedures as they relate to STR. GIES/ACTIVITIES lliPLEMENTATIOH SCHEDULE responsibility 1989 1990 1991 1992 o IO IO 00 00 To establish a flexible programming approach at each incentive school which complies with standards and also xieets individual student needs. Areas to be investigated for possible plan inclusion i I GO 1993 1994 199: S - STUDY R - RECOMMEND I  Allow for team teaching by means of scheduling  Provide for opportunities for students to remain in classes for extended time periods needed. as (I) A (E) School Principal Staff  Develop a plan for individualized Instructions within specific building the  Permanent assigned substitute in each Incentive school to be available as needed  At least a ) tim\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_920","title":"Desegregation: ''North Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan,'' Book 2 of 3","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":["1986"],"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","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation: ''North Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan,'' Book 2 of 3"],"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/920"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["82 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nSubmitted October 14, 1986\napproved February 27, 1987\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n3 APPENDIX 365-634 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN SUBMITTED OCTOBER 14, 1986 APPROVED FEBRUARY 27, 1987 BOOK 2 of 3 \u0026gt;  NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPPLEMENT TO DESEGREGATION PLAN APPROVED FEBRUARY 27, 1987 ( Du! PROC!SS Sn:PS FOR APPRAISAL SO.VIC! It i.s ~,e intent of ~~is guide to provide necessary infor=tion md foes to insure that the rights guaranteed to individU\u0026amp;l. students and the Sor:~ U:tle Rock Sc~ool District by Public !.aw 94-142, Ark..ulsa.s State Lav 102 of 1973, as Az:lended, md other laga.l actions are protec:ed. 1:l orde:- to h.av-e a :nore thorough understanding of t.he needs of the stude':'lc, assessment should include infor1aation from home, sc.'lool and co=un:.:y i: relevant. :'hese measures of behavior and/or pe:-!or:iianc:e should c=e free a varier:7 of sources. No single procedure is to be used~ ~,e sole cri:2rion for dete:-::i::i.'lg an app'C't)priate education.al progra:n :or t~e s:~de~:. The evalu.ation i.s to be ':ll\u0026amp;de by \u0026amp; team vith t.he child bei::g assessed L'l al! areas related to the suspected ~ability including \\lhere appropriate: he.a.1th visiou h e..a:- _' n g soci\u0026amp;l and aiotional status ge:era.l iA~genc:e ac:adadc perfor::ance c0llllltm.ie\u0026amp;1:ive sta.tus :ocor abilities Please remember that a.11 11:eps sbould be followed both for the ?rotection of students a::d the school cil.si:rict. This guide as an at:e:::pc to i~sure cot:ll)liance ~i:h 1981 Stat Deparnent of Education Gu.::.~eli::es h.as also been prepared to help in dec:rea.sing legal vulnerability. Staff of Appraisal Se?\"'rices are readily available to ansver any questions concerni~g t~is g~ice. Ne~ in!or:uti.on and for.ns wi..ll be sent as needed to kee? this guide upda:a6. All for:ns should be requested by 11um.ber frot:1 Cu:-:-ic.tl.ar Se:vices/!-!.at:er:.als De?arc:nent:. 00365 l ( CONTEXTS* DUE PROCESS FLOW C-dART ?REPARATIONR ES?ONSIBILIT': DUEP ROCESS ST.M!ARYO F PRINCI?AL !~ A.'ID RES?ONSI3IL::-r srEP l RE:E\nl.RAI. For:ns: AS l (Rev. 8-83) Elemencar,Secotldary AS 2 STE? 2 REF=3.RAIC. ONFE.WiCE For:ns: AS 3 AS 4 (Rev. 8-83) AS S (Rev. 8-83) \"Parental Rights\" STEP 3 RE:E::i...'UI. TO APPRAISAL For:ns: ASS (Rev. 8-83) (Now parental per::u.ssion also) Letter for Social History Social History (Rev. 8-83) STEP 4 EVALUATION STEP 5 EVALUATION/PUC~ CONFE:RDICE For.a.s: AS 8 (Rev. 8-83) AS 9 (Rev. 8-83) STEP 5 EVALUATION/PUC~T/PROGR.\\.'!MINGC ONFERE.~CE Forms: IEP pages l, 2 \u0026amp; 3 CnECKSHEEFTO R DUE PROCESS/REFOR.A(IR. ev. 8-83) (cakes place of AS 6) STEP 6 PUC~ ADDITIONALIN FORMATION I. Release of Information For:n: AS 7 (Rev. 8-83) II. Rec:ests Form: AS 11 (New 8-83) III. Parental Permission and Relac:ed Issues i?ROGR.\\.R'1E VIEW Form: AS 10 (Rev. 8-83) IEP page 4 00366 Daca Gache-::i:ig I C:Jnsulcac:.oo ~o Solucioo !E!!ll+lorary I ?lace:!!enc RZ:':::,RAl. CONFEREJ!CZ No Solucion RE!'.::3-.'Ul.T O1 A.P? RAISAL,._ _ _. .:U'?!UI SAL S ERV! CES ~Al.UAT:ON CONFERE.~CE..,..--~ ,A I'\\ I ?ossi:ile Cur-::ic:.i.lar cnan~es I Fur:her I Referral ~o rl.,UID!C..\\P?ING COND!:'ION i I ' I HANDICAPP!~!G CONDITION -----I Fur::ner 1 :'.valuation P:l.OG\u0026lt; l.\\i.'1MING CONFBE.'!CE (IE:?) ?LlC21E:lT RECOMMENDED Office of Special Services and Student Affairs ~o PUCZ:-!E:IT RECO~DIDE!) 00367 0 0 (,l C1\u0026gt; (l) ECEHu: STEP I ERSON RESPONSIBLE Fonns) Must be present tlust be invited tidy be included ~ ~~1 /_ ttUNCll'AI. (AS 3) Notification (AS 4) attempts (2) l'E.f.CIIEll or tl.FEHIR N C: Fl\u0026lt;StlN lur:\nc/otl1crs ( AS I), (,\\S 2) l11f,1r111.il d.il\u0026lt;l .,1 l,,,1 l11~ Teacher Principal or Designee l'arent AtI.east) Persons lAS 5) ~ r PREPARATION/RESPONSIBILITY DUE PROCESS I'll INCll'AI. (\"Rights\") PARENT (Rev. 8-8)) 11 EXAHINER Observation lntellectual Achievemenl l'erceptual Language Sununary (Social History) (Explanatory 1.etter) (AS 11) for Retest Decision not to r..,fcr Lo Appraisal (AS 9) l'IU NCil'AI. No Handicapping ~ (AS 9) CondiLion ~ Office of SL11Je11t Affairs E.V Pl.,..,~, .. \" co ... ...._.. ...... l'lllNCll'AL (AS 9) llandicapping-} Condi Lion (AS 8) Notification (AS 4) attempts (2) Examiner Principal or Oeslgnee Parent AtI.east 3 Persons Teacher Speclul Teacher OLher11 Vt t NC 1. t::llgihlllLy 2. TEP (1 ,2 ,\u0026amp;)) 3. l'laccment reconnuendeJ l. ~a:\u0026lt;.:.::\u0026lt;\n=~r::ts avai!able t:J teac:::ers ar:.d pa.re:-:.4:s. 2. :1oci=:,i::g and sc:1eduli::g conferences w 1th parent:s, teac::ers, and exa.ininer s, being sure co obser,e requi:ed c:.:ne l.i=l.i cs and co dcc=enc noti=icacion. 3. ~olding conferences being sure t.~e ~ini.mw:l nllll'lber of persons and c::e correct: persons are present: and doc-.Jlllent:ing that: the conference ,.\nas held. 4. 3eing sure the parent: is noci=ied of conference decisions and t::ac t::e parent: has given ..ri:cen pe..~ission for testing or L,i:ial placement:. 5. 3eL,g sure that the Social Histor:, for:n is gi,en to parents  .. r.en a :.ew cest is being planned and being avai:able to expla.i..~ and assist: parencs as needed. 6. Being sure parent:s understand their righcs and giving t.~em a copy of \"Your Rights as the l?arencs of a !iandicapped Chi-d.\" 7. Being sure that: the Evaluat:ion/Planning/Programming Conference is held promptly after receiving the wriet:en repor-:. (Due process :or t:he se~dent is not compleced uneil this i.m\n:ort:.anc seep is :~,ished.) 8. 3eing sure due process and refec-al for::ts are ccmpl: . md are senc Special Services whichever is indicaeed. Copies of c::e Eor~s are also to be sent: to Special Educat:ion. 9. 3eing sure that: st:udent:s already placed in special educacion c~asses are referred for reeese.i..,g every t:iree years. (Referral should be made ac lease t~o monchs prior to expi:acion dace.) I':' :s V'E:RY I.\n1PORTANT THAT :'HIS INFORMAT:!:ON BE '/'S'ii'ED AS .\nSu~r-\u0026lt;ARY c:-1t.c.  Also included in 1983 Elementar/ Principal's Handbook 00369 w r l. SI!: l Referral is m.ade for the put7ose of compili~g :~for::ation about a chi-d ~ho is e:t?er:.e~cing problems which interfere r..ith le.ar:ii..:lg. Initial referral should be made when a child is encountering di::icclties L~ maki..:lg progress in che regular educational program. Referral can be :nade by any person ~i:h nlevant loowledge about the child. Aily infot'\"\"'...ation TJhich would assist in deter.:ii..:lation o\"f che nature of t:ie chi.:d's learning problems and TJhich is presently available should be co1!!piled wic.:i the R.efer.:al Fo= su6 as home or classroom behavior check.lists, e:c'..sci~g medical, social and educational data, and/or Sa!lli)les of the child's. ~erk. Infor.:ial data gathering ~ust be completed prior to the Referral Conference. When appropriate, the student should be infor::ed about the referral and be given an e~lrntion of its purpose-Refenal. Placement, and Ao~eal Proced~res, State Depan:ent of Education, 1981. 00310 A. Refe:-::-:..,g person completes (AS l rev.) and gives co ~u:se :or completion of medical section and sig:iacure. Ot~er specia-iscs =ia.y also.assise (AS l rev.). ~ote thac student !.D., currenc add:ess and cor:ec: date of ~irch are requested. !his hel?s :educe :ecor~ confusion in case of duplicate ll.1l:les and ensures ac:u:acy of cesc daca. B. Refer=i.ng person completes (AS 2) and gives ooth (AS l rev.) and (AS 2) to che principal. (In secondary sc.::ools, the counselor may receiJe ches fOt\"\"\"-S.) C. Wic~ seven davs the principal or secondary counselor contacts the pare: to sec a R.efer=a.l Conference by one of the folloving :ethods: l. re~stered ~il (AS 3) 2. cettified oail (AS J) 3. first class mail (AS J) 4. home rtsit (AS J) 5. phone call and first class JI.ail (AS J) If either J4 or 15 is ~ed, ~it:en documenea.cion (AS 3) is required. D. If parents do act respond to~ notice w-ithin seven (7) calendar days. a second notice lolill be senc specifying chat the Refer.al Conference ~i:: be held no sooner than seven calendar days from chat dace. Ever/ reascc.able effort should be ::iade to infor::i and include che parencs. If no response is made to the second notice by the parents, the Referr3: Conference is held. Although the Referral Conference may be held lolic~ouc parents, ic is very helpful for thee co be present in orde:- that they :n.\n:. provide additional infor:nacion, lear:i more about available educational ser-Jices and become a part of the decision. (Rev. 1:!-83) 00371 ~ u: r RETEST (Circle One) ~OR!n LI!TI.Z ROC~ SCnCOL Drs:1:c: RE!nRAL FO R..'1 El.E:IDITARY To Be Compleced By Classroom !eac~er or Reier\"ing Person SCnOO_L_ _________________ _ DAE OF REQUEST_:_ _______ _ STUDE.'IT'S ~'!E ---------------------- SEX- ---- AGE- ----- ID. Nt,'}!BE\nt ----------- ADDRES--S- ----':\"='\"--------,------------- P~ONE- --------- (Be sure currenc) DATZO F an::~------------ PA.RE.'ITs' NA..'!_E_._ ____________ _ (From per.:ianent record) FATHERIs OCC'..,\"PAT_IO_N_ ______ MO~ Is OCG:?ATIO_N_._ _________ _ RE?EATIN_G_ _____ REFZ...\"L~GP ERSON_. _______ _ ATTS'IDA.NC!EU :CORD: Missed less than 20 days Missed more than 20 days !. PREVIOUS EVALUATION: Kl23456 Kl23456 (Circle grades that apply) Has this child had a comprehensive evaluation previously? Check all possible sources. If so, briefly describe the results and recommendations (e.g. all I.Q. 's, perceptual troubles, etc.) Speech/Language Development Dace !est Scores (Ag_ency) Individual Intelligence N1.R.PS? Dace Test Scores (Agency) II. SPECIAL SERVICES: (Circle services which the student has received or is receiving presencly. Daces are helpful.) Child Study Center Consultant Remedial Reading Remedial :-ta th Early Childhood Program Gifted Resource Resource Self-contained Skills Center IEP Goals :-!et of Speech/language !II. PRESENTI NSTRUCTIONALE VELS Reading: Mach: '- Book _________________ _ Level _______________ _ Race of :-1.ascery:- ---- Repeating __ _ Race of M:ascery: _________ _ 00372 CIO tJ: Refer-:al For::i STUDD r. ' S AA.'1-.E- ----------------- IV. ADDITIONALT EST DATA: BOES'! TEST FOR BASIC CONCE.?TS DALLAS Pre Tesc Dace ___ Posc Tesc Dace __ _ ?-:e Test Date ___ Post Test Dace a.i.w Score(~o. correct) ___ :taw Score Age ?.:quivalenc ___ Age E:oui,ale~: ?ercencile _____ Percentile _____ _ ~rlL'11..:1 P=3.:\"0R.'!A.'ICTEE ST (}fay have been given ac third year) Record ~cered Objectives Reading ~ord Recognition of Comorehension ---of __ _ Study Skills of== !-!at::.e!l!atics Numeration wnole ~umbers --- of --- --- of --- Xeasure:enc of Racional ~umbers ___ of __ _ Go?omecry of== IOWA TEST OF BASIC SKILLS DATE: Vocabulary _______ ...!.-\nfa c h Concepts Social Science Reading ________ _ Xach Problems Science Spelling ________ _ !fac:i Co1II?utacion Composite Language Total _____ _ Mach To cal SRA or Other Achie1e!l!enc (Lacesc grade equivalent infor:iation) DATE_: _____ _ Leading_______________ Strongesc Area _____________ _ Language Arcs ___________ _ Weakest Area\"_ ______________ _ Math _______________ _ Algebraic Apcitude _________ (Percen: V. Please use this space to w-rice any pertinent coamiencs as co che urgenc:, of chis referral, special classroom problems or ocher information which l!IAY be useful in diagnosing this child. VI. EVALUATIONBY RE'frnING PERSON: (Please state your reasons for referring chis chi:~ Be explicit.) To Be Completed by School Nurse: VII. PHYSICALC ONDITIONO F SIUDDIT: ______________________ _ Vl SION SCR.E~!NG_ ___ ...,..._....,_.._. ____ HEARINGS CREE.'IW_G__ --:-::-,---:------ (Date) (Date) Describe any physical defeccs which may impair educational or social functioning (e. glasses, braces, childhood diseases.) YES NO (Circle One) IF YES, WHAT KIND? __________ _ NURSE'S SIGNATURE_ ______________ DATE_:_ ________ _ AS-l (Rev. 8-8:J) 00373 ac \"' co c:, l. RE\"!:'.S\"! (Circle One) NORT:1L ITI~Z ~ocx SCEOOLu IS:3.lC~ REF::~~ FOR.'i SECONDARY To 8e Completed 3y Classroom Teacher or Referring Person SCEOO-L- -------------------- DA:Z OF REQ~ZS7-: ----------- STUDEY r' S ~A.'!E- --------------------- SEX- ------ AGE- ---- ID. ~BE.'l ---------- ADDR .ES S- -----,.(-:-.3-e_s_u_r_e_c_u_r_=_e___n___t.,..) ______ _ ?~ONE_ ________ _ DATE OF BIRTH PAREYI''S NAHE ---,---------------,,-- ----------------- (From ?er::ianent record) FATHER'S OCCUPATIO-N- ---------- ~OTPL.~'S OCC-JPATIO-N- ----------- PR.ESEN T GRAD_E_ ____ R.EPEATD!G_ ___ R.EERRDIG ?::RSON__ __________ _ ATI'~A.~CZ RECORD: !tissed less th.an 20 days :-Ussed more th.an 20 days Kl 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Kl 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ( Circle g:-aces that apply) I. PREVIOUS EV ALUAT!ON: Has this child had a c0111preheasive evaluation previously? Check all\n,ossible sources. If so, briefly desc=ibe the results and recommendations (e.g. all I.Q. 's, perceptual troubles, etc.) Speech/Language Developmeat Date Test Scores (Agency) Individual Iatelligence Dace Test Scores (Agency) !I. SPECIAL Sl::RVICES: (Circle services which the studeat has received or is receiving presently. Dates are helpful.) Child Study Center Consultant Remedial Reading Remedial Ma th Early Childhood Program Gitted Resource Resource Self-contained Skills Center IE? Goals ~et ___ of __ _ Speech/Language !II. SCHEDULE(P lease indicate Basic, Resource, etc., and lase nine weeks grades) Subject Grade Subject Grade - 00374 00 c:, Referral :or: STUDa!'S ~AM_E_._ _____________ _ IV. ADDI::oN.AL T~ST DATA: A. OTIS QU:O: SCOR:C:GIQ : __________ _ ~EI.SON :U:..\\DI~G GE: DAT~------------DAT~------------ B. !OWAE S7S OF BASIC SKILl.S DAT_E_ ____ _ Vocabul.ar-1 _____ _ Visual ~cerials ______ _ ~ach Concepts ___ _ Readin\"'-------- Reference Materials ____ _ Spelling, ______ _ Work Study Total ______ _ Mach Compucacion __ _ Language To cal ___ _ ~ach Tocal. ____ _ Composite ______ _ C. !iI~~ PE3FORMANCE DATE_. ___ __,_ _ (Indicate number of objectives mastered) Reading Word Recognition of of ~thematics Nume:-acion ___ of __ _ Compr e hens ion Study Skills Critical Reading --- --- --- of --- --- of --- Library __ of __ Ref. /Study Skills __ of __ Whole ~umbers Rational NU111bers Measurement Geometry ___ of __ _ ___ of __ _ ___ of __ _ --- of --- Probability \u0026amp; Statistics ___ of __ _ 0. OTHER TESTS (Brigance, Silvaroli, etc.) _________________________ DAT_E_. ______ _ ___________________________ DAT_E_. ______ _ V. EVALUATIOBNY REFERRINGP ERSON: (Please scace your reasons for refer:-ing this student. Be explicit.) Signature of Referring ~erson *******************************~********************************************~********~~~ To Be Completed By School Nurse: VI. PHYSICALC ONDITIONO F STUDENT_: _____________________ _ VIS ION SCREEN!N_G_ __ =-_-,-- _____ HEARI~GS CREE~!NG_ ________ _ (Dace) (Dace) Describe any physical defects which m.ay impair educational or social functioning (e. glasses, braces, childhood diseases.) !1EDICATION: YES NO (Circle One) IF YES, WHATK I!-ID?_ _________ _ ~URSEIs s IGNATUR_E__ _______________ DATE: _ __________ _ 00375 ~ 0 0 2 s l'OK F:N t.r.m\nui\\r.E I. Ability to apenk 1n complete sentences using accurate sentence structure usually u9ee Incomplete eentencee wlth grammatical errore 2. Vocabulary oblllly usually usP.s immature or Jmproper vocnbulory J. Ability to recall words usually unable to coll forth the exact word 2 frequently uees incomplete sentenceo and/ or numerous grammatical errore llmlted vocabulary including prJmnrfly simple nouns\nfew precise, descriptive words often gropes for words to express himself 4. Abllit to tell stories and relate ex eriences unable to tell a sequential story has difficulty relatinB ideae in logical sequence 3 unee correct grnmmar\nfew errors of omission or incorrect use of prepoeltlons, verb tense, pronoune adequate vocabulary for nge occasionally searches for correct word but adequate for age average ability to tell stories 88 4 above average oral language\noccasionally makes gra111111atical errors above average vocabulary\nusee numerous precise, descriptive worde above average ability\nseldom hesitates on a word above average\nuses logical sequence flllrly cone latently 5 speaks in grammotlcally correct sentences high level vocabulary\nueen preciee words to convey message\nuses abstraction ueuslly speake well\nrarely hesitates or substitute\u0026amp; words exceptional ability In relating facts appropriately ID r--. (') 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------- ----- 5. Ability to formulate ideas from Isolated facts usually unable to relate Isolated facts hoe difficulty relating isolated (nets\nIdeas are incomplete scattered usually relatee facto intn cct11i11gful ideas\nadequate for ege relates facto and ideas well --------------- ... --- - ..... - outstanding ability in relating facts appropriately . -- ---- -------- 4 88 2 Unme __________________ _ i\\dd reenR ________________ _ llOR lit 1.1 TTLE ROCK SCllOOI. Ill STRICT PUPIL BEhAVlOR IU\\TlNG SCALE lS'hcohnoeo _l_ ___________ _ Please circle the deecrlptlon under each heeding which ls most charocterletlc of thle chlld in relation to other chl ldren of thia age. AUDITOP.Y COHPREIIENSlON AND LISTENING I. Ability to Collow oral directions l ueunlly confused\ncannot or le unable lo foJlow directions 2 usually follows simple oral directions but often needn iml1vidunl help 2. Comprehension of close dlscueeione usually inattentive and/or unnble to follo~ and understand dlecueelone lieteno but rarely comprehend a we 11\nmind often wonders J. Ability to retain lnformotlon that he hears almost total lack of recall\npoor memory retaine simple ideas and procedures lf repeated often 4. Com reheneion of word meanln s AS2 Extremely poor level of understanding foils to grasp efmple word meanings\nmleunderetande words nl appropriate oge 10 vcl 3 follows directions that are femllinr and/or not complex listens and follows discussions according to age average retention of mater lals\nade'luote memory for ace good grasp of grade level vocabulary for age 4 remembers and follows extended directions understands well and benefits from discueslone remembers procedures and information from various 5 unusually skillful in rememberinR and following directions becomes_ involved and ehowe unusual understanding of material discussed superior me~ory for both details and content 11ources\ngood i11W11ediate and delayed recall understands ell nge level vocabulary ee well as higher level word meaninge superior underetan~ing of vocabulary\nund!rstends many abstract liords r--, r--, (') 0 0 2 4 tl\u0026lt;l'IOH I. C:rg!}_!?_S!,mrillnatlon (running, cllmhing~_plng, walking) I 2 3 very poorly coordlnnted\nclumsy below average coordination\nawkward average coordination for\ni~e 88 4 5 exceptional ability\ner.eels in this area above avernge coordination\ndoes well in -- -----------------------------,---------------\"-'--__\n:__\nthese_ _ actlvltiea .:.__ __________________ _ 2. ! !..!~~_s-~~!:~_!_!1~-o!n!_ ~( d row l n_h_ cut t ~B.~h _': .~E.:. .\u0026gt; very poorly coorill- below overap,e coordl- 11oted\nclumsy nation\nawkward ). -O-o--lo--n-ce very poor hnlance below average average coordination or age average balance (or age\nnot outatandlnp, hut adequate for ahove average coordination\ndoea well in these actlvltlea above average\ndoes well in activities requiring balance exceptional ability\nexcells in this area exceptional ability\nexcels in balancing _________________________ e::..q_.__u=llib_r_iu___m__ _____________________ _ ,, . !'hllity to monl 111lote very poor In manunl m1111Jp11lntlo11 llF.IIAVIOR I. lml!ulse control continually disrupts classroom\n1111able to inhibit responses 2. Attention ). ls seldom attentive\nvery dlstracllble ~bllity to le highly ized\nvery or~anlze dl!lorgnncareless materials, utenolla nnd nwkwnrd In mn1111nl dexterity equl~ent: mam13l_ dexter!!l_ ndequnte dexterity frequently center of attention\noften speaks out of turn rarely listens\nattention frequently 1,1andere often dleorganlzed in rnnnner of working\ninexact\ncareless for nge\nmnnlpulatee well 'Wnite hie turn\naverage for age attends adequately for age and grade maint~lns average organization of work, careful nhove avernp,e mnnual dexterlty good control\nabove average without adult encouragement above avl!rage almost al1,1oya attends above everage ability to organize and complete 1,1ork\nconsistent exceptionally dexterous in performance\nread! ly manipulates new e ul ment excellent control without adult encouragement or su ervlelon al1,1aye attends to important aspects\nlong attention span always completes eseignmenta in highly organized nnd meticulous  raanner (l) i--, C') 0 0 0 OHi Elffi\\TION I. rrornplness l:1cks grn!lp of lhe me\ninlng of tJme\nusually late or confused 2 2. Spatial orientation generally confused\n11nnhle to nnvlgnte nrouncl cJns,noom or echooJ, playground or neighborhood 4 2 poor tJme concept\ntends to dawdle: often late frequently p,e ts loot ln relatively fnmillor surroundings J overnRe underatandlng of time for ap,e can maneuver in fnmiliar locntJons nvernp,e or age J. Judgment of relationships\nbig, little\nCar, close\nllght 1 heavy J11dp,me11ts of reJaUon11hJpe very J11ode\u0026lt;1uate 4. Spatial directions highly confused\nunel, Je to dlatinguf!!h direct:lon!'I ns rlr,ht, left, north ond !'loulh, up ond down makes r,ross Jmlgments successfully frequently exhibits dlrectionol confusion average ability in relation to age average\nuaea right vs. left\nN-S-E-W, up vs. down 4 prompt, late only with good reason above average nbiltty\nseldom lost or confused 88 accurate judgments but does not always generalize to new situations good sense of direction, seldom confused 5 very sklllful at handling schedules\nplane and organizes \"ell rnrely lost\nadapts to new locations, oituotions, places unusually precise judgments\ngeneralizes them to new situations and experiences excellent sense of direction Ol t-\u0026lt; (\") 0 0 0 0 (,.) (X) 0 IJ ,- llEIIAVIOR (cont i nucd) 4. Abtl l ~y t~ _f.QP~illLD.IJ_J\\ t t 11ac.Jo ns _ loa.I.t..!e ~ i. tf!P~, y!sitors and 3 other unanticipated changes in routine) - I becomes extremely excitablei usually lacking in aelf- 2 often over-reacts\nnew situations are disorganizing adapts adequately fJr age 4 adapts easily and quickly \"1th 11elfconfJ, leuce --~c~o~n~t~r~o~_l_c__ _________________________ _ 6. 1: 8. 9. 10. Social Accept~nce avoided by others tolerated by others Acceptance of responsibility cannot assume respon- limited reaponai-sibility\nseldom bility\nnot coDUnen-initiatea own surate with ase activities Completion of assignments rarely able to work seldom finishes \"ithout supervision assignments Tactfulnesa uaually socially inept .!ssresaivenejlS very cruel to other children, combative, oflcn requl rcu reprtmandu Activity acutely hyperactive, restless, not still a minute independently often socially inept\nlittle understanding of feelings of others belligerent and dominating, aggressive, dewandJnc, LoHHY restleus, frequently moving about, but able to settle down \"Jth encouragement 11 ked by others\naverage for age accepts responstb111ty\nadequate for age average ability to fol low through on assignn1ents average tactfulne~s\noccasionally eocially inappropriate not outatandinsly aggrcHliive or poaaive, very ueldo111 atrikes except in self-defense, makes reasonable deoands well lJked by olhers enjoys responsibility\nabove average\nfrequently takes initiative of volunteers above average ability to cowplete asstgnmenl: 1 above average tactfulnese\nsocially inappropriate seldom tends to be picked on by olhcra, puts up L1iniu1al rcuiatancc, reluctanl to wake appropriate demands energetic and busy uloY, not spontan- \"ilhout excetia of eoua requiree extra unnecessary acttvily titlmulatlon to act s excellent adaptation, utilizing initJatlve and independence sought by others seeks responsibility\nalmost always takes Jnltiative \"llh ' enthusioani corupletea a6signmenta \"ilhout supervitdon exceptionally loctful rarely socially inappropriate often hurt hy oLhcru, docs not ilcfc11tl tiClt, extremely putitiJvc inert, quite leLhargic, 11tareu blankly 'l 1 OOIJ.:XmlJNI 0 0 I,) (X) .... ,,........ w BEttA YTuR (wnuouc.dJ 11. ~ euphoric, ah.mys joking, never serious ACADEtliCS 2 enthusio\u0026amp;tlc, happy likea joke\u0026amp;, usually emf ling 1: Reeding ability (for alli very poor or falling below average 2. Arithmetic ability (for age) very poor or failing below average 3. Spelling ability (for age) very poor or failing below average 3 \u0026amp;table balance between happy, optimistic and unhappy, peseimilltlc average average average 4 rather sober, quiet, and unhappy above average above average above average 5 irritable, 1111frlc111lly extremely unhappy, cries easily super tor superior supedor --------------------------------------------------------------- - 4. Handwriting ability (for age) very poor or failing helou average 5. Ovcral l academic a~J!ievenicnt (tor age) very poor or failing below average 6. Native intelligence (your estimate) mentally retarded below average average above average aupcrior average at,ove average \u0026amp;upcrtor average above average auperior -------------------------------------~-------------:------------ ,,.- . R8 1 001,I~Nl NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLJC SCHOOLS PARENT NOTIFICATION OF REFERRAL CONFERENCE Date Dear _____________ _ Your child Fir,t Lut has been referred as one to be considered for receiving special services. These services would provide additional educauonal assistance. We have scheduled a Referral Conference on _____________________ _ at ------- in ____________________ . The purpose of tn1s conference is to r,me plc talk about your child's educational needs. It will also give you a cnance to learn more about special services including speech and resource. If this date, time and/or place are inconvenient. please contact ________________ _ at _______ as soon as possible. Please complete the enclosed form and return it w1tnin seven days as we are required to nold tn1s conference within a specified time period. Please feel free to call if you have questions or concerns. We look forward to hearing from you. (Principal) (Scnool) 00382 00 a: 00 (\") STE? l -- RE!ERRAL {cont:io.ued) Toe (AS 4) m.ay be used io. oocifyio.g parents ao.d gives\niarencs several alcer.iacive ~ays to respond. !c has beeo. revised so t~ac it~ be incluced wic~ AS J, AS 8 or AS 10. 00383 -2 SCHOOL: STUDENT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS PARENT NOTIFICATION OF CONFERENCE ENCLOSURE D I can attend the conference as scheduled. 0 I cannot attend the conference as scheduled. D.0.8. ------ 0 Please reschedule on --------------------------- 0 Please contact me by pnone at ____________ to reschedule the conference. 0 I cannot attend a conference at all. l!\"c1oee .,,,. conterenc 1\"10t1hc1-on AS- (10,.MI NAME: DATE: ----------------- 00384 C0 C0 \u0026gt; 00 0::l Complec~d AS l (Revised) and AS 2 for.:is along wich ocher cescs and/or data shculd be brought to the con:erence by the classroom teacher or a teacher fam.iliar with the student. The Re:e~al Conference is held. At least three ?ersons should be ?resent including che princi?al or designee and a teacher directly invol1ed .1ith the education of the student. A special teacher or others '-lho can ?rovide relevant info=tion, the parent, and c.he student (when appropriace) should also be invited. Only those persons actually in at:endance should sign the Referral CQnference Record For::i(AS S). The ASS is pri::iarily used co document attendance at the conference, to record the group's decision and to document ?arental permission prior to referral for services. TE:-!PORARPYU C~r:: The ASS is used for temporary placement. TemporarJ placement is limited to a period of not more than sixty (60) calendar days during which evaluation mu.st be completed. Note that the AS S does~ give ?er.nission for TE.~.: ORARY PUC!:!DI':'.'. !olhen placing a student tecporarily, such as in the BA classes or other special cases, t7Pe stateinent in after \"Infor=.ation for Parents and Guardians\" and over parent signature line: I a~ree to temporar/ placement. (See For.n) Temporar, placeinent occurs (l) when a student comes from Special Class placeinent in another school district and receipt of test data is pending or (2) \"when observed educational needs constitute necessity for immediate intervention\". The latter should only be considered in extreme cases and only then after consultation with appropriate supervisors and the student's parents. All temoorarr placement must be aonroved bv the Office of Student Affairs ~rior to Placement in a soecial class. Students are ver/ unlikely to be te:!!porarily placed after a complete evaluation. * In this case, temporary placement necessitates Referral to Appraisal S~rvices for evaluation. (Revised 8-3J) 00385 I I-:'  NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS REFERRAL CONFERENCE RECORD STUDENT -::-:-:::-----------o----------- tlur1 1F,r,11 ,.,.,001e1 OATE OF a1RTH _______ _ AGE---- 10 --------------------------- SCHOOL---------------- PARENT _____________________ _ OAT: CF CONFERENCE ___________ _ AOORESS OAT: OF \"1AILING Oear Parent or Guara,an: In accordance w,t1, our previous nouticauon. a Referral Conference was neld concerning tnIs student's e\u0026lt;iucauonat needs. The signatures :eiow indicate tne persons on 1n,s Referral Committee. 1. 2. 3. NAME Princ1pal/Oes19nH Refernng Teacner POSITION After r8'11ew1ng all ava1laole 1nformauon. tn,s committee recommends tnat tne above named student receive tne tollow1ng services: __ 1. EVALUATION (cneck onel You will be notified of an evaluation conference. Comprenens,ve ___ Spec1a11zed --- -- 2. NO EVALUATION (Rema,n In tile regular scnool pragram w1tll program mod1ficauons) _ 3. OTHER (specify) PROGRAMMING RECOMMENOA TIONS -- 4. TEMPORARY PLACEMENT (specify type) You will be noufied of a permanent placement conference w1tll1n 60 days. REASONS FOR TEMPORARY PLACEMENT IEP D WAS D WAS NOT developed at tll1s conference. If not. state wny _______________________ _ Protess,onat Oes19natltd Respons,ote tor lmptemenung Oec1s1ons Autnorizauon is nereoy granted to Nortn Little Rock Public Scnools to conduct a formal 9'1aluat,on. interview or test w1111m y cn1ld. I agree 10 TEMPORARY PLACEMENT 11 recommended above. I nave read and understand \"Your Rlgnts as tile Parent ot a Handicapped Cn1ld.\" (Signature of Parent or Guard1an1 Oa111 00386 ST~ 2 Rc\"~\"UI. CONFE~~CE (concinued) If parencs are ~ present at the RefeTTal Conference copies of c~e (AS S) and \"Your Hghts As The Parent Of A Handicapped Clild\" should be sent home regardless of the decision. The Social !liscorJ for::i with accompanyi~g letter and (ASS) should also be given to them 1: the decision was made to refer to Appraisal Sern.ces. This mu.st be done by one of the following: A. registered mail B. certi!ied mail C. first class mail 0. direct contact A phone contact and/or home visit may be necessary if there is any reason to expect that the parent may not understand the notification of Referral Conference Decision and/or  Parental Rights and Social History. (Rev. 8-83) 00387 I Io r ( The rol!c,.iflg .!.nfor::aticn .!.s a ::etai!ed state::-~nt of\n,arertl.!. ::.:\n:its. The ::.:.:at!.::is a: :r-e :ef': sice or tne page refe: to ti-.e s\niecif.:.c sec:icn of tne F'ecenl il.ec\nulat.:.cns. In t.'\".e !.nte:est :f simplicity, tney nave ee~ para\n:.\"lrased here. l2la.SOA(a}(ll(2} l2la.5C6(~l(ll(2) l2la.50!1(c)(l}(2l(J) l2la.505(al Ol 12la. 505( a)(2) l2la.50!1{a)(4) 12la.5CC(a) l2la.504(~l(l}{il l2la.504(b}(ll(ii) l2la.5CO(a) 12la.50A(cl\u0026lt;2l As a parent ycu have a r!ght to: be not.!. r.!.ed t:e rore the sc:-:::ol lC:ent!.f!es, assesses, or ::-aces ycur chi.!.d cn g:::uics er r-.avir.g a nar.c!.::a::\nir.:\nc::-.::!.:!.:n\no: ~anges an icen:!r:cac:cn, assass~ent, or plac~~ent c~ac nas :e~n 111aoe\nor rejec:s ye.Jr rec~~st tr.at :~~se ac:!.cns ce taKen. receive all sl..C' not!~s in ...r !:ir.g and in t~.e lar.c\n-..::?c\nyec u sceaK and unc:erstand t::est. tr t.'\".e:e are parer.:s .hose nat.:.ve lar.c\n.:a,\ne 1s not a ...r itte:i lar.c\n~a\ne, t~e sc.\"'lcol ofricials ::rust see t:-:at :~e nct!ce is e:xolair.e-:i ,o tr.em orally or in a Tic::e or c::.=n.:.cat.:.::n t.\"1ey unC:erstar.d, that they 1..1'\\C:erstand t.\".e info:~at!::.\"I :-.~ey have been given, and tJ'\\at t.\"le:e is writ:en evicer.ce t.\"'lat t!\"lis requirement has t::~ met. be notH!ed of each testin:\nprc::e-:u:e, :ec:lr::l, or :e-:::::-: t:-:e scnool will use as tr.e cas.:.s fo: any cec.:.slcn :ec\n.u::.:.:-.c\nye:.\n: ct1ild. a desc:!pticn of the plan ror your c!iilo wit!\"I an ex::.!.an:it!.cn or why it is rec:::mel\"\\ded, wnac: other o\n:t.:.ons were consi~e:!!o, ana wrr, tr~se O?t.:.cns ,ere :-ulec out. be inform~ of ar.1 ot.'ier relevant rac:o:s that s:::~-::o!. or~!::.als ccnsiC::ered iii t.\"\".iii: ci:c.:.sicn. The notice you rece.:.ve r::ust also 1ncl~C::e all or t.\":e info~at.:.cn contained in this ::o~!.et. Your written ccnsent ls necessary Cefore t.'ie sc.\".Col may: test your d\"lild indivicJally witn arry tests tnat are net generally given to most ot~er stucents. place your cM.ld in a special ecucaticn p::lg:am fo: tne fi:st time. Before your ccnsent is given, tJ-.e sc.\"lool must e:xolain in ycur na.:.:.ve language wnat you are agreeing co, ana t..'\"'.es e:'lcol must t:e sur~ ,nae you unaerstand H. The consent for::, must cesc:.:.!::e wnat you are agreeing to, list which or ycur c..,ilc's rec:lr\u0026lt;ls (if any) wil! t:e ~leased, ana specify wl\"IOw ill\neceive tnem. Your consent is to Ce given f:eely, and you may withdra., it at any t.1lne. If yo.J do not give your ca'\\,Seilt,ycur child's baSiC right to at~.c. scho:\u0026gt;l and pa.rticipat.e in sr..col ac--..iviues ....-ill not be af:ec-...cd 'c-/ 'fOU:: refusal. 00388 12la.504 (cHl) 12la.504(c)(2)(l)  l2la.504(c){2)(.:.i) l2la.504 (b )(2) 12la.504(c)(l) l2la.50A(c) (2) (i) l2la.504(c)(2)(.:.i) l2la.s:n l2la.S:5'Z(a) (l) l2la.5JO(b) l2la.SJ2(.)(2)(J) l2la.SJ2(e) l2la.SJ2(r) l2la. 5J2(b) l2la.SJ2(d) l2la.SJ4{b) l2la.5J4(a) Ir you refuse to give ycur c::rise!'lt, and the scr.col ac::iinist:at:J:s believe what t..'iey pr::::cse is in ye:.\n: child's t:\nest inte:st, tl\"'.e sc:,c::l may request a !'\\earing. An ince::ercenc nea::ng office: wcu~::l ~:-en decide wnet:-ia: ycur c:,ild sncul::l ::e tested or place::l .,.i~:-:ct.\nt ycu: consent. Ycu have a rii\nnt to at:er.c c:iis :-.ea:ir.g ano tell wny 1cu refuse to gi,e ycur c::nsent. Ycu a.!.so nave a :.:.:\n:it to a::\n:eal ~.--:e decision to tne State if L'ie\n:r::cecu:e as a lccal hearing. 1r you do not give ycur c::nsent, ye:.\n: child's basic ri:\n:it to ac':.erd sc:nool and paruci\n:ate in sc~ol ac~:vit.!.es 'Ifill r.oc t:e aff'ec~eo -:,y yOI.Jt refusal. Ir you reruse to give ycur c::nsent, and the sc.'iool ac::iir.ist:at::s believe .nat t.\"\\ey prc::::se is in :,cur c.\"ii.!.::ls' best ir.~e:es:, ~ne s~ool may ri?:\n-.\nest a hearing. An :.nceoerc:e:it ne:u:.ng off.:.ce: wcu:o then decide w~t..,er ycur c:,ild snc:.:lc be tested or p.!.aced wi ::-:c:.\nt your consent. Ycu have a ri\n:,t to at':.end t..,is nea:.:.,\"1g ano te.!..!. ny you refuse to give your c::ns~~t. Ycu also nave a ri~nc :o ac\n:eal the decision to the Stace if t.'ie p:::ce:::.\n:e was a lccal hearing. Before your c..,ild receives any scec:al ed'~caticn se~1ices, a rull ar.d indivic:ual evaluat.:.cn ir.ust t:e c::r.c1.:ctec. Th.:.s\nneans ycur c:,i:C .,.ill be given scecif.:.c test.\nwhicn are not usually given to r.1est s\n~ccl children. In this circ--1:Star~e ycur cnild has a r!~nt to: be tested in the lanqJa\ne whic!\"I he or she speaks and uncerstan=s best, be tested in sue.\" a manner that :esults are not a ff'ected ':.1 :ace or CtJ1ture, be tested by qualif'ied proress!.::nals using valid tests .nic:i ..... given ao:ortiin\nto prcpe: inst:-..:ct.:.c:is, be evaluated by a grcup or pr:fessicnals indud!.ng at least cne teac:ner or special!.st who is kno .. lec\n~aole aoout tne kine of pn:oiem your ~ild is tnoui\nnt to nave, be tested in all areas related to his or r-:er suspected pn:olem, be tested through proceCu,es hic!\"I Cete:-:iine seed nc areas of edl.Jcational need, r.ot just an !.ntellli\nerc:e (\"IC\") test, have his or her eCucat.l.cnal pr::gram determined on the basis of 1110reth an one test, receive a coll'Qlete re-evaluaticn every three years. or more f~quently if necessary or if rc~estetl by you or your cnilc' s teacner, have his or her individualize::l ecucat.:.on program (!EP) reviewed annually. 00389 l2 L I \\.. 12.la.5J2(::) l2la.5JJ(a)(l) l2la.!iJJ(a)(2) l2la.5JJ(a)0) l2la.5JJ( a)(4) l2la.5JJ(~) Tests l!l.JSt :e given to c!\"!ildren wit.\"'! i~ai:ed heJ::.rg o: vis:cn, o: rest:icted ao:!ity to ,no,e o: sceak, in s .. c:i a av as :o ~e:\ns:.\n:e :.-e cnild' s cocencial aoil!ty or wnat tne c:,i!d l'as !ea::-e: ar.c no: :.-e degree of :.::-cai~enc (unless, or c::u:se, ,r,easur:r.g i::-::ai:::-.enc is ~:-.e purpose of ~'\":e test). tthen looking at test results and de::!ding on ::.-:e ces:\n:i::\n:1.-:1 r:: y01Jr child, tl'le sc.-.col mus:: c::illec: infor:nat.!.cn r.::~ ~any scur:es, guarantee that this in(c:::-.at.!.::n is dcc~~ented and caref:..:l:y C\"'...nsice:ed, insure that the place:nent dec.!.sicn is :nace cy a c\n::::.::: of profess:.~als 1r.c.luoing s:.~e wno l\u0026lt;r.a accut ycwr c~i:c= ar.c:1 a:~ professionally cacaole of inter:::etin\nt:-e test resu::s anc relatir~ those resul~s to a~prc::riate oo:icns, insure that t.'\":e olace::-.cnt ce::isicn !.s mace in su::n a .. ay t.-:a: y01Jr C!'lild's ec1..,:aticn Lll t:e to t.rle ex::.ent ac\n:::::ia~e, wii:,\"1 children wr-.c are net handicacped. H it 1s Ce':e\n:\".:lined that ycur c!'1ild is hand:.::ac:ed and :.s :.n nee:: or spe::.!.al e::-...:::aticn ana re.laced services, an :~:i :r..Js: :c ce,e.!.:::ec.  An lE? 1s a~ :r.clv1ouaJ.!zeo e~.J:JCJ.c.,al pre\n=~~ wn1c., '\"use 1r.c_uc~ a sca::.e~enc or ,cur c:i:iC's : present levels of e-:uca:ional cerfo~ar.::e, a statc~ent or annual ~:::Jls ar,a s\n-ic:: ':e:::i ::::Jec::,es! ror ycur c.,ild, a state~ent of t~e s\n:ecif:.c s:e-:ial e::-~::aticn and :elated services :o ce ! provideo, tr:e exte:,t to hi:::, ycur cn::o ill t:e aole to\n:artici::a:~ :.n :e~...:ia: ~c~c~:::n programs, and t:ie proJe:::ed d~c?s fc: ~e~:nn1ng t~e sczcia.!. ecucJti::n ar.a new ~en\n:.~ :s excec:ed to c::nt:nue. It :r.:.zs::a lso ~ncluce an oojec:ive way of oece::n1n1r.g, at :case .\n:-.nl.\nally, whether ycur C!'1J.!d is ac:i!.eving t:ie s,,:ir: ter:n ooje:::i\"les that ere se~. This :~? ::1us: :ie dec!.Ced u::cn in a :neeting '#hie:, ir::.!.:.\n::?s a :cc:esen::Jti,e of tr:e sc~::::l ycu: c:iilc ac:en::s (this must t:e sc~eone wno is ~ualif:ed to\n:irovice or su::ervise !Cccial ecucac::::i,) you: c.,!.l::'s teacr:er, you as t:ie c.,ild's pare:it or C3rencs, and ycur c:ii.!.O if tl\".a:: 1s acor::::::~te. E!.~:-e: yau or :::-.e sc~ool m.y !\"lave otners oa::i::icate. H you wisn acoiticnal infcr::,aticn ac::ut ye\u0026lt;..: child's!~ ,ou srculO ask vour ::iild's teac:-:er or an official or 1c1..::c nil::\"s =c-c:::. l2la.50J(a)(b) l2la.50J(al(J)(1l l2la.50J(a)(J)(i1) 12la.50J(b) 12la.50J(a)(2) Ir you do not agree with the evaluation provided by the sc:'lcol that is, if ycu ocn't think they gave :::ie rl\n:-:::. test:\nor :eac:'led t.-:e rii\nnt conclu:.icns - you may nave an incecencerit eCucJc.:::-.Jl evaluation ccnC\\Jcted at puolic excense. \u0026gt;\u0026lt;n \"ir.ce\n:cr.ceri::. ecwc\nic::nai evaluation\" means tnat y01Jr cni.l.d will be tested oy a c:wal:::~::: person who is not emoloyed by the scncol your cnild at:er.c5. The sc.\"lool will eitner pay for a private evaluacicn or will ar:arc\nz ro= one at no cost to you. However, t.rle scnool also nas ~ ,:c\nnc co a hearing, to snc-,, tnat its evaluation .. as ac:irccr:.ac.e. lf tne near:r.g officer decides that the sc~ool's evalu:ition was acc:::\n:::\ni:c, yew still have tne rignt to an incepencenc. eoucational evaluation, Cuc not at public expense. The school l!l.Jst inform you, 1.9cn your reauest, where ir.ce\n:encent evaluat!cns are availaole. 00390 L22. 121-i.50:(c)( ll l2la.503(cl (2) 12.la. !03(d l l2la.503(el 121:i.56~ l21.l.562(al -l2la. 566(b) l2la.5S2(bl(l) 121\n.562(!:)}(2) l2la.S52(o)(J) 12la.562(cl l2la.S67(a) 121:J.567(!:l) l2l\ni.567(cl Ir y1'11hJw \"! an in::e:::~r.c:ent e'lalua:.:.::i c::r.C:uc:'!1 at 'JOU': c-.-n e\n,~e:,se, the. resul:s. of this \"!v'-lluac.:.::m: rust be c::nsic:!ered ':.y t!'le sc:.c::l !.n ar.y c:!ec.:.sicn :e\n,::::!.:-c\nyr.u: c.~ild\"s ec..\nc~::r.:i, and Ir an inC:e:er.c::en: e,~luaticr, !.s :ec-...:es~ed !:ly a hea:.:.n:\n: cf~i:e:. as p~,t or , \"c-...:e prc:es .. r.ear.:.ng,  t..~ c,alua~.:.::i :::us,: ::I'!\nit pucl!:: expense. Evali.:aticns c=.iic_-::~ed at pt.:olic ex:e:ise rr.us: r.,e!~ t~e sa~! c:-:. ~!::a (qualirica:i:ns of exa~ir.er 1 etc.) as ~~~se c:r.c~::ed ~Y ~~~ sc~col. \"!\u0026lt;ECO!'mS\" You have a ri\n~: to: Tl'-!! re::c.1.ve, l..:cn your recuest, a list or the ty~es or ec...:cat.:.:::i reco:ds ke~t en your c:ii!=. whe:~ tn~y a\n? r..a:n:iir.e::, ar.~ rvJ,1 yOAJ cwi g~t ac::e:s to tne~, ar.~ in~pect a:id :?v!.ew any of y~Jr c'\"tild's reco::s. scncol rust c~ly wit~ your :e~..\nest to do so: without t.ntiecessar1 c:elay before an IE? meet!r.g or hear!r,g within 45 day!\nhave sor::eon\"! at yc~r c~ild's sc:-:ool explain o: int:r\n:,:et a.1y ite~ in yOtJr child's re:::r:~ ro::eive cc-\n:,ies of tlie r~::m~s lr tNs !.s the only way to ins1,\nr:::i ttlat you will~~ able :o :evie~ 2~d ins:e::~ t:-:~. Th~ s:~nol ~ay d'lu-ie a rec re~ t\"'e cc:.:.es, if $Jc:'' ~ crar:\n!! d:.:!s not\ni::v!'-,: yr:,J fr0:1 \\.nsoec-::.:-:::a\n.-.a r!'!v1e,dr.,\nti,c rcr.o:::s have a reoresen~att,e lnsocct 2nd :evieN the records The school r.:ay assu.-:? that ycu have t~~ 2ut:-:ori ~, to :.r.:oc!'-::~ a,:::i review your criilc's recc:os unless it has ::iecn :.nfo::::c:l l:\":a, ~c., c:: not have this rii\n.,t (b~ause of scr.:e le\u0026lt;\nal ac:.:.on sucn as cust::c'/, for exa,r,ple). rr you feel that an'/ state:::ents in yOtJr child's records are wrong or misleacing, you ~ay as~ the scl\"\\col to cnan::c tri~r.i. Th? sc:icol must either cr,\n.ing~ :uc::i state~en:s in a reaso:iaolo! per:.co of ti,-nc or romally refuse to do so. tr H refuses, sc:-::ol offici31S mus~ infor:n you of tr.cir refusal and ac'lise ycu of your rii\n::it to a nca:~ng on the m.2tter. 00391 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS EVALUATION/PROGRAMMING/PLACEMENT RECORD Pac\ne J of J STUDENT DATE OF 3IRTH ______________ _ 1.1.. uo ID------ SCHOCL CCNF:'.RENCE PLACEMENT REC:MMENDATIONS ----------------------------------- EVALUA TION/PRCGRAMMI NG/PLACEMENT COMMI TTE:'. ,. 2. 3. NAME POSITION Princ1pal/Des1gnee E.tam1ner1Speecn Therapist Agree Disagree \"Eacn commI1tee member who disagrees must attacn a written statement ot 1111re1a son(s) tor disagreement w1tn signature ano Cate. IEP WAS  WAS NOT O developed at 1nIs conference. II not. state wny Proress,onal(SI Oes1gnatea Respons,ote lor Implementing Oec1s,ons As parent or legal guardian. I was consulted regarding an evalua11on ot tne learning needs ol my cn1ld. I 010 D 010 NOT D attend tne evaIua1Ion conference. I receIveo a copy of and understand tne decision reacned at 1neconlerenc11. I received prior written nouce ot rne conference ano a copy ol '\"Your Aignts As The Parent of a Hano1cappea Chila: 1 understand rn,s placement will be recons1aered and reviewed at least once a year. I give perm1ssIon for ----------------------------- 10 receive special eaucauon services from rne Nonn Little Rock Puohc School District. (Signature or Parent or Guardian) Date Reviewed by _________________________ _ 00392 CD tJ:l CD (') STEPS - EVALUATION/PUC~'IT/PROGRAMMI~GC ONFER-~CZ( conti.~ued) If eligibility c=iteria are 111et, a HAND!CAPPI~GC ONDITIONe xists and is w-ricten on the AS 9. Recommendation stace.:nencs for c~e AS 9 are as follows: 1. Receive resource services 2. Receive speech services 3. Receive speec.~ and resource services 4. Receive special services in a self-contained setting (Specify S hour day or other) G. After eligibility criteria are ~et, ~~e P.AND!CAP?I~GC ONDITION and recommendations are w-ricten on the AS 9, the conference also becomes a Programming Conference and pages l, 2, and 3 of the !El' are completed. NOTE: Specific classes or other specific programming are w-ricten on the !El',~ on che AS 9. a. Questions co be answered in .rriting the IE? and in recotI:l!lending the least r~trictive setting are as follows: 1. What does the student have the ability co achieve? 2. What is the student achieving? 3. Why is there a discrepancy? 4. w'hat can be done? I. The parent is asked to sign the bot:om of che AS 9 giving per.nission for placement. If the parent does not attend che Evaluation/Placement Conference, the AS 9 is sent home for a signature for olacement (hand-delivered, regular, certified or registered mail). If there is any reason co believe that the parent may require assistance in understanding che notification or decision, a home cont~ct or visit should be made. J. Completed copies of the AS 9 are sent to che following: l. white copy - Mr Andrew Power, Assistant Superintendent Office of Student Affairs 2. pink copy - Mrs. Diane Zook, Supervisor Special Education 3. yellow copy - Student's personal folder 4. green copy - parent 00393 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INOIVIOUAL EDUCATION PLAN Sirthaat\u0026amp;: ________ _ Age: ___ _ 2. ScMol: ___________________ _ Grad\u0026amp;: __ Principal _________________ _ J. Date plan dr,elooed: ____________________ _ ReV1sed __________________ _ Plan Oevelooe~: (Signatures) ?os1t1on Pos,tion Position Position Position Oescripuon of student's pat1ic1patIon In regular educational program: (Suo1ects ana amount of time allocated tor eac~.) Soec1a1 Education Services Provided: (State spllClflc services and amount of time allocated for eacn.) 1. 2. J. E.xcect\u0026amp;d date 1. tor servI\ne(s) 10 oe InIt1a111\u0026lt;1: 2. J. Ant1c1patltd Duration of Service: Placement for ______ school year. Oates 1. termIna1ea: 2. J. Placement will oe reviewed informally throughout the year, and tormally at lhe request of lhe parent. any 01ner memo er of the I. E.P Team. ana/or at the Annual Program Review Conterence. IEP/1 00394 Name: Age: --------------- Grade: ___ _ Individual Education Plan Oescriot1on of present level of functioning: Long-Range GoaJs: (Annual) Cate Initiated: _____________________ _ Short-Range Goals: (Instructional Objectives) One Per Six (!) WNk PeriOd IEPt2 reacner: ______________________ _ Sub1ect: Sc~ool: ---------- Cate Completed: ___________________ _ Evaluation Cate Matenals Proce\u0026lt;1ures ln1t1ated Completer 00395 0) C0 N '------------------------------------------------~~~---- School:--------------------------------------- Grace: ______ _ ,!:! ST RESTRICTIVc SETT'ING A. Cin:le aie placement (saMce setting) which is least restncove for this chtld based uoon data obtained dunng his/her evalua11on and ~con :components at this pIan: Indirect SeMces Some lnstruetJon In Regular Class Self-Contained Class Min.  Day Res1denoal School Facility Regular Class Some Direct Instruction No Instruction In Regular Class SeifCont.atnlld Class Hoscltlal Program Regular C!ass Max. 3 Penods Per Dav Resoun::e Room No lnstruetion In Regular Class S~1al Dav SeMce Facility Homebound lnstrucoon B. ist any other placement or programming opnons which the plan developers considered and the reasons why thosa options were re1~ed '1pt1on: _________________________ Reason: _______________________ _ Uption: _________________________ Reason: ________________________ _ lptlon: _________________________ Reason: _______________________ _ ~ Descnbe parent/guardian's role in helping child meet goals:-------------------------------- 0. 11elated SeMCes: (Trans0011alion, Ther10y, Adagtive P.E.. Specialized EQuipment, etc.) _____________________ _ E. onacademic Services In which student is participating: (Extra Cumcular. etc.) ________________________ _ F. isciplinary proceduras for ,napp~nate behavior: (Time Out. etc.) ------------------------------ G. \"escnbe the involvement of the parents in the development of this plan: __________________________ _ H. 1rent Notmcat1on 1f not ,n Attendance: (Date: ___________ ....., 00396 IEP/3 00 Ill 00 (\") NORTE ROO: SC-!OJL ors:~rc Name of S :~c:enc. ________________ Schoel ____________ _ 1. AS-1 ~efer:al ?or.n __ ~urse's signature __ ~efer:ing ?erson's signature 2. AS-2 3ehavior rating scale ~ame of ?e:son cccpleti~g __ ~ach item a.nd page completed 3. AS-3, AS-4 Not.i.:ication of parent __ ?arent noti!ied within presc:illed time 4. PAREmAL RIGHTS Nine page desc:iption __ Parent given copy of \"Your Rights As The Parent Of A Handicapped Child\" __ Parent appears to unde:stand rights S. AS-5 Referral conference record and parent per:nission to test __ Th:ee persons present __ Parent signature 6. AS-11 Notification of parent about retest and parent per:nission to retest __ Parent signature 7. socr\n.r. HISTORY Developmental and medical hiseory of student __ completed by pa.rent 8. AS-8, AS-4 Notification of parent __ Parent noti.:ied within prescribed time of the evaluation conference 9. AS-9 Evaluation/place111ent/?rogramming (~i:ed for) (New and :-et.est) (New and retest) (New) (New) .( Retest) (New) (New and retest) conference record (New and retest)  __ Three persons present __ Examiner present __ Handicapping Condition or No Handicapping Condition __ Signature of Principal __ Parent signature if placement is decision __ Student address and phone n\\ll!lber May be used i~ place of AS-6 00397 co ca co (\") C I \\ ST'2 6 PUC2-!L'IT A. 7:1e student's name, address and phone nc=ber are ~itten i~ the upper left-hand cor:ier and the (AS 9) is for-#arded to the Office of Stuce~c Affairs. 3. At che Of!ice of Studenc Af:airs, the sc~ool assi~ent is ~i::en on the bottom of t..~e (AS 9) and the school~ notified. !! transporcation is required, this is done at t..~e same t:.=:e. C. Toe student is placed wit..~in fifteen (15) days of parental per.nission. D. The (AS 9) is for-.ra.rded to Appraisal Se~1ices where it is kept on record along with the coll1l)rehensive evalu.i.tion data. E. A co=i.ttee selected by the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction shall serve a.s an appellate body whenever parents disagree with the decisions of the referral or evaluation committee. 00398 ADDI7IONAL I~OR.'!ATION I. Release of Infor.:iation (AS 7) A. If a parent wishes to have a copy of the writ:a!l re?ort, t~e (AS 7) is used. B. If another school, agency or medical facility requests a copy of the written report, the (AS 7) is used, being sure to .n-ite in the full name and address on the bottom. C. If a copy of a written psychological report or other infor.:iation is desired from another agency, school or medical facility, the (AS i) is used. The second box should be checked, being sure to ~rite i~ the full name and address of agency, school or medical facility. ( D. Be sure to forward additional information to Appraisal ~d Referral , Services. Copies of tests from other agencies should be in the student' Appraisal file. The school may have this sent directly to Appraisal an Referral Services by writing this address on the bot:cm: Appraisal and Refer:-al Ser-1ices North Little Rock Public Schools P.O. Box 687 North Little Rock, Ark.ansas 72115 The material will be copied and sent to the school by Appraisal Ser,ices. E. Copies of all psychological test reports will be released~ from Appraisal and Referral Services. F. Copies of all communications to and from parents should be kept in the cumulative record. Also the (AS 9) and written test report should be placed there, although the original information will be kept in Appraisal and Referral Services' files. 00399 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS INFORMED CONSENT FOR RELEASE OF RECORDS OAiE OF SIFHH ___ _ 10 ---------------------- GRACE SCHOOL----------------------------- D Authorization is hereby granted to the North Little Roel\u0026lt; Public Schools for the release ot psychological information to: Name of Thira Party _______________________ _ Aadress ---------------------------- D Authorization is hereby granted to: Agenc:y ---------------------------- Address ---------------------------- for releasing medical, social and/or psychological information to: NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS Appraisal Services/Administrative Annex Box 687 North Little Roel\u0026lt;. AR 72115 Parentl\\.egal Guardian Oare 00400 ADDr::oNAL I)ITO~'-!.ATION(c onci:J.ued) !I. Re:::s cs \"An evaluation of the child, based cc. procedures 1Jhich :ueet t:ie requi:-e::-.e!:).::s uncer Sectioc. 12la.SJ2, is conducted ever7 t:iree years or ~re frequen::y i: coc.citions ,\narrant or if the child's parent or teacher requesc:s an evaluation . , 1981 SDE Gu.ideli.:l.es. A. Retest:.ui.g is pr~rily doc.e to deter::une ,\nhether coc.ti~ued special place=e~t is ~eeded. If this is che case the following procedures are to be obser,ed: 1. AS land AS 2 completed 2. ?arec.c notified prior to the evaluation and parenc:al per.:iission received. (Documented AS 5/other) 3. !uelines obse::-ved in noci!ying parent of Evaluacion/?lacemenc:/ Programming Coc.ference (AS 8) 4. Record of F:::/P Conference (AS 9) S. Handicapping Condition and placement decision of AS 9 6. Assign::i.ent by Of!ice of Student Affairs B. If t=ie student is being referred again after being tested previously ,\nhen special cl.ass ?lace:nenc I.las~ reco=ended procedures are identical co a new refer~al beginning with the Referral Conference. This also applies to chose students having a suggestion to \"retest in one year\", etc., if no initial olace::ent was reco=ended. C. A t=iird tn,e of retest 1Jould be after TI:-!PORARYPU C~~T is made. P:-ocec~:-es to follow ,\nould be the same as mentioned in A. (If temporary placement is ::..ace prior to~ testing, procedures for an initi.l referral beginning 1Jith Referral to Appraisal should be followed.) D. In swmary, if an nlITIAL PUCEME..\"ITis anticipated all procedures should befollowed beginning ',lith the Referral Conference. If CONTINUEDP UC~~ is anticipated, parent notification prior to the retest and parent permission (in writing) are required in addition to (AS l rev. and AS 2). 00401 C0 n NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS INFORMED CONSENT FOR RE-EVALUATION SiUOENT --IL-.-\u0026amp;-1-1-1-1-1- -~--------- tF1r1t1 (Mu:ICJel OATE OF BIRTH __ _ SCHOOL _______________ _ Dear ______________ _ tPvWtuW.,a1an1 Every student who receives special services classes must be re-tested every three years. Our records show that the above-named. student was last evaluated on If this student has been evaluated by an independent agency such as Child Study Center, Elizabeth Mitchell Children's Center. Stepping Stone or another school district, please have a copy sent to the school at once. It is your right to: 1. Go over all records related to the placement 2. Go over the procedures used in placement 3. Be informed of the results of the evaluation When retesting is completed, you will be contacted to arrange a conference to discuss test results. Please return this form to us as soon as possible so we may proceed with retesting. Sincerely, Principal PLEASE READ CAREFULLY, SIGN ANO DATE Authorization is hereby granted to North Little Rock Public School District to conduct a formal evaluation, interview or test with my child. I have read and understand \"Your Rights as the Parent of a Handicapped Child.\" (Parent or Legal Guara,an) Cate 00402 ( ADDITIONALL 'ITOR.'!Al'ION(c ontinued) !II. Parental Per=ission and Related Issues A. Parental per.u..,sion i.s needed in c--.-o (2) instances: 1. to conduct a for:n.a.l evaluation 2. for initul placement B. CONTL'rnZD PUCE?mrr - a copy of t.'le (AS 9) is gi1en to t:ie parent even though continuation of placement does cot require parental per::iission. C. ~O FiJRl'KERl 'UCE?mr! aeeded - a copy of the (AS 9) is sent by cer~ified mail ~en though parental permission is cot needed for re~oval from special class placement. 00403 l50. J,i :2 ----------------- '.lear Scudenc :fame (E\"i:-sc) :\ne sc:1.edule confer\u0026lt;:nces\n:,e-::-icd.:.cally ~-- ~---~~n::\n1.-h..: ::~:1= , .:~-~~- rece:v:.ng special ~.:uc.J.cion and re_,i~_-..: 3e:-,i~e..:. ::~-:\"':~ .:.::::.:\n~.\n~:.::.~ us an oppor:uni::y to discuss your :\"..:.~.:' 5\n,\n:\n:-c --- .:m:: - .... needed. Since a studenc ,1nose '1arenc. uard.:. ...n .. -or~,\n,::, ,\n2!. -::.:~. .,.:::,.\n,_ is !.lSuall:, ::ore successful ::.n sc:100L, r know ::o,. :.::. .:,1::-.: : ,::.:::_ =-\" confe:-ence. :he conference will be __ _ Ti.me .l~ '....c~: :i c ion ::. : :-~ Ple.:ise cr.u-:r,lec:e che enc.:loseu:, for.:-: so '.-:~ :i:: .:: .. .- p l.m co ac :end che c:onfaren..:e ac c::i:, :\n,::,c:.:ul-::s: ~ ~ :-:  ~ for us co resc:1.edule. Recurn c::1.e enc~Jsed for~ oefcre ~nuw  . .-h.:ic :-.:i~-\n:,l.:insm. = :c:'u :!~,,i:? .:.1r\n:: quccions :Le\n.!:::\n~ .:J:-i::::.c: -~ ,-j ,.,,nc [,,sure :,::-~ .',\n-\n-iO 11:~v ~j) ':Le,,_. - \"\".!1,,Li, ....... r:i ...-.. .~ , , ci11.r: i .... 00404 1--' N ne: - 1 -....,----------------- 1\n,...,,....----------------\"-\u0026lt;-.,-.-.- .-., ._-, 31r:!\"'cai:e_:_ ______ .:.~e:_ Sr.noot -------------------------------------------- Graae: _________ _ -\\. iAAM REVIEW ~ -view of tl'Ht students crcqress In relanon to is/her lndMdual Education clan Is reauired annuaIlv. Th,s review mav oe concuc:ed more 1rec1..entIv ,f so d ,red. To as.surw aoproonate service. progress ,s cont1nuattv monitor-ea and rev,ewea. A Progress :o date: (Numoer of shortrange oblec\".Nes met per subIec:l a t'tacement Recommenaaoons: (Check as aoproonate) ----- Cononue the same placement (service setting) next year. _____ Rerum to flJll-ume ntgular classroom. (Must be accompanied by appropnate cue process forms.) ---- E\n,plore other altemawes. such as: C. 'rogramm,ng Recommendations: (Leaming style. strengths. weaknesses. matenals/eou,omen~ moa1ficat1ons. social. ana/or aaaoove n.mc:1on,nc\n. etc.: C D )ate of Rev,ew: ___________ _ E.\nate of Last Comprehenwe Evaluaocn: ___________ _ F. G ~ames of Persons Contnbut,ng To Rev,ew: ----------------------------------------- P-..1ENT~L PARTlCtPATlON ~ Jescnbe the involvement of the parentS In the review of this program: a Parent No11ficat1on if Not ,n Attenaance (Date: ___________ __, C \u0026gt;arent Signature: _______________________________________________ _ ( ther Pertinent lnfcrmaoon: ----------------------------------------------- 00405 ! '4 N. L R. ADMINISTRATION OFFICE'S COPY LS 2. 00 tc ( 121a. 56c l2la.5i0 12la.565(al llla,!69(:il 12!a.569(c)(.)(2) l2la.572(al l2la.572(!:l} l2la.572(c} l2la.572(d) l2la.5cll l2la. 57l(a}(1) l2la.571Ccl l2la.57:l(a)(b) l2la.56l(al .This hc?3r!.l\"'qC .:e3 r,ot ne~!?5s~:-.ly r'ollc\"' 1.i~\n::~:!~S c...?::.:-::~d ~n ~:-~ \"hc?u..tlr-~11 s -\n~,::.:c:i or ~r::.s ccc-~. il~:.:11 of ::.:~ :l ,~:\n:.~ r1..-\nr,~ ...,. :c.-\n1 7). Tnc! h1::.:.:.,\"1 r:-.:it t:.? c.\n:.:,::..-:.~~ :1\n.r,y ~~~~l ctr:::.\nl .r,\nc:.::~ r._\n: have a O!.:ec: in::!~::i': :n i'::: cut:::.:e. Ir the lieo:!r, .. 1 is C?-::.:\n:d i:, ye-..\n: fav':.:, !~-.:..:~ ~\"t::.::.:s IJ...~t ::iar  .\n~ tl'1e inf.:r::.a:.:.cn ,..-,., .:.nr\"u:::iy e:.\nC~...\n'n/ a1\u0026lt;! _c-\\C\n.:. Ir the .:.nfo:-:1s:.c:i is r.?:-:l - '1e .\n:::--:::~, r:::..: 1.:\n,.: t~.'? ::  ! -:.:,  .:.~ your own s:.:.-::::-.!n~ to tn~ :-!-.:~::\n. Y~-~= s:\n:~:,!: t 1r,t...:-:=. .,\n~ i~_,c. o-:, lc.,,q a:s tt,e ::::,ce~:?:.J\n:i:::-: of tr.a ovc::-~l!. :ec:::: is .,e:c:  .,,,c :.~ c~.1: r~=~ is sr,c,.-n t~ anycric?, Jv-..J\nsc~:e, .. t..\"!~:. :J:..~::.a .:.s..\n:! . ::--.\n.,  Th.? scr.o:,l is !\"es\n..:.:,s:~:! r':,:\n:::te~!..:.r:, tr.e ~=~r::.:r\nn._J  / ut ,c_-: cnild'S ec:.::ati~, :e:o::s ~,: na,nin1 the injiviC~al ,.1,-J ls r-c:~:-::isi::e ror inur.:.n\n,:,e confidentidlity of :ec::\ns, ~ar ..n t?~ir'\\1 tn.Jt all ce::.:n\n..t. ,o ::l:e:: c:.: u~e ~1..:!i :~r:.\n:-~:.t:.:\nn r~t:~iv~ t:-al:i::-1 in ::i~ S~a~as p-:!.:..c:'!s a,a~\n1r~.:!.\"c...::2s :-e~:::::iC) ccnf:c:a:i:i\nl:.,\n, k~!n~ for\n:~li: ins\n:::::.:::-: a U.s:: of til.:lse e:r.\n~o.ees ,.,.o :.? per::,1ttcd ~c::es~ co tr.es~ re~:rcs, p~:rr.ittir,q p:r~n~z to s~~ O:'\\l'/ t:-.~t inr'\"~r:-:-atic.:_i ,icn :e!:.~!.:S :c. their o-m cn!.l!:l ~Mn r\"!c:::-us .::ntai:i inr\"or:::at:.on on :-.:::: ,,,an c:-:e child, recuirin~ yo,.\nr consent :efore ycur c!i.:.ld's ecucat:cn =ec::~s l:e yiv::n t.J an\n,,rn~ ,,J~ !.n,:11.i.\n.:.111 ~-...: c:11lo's ec...\nc\n\n.:.,.n re~i:ir.g ,c~= c:::i:eni: t::ero:'! u:in~ yc:.\nr cnld' s reco~~3 for .. -, l)\\Jr::oscs o~r.~: th~n tt.os,~ re~~~'!~ to\n:i=:v~d1r.g oec1al i.c:... .:i ,::., anc rcl.i:::o :erv::.ces. 10 ..~. ver, ~::,::s ~.ay riave policies a o procec:.\nro:s wnic:1 a:::!.y in :r.e t:!vent tna~. you ca::l.:.ne to :J.:.,e ::i1s consent and th.Jt tr,e sc~ool re!!ls ~r-.e ,eco:::s sr,c:.uld oe g~ven :::i the crson wM rcc,.:~sci::d :..-.c:n. These o=::e~.Jres c::\".Jl.j .. llc\" c:ie school to send c:c=ics cf c:-:c: r~-:::rtJ: co t11a rec-.\n~s,.:.rg :::erson c: agency, under c~r\nJ1n ci::-:uns:.:.n:es, oes\n:iite you:- ooJec:ion. informing ycu when ccnf~:'!:i~ial 1nfor,,atic,, on ycur c:iild :.s no longer nee-::~o. At your :eci.:'?st, this infor::iacicn r.u:,c be de:st::-oyed (or char.:\n:d so tl'1at ~t c..rmot be iaenc~ f :.eo\ns belo~1ng to yvu::- cn1idl. Stat~~ are teci.:iu:u to 11ave cc:itinuous proc?dl..ae:. to identUt t,ar.dic:ic\n:ied c.\u0026gt;iilaren and to \"u::lisn a statewioe noc~ce in n~. ..s pacers 00406 12la.56l(a}(l) 121a. 561( alC2) 12la.56l(a)Ol 12la.56Ha)(4) l2la.550(b)(l) 12la.550(bl(2) l2la.'5l(b) (l) 12la.55:'5 l2la.552(c) l2la.552(a)(l) 121a. 552(a)(2) l2la.552(al(J) 12la.55l(a) 12la.552(b) l2la.55l(t:J)(2J l2la.552(d) or ot.\"le: mecia wnic.\"'I infc:-:is oa:?nts or t.,e :e:\n-.Ji:e~ents re\nJ::::~\ni icentification of hanoicap\n::e: cnilc::en. lt 111.JSt i.rlc.!.ud\u0026lt;!: a cesc:ipt:cn of the c:ii:oren en .r.c~ ::nfi:ent:al infcr~a:!:n is ke~t and l:Jie uses of :~a~ info::-.a~~=n, a cesc:-!pt.!.cn of he., t.\"lis info::::at!cn is :.Ce::t and p:::ec:e::, a des.::-iot.!.on of t.\"\\e rii\n.\"'lts or parents and child:~n ret\na::.!.:-.g Ws infor::iation. YC\\Jr c.\"lild has a r:\nnt to: be e=uc:ate:j to the extent .p\n:::-:priate with cnilc:en who are not h.nei:apped, t:e in a recular c!assroo~ unless the nature of seve:-i:.y of :.he hanoicao is- su:n tna: he or s~e car,r,oc :e:eive a s\n,t:sf .. ::::, ecucation in tne re~lar c.lassr:c.-:i, us:.:-.g acoit:.c:-.al a.ics ar.c services, have a ranc\ne or place~rits avai!a::ile, 1nc!1.\n::ing classes, sce:ial classes, s\n:ecial sc:icols or residential placements, ano nc.-ue inst:~::icns, re\n~lG: s=~o:l ins:i:utions, partic!\n::a:e with non-hanc:ic:icced c:iild::n in ext-:a-cur:i:ular anc: non-acaccm.ic activi:i~s, attend the school he or sh~ .. culd at:?nd if not hanC:ica:\n:ec, unless the IE? calls for a Oifrer?nt :ilJ:e~ent. YC\\Jr Child's ec:ucatic:ial placement ~st be: revie-.,,ed and dec!ced upon at least ar~ually, based on tl'le lE? , as clo,e to hcme as possible. Every school must have availa:Jle a variety of set~!n~s to me:t the ec:ucaticnal needs of na,.c:i:aocec c:iilcr:n. This ran-:.: \"'us: inc :-~::e any plac~m:nc wi1icn is nec::ec to im:il::::-.enc tr.e  c:,il:i' s !S\"'. Provisio:, m:..st also tle mac:\u0026lt;?r or s1.:::ol'iIn :\ni Jny s1..:0:?:i:l- :lentar'I se:, i-:es ne:deO when a hanoicacceo c:iila is :n a re\nular class. In selecting the least rest-:ic:.i,c environ~ent for your cnild, s.::~col ofricia.ls rust consi:er any possible har::,ful eiicc~s tr,Jc a particular place\"'ent may have on ycur cnild or en services yuur cnild is to receive. 125. 00407 l2la.555 l21a.!56 l2la.SC6(a) l2la.506(b) ( 121 a. 507 (a}( l) l2la.!07(alC2) l2la.508(a)(l) l2la. 508(a)(2) \u0026lt;... 1113kea r:an~e~nts i~~ pu~ ~=ar .d pr:.vae lnst:.:-..:t:.::ns t::: lnsu:e that to t~e extent 2::0:::0::.a:.e, nar.cica~::eo cnilc:en are e::~::3,?C wit.~ nc:,-hanCiC3C~e~ c.,.:.lc:en,  insure t!\"lat teac.-ers ar.0\nC\nni:iist:at::::s are rully infor.::ed at::::.:t the itr.cl:.::aticns or tr.e c::r.::e::t of tr.e le3st :es:.::.:::::,e envir-...,1\".'ller.t and receive t:a.inir.g ar.0 ass1s:.ar.ce in i\ns appHcat.ion, insure that all sc:-.cols ln t~e state are ca::-1ir.g cut t:-.ese rec:ui:~::-..ents. tr ~-.~=i:s~ evi::!r.c~ c_-,at  s.::..-:c:l lS r,c:, ~. ..~ State Ce::ar~.er.t or E::-..:~ati:n ~s c::li\nateC to :evle~ tr.e sc:-.:::i's perfo~..\n.\"\\Ce and to see t~at any ~~o:t::::::i.:.r.\ns are c:::ec:ec. lf .t any time ycu cannot c::.-:1et o a~ree:r.ent ith the sc!,ool re\na::::.:-.g your d'\\ild' s ec~-cation, ycu nave tr.e ri~nt to asK for an im::ar-:.:.al heari.-,,g. A nearing tr~Y be helo on any matter :elating :o t:-.e identification, evaluation, er placeir.ent of your cnilo or tr.e provision or a \"f:ee ac::rccr:.ate\n:uolic ec:.\n::3t:.cn\". Hear:n~s a:e to be held by ei\n:-.er t.:,e State Ce::ar:ment of c:::-..:::ati:n or i:.-.e sc:-.::::.!. dire:tly resccnsiole fo: your cr.il::'s ecucati:n. To obtain a ~~arir,g, you should ~ak! a writ:en :e::~es: t~ ~~e ~erscn 'Who 1s responsible fo\nthe ec~caticn pr:i~:am your c.~:!j a::e~cs. An 1\nr.oartial hearin~ office:- will be assic\nned to presica over ar.y such hearing ar.d ar:-ive at a eecisicn. io insure i::-.\nar:iall.:y, a hearing oificer may net be: an em\n:lcyee of a public a~er.c:y (sc.',col syst~'II, !.ns:!.t!Jticn, whicn is involved in ~~e e::ucaticn or care of ycur c~il:, anycne who has a per'Sonal or pr:ifessicnal lnta:est wnlc.~ cul:j ca,rlict wittl oojectivity in :~e near:ng. Each scnco! 111Jst kceo a list or ~er:cns .no se:ve as hearing off~ce:s and t.t~ir qualifications. Rigt,ts whicn cot.ti you and the sc.\u0026gt;iool are ent!.tled induce t~e :ic\n~t to: be acc:icoanied and advised by legal ccun~el anc by perscns ,. ith special 1\u0026lt;n0.\nledge of tr'\\e pr-colems of nanoic~cpcd ciiloren, present evicerce and c:-oss examine and con\n:iel tne at tenoance or witnesses, l26. 00408 l2la.SCS(al0l l2la.!0S(a)(4) l21a.!C3(a)O) l2la.506(cl(ll(2) l2!a.508(b)(l) l2la.5ca(b) (2) 121a.5l2(d) l2la.512(a)(ll(2l 12la.512(cl 12la.509 l2la. 510( a)(b) l2la.510(b)(l) l2la,510(b)(2) l2la. 5l0(b) 0) 12la.510(b)(4) l2la.510(b)(5)(6) l2la.5l0(cl prc:iibit tl-.e :nt:::=uc~!.cn of evicer:c: tr.at r.ad not tee!'! :evea!e-::i to you at least five (5) days t:e(c:e t..~e r.ear:~~. . . receive a wri::en f!.nding of fact and the cec!sicn of t~e ~ea::~~- You also have t~e r!~nt to: be told by t..\":e sc:iool wne:e f:ee o: le.., c::st le~al r.e!::, !.s availaole. The sc:-.ool '11.JStg lve yotJ t:iis inf::~a::i::n at ar.y t!.\n::e yo.J re~~~st it o: wnenever a nea:lr.g is :o ta~e place, have yCJ..JcrM ld attend tr.e hea:!.r.g if you wisn, c~en tr.e hearing to the p~~l!:: ~r you wisn, have t-:e heJrir.g c::no..-c:e-::i at a t!me and place reascnaoly ccnvenient to ycu. w1t:iin ~5 days of :e~eiot of your re01.Jest for a hearing, the hear!ng office: must :eac:i a cecisicn and mail ycu a c:::::y of tr.e cec.:.s.!.c.,. The hearing officer ~ay grant an extensicn to tnis ti~e pe:!cd at ~-:e recuest of eitner party. The cecisicn or t:-.e r:earing offi:e: is f!l'lal unless ei:~r you or the sc.~col c:J-.ooses t:: a::::eal. Ir your hearing was held,by tne State ar.~ ycu are net satisf~ed, you can bring civil a::ticn !n a State c:urt o: a U.S. oist:i:t c:ur:. If yC\\Jr hea:in~ was held by ycur scncol rat:ier tn\nn t:ie St1:::e, ar.d tr ycu are dissatisiried with tne cecisicn or t!\"le riear.:.n~ of'.:.::?r ano would like tc a~e3.l it, ycu must J.nrc:::i t:-.e Sta:::e OecJ:::::ent of Ecuc .. ticn or yo-\": cesire to co so. The St.ate Ceca:::::en::: of ::::-..::\nti.en will then c:::ric1,\nc: an i~art!a.l revie-,, of tr.e hearing. The office: ccnductir.g tr.e review will: examine the entire hearing record, insure that the hearing was conc:uc:ted prc::erly, seek more evicer.ce if necessar,, 1r a hearing ls held to receive this adoiticr.al evicer.ce, t:-.r.n the hearing ri~~ts previcusly described would app.ly, give both parties an opportun1:y to present ar\nunents, make an lnc~\nencent decisio~ and give ~cth par:ies a ccoy of t:-.e decision. The decision or t~e imoartia.l revie-w rust ce reached and a ccoy of it mailed to you anc tl\":e sc:iool wit:i1n 30 cays of tne reauest for tl'1e review (unless an extension is granted Oy t!\":e :evie..,ing off.i.c.:.ail. The decision 1s final unless eitr.er part, encases to or.:.ng civil action and pursue tne matter in court. Our ing tl'1e tir.:e tna t t.~e l ::!i . 00409 ( l2la.5l4(alC!) 12la.Sl4(a)(2) 12la.Sl4(al(J) l2la . .Sl4(!l) 12la  .Sl4(c)(l) l2la  .Sl4(c)(2)(i) l2la  .Sl4(cl(2l(ii) l2la.Sl4(d)(ll(2l l2la . .Sl4(e) hear:.~ an ac:ells p::::ess is ~ .. k!r.g p!ace, 'fC-.Jr c:-.i::: l.s !o ~e:-a::i in his o: her present place!T:e:-:t, unless yc-.J ar.d t..e sc:\".ccl a-\n:?e other\n.,ise. rr t~e di~cute c::r.cer:is t,\"'-e l.ni::al ac::.ssicn cf ye~: child to PL:Jlic sc:,col, then he or sne, ..,i t.\"I yOT.Jrc :::isent, ..,! ..!.! :e placed in a pu~llc sc~.ool pr:g:am until t.r\ne cc.~.\n,!et!:n of ~~e prccee-::!.!.nc\ns. no parent can be icent!f.!.ed, tl'le whereaocuts or the pa:ents is not l\u0026lt;no.,,, tr.e c.\"lild is a war:: or t.\".e State. It ls t.\".e sc.\"l::ol's cuty to appoint a star.c-in or sur:::~ate, or to see tl'lat one is a::\n::ointe::i. E.:.::.\"'.e:t:r .e state or ycur sc.-.co.i. .:::.Js: h3ve a 111ethod of ac\n:oint!r.c\nsur:c:\nat~s. The sc:-:ool or state ,'!lay sele::: a sur:::-\nace in ar.y manner i::e::n.it:ed by State law, but i:,.ist maKe su:e tl'lat the i:\ners::n selec~e::i: does not have a c::r,rllc~ or interest, is ~lHied to re-\n,resent tl'\\e c.\"lild, is not an ~loy~ or a :::uolic ac\ner.cy involved .!.n the ec..\nca:!.on or care or tne c~ild (a ce:scn is not c:::isic~:e::i an e~\n::~:'fee solely beczuse he or sne se:ves as a sur:::\nate). The surrcc\nate may re:,resent the child in all mat~e:s ::elat:~1\":\nto icentificaticn, evaluaticn, ph.:e~ent, and l:.~e p~vis!.cn of a f::=e 1ppropriat:= i:\n,..\n!:llice c..11:aticn. 00410 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2700 P011laSr tmt P. 0. Box 687 SOAAO OF :CIJC~7'C-\" AOMINISTFU rive CF :,c~, North Little Rode, Ark\nuuas 72115 Dear ?arent/Guardian: As .e have already indicated, you as the responsible adult for this student have very i.:npon:ant infor:nacion to share. Resear~~ has sholol'Tl thac med:.cal and developmental infor:nation leads to a more c~orough and acc~race evaluation of learning problems. Also i.:nporcanc is infor.:1acion whi~~ describes a student's accicude and behavior at home. We realize the highly personal nature of this Social Risco~\nfor::t and assure you that t~is inior-,...acion will be held in confidence. Thank you for your assistance in helping us gee a better picture of your child. Principal School , AS/Social History 00411 129. ( NORTH Lir:\"L:: ROC:\u0026lt; SC~COL Drs:~:c: SOC:::.U HIS'i'ORY l Clild's Na::e __________________________ Date __________ _ In.for...anc 's Nace ___________________ ~e-acioc.shi? __________ _ FA.'fILY DA':.\nFac!-ter' s Na:::e _____________________ Age E:ducation. ______ _ E::lploymen:: !i::~ --------------- ~ocher's Na=e Age :'.:iucac.:.on_ ______ _ E:nploymenc !ic~ ------------- Clildren (O:.::es t to Youngest) Name Age Nair.e Age l. 4. 2.------------ s.------------- 3. 6. Phys~i_c_a~l-,-=-e_n_t_al--,-e-=--_t-i _oor_ ns_cahlo ol-relate_d_?_r_o_b_l__=_s o__t_ b_ r_o_t_h_e_r_s_/_s_i_s_::ers: ------ Physical, =e=::al or e?nOtional problems in .family: ___________________ _ Clild li,es ..,.. :::i. _________________ Nu:nber family ::ioves_ ________ _ Others in ::oc:e Numbe::-schools attended _______ _ Parents di,orced _______ deceased ______ Age of child at deach or di,o::-::e __ _ Age of chi:d at remarr.:.age ___________ _ ~echods of discipline used in home ___________________________ _ wno most :::-equencly disciplines? ___ ,.....--~---=--,------ How of::en? ______ _ Has discipline been strict, lenient, inconsistent? (ci::-cle one) '..ihat ti::ie does child go to bed?~~,-,---,-----,----,,....G~t up? ______________ _ What responsibilities does the child have at home? __________________ _ wnat activities are shared by family? _________________________ _ ?REGNANC\"H: I STORY Number chil:i::-en bor:1 ______ Number of living children ______________ _ P!-tysical, ::iental, emotional problems during pregnancy: ________________ _ BIRTH HIS:'OR\"! Number of hours from first contraction till birth -------------------- ~ e di cation __________________ Asleep or natural childbirth? _______ _ Birth wei~hc Induced or elective? ________________ _ Deliver/? Labor less than 2 hours 2-8 hours more than a hours Circle one Physical, ::iencal, emocional problems or anything unusual at birth and/'or during baby's first mon::h? _______________________________________ _ DEVELOP~E!l7AHLI STORY Age walked alone __________ Rocking __________ Unusual fears _______ _ Age said 4-10 words Head bumping Temper tantrums _______ _ Age used sentences Sleeping problems Overactive __________ _ ( Right or lefc handed? (circle one) Coordinacion? ___________________ _ Age this settled ________ _ (Rev8-8J) 00412 tJO. soc:.u. HIS:ORY C1ild' s dee :or Hos pi :al Vis ion chec ked-=?:===========.=\n.h =_-e_n_?===================--,,.-ih-e-re-?- ---------- Hearing checked? ~ben? __________ ~bere? Speech problems? ---------------- Relative with speeci or heari.:lg problam.s? (Please indic.ate ages beside iLness/dise_a_s_e~)---------------------- Flu?_-:---:---,------ Convulsions? __________ _ Meningitis?______ High fever?_-,- ________ _ E:lcephali:is?..,....____ Abcessed ears? _________ _ 'H.-!eeaads leIns?ju ries? --------:\u0026lt;.i-.-~-ci.-? ____________ i._n_c__on_ pg__lC. _o_u___g___h___?_ __ _ Mumps ?\"'.'\"\".....,,-:----------C'-.....icken ?o:\u0026lt; ? ________ Ji\n, c:heria ? ___________ _ Allergies? ________________________________________ _ Ocher injuries, :_~esses, operations, hospic:alizac:icns? _______________ _ Please be speci!ic ___________________________________ _ C1ild's feeling coward school (li.:\u0026lt;es, hates, indifferent) _______________ _ Attendance (good, poor, average) _________ If poor, why? ___________ _ Parent's perception of how chi_d adjusting in school: Academically ______________ Behaviorally..,..,, ______________ _ Any c:utors? _________________ Su=er school? _______________ _ wnen?~-,-----------,---,--,-.....,..--How successful? _______________ _ l. Child does c::i.ings impulsively wnicn result in spills, break..i.ge, bruises, ec:c.? 2. Child stays with a specific acciviC-/ such as reading, playing a sic-down game or small task? J. Child becomes anxious in new situations (such as c:ri\n,s, visitors, unanticipated changes in rouc::'.ne)? 4. Child gees .l.long with other children? S. Child accepts responsibility in home (chores, etc.)? 6. Child finishes task or activity that be begins? 7. Child \"cakes tur.is\" and oc:her-.-ise plays well with ocher children? 8. The child moves his hands, feec: and/or legs excessively when sitting? 9. Child has bad !llOods? PARENTALC OHMENTS Rarely Socec:imes Often Rarely Someti!nes Often Rarely Sometimes Ofc:en Rarely Sometimes Often Rarely Somec::imes Ofc:en Rarely Sometimes Often Rarely Sometimes Often Rarely Sometimes Often Rarely Somec:imes Ofc:en Any other infor.:iation such as especially upsetting events in the family? _______ _ (Rev 8-SJ) 00413 ( RITERR.ALC ONFE1~CE (continued) 1::e:-e are several possible ouccomes of a Re:er..:-al Conference: l. No evaluation services are needed with only :ninor curricular adjusc=encs sue~ as change in teaching scracegies or alcer..a.cive ?rog:-a=.ing anc/or grouping. For e.~ample: dif:erenc level in read:'..:lg or ocher subjec: :naccer, seating assignment, parent coope:-ation ..nth home~ork, disci?li~e, attendance, etc. In this case the princi?al directs the appropriate individual co carry out the decision and also requires che indivicual co observe for follow-up for possible re-re:erral. 2. Referral to other specialists within the school such as re~edial reading teacher, VIPS volunteer, Child Study Center Consultant, Distar teacher. 3. lefer for specialized test:.ng (Speech Therapist). 4. \"-efer to Appraisal Ser,ices for comprehecsive eYaluation. If ?arents are present ac the Referral Conference they should be gi,en a copy of \"Your Rights As The Parent Of A Handicapped Child\". If a decision is :nade for referral to Appraisal Set\"'rices, parents should also be asked co sign the (AS 5) giving pe~ssion to test, and co complece a Social HisCOt\"'/ for,n. Assistance in completing chis for:n should be available if needed. If che group chooses ll3 or #4, parental oer.nission co cesc muse be obcained by using Che (AS 5). Use (AS 5) for ~er:nission co cesc. The (AS i) is now ONLY used for releasing and re~uescing psychological information. ~!ore discussion of these for.n.s is in the Additional Infor::iation sec:ion. 00414 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS INFORMED CONSENT FOR RELEASE OF RECORDS rv STUOENT -::--::------------,-\n:--,,-------.,.,.-- OATE OF BIRTH __ _ (L..ul:) tF,r,tJ 1M1001e1 10 ---------------------- GRACE SCHOOL------------------------------ 0 Authorization is hereby granted to the North Little Rock Public Schools for the release of psychological 1nformatIon to: Name of Third Pany Address ---------------------------- 0 Authorization is hereby granted to: Agency---------------------------- Address ---------------------------- for releasing medical, social and/or psychological information to: NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS Appraisal Services/ Administrative Annex Box 687 North Little Rock, AA 72115 Paref'lti\\..egat Guardian Oate 00415 l ( s:E: 3 - aEFE::ulATLO APPRAISASLE RVICES A. The ?rincioal sends the following coc:i,leced for.:is co Appraisal and Referral Se?:'-rices in one packet: AS-*, AS 2, AS 3 wich documentation, AS 5* and the Social i-iiscor\n* Doc=encac:.on This indicates the parent was notified in advance. I: che ?arenc wanes to have the conference earlier than prescribed ci~elines, chis is documented on the AS 3. Parental Per.nission (AS 5) The law states chat sixty days from the dace of parent's signature and/or the Referral Conference, the evaluation has co be completed, thus the completed referral packet~ be sent to Appraisal Services as quickly as possible. Social Hiscor, If incomplete or if parent refused to complete it, the reason is wric=en on the for:i and sent anv-.rav. A parent may be unable co complete chis form. or may not understand. Specialises such as the Child Study Center consultants, resource teachers and/or examiners can help the Principal with chis responsibility. Medical and developmental information, as well as the student's attitude coward school and his behavior ac home help in for.ring a more accurate conclusion about scudenc needs. Mentioned previously, a cover letter is available to send with the Social History for:n when sending it home for parents to complete. This letter explains the purpose and the confidential nature of the Social History foni. B. Appraisal and Referral Services reviews the referral packet for completion and stamps it. (If incomplete, the referral packet is returned co the school with accompanying note of explanation.) C. The referral packet is given to an examiner for scheduling. *(Revised 8-83) 00416 ( EVAI.U.AI!ON .A. Toe exa:minar or speecll t!lerapi..st obs er-res :.::a student. B. Toe ~er /~ecll c.baral)ist a.ssesse.s c!le student in one or =re of the followi:lg areu: ability, achievem9nt, pereepe~ou and :.anguage C. A summary of all in:for:iat~n gat!lereci p-rev:.ously f'rO'lll nco-rd.s, ce.aciler, parent: and e,!i.e for.11\u0026amp;1. testing i.s wrltun. o. Toe ~i:un report: 1.s mailed to the p-r:!nc:.\n,a.l. 00417 A. The pr:.:ci?al or second.aq counselor aoci!!e.s t~e ?arenc (AS 8) t!lac t.!le evaluacion 1.s completed and sc:iedules a con:ference. The e:tami.:ler/ speec= ::~era.pi.st: is consulted about sc:iedu.ll!:g and 1.s for'\"'-a.lly noc:.!ied when dace and t=.:.::ie ar-9 set. 1'he e::i:aminer c.!len lla.s tile oppor:uniey to prepare adeqwittly for c.!le conference and ~ing samples o:f t:ie scudenc' s test per:o=n.ce to tile conference. (~oc:.!!cation of parencs should precede the conference by fou::een (14) days.) If parencs do not respond '-Tithi.:l seven (7) days, a second ll0tice mu.st: be sent. I! parena fail to respond or indicate t:!l.at c:iey do not '-Tish to par~C?ate, ~'ie conference should sc!ll. be held 110 longer ~'ian t!l.ir~ (JO) days aicer recei\n,t of c.!le ~!::en repor-:. P.U-1:\"\\!T.U. CONS~ ~ST aE OB'!.ADED aE:FOR.E OII:AI. ?UC~ OF A !iANDI~!'!D C'alI.D. B. Persons ~ho~ be at: Eva.lu.acit:Jn/Placeinent Conference (ac lea.st 3 persons) l. Ex.ami:ler or Speech Therapist: if Speech Evaluation (person legally competent: to inter\n,ret evalu.at~n) 2. P':'\"'.-:ici\n,a.l or person responsible for having Re:ferral C-Jnierence decision carried out The parent: muse be !10ti!ied in advance but ~ ~ have to be present. C. Persons Jho aiay or a:ay not be at E.raluacion/Place::ient C.:,n:ference: l. ~'iose involved 'Jith scudent' s daily inscruction 2. chose providing special ser\"7'l.ces 3. those having addition.al input 4. parent noci!ied in advance followi.ng ti.meiines (Rev. 8-aJ l ooua L~6 . Dear PAa..::.\\'\": :\no,:?ICAHON uf EVAI.UA!:C!l?/L\nC~E.'r. / ?il.OCi\u0026lt;A.~!)ICc cs\n:\n:t:\nxc:\nDace --------------- ----------------- The evuuacions recomm.eoded for your child, _____________ _ by the referTal committee ~ve been cO'lllpleced. Therefore, we are holding a coofereoce co discuss the re.sulcs and to :axe ed1catiocu.l plans for your child. Once again, we would like for you to be there. ~e have scheduled a conference on _________________ at ___________________ _ Dace !ice in ______ ....,...,----------- Phce Please contact - by pnone ac _______________ if you have any questioiu or if you need to reschedule the conference. I aa looking forward to hearing fros you. ,\\$-8 (Rev.SJ) S1.ac:erely, ______________ , Principal _______________ , School 1. .vn,1e ~- Pink ~ Yellow 4. Green .:.or-rd1sal Service, Sot!c1a1 Eeluca111JOnf f1c11 P1Jr5ona1 Foleler Parent 00419 D. Those attenc:..::.:::5 t!le conference present the data and re.rie,.\nit. Sased on this data they ~il:: l. deter.:ii.:l.e .nether student meets the eligibility criteria 2. specify t~e handicapping condition on the AS 9 3. design an ::::::? (\n,ages l, 2, 3) 4. recommend appropriate placement At any ti..:ne in this sequence of steps, the conference can be discontinued-if e::!.gibility criteria are not ~et, if no handicapping condition e:d..sts, or if appropriate placement is dee:ied to be the regular classroom. All three steps must be in agree~e~t \"'7ith 1981 Guidelines prior to decision to recommend place=ent. ~bile the committee can over-rule an individual, it still :!.s bound by law to establish: a. eligibility criteria b. handicapping condition prior to recommendi:lg special class place:i:ent. E. Only those in actual attendance sign at the top of the AS 9 and it also must be signed at the bottom by the individual adaiinistratively responsible for services in that school. Those in disagreement -:n.t!l the placement decision should state \"disagree\" by their signat'1re and attach reasons for disagreement to the AS 9. F. An AS 9 is completed when: there has been an evaluation (new or retest) there is a change in placement there is a conference to review placement If eligibility criteria are not met, NO HA...'IDICAP?I~CGO NDITIONe xists and is written on the AS 9. Recommendation statements for the AS 9 are as follows: l. No Special Services needed 2. No Special Services needed at this time, but progress will be monitored closely J. Return to regular program of study 00420 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS EVALUATION/PROGRAMMING/PLACEMENT RECORD ?age 01 CA TE OF BIRTH ________ _ AGE ___ _ 10 --------------------------- GRACE __ _ SCHOOL _________ _ PARENT/GUARDIAN CATE OF EVALUATION ____________ _ AOCRESS ----------------------- CATE OF CONFEi'lENCE ___________ _ PHONE _______________________ _ CATE OF MAILING _____________ _ Cear Pa~n!/Guardian, In accordance w1tn our crev1ous notification an Evaluat1on/Pogramm1ng/Placement Conference was neld concerning tn1s student's !!ducatronat neeos. A summary ot aata cons1aered t:\u0026gt;y tn1s committee follows: EVALUATION CATA Vision ScrHning lntelle-ctual Acnievement Adaptive 8enav1or Social History Hearing Screening _______________ _ Communicatrve At:\u0026gt;rlity ------------------------------------------- Language Skills Receptive _________________ _ Perceptual (Auditory, Visual, Motor) -------------------------------------- Functional S~ills/Classroom Observation Otner CIAGNOSTtC IMPRESSIONS (as relate\u0026lt;l to primary handicapping condillon) R.,.1ewed t:\u0026gt;y ------------------------ 00421 I NOMI H LIT fLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS EVALUATION/PROGRAMMING/PLACEMENT RECORD Pac\ne 2 ot J STUDENT DA 7: CF 3IRTH ______________ _ SCHOOL CONF::iENCc ADDITIONAL IMPRESSIONS (Complete tl1Is ~ 11 suspec:ed pnmary handicacp1ng condItIon ,s specific teaming d1sab1!1ty ) A severe d1screoancy between acnIevement and 1ntetlectuat abliity is found In one or more of the tollow1ng areas: (Check all tnat acplyJ ____ Oral ocressI0n ---- 'Nntten expression ---- L1s1en1ng comprehension ____ Basic reading skills ____ Reading comprenensI0n ____ Mathematical calculauon ____ MatnamatIcaJ reasoning And this discreoancy betw\"n acnIavement and intellectual ability Is NOT pnmar1ty tne result of ---- Visual. heanng or motor handicap ____ ~1v1ronmental. cultural or economic disadvantage ____ Mental re1arda1Ion ____ Emotional dIs1urcance lnaoproonate 1nstruc:Ional programs. lack of readiness. lack of mouvatIon, delayed maturation or factor external 10 1111s1t uoent. PRIMARY HANDICAPPING CONDITION Student eligibility tor s0ecIal education Is certified by tne 11sta0I1snment ot this pnm.iry 11and1ca0pIng condItIon by 1ne Evalua110n1Programm1ng/Placement Comm1tt\". (Evalua1ton/Programm1ng1Placement Committee Chairman) This statement of pnmary nand1capcIng condition is a rec:iuirement of Act 102 of 197:l as amended. and PuOlic Law 9'-1,2, 1f a student 1s to rece,-e special educational services. This Is note 1taternent of the studenrs general alllllty but onIy InvoIves 1ne narrow area ot public education. Ttw, statement will be used only tor determIna110n of elig1b1lity tor special education services. Th1S primary nanoIca0pIng condItIon will no longer aoo to 1nIs student wnen special service delivery Is terminated. DESCRIPTION OF EDUCATIONAL DEFICIT PROGRAMMING RECOMMENDATIONS PROGRAMMING/PLACEMENT CONFERENCE DECISION ---- Special education services appropriate ____ Special education services not appropnate at tn1s time Reviewed by------------------------ 00422 ~OR!~ L-rnE ROCKS CEOOLor snrcr Special Services Depart~ent Persons/Agencies who Assist Parents In the Referral/Evaluation/Progran:ming/ Place~ent Process l. Advocacy Services 2. Arkansas Department of Education Special Education Section 3. Arkansas Coalition For the Handicapped (371-2171) (371-2161) (376-3420) 00423 I Special Services Depa=nient Agencies and Schools that may assist in Independent Evaluations Ar child, Inc. 5310 Wast 10th St. Little Rock, AR 72204 Ph. 666-2484 Ark\u0026amp;naas Children' Hospital 804 Wolfe Street (Also) Children's Developmental Cen:e Attn. Glen Lowitz, Ph. D. Little Rock, AR 72202 Ph. 370-1100 Arkansas School for the Blind 2600 West Markham, P. O. Box 668 Little Rock,_ AR 72203 Arkansas School for the Deaf Ark. Children's Hospital 804 Wolfe Street Little Rock, AR 72202 2400 West Mar~h\u0026amp;m, P. O. Box 3811 Little Rock, AR 72203 ATTN: Jerri Finch 371-2211 A:k~~s~~ 5?~~:~ a~c ~ea:i~g Cli~i: ATTN: Fred BE:ggs 4E:s ~E:s: ~a=~~Ae t~::lc- K~cl.., A.~\n::o\n00424 !he Br idg eway P. 0. Box 8500 Little \u0026amp;ock, AR 72215 Child Study Center 4301 West Markha.m Little Rock, AR 72205 (2) The Bridgeway 21 Bridgevay Road No. Little Rock, AR 72118 Debbie Pipkin 771-1500 Ph. 661-5800 00425 Eascer Seal Society of Arkansas 2801 Lee Avenue, P. O. Box 5148 Lic:le Rock, AR 72225 Ph. 663-8331 Eaatgate Clin~c #60 !aatgate Terrace No. Little Rock, AR 72114 Economic Opportunity Agency Special Day Cencer #l Oakland Place Little Rock., AR 72206 Ph. Elizabeth Mitchell Children's Center 6601 West 12th St. 753-8983 Little Rock, AR Ph. 666-8686 Family Service Agency of Central Arkansas 2700 ~o. Willo11 No. Liccle Rock, AR 72115 Ph. 758-1516 00426 Fullerton Adolescent Center 4313 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock Public Schools Special Educatiou Dept. 100 So. Arc~ (A.uuex) Little Rock, AR 72201 Memorial Hospital _1900 West Pershing Blvd. ( 4) Ph. 661-4500 Ph. 370-1654 North Little Rock, AR 72114-1899 MR-DDS Suite 400, Waldon luilding 7th aud Main Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Nort~ Hills Exceptional School 207 Rain'oo\u0026lt;J Lane SherJooci, AR i:116 Ph. 835-i3J3 00427 ( 5) North Pulaski Social Services P. 0. Box 5791 Nor:~ Little Rock, AR 72119 Pat~finders, Inc. 310 John Rardin Drive P. 0. Box 338 Jacksonville, AR 72076 Ph. 372-2755 Ph. 982-0528 Pulaski County Special School District Auxiliarv Services Building 1500 Dixon aoad, P. 0. Box 6409 Little Rock, AR 72216 Sp. !d. records Ph. 490-2068 ATTN: Mary Moon Stepping Stone, Inc. 3500 South University Little Rock, AR 72204 Ph. 562-1809 00428 ( 6) United Cerebral Palsy of Central Arkansas, !nc. 5917 Ir S::r-ae-r---- L i t :: 1 e Ro. c k , AR 7 2 2 0 5 P h . 6 6 6 - 9 4 7 8 University of Arkansas at Li::::le Rock 33rd and University Little Rock, AR. 72204 You::h Rome, Inc. 143 Crestviev No. Little R.ock, AR 72116 Ph. 753-2939 (Speech Clinic ATT~: Dr. Rope Keizer Ph. 569-3155) Youth Home, Inc. 924 Marshall Li:tle R.ock, AR 72202 Ph. 376-9231 00429 Technical Assistance on Alternative PracticesR elatedto the Problemo f  the Overrepresentationf B lack and Minority Students in Classesfo rt he Educable Mentally Retarded U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION  CANTALICIAN FOUNDATIONI,N C. I/al BUFFALO, NY \\WI 00430 INTRODUCTION This pamphlet, ~echnical Assistance on Alternative Practices Related to the Problem o( the Overrepresentation of Black and Other ~inority Students in Classes for the Educable Mentally Retarded\", has been commissioned by the Office for Civil Rights, U. S. Department of Education, to provide technical assistance to state and local education agencies. The puri\n,ose o{ this project is to identify and disseminate lcnowledge o{ alternative educational practices which show promise o{ contributing to a reduction of this overrepresentation. Our selections derive from a model which differs significantly from the traditional testing paradigm. We propose that educational practice, particularly referral and assessment practices, be predicated on a functional relationship to the instructional process. The practices we have selected are characteristically part of a larger design which recognizes the limitations of the traditional testing paradigm by shifting emphasis to instructional interventions which have been successfully applied to students expe~iencing educational difficulty or iailure. Given this emphasis, the selection of specific testing devices would perpetuate the traditional testing paradigm and possibly obstruct the shift of attention we pra\n,ose. When assessment procedures are used they must, of course, be valid and non-biased. Moreover, given these criteria the use of appropriate testing instruments should be left to the discretion o{ state and local education agencies. The majority of practices we have chosen are alternative instructional programs which can be used in the regular classroom. Our criteria are based on a fundamental concern. Do these programs show evidence of improving achievement rates of students experiencing learning problems and consequently enable local education agencies to retain these students in the regular classroom? Improving the educational outcomes of these students is, in our opinion, the most promising approach for reducing minority overrepresentation in classes for the educable mentally retarded. ~~kew=- 1Sister Raphael Marie, CSSF President, Cantalician Foundation, Inc. 00431 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This pamphlet is the result of a cooperative eifort by many indivicuals. The Cantalician Foundation gratefully acknowle\u0026lt;lges the direction and support provided by Office for Civil Rights' staff members, Edmund Drake, Project Officer, and L. Lawrence Riccio, Psychologist. Project Consultants Robert Algozzine, James Ysseldyke, Jane Mercer and Johnnie Mayo, offere\u0026lt;l valuable insight and perspective. John Weaver, Rose Adkisson, John Taylor, Doug Carnine, Russ Gersten, Raymond Beck, Denise Conrad, Ethna Reid, :Ylartha Knight and Margaret Wang cont:-ibuted generously to our understanding of individual programs. James \"vtarillo served as Project Director and Daniel Mombrea as De?uty Director. Richard Towne served as Senior Analyst/T,ainer and Lawrence Maheady as Associate Analyst/Trainer. Sharon Lansing, Management Instruction Resources, :\n,rovided tech nica.l support. The Cantalician Foundation is especially appreciative of the dedication and assistance of Lucille Panek and Laura Steinbom. Linda Cisternino and Theresa Drennan served as Management Instruction Resources Assistants. Additionally, we would like to thank Sister Mary Patricia Tomasik of the Cantalician Center for Learning for her assistance. 00432 TABLE OP CONTENTS INTRODUCTORMYA TERIALS ALTERNATIVE INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES Direct Instruction with OISTAR Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction Precision Teaching Peer Tutoring .-\\captive Learning Environment '.'ltodei (Redefinition of Roles) Computer Assisted Instruction ALTERNATIVE REFERRAL PRACTICES Pupil Appraisal Assessment Program Rapid Exam for Early Referral and Classroom Learning Screening ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT PRACTICES Reclassification and Declassification Interactive Model for Professional Action and Change for Teachers FOOTMO'l'ES BIBLIOGRAPHY CONT ACT PBRSONS 00433 1 9 10 13 16 20 23 26 29 30 35 39 40 46 51 53 56 DfTRODUCTORY MATERIALS There are more, often many more, minority students in special education programs for educable men tally retarded (E :11R ) students than would be expected if predict ions were based solely on the proportion of minority students in the community. This is called disproportion or overrepresentation. It is neither a new nor an isolated phenomenon and it is especially true for black children.l For example, the 1980 Office !or Civil Rights (OCR) biannual nationwide survey of students revealed that while 16 percent of all elementary and secondary students in this country are black, 39 percent of the students in classes for EMR students are black. The proportions vary Crom place to place but the overall pattem is clear.2 What is not so clear is what causes the situation. ts it our students, our culture, our history, the way our schools are organized? Is it prejudice and discrimination? ls it technically inadequate tests? And just as there is disagreement about the cause, there is also disagreement about the remedy. Do we eliminate the category \"educable mental retardation?\" Do we eliminate intelligence testing? If we eliminate the statistical disproportion wi 11 we solve the problem? While disagreements continue, policies are made, programs are set in motion and children go to school. What should be done? What needs to be done? To help answer such questions, understand minority overrepresentation better and formulate sound policies to protect minority school children against discriminat\"on, the Office for Civil Rights, within the Department of Education, sought guidance from the National Research Council of the National Academy o( Sciences. In 1979, the Council established the Panel on Selection and Placement of Students in Programs for the Mentally Retarded and charged it with a twofold mission: (1) to determine the factors that account for disproportionate representation of minority students and males in special education programs, especially programs for mentally retarded students and (2) to identify placement criteria or practices that do not affect minority students and males disproportionately. The Panel recommended \" .. .six principles o( responsibility that must be adhered to in order to ensure valid re(en-al, assessment, and placement and high quality programs of instruction.\" (The six principles are reproduced on page 5.) The six principles, the Panel felt . are consistent with current law and educational theory, (but] to a large extent they are not followed in practice, nor do they underlie current systems of assessment, classification, and instruction. Faithful adherence to these principles would have far-reaching efCects on the organization of both regular education and special education system. This project i.s based on and draws Crom the Panel's work. The Panel provided perspective and background\nit made recommendations and referred to a number of possibly helpful practices. We have taken the next step by searching the country !or state education departments and school districts which are successfully applying or have successfully applied the principles recommended by the Panel. 1 00434 The U. S. De?artment of Education defines eleven categories of handicapped children. The focus o( this research was on individuals whose primary handicap !alls within the category o( mentally retarded. However, this project was not designed to include all students placed in this category. Our targeted pC9ulation was mildly mentally retarded or educable mentally retarded. We have searched especially !or successful alternative instructional practices within the regular program for students who are experiencing academic failure. We have also searched for referral practices and for alternative evaluation and assessment practices that have been used to guard against the misclassification of minority children.' We did not search for \"a grand solution\" because we do not believe there is one. Instead we have identified a number of programs, particularly alternative educational practices, that are helping a great variety of students learn in regular claS'!lroom settings. There are c!asses where special education students study with regular education students and you would never be able to pick them out. There are classes where the teacher will point to a student and tell you that were it not for the suceessful alternative practice, that student would have been referred to special education. Look at the data\nbetter still look at the programs in C9eration. There are many schools doing a wonderful job teaching students who too often would be assigned to special classes. Instead we find these students succeeding in regular classrooms. The practices we have located are described here as case studies. Enough detail is included to provide basic knowledge of how the practices work, of the resources needed to implement them, and of their applicability, limitations, and effects to date. References and additional resources are provided. Readers of the case studies will become more familiar with suceessful regular education alternatives !or students experiencing academic failure and with more valid referral and assessment techniques and procedures !or assigning children to classes for the educable mentally retarded (E:'rfR) or other mildly handicapped students. Readers can compare the case studies to their own situation and should they have questions or need additional information, pursue their interests through the resources and references provided. Readers may adC9t or adapt these or similar practices in their own schools. When this happens, when more schools use successful regular class altematives to special education placement and valid referral and assessment procedures for assigning students to special classes, we believe the number o( black and other minority students in claS!es for the educable mentally retarded will be reduced and an increasing number of all students will be apprC9riately and successfully educated in the regular classroom's less restrictive environment. In the most general sense, education for all children will have been improved. But a few cautions are in order. 1. We are dealing, here with complex, long-standing problems that are not amenable to a \"quick Cix.\" There are no overnight solutions in the descriptions which follow, and there are no shortcuts. These practices can help, but by themselves they will not solve the ongoing challenge of helping our schools respond better to existing needs. 2. Because the practices have been successfully implemented in one site does not mean they will necessarily work in another, or that the only way they will worlc is to reproduce exactly what has already been done. These practices are p053ibilities that need to be studied and discus-sed within the context of particular school districts. 2 00435 3. We have not, given the scope of this topic, been able to t,eat it ex aus :ive!y or comprehensively. We are satisfied, after an extensive research effort, that the educational practices selected are consistent 'Nith the model reforms we propose and have generated sufficient evicence of e ff ecti veness to .,..a.r ~a nt inclusion. We do not wish to infer that other worthy programs do not exist or discourage individuals in their efforts to develop, identify and/or disseminate knowledge of such programs. Foundations of the Reoort This report has two related foundations. The fir-st is the Office (ex Civil Rights' charge to protect school children from discrimination, especially as defined by Title Vl of the Civil Rights Act o! 1964, Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Public Law 94-142, Education !or All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, as it is related to Section 504. The second is the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences' Pane! on Selection and Placement of Students in Programs for the :vtentally Retarded which were reported in Placing Children in Soecial Ecuc\u0026amp;tion: A Strategy for Eouitv. An overview of e!lch foundatton 1s presented below. Today, ecucators are very concerned with how litigation and legislation affect their programs. The Fourteenth Amendment of the t.:nited States Constitution, which guaranteed the equal protection of all citizens under the law, was the foundation of much early litigation. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, proscribed discrimination in federally funded programs and served as a model for other remedial legislation that followed. Title VI applications occurred primarily in the Cield of public education and legal action and precedent derived from those applications reflect that focus. :vtore recently, Section 504 became important because it mandated that the handicapped could not be discriminated against. The regulations for Section 504 and Public Law 94-142 established requirements central to this report. Two concerns requiring special attention are protection in evaluation and least restrictive environment. Protection in Evaluation The regulations !or Section 504 and Public Law 94-142 include requirements designed to prevent the misclassification oC students and to identify their educational needs. Requirements seek to ensure that: (1) children suspected o! handicaps receive an individual evaluation\n(2) a child's placement decision and educational plan are based on an overall educational assessment, not on the results of a single educational test: (3) tests and other assessment procedures are not racially and culturally discriminatory: and (4) all evaluation materials must be validated (or the purpose for which they are being used. The regulations clearly call !or the development oC alternatives to the traditional assessment and evaluation model, and they deemphasize the use o! a single criterion, such as the resulb oC an intelligence test, in making placement decisions. The regulations require that te,b and other assessment procedures be valid and that they not be biased. Much wcxk has been done to en.sure such conditions but to date with little success. We have chosen lmtead to empha,ize alternative Instruction.al practices and referral systems. Doing thi3, we believe, will focus attention on practices that in the long run will more likely have a positive impact on the d~proportion ot minority students in classes tor the educable mentally retarded by improving the educational outcomes for these studenb. :l 00436 Least Restrictive Environment Regulations for both Section 504 and Public Law 94-142 require that to the extent possible, handicapped children are to be educated in the regular education environment. Section 504 directs that handicapped children be educated in the regular class environment unless it can be demonstrated that they cannot achieve satisfactorily in this environment, even with the use of supplementary aids and services. Public Law 94-142 parallels Section S04's requirement by allowing the removal of handicapped children from the regular education environment only when the nature or severity of the child's handicap or behavior is such that education in regular classes even with supplementary aids and services, cannot be achieved satisfactorily. These provisions apply to students who have already been labeled as handicapped and have resulted in the enormous growth of \"mainstreaming\" prog?\"ams. Within the context of this report, as recommended by the Panel on Selection and Placement of Students in Programs for the Mentally Retarded, the lea.st restrictive environment principle is equally appropriate for children not yet labeled as handicapped. This suggests that before a child is recommended for special education placement, teachers and administrators must implement alternative instructional strategies and demonstrate that such strategies did not help the child learn. Only then is it legitimate to assess the child for placement. Panel on Selection and Placement oC Students in Programs for the Mentally Retarded The Panel on Selection and Placement of Students in Programs for the Mentally Retarded was formed to help the OCR (1) enhance its understanding of minority disproportion in special education and (2) formulate sound policies to protect minority children against possible discrimination associated with special class placement. ln pursuit o( these tasks, the Panel broadened its concern from specific actions or procedures that eliminate or reduce minority overrepresentation to the underlying conditions that make overrepresentation a problem. The Panel concluded: Two key issues are at the heart oC the debate about disproportion. First, disproportion is a problem when children are invalidly assessed for placement in programs for the educable mentally retarded children. Second, disproportion is a problem when children receive low quality instruction. This problem may arise in the regular classroom, where opportunities (or academic success may be restricted, or in the special education classroom, where a child's educational progress may falter due to lowered or inappropriate expectations and iOals.5 Following a period o( study and debate, the Panel proposed six \"principles of responsibility\u0026lt;' to guide school districts in their efforts to validly assess educational needs and provide \"appropriate, high-quality services.\" The recommendations were consistent with existing laws and regulations and were already being practiced by some school districts. The section of the report that details the Panel's recommendations is reproduced below: 4 00437 --,~ -~_,.-. t\n. .,\n,. -1~--- ' ~ Each of the six principles listed below aslcs par :icipan ts in the placement and educational proces-s to demonst:ate that an individual child needs special ecucation services. Each also stipulates that improved educational outcomes should be the final criterion on which to judge all decisions. 1. It is the responsibility of teachers in the regular classroom to engage in multiple educational interventions and to note the effects of such interventions on a child experiencing academic failure before refen'ing the child !or special education assessment. It is the responsibility of school boards and administrators to ensure that needed alternative instructional resources are available. 2. It is the responsibility of assessment specialists to demonstrate that the measures employed validly asse~ the functional needs of the individual child for which there are potentially effective interventions. 3. It is the responsibility of the placement team that labels and places a child in a special program to demonstr'ite that any differential label used is related to a distinctive prescription for educational practices and that these practices are likely to lead to improved outcomes not achievable in the regular classroom. 4. It is the responsibility of the special education and evaluation staff to demonstrate systematically that highquality, ectective special instruction is being provided and that the goals of the special education program could not be achieved as effectively within the regular classroom. 5. It is the responsibility of the special education staff to demonstrate, on at least an annual basis, that a child should remain in the special education class. A child should be retained in the special education class only after it has been demonstrated that he or she cannot meet specified educational objectives and that all efforts have been made to achieve these objectives. 6. It is the responsibility of administrators at the district, state, and national levels to monitor on a regular basis the pattern o! special education placements, the rates !or particular groups of children or particular schools and districts, and the types of instructional services offered to atCirm that appropriate procedures are being followed or to redress inequities found in the system.6 The Panel discussed each of the recommendations, indicated implications !or implementation, and suggested research that needs to be done. The proposal, are not radical: Indeed, nothing new Is recommended, yet individually and collectively, should the recommendations be implemented, the school's present way oC operating would be greatly altered. For example, the Panel points out that recommendation one, 5 00438 . shifts attention from presume\u0026lt;! deficiencies in the child to possible contributor, in the child's environment. The child who has been unable to learn under certain conditions of instruction in the regular program should not be judged as unable to learn under any conditions of regular instruction until a variety of such strategies has been attempted and demonstrated to be unsuccessful. 7 The Panel also stated two broader goals it considered to be \"o( special significance.\" First, the current categorization system, which includes a class of children labeled EMR, would gradually evolve into a system that emphasizes the functional educational needs o( children e:q,eriencing learning dif(iculties. Second, the ~e of global IQ scores would be deemphasized in favor o! techniques that link assessment more directly to the provision of educational services.8 While the Panel provides the background and conceptual framework and its recommendations estaolish a direction, state education departments and school districts must translate the Panel's work into concrete programs and practices. This report is designed to help districts do that by describing existing practices that are in accord with the Panel's recommended principles. The examples provided here may not work everywhere but the practices that are described have already worked in the programs identiCied and show promise of being adaptable elsewhere. Should these and other practices in accord with the recommended principles be implemented on a broad scale, it would appear that our schools' referral, assessment, and special education placement practices would be improved, and more students would receive an appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. We believe the adaptation of these practices on a broad scale would contribute greatly to reducing the overrepresentation of minority children in classes for the educable mentally retarded. 6 00439 Procedure Sates R:gulations which implement Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act of 197 3 require that, to the extent possible, handicapped children be educated in the regular education environment with non-handicapped children. The Panel on Selection and Placement of Students in Programs for the Mentally Retarced suggests that this princ1\n,al applies e~ually well to children not yet labeled as handicapped and recommends that teachers and administrators exhaust all available educational strategies in the regular classroom before referring a child who is experiencing academic and/or behavio~al problems for special education assessment and possible placement. Piis project, therefore, has searched for alternative instructional practices that can be !.!Sed within the regular classroom. While our concern is the overrepresentation of minority children in special education classes for E:'ttR students, we have not searched for exemplary programs specifically designed for DIR students or specifically demonst:ated as effective with E.\\1 R students. Instead our concern has been to locate and describe programs that are effective with students experiencing academic learning problems but who have not yet been referred and labeled. We believe that the programs and prac:1ces described here would be effective with E.\\1R students, and, indeed, several programs (Peer Tutoring, Direct Instruction, l:'Y!PACT, and ECRI) have already demons t:at ed such effectiveness, and that is why special education programs are not the main focus of this project. Instead, this report emphasizes alternative regular education practices that will enable local education agencies (LEAsl to retain students currently being placed in E.\\1 R class es. Since this project is concerned with the overrepresentation of minority children in classes for E~R students, it has searched for practices and programs where minority students have been involved and data can point to ef!ects !or minority populations. Doing this has created two difficulties. First, just because this project sought minority data, it should not be inferred that the practices described in this report work only with minority students, and second, searching for practices that have minority related data should not be interpreted to mean that for a practice to be effective with minority students, it must h3ve been developed for a minority population. We highlight these points to protect against the mistaken inference that there are uniquely minority and non-minor-icy interventions. (This is similar to the history of special education programming, which developed under the assumption that there are distinctly different interventions for various mildly handicapped categories like E:'t1R and learning disabled. Cun-ent evidence disputes this. There appear to be no effective interventions unique to various categories, and there is evidence that a set of method\nis effective across the major mildly handicapped categories.) As this seems to be true for special education programming, it also seems true for the education of minority an non-minority students. Instead, there appears to be a set of direct instruction treatments that may benefit all children, minority and non-minority alike. 7 00440 Referral Rate Data Does eCCective instruction result in fewer minority students being referred for special education placement in programs for the educable mentally retarded? Do various instructional programs demonstrate different effects on minority referral rates? Most places, it appears, have not kept data to examine such trends. School districts and programs do keep achievement data, and in a number of programs these data point to very positive achievement gains a.s.,ociated with various interventions. Since such data support the reason for instituting the intervention in the first place, there has been little or no need to collect referral rate data. The absence of such data weakens the case for the approach taken here, and for recommending given practice5 as an effective means for reducing 1isproportion. But it is not a fatal weakness. Achievement gains have b~n rigorous., documented, and until referral rate research is undertaken it is sufficient to agree \"~t when students are achieving academically and being successful learnel'S, their t :-!hers are not as likely to feel the need for help or to ref er them for special class\n:,:ac ement. 8 00441 I AL TERM A TIYE IMSTRUCT'IONAL PRACTICF.3 In keeping with the emphasis of the project proposal and the recommendations o( the Panel on Selection and Placement o( Students in Pro rams for the :r1entall Retarded. we have identi 1ed six separate practices which appear to be et ect1ve in improving the academic performance o( children who are at rislc (or re(erral Cor special education services. For the most part, these practices are applicable to regular classroom settings. In addition, each type o( practice has been used with success in a variety o( settings and with a diversity o( minority populations. The rationale behind emphasizing alternative instructional practices is that i( they can be implemented success(ully, and the child makes adequate progress, then referral for special services may not be necessary. In addition, i( these practices are described in sufficient detail, they can be replicated for special education students being returned to regular classes as part o( a local education agency's declassification program. The six practices identified are: Direct Instruction With OISTA R Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction Precision Teaching Peer Tutoring Adaptive Learning Environment Model Computer Assisted Instruction 9 00442 TYPE OF PRACTICE Alternative Instructional MAME OF PROGRAM Direct Instruction With DISTAR DESCRIPTION OP PROGRAM For many yea.rs now, educational researchers have tried to identify specific educational variables that improve the academic performance of children that traditionally experience academic difficulty. These students typically include poor Black, Hispanic, American Indian. and non-minority students. Initially, researchers were concerned almost exclusively with examining specific teacher characteristics and/or variables such as war:nth, ent'lusiasm, and empathy to determine if and how they were related to academic growth in basic skill areas. Unfortunately, this line of investigation did not prove fruitful.9 ~ore recently, researchers have shifted their attention to speciCic student variables such as a student's \"opportunity to learn\" content and the extent of student involvement with the content. Collectively, these two variables have come to be known as academic engaged time (AET). Numerous investigations of AET have repeatedly revealed the same finding\nLe., increases in academic engaged time are significantly correlated with improved test performance on criterion measures. Essentially, this means that students who spend more time directly engaged in reading, math or spelling tasks will outperform peers who spend less time engaged in similar activities. The implications of these findings for practitioners are in no way startling. They merely suggest that if teachers want their low achieving students to improve their performance in basic skills, then they must get them to spend significantly more time performing the desired behavior, e.g., reading, computing, etc. Furthermore, if their ultimate goal is to help these students \"catch up\" with their peers, then they must get the students to cover more material in a shorter period of time. Such a task is much more easily said than done. One system that offers a plausible solution is Direct Instruction. The term \"Direct Instruction\", is used to refer to activities and settings designed to systematically move students through a seQuenced set of academic materials (i.e. reading and math). More specifically, Direct Instruction re?ersto a~~ teaching behaviors focused on academic tasks having clearly soecified goals\ntime allocated for 1nstruct1on is sufficient and continuous\ncontent coverage is extensive\nstudent responding is raoid and at a high frequency\nand feedback to the student is immediate and academically oriented.llr'Tn Direct Instruction programs, the teacher controls instructional goals, selects material appropriate !or students' ability levels, and ~ the instructional episodes. Perhaps the most widely-known Direct Instruction program is DISTAR. DISTAR programs in language, reading and ma th are commercially available through Science Research Associates, Inc. In addition to the program characteristics noted above, D[ST AR incorporates the following features: (a) emphasis on small group instruction as opposed to students working independently, (b) systematic correction procedures, (c) principles for cumulative review of previously learned material, and (d) Insistence on mastery of each step in the learning process. 10 00443 In a typical DCSTA R program, one will iind a mtnimum ot t:1ree instructional groups. Detailed Teacher Preparation Books provide classroom instructors ,11ith specific information on how a lesson must be taught. This in!or11ation is written in the form of a script and provides an easy-to-follow format. }!ore importantly, the content of DIST AR materials has been carefully scrutinized to ensure that: ( l) concepts are clearly presented, (2) tasks are developmentally sequenced, (3) errors are systematically corrected, and (4) requisite skills are learned to mastery. DIST AR instruction usually takes place in small groups (8-10 students), moves at a rapid presentation pace, and frequently involves choral responding. DIST AR lessons can be easily incorporated into a regular classroom to take the place of traditional reading and/or math groups. EVIDEMCE OP EFFECTIVEMESS Perhaps the \"true\" test of any alternative educational practice is its ability to improve the academic performance o{ students who traditionally experience problems in acquiring basic skills. Throughout the late 1960's and early l970's, the United States Office of Education (USOE) funded a massive research study designed to evaluate the eUectiveness of a variety o{ instructional approaches in improving the achievement scores of low income children. Results from this Follow Through Project indicated that the Direct Inst:-uction Model (DIST A !\\l was substantially more successful in raising achievement levels than any o{ the other programs studied. Further11ore, the D!ST .\\ R system was much more successful in raising student self-esteem, self-confidence, and sense of responsibility. Additional support for DIST AR prognms can be found in the special education literature. A recent review by Gersten concluded that a large number of experimental studies have shown that, \"Direct Instruction reading and language programs consistently produce higher academic gains than traditional approaches in both mainstreamed and selC-contained classes, and across a range of handicapping conditions.\" Empirical evidence supports the eUectiveness of DISTAR programs. In Mount Vernon, New York, administrators report that there has been a steady decline in the number of students assessed below minimal competency. Houston Independent School District reported significant improvements on Iowa Test of Basic Skills scores following DIST AR instruction. It is particularly noteworthy that the average achievement levels oC their minority children following three years of DIST AR, were slightly above national norms. In North Highlands, California, di.strict oWcials reported that before using DlSTAR programs, 23 percent o{ their first it'aders were below the national median in reading. However, aCter only two years in DIST AR, the percentage of students scoring below the median, Cell to 4.3 percent. Additional support for DISTAR came on recent field site visits. In San Diego Unified School Di.strict, for example, a primary objective wa.s set that by the end of grade two, student, with continuous participation in DISTAR programs since entering lcindergarten would. on the average, be performing at or above the national average. A recent report notes that at it'ade two the objective was attained in all subject areas, i.e., reading, math, and language. In addition to improving basic academic performance, district personnel report that students in DISTAR classrooms are referred and placed in special education proit'ams at approximately one-half the rate o( those in traditional classrooms. 11 00444 A.PPIJCABILITYT O LOCAL EDUCA TIOM AGEMCIES As noted earlier, DISTAR can be easily integrated into existing regular and/or special education programs. However, inservice training is crucial to its effective implementation. Such training provides users with appropriate strategies for ~ daily lessons. It is a skill that ty\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_958","title":"North Little Rock School District, 2001-2002 School Profile","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":["2001/2002"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School attendance","School employees","School enrollment","School improvement programs","Student activities","Students"],"dcterms_title":["North Little Rock School District, 2001-2002 School Profile"],"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/958"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["14 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n  SCHOOL PROFILE Table of Contents * Staff Staff Changes  Staff Attendance (Certified)  Staff Attendance (Classified)  School Enrollment Elementary Secondary Special Programs Special Education Four Year Comparison  Class Enrollment (Elementary)  Course Enrollment (Secondary) Extended Educational Programs School/District lntitiated Honors and Awards Committee/Parental Involvement Extracurricular Activities Tryout Information  Student Attendance (After Nine Weeks) Students Retained Subject Area Courses Failed (Secondary) Graduation Information Dropout Statistics (Previous Semester) Achievement/Assessment Data Staff Development Update (Certified) Staff Development Update (Classified)  Discipline Information (After Nine Weeks) Comprehensive Outcome Evaluation (COE) Survey Results Annual School Improvement Plan *INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED BY COMPUTER SERVICES Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  SCHOOL: NORTHH EIGHTSE LEMENTARY  STAFF  2001-2002 FULL TIME PART TIME POSITION WHITE BLACK OTHER - WHITE BLACK OTHER - M F M F M F TOTAL M F M F M F TOTAL ADMINISTRATORS 1 1 2 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 1 20 4 1 26 SPEC EDUC TEACHERS 1 1 2 MEDIA SPECIALISTS 1 1 G /T FACILITATORS 1 1 1 1 SPEECH THERAPIST 1 1 COUNSELORS 1 1 1 1 READING RECOVERY 1 1 1 1 H.O.T.S. !TOTAL CERTIFIED 11 26! TEACHER AIDES 3 3 CLERICAL STAFF 1 1 2 SOCIAL WORKERS CUSTODIANS 1 2 3 CAFETERIA WORKERS 2 3 5 COMPENSATORY AIDES 1 1 LUNCH AIDES ? 1 1 1 5 CROSSING GUARDS 1 1 2 INTERVENTION AIDE 1 1 PARENT COORDINATOR !TOTAL CLASSIFIED B! Page 1 SCHOOL: NORTHH EIGHTSE LEMENTARY STAFF 2001-2002 (CHANGES AFTER OCTOBER) FULL TIME PART TIME POSITION WHITE BLACK OTHER ~ WHITE BLACK OTHER ~ M F M F M F TOTAL M F M F M F TOTAL ADMINISTRATORS CLASSROOM TEACHERS SPEC EDUC TEACHERS MEDIA SPECIALISTS GIT FACILITATORS SPEECH THERAPIST COUNSELORS !TOTAL CERTIFIED TEACHER AIDES CLERICAL STAFF SOCIAL WORKERS CUSTODIANS CAFETERIA WORKERS COMPENSATORY AIDES LUNCH AIDES CROSSING GUARDS !TOTAL CLASSIFIED Page 2    CERTIFIED STAFF ABSENCES (ATTACH A COPY OF COMPUTER SERVICES GENERATED DATA) Page 3 Ref: ABS0l0 Date: 10/15/01 Time: 15:41:45 Certified Staff Absences PAGE Race / Gender Tot-Emp Black - Female Black - Male White - Female 5 25 White - Male 1 Other - Female Other - Male 3 by Race and Sex School 41 NORTH HEIGHTS ELEM K-6 4.0 49.5 4.5 7-8 9-10 3 11-12 Other    CLASSIFIED STAFF ABSENCES (ATTACH A COPY OF COMPUTER SERVICES GENERATED DATA) Page 4 - Ref: ABS0l0 Date: 10/15/01 Time: 15:41:45 Race I Gender Black - Female Black - Male White - Female White - Male Other - Female Other - Male Classified Staff Absences PAGE 4 by Race and Sex School 41 NORTH HEIGHTS ELEM Tot-Emp K-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 Other 10 33.0 5 17.0 8 8.5 2 2.0  SCHOOLN: ORTHH EIGHTSE LEMENTARY ELEMENT ARY 2001-2002 SCHOOLE NROLLMENT GRADE WHITE TOTAL BLACK TOTAL OTHER TOTAL LEVEL M F WHITE M F BLACK M F OTHER TOTAL # 0 0 0 0 PRE-K % # 12 6 18 17 18 35 10 7 17 70 KINDERGARTEN % 17% 9% 26% 24% 26% 50% 14% 10% 24% # 6 10 16 26 24 50 6 7 13 79 FIRST % 8% 13% 20% 33% 30% 63% 8% 9% 16% # 16 11 27 19 18 37 12 7 19 83 SECOND % 19% 13% 33% 23% 22% 45% 14% 8% 23% # 10 12 22 18 31 49 7 5 12 83 THIRD % 12% 14% 27% 22% 37% 59% 8% 6% 14% # 13 18 31 28 25 53 6 2 9 93 FOURTH % 14% 19% 33% 30% 27% 57% 8% 2% 10% # 1n 1q 29 ?n in 50 8 6 14 93 FIFTH % 22% 10% 31% 22% 32% 54% 9% 6% 15% TOTAL # 55 60 125 111 128 239 I 39 28 67 421. GRADES1 - 5 % 13.06% 14.25% 29.69% 26.37% 30.40%, 56. 77%,! 9.26% 1 6 .65% . 15.91 Page 5 SCH OOL: NORTHH EIGHTSE LEMENTARYSECONDARYS CHOOL E NROLLMENT 2001-2002 GRADE WHITE TOTAL BLACK TOTAL 0 TH ER TOTAL L E V E L M F WHITE M F BLACK M F OTHER  # SIX % # SEVEN % # EIGHT % TOTAL # ENROLLMENT % G RADE I WHITE TOTAL BLACK TOTAL 0 THE R TOTAL ~ L E V E L M F WHITE M F BLACK M F OTHER TOTAL # NINE % # TEN % # ELEVEN % # TWELVE % TOTAL # ENROLLMENT % Page 6   TOTAL ENROLLMENT IN SPECIAL PROGRAMS SCHOOL: NORTHH EIGHTSE LEMENTARY WHITE PROGRAMS M # 11 % 37% # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % F 3 10% TOTAL WHITE 14 47% BLACK M F 4 fl 13% 27% TOTAL BLACK 1? 40% OTHER M 1 3, F ln'l: TOTAL OTHER 4 11'!:  2001-2002 TOTAL Page 7   SPECIAL EDUCATION SCHOOL: NORTHH EIGHTSE LEMENTARY PLACEMENT WHITE TOTAL BLACK M F WHITE M F RESOURCE ROOM # 1 1 2 3 PLACEMENT M.R. % 17% 17% 33% 50% RESOURCE ROOM # 3 2 5 10 1 PLACEMENT L.D. % 19% 13% 31% 63% 6% # SELF-CONTAINED % # 2 1 3 13 7 SPEECH % 8% 4% 13% 54% 29% TRANSITION - BA - # SELF-CONTAINED % # RESOURSE ROOM/MH % # ? 11. I', ? ? RESOURSE ROOM/OHi % 18% 36% 55% 18% 1R% # RESOURSE ROOM 504 % # RESOURSE ROOM SE % # % PLACEMENTIS DETERMINEDB Y PRIMARYH ANDICAPPINGC ONDITION There is a District Self-Contained Unit on this campus TOTAL BLACK 5 R'.l% 11 AQ'l! 20 83% A 11',ql OTHER M F 1 4% 1 9% Yes e (Circle one)  2001-2002 TOTAL OTHER TOTAL 6 ' -\nt, __\n,. ,, ln 1 ?II. 4% - 1 11 9% , ... - \" ,_ ........ - . . - Page 8 SCH~L: NORTl:Hl EIGHTSE LEM. FOUR YEAR ENROL!ENT COMPARISON OCTOBER 1 DAT A (USED TO DETERMINE ACCEPTABLE ENROLLMENT RANGES) STUDENTS ARE IDENTIFIED AS BLACI\u0026lt; AND NON-BLACK INCLUDING KINDEI\\GARTEN EXCLUDING KINDERGARTEN BLACK 274 WHITE 133 2001-2002 OTHER 8~ TOTAL 491 0 % BLACK 55.80' BLACK 223 WHITE 167 2000-2001 OTHER 58 BLACK 239 WHITE 115 2001-2002 OTHER JjJ__ TOTAL 421 0 % BLACI\u0026lt; 57% BLACK 183 WHITE 143 2000-2001 OTHER 50 TOTAL 448 0 % BLACK 49.78' BLACK 236 WHITE 192 '1999-2000 OTHER 53 TOTAL 481 0 % BLACK 49 nf\n' BLACK 241 WHITE 205 1998-1999 OTHER 4f\nTOTAL 492 0 % BLACK 48. 98' TOTAL 376 0 % BLACK 48.67% BLACK 209 WHITE 152 1999-2000 OTHER 41 TOTAL 402 0 % BLACK 51. 99% BLACK 206 WHITE 169 1'l90-1999 OTHER '38 TOTAL 413 0 % BLACK 49.88% -  2001-2002 Page~ ,. SCHOOL: NORTHH EIGHTSE LEMENTARY CLASS ENROLL MENT 2001-2002 (ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS ONLY) CLASS ENROLLMENT TEACHER'S TEACHER WHITE BLACK NAME GRADE ROOM GENDER RACE M F MARIBEL VARGAS K 17 F H 4 PAIGE WRIGHT K 14 F w 3 CARLI NE THOMAS K 16 F w LULA TURNER K 15 F B CORRIE WEBB 8 F w AMY BURKS 9 F w KARI COOLEY. 1 11 F w LESLIE JOSHUA 1 0 F SHEILA WILLIAMS 2 5 F w AMY WI LlIAMS 2 6 F w PILAR WOODY 2 26 F w 0 TOTAL: Page 10  SCHOOL: NORTHH EIGHTSE LEMENTARY CLASS ENROLL MENT 2001-2002 (ELEMENT ARY SCHOOLS ONLY) CLASS ENROLLMENT TEACHER'S TEACHER WHITE BLACK OTHER NAME GRADE ROOM GENDER RACE M F M F M F \\ ff ,,,,, ERIC WALDORF 2 7 M w 6 3 6 5 1 \u0026gt; \\. \u0026lt; y ,.,.,. ,.,~ LJi.JilllliLl Kil-1 GRISSOM 3 33 F w 3 2 5 8 3 1 '\u0026lt;I\u0026gt;ti \u0026lt;\u0026gt; ~ ~ ~ KIM REEVES 3 25 F w 1 3 3 7 5 1 ' u :: )[',\n,\n,\n,\n:\n, '\ni,C TRACYM CCONNAUGHHAY 3 32 F w 4 4 4 8 ,,,,0, 0 ., ,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, \"' DANYIAL KI LGROE 3 24 F w 2 3 5 8 0 4 / ,\n,/:,,:/: ,::/ \"'\"' ,,.,,., - CONNIE O'DELL 4 21 F w 4 4 6 7 3 0 \u0026lt;Ell// TERRI DOMBROSKI 4 23 F w 3 4 8 7 2 0 :)\\,,,,. l'''\\F?i 'HY'\" RACHELT HURMAN 4 22 F w 4 'I 7 5 1 2 \u0026lt;\u0026lt;::I:H \u0026gt;\u0026lt;\u0026gt; JENNI FER NEWTON 4 1n F w 3 fi 7 _ :, /\\ :''''\"'  - ,,,, JUDY BINGHAM 5 28 F w 4  6 ,,,,,, ,.,,,,,,, -  CASEY YOUNG 5 20 F w 3 3 8 11 3 0 '\\t:::n: ~ \"''''\"'''''\" TOTAL: Page 10a    SCHOOL: NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY CLASS ENROLLMENT 2001-2002 (ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS ONLY) CLASS ENROLLMENT TEACHER'S TEACHER WHITE BLACK OTHER NAME GRADE ROOM GENDER RACE M F M F M F STACY SMITH 5 19 F B 1 f\nf\nQ 1 1 TOTAL: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 10a SCHOOL : NORTHH EIGHTSE LEMENTARCY OURSE OFFERINGS AND LEVELS (SECONDARY SCHOOLS ONLY) s T u D E N T s WHITE TL BLACK TL OTHER TL WHITE Grade Course  l M F M F M F '\"'/ M F # 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL: % Please use the following indicators: 1. Adv. Placement\n2. Honor9/Gifted\n3. Regular\n4. Spec. Educ. Resource Example: English 10/2 = English, tenth grade/honors/gifted T E A C TL BLACK M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H E TL :\n::\n:::: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2001-2002 Ouolicate as need ed R s OTHER TL M F 0 0 Page 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SCtiO.ORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY EXTENDED EDUCATI.L PROGRAMS WHITE TOTAL BLACK TOTAL OTHER TOTAL PROGRAM MALE FEMALE WHITE MALE FEMALE BLACK MALE FEMALE OTHER TOTAL GOVERNOR'S # SCHOOL % # BOY'S STATE % # GIRL'S STATE % ,. # SUMMER SCHOOL % \\.c, ' . PRE- # KINDERGARTEN % # KINDERGARTEN % # 1 1 2 4 6 6 3 9 16 FIRST % 6% 6% 13% 25% 38% 38% 19% 56% 1 # SECOND % .,. # THIRD % , . # FOURTH % ,. # FIFTH % ' # SIXTH % GRADES SEVEN # AND EIGHT % GRADES NINE # THRUTWELVE % .. QUEST # j ,:'. 5 0 4 4 9 SUMMER SCHOOL % 33% 22% 56% 44% 1 Page 12 scHIL: NORTHH EIGHTSE LEMENTARY  HONORS AND AWARDS  2001-2002 I List all honors and awards - - - - - be seecific I HONORS WHITE TOTAL BLACK TOTAL OTHER TOTAL AND AWARDS MALE FEMALE WHITE MALE FEMALE BLACK MALE FEMALE OTHER TOTAL # REGULAR HONOR ROLL % # 17 15 32 13 21 34 4 2 6 72 PRINCIPAL'S HONOR ROLL % 53% 47% 44% 38% 62% 47% 67% '1'1'1: 8% # 12 19 31 14 26 40 4 6 10 81 ABC HONOR ROLL % 39% 61% 38'.l: 35% /\nl\n'l/ 4Q'.l: 40'.l: i\nn 1?'.l: # 25 18 43 44 49 93 15 10 25 161 PERFECT ATTENDANCE % 58% 42% 27'.l: 47'.l: \"1'.l: \u0026lt;\nQSI nO'l: lln'll ln' # ALL A'S ON SPELLING TEST % # 100% ON UNIT ENGLISH EX. % # 1ST GRADE HELPERS % # GREAT BEHAVIOR % # MOST IMPROVED READING % # POPCORN MONITORS % # FLAG MONITORS % # TOP BANANA AWARDS % # FIR MARSHALLS % # 30 35 65 40 71 111 21 27 48 224 CITIZENSHIP AWARD % 46% 54% 29% 36% 64% 50% 44% 56% 21% # SCIENCE AWARD % # ENGLISH AWARD % # READING AWARD % Page 13 HONORS A.AWARDS I List all honors and awards - - - - - be seecific I HONORS WHITE TOTAL BLACK TOTAL OTHER TOTAL AND AWARDS MALE FEMALE WHITE MALE FEMALE BLACK MALE FEMALE OTHER TOTAL # REGULAR HONOR ROLL % # PRINCIPAL'S HONOR ROLL % # ABC HONOR ROLL % # PERFECT ATTENDANCE % # ALL A'S ON SPELLING TEST % # 100% ON UNIT ENGLISH EX. % # 1ST GRADE HELPERS % # GREAT BEHAVIOR % # MOST IMPROVED READING % # POPCORN MONITORS % # FLAG MONITORS % # TOP BANANA AWARDS % # FIR MARSHALLS % # CITIZENSHIP AWARD % # SCIENCE AWARD % # ENGLISH AWARD % # READING AWARD % Page 13a SCHOOL: NORTHH EIGHTSE LEM. COMMITTEES/PARENT IN VOLVEMENT 2001-2002 EMPLOYEES PARENTS/ PATRONS 0 F F I C E R s WHITE BLACK OTHER WHITE BLACK OTHER TL WHITE BLACK OTHER TL :OMMITTEE M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F ~UITY # 4 1 5 COMMITTEE % Ano/. ?M'. \\RENT TEACHER # 1 ?1 n 7 ? ?? \u0026lt;\n? 1\u0026lt;\n4? 4 14 lA? 6 1 7 ASSOCIATION % 1% 13% 4% 1% 12% 29% 8% 23% 2% 8% 0.86 0 14 ~t:C clttQC~~tl1_ # JLUNTEERS % '. .1 ' ~, # % ~ i r -- # % ~-1 .. .,~ # % # % # % .. # % \" # % ' # % # % Page 14 11/07/2001 14:25 581- 771-8818 NLRSD:PERSCNtLC JFFI Ref: VIPS1 10/11/01. 6.45,14 VIPS BY SCHOOL BY RACE/GENDER Date: -Time: SCHOOL: 41 ~~ WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAft, M F M F M F ' SCHOOL 130:i 218 539 J.43 386 8 9 PAGE 01 HOURS 4,115.50    SCHOOL: NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES 2001-2002 ACTIVITY MEMBERSHIP SPONSORS OR WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL CLUB M F M F M F M F M F M F # 4 2 3 2 1 1 FIRE MARSHALLS % 36% 18% 27% 18% 50% 50% # FT.,AG MONITORS % ,,.:. BOOKSTORE # 1 2 1 1 MONITORS % 25% 50% 25% 100% ... ,. STUDENT # COUNCIL % ,_, STUDENT # COUNCIL OFFICERS %\n# 2 3 1 LIBRARY MONITORS % 33% 50% 17% # 1 1 ? 1 1 OFF! CE MONITORS % 17% 17% 33% 17% 17% # 1 2 1 KJNC:l'RGARTFN Mf1NTTO~ % 25% 50% 25% - # % # % # % . # % # % Page 15 SCHOOL : NORTHH EIGHTSE LEMENTARYE XTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITES 2001-200 2 OFFICERS / LEADERSHIP WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL ACTIVITY OR CLUB M F M F M F # STUDENT COUNCIL % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % Page 15a SCHOOL: NORTHE IGHTSE LEMENTARY SPIRIT GROUP T RYOUTS 2001-200 2 (SECONDARY SCHOOLS ONLY) WHITE TOTAL BLACK TOTAL OTHER TOTAL TOTAL JUDGES OTHER TOTAL ACTIVITY/ CLUB M F M F M F WM WF BM BF M F # 0 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 0 % TOTAL: # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Page 16   2001-2002 STUDENT ATTENDANCE AFTER NINE-WEEKS (ATTACH COMPUTER SERVICES GENERATED DATA)  Page 17 SCHOOL: N ORTHH EIGHTSE LEMENTARY STUDENTS RETA INED 2001-2002 WHITE TOTAL BLACK TOTAL OTHER TOTAL GRADE MALE FEMALE WHITE MALE FEMALE BLACK MALE FEMALE OTHER TOTAL # Kl N DERGARTEN % ' ,, . ' # FIRST % j, # SECOND % '\n# THIRD % .~_\n: -~.!'-,: .\n/ # FOURTH % \ni\n,\n1~ # 1 1 FIFTH % 100% 100% t1 f -:,- # SIXTH %   J ~-' r1 # SEVENTH % ~ , ' ., # EIGHT % # NINTH % # TENTH % ' , # ELEVEN % # TWELFTH % Page 18 SCHOOL: NORTHH EIGHTSE LEMENTARYS UBJECT AREA COUR SES FAILED 2001-2002 (SECONDARY) I WHITE TOTAL BLACK TOTAL OTHER TOTAL COURSES MALE FEMALE WHITE MALE FEMALE BLACK MALE FEMALE OTHER TOTAL # 0 % # 0 % # 0 % # 0 % # 0 % # 0 % # 0 % # 0 % # 0 % # 0 % # 0 % # 0 % # 0 % Page 19 SCHOOL: NORTHH EIGHTSE LEMENTARY GRADUATION INFOR MATION 2001-2002 WHITE TOTAL BLACK TOTAL OTHER TOTAL . . YEAR MALE FEMALE WHITE MALE FEMALE BLACK MALE FEMALE OTHER TOTAL # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % Page 20 SCHOOL: NORTHH EIGHTSE LEMENTARY DROPOUT STATI STICS 2001-2002  WHITE TOTAL BLACK TOTAL OTHER TOTAL -:,,,\n,\n,\n, GRADE MALE FEMALE WHITE MALE FEMALE BLACK MALE FEMALE OTHER TOTAL # 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 % Page 21   STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT -ASSESSMENT DATA SAT-9 (PLEASE ATTACH MOST RECENT INFORMATION)  Page 22 - ST.4.'V FORD ACHIEVDfEST TEST SERIES, l'.\nf.\\TH ED!T!O.Y TE.'.CHER:\n\\ORTH HEIGHTS ELE:11 GRADE: 01 SCHOOL: DISTRJCT: !\\ORTH UTILE ROCK - SPRI:\\G 200 TEST D.-\\T E: 04/16/01 RU!\\ DA TE: 05/08/01 GROL'P: GE'iERAL POPl\"L..\\ TIO:\\ l,('.'1 :\nI Mean I _\\!~an j '.\\ledian I'. \\ational: SUBTESTS ASD :\\umber Raw l!\\atlonall, Grade lndiv i -rn-r., \u0026lt;\" T ... \" ~ \"l\nrl' I'm,\n,. PIL~ I Total Reading 64 80.3 61.6 , , __ j 71-6 I. .! Word Study Skills 6.: 27.4 614 2.5 71-6 Word Reading 65 22.i 60.4 2.2 69-6 Reading Comprehension 65 29.9 60.i ~-2 69-6 Total Mathematics 65 47.0 54.5 2.0 5S-5 Math: Problem Solving 65 30.6 53.6 2.0 57-5 Math\nProcedures 65 16.4 55.0 2.0 59-5 Percent In ach I\n!1 CONTENT CLUSTERS\n\\um,,b_ er_ of Oc:low Above CONTENT CLUSTERS ,\\q,ri:c Avc:ra,:c A,c:r11c\n' Word Study Skills 36 6 53 41 Structural Analysis 12 3 58 39 Phonetic Analysis-Consonants 12 14 42 44 Phonetic Analysis-Vowels 12 14 47 39 Word Reading 30 8 51 42 Reading Comprehension 40 6 55 38 Two-Sentence Stories (Rjddles) 5 5 43 52 Short Passages (Clozc) 15 8 51 42 Short Passages w/Questions 20 18 45 37 Recreational 10 17 57 26 Textual 5 15 51 34 Functional 5 29 42 29 Initial Understanding 9 12 55 32 Interpretation II 18 46 35 Math: Problem Solving 44 23 49 28 Concepts/Whole No. Comput. 3 2 72 26 Number Sense and Numeration 12 12 55 32 Geometry and Spatial Sense 5 18 45 37 Measurement 8 32 35 32 Sti.tistics and Probability 5 28 22 51 Fraction and Decimal Concepts 3 0 77 23 Pattcms \u0026amp; Relationships 5 22 51 28 Problem-Solving Strategies 3 17 65 18 Math: Procedures 25 1-l 51 35 Number Facts 8 II 62 28 Computation/Symbolic Notation II 22 46 32 Computation in Context 6 1 s I 51 31 I I I I i I i I I I I I I S_TA.\"ffORDLEVEI.JFOR.\\1/BA TTERY: PRI'.\\URY l / S / Full Length :'\\OR.\\IS: Spring 1995 '.'ialional :'\\arms I\nI i ! I i GROUP REPORT FOR :\\\"ORTH HEIGHTS ELL\\! '.\\ational Grade Percentile Bands tn ln ~n ~n on , oc Percent In Elch Number of llc:low Abo-v, lt,-.mc, Avc:rat\nC: ,\\vc:nc c: Ac:uu I I I i I ! i I Report :cnerarcd by READY RPORTST V~A 7..l..ll for :'lion.h Little Rod Sdlool Oismd .)cores baud on aormauvc dau cop:i,r1i::btC 1996 b~ lbrcoun. l.nc. All n:hu reserved.  STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST SERIES, NINTH EDITION ! TEACHER: .......................... GR.A.DE: 01 SCHOOL: l'o'ORTH HEIGHTS ELD! TEST D . .\\TE: 04/16/01 DISTRICT:  GROUP: NORTH LITTLE ROCK- SPRl:'\\G 200 RUN DATE: 05/08/01 GE..'iERAL POPUL.\\ TIO:'\\ SUBTESTS AND Total R.eadin g 64 3 Word Srudy Skills 64 2 Word Reading 65 8 Reading Comprehension 65 3 Total Mathematics 65 6 Math: Problem Solving 65 8 Ma th.: Procedures 65 5 G() Percent in Each . , I . 38 34 33 -31 29 38 42 23 45 40 35 46 52 25 fl:, p I 25 34 25 32 9 II 18 P. I GROUP REPORT with PERFOR.'\\1A .N. \"CES TA. \\.l )A.RDS FOR :--\nORTH HEIGHTS ELE.'\\1 Performance Standards are content-referenced scores that reflect what studentS know and should be able to do in given subject areas. { The Stanford Performance Standards were determined by expert  panels of educators, who judged C.'.lcbte st question on the basis of bow students at different levels of achievement should perform. These expert judgements yielded four categories or levels of student performance. Level l indicates little or no mastery of fundamental knowledge and skills. Level 2 denotes partial mastery of the knowledge and skills that are fundamental for satisfactory work. At the high school level, this is higher than minimum competency skills. Level 3 represents solid academic performance, indicating that students are prepared for the next grade. At the high school level, this indicates preparedness for democratic citizenship, responsible adulthood, and productive work. Level 4 signifies performance beyond gr.ide level mastery. At the high school level, this shows readiness for rigorous college courses, advanced technical training, or employment requiring advanced academic achievement. NOT ES ST A.'iFORDLEVEUFOR\\1/BA TTERY: PRl:'11..\\RY I/SI Full Len!'lh :'\\OR,tS: Spring 1995 :'\\ational :'\\orms ~ Repon :cnc.nttd b~ READY R.EPOR'fS'TV'Mcn ioa 7-l-23 for :'-onh Urtlc Rock School District Scores based on nonnuive dau cop~Ti:ht .C 1996 by Harcourt. Lac. All ri:hu rcscnrd. ~. TF.AC'I IEll: SCIIOUI.: DISTRICT: - - STANFORD AC/1/EVEMENT TEST SERIES, N/NT/1 EDITION  NOllTII IU:IGIITS F.LEJ\\I GRADE: 01 TEST DATE: 04/16/01 RUN DATE: 05/08/01 --- ADJ\\IINISTRATOll'S l\u0026gt;ATA SIJI\\IJ\\IAllY FOil NORTII IIEIGlllS ELF.1\\1 GllO\\JI': NOllTII LITTLE HOCK - sr1UNG 2001 l\nENEIUL l'Ul'IJLATION l'a\u0026amp;j I I I I I I I I I - llEAUING l\\1ATIIEI\\IATICS LANGUAGE ENVIRONJ\\IENT, \\ IIATTF.RY TOT,\\L Nlll\\~~m TESTEll \\ _. soc AL SCIENCE I 1 bh SCIENCE, TO l'ALS ~---------1-llca Tola Vluolnl ! Wort! Reamtl Total rr,uoub: L.JLJlJ\\.l.aUth\"- --lf----'----''----lf----lf----i,----'----''----1--- ______________ _ N11111hlc'rn ssihlc I 106 36 30 401 69 44 25 N11111hc1rc stc,1 M 64 65 65 65 65 65 Na1io11al1 Hlivi,\\11al I 696 I rR-S of Mean Nl\"E 716 716 696 585 57.5 59.5 Na11111iIa'll S11111111a1y HO . 99 N 24 26 21 22 17 14 16 60  79 N 14 12 20 13 15 17 20 40  59 N 13 14 II 15 II 14 9 20 . 19 N II 9 9 11 13 10 131 I I I Ill - /9 N 2 3 4 4 9 10 7 I I'- so . 99 0/ 38 41 32 )4 26 22 25 ,., Ml  79 ,., 22 19 31 20 2) 26 JI ,., 40  59 ,,,.,, 20 22 17 23 17 22 14 111  39 1)f, 17 14 14 17 20 15 20 ()/ . /9 'J,i, ) 5 6 6 14 15 II l'c1cc111A t/Ahovc the I 60 I Na11011a5l1 1thI 'll (,\u0026lt;, (,9 72 60 62 58 Natinnal NC\"IS'. talistics Mc1111 (,I.(, 61.4 60.4 60.7 54.5 53.6 55.0 S1n11d,m/lJ c.-i11tw11 I').\\ I 9.3 18.6 20.5 18.9 19.6 18.8 l'c,-re111Ucs 1'90  90th ')1.lJ 87.5 84.5 90.7 79.1 78.7 77.2 (!J  75th 71.5 71.5 70.4 73.6 67.5 65.\\ 66.5 A/c,/11111  50th (,\\.7 59.1 59.9 57.9 54.3 53.8 54.1 (!I  15th 4(,.5 46.1 45.6 43.7 38.9 38.8 37.5 /'/0 . /()(/, 38.8 35.1 36.7 35.4 27.3 26.4 27.7 Il i}~i-~,\\ ~ -.S T-A-~-_-F L__OE__RVD_E __UM _/F~BO~AR-T T_E_R_Y_:_P_R_1_1\\_1A_-_-R__Y_-_1_--/ -S/_F_u_.l.l.1_.l. A_._J_._._n___g t_h ~ __ _1, ___ 1-. _________ L1t,por1--,-nJff-,~-,-R-EiA_P_V_R_E_r_OLRTl\"-.--v.-n-,--,.-1.-u-1...Jw Lt:\u0026lt;'.:NORMS1Srrln11995N1tlon1INonn1 . ' ,'!'\n. '  ,,, :  .,., llrtu111o11o\u0026lt;S\u0026lt;NIDlolrid ! 'IEI\\CIIER: S('IIOOI.: OISTRllT: til(OlJI': ~ STANFORD AC/1/EVE/IIENT TEST ~ERIES, NINTII EDITION# .................... NOHTII IIEIGIITS ELEl\\1 NOHTII I.ITTI.E HOCK - SPRING 2001 GENERAL l'Ol'lJLATION GRADE: 02 TEST DATE: 0~116101 RUN DATE: 05108101 -- r------- - ---1. AOI\\IINISTltATOH'S l\u0026gt;ATA Slll\\11\\11\\HY FOil NOlffll llEIGIITS El.El\\! .. - ,----- l'a c I HEADING I\\IATIIEI\\IATICS LANGUAGE ENVIRONI\\IENT, ________,_\n,\n1:::1:k, T,o,, '\"\" \"\"\" soc'~:,'\nc~lNc-e- -,------,----,--- -- 1 OT,\\I. NlJl\\lllEH TESTED 66 IIATTEltY TOTALS N11111hle'or ssihle N11111bTcre sted National Individual l'R-S of Mean Nl'E National I'll S11111111ary RO - 99 60 - 79 40 - 59 20 - 39 0/ - IV Ii(/ - 99 Ml  79 40 - 59 2/J - 39 (If - /9 Pi::1cc11/1\\1 /Ahovl! 1hc National 511th I'll National N\u0026lt; 'E Sialistics Me1111 S11111d1/1 Jrde vi11tio11 l'crcc111i/cs !'YO QJ Median QI /'/() 118 (,2 48-5 N 5 N 20 N 13 N I(, N 8 .,, 8 ~r, ,  32 11, ,u 21 ,,,.,, 2(, % 13 50 48.9 14.8 - Y//tl, 64.5 - 751!, 59.9  501!, 49.3  ]5/1, 37.8  I/Jti, 27.9 48 65 48-5 9 12 9 30 5 14 18 14 46 8 40 49.0 16.1 70.4 60.9 43.0 36.6 32.4 30 40 62  65 41-5 54-5 2 13 15 15 22 14 13 17 10 6 3 20 24 23 35 22 21 26 16 9 45 58 45.5 52.3 16.4 16.3 62.5 75.1 55.4 60.8 47.4 51.4 37.4 38.2 22.I 31.5 74 65 50-5 13 17 II 10 14 20 26 17 15 22 52 50.2 20.4 76.2 64.4 50.9 34.3 19.5 STANFORD I.EVEIJFUH/\\1/IJATJ'EHY: PRIMARY 2 / S / Full Length NOltMS: Spring 1995 National Norms 46 65 46-5 10 18 10 13 14 15 28 15 20 22 49 47.9 20.0 71.9 60.I 48.7 32.4 20.1 28 65 58-5 21 13 10 14 7 321 20 15 22 II 57 54.4 20.8 75.8 66.9 54.3 36.6 28.2 I I Srorn buf\"d on onn11hr data top)Tlthl C\u0026gt; 1996 by lhr1ur1, lac. All rlc:ht, rr-Kntd. I I I .. -. Rrpor1 crntnlrd by Rf:AllV Ht:rotns, Vr\"lon 7.!.U ror North UUlt Roc-lt School lJl1trfC1 TEACHER: SCHOOL: DISTRICT: GROUP: STAS FORD ACHIEVE:\\fE.\\'T TJ::..S I .SJ::.Kll::.S, /\\/,, I t1 t:.u, uu., ................ ,.. ................ ,r .. ,......... GR--\\DE: OZ 'iORTH HEIGHTS ELE\\I ITST DAE 04/l 610 I 'iORTH LITTLE ROCK-SPR!'iG 200 RC~ D.-\\TE: 05108/01 GE'iERAL POPl:LA TIO:\\ I :',lean l :',lean l\n\\ledian /'iational liBTESTS A:\\'D :\\umber!' Raw l:\\ational!' Grade \\ lndh\nI ...,-ri:- JC.. . ,.. oo_c TnT.\u0026lt;f\u0026lt;' TP\u0026lt;-' \"---- Total Reading 62 I 73.2 48.9 I 2.8 4S-5 I 2.4 4S-5 .T Word Srudy Skills 65 32.1 49.0 Reading Vocabulary 62 IS.O 45.5 2.i 41-5 ! :1 Reading Comprehension 65 22.9 52.3 2.9 54-5 : Total Mathematics 65 49.9 502 2.9 50-5 Math: Problem Solving 65 29.5 47.9 2.7 46-5 Math: Procedures 65 20.4 54.4 3.1 58-5 Percent In Each I I I, ' CONTENT CLUSTERS Number of lldow Above CONTENT CLUSTERS ltn.,...,.. ,\\\\cr  i:c Anntt ,\\vcrai:t' ' ord Study Skills 48 15 69 15 ctura! Analysis 12 12 88 0 onetic Analysis-Consonants 18 17 60 23 Phonetic Analysis-Vowels 18 34 55 II Rending Vocabulary JO 19 74 6 Synonyms 18 15 73 13 Context 6 24 53 23 Multiple Meanings 6 24 69 6 Reading Comprehension 40 15 63 22 . Recreational 14 17 58 25 Textual 13 II 72 17 Functional 13 15 60 25 Initial Understanding 14 17 51 32 Interpretation 20 9 77 14 Critical Analysis 3 18 65 17 . Pn:x:css Strategies J II 63 26 Math: Problem Solving 46 28 54 18 Concepts/Whole No. Comput. 4 25 63 12 Number Sense and Numeration 10 17 48 35 Geometry and Spatial Sense 5 23 65 12 Measurement 10 28 48 25 Statistics and Probability 6 20 68 12 Fraction and Decimal Concepts 3 17 83 0 Patterns \u0026amp; Relationships 5 26 57 17 Problem-Solving Strategies J 12 62 26 Math: Procedures 28 18 49 ,, j_ Number Facts 8 12 54 ,, j~ Computation/Svrnbolic ~ot.:Jtion 12 11 49 29 Computation id Context -- 8 14 51 35 I S_TA.'\\fORDLE\\'EUFOR.\\1/BA TIER\\': PRJ:\\1.-\\RY ! IS i Full Length :'iCR\\IS: Spring 1995 :'iational :\\orms i GROCP REPORT FOR :\\ORTH HEIGHTS ELDI 'iational Grade Percentile Bands 1n 10 ~o 70 Qn I QQ Percent In \"ach Number of Below Above It- Avcr  cc A,,.crcc Av,rac I I i I I i I J I. I I ! Rcpon :cncr2ttii b~:R ADY RPORTST\"\"\\' crsio 7.2.ll (w :\",onh Little Rack Schoo1 OlJUict Scores bas~ on normative data cop~Ti:ht t: 199ti b~-ibrcourt. Inc. All ri:hu rescrHd. TEACHER: SCi-!00!...: DfSTRJCT: GROUP: Taul Reading .,)J...-t.,I'VI\\U.\"I\\..JllL' L..\"L..1J lLJI _,~,_~,_....,..,, ....  ..... ..,.,,...,,. ......... w ........................ ,., GK...:..D~. o: '\\ORTHHEIGHTSELOI -:-c:s-:-0:.:-\u0026gt;:-:: OJ1ooi '\\ORTH LITTLE ROCh:-SPRJ'.\\G :!00 R.:..:D-- ..\n: -.-:-:: 05108\n01 GE:,iER-'.L POPl\"LA TIO:\\ PERFOR\\IA:\\CE ST.-'.:\\DARDS J 62 IS ' 5~ 29 GROUP REPORT with PERFOR.\\L.\u0026gt;,.:\\CE ST . .\\..'\\DARDS FOR '\\ORTH HEIGHTS ELDI Word S rudy Skills 65 s Reading Vocabulary 62 19 Reading Comprehension 65 25 Taul Mathematics 65 ,, Math: Problem Solving 65 60 '' 52 42 35 IS 31 37 25 2 11 0 5 6 6 18 Performance Standards are content-referenced scores that reflect what srudems know and should be able IO do in g\nven subject areas. Tne Stanford Performance Standards were determined by expen ( panels of educators, who judged each test question oo the basis of how srudents at differenI levels ofachievemein should perform. These ex pen judgements yielded four categories or levels of srudem performance. Math: Procedures 65 ,- -\" ... .. 34 NOTES Level I indicates linle or no mastery of fundamental knowledge and skills. Level 2 denotes partial mastery of the knowledge and skills that are fundamental for satisfactory work. Al the high school level, this is higher than minimum competency skills. Level 3 represents solid academic performance, indicating that students are prepared for the next grade. Al the high school level, this indicates preparedness for democratic citizenship, responsible adullhood, and productive work. Level 4 signifies performance beyond grade level mastery. Al the high school level, this shows readiness for rigorous college courses. advanced technical training, or employment requiring advanced academic achievement. I ~TA.'\\F~RDLEYEUF\u0026lt;?~\\L'BA TTERY: PRl'\u0026gt;I...\\RY _, S, Full Length  OR)!S. Spring 1995 :\\auonal :\\arms Rrport :rnrruro b~ REA.DY RPOR\"fyM \\\"rn:100 -:..:.:.fJor :--\nonb Lietlr Roclt School Oumct .5coru 02ud oo normatnr dau coprn~ht C 19ao b~ H2rcour1. Inc. A.JI nthu rcsrnrd. I - - - STANFORD ACHIEVDIENT TEST SERIES, NINTH EDITION TEACHER: ******************** GRADE: 03 SCHOOL: NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY TEST DATE: 04/16/01 DISTRJCT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK- SPRING 200 RUN DATE: 05/08/01 GROUP: GENERAL POPULATION Mean Mean Median National SUBTESTS AND Number Raw National Gnde lndiv TnT.H\u0026lt;. T .. \u0026lt;tP\u0026lt;l CM- Nr-i. r ... , .. PD.C Total Reading 68 49.0 43.3 }.2 37-4 Reading Vocabulary 68 18.4 42.3  3.1 36-4 { Reading Comprehension 68 30.6 45.2 3.2 41-5. Total Mathematics 68 49.3 50.0 3.9 50-5 Math: Problem Solving 68 30.4 50.2 3.8 50-5 Math: Procedures 68 18.9 52.I 4.0 54-5 Language 68 25.2 46.9 3.2 44-5 Spelling 68 18.6 51.2 3.8 52-5 Science 68 206 39.5 2.5 31-4 Social Science 68 17.8 40.4 2.8 32-4 Listening 68 23.1 44.7 3.3 40-5 Using Information 68 24.8 40.3 2.6 32-4 Thinking Skills 68 104.0 42.6 2.9 36-4 Basic Battery 68 165.3 47.5 3.5 45-5 Complete Battery 68 203.6 45.8 3.3 42-5 Percent In ach CONTENT CLUSTERS Number or Bdow Above CONTENT CLUSTERS It- Ann gc Avcragc Avcrai:c Reading Vocabubry 30 31 59 10 Spelling Synonyms 18 28 59 13 Sight Words Context 6 34 54 12 Phonetic Principles Multiple Meanings 6 29 59 12 Structural Principles No Mistake Reading Comprehension 54 26 57 16 Recreational 18 19 66 15 Science Textual 18 34 46 21 Earth \u0026amp; Space Science Functional 18 38 47 15 Physical Science Initial Understanding 14 26 57 16 Life Science Interpretation . 24 22 57 21 Science Process Skills Critical Analysis 8 22 71 7 Process Strategies 8 34 60 6 Social Science History Math: Problem Solving 46 24 56 21 Geography Concepts/Whole No. Comput. 4 IO 81 9 Civics \u0026amp; Government Number Sense and Numeration 6 25 41 34 Economics Geurnetry and Spatial Sense 6 22 53 25 Culture Measurement IO 31 41 28 Statistics and Probability 6 19 56 25 Listening Fraction and Decimal Concepts 4 7 76 16 Vocabulary Patterns \u0026amp; Relationships 3 13 87 0 Comprehension Estimation 3 18 71 12 Recreational Problem-Solving Strategies 4 41 49 10 Informational Functional Math: Procedures 30 15 62 24 Initial Understanding Number Facts 6 15 44 41 Interpretation Computation/Symbolic Notation 12 19 51 29 Computation in Context 9 29 51 19 Using Information Rounding 3 16 65 19 Thinking Skills Language 48 29 54 i 16 Capitalization 6 32 431 25 I Punctuation 6 37 3gl 25 ! Usage 6 18 561 26 I Sentence S trucrure 10 31 57 ! 12 Content and Organization 10 I 28 57 i 15 Ch,,., c,1,.\n11. in ?O ~QI J? STANFORDLEVEUFOR.\\1/BATTERY: PRIMARY 3/S/ Full Length :-IOR\n'\\1S: Period 15 1995 National Norms GROUP REPORT FOR NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENT ARY National Grade Percentile Bands 1f\\ QO n, Per, ent In ~ach Number or Below Above It- Avcrac c Avtr  l t Annur.- 30 19 59 2t. 5 12 60 28 - 12 12 69 19 8 19 56 25 5 26 40 34 40 40 50 IO 12 28 66 6 14 47 43 10 14 34 53 13 30 53 38 9 40 34 56 10 9 40 46 15 IO 28 65 7 8 26 62 12 8 35 56 9 5 35 49 16 40 29 51 19 IO 28 53 19 30 38 43 19 IO 38 50 12 10 31 47 22 10 40 37 24 12 38 44 18 18 40 44 16 47 44 43 13 191 40 49 12 y Report :e11cntt'd by READY R.EPOR'TS\"' Va-JMN7I .l.l:3 f ~ ortb Utt!e. Rock Sdlool Dtsrrict Scora b\u0026amp;kd o an:nadvc data copyncbt O 1996 by Hucoun. la.c.. Ail ri:hu rtse\"rnd. ei i STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST SERIES, NINTH EDITION TEACHER: '.\"\"\".:HOOL: ******************** GRADE: 03 i\\ORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY TEST DATE: 04/16/01 DISTRICT: GROUP: NORTH UTILE ROCK- SPRING 200 RUN DATE: 05/08/01 GENERAL POPULATION SUBTESTS AND rnr~,,, Number Te\u0026lt;tPrl Total Reading Reading Vocabulary Reading Comprehension Total Mathematics Math: Problem Solving Math: Procedures Language Spelling Science Social Science Listening Using Information Thinking Skills Basic Battery Complete Battery 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 PERFOR.i\"LANCE STA.'1/OARDS I ovol 1 34 25 37 24 25 15 37 19 40 34 25 NA NA NA NA t8 Percent in Each I ovol 2 f ouol l I f ovol 4 40 35 37 44 38 46 38 44 44 51 51 NA NA NA NA 18 29 22 29 29 31 18 24 12 13 18 NA NA NA NA p 9 ro '4 3 7 9 7 13 4 I 6 NA NA NA NA p NOTES STA.i'I/FORDLEVEUFORM/BAITERY: PRIMARY 3 / S / Full Length NOR.i\\1S: Period 15 1995 National Norms GROUP REPORT with PERFOR.!~ANCESTANDARDSFOR NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY Performance Standards are content-referenced scores that reflect what students know and should be able to do in given subject areas. The Stanford Performance Standards were determined by expert panels of educators, who judged each test question on the basis of how students at different levels of achievement should perform. These expert judgements yielded four categories or levels of student performance. Level I indicates little or no mastery of fundamental knowledge and skills. :\n''? Level 2 denotes partial mastery of the knowledge and skills that are _.x, fundamental for satisfactory work. At the high school level, this is . higher than minimum competency skills. '--'.\\~ Level 3 represents solid academic performance, indicating that students are prepared for the next grade. At the high school level, this indicates preparedness for democratic citizenship, responsible adulthood, and productive work. Level 4 signifies performance beyond grade level mastery. At the high school level, this shows readiness for rigorous college courses, advanced technical training, or employment requiring advanced ,. academic achievement. :.,-..-c.1,. Rcpon e\ncncrated by RE.ADY REPORTS\"' Vtnloa 7..1.%3.\nNorth Uttle Rod\u0026lt; Sd,ool Diolrid .::~-l~ Scores baxd on normadvc d.au copyrie\nbc 'ti 1996 by H.ara\u0026gt;urt. lnc:. All rigbu reser\ncd. \\:~it~ TEAC'IIER: SCIIOOI.: IJISIIWT: \u0026lt;.illOUI': STANFORD ACIIIEVEMENT TEST SERIES, /l'll\\'T/1 EDITION .................... NOl!TII IIEIGIITS ELEMENTARY NOltTll 1.r!TI.F. ltOCK-SPRING 2001 GENEltAI. l'Ol'ULATION GRADE: OJ 1 EST DA TE: 04116/0 I RUN IJA IE: 0~/08/01 REAIJING ~IATIIE~IA-1 ICS LANGUAGE TutI I I~ ~I:~ ~..~~.~ . TOTAi. NUMIIEH TESTEIJ 68 Total 1 Pilioh ~lath ---1lt.:11I 1\\1,.11, _s,  IC,_ Number l'ussil,lc 84 30 54 76 46 30 Nun1bcrT ested 68 68 68 68 68 68 National lndividu\n:al l'R-S of Mean NCE 37-4 36-4 41-5 50-5 50-5 54-5 National l'R Summary 80 - 99 N 9 7 10 13 10 16 60  79 N 8 4 8 17 16 16 40 - 59 N 7 18 9 10 15 9 10. 3Y N 27 22 28 15 16 18 0/  19 N 17 17 13 13 II 9 80 - 99 % .. 13 10 15 19 15 24 60  79 % 12 6 12 25 24 24 40 - 59 % 10 26 13 15 22 13 10  J9 % 40 32 41 22 24 26 0/  19 % 25 25 19 19 16 13 Percent At/Almvc the National 50lh l'R ( -~8) 31 29 eJ.' 53 54 National NCE S1atist1cs Menn 43.3 42.3 45.2 50.0 50.2 52. I Stn11d(lrdD eviation 17.9 19.2 17.1 19.2 19.7 19.I Percentiles P90 - 901l1 71.6 62.9 70.5 74.5 74.7 72 4 QJ  75th 55.2 52.8 55 5 64.6 62.4 64 7 Mcdit111 -50rh 40.9 39.3 423 50 4 49.6 52.6 QI - 25th 32.0 29.6 33.7 35.5 35.6 38.1 /'/0 - /Otl, 20.6 16.2 24.2 23.4 24.5 20.8 SrANF(lltU LF,VF.IJlOR~l/0,\\17 F.RY: PRIMARY 31 S / Fu0 L,ngth NORM~: Pcrioll 15 1995 National Norms ~-I l 48 68 44-5 9 13 II 20 15 13 19 16 29 22 I 40 ) 46.9 17.8 74 I 58.5 44.0 328 25.3 _sP\"\" JO 68 52-5 13 12 20 13 10 19 18 29 19 15 (2!, I 512 18.9 743 62.4 48.8 36.9 28.4  !-tflrrJ b1\u0026lt;td on n1111n1lht d111 rop.1996b) llarC'ourt, l11t. All rl1thl1 rtltntd, ADMINISTllATOlt'S l\u0026gt;ATA SIIM~IAltY FOIi NOltTJI JIF.IGII IS EI.F.~lF.NTAltV - - - ENVIRONMENT, SCIENCE, soclAL s:T::: Sci- Soc I.le\n(- Uc.Ing I hnkJ! n.c. :ic_ 1-tning Info_ Skis 40 40 411 47 191 68 68 \u0026lt;,X \u0026lt;,X loX 31-4 32-4 40-5 12-4 _\\(i.,\\ 5 7 Ill ,, X 6 \u0026lt;, ,, ,, X II 7 1,, Ill Ill 21 28 I.I 17 211 25 20 IX 2,, 22 7 10 \" 'I 12 9 9 11 11 11 16 10 24 15 II 31 41 22 25 2') 37 29 2,, JX .12 21 24 34 28 2(, 39.5 40.4 44 7 40.J 42.fi 17.2 17.1 19.4 18.2 18.4 64.2 64 6 69.6 (1.~.9 (1')'i 46.6 47.7 55.5 505 _, I 4 38.2 39.0 431 37 4 41 I 26.3 28.7 27 8 25 5 )(12 20.5 16.2 21 7 19.5 IR.fi  ----- Page I 11/ITl\"EltY TOTALS U:ic.ic I Cum11I UalL Ball nx l~X hS h/-1 \"~ c\n12-5 X 8 12 8 IX 21 l'I 20 II II 12 12 18 12 U, 11 28 29 I(, 16 4J 38 47 5 45.8 15 6 15.5 (ii) 9 (,8.J ,7 4 54.6 47 2 46.I J(, 9 J5.I 26 7 750   THREE YEAR COMPARISON OF MEAN PERCENTILE RANK NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENT ARY SCHOOL - GRADE 5 50 .,----------------------------------------, 45-1---------~~--------------------~~------1 40 -1---------1 30 25 20 - 15-- 10 __  5 0 \\\"\"\" \"'\" FALL 1999 FALL 2000 Reading Mean PR 24 33 37 Mathematics Mean PR 26 29 45 Language Mean PR 30 33 41 Science Mean PR 22 30 29 Social Science Mean PR 21 36 34 Basic Complete Battery Battery Mean PR Mean PR 29 28 34 35 45 43  EJFALL 199!1 ll!IFALL 1999  FALL 2000 ( vi,)\u0026lt; LI PRIMARY( GR~ 4) BENCHMARKE XAMINATION e: 1 MAT HE MAT ICS SCHOOLS UMMARYR EPORT:G ENERALP OPULATION A,hnsu D1strtct Name: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL OISTRICT School Name: NO. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Grade: 04 C'omrrchcnsiTvc slingA, ucnmcnl LEA K: 60-02 School Number: 063 Date of Test: Aprt I 2001 \u0026amp;Accountabilily Pro111m Total Number of Students Tested: 56 Nu11ber \u0026amp; Percentage of Students Nu11ber \u0026amp; Percentage of Students Nu11ber \u0026amp; Percentage of Students Nu,.ber \u0026amp; Percentage of Students Below Bask (BEL) Buie (BAS) Proficient (PRO) Advanced ( AUV) 154 and below 155-199 200-249 250 and above School_ District Region State School District Region State _ _ School District -Ba!on_ State _School_ District _Region __ State __ All Students 20 184 2,933 9,345 13 106 1,633 5. 567 12 85 I, 620 5,957 11 140 1. 967 7,644 36X 36X 36X 33X 23X 21X 20X 20X 21X 17X 2ox 21X 2ox 27X 24X 27X Gender Fe11a le 11 '12 I, 494 4,756 10 57 845 2.806  44 793 2,958 J 68 953 3,746 3X ,ox 37X 33X 31X 20X 21X 2ox 2sx 16X 19X 21X 9X 24X 23X 26X Male 9 72 1,438 4,582 3 48 785 2,754 4 41 827 2,997  72 I ,011 J, 887 38X 31X 35X 32X 13X 21x 19X 19X 17X ,ex 20X 21X 33X 31X 25% 27% Ethnicity Aslan/Pac1f1c Jslander 0 ' 11 29 0 '  25 0 '  39 0 0 16 67 ox 33X 26X 18X ox 33X 19X 16X ox 33X 19X 24X ox ox 37X '2X Afr lean A11er ican 13 153 I. 718 4,413 7 70 504 I, 149 7 \" 327 725 4 43 220 477 42X SOX 62X 6SX 23X 23X ,ex 17X 23X 13X 12X 11x 13X 14X BX 7X lllspan1c 3 3 38 177 ' 2 21 123 J 3 21 118 ' J JO 132 38X 27% 3SX 32X 13X ,ex 19X 22X 3BX 27X 19X 21X 13X 27X 27% ,,x Nat 1 ve A11er 1can 0 0 12 59 0 0 7 41 0 0 3 41 0 0 4 39 ox ox 46X 33X ox ox 27% 23X ox ox 12X 23X ox ox ,sx 22X White 4 27 1,106 4 .581 s 32 1,068 4,178 2 40 1,241 4,987 6 93 I, 662 6,863 24X 14X 22x 22x 29X 17X 21X 20X 12X 21x 24X 24X 3SX X 33X 33X Other 0 0 33 47 0 ' 14 23 0 0 10 19 0 ' 23 36 ox ox 41X 38X ox sox 18X x ox ox 13X ,sx ox SOX 29X 29X Gender/E thn I c 1 ty Fe11a le A  t.n/Pctf'1c llnd,. 0 '  ,. 0 0 0 .. 0 0 , ,o 0 0  \" ox ,oox 24X 19X ox ox 24X 19X ox ox ,,x 2SX ox ox 38X 38X African A11erlcan  94 873 2. 225 7 39 274 615 5 21 170 384 2 22 120 252 36X S3X 61X 64X 32X 22X 19X ,ex 23X 12X 12X 11X 9X 13X BX 7X lllspanlc 0 0 18 93 ' ' 9 54 ' ' 9 51 ' 3 18 70 ox ox 33X 3SX 33X 20X 17X 20X 33X 20X 17X 19X 33X 60X 33X 26X Native A11er1can 0 0 7 27 0 0 4 24 0 0 ' 21 0 0 ' 17 ox ox s,x 30X ox ox 31X 27X ox ox BX 24X ox ox BX 19X Whl ta 3 17 571 2. 355 2 16 541 2.077 2 22 600 2,457 0 '2 786 3,343 43X ,ex 23X 23X 29X 16X 22X 20X 29X 23X 24X 24X ox 43X 31X 33X Other 0 0 10 18 0 '  11 0 0 s 10 0 ' 18 24 ox ox 24X 29X ox SOX 20X 17X ox ox 12X 16X ox SOX 44X 38% Gender/E thn 1c I ty Male As 1an/Pac 1 f 1c 1 s I and er 0 0 6 14 0 ' J 10 0 ' 5 19 0 0  36 ox ox 27X 18X ox SOX 14X 13X ox sox 23X 24X ox ox 36X 46X African A11erlcan 5 59 844 2. 183 0 JO 229 533 2 20 157 34' 2 21 99 223 56X 45X 64X 67X ox 23X 17X 16X 22X 15X 12X ,ox 22X 16X 7X 7X lllspan1c 3 3 20 84 0 ' 12 69 2 2 12 67 0 0 12 62 60X sox 36X 30X ox 17X 21X 24X ox 33X 21X 2,x ox ox 21X 22X Nat Ive A11erlcan 0 0 s 31 0 0 J 17 0 0 2 20 0 0 J 22 ox ox 38X 34X ox ox 23X 19X ox ox ,sx 22X ox ox 23X 24X Whl te ' 10 535 2. 225 3 16 527 2,098 0 18 641 2,530 6 51 874 3,514 ,ox 11X 21X 21X 30X 17X 2ox 2ox ox 19X 2SX 24X 60X s,x 34X 34X Other 0 0 23 29 0 0 6 \" 0 0 s 9 0 0 s 12 ox ox S9X 47X ox ox ,sx 19X ox ox 13X ,sx ox ox 13X 19X Migrant 0 0 3 110 0 0 J 64 0 0 3 41 0 0 2 45 ox ox 27X 42% ox ox 27X 25X ox ox 27% 16X ox ox 18X 17% Al~AP A1kan\\U C'omprchcnsiYTt nting, Assessment \u0026amp;.Accoun11bili1yP1ugram PRIMARY (GR. 4) BENCHMARK EXAMINATION LITERACY SCHOOL SUMMARY REPORT: GENERAL POPULATION Dlstr-tct Name: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LEA K: 60-02 Total Number of Students Tested: 56 School Name: NO. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Schoo 1 Number: 063 Grade: 04 Date of Test: l\\prtl 2001 Nun.ber \u0026amp; Percentage of Students Below Bask (BEL) 178 and below Nunber \u0026amp; Percentage of Students Basic (BAS) 179-199 Nu11ber \u0026amp; Percent\nage of Students Proficient (PRO) Nu111ber \u0026amp; Percentage or Studnnt5 Advanced (ADV) All Students Gender Fe11a le flllale Ethnic tty As 1an/Pac 1 f 1 c Is I and er African A11erlcan Hispanic Native A11er I can 'l'hi te Other Gender /E thn 1c i ty Fe11ale '\" 1 11/Pae 1 r 1 b l  t aneu,r African Araerlcan Hispanic Nat Ive A11er I can Whl te Other Gender /E thn le I ty lilale As I an/Pac 1 ft c 1 s I ander African A11erlcan Hispanic Native A11ertcan White Other Migrant _School_ District Region _Slate_ 13 23X 6 19X 7 29X 0 ox 5 16X 4 SOX 0 ox 4 24X 0 ox 0 ox 4 18X 1 JJX 0 ox 1 1,x 0 ox 0 ox 1 11X 3 60X 0 ox 3 JOX 0 ox 0 ox 146 I. 928 6, 162 28% 24% 22x 77 27X 69 JOX 2 67% 121 39X 5 45X 0 ox 18 9X 0 ox 1 100% 69 39X 1 20X 0 ox 6 6X 0 ox 1 SOX 52 ,ox 4 67X 0 ox 12 13X 0 ox 0 ox 795 19X 1,132 28X 6 14X 1. 142 41X 25 23X 8 31X 724 14X 17 21X 10' X 489 34X 11 20X 4 31X 282 11x 4 ,ox 4 18X 653 49X 14 25X 4 31X 442 17% 13 JJX 2 18X 2. 458 17X 3,700 26X 11 7X 2,814 42X 113 21X 45 25X 3,080 15X 22 18X ' 4X 1,219 JSX 40 15X 20 22X I, 161 11x 7 11X 8 ,ox I. 653 sox 73 26X 25 28X I, 918 19X 15 24X 81 31X _School_ District _Region_ State 25 ,sx 15 47X 10 42X 0 ox 17 ssx 3 38X 0 ox 5 29X 0 ox 0 ox 11 SOX 1 JJX 0 ox 3 43X 0 ox 0 ox 6 67X 2 40X 0 ox 2 20X 0 ox 0 ox 194 2 .831 9,930 38X JSX JSX 103 37X 90 39X 1 JJX 118 38X 3 27X 0 ox 70 36X 2 100% 0 ox 62 JSX 1 20X 0 ox 38 39X 2 1oox 1 sox 55 42% 2 JJX 0 ox 32 34X 0 ox 0 ox 1,374 34X 1,454 36X 18 42X 990 36X 39 35X 10 38% I. 726 34X 29 36X  29X 5'6 38X 18 JJX 5 38% 777 31X 13 32X 12 ssx 442 JJX 21 38X 5 38X 949 37X 16 41X 4 36X 4,702 JJX s.in 37X 63 39X 2,422 36X 217 39X 71 39% 7,058 34X 50 ,ox \" 30X 1,317 38X 105 39X 27 JOX 3,187 31X 19 JOX 39 49X 1.100 34X 112 40X 43 48% 3,868 37X 31 SOX 103 ,ox 200-249 _School_ District _Region_ State _ 17 JOX 11 34X 6 25X 0 ox 8 26X 1 13X 0 ox 8 47X 0 ox 0 ox 7 32X 1 JJX 0 ox 3 43X 0 ox_ 0 ox 1 11X 0 ox 0 ox 5 SOX 0 ox 0 ox 167 3.230 11,800 32% 40% 41% 97 JSX 70 30X 0 ox 65 21X 2 18X 0 ox 100 s,x 0 ox 0 ox 45 26X 2 ,ox 0 ox so 52X 0 ox 0 ox 20 15X 0 ox 0 ox 50 sax 0 ox 0 ox 1,813 44X 1,414 35X 17 ,ox 621 22X 43 39X 8 31X 2. 486 49X 32 ,ox 11 52X 394 27X 24 x 4 31X 1,349 54X 22 54X 6 27X 226 17X 19 34X 4 31X I, 135 x 10 26X 5 45X 6,682 47X 5, 106 36X 78 x 1,434 21X 212 39X 64 36X 9,904 48X 50 ,ox .. 60X 921 26X 120 ,sx 42 47X 5,491 s,x 34 s,x 29 37X 512 16X 92 33X 22 24X 4,407 43X 16 26X 72 28X 250 and above _ School_ Ulstr let _Region __ State __ 1 ,x 0 ox I ,x 0 ox 1 3% 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 1 11X 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 8 2X 4 IX 4 2% 0 ox 3 1X 1 x 0 ox ,'x 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 1 20X 0 ox 3 ,x 0 ox 0 ox 3 2% 0 ox 0 ox 1 1x 0 ox 0 ox 164 2% 103 ax 61 2X 2 sx 16 1X 3 3X 0 ox 1'1 JX 2 JX ,o' x 8 1x 1 2X 0 ox 90 ,x 2 sx 0 ox 8 IX 2 ,x 0 ox 51 2X 0 ox 0 ox 621 ,r, '\" 3X 197 IX 8 sx 34 IX 8 1X 0 ox 567 3X 3 ,x  6X 19 1X 3 1X 0 ox 393 x 3 sx 3 x 15 ox 5 2X 0 ox 174 2X 0 ox 4 2X   STAFF DEVELOPMENT UPDATE FOR CERTIFIED STAFF (OFFERINGS SINCE LAST SCHOOL PROFILE)  Page 23 ,: , STDFOl /\u0026lt;\n\u0026lt; , NL.itSOO l suu. I!...,..l.opmen~ By n,pic ocation J'.\u0026lt; 'opic Topic 08soription Da.te :oo:i. ~lTIMC 1'0 1'l!Sl1l\\DZ 7/\n/.l/00 1004 FRESH LOOII. AT NUMill-lll-'3 7/0G/00 ::coo, G!!'l.\"l'ING SMAR.Tl!R 7 /10/00 :oo7 SMART S~$:i' 7/ll/On 1:00, nn,\u0026lt;O TO wean ~==s= 7/11/00\n:010 INTRO TO I'O'NEfl ronn 7/13/00 ,l.Oll ELL.\\ llEW Sgs:110Jf 7/18/00 !1015 C0!1!T!W \u0026amp; AFn!:C'I'rvF: CU11p!,CUJ.. U M 8/0l/00 ,'l.0'1.\"l =~ ~ Q/OA/00 Hl1l8 MJ\u0026lt;l!'i\u0026lt;T~ J!ILY 1li, 2,, 27, Ii. 28,2000 7/25/00 11021 SPECI.AL ED SPECIAL Sli01f a/0:1/00 ~1027 FIU\\KS~ l'OR UHDEIISl\"AIIDilllo WVSl'T't 9/04/00 1:036 EOUCAerOltS IN lllD(JS'l'lll' 7/07/00 Zl048 QUICK NOTSS TRAM MTGS K-2 a/Ol/00 21057 CaRJ\\DUXl'Eco m.sl!-CRSL 7305 8/01/00 H0$8 QFp\nCT!W un.= l\"OLLOW-UP 1/12/00 :10~, SP .N!..\"11 T!.l~ OR.Ili:NTATION S/14/00 21061 NP.W Tf'..AC!Ula Ill=VJ:CE ~/J.4/00 210G2 SPECIAL Ell IN5eRVlCC8 6/07/00 21069 Al!A ll./03/Q\u0026lt;\n) l107l GROIIIllG .IO\\l'HEMATICAL IDl!AS KINt\u0026gt;i.:J\u0026lt;!?.Al!TllN 11/3.J/00 :107~ BFLIT\u0026amp;l\\AC'i 't~ ~DIG 1/1-\"l/ln. J:il\u0026gt;91 .l!LLA FOLLOli'-IIP a/10/00\n:\n1t MAK!! 1'ND Tllll 3/23/01 :is\n:, Il\u0026lt;TI\u0026lt;O TO WORD PRDCESSDIG MICROSOFT WOIUl 7 /11/00 21530 INTRODUCTION TO llll.\"NDOWS 95/9S 7/11/00 11i\n34 WORD PII.OOSSING  FART i 7/13/00\n)1535 INl'II.ODUCTIO!II TO .POWER ronrr 7il3/00 as ot 10/l.6/0l. I-----ADMDIISTRATOIZS----I-------CilRTIFillD-------1------CLASSIFIE0---- 1 j----MJ\\Lll--- ---FBMALS-- j ----MJ\\LB--- ---FDW-S--j----MAU--- ---n'!-11,LE-- I a W O B W O B W O B W O 3 W O R W 0 l 2 l J l l l ~ 1 .. l l 1 l 1 l. l 2 l .l 2 2 t l 1 1 l 1 1 11/12/01 11:53 TX/RX N0.4991 P.002 -    STAFF DEVELOPMENT UPDATE FOR CLASSIFIED STAFF (OFFERINGS SINCE LAST SCHOOL PROFILE)  Page 24   DISCIPLINE INFORMATION REFERRALS/ ACTIONS TAKEN (PLEASE ATTACH COMPUTER GENERATED INFORMATION)  Page 25 CUMULATIVE .t\\t:.Lt::::J...1..0...L nca.::,vu NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Code Description 01 Disregard for directions of teachers or administrators. o\u0026amp;.sregard for directions of bus drivers, lunch aides, or other ~uthorized school personnel. 03 Disruption and/or interference with the normal and orderly conduct of school \u0026amp; school-sponsored activities. 04 Behavior that involves indecent and/or immoral acts. 05 Wagering or any form of gambling. REF STU REF STU REF STU REF STU REF STU 06 Physical abuse, assault, insult or threatened physical abuse to REF a school employee. STU 07 Physical abuse, assault, insult, or threatened physical abuse to REF another student or any other individual. STU 08 Possession of a (l)knife, (2)razor, (3)ice pick, (4) explosive, REF (5)pistol, (6)rifle, (?)shotgun, (8)pellet gun, (9)mace, (lO)tear gas, STU (ll)pepper spray, or (12) any other object that can be considered a weapon or dangerous instrument. 09 Possession of alcoholic beverages or any narcotic drug as defined REF by Arkansas law or School Board Policy\nor using, under the STU influence, offering for sale or selling alcoholic beverages or any narcotic drug as defined by Arkansas law or Board policy. 10 Destruction of or the attempt to destroy school property. REF 11 Stealing or the attempt to steal school property or the property belonging to another individual. 12 Cheating or copying the work of another student. l~ilure to abide by attendance rules. 14 Excessive tardiness to class (Secondary use only). 15 Use of profanity, vulgar language or obscene gestures. STU REF STU REF STU REF STU REF STU REF STU 16 Committing extortion, coercion, blackmail or forcing another REF person to act through the use of force or threat of force. STU 17 Engaging in verbal abuses such as name-calling, ethnic or racial REF slurs, or using derogatory statements to other students, school STU personnel or other individuals. 18 Hazing. REF STU 19 Gang related activities. REF STU 20 Sexual harassment. REF 21 Smoking and/or possession of any tobacco and/or tobacco product paraphernalia. STU REF STU 22 Possession of any paging device, beeper, mobile/cellular REF telephone or similar electronic communication device. STU TOTAL REF STU -------TOTAL------------ Total Pct Par Con Tot 26 19.25% 19 22.35% 11 8.14% 10 11. 76% 89 65.92% 47 55.29% 0 .00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 0 .00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 6 4.44% 6 7.05% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 1 . 74% 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135 85 1.17% .74% 1.17% .74% 1.17% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 16 12 7 6 44 26 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 68 45 1 Ref: DIS013 CUMULATIVE NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARYS CHOOL Code Description O-onference with Student 02 Conference with Parent 03 Conference with Student and Parent 04 Privileges Denied 05 Behavior Contract 06 Detention Hall 07 Student Will Make Up Time 08 Student Placed on Probation 09 Student Assignment Class(SAC) 10 Home Suspension 11 Boys/Girls Club Suspension 12 Alt School Susp (K-6) 13 Bus Suspension lesaturday School 15 Recommended Expulsion 16 Other 17 Expulsions Disciplinary Referral Summary By FILE YE ACTIONS STUDENTS ACTIONS STUDENTS ACTIONS STUDENTS ACTIONS STUDENTS ACTIONS STUDENTS ACTIONS STUDENTS ACTIONS STUDENTS ACTIONS STUDENTS ACTIONS STUDENTS ACTIONS STUDENTS ACTIONS STUDENTS ACTIONS STUDENTS ACTIONS STUDENTS ACTIONS STUDENTS ACTIONS STUDENTS ACTIONS STUDENTS ACTIONS STUDENTS TOTAL ACTIONS STUDENTS Action Taken -------TOTAL-------- -------BLACK---- Total Pct Par Con 26 19.25% 23 21.10% 9 6.66% 7 6. 42% 7 5.18% 6 5.50% 20 14.81% 14 12.84% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 11 8.14% 11 10. 09% 0 .00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 6 4.44% 6 5.50% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 25 18.51% 19 17.43% 0 .00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 0 .00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 31 22.96% 23 21.10% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 135 109 11 11 8 6 l 1 13 10 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 17 0 0 68 59 Total Pct ::\u0026gt;ar 22 16.29% 19 17.43% 8 5.92% 6 5.50% 3 2.22% 3 2.75% 16 11. 85% 11 10.09% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 8 5.92% 8 7.33% 0 . 00% 0 .00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 3 2.22% 3 2.75% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 20 14.81% 14 12.84% 0 .00% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 0 .00% 0 .00% 0 .00% 23 17.03% 17 15. 59% 0 . 00% 0 . 00% 103 76.29% 81 74.31%   COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION (COE) SURVEY RESULTS (IF APPLICABLE, PLEASE INSERT AFTER THIS PAGE)  Page 26    ANNUAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (IF APPLICABLE, PLEASE INSERT AFTER THIS PAGE) Page 27 Carline Thomas Schedule 2001/2002 7:35-10:15 Language Block (The following are approximate times within the Language block. The time and the activities will change with the days of the week and the needs of the students.) 7:40-8:00 8:00-9:15 9:15-10:00 10:00-10:15 10:15-10:30 10:30-10:50 10:50-11:10 11 :10-11 :45 11:45-12:45 12:45-1:15 1 :15-1 :30 1:30-1:45 1:45-2:00 2:00-2:15 2:15 2:20 Familiar Reading/Journals Attendance/Practice Activities Shared Reading/SharedNocabulary development Writing/Modeled Writing/Individual Writing Activities/ HandwritingNVord Activities/EPSF and BOEHM Skills/ Phonics Activities/Calendar/Read Alouds/Cooking Activities/LEA/Book Activities/ Art Group Work/Story Writing/Journals/Shared Writing/ Interactive Writing/Literacy Comers/ Assessments  Read Aloud/Books on Tapes/Music/Poetry Get Ready for Lunch Lunch Recess Familiar reading/ Shared Reading \u0026amp; Writing/Accomplish unfinished work/Art/Author's chair Math Science/Health/Social Studies Read Alouds Snacks Recess and/or Music \u0026amp; Movement Get Ready to go Home Dismiss Bus students Dismiss Daycare students Walk other students outside to dismiss. Library: Monday 11 :45-12:25 PE: Monday and Friday 12:30- 1 :00 Counselor: Every other Wednesday 11 :30- 12:00 ESL-Touchstone Monday and Wednesday 1: 00- 1:30 e Mrs. Tumers'Class Schedule 7:35 Table activity (phonic review,EPSF,Boehm and skills previously learned) Familiar Reading 8:do ABC Phonic Song/Letter March Handwriting Practice Morning News 8:30 Calendar/Weather/ Word Wall Activities Morning Movement(songs, finger plays) Shared Reading (story elements, CAP concepts) Whole Group Table Activity (to develop listening skills and following directions) Shared Writing Phonic Skills Center Activities 10:30 Transition Activities For Lunch 10:40 Lunch/Recess 11 :20 Recess Transition ( quiet time, bathroom, water, finish center work, familiar reading) 12:00 1: 15 1:45 2:00 2:15 2:20 2:25 Teacher Read Aloud Art Activity/Music Math Snack/Unit Study Second Recess/Group Games Dismissal Procedures/ Discuss Today's Leaming Bus Students Dismissed Daycare riders go to cafeteria/Car riders go to pourch End of our day - 7:35 - 8:00 8:00 - 8:30 8:30-10:15 Schedule - iv1anoe1 Ya i=,ia-' Seatwork / familiar reading/ previous day's unfinished work. (roll and lunch count taken at this time) Calendar * months / day / year * abc chart * sight words * sentence of the day * Math Their Way skills * Reading Groups ( call groups - 1 at a time) Groups: triangle, square, rectangle, circle * shared reading and writing * guided reading and writing * interactive reading * language centers * BOEHM / EPSF skills 10:15 - 10:25 Get ready for lunch * restroom * wash hands (line students up alphabetically) 10:25 - 11 :05 Lunch (Pick up children at the top of the hill.) 11 :05 - 11 :20 Quite time * water * familiar reading * restroom * unfmished work * music 11:20 - 12:00 Math skills - Math Their Way Concepts and centers 12:00 - 12:35 Letter of the week (practice) 12:35 - 1 :00 Writing - journals 1:00 - 1:35 Unit study/ art/ music 1:35 - 2:00 Snack/ recess/ abc skills (Recess only if you have time) 2:00 2:15 2:20 2:25 Prepare for home Dismiss bus students Send daycare to cafeteria and walk others outside. Dismiss all ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.  _ Jvl~ ~ ~ /:00-1:30 l.Rec. Cev,+er-w ~-\\-h Mrs. ~crma.Q.J) ~ ~ - W~- q:30- /D:IJ5 7:358':15 8':158':45 8':45  9:30 9:30  10:15 I 0: 1 5  1 0:3 0 10:3011:IB 11:15 11:20  11:30 11:30  11:50 11:50  I 2:00 I 2:00  1:00 Monda!J I 2:00  I 2:25 12:30 l:10 1:15  1:45 1:45  2:00 1:00  1:30 1:30  1:40 1:40  2:00 Z:00 2:15 Z:Z0 2:25 Kindergarten Mrs. Paige Wright MorningW ork SkillP ractice,R eview, FamiliarR eadingM, athT ubbing Calendar Evel'IDJ ay Counts Math Silver-Burdett-GiCnunr riculum SharedR eadingA BCC hart,L iteratureP, oetry,S haredW riting Finish Work Clean up Prepare for lunch Use restroom, wash hands Line up in ABC order LUN~ Pick up on playground Restroom Water QuietT ime fmishw ork.r ead quietly,h eads down, Musica ppreciation Listeningto differents tyles of music Read Aloud LiteracyH our Poetry,P honemicA warenessP, honics, Lettero f the Week,C onceptsA boutP rint, Writing 'LiteracyG roups,G uidedR eading, InteractiveW riting LiteracyH our LIBRARY LiteracyH our Snack  As students are ready Tuesda!J E vel'JoJ ther week I 2:00  I 2:30COUNSELOR 12:30  I :3 0 LiteracyH our 1:30  1:45 Snack I :4 5  2:0 0 FreeC hoiceo r 2nd Recess IntegratedT hematicA ctivities SocialS tudies,M usicS, cienceA, rt Snackr une DevelopmentaCle nters/FreeC hoiceO R 2nd Recess Cleanu p  Preparet o go home Reviewd ay on the carpet, pass out folders, notes, rewards, etc. Bus Bell  Bus students go to front hall DaycareB ell Daycares tudentsg ot o cafeteria,a nd neighborhoosdt udentsw ait on front porch Final Bell MRS. A. BURKS FIRST GRADE ROOM9 Morning Schedule 7:35 Children enter, pick up morning work off of reading table 7:40 Line up for bathroom, water fountain 7:50 Finish morning work 8:00 Pledge and announcements 8: 10 Clean table and move to rug for calendar time 8: 15 Calendar time 8:30 Shared Reading 8:45 Spelling 9:10 Move to groups (centers. table work. reading rug, reading table) 9:15-9:35 Group l 9:35-9:55 Group 2 9:55-10:15 Group 3 10:15-10:35 Group 4 10:35 Handwriting or journal writing 10:40 Bathroom/Wash hands : 0:47 Line up in ABC order for lunch (exception-sack lunches first) 10:50 Arrive at lunchroom 11 :30 Pick up children at top of playground ( outside Kindergarten wing) Return through doors nearest office. Stop at water fountains by second grade, then bathrooms, and wash bands 11 :45 Read Aloud Afternoon Schedule Moriday ~d W~~esday -~ 12:00 Computer Lab 12:37 12:40 1:30 2:00 2:15 2:20 :~:25 Tuesday: 12:00 12:30 1: 10 1 :30 2:00 2:15 2:20 2:25 Line up, return to class Math/Every other Wednesday the coW1Selor comes from 12:50 to 1 :20 Writer's Workshop/or Math if the counselor has come at 12:50 Clean-up, move to rug to read books Bus riders dismissed Daycare riders dismissed All children dismissed PE with Miss Webb Library Return to room. read n~w books Math Clean-up, move to rug to read books Bus riders dismissed Daycare riders dismissed All children dismissed 12:00 PE with Miss Webb 12:30 Math 1:30 Art 2:00 Clean-up, move to rug to read books 2:15 f3us riders dismissed 2:20 Daycare riders dismissed 2:25 All children dismissed Et:ri~ay  -~ .~. ,.:a~~I 12:00 Math - 1:00 Writer's Workshop 1:30 Music 2:00 Clean-up, move to rug to read books 2:15 Bus riders dismissed 2:20 Daycare riders dismissed 2:25 All children dismissed Miss Cooley's Class Schedule 7:35-7:50 Welcome, Unpack, Familiar Reading 7:50-8 Bathroom 8:00-8:20 Calendar 8:20-8:45 Morning Journals 8:45-9:00 Spelling 9:00-9:15 Handwriting 9:15-10:45 Guided Reading 10:50-11:00 Bathroom and Wash hands 11:00-11:40 Lunch and Recess 11:40-11:50 Bathroom, wash hands, water 11:50-12:20 Read Aloud and Afternoon Activities Activities Monday- Counseling 11:50-12:20 (every other) Tuesday and Thursday - Computer 12-12:37 Wednesday - Library 12:30-1:10 and P.E. 1:30-2 Friday - P.E. 12-12:30 and Music 1:30-2 12:20-1:10 Math 1:10-2 Shared Reading and Writers Workshop 2:00-2:15 Familiar Reading, Packing, and Dismissal 2:15 Buses 2:20 Daycare 2:25 Walkers/Car Riders Miss Joshua's Schedule 7:35-7:55 Familar reading 7: 5 5-8 :05 Bathroom/W aterbreak 8:10-8:40 Spelling 8:40-9:05 Shared reading, ABC charts, and poems 9:05-10:40 LANGUAGE ARTS BLOCK Guided Reading (MWF)/ Assisted Write (Tues./Th) Literacy Comers 10:40-10:50 Bathroom/wash hands prepare for lunch 10:55-11:35 Lunch/recess 11 :40-11 :50 Bathroom/water break 11:50-12:00 Read Aloud 12:00-12:10 Calendar,everyday counts (Fri. P.E. 12:00-12:30) 12:10-1:00 Math (Tues.ffhur. Computer Lab 12:40-1:17) (Mon. Counselor 12:30-1 :00) (Wed. Art 12:30-1:00) 1 :00- 1 : 40 Writer's Workshop (Mon. Library 1 : 15-1: 5 5) (Wed. P.E. 1:30-2:00) (Fri. Music 1 :30-2:00) 1 :40-2:00 Unit Study 2:00 Reflections 2: 15 Dismissal MS.C. WEBB FIRST GRADE - ROOMS CLASS SCHEDULE 7:35-8:00 Familiar Reading (Roll-7:55) 8:00-8:05 Announcements 8:05-8:15 Bathroom 8: 15-8:30 Shared Reading 8:30-8:50 Spelling 8:50-9:00 Explain Seatwork 9:00-9:25 Group 1 9:25-9:50 Group 2 9:50-10:15 Group 3 10:15-10:30 Group 4 10:30-10:40 Bathroom/Line up for lunch 10:45-11 :25 Lunch/Recess 11:25-11:45 Come in from playground/Bathroom 11:45-11:55 Read Aloud 11:55-12:55 Calendar/Math - 12:55-1 :30 Unit Work 1:30-2:10 Writer's Workshop MR. E. WALDORF SECOND GRADE - ROOM7 7:35 - 8:00 Sha:rpen-2 Pencils, Morning Work, Read, Lunch \u0026amp; Attendance 8:00 - 8:15 Everyday Counts Math after announcements 8: 15 - 8:25 Bathroom and drink 8:25 - 8:30 Explanation of Corners and Seat Work 8:30 - 9:00 Reading Group 1 to reading, Reading Group 2 se:uwork. Reading Group 3 to Corners 9:00 - 9:30 Reading Group 1 to Corners, Reading Group 2 to reading. Reading Group 3 seatwork 9:30 - 10:00 Reading Group l se:uwork, Reading Group : to comers. Reading Group 3 to reading l 0:00 - 11 :00 :Vlondays \u0026amp; Wednesdays: Tuesdays: Thursdays \u0026amp; Fridays: lO 00 - 1037 Computer - '0:37 - l 100 D E...\\.R. 10 ! 5 - l0:55 Liorarv l0.00 - 10: 15 DE A .. R. : O 15 - l l 00 \\.\\i rire,'s Wor~shop 11:00 - L2:00 Sarhrocm.. 11::a - t::00 L:r:c:1 \u0026amp; '.Zc.:~~s 12:00 - 12: 15 Bathroom \u0026amp; Drink 12:15-1:00 Math 1:00 - 1:30 Science, Social Studies, or Health 1:30 - 2:00 Writer's Workshop or Art 2:00 - 2: 15 Prepare for going home 2:15 - 2:25 2: 15 - Bus riders dismissed\n2:20 - Daycare dismissed\n2:25 - Walkers/Car Riders Dismissed P.E. and Music P.E. -Thursdays 12:30 - 1:00\nFridays 1:00 - 1:30 Music - Tuesdays 1:30 - 2:00 Mrs. A. Williams' Class Schedule - 7:35-8:00 Sharpen 3 pencils Bathroom D.E.A.R./Bell Work Roll Call 8:00-8:30 Spelling Shared Reading 8:30-10:00 Guided Reading Group I 8:30-9:00 Group 2 9:00-9:30 Group 3 9:30-10:00 10:00-10:30 Social Studies 10:30-11 :00 Science/Health 11 :00-11: 15 Wash Hands Line Up For Lunch - 11:15-11:55 Lunch Recess 11:55-12:15 Drink Bathroom Shared Reading 12:15-1:00 Math Calendar 1:00-2:00 Writer's Workshop 2:00-2:15 Writing: Personal Journals Get ready for home 2:15 Bus Leave 2:20 Daycare Leave - 2:25 Car/Walkers Leave 3:05 Teachers Leave S. \\/ViUiarns 2nd Grade r.u. .i\na ss C,. ,.\nr -h.e5d ' - V i~ u le W!LLL C sc::s:.ux..::::::.sz. ~ WWW Roll Cali. Lunch Count, fv1orn.in.,a, V\\/ork 8:45-9:15 SoeHina ...!. . ',J\n. H C'~r! ,n r,  '-'.Jl\"t..-t '-\"' 11 ~ ::f 10:45-11 :05 \\\n\\J,_\nJ,\n__ ~ ' t i V\\flil.lil~ - rt:1~:,vlictl ,\n0Uf\ni8\ni i ,ii: ... ~-~--- .......... ..,, ,...~' ., c_-: ~~\n: .. ~ i L \"t. .. l\n..., 1 !!:: . ~ ,} ~..\nC f--\\ r'\" .,, t ,-.,. I ' ~J (\n(\nta i ,~- ~:.i c: ~\n-l :s Computer Lai:i I '\\ I I ~ a r1 ( l '1~ tJJ a . Counselor .P.i.-.. l\\,1usic Thur. 1 :00 - i :30 -~ ...... !\"'\"\" ..............\n.. :.--,.. - '\n\\ ..\nf \n\n,, ,, ,.,.., '\n-.._ Pilar Woody's 2nd grade schedule 2001-2002 7:35-8:00 Greet students. Math Writing Journal 8:00-8:40 Social Studies* 8:40-8:55 Bathroom 8:55-9:05 Morning Calender (everyday counts) 9:05-9: 15 Shared Read.mg 9: 15-9:30 Spelling 9:30-11: 15 Read.mg Groups ( centers) 11: 15-11:05 Bathroom/lunch/recess 12:05-12:25 Bathroom/water 12 :25-1: 10 ::VIath ::!O-l::30 Writer's ~Ncrkshc!J .. 30-:2:0:5 Language 2:05-2:25 Review Day, pass out papers. pacl\u0026lt;u p, ge! :-eaciyIO 60. * Activity Schedule Monday- 8:00-8:37 Computer 12:00-12:30 P.E. Tuesday- 8:00-8:40 Library Wednesday- 8:00-8:37 Computer Thursday- 1:00-1:30 Music (in Nlrs. S. William's room) Friday- 10:30-11:00 P.E. - 7:35-8:00 8:00-8:30 8:30-9:00 9:00-9:30 9:30-11 :00 11 :00-11 :30 11 :30-11 :45 11 :55-12:35 12:40-1:30 1:30-2:10 2:15 2:20 2:25 COUSELING MEDIA MISS GRISSOM THIRD GRADE ROOM33 PROBLEM OF THE DAY SOCIAL STUDIES SPELLING WRITING READING LANGUAGE READ ALOUD LUNCH AND RECESS MATH SCIENCE BUS STUDENTS LEAVE DAYCARE STUDENTS LEAVE DISMISS ALL OTHERS 9:25-9:55 EVERY OTHER MONDAY 9:30-10:10 WEDNESDAY COMPUTER LAB 9:20-9:57 TUES. \u0026amp; THURS. P.E. MONDAY 1:30-2:00 \u0026amp; THURSDAY 1:00-1:30 Kilgore's Third Grade Schedule Monday 7:35-8:05 morningjouroal 8:05-8:15 calendar 8:15-9:15 reading 9:20-10:00 computer lab 10:00-11 :00 writing workshop 11 :00-11 :40 spelling and language 11 :45-12:25 lunch/recess 12:35-1:20 math 1 :20-1 :30 homework folder 1 :30-2:00 P.E. 2:00-2:25 DEAR Wednesday 7:35-8:05 morning journal 8:05-8:15 calendar 8:15-9:15 reading 9:20-10:00 computer lab l 0:00-10:50 science or social studies 10:50-11 :30 spelling and language 11 :30-11 :45 DEAR 11:45-12:25 lunch/recess 12:40-1 :10 counselor or music 1 : 10-1 :25 writing 1:25-2:10 math 2:10-2:25 homework folder Tuesday and Friday 7:35-8:05 morningjoumal 8:05-8:15 calendar 8:15-9:15 reading 9:15-10:15 writing workshop 10:15-11:00 spelling and language 11:00-11:45 art or DEAR 11 :45-12:25 lunch/recess 12:35-1 :25 science or social studies 1 :25-2: 10 math 2:10-2:25 homework folder Thursday 7 :3 5-8 :05 morning journal 8:05-8:15 calendar 8:15-9:00 reading 9:00-9:30 spelling and language 9:30-10: 10 library 10: 10-11 :00 writing workshop 11 :00-11 :40 science or social studies 11:45-12:25 lunch/recess 12:25-1 :00 DEAR and homework folder 1:00-1:30 P.E. 1:30-2:15 math 7:30 7:30-7:40 7:it0-8:20 8:20-8:40 8:40-9:00 9:00-9:30 9:30-10:00 10:00-10:10 10:10-11:00 11:00-11:40 11:40-12:40 12:40-12:55 12:55-1:25 1:25-2:10 2:10-2:15 2:15 2:20 2:25 PE Art Music Schedule 2001-2002 Ms. McConnaughhay 3rd Grade Pick Up Students From Cafeteria Restroom Attendance / Lunch Count / Problem of the Day / Everyday Counts Spelling Handwriting Language Science Restroom Break Reading Writing (Soar to Success and Reading Groups) Prepare for Lunch/ Lunch 11:50-12:10 / Recess 12:10-12:30 / Restroom Break 12:30- 12:40 Read a Chapter Book Social Studies Math Prepare To go Home Dismiss Bus Riders Dismiss Daycare Dismiss Car Riders and Walkers Tuesday 12:30-1:00 / Thursday 11:00-11:30 Integrated With Other Subjects Thursday 1:40-2:10 (if Counseling that week) Friday 12:55-1:25 (if no Counseling that week) Computer Lab- Friday 9:20-10:45 Library- Tuesday 9:30-10:10 Counseling- Alternate Fridays 12:45-1:15 Reeves' Third Grade Schedule Monday/Wednesday 7:35-8:05 morningjournal 8:05-8:15 calendar/P.O.D. 8:15-9:15 reading 9:15-10:00 spelling/language 10:00-10:40 writing workshop 10:40-11: 17 computer lab 11:17-11:30 wash for lunch 11 :30-11 :40 DEAR 11:40-12:20 lunch/recess 12:30-1:30 math 1 :30-2:00 science or social studies 2:00-2:25 homework folder/six stars sharpen pencils Tuesday 7:35-8:05 morning journal 8:05-8: 15 calendar/P.O.D. 8: 15-9: 15 reading 9: 15-10: 15 spelling/language/writing 10:15-11:00 science or social studies 11 :00- 11 :40 library 11 :40-12:20 lunch/recess 12:30-1:00 P.E. 1:00-1 :55 math 1 :55-2:05 homework folders 2:05- 2:25 D.E.A.R./ sharpen pencils Thursday 7:35-8:05 momingjournal 8:05-8: 15 calendar/P.O.D. 8:15-9:15 reading 9: 15-10:00 spelling/language 10:00-10:45 writing 10:45-11 :00 D.E.A.R. 11:00-11:30 P.E. 11:40-12:20 lunch/recess 12:30-1:30 math 1:30-2:00 science or social studies 2:00-2:25 homework folder/ six stars, pencils sharpen Friday 7:35-8:05 morningjournal 8:05-8: 15 calendar/P.O.D. 8:15-9:15 reading 9: 15-10:00 spelling/language 10:00-10:30 writing 10:40-11:00 counselor or music 11 :00-11 :40 science or social studies 11:40-12:20 lunch/recess 12:20-12:45 D.E.A.R. 12:45-1:30 math I :30-2:00 art 2:00-2:25 D.E.A.R. e Dombroski Class Schedule 7:35-8:30 AssignmenfNotebook Journal (Problem of the day) 8:30-9:00 Spelling 9:00-9:30 English 9':30-10:45 Reading/Writing 10:45-11:45 Math 11:45-12:10 Science/Social Studies/Health/Bathrooms 12:10-12:50 Lunch/Recess 12:50-1:00 Bathroom/Read to students 1 :00-1 :30 Social Studies/Science/Health 1 :30-2 :00 PE/ Art/Music 2:00-2:25 D.E.A.R./Clean room 2:15 Bus 2 :20 Daycare 2:25 Neighborhood COUNSELOR COMPUTERS MEDIA REC CENTER Every other Wednesday Friday Thursday Wednesday Friday (NO SUBSTITUTES at REC CENTER) 8:05-8:35 8:00-9:15 8:00-8:40 1:00-1:30 1 :30-2:00 7:35-8:00 8:00-9:00 9:30-10:00 10:00-10: 15 10:15-11:00 11:00-11:55 12:00-12:20 12:20-12:40 12:40 12:40-1:10 1:10 1:20-2:00 2:00-2:15 2:15 2:20 2:25 10:15-10:55 12:20-2:00 1:30-2:00 11 :00-11 :30 MRS. J. NEWTON 2001-2002 FOURTH GRADE ROOM30 Attendance, lunch count, homework turn in, students are working on practice worksheets and to copy days work in assignment notebook Math/Ms. Fieg (Math Specialist) comes in to work with students in math Reading Bathroom break/students snack time Continue reading Writing/Language Lunch Recess Pick students up from recess/D-hall Spelling Practice, DEAR or I read to students Restroom break Science, Social Studies, or Character Word of the Month Get ready to go home Dismiss bus students Dismiss daycare students Dismiss walkers/riders Library - Monday Computer Lab - Friday P.E. Monday P.E. Friday MRS. C. O'DELL FOURTH GRADE 2001-2002 ROOM21 7:35-8:30 LUNCH COUNT, ASSIGNMENT BOOK, JOURNAL-SOCIAL STIJDIES, MA TH OR FREE WRITING 8:30-8:55 CHECK MATH OR SOCIAL STUDIES JOURNAL 8:55-9:45 MATH- FIEG AND MYSELF 9:45-10:15 SPELLING 10:00 RESTROOM BREAK 10:15-11:30 READING/WR1TING ACTIVITIES 11:30-12:00 ENGLISH 12:00-12:10 PREPARE FOR LUNCH 12:15-12:55 LUNCH AND RECESS 12:55-1 :05 RESTROOM BREAK 1 :05-1 :20 D.E.A.R. OR TEACHER READS 1 :20-2:05 SOCIAL STIJDIES, SCIENCE OR HEAL TH 2:05-2: 15 CLEAN ROOM 2:15 DISMISS BUS STUDENTS 2:20 DISMISS DAY CARE STIJDENTS 2:20 TEACHER WALKS NEIGHBORHOOD STUDENTS TO GATE 2:25 DISMISS NEIGHBORHOOD STIJDENTS 2:25-3:05 PLANNING TIME 11 :20-11 :50 COUNSELOR - EVERY OTHER THURSDAY 10:15-10:55 LIBRARY-EVERY THURSDAY 11 :30-11 :57 COMPUTER LAB-EVERY MONDAY AND WEDNESDAY 1:00-1:30 P.E.-WEDNESDAY 1 :30-2:00 P.E.-FRIDA Y 1:00-1:20 ART OR MUSIC-FRIDAY -- MRS. R THURMAN FOURTH GRADE ROOM23 -J:\nrl::-:,.,\n::_,---------,-\n-M\n--:o~nd--\n-ay:---------------,-\n:TV\n-\n:-ES\n:-D\n:-A-:-:\nY-------------,~W~c:\n:dn:,::,,:o:::v-------------~ 7:35-8 Mon\"ng \\V,,..ic Copy spcll,ng hsT 1n ass19nmenr notcboak. Moth worksheet, 1-k1ndwr,t1ng worksheet. Calendar moth, Problem of the day, Wr-1t1ng JOlTnOI. Po.ss out popus. arrendancc S1'1cken', behavior ST1cker-s, check ho~worl( Pc1n out papen. Progress r-ept Homework chcr-r I 8:00-8:40 (8-9:25 Latr,:.n-r~,:) (8-9 B,vron-Marh) 8:45-9:10 READING (9-9.-20 Byron----campurer) 9:20-9:40 WRITING (9:30-/0:55 Bvran \u0026amp; 3ronaonr~ ot.rce} 9:50-i0:40 MaTh {J0-10:dO lav-en-comour~. 1 (10:30-//:/5 M,r,am-C5l) !0:4C-ll:OO L.!i'=i\u0026lt;A TVRE UNI'.'\" 12:05-12:45 12:45-1:40 Social Studies 1:40-2 LANGUAGE (J:05-J:40 Brandon-resot.rce) 2-2\n15 ACTIVITY (l:40-2:/5 Lat.ren-rt!:SOU\"'Ce) 2:!5-2:25 DISMISSAL Rcadu,9 {9-9:/5 Turor1ng-Mrs. J.lutcmmon} 8-8:05 Activate background knowlcd9C 8:05-8:10 JO\u0026lt;rnol 8:10-8:20 vocabulary 8:20--8:30 workbook 8:30-8:35 pre.view and predict 8:35--8:50 read the S1'ory 8:50--8:55 rcflecr 8:55-9:05 summary together 9:05-9:15 end of selection test 9:50-W problem of The: dav 10-10:10 Ten minure maTh 10:10-10:30 lesson 10:30-10:40 proc~ice: worksne:er Sc:e:rce Language 11:40-11:50 lesson 11:50-12 practice LUNCH/RECESS Soc10l Stud,es (12:45-2:15 \u0026lt;:\n=r: Bru. Laa, \u0026amp; Chr,sr,an) 12:45-12:50 graphic organizer 12:50-1:10 lesson 1:10-1:20 workshec:T 1:20-1:30 ger re.adv To go home take: home: folder Take rlome: a\"19nmenr noTebaak To be s1gne~ pack backpacks 1:30-2:!5 P. E. 2: 15 bus r,den- picked up 2:20 dav care picked up ,.\n,s:: ~-:1\u0026lt;,o ,,.:r --d~ 'lnd 41ofker\"1t\"o - ..e 'encz CHECX Tgkc Home Fojdcr Asl:'9!?!\"lcnT Note.book Cor.,purer: moth Reading 8:45-8:55 vocabulary rcv,cw 8:55-9:05 workbook 9:05-9:15 vocooulorv qurz Wr,r1ng Wor-ksnop 9:15-9:25 1nrroduce. prompT 9:25-Y:35 analvze promoT I I l1brarv 8:40-9:!0 counsclo- -everv orher week {9-9:30 :-uror,11!'-~ \u0026gt;-lurcnmson) Wr1Tr\"9 Wcrl(snop 9:10-9:40 respono -: -,e\n::romor 9:40-9:~C ,?QIT I f1,1peo: f wr1nr19,\n:~reqorre.s. ~ua1e.nce I 9:35-9:50 pre-wrrTe 9:50-10 problem of :-he :iov 10-JO:lO ten mmufe. moth 10:!0-IC:30 lesson 10:30-!0:40 proc~rce wor-.:snec .5c:e.ncz: I1:10-!J:30 lesson 11:30-11:40 sk,11 IJ:40-!l:50 wor1\u0026lt;0ook toqe.thcr 11:50-12 concept wort\u0026lt;book pa9e LUNCH/RECESS Soc,al Srud,e.s 12:45-12:50 graphic organizer 12:50-1:10 lesson 1:10-1:20 worksiiceT 1:20-1:30 sk,ll lc.sson 1:30-1:40 skill worksheer Longuo9e J:40-1:50 lesson J:50-2 practice ART 2:!5 bus rider~ p1ckea up 2:20 dav care\n:uckca up 2:2~ T'Jl\u0026lt;C c~ r,der-s: 'Jnd ...,o,ke--,-: , rhe 'fl!nce I ' 9:50-10 ~:ote:m of -e: ::av I 10-10:10 en minute -or:, I i0:!0-tC:.\nC lesson I !0:30-IO:.!C oracc-e ..,c,..'\u0026lt;sne:e:r il:!C-!I:2C o?SSOn 11:30-11:-'C s1e11f 11:50-12 c:nce:or wor,\n::oK pa9e: ! I LUNCH/RE\".:55 12:45-12:50 g-aph,c :r:~1zer 12:50-1:JO lesson 1:10-1:20 wCr'lCShce:r 1:30-1:40 sKril workr,---\nLanguage 1:40-1:50 lesson Music 2: 15 bus ricers p1cKc: _:\n2:20 :1ov c:::r'! :,,eke::: .::. 2:2~ ?1,ke ,:7 --:aers ~i: ..,.-:::JkerT\"So' ~tie\nence: I -1 I . { :,, Thu-sdav Fr1dov Notes M\"'\n\"9 Worl\u0026lt;, Copy spelling assignment notebook, Math ..sheet, ~ndwr,ting worksheet, jndar moth, Problem of the day, r,ring JOl.Tnal. Pass out papers. dance sT1ckers, behavior e.rs, check homework 8:00-'3:40 Computer: reading odd dotes Reading (8-9:25 La1rt:n-re..so1.ra) Language even dotes r 8-8:10 skill review {8-9 Byron-Morh) \\. 8:10-8:20 skill practice 8:20-8:45 benchmark re1ease/ hoftstic assessment 8:45-9 re.view multiple choice. ~uest1ons 9-9:15 review open response 8:45-9:10 Reading READING \\ 8:45-9 introduce skdl {9-9:,?0 Byron-compurer) 9-9:15 workbook skill page together 9:20-9:40 (9:/5-/0:25 Qlll!sr: Lodi, Brt:r \u0026amp; Chr1sr1on WRITING {9:30-/0:55 Byron \u0026amp; Brondon-rt: soi.ra} : 9:50-i0:40 Moth 9:50-10 pr-oblem of the dav 9:50- 10 problem of the dav (/0-10:dO Lo1.ren-compurer) 10-10:10 ten mrnute math 10-10:10 ren m1nu-re rnorh {/0:30-/ /:/5 M1r1om-ESL) 10:10-10:30 lesson 10:10-10:30 lesson 10:30-10:40 prac-r,ce workshee-r 10:30-10:40 pracnce worksneet 10:40-11:00 LITERATURE UNIT -c1ence Science {ll-/1:?0 QU#!sr: Ladt. Brt:r. \u0026amp; Chr,sflan) 11-11:30 P E I l l- I I: IO octtvIty ! 11:10-11:30 lesson 11:30-1140 skill I Science I 11:40-tl:50 workbook together 11:50-!2 concept workbook page 11:30-1 !:40 Vocooulorv quiz I IJ:40-i2 Chapter review :2:G:-:245 LUNCH/RECESS LUNCH/RECESS : 12:45-l:40 Social Studies Social Studies Social Studies (IC:40-2 -:omour~r-~,vr:in. . 12:45-12:50 graphic orgomzer Newron) 12:50-1:10 lesson 12:45-12:50 graphic organrzer 1:10-1:20 worksheet 12:50-1:10 lesson i 1:20-1:30 skill lesson \\:l0-1:20 worksheet 1:30-1:40 skill worksheet 1:20-1:30 sktU lesson 1:30-1:40 skill worksheet 1:40-2 Language Language c.ANGUAGE 1:40-1:50 lesson 1:40-1:50 lesson (J:05-/:40 Brandan-resolr'Ce) 1:50-2 prac-rIce J:50-2 practice 2-2:15 Acr1vrry Character Ed D. E. A.R. (!:40-2:15 La,ren-resovce) Drop Everything and Read I I -~AL 2:15 bus riders picked up 2:15 bus riders picked up 2:20 day care picked up 2:20 dav care picked up 2:25 take car riders and walkers to the fence 2:25 Take car riders and walkers TO the fence    Bingham Class Schedule 2001 - 2002 Fifth Grade, Room 28 MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY 7:35 - 8:00 ASSIGN. BOOKS 7:35 - 8:00 ASSIGN. BOOKS 7:35 - 8:00 ASSIGN. BOOK 7:35 - 8:00 ASSIGN. BOOK 7:35 - 8:00 ASSIGN. BOOK 8:00 - 9:10 MATH 8:00 - 9:10 MATH 8:00 - 9:10 MATH 8:00 - 9:10 MATH 8:00 - 9:10 MATH 9:10 - 9:40 SPNOC 9:10 - 9:40 SPNOC 9:10 - 9:40 .SPNOC 9:10 - 9:40 SPNOC 9:10 - 9:30 SPNOC TEST 9:40 - 9:50 BREAK 9:40 - 9:50 BREAK 9:40 - 9:50 BREAK 9:40 - 9:50 BREAK 9:30 - 9:40 BREAK 9:50 - 10 :50 READING 9:50 - 10 :50 READING 9:50 - 10 :50 READING 9:50 - 10 :50 READING 9:40 - 10:40 READING 10:50 - 11 :00 LA 10:50 - 11 :00 LA 10:50-11:00 LA 10:50 - 11 :00 LA 10:40 - 10:50 LA 11 :00 - 12:00 WRITING 11 :00 - 11 :20 WRITING 11 :00 - 11 :40 WRITING 11 :00 - 11 :20 WRITING 10:50 - 11 :50 WRITING 12:00 - 12:30 ENGLISH 11 :20 - 12:00 COMP LAB 11 :45 - 12:25 LIBRARY 11 :20 - 12:00 COMP LAB 11 :50 - 12:30 ART/MUSIC 12:00- 12:30 WRITING 12:00 - 12:30 WRITING 12:35 -1:15 LUNCH 12:35-1:15 LUNCH 12:35-1:15 LUNCH 12:35-1:15 LUNCH 12:35-1:15 LUNCH 1:20-2:10 SOC ST 1:20-2:10 SCIENCE 1 :20 - 2:10 SOC ST 1:20-2:10 PE 1 :20 - 2: 10 SCIENCE EVERY OTHER MONDAY OCT., JAN. \u0026amp; APR. 11 :00 - 11 :20 WRITING 8:00 - 8:50 MATH 11 :20 - 11 :50 COUNSELOR 8:50 - 9:10 SPNOC TEST 11 :50 - 12:30 WRITING 9:10 - 9:50 ART/MUSIC 9:30 - 9:40 BREAK 9:50 - 10:45 READING 10:50 - 11 :30 COMP LAB 11 :30 - 12:30 WRITING MONDAY 7,:35-8:00 8:45-9:25 9:25-10:00 10:00-10: 15 10:15-11:00 11 :00-12: 15 12:15-1:05 1 :05-1: 10 1: 10-2:00 2:00-215 2:15 2:20 2:25 TUESDAY 7:35-8:00 8:00-8:40 8:40-9:17 9:17-10:00 10:00-10:15 10:15-11:00 11 :00-11 :40 11 :40-12:25 12:25-1:05 1:05-1 :30 1:30-2:00 2:00-2:15 2:15 2:20 2:25 MS. C. YOUNG 2001-2002 FIFTH GRADE ROOM20 PROBLEM OF THE DAY SCIENCE - **8:15-9:15 COUNSELOR SOCIAL STUDIES SNACK/JOURNAL MUSIC SPELLING LUNCH/RECESS RES1ROOM MATH DEAR DISMISS BUS STUDENTS DISMISS DAYCARE STUDENTS DISMISS WALKERS/RIDERS PROBLEM OF THE DAY READING (WHOLE GROUP) COMPUTER LAB* SOCIAL STUDIES SNACK JOURNAL SCIENCE READING (SMALL GROUP) LANGUAGE LUNCH/RECESS MATH P.E.* DEAR DISMISS BUS STUDENTS DISMISS DAYCARE STUDENTS DISMISS WALKERS/RIDERS *CHECK WITH MS. SMITH ABOUT P.E. - SUB. CAN NOTT AKE STUDENTS TO THE REC. ALONE. SUB. MUST STAY WITH CLASS FOR P.E. WEDNESDAY 7:35-8:00 8:00-8:45 8:45-9:25 9:25-10:00 10:00-10: 15 10:15-11:00 11 :00-11 :45 11 :45-12:25 12:25-1 :05 1:05-2:00 2:00-2:15 2:15 2:20 2:25 THURSDAY 7:35-8:00 8:00-8:40 8:40-9:17 9:17-10:00 10:00-10:15 10:15-10:55 10:55-11:55 11:55-12:25 1:05-2:00 2:00-2:15 2:15 2:20 2:25 FRIDAY 7:35-8:00 8:00-8:40 8:40-9:20 9:20-10:00 10:00-10:15 10:15-11:00 11 :00-11 :30 PROBLEM OF THE DAY SPELLING LIBRARY SCIENCE SNACK/JOURNAL SOCIAL STUDIES READING LANGUAGE LUNCH/RECESS MATH DEAR DISMISS BUS STUDENTS DISMISS DAYCARE STUDENTS DISMISS WALKERS/RIDERS PROBLEM OF THE DAY SCIENCE COMPUTER LAB SOCIAL STUDIES SNACK/JOURNAL READING LANGUAGE SPELLING PRE-TEST (PLEASE CHECK \u0026amp; RETURN KEEP lO0'S, THEY CAN EXCHANGE \u0026amp; CHECK) MATH DEAR DISMISS BUS STUDENTS DISMISS DAYCARE STUDENTS DISMISS WALKERS/RIDERS PROBLEM OF THE DAY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES ART/MUSIC -CHECK PLAN BOOK JOURNAL/SNACK LANGUAGE SPELLING TEST 11:30-12:00 12:00-12:25 12:25-1:05 1:05-2:00 2:00-2:15 2:15 2:20 2:25 P.E. * DEAR LUNCH/RECESS MATH READ \u0026amp; HA VE STUDENTS PASS OUT WEEKS PAPERS DISMISS BUS STUDENTS DISMISS DAYCARE STUDENTS DISMISS WALKERS/RIDERS *CHECK WITH MS. SMITH ABOUT P.E. - SUB. CAN NOT TAKE STUDENTS TO THE REC. ALONE. SUB. MUST STAY WITH CLASS FOR P.E. - Mrs. Smith Schedule 2001-2002 MONDAY \u0026amp; FRIDAY 7:45-8:00 Take Attendance 8:00-8:20 Problem of the Day 8:20-8:50 Spelling 8:50-9:10 Bathroom Break 9:10-9:55 Reading 9:55-10:25 Language Arts 10:25-10:50 Writing 10:50-11:20 Social Studies 11:20-12:10 Math 12:10-12:25 Bathroom Break 12:30-1:10 Lunch/Recess 1:10-1:20 Bathroom Break 1:20-1:50 Science/Heal ff!. 1:50-2:15 DEAR 2:15- Bus Students 2:20 Daycare/Walkers/Car Riders Mrs. Smith Schedule - 2001-200-2 TUESDAY \u0026amp; WEDNESDAY 7:45-8:00 Take Attendance 8:00-8:20 Problem of the Day 8:20-8:50 Spelling 8:50-9:10 Batl1r0Qm Break 9:10-9:55 Reading 9:55-10:25 Language Arts 10:25-10:50 Social Studies/Science 10:40-11:17 Computer Lab/Counselor - 11:17-12:05 Matll- 12:05-12:20 Bathroom Break 12:30-1:10 Lunc/1/Recess 1:15-1:25 Bathroom Break 1:25-2:00 PE/ART/MUSIC 2:15 B.us students 2:20 Daycare/Car riders/Walkers- 2:15- Bus Students 2:20 Daycare/Walkers/Car Riders - Mrs. Smith Schedule - 2001-2002 THURSDAY 7:45-8:00 Take Attendance 8:00-8:20 Problem of the Day 8:20-8:50 Spelling 8:50-9:10 Bathroom Break 9:10-9:55 Reading 9:55-10:25 Language Arts 10:25-10:50 Social Studies/Science 10:40-11:17 Computer Lab/Counselor 11:17-12:05 Math 12:05-12:20 Bathroom Break 12:30-1:10 Lunch/Recess 1:15-1:25 Bathroom Break 1:25-2:00 Science/Health 2:15 Bus students 2:20 Daycare/Car riders/Walkers 2:15- Bus Students 2:20 Daycare/Walkers/Car Riders 7:35-7:45 7:45-10:45 10:45-11 :00 11 :00-12:00 12:00-12:50 12:50-1:15 1 :15-2:00 12:45-1:30 1 :30-2:00 2:00-2:15 2:15 2:35-3:05 Schedule Jennifer Beranek Prep. for Model Classes In Joshua or Cooley's Room Reflection Log Lunch/Planning Time Work with a small group not in model class for professional growth. Reflection Log, Prepare for Writers Workshop Writers Workshop Monday Cooley Tuesday Joshua Wednesday Joshua Thursday Cooley Friday Webb or Burks Friday Organize and inventory books and materials in book room for K-3 teachers. Reflection log Duty Planning except on Wednesday. Literacy Team meetings on Wednesday. SCHEDULE for Barbara Culpepper 7:45 - 8:30 - First grade literacy group 8:30 - 9:10 - Second grade booster group 9:10 - 10:00 - Reading Recovery 10:00 - 10:20 - Travel to North Heights 10:20 - 11:05 - Reading Recovery 11:05 - 11:45 - Lunch 11 :45 - 12 :20 - Reading Recovery 12:20 - 12:55 - Reading Recovery 12:55 - 1:30 - Reading Recovery 1:30 - 2:05 - First grade literacy group 7:35-8:00 MRS. C. FIEG 2000-2001 MTL ROOM29 PLANNING FOURTH GRADE TIME SLOTS 8:00-8:50 8:55-9:45 9:50-10:40 10:45-11 :35 11 :35-12:35 NEWTON O'DELL THURMAN DOMBROSKI LUNCH/PLANNING - TIIlRD GRADE TIME SLOTS 12:35-1:20 1:25-2:10 GRISSOM - FIRST SEMESTER REEVES - SECOND SEMESTER MCCONNAUGHHAY - FIRST SEMESTER KILGORE - SECOND SEMESTER MRS. C. HUTCIDNSON TUTORING ROOM#12 MONDAY \u0026amp; WEDNESDAY 9:00-9:30 9:30-10:00 10:00-10:30 11 :00-11 :30 THURMAN DOMBROSKI O'DELL NEWTON TUESDAY \u0026amp; THURSDAY 8:00-8:30 9:30-10:00 10:00-10:30 BINGHAM YOUNG SMITH MRS. C. HUTCHINSON COMPUTER LAB 2001-2002 ROOM 12 N MONDAY AND WEDENESDA Y 8:00-8:37 WOODY 8:40-9:17 S.WILLIAMS 9:20-9:57 KILGORE 10:00-10:37 WALDORF 10:40-11:17 REEVES 11 :20-11 :57 O'DELL 12:00-12:37 BURKS 12:40-1: 17 WEBB PLANNING TIME BUS DUTY  MRS. C. HUTCHINSON COMPUTER LAB 2001-2002 ROOM 12 TUESDAY AND THURSDAY 8:00-8:37 THURMAN 8:40-9:17 YOUNG 9:20-9:57 GRISSOM 10:00-10:37 A. WILLIAMS 10:40-11:17 SMITH 11 :20-11 :57 BINGHAM 12:00-12:37 COOLEY 12:40-1:17 JOSHUA PLANNING TIME BUS DUTY  8:00-8:25 8:25-8:50 8:50-9: 15 9:20-9:45 9:45-10:10 10:10-10:45 10:50-11 :30 11 :35-12:40 12:40-1: 10 1:10-1:35 1:35-2:00 MRS. C. HUTCHINSON COMPUTER LAB 2001-2002 ROOM 12 DOMBROSKI - READING DOMBROSKI - MA TH DOMBROSKI - LANGUAGE MCCONNAUGID-IA Y - READING MCCONNAUGID-IAY-MATH MCCONNAUGID-IAY-LANUAGE 5TH GRADE (ALTERNATE) SMITH - SEPT., DEC., MAR. BINGHAM - OCT., JAN., APR. YOUNG - NOV., FEB., MAY LUNCH \u0026amp; PLANNING TIME NEWTON - READING NEWTON - MATH NEWTON - LANGUAGE  READING RECOVERY/EARLY LITERACY SCHEDULE - JORGENSON 8:00- 8:50 Group 1 8:50- 9:40 Group 2 9:40-10:30 Group 3 10:30 - 11 :00 Reading Recovery 11 :00 - 11 :40_ Lunch 11:40-12:15 Reading Recovery 12:15-12:50 Reading Recovery 12:50-1:25 Reading Recovery 1 :25 - 2:10 Reading Recovery 2:15 Hall Duty  8:00-9:30 9:30-11 :00 11 :00-12:25 12:25-1:05 l :05-1 :40 1 :40-2: 15 MRS.D.LEE 2001-2002 RESOURCE ROOl\\1127 READING-LA.i'-l\"GUAGAER TS READING-LANGUAGE ARTS READING-LA.i\"\"TGUAGAER TS LUNCH i\\tfATH ivlATH  7:00 - 7:30 7:30 - 8:00 8:00 - 12:20 12:20 - 1:00 1:00 - 2: 15 2:15 - 3:05 MRS. D. SETTLES ROOM2 INTERVENTION CAFETERIA DUTY HALL DUTY INTERVENTION/TUTORING LUNCH INTERVENTION/TUTORING BUS DUTY  8:00-9:25 9:30-10:55 11 :00-12 :25 12:25-1 :05 1 :05-1 :40 1 :40-2: 15 MRS. V. STEADMAN 2001-2002 RESOURCE ROOMl READING GROUP 1 READING GROUP 2 READING GROUP 3 LUNCH MATH GROUP 1 MATHGROUP2 I 8:00-8:15 8:15-8:55 9:00-9:40 9:45-10:25 10:30-11:15 11:30-12:15 12:30-1:10 1:15-1:45 1:50-2:15 2:15  MRS. M. TOUCHSTONE ESL 2001-2002 ROOM29 SPANISH WORD OF THE DAY GROUP I/FIRST GRADE - MON. \u0026amp; WED. GROUP 2/FIRST GRADE - TUES \u0026amp; THURS. FIRST GRADE TUTORING - FRI. GROUP I/SECOND GRADE - TUES \u0026amp; THURS. GROUP 2/SECOND GRADE - MON. \u0026amp; WED. SECOND GRADE TUTORING - FRI. GROUP 1/fHIRD GRADE - MON. \u0026amp; WED. GROUP 2/fHIRD GRADE - TUES. \u0026amp; TffiJRS. TIDRD GRADE TUTORING - FRI. LEVEL I FIFTH GRADE - MON., WED., \u0026amp; FRI. FIFTH GRADE TUTORING - TUES. \u0026amp; THURS. LUNCH KINDERGARTEN -MON.-THURS. SWOD - FIR.DAY PARENT CONT ACT - MON., WED., \u0026amp; FRI. TRANSLATIONS - TUES. \u0026amp; THURS. ESL BUS DUTY I 8:00-8:30 8:30-9:00 9:00-9:30 9:30-10:00 10:00-10:30 10:30-11 :00 MS. P. SHOEMAKER SPEECH 2001-2002 ROOM3 GROUP 1 GROUP2 GROUP3 GROUP4 GROUP 5/MEDICAID GROUP 6 ON TIJESDA Y AND THURSDAY I 7:40 - 3:00 8:00 - 8:30 9:00 - 9:30 9: 30 - 10:00 10:00 - 10: 30 10:30 - 10:45 10:45 - 11:25 11: 30 - 12 :00 12:00 - 12:30 12:30 - 1:00 1:00 - 1:30 1: 30 - 2: 15 2: 15 MRS. M. WILLARD ROOMS 1 7 , 16 , 15\nAND 14 TITLE I AIDE . HELP SETTLE IN CHILDREN AND WHERE NEEDED WRIGHT VARGAS. THOMAS TURNER LAP READING HELP GET READY FOR LUNCH LUNCH TURNER THOMAS VARGAS WRIGHT PLANNING TIME BUS DUTY DAILY I 7:35 - 12:20 12:20 - 1:00 1:00 - 2:00 2:15 - 3:05 MRS. C. WOODS TITLE I AIDE LYNCHD RIVE/LUNCH/TRAVEL INTERVENTION EARLY SUCCESS GROUPS BUS DUTY I tvlARY WALKER/LINDA CHANCELLOR COUNSELORS ROOM4 2001 -2002 GRADES K-2 (FIRST WEEK CLASSES) WILL tvIEET ON THE FOLLOWING WEEKS: SEPT. 3 DEC. 10 APR. 1 SEPT. 17 JA.i'-l\"1. APR. 15 OCT. 1 JA.i'-l\"1.4 APR. 29 OCT. 15 JA.i'-l\"2.8 i\\tIAY 13 OCT. 29 FEB. 11 NOV. 12 FEB. 25 NOV. 26 MAR. 11 GRADES 3-5 (SECOND WEEK CLASSES) WlLL MEET ON THE FOLLOWING WEEKS: SEPT. 10 DEC. 17 APR. 3 SEPT. 24 JA.i'-T7. APR. 22 OCT. 8 J_-\\.:-1:1 , :vL-\\Y 6 OCT. 22 FEB.4 1'vL-Y\\. .20 NOV.5 FEB. 18 NOV. 19 MAR.4 DEC.3 1'1AR. 18 YOU WILL BE NOTIFIED WHEN CLASSES MUST BE CA.i'-l\"CELLED DUE TO TESTING, ILLNESS OR COUNSELING EMERGENCIES. I M. Walker Counseling Schedule 8-24-0 l North Heights Elementary School FIRST WEEK SCHEDULE/ Lower Grades MONDAY 7:35 - 8:00 8:00 - 8:40 8:40 - 9:20 9:20 - 10:00 I 0:05 - l 0:35 10:35 - I 1:00 11:05-11:45 11 :50 - 12:20 12:30 - 1:00 1:00 - 1:30 l :35 - 2:05 2:05 - 2:15 2: 15 - 2:30 2:30 - 3:05 TTJESDAY 7:35 - 8:00 8:00 - 8:40 8:40 - 9:20 9:20 - 10:00 10:00 - 10:50 10:50 - 11 :30 11:30 - 11 :55 12:00 - 12:30 12:40-1:10 1:10 - 1:30 I :35 - 2:05 2:05 - 2:15 2: 15 - 2:30 2:30 - 3:05 Bookstore Duty Observations/ Parent Conferences Planning Time Student Needs Assistance/ Individual Counseling A. WILLIA.iv!S' CLASS - SECOND GRADE Individual Counseling Lunch Time COOLEY'S CLASS - FIRST GRADE JOSHUA'S CLASS - FIRST GRADE Individual Counseling Small Group Counseling D.E.A.R. Other Couneling Duties Teacher Consultations/ Parent Conferences Bookstore Duty Parent Conferences/ Individual Counseling Observations/ Phone Outreach Planning Time Student Needs Assistance:' Individual Counseling Lunch Individual Counseling WRlGHTS CLASS - KINDERGARTEN TURNER'S CLASS - KINDERGARTEN Individual Counseling Small Group Counse!ing D.E.A.R.. Front Hall Duty Staff Meeting WEDNESDAY [Mrs. Walker] [Ms. Chancellor] 7:35 - 8:00 8:00 - 8:45 8:45 - 9:20 9:20 - 10:00 10:00 - 10:50 10:50 - 11:30 I I :35 - 12:05 12: 10 - 12:45 12:50 - 1:20 I :30 - 2:05 2:05 - 2:15 2: 15 - 2:30 2:30 - 3:05 Bookstore Duty Parent Converences/ Observations Phone Outreach/ Individual Counseling Planning Time Individual Counseling Lunch WEBB'S CLASS - FIRST GRADE Individual Counseling BURK'S CLASS - FlRST GRADE Small Group Counseling D.E.A.R.. Other Counseling Duties Parent Conferences/ Teacher Consultations 9:20 - 9:50 11:20 - 11:50 2001-2002 VARGAS' CLASS - KIND. THOMAS' CLASS - KIND. I FIRST WEEK SCHEDULE CONTINUED THURSDAY 7:35 - 8:00 8:00 - 8:40 8:40 - 9:20 9:20 - 10:00 10:00 - 10:40 10:40 - 11:20 11 :20 - 11 :50 11:50 - 1:30 1:35 - 2:05 2:05-2:15 '.:: 15 - 2:30 2:30 - 3:05 FRlDAY 7:35 - 8:00 3:05 - 8:35 3:45-9:15 9:20 - 10:00 10:05 - 10:35 10:35-11:15 11:15-11:55 12:00 - 12:40 12:40 - l :20 1:20 - 2:05 2:00 - 2: 15 2: 15 - 2:30 2:30 - 3:05 Bookstore Duty Parent Conferences/ Individual Counseling Observations/ Phone Outreach Planning Time Individual Counseling Lunch Student Needs Assistance Individual Counseling Small Group Counseling D.E.A.R. Front hall duty Parent Conferences/ Teach er Consultations Bookstore Duty WOODY'S CLASS - SECOND GRADE S. WILLIAMS' CLASS - SECOND GRADE Observations/ Individual Counseling WA LDOR..,\n-,SC LASS - SECOND GRADE Planning Time Lunch Home Visits/ Phone Outreach Individual Counseling Student Recognition/ Individual Counseling D.E.A.R. Other counseling duties Parent conferences/ Teacher Consultations I M Walker Counseling Schedule 8-24-01 North Heights Elementary School 2001 - 2002 SECOND WEEK SCHEDULE MONDAY 7:35 - 8:00 8:05 - 8:35 8:45 - 9:15 9:25 - 9:55 10:10 - 10:30 10:30- 11:10 11 :20 - 11 :50 11 :50 - 12:30 12:30 - 1:30 1:35 - 2:05 2:00 - 2:15 2: 15 - 2:30 2:30 - 3:05 TUESDAY 7:35 - 8:00 8:00 - 8:40 8:40 - 9:20 9:20 - 10:00 10:00 - 10:40 10:40- 11:00 11:00 - 11:40 11:40- 12:40 12:40 - 1:30 I :35 - 2:05 2:05 - 2:15 2:15 - 2:30 2:30 - 3:05 Bookstore Duty Parent Conferences/ Observations YOUNG'S CLASS - FIFTH GRADE GRISSOMS CLASS - THIRD GRADE Student Needs Assistance/ Individual Counseling Lunch BINGHAM'S CLASS - FIITH GRADE Planning Time Individual Counseling Small Group Counseling D.E.A.R. Other counseling duties Parent conferences/ Teacher Consultations Bookstore Duty Parent Conferences/ Individual Counseling Observations/ Phone Outreach Planning Time Individual Counseling Student Needs Assistance Lunch Home Visits/ Individual Counseling Individual Counseling Small Group Counseling D.E.A.R. Front Hall Duty Staff Meeting WEDNESDAY (Mrs. Walker] [Ms. Chancellor] 7:35 - 8:00 8:05 - 9: 15 9:20 - 10:00 10:00 - 10:35 10:40 - 11:10 11:10-11:50 12:55 - 12:35 12:40 - 1:10 1:10-1:30 l :35 - 2:05 2:05 - 2:15 2: 15 - 2:30 2:30 - 3:05 Bookstore Duty Observations/ Ind. Counseling Planning Time Individual Counseling 8:05 - 8:35 8:50 - 9:20 SMIIBS CLASS - FITTH GRADE Lunch Planning Time KILGORE'S CLASS - THIRD GRADE Individual Counseling Small Group Counseling D.E.A.R. Other Counseling Duties Parent Conferences/ Teacher Consultations DOMBROSKI'S CLASS - FOURTH GR. THURMAN'S CLASS- FOURTH GR. I SECOND WEEK SCHEDULE CONTINUED THURSDAY 7:35 - 8:00 8:00 - 8:40 8:40 - 9:20 9:20 - 10:00 10:00 - 10:35 10:40-11:10 11:20 - 11:50 11 :55 - 12:35 12:35 - 1:30 1:35 - 2:05 2:05-2:15 2:15 - 2:30 2:30 - 3:05 FRIDAY 7:35 - 8:00 8:00 - 8:30 8:30- 9:10 9:10 - 9:40 9:40 - 10:35 10:40 - 11:10 11:15 - 11:55 12:00 - 12:40 12:45 - 1:15 1:20 - 2:00 2:00-2:15 2: 15 - 3:05 Bookstore Duty Parent Conferences/ Individual Counseling Planning Time Phone Outreach/ Observations Individual Counseling NEWTON'S CLASS - FOURTH GRADE O'DELL'S CLASS - FOURTH GRADE Lunch individual Counseling Small Group Counseling O.E.A.R. Front hall duty Parent Conferences/ Teacher Consultations Bookstore Duty CHAMPS Planning Time Student Needs Assistance Individual Counseling REEVES' CLASS-THIRD GRADE Lunch Home Visits/ Phone Outreach MCCONNAUGHHA Y'S CLASS - THIRD GRADE Student Recognition/ Individual Counseling 0.E.A.R. Teacher Consultation -  Quest Schedule. North Heights/ Amboy /Glenview 2001-2002 Monday-North Heights 7:35-8:00 8: 00-9: 15 9:20-10:35 10:40-12:00 12:00-12:40 12:45-2:15 2:15-3:05 Hall Duty/Planning Group Study-Third Grade Group Study-First/Second Grades Group Study-Fourth Grade Lunch Group Study-Fourth Grade Bus Duty/Hall Duty/Planning Time Tuesday-Amboy /NORTH HEIGHTS 7:35-8:00 8:00-9:15 9: 15-10: 30 10:30-11:00 11:00-12:15 12:15-12:55 1:00-2:15 2:15-3:05 Hall Duty/Planning Math Olympiad/Fifth Grade Math Olympiad/Fourth Grade Close/Travel to North Heights Group Study-Fifth Grade Lunch Whole Group-Third Grade Bus Duty/Hall Duty/Planning Time Wednesday-North Heights 7:35-8:00 8:00-9:15 9:20-10:30 10:35-12:00 12:00-12:40 12:40-1:45 1:45-2:15 2:15-3:05 Hall Duty/Planning Math Olympiad-Fourth Grade Problem Solving-Third Grade Math Olympiad-Fifth Grade Lunch Problem Solving-First/Second Independent Study/Production Bus Duty/Hall Duty/Planning Time  Thursday-Glenview\nNORTH HEIGHTS 7:35-8:00 8:00-9: 15 9:15-10:00 10:00-10:30 10:30-11:00 11\\:00-12:20 12:20-1:00 1:00-2:15 2:15-3:05 Planning Math Olympiad-Fifth Grade Problem Solving-Fourth Grade Independent Study/Production Close and travel to North Heights Math Olympiad-Fourth Grade Lunch Independent Study/Production Bus Duty/Hall Duty/Planning Friday-North Heights  7:35-8:00 8:00-9:10 9:15-10:25 10:25-11:45 11:45-12:25 12:25-2:15 Hall Duty/Planning Whole Group- First/Second Grade Whole Group-Fourth Grade Whole Group-Fifth Grade Lunch Planning/Due Process Alternate Friday afternoons at Amboy, Glenview, and North Heights.  Day Monday Tuesd:1y \\Vednesday Thursday Friday FINAL COPY Rec Center PE Schedules 2000 - 2001 Time 12:00 - 12:30 12:30 - 1:00 1:00 - 1:30 1:30 - 2:00 12:00 - 12:30 12:30 - 1:00 l.::00 - 1:30 1:30 - 2:00 12:00 - 12:30 12:30 - 1:00 1:00 - 1:30 1:30 - 2:00 10:30-11:00 11:00 - 11:30 11 :.30 - 12:D0 L::.3.J - 1:00 1:00 - 1:30 1 :30 - 2:00 10:30 - 11:00 11:00-11:30 11:30 - 12:00 12:00 - 12:30 12:30 - 1:00 1:00 - 1:30 1:30 - 2:00 ThonrnsNargas Thurman/Newton Kilgo1e/Grissom Burks/Webb Reeves/McConnaughhay Smith/Young Wright/Thomas O'Dell/Dombroski Cooley/Joshua Reeves/lYicConn:1 ugh h::y Turner/Wrigln ..... ~ ~ . J1.J .. . \\..\n1 ,, :\n.Ju .--\\. \\V\nJli:1ms,\"\\V:1ido!: KilgoreiGrissom Binglwm Woody/S. Williams Thurman/Newton Smith/Young Cooley/Joshua ThomasNargas A. Williams/Waldorf O'Dell/Dombroski 9-14-01 See .Jann Pham if there is a conflict with the Rec Center time scheduled for your class. Reminder: This is an organized P.E. time. Please be sure that when two classes are - scheduled that both teachers are present. - MEDIA CEN-iR SCHEDULE 2001 - 2002  - TJMB ____ _MON._ 'lUES. WED. \"1 IIURS. FRI. 7:35-7:55 l'REB FLOW !'REH Pl.OW 1'1\\Flil'J,OW l'P HE FLOW !'REI! !'LOW 8:00-8:40 .. WOODY TIIURMAN ll' \u0026gt;MDROSKI ## 8:45-9:25 .. S. WILLIAMS Y\u0026lt;HJNc\n## 9:30-L0:l0 VARGAS MCCUNNAUGIIII A Y c\n1\\ISSOM Y ILGORE ## 10.LH0:55 NEWTON WJ\\LDORI' A. WJI.I.IA~ts n llELL ## ll:00-ll:40 LUNCH REEVES 1.UNCI\\ t.\u0026lt;\u0026lt;NCH LUNCH ll:45-li:25 THOMAS LUNCH nlMGIJAM 5111TH ## 12:30-l:l0 WRIGHT BURKS U\u0026gt;OLFY MONITOR MEETING l:l 5-1 :55 JOSHUA WEDO '1111\\NER ## OTHER MEDIA DUTIES #t/COMPUTllR Oil RESEARCH SIGN-UP TIMES OFFICE PHONE: (501) 771-8180 ., JVmdt ~ 8~ fJJchcd  ~================================================'= I 4901 NORTH ALLEN STAFFL ISTING- 2001-2002 JENNIFEBRE RANEK JUDYB INGHAM SCIPIO BROWN AMYB URKS LINDAC HANCELLOR KARI COOLEY BARBARCAU LPEPPER TERRI DOMBROSKI MARLYO UF ERGUSON MARTHFAE/ JELL CATRENFAIE G KIM GRISSOM CARMHAE SS CONNIHEU TCHINSON LIZ JORGENSON LESLIEJ OSHUA DANYIAKLIL GORE DEEDRLAE E TRACMY CCONNAUGHHAY ELIZABETMHC NULLY MARGARMEOTN K JENNIFENR EWTON CONNI0E1 DELL JANNP HARO KIM REEVES DORISS ETTLES PATTYSH OEMAKER STACYSM ITH DANSAN OWDEN VICKI STEADMAN LISA TERRY CARLINTEH OMAS RACHETLH URMAN MARIATO UCHSTONE LULAT URNER MARIBEVLA RGAS ERIC WALDORF MARWY ALKER CORRIWE EBB MARTHWAIL LARD AMYW ILLIAMS SHEILAW ILLIAMS CELESTWI OODS PILARW OODY PAIGEW RIGHT CASEY OUNG NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72118 LITERACCYO ACH FIFTH GRADE CAMPUSSU PERVISOR FIRST GRADE COUNSELOR FIRST GRADE READINRGE COVERY FOURTGHR ADE G/T NURSE MATSHP ECIALIST THIRDG RADE SECRETARY COMPUTLEARB M GR. READINRGE COVERY FIRST GRADE THIRDG RADE RESOURCE THIRDG RADE TUTOR MEDIASP ECIALIST FOURTGHR ADE FOURTGHR ADE ASSISTANPTR INCIPAL THIRDG RADE INTERVENTION SPEECH FIFTH GRADE PRINCIPAL RESOURCE SECRETARY KINDERGARTEN FOURTGHR ADE ESL KINDERGARTEN KINDERGARTEN SECONGDR ADE COUNSELOR FIRST GRADE TITLE I SECONGDR ADE SECONGDR ADE TITLE I SECONGDR ADE KINDERGARTEN FIFTH GRADE ROOM#2 9 ROOM#2 8 OFFICE ROOM#9 ROOM#4 ROOM#1 1 ROOM#3 1 ROOM#2 2 ROOM#1 8 OFFICE ROOM#2 9 ROOM#3 3 OFFICE ROOM#1 2 ROOM#3 1 ROOM#1 0 ROOM#2 4 ROOM#2 7 ROOM#3 2 ROOM#2 4 MEDIAC ENTER ROOM#3 0 ROOM#2 1 OFFICE ROOM#2 5 ROOM#2 ROOM#3 ROOM#1 9 OFFICE ROOM#1 OFFICE ROOM#1 6 ROOM#2 3 ROOM#2 9 ROOM#1 5 ROOM#1 7 ROOM#7 ROOM#4 ROOM#8 STAGE ROOM#6 ROOM#5 STAGE ROOM#2 6 ROOM#1 4 ROOM#2 0 ..   NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2001-2002 SCHOOL PROFILE School: PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Grade: K-5 Principal: CAROL A THORNTON Race/Gender: B/F Assistant Principal: Race/Gender: Assistant Principal: Race/Gender: Assistant Principal: Race/Gender: Secretary: SANDRA WOOD Race/Gender: W/F    SCHOOL PROFILE Table of Contents * Staff Staff Changes * Staff Attendance (Certified) * Staff Attendance (Classified) * School Enrollment Elementary Secondary Special Programs Special Education Four Year Comparison * Class Enrollment (Elementary) * Course Enrollment (Secondary) Extended Educational Programs School/District lntitiated Honors and Awards Committee/Parental Involvement Extracurricular Activities Tryout Information * Student Attendance (After Nine Weeks) Students Retained Subject Area Courses Failed (Secondary) Graduation Information Dropout Statistics (Previous Semester) Achievement/Assessment Data Staff Development Update (Certified) Staff Development Update (Classified) * Discipline Information (After Nine Weeks) Comprehensive Outcome Evaluation (COE) Survey Results Annual School Improvement Plan *INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED BY COMPUTER SERVICES Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27     SCHOOL: STAFF 2001-2002 FULL Tl ME PART TIME POSITION WHITE BLACK OTHER WHITE BLACK OTHER  M F M F M F TOTAL M F M F M F TOTAL ADMINISTRATORS 1 1 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 12 1 1 14 SPEC EDUC TEACHERS 3 3 MEDIA SPECIALISTS 1 1 GIT FACILITATORS 1 1 SPEECH THERAPIST 2 2 COUNSELORS 1 1 READING RECOVERY 1 1 H.O.T.S. !TOTAL CERTIFIED TEACHER AIDES 2 3 5 CLERICAL STAFF 1 1 SOCIAL WORKERS CUSTODIANS 1 1 2 CAFETERIA WORKERS 1 1 2 COMPENSATORY AIDES LUNCH AIDES 3 2 5 CROSSING GUARDS 1 1 INTERVENTION AIDE PARENT COORDINATOR !TOTAL CLASSIFIED Page 1 Ref: DES00l Staff -43 Park Hill Elementary Page 1 Date: 10/15/01 Based on Base Location -Time: 15:40:09 ---WHITE--- ---BLACK--- ---OTHER--- POSITION Male Female Male Female Male Female Administrators 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Regular Classroom Teachers 0 11 0 1 0 1 13 Special Education Teachers 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 Media Specialists 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Counselors 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Teacher Aides 0 2 0 3 0 0 5 Clerical Staff 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Custodians 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 Cafeteria Workers 0 3 0 1 0 0 4 Lunch Aides/Crossing Guards 0 2 1 4 0 0 7 Totals 0 23 2 12 0 1 38    SCHOOL: STAFF 2001-2002 (CHANGES AFTER OCTOBER) FULL TIME PART TIME POSITION WHITE BLACK OTHER WHITE BLACK OTHER M F M F M F TOTAL M F M F M F TOTAL ADMINISTRATORS CLASSROOM TEACHERS SPEC EDUC TEACHERS MEDIA SPECIALISTS GIT FACILITATORS SPEECH THERAPIST COUNSELORS !TOTAL CERTIFIED TEACHER AIDES CLERICAL STAFF SOCIAL WORKERS CUSTODIANS CAFETERIA WORKERS COMPENSATORY AIDES LUNCH AIDES CROSSING GUARDS !TOTAL CLASSIFIED Page 2    CERTIFIED STAFF ABSENCES (ATTACH A COPY OF COMPUTER SERVICES GENERATED DATA) Page 3 Ref: ABS0l0 Date: 10/15/01 Time: 15:41:45 Certified Staff Absences PAGE Race / Gender Tot-Emp Black - Female Black - Male White - Female White - Male Other - Female Other - Male 3 15 l by Race and Sex School 43 PARK HILL ELEM K-6 14.5 7.5 l.0 7-8 9-10 3 11-12 Other    CLASSIFIED STAFF ABSENCES (ATTACH A COPY OF COMPUTER SERVICES GENERATED DATA) Page 4 Ref: ABS0l0 Date: 10/15/01 Time: 15:41:45 Classified Staff Absences PAGE Race / Gender Tot-Emp Black - Female Black - Male White - Female White - Male Other - Female Other - Male 9 2 8 by Race and Sex School 43 PARK HILL ELEM K-6 28.5 1.0 36.5 7-8 9-10 4 11-12 Other  SCHOOL:  ELEMENTARY 2001-12 SCHOOLE NROLLMENT GRADE TT WHITE TOTAL BLACK TOTAL OTHER TOTAL LEVEL ):): M F WHITE M F BLACK M F OTHER TOTAL # 0 0 0 0 PRE- K % # 18 8 26 8 12 20 0 46 KINDERGARTEN % 39% 17% 57% 17% 26% 43% # 5 4 9 10 11 21 1 1 31 FIRST % 16% 13% 29% 32% 35% 68% 3% 3% # 7 8 15 8 12 20 1 1 36 SECOND % 19% 22% 42% 22% 33% 56% 3% 3% # 9 7 16 9 10 19 2 2 37 THIRD % 24% 19% 43% 24% 27% 51% 5% 5% # 12 9 21 19 11 30 1 2 3 54 FOURTH % 22% 17% 39% 35% 20% 56% 2% 4% 6% # 8 11 19 8 10 18 1 1 38 FIFTH % 21% 29% 50% 21% 26% 47% 3% 3% TOTAL # 59 47 106 62 66 128 4 4 8 242 GRADES1 -5 % 24% 19% 44% 26% 27% 53% 2% 2% 3% Page 5 \u0026lt; e .P: SCH611D CLASS ENROLLMENT Page 1 )ate: 10/15/01 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL iime: 15: 54: 54 Teacher -l,ih i te- -Black- -Other- :each er Name CourseSec Course Title Sex Race M F M F M F Tot m4ts 1 AR101 5 ART F H 2 2 2 5 11 )AVID 1 AR101 6 ART F w 3 2 5 6 16 1ELVIN 1 AR101 18 ART F w 1 2 1 4 AR101 ART 6 4 9 12 31 ,MITH 1 AR201 7 ART F w 3 5 4 6 1 19 :OLCLASURE 1 AR201 8 ART F w 4 3 7 4 18 iELVIN 1 AR201 18 ART F w i 1 AR20i ART 8 8 ii 10 i 38 :.EEDY 1 AR301 9 ART F w 4 6 3 5 1 19 3ULLIVAN 1 AR301 10 ART F w 4 4 5 3 1 17 AR301 ART 8 10 8 8 2 36 1EPPER 1 AR401 13 ART F l.J 4 4 7 8 1 24\nILL I AM 1 AR401 14 ART F w 1 4 5 ~RAMBLE-IVORY i AR401 15 ART F B 7 6 7 4 1 25 AR401 ART 12 10 18 12 1 i 54 HLLIAM 1 AR501 14 ART F w 1 3 4 : OK 1 AR501 19 ART F w 3 6 3 5 1 18 )EAL 1 AR501 20 ART F w 4 6 2 5 17 AR501 ART 8 12 8 10 1 39 DEPT TOTALS 42 44 54 52 3 3 198 /I-AM 1 ELM 14 BA SELF CONT F l,I 2 -, I 9 1ELVIN 1 ELM 18 BA SELF CONT F w 5 2 1 8 ELM BA SELF CONT 7 9 1 17 DEPT TOTALS 7 9 1 17 l  RRAS 1 EN101 5 ENGLISH F H 2 2 2 5 11 )AVID 1 EN101 6 ENGLISH F w 3 2 5 6 16 1ELVIN 1 EN101 18 ENGLISH F l.J i 2 i 4 EN101 ENGLISH 6 4 9 12 31 ,MITH 1 EN201 7 ENGLISH F w 3 5 4 6 1 19 : LC LASURE 1 EN201 8 ENGLISH F w 3 3 7 4 17 1ELVIN 1 EN201 18 ENGLISH F w 1 1 EN201 ENGLISH 7 8 11 10 1 37 :.EEDY 1 EN301 9 ENGLISH F w 4 6 2 5 1 18 ,ULLIVAN 1 EN301 10 ENGLISH F l.J 4 4 5 3 1 17 EN301 ENGLISH 8 10 7 8 2 35 1EPPER 1 EN401 13 ENGLISH F w 4 4 7 8 1 24 HLLIAM 1 EN401 14 ENGLISH F w 1 4 5 -RAMBLE-IVORY 1 EN401 15 ENGLISH F B 7 6 7 4 1 25 EN401 ENGLISH 12 10 18 12 1 1 54 H-AM 1 EN501 14 ENGLISH F w 1 3 4 : DK 1 EN501 19 ENGLISH F w 2 3 3 4 1 13 :ef: SCH611D CLASS ENROLLMENT Page 2 iate: 10/ 15/01 PAR~\u0026lt;. HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ime: 15:54: 54 Teacher -White- -Black- -Other- e,er Name CourseSec Course Title Sex Race M F M F M F Tot IE 1 EN501 20 ENGLISH F w 3 5 2 5 15 EN501 ENGLISH 6 8 8 9 1 32 IUGAS 1 EN701 71 ENGLISH RES F w 3 4 1 1 9 EN701 ENGLISH RES 3 4 1 1 9 DEPT TOTALS 42 44 54 52 3 3 198 IONES 1 m, 3 GRADE ~, F w 5 3 4 6 18 iELCH 1 GK 4 GRADE K F w 5 4 4 5 18 iORRAS 1 GK 5 GRADE K F H 2 1 1 4 GK GRADE K 12 8 8 12 40 DEPT TOTALS 12 8 8 12 40 IORRAS 1 Gl 5 GRADE 01 F H 2 2 2 5 11 \u0026gt;AVID 1 Gl 6 GRADE 01 F !,J 3 2 5 6 16 Gl GRADE 01 5 4 7 11 .,, c.., DEPT TOTALS 5 4 7 11 r\"')--J c../ 1MITH 1 G2 7 GRADE 02 F w 3 5 4 6 1 19 : LCLASURE 1 G2 8 GRADE 02 F i,J 4 3 7 4 18 G2 GRADE 02 7 8 11 10 1 37 - DEPT TOTALS 7 8 11 10 1 37 ,EEDY 1 G3 9 GRADE 03 F w 4 6 3 5 1 19 ,ULLIVAN 1 G3 10 GRADE 03 F !,J 4 4 5 3 1 17 G3 GRADE 03 8 10 8 8 2 36 DEPT TOTALS 8 10 8 8 2 36 'EPPER 1 G4 13 GRADE 04 F w 4 4 7 8 1 24 rRAMBLE-IVORY 1 G4 15 GRADE 04 F B 7 6 7 4 1 25 G4 GRADE 04 11 10 14 12 1 1 49 DEPT TOTALS 11 10 14 12 1 .1 49 : OK 1 GS 19 GRADE 05 F w 3 6 3 5 1 18 )EAL 1 G5 20 GRADE 05 F w 4 6 2 5 17 G5 GRADE 05 7 12 5 10 1 35 ~ DEPT TOTALS 7 12 5 10 1 35 ~ iORRAS 1 HL101 5 HEALTH F H c..., 2 2 5 11 )AVID 1 HL101 6 HEALTH F w 3 2 5 6 16 1ELVIN 1 HL101 18 HEALTH F w 1 2 1 4 HL101 HEALTH 6 4 9 12 31\n~,~ASURE 1 HL201 7 HEALTH F w 3 5 4 6 1 19 1 HL201 8 HEALTH F !,J 4 3 7 4 18 1ELVIN 1 HL201 18 HEALTH F !,J 1 1 HL201 HEALTH 8 8 11 10 1 38 lef: SCH611D CLASS ENROLLMENT Page 3 iate: 10/15/01 PARl, HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL \"ime: 15: 54:54 Teacher -White- -Black- -Other- e-er Name CourseSec Course Title Sex Race M F M F M F Tot .E y 1 HL301 9 HEALTH F w 4 6 3 5 1 19 1ULLIVAN 1 HL301 10 HEALTH F w 4 4 5 3 1 17 HL301 HEALTH 8 10 8 8 2 36 'EPPER 1 HL401 13 HEALTH F w 4 4 7 8 1 24 :ILL I AM 1 HL401 14 HEALTH F w 1 4 5 \"RAMBLE-IVORY 1 HL401 15 HEALTH F B 7 6 7 4 1 25 HL401 HEALTH 12 10 18 12 1 1 54 :ILL I AM 1 HL501 14 HEALTH F w 1 3 4 DOK 1 HL501 19 HEALTH F w 3 6 3 5 1 18 ,EAL 1 HL501 20 HEALTH F w 4 6 2 5 17 HL501 HEALTH 8 12 8 10 1 39 DEPT TOTALS 42 44 54 52 3 3 198 IORRAS 1 HN101 5 HANDWRITING F H 2 2 2 5 11 )AVID 1 HN101 6 HANDWRITING F w 3 ..., c.. 5 6 16 !ELVIN 1 HN101 18 HANDWRITING F w 1 2 1 4 HN101 HANDWRITING 6 4 9 12 31 iMITH 1 HN201 7 HANDWRITING F w 3 5 4 6 1 19 : LC LASURE 1 HN201 8 HANDWRITING F w 4 3 7 4 18 !ELVIN 1 HN201 18 HANDWRITING F w 1 1 - HN201 HANDWRITING 8 8 11 10 1 38\nEEDY 1 HN301 9 HANDWRITING F w 4 6 3 5 1 19 iULLIVAN 1 HN301 10 HANDWRITING F w 4 4 5 3 1 17 HN301 HANDWRITING 8 10 8 8 ..., c.. 36 \u0026gt;EPPER 1 HN401 13 HANDWRITING F w 4 4 7 8 1 24 i!LLIAM 1 HN401 14 HANDWRITING F w 1 4 5 \"RAMBLE-IVORY 1 HN401 15 HANDWRITING F B 7 6 7 4 1 25 HN401 HANDWRITING 12 10 18 12 1 1 54 iILLIAM 1 HN501 14 HANDWRITING F w 1 3 4\n OK 1 HN501 19 HANDWRITING F w 3 6 3 5 1 18 )EAL 1 HN501 20 HANDWRITING F w 4 6 2 5 17 HN501 HANDWRITING 8 12 8 10 1 39 DEPT TOTALS 42 44 54 52 3 3 198 iORRAS 1 MA101 5 MATH F H 2 2 2 5 11 )AVID 1 MA101 6 MATH F w 3 2 5 5 15 1ELVIN 1 MA101 18 MATH F w 1 2 1 4 MA101 MATH 6 4 9 11 30 )MITH 1 MA201 7 MATH F w 3 5 4 6 1 19 : LC LASURE 1 MA201 8 MATH F w 4 3 7 4 18 1ELVIN 1 MA201 18 MATH F w 1 1 - MA201 MATH 8 8 11 10 1 38 (EEDY 1 MA301 9 MATH F w 4 6 ..., ,:.. 5 1 18 tef: SCH611D CLASS ENROLLMENT Page 4 )ate: 10/15/01 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL \"ime: 15:54: 55 Teacher -White- -Black- -Other- eier Name CourseSec Course Title Sex Race M F M F M F Tot\nu IVAN 1 MA301 10 MATH F w 4 4 5 3 1 17 MA301 MATH 8 10 7 8 2 35 1EPPER 1 MA401 13 MATH F w 4 4 7 8 1 24 i!LLIAM 1 MA401 14 MATH F w 1 4 5 \"RAMBLE-IVORY 1 MA401 15 MATH F B 7 6 7 4 1 25 t1A401 MATH 12 10 18 12 1 1 54 iILLIAM 1 MA501 14 MATH F w 1 3 4 : K 1 MA501 19 MATH F 1,J 2 4 3 4 1 14 )EAL 1 MA501 20 MATH F w 3 6 2 5 16 MA501 MATH 6 10 8 9 1 34 )UGAS 1 MA701 71 MATH RES F w 2 2 1 2 7 MA701 MATH RES 2 2 1 2 7 DEPT TOTALS 42 44 54 52 3 3 198 iORRAS 1 MU101 5 MUSIC F H ..., 2 2 5 11 C. iAVID 1 MU101 6 MUSIC F w 3 2 5 6 16 1ELVIN 1 MU101 18 MUSIC F w 1 2 1 4 MU101 MUSIC 6 4 9 12 31 3MITH 1 MU201 7 MUSIC F w 3 5 4 6 .1 . 19 :.ASURE 1 MU201 8 MUSIC F w 4 3 7 4 18 1 N 1 MU201 18 MUSIC F w 1 1 MU201 MUSIC 8 8 11 10 1 . 38 (EEDY 1 MU301 9 MUSIC F w 4 6 3 5 1 19 3ULLIVAN 1 MU301 10 MUSIC F 1,J 4 4 5 3 1 17 MU301 MUSIC 8 10 8 8 2 36 'EPPER 1 MU401 13 MUSIC F w 4 4 7 8 1 24 i!LLIAM 1 MU401 14 MUSIC F w 1 4 5 rRAMBLE-IVORY 1 MU401 15 MUSIC F B 7 6 7 4 1 25 MU401 MUSIC 12 10 18 12 1 1 54 iILLIAM 1 MU501 14 MUSIC F w 1 3 4 : OK 1 MU501 19 MUSIC F w 3 6 3 5 1 18 )EAL 1 MU501 20 MUSIC F w 4 6 2 5 17 MU501 MUSIC 8 12 8 10 1 39 DEPT TOTALS 42 44 54 52 3 3 198 i  RRAS 1 PE101 5 PHYS ED F H 2 2 2 5 11 )AVID 1 PE101 6 PHYS ED F w 3 2 5 6 16 1ELVIN 1 PE101 18 PHYS ED F w 1 2 1 4 PE101 PHYS ED 6 4 9 12 31 3MITH 1 PE201 7 PHYS ED F w 3 5 4 6 1 19 :.ASURE 1 PE201 8 PHYS ED F w 4 3 7 4 18 1 IN 1 PE201 18 PHYS ED F w 1 1 PE201 PHYS ED 8 8 11 10 1 38 ?ef: SCH611D CLASS ENROLLMENT Page 5 )ate: lOil 5/01 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL \"ime: 15:54:55 Teacher -White- -Black- -Other- e-er Name CourseSec Course Title Sex Race M F M F M F Tot\nE y 1 PE301 9 PHYS ED F w 4 6 3 5 1 19 1ULLIVAN 1 PE301 10 PHYS ED F w 4 4 5 3 1 17 PE301 PHYS ED 8 10 8 8 2 36 \u0026gt;EPPER 1 PE401 13 PHYS ED F w 4 4 7 8 1 24 iILLIAM 1 PE401 14 PHYS ED F w 1 4 5 \"RAMBLE-IVORY 1 PE401 15 PHYS ED F B 7 6 7 4 l 25 PE401 PHYS ED 12 10 18 12 1 1 54 /ILLIAM 1 PE501 14 PHYS ED F w 1 3 4 :OK 1 PE501 19 PHYS ED F w 3 6 3 5 1 18 )EAL 1 PE501 20 PHYS ED F w 4 6 2 5 17 PE501 PHYS ED 8 12 8 10 1 39 DEPT TOTALS 42 44 54 52 3 3 198 iDRRAS 1 RE101 5 READING F H 2 2 2 5 11 )AVID 1 RE101 6 READING F w 3 2 5 5 15 1ELVIN 1 RE101 18 READING F w 1 2 1 4 RE101 READING 6 4 9 11 30 iMITH 1 RE201 7 READING F w 4 5 5 6 1 21 : LC LASURE 1 RE201 8 READING F w 4 3 6 4 17 1ELVIN 1 RE201 18 READING F w 1 1 - RE201 READING 9 8 11 10 1 39 \\EEDY 1 RE301 9 READING F w 3 6 1 5 1 16 iULLIVAN 1 RE301 10 READING F w 3 4 5 3 1 t  ,.(:} RE301 READING 6 10 6 8 2 32 'EPPER 1 RE401 13 READING F w 4 4 -,, 8 1 24 nLLIAM 1 RE401 14 READING F w 1 4 5 \"RAMBLE-IVORY 1 RE401 15 READING F B 7 5 7 4 1 24 RE401 READING 12 9 18 12 1 1 53 HLLIAM 1 RE501 14 READING F w 1 3 4 :OK 1 RE501 19 READING F w 2 3 3 4 1 13 )EAL 1 RE501 20 READING F w 3 6 2 5 16 RE501 READING 6 9 8 9 1 33 )UGAS 1 RE701 71 READING RES F w 3 4 ..., 2 11 .L C. RE701 READING RES 3 4 2 2 11 DEPT TOTALS 42 44 54 52 3 3 198 \\EEDY 1 SC301 9 SCIENCE F w 4 6 3 5 1 19 iULLIVAN 1 SC301 10 SCIENCE F w 4 4 5 3 1 17 SC301 SCIENCE 8 10 8 8 2 36 \u0026gt;EPPER 1 SC401 13 SCIENCE F w 4 4 7 8 1 24 il.AM 1 SC401 14 SCIENCE F w 1 4 5 \"R LE-IVORY 1 SC401 15 SCIENCE F B 7 6 7 4 1 25 SC401 SCIENCE 12 10 18 12 1 1 54 ~ef: SCH611D CLASS ENROLLMENT Page 6 )ate: 10/15/01 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL rime: 15:54:56 Teacher -White- -Black- -Other-re, her Name CourseSec Course Title Sex Race M F M F M F Tot iI IAM 1 SC501 14 SCIENCE F w 1 3 4 )EAL 1 SC501 19 SCIENCE F w 3 6 3 5 1 18 )EAL 1 SC501 20 SCIENCE F w 4 6 2 5 17 SC501 SCIENCE 8 12 8 10 1 39 DEPT TOTALS 28 32 34 30 3 2 129  DRRAS 1 SP101 5 SPELLING F H 2 2 2 5 11 )AVID 1 SP101 6 SPELLING F w 3 2 5 5 15 1ELVIN 1 SP101 18 SPELLING F w 1 2 1 4 SP101 SPELLING 6 4 9 11 30 3MITH 1 SP201 7 SPELLING F w 3 5 4 6 1 19 : LC LASURE 1 SP201 8 SPELLING F w 4 3 7 4 18 1ELVIN 1 SP201 18 SPELLING F l,l 1 1 SP201 SPELLING 8 8 11 10 1 38 ~EEDY 1 SP301 9 SPELLING F w 4 6 2 5 1 18 3ULLIVAN 1 SP301 10 SPELLING F l,l 4 4 5 3 1 17 SP301 SPELLING 8 10 7 B 2 35 \u0026gt;EPPER 1 SP401 13 SPELLING F l,J 4 4 7 8 1 24 HLLIAM 1 SP401 14 SPELLING F w 1 4 5 rRAMBLE-IVORY 1 SP401 15 SPELLING F B 7 5 7 4 1 24 - SP401 SPELLING 12 9 18 12 1 1 53 HLLIAM 1 SP501 14 SPELLING F w 1 3 4 : OK 1 SP501 19 SPELLING F w 2 3 3 4 1 13 )EAL 1 SP501 20 SPELLING F w 3 6 2 5 16 SP501 SPELLING 6 9 8 9 1 33 )UGAS 1 SP701 71 SPELLING RES F w 2 4 1 2 9 SF701 SPELLING RES 2 4 1 2 9 DEPT TOTALS 42 44 54 52 3 3 i98 C.EEDY 1 SS301 9 soc STUDIES F w 4 6 3 5 1 19 5ULLIVAN 1 SS301 10 soc STUDIES F w 4 4 5 3 1 17 SS301 soc STUDIES 8 10 8 8 2 36 \u0026gt;EPPER 1 SS401 13 soc STUDIES F w 4 4 7 B 1 24 iILLIAM 1 SS401 14 soc STUDIES F w 1 4 5 rRAMBLE-IVORY 1 SS401 15 soc STUDIES F B 7 6 7 4 1 25 88401 soc STUDIES 12 10 18 12 1 1 54 iILLIAM 1 SS501 14 soc STUDIES F w 1 3 4 : OK 1 88501 19 soc STUDIES F w 3 6 3 5 1 18 :OK 1 SS501 20 soc STUDIES F w 4 6 2 5 17 SS501 soc STUDIES 8 12 8 10 1 39 - DEPT TOTALS 28 32 34 30 3 2 129 SCHOOL TOTALS 491 512 616 592 36 34 2281 PUPIELH RuLLlBiEYHS CTH iluL W1 1\\60-02-064 Ut:IUllt.K 1, :lUUl CURRESNCHT OAOSLS IGHNEHTS ITV: PULASKI DISTRICNTO: RTLHIT TLREO CKSC HOOPAL:R HKI LLE LEnENTARY GRAOSPEA ifi:\u0026lt; -05 !!HITE BLACK HISPA!IICA Silil!/PAI NI! IO/AL!!SA T GRADTOE TAL Ii F 11 F t! r t! r ti F I\u0026lt; 43 15 8 8 12 0 0 ii 0 0 ii 01 31 6 4 9 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 38 8 8 11 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 03 36 8 10 8 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 04 55 13 10 18 12 1 1 0 0 0 0 05 37 7 11 8 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 SCHOO2'L10 57 51 62 64 3 3 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 45.0X S2.5X 2.5Z .OX .OX EXCLU19D7E 42 43 54 52 3 3 0 0 0 0 GRlD\u0026lt;/j 43.i X 53.8X 3.0X .OX .OX    SCHOOL: SECONDARY SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 2001-2002 G RADE WHITE TOTAL BLACK TOTAL 0 TH ER TOTAL L E V E L M F WHITE M F BLACK M F OTHER TOTAL # SIX % # SEVEN % # EIGHT % TOTAL # ENROLLMENT % G RADE WHITE TOTAL BLACK TOTAL 0 T H E R TOTAL L E V E L M F WHITE M F BLACK M F OTHER TOTAL # NINE % # TEN % # ELEVEN % # TWELVE % TOTAL # ENROLLMENT % Page 6   TOTAL ENROLLMENT IN SPECIAL PROGRAMS  SCHOOL: 2001-2002 WHITE TOTAL BLACK TOTAL OTHER TOTAL -\"'\"'\"\" PROGRAMS M F WHITE M F BLACK M F OTHER TOTAL # 7 11 18 5 10 15 1 1 34 CHAMPS % 21% 32% 53% 15% 29% 44% 3% 3% # 11 8 19 15 11 26 1 2 3 48 K-KIDS CLUB % 23% 17% 40% 31% 23% 54% 2% 4% 6% # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % Page 7   SPECIAL EDUCATION SCHOOL: PLACEMENT WHITE TOTAL BLACK M F WHITE M F RESOURCE ROOM # 2 PLACEMENT M.R. % 100% RESOURCE ROOM # 3 3 6 1 1 PLACEMENT L.D. % 33% 33% 67% 11% 11% # 5 5 1 1 SELF-CONTAINED % 63% 63% 13% 13% # 3 2 5 7 6 SPEECH % 17% 11% 28% 39% 33% TRANSITION - BA - # 2 2 7 SELF-CONTAINED % 22% 22% 78% # RESOURSE ROOM/MH % # 2 2 1 1 RESOURSE ROOM/OHi % 50% 50% 25% 25% # RESOURSE ROOM 504 % # RESOURSE ROOM SEO % # 1 I Jli.sua1'Yl1\"Y.Yi1 fYliYPt1 % PLACEMNT IS ~ETERMINED BY PRIMARY HANDICAPPING CONDITION There is a District Self-Contained Unit on this campus TOTAL BLACK 2 100% 2 22% 2 25% 13 72% 7 78% 2 50% OTHER M 1 11% 1 13% Yes No (Circle one) F  2001-2002 TOTAL llilll[! OTHER TOTAL 2 ,,,rm 1 9 11% ,. 1 8 13% 18 '\" Iii! 11 .,. 9 '\"' 4 I 'f ,2 I lill II! Page 8  SCHOOL:  FOUR YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBER 1 DAT A (USED TO DETERMINE ACCEPTABLE ENROLLMENT RANGES) STUDENTS ARE IDENTIFIED AS BLACK AND NON-BLACK INCLUDING KINDERGARTEN EXCLUDING KINDERGARTEN BLACK 135 BLACK 114 WHITE 87 WHITE 78 2000-2001 OTHER 9 2000-2001 OTHER 8 TOTAL 231 TOTAL 200 % BLACK 58.44% % BLACK 57.00% BLACK 157 BLACK 131 WHITE 108 WHITE 95 1999-2000 OTHER 12 1999-2000 OTHER 12 TOTAL 277 TOTAL 238 % BLACK 56.68% % BLACK 55.04% BLACK 138 BLACK 120 WHITE 121 WHITE 103 1998-1999 OTHER 10 1998-1999 OTHER 7 TOTAL 269 TOTAL 230 % BLACK 51.30% % BLACK 52.17% BLACK 121 BLACK 105 WHITE 11, WHITE 96 1997-1998 OTHER : 1997-1998 OTHER 4 TOTAL 245 TOTAL 205 % BLACK 49.393/c % BLACK 51.22%  2001-2002 Page 9   SCHOOL: CLASS ENROLLMENT (ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS ONLY) ~ CLASS ENROLLMENT TEACHER'S TEACHER WHITE BLACK OTHER NAME GRADE ROOM GENDER RACE M F M F M F ill SANDY JONES K 3 F w 5 3 4 6 k\n'\n//\\\n:' n,:rr /:\n: ::\n\\i\\ )@ ,: /'\n:\n:\n._\\ DEANNA WELCH K 4 F w 5 4 4 5 JENNIFER DAVID 1 6 F w 2 2 8 5 lff,,i/.  t\u0026gt; ,., : ,\n/'''''' + '\u0026lt;:' ,,,, PAIGE HORRAS K-1 5 F H  I~ ~ ~ F ~ AMANDA COLCLASURE 2 8 w 4 3 7 4 ,?Hf?,,,\n'/)// '''\u0026lt;,\u0026gt;?  ,,\n,\n,,,,,\n,,,,,.\n:: ,,.,,,,.,,.,.,,.,.,,. SAMMYE SMITH 2 7 F w 2 5 5 6 .,..,. .. , ...,..., .,.. . ~ BRANDI KEEDY 3 9 F w 5 4 3 6 )\\/\n,,,/' \\\n'HY ,,,\"'\\} \u0026lt;\u0026gt; :::.' ::-:,::,,.: :::,::: -,\n::r:ntn AMY SULLIVAN 3 10 F w 4 3 6 4 1 KAYCE PEPPER 4 13 F w 4 4 7 +:::'t:::\n'\nii/\nY i:\"t ,:.:,., ,.,,, :,_.,.,.,.,.,.,. '\\,8,\n=\n:\n,\n:\n,\n:\n:\nLORENE TRAMBLE 4 15 F B 7 5 8 3 2 m KRISTIN COOK 5 19 F w 3 5 3 5\n,,,,\n::::,} .. ,.,., ,.,.,. ,.,.,.,.,.,.',\".', ._,., ,:, ,.,, TOTAL: 41 38 55 52 4 0 Page 10  SCHOOL:  CLASS ENROLLMENT  2001-2002 (ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS ONLY) CLASS ENROLLMENT TEACHER'S TEACHER WHITE BLACK OTHER NAME GRADE ROOM GENDER RACE M~M F M F ~ ~ DIANNA DEAL 5 20 F w 4 6 2 5 SUZANNE GILLIAM 14 F w 2 7 \"\" BRENDA MELVIN K-2 18 F w 5 1 1 1 '\"\"'''\"''''''''' /:\\,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\n,,1,, ,,\n,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:: \"\" ,.,.,.,.,,. ,.,,,,,,,\n,\n,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,\n/HIHn!HI '\"\" TOTAL: 11 6 10 6 1 0 Page 10a   SCHOOL: COURSE OFFERINGS AND LEVELS (SECONDARY SCHOOLS ONLY) s T u D E N T s WHITE TL BLACK TL OTHER TL WHITE Grade Course M F M F M F M F # 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL: % Please use the following indicators: 1. Adv. Placement: 2. Honors/Gifted\n3. Regular\n4. Spec. Educ. Resource Example: English 10/2 = English, tenth grade/honors/gifted  2001-2002 Duplicate as needed T E A C H E R s TL BLACK TL OTHER TL M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 11 EXTENDED EDUC.AL PROGRAMS h/:1 WHITE TOTAL BLACK TOTAL OTHER TOTAL PROGRAM HUI MALE FEMALE WHITE MALE FEMALE BLACK MALE FEMALE OTHER TOTAL GOVERNOR'S # SCHOOL % # BOY'S STATE % # GIRL'S STATE % ,,,,, # 1 1 3 2 5 6 SUMMER SCHOOL % 17% 17% 50% 33% 83% '\" \" ,, 1 PRE- # KINDERGARTEN % # KINDERGARTEN % \"\"\" # FIRST % # SECOND % # THIRD % '\"\"\" # FOURTH % I # FIFTH % # SIXTH % GRADES SEVEN # AND EIGHT % GRADES NINE # THRU TWELVE % QUEST # 1 1 2 1 1 3 SUMMER SCHOOL % 33% 33% 67% 33% 33% 1 Page 12    SUMMER QUEST 2001 School Last Name First Name Race Gender Grade No Shows Scholarshio Park Hill Burge Courtnie w F 5 xx No Conley Kavsha B F Ka Yes MCCray Lauren w F 3 Reduced McDonald Lawanna B F 2 XX Yes Norwood Michael w M 3 No ATTENDED NO SHOW WM 1 BM 0 WM 0 BM 1 WF 1 BF 1 WF 1 BF 0 TOTAL 3 TOTAL 2 SCHLORSHIPS 2 SCHLORSHIPS 1 REDUCED 1 School #Students #Scholarships #No Shows #Scholarships Amboy 7 2 5 2 Belwood 11 8 3 2 Boone Park 5 4 3 1 Crestwood 18 2 3 0 Glenview 2 0 4 2 Indian Hills 27 4 1 0 Lakewood 6 0 3 2 Lynch Drive 6 6 5 3 Meadow Park 0 0 1 1 North Heights 9 4 1 0 Park Hill 3 2 1 Reduced 2 1 Pike View 17 6 0 0 Seventh St. 3 1 4 0 Lakewood M. 2 0 0 0 Poplar St. M. 13 3 0 0 LC. 5 0 0 0 Carver 4 0 0 0 St. Joseph 1 0 0 0 Totals 139 42 35 14 HONORS A~AWARDS List all honors and awards - - - - - be s~ific HONORS ~ ' WHITE TOTAL BLACK TOTAL OTHER TOTAL AND AWARDS MALE FEMALE WHITE MALE FEMALE BLACK MALE FEMALE OTHER TOTAL 22 30 52 24 31 55 2 4 6 113 REGULAR HONOR ROLL % 19% 27% 46% 21% 27% 49% 2% 4% 5% # 19 21 40 28 24 52 2 2 4 96 PRINCIPAL'S HONOR ROLL % 20% 22% 42% 29% 25% 54% 2% 2% 4% # ABC HONOR ROLL % # 8 12 20 11 19 30 3 1 4 54 PERFECT ATTENDANCE % 0.15 22% 37% 20% 35% 56% 6% 2% 7% # ALL A'S ON SPELLING TEST % # 100% ON UNIT ENGLISH EX. % # 1ST GRADE HELPERS % # 23 34 57 28 30 58 3 4 7 122 GREAT BEHAVIOR % 19% 28% 47% 23% 25% 48% 2% 3% 6% # 7 4 11 6 5 11 1 1 23 MOST IMPROVED READING % 30% 17% 48% 26% 22% 48% 4% 4% # POPCORN MONITORS % # 2 2 2 2 4 FLAG MONITORS % 50% 50% 50% 50% # TOP BANANA AWARDS % # FIR MARSHALLS % # CITIZENSHIP AWARD % # SCIENCE AWARD % # 6 6 12 3 2 5 17 ENGLISH AWARD % 35% 35% 71% 18% 12% 29% # READING AWARD % I h ,.,:,,,1,1\"'''!' :ii:' Page 13 HONORS AN~WARDS I List all honors and awards - - - - - be seecific I HONORS WHITE TOTAL BLACK TOTAL OTHER TOTAL AND AWARDS MALE FEMALE WHITE MALE FEMALE BLACK MALE FEMALE OTHER TOTAL # REGULAR HONOR ROLL % # PRINCIPAL'S HONOR ROLL % # ABC HONOR ROLL % # PERFECT ATTENDANCE % # ALL A'S ON SPELLING TEST % # 100% ON UNIT ENGLISH EX. % # 1ST GRADE HELPERS % # GREAT BEHAVIOR % # MOST IMPROVED READING % # POPCORN MONITORS % # FLAG MONITORS % # TOP BANANA AWARDS % # FIR MARSHALLS % # CITIZENSHIP AWARD % # SCIENCE AWARD % # ENGLISH AWARD % # READING AWARD % Page 13a  SCHOOL:  COMMITTEES/PARENT INVOLVEMENT 2001-12 I E M PLOYEES PARENTS / PATRONS HH\u0026lt; 0 F F I C E R S WHITE BLACK OTHER WHITE BLACK OTHER TL WHITE BLACK OTHER :OMMITTEE . M F M F M F M F M F M F U\u0026lt;\u0026lt; M F M F M F :!UITY # COMMITTEE % ~RENT TEACHER # 20 1 6 1 50 85 25 44 2 6 240 7 1 ASSOCIATION % 8% 0% 3% 0% 21% 35% 10% 18% 1% 3% 0.88 0.13 # OLUNTEERS % # 1 1 1 1 4 E:SEG. MOIHTORHIG % 25% 25% 25% 25% # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % Page 14 Ref: VIPSl Date: 10/11/01 Time: 8:45:14 VIPS BY SCHOOL BY RACE/GENDER - SCHOOL: 43 TOTAL SCHOOL 529 To: Principals WHITE BLACK M F M F 94 253 42 140 From: Date: Debbie Rozzel~ Volunteer Coordinator October 11, 2001 Re: VIPS numbers for Desegregation Reports OTHER M F 0 0 HOURS 1,968.50 You'll find the VIPS information for your desegregation reports above. Thank you for your patience. If you have any questions call me.    SCHOOL: COMMITTEES/PARENT INVOLVEMENT 2001-2002 E M P L O Y E E S PARENTS/ PATRONS 0 F F I C E R S WHITE BLACK OTHER WHITE BLACK OTHER TL WHITE BLACK OTHER TL COMMITTEE M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F EQUITY # COMMITTEE % PARENT TEACHER # ASSOCIATION % # VOLUNTEERS % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % Page 14a    SCHOOL: EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES 2001-2002 ACTIVITY MEMBERSHIP t\u0026lt;?Ht SPONSORS ~ OR WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL CLUB M F M F M F ,: ,::_. M F M F M F ,,c:-,,,,,,,,,,\"'H # FIRE MARSHALLS % # FLAG MONITORS % BOOKSTORE # 2 2 1 1 6 MONITORS % 33% 33% 17% 17% STUDENT # COUNCIL % STUDENT # COUNCIL OFFICERS % # 1 1 2 4 ANNOUNCEMENTM ONITORS % 25% 25% 50% # 1 1 2 ATTENDANCE MONITOR % 50% 50% # 1 1 2 LUNCH MONITORS % 50% 50% # % # % # % # % # % Page 15    SCHOOL: EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITES 2001-2002 OFFICERS / LEADERSHIP WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL ACTIVITY OR CLUB M F M F M F # STUDENT COUNCIL % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % Page 15a    SCHOOL: SPIRIT GROUP TRYOUTS 2001-2002 (SECONDARY SCHOOLS ONLY) WHITE TOTAL BLACK TOTAL OTHER TOTAL TOTAL JUDGES OTHER TOTAL ~CTIVITY / CLUB M F M F M F WM WF BM BF M F # 0 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 0 % TOTAL: # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Page 16   2001-2002 STUDENT ATTENDANCE AFTER NINE-WEEKS (ATTACH COMPUTER SERVICES GENERATED DATA)  Page 17    SCHOOL: STUDENTS RETAINED 2001-2002 WHITE TOTAL BLACK TOTAL OTHER TOTAL GRADE MALE FEMALE WHITE MALE FEMALE BLACK MALE FEMALE OTHER TOTAL # KINDERGARTEN % # FIRST % # SECOND % # THIRD % # FOURTH % # FIFTH % # SIXTH % # SEVENTH % # EIGHT % # NINTH % # TENTH % # ELEVEN % # TWELFTH % Page 18    SCHOOL: SUBJECT AREA COURSES FAILED 2001-2002 (SECONDARY) WHITE TOTAL BLACK TOTAL OTHER TOTAL COURSES MALE FEMALE WHITE MALE FEMALE BLACK MALE FEMALE OTHER TOTAL # 0 % # 0 % # 0 % # 0 % # 0 % # 0 % # 0 % # 0 % # 0 % # 0 % # 0 % # 0 % # 0 % Page 19    SCHOOL: GRADUATION INFORMATION 2001-2002 WHITE TOTAL BLACK TOTAL OTHER TOTAL YEAR MALE FEMALE WHITE MALE FEMALE BLACK MALE FEMALE OTHER TOTAL # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % Page 20    SCHOOL: DROPOUT STATISTICS 2001-2002 WHITE TOTAL BLACK TOTAL OTHER TOTAL GRADE MALE FEMALE WHITE MALE FEMALE BLACK MALE FEMALE OTHER TOTAL # 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 % # 0 0 0 0 % r Page 21   STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT-ASSESSMENT DATA SAT-9 (PLEASE ATTACH MOST RECENT INFORMATION)  Page 22 Arhnsu ComprehensivTee stingA, ssessment PRIMARY (GRADE 4) BEN~MARK EXAMINATION SCHOOLROSTEl9EPORT MEAN SCALE SCORES Page: 3 \u0026amp; Atcounlability Progiam PROFICIENCY CLASSIFICATION SCALE SCORE Below Basic (BEL) Basic Proficient Dtstrtct Name: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (BAS) (PRO) LEA #: 6002 School Name: PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL School Number: 064 Mathematics Literacy 154 and below 178 and below 155- 199 200-249 179-199 200-249 COMBINED POPULATION Mean Scale Score for School /Dt strict/Region/State SCHOOL DISTRICT REGION STATE MATHEMATICS 161 171 173 177 LITERACY 175 184 190 189 GENERAL POPULATION Mean Scale Score for School/District/Region/State SCHOOL DISTRICT REGION STATE MATHEMATICS 211 191 186 191 LITERACY 191 192 195 195 I EP STUDENTS Mean Scale Score for School/District/Region/State SCHOOL DISTRICT REGION STATE MATHEMATICS 054 090 085 086 LITERACY 139 150 152 152 LEP STUDENTS Mean Scale Score for School/District/Region/State SCHOOL DISTRICT REGION STATE MATHEMATICS 000 067 153 142 LITERACY 000 140 178 176 HIGHLY MOB! LE STUDENTS Mean Scale Score for School/District/Region/State SCHOOL DISTRICT REGION STATE MATHEMATICS 099 118 151 156 LITERACY 171 176 181 182  Advanced (ADV) 2 50 and above 250 and above   THREE YEAR COMPARISON OF MEAN PERCENTILE RANI{ PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - GRADE 5 70 ~--------------------------------------- 60 .,_ _________________ _ 40 0 Reading Mathematics Language Science Social Basic Complete Mean PR Mean PR Mean PR Mean PR Science Battery Battery Mean PR Mean PR Mean PR [!]FALL 1998 27 24 24 29 26 26 26 l!!IF ALL 1999 47 40 46 62 43 45 46  FALL 2000 45 36 43 50 35 41 41  l!JFALL 1998 rJFALL 1999  FALL 2000   STAFF DEVELOPMENT UPDATE FOR CERTIFIED STAFF (OFFERINGS SINCE LAST SCHOOL PROFILE)  Page 23 Park Hill Elementary Staff Development Workshops 2001-2002 School Year SAT-9/ BENCHMARK MATH WORKSHOP ACSIP WORKSHOP READING STRATEGIES ACSIP PROCESS ACSIP DATA COLLECTION WRITERS WORKSHOP- GRADES 1-2-3 ADHD LEARNING DISABILITIES READING STRATEGIES THAT WORK EPSF TRAINING SESSION MATH WORKSHOP- C.G.I. ELLA SMART START SMART STEP McRAT SCIENCE WORKSHOP WRITING WORKSHOP GRADE-5 OPEN COURT READING - SPECIAL ED. AUTISM WORKSHOP MAGIC IN THE CLASSROOM COUNSELOR'S WORKSHOP COUNSELOR'S WORKSHOP IN THE MOOD FOR WRITING THE BRAIN G. T. WORKSHOP WORD 2000/ POWER POINT LITERACY TASK CARDS READING RECOVERY SEMINAR EFFECTIVE LITERACY CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT NEW TEACHER ORIENTATION GATES GATHERING-TECHNOLOGY 8-20-01 8-20-01 8-21-01 8-21-01 9-26-01 10-1-01 6-12-01 7-27-01 8-21-01 10-1-01 6-20-22-01 7-10-11-01 7-10-11-01 8-6-9-01 8-21-01 10-1-01 8-21-01 10-1-01 8-13-01 8-10-01 10-1-01 10-1-01 10-1-01 10-1-01 10-1-01 8-21-01 8-15-01 6-26-29-01 8-6-7-01 8-17-01 6-25-28-01   STAFF DEVELOPMENT UPDATE FOR CLASSIFIED STAFF (OFFERINGS SINCE LAST SCHOOL PROFILE)  Page 24 Staff Development Workshops - Classified Personnel CPR TRAINING SAT-9/BENCHMARKMATH ACSIP PROCESS ACSIP WORKSHOP DATA COLLECTION - ACSIP OPEN COURT READING AUTISM WORKSHOP TECHNOLOGY WORD 2000/ POWER POINT 8-2001 8-20-01 8-21-01 8-20-01 9-26-01 8-21-01 10-1-01 8-21--01 10-1-01   DISCIPLINE INFORMATION REFERRALS/ ACTIONS TAKEN (PLEASE ATTACH COMPUTER GENERATED INFORMATION)  Page 25 Ref: DIS032S Date: 9/10/01 1iiliie: 16:06:11 ~ol: 043 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -------------------. ------------------------------------------------------------ l 9 9 9 - 0 0 ==-----==------------------------------------------============================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------------------------------------------==------------ 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. ll BOYS CLUB 12 E. I. C. 17 EXPULSION 0 0~  0 0 0 g,  0 0 Og,  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 20 54.1% 10 27.0% 7 18.9% 0 0~  0 13 9 6 0 0 Og,  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  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 0 - 0 l -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT #SW #Sru #Sru #Sru 0 0 37 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 =================\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1751","title":"Includes responses to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to enforce settlement agreement, PCSSD board members' motion to intervene in their individual capacities, and request for entry of appearance.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-08-05/2003-08-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Pulaski County Special School District","Arkansas. State Board of Education","School board members"],"dcterms_title":["Includes responses to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to enforce settlement agreement, PCSSD board members' motion to intervene in their individual capacities, and request for entry of appearance."],"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/1751"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["34 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, motion to intervene; District Court, motion to dismiss the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion to dismiss the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion to intervene; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) board members motion to intervene in their individual capacities; District Court, memorandum in support of motion to intervene; District Court, response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement and for allied relief; District Court, request for entry of appearance    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.     MOBILE: 501-350-2573 OFFICE: 501-907-9797 CLAY FENDLEY ATTORNEY AT LAW JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. P.A. 51 WINGATE DRIVE LITTLE ROCK., AR 72205 August 5, 2003 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 HAND-DELIVERED RE: LRSD v. PCSSD NO. 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: 0 : ~ E-MAIL: fendley l@alltel.net FAX: 501-907-9798 RECEIVED AUG 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enclosed please find a Motion to Intervene and accompanying brief which I, along with Mike Wilson and Will Bond, have filed today on behalf of Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley and Sue Ann Whisker. The motion arises out of the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. It is our understanding that a hearing on the PCSSD's motion has been scheduled for August 18, 2003. We respectfully request that our intervention motion be considered at that hearing as well. 1bank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, cc: All counsel The Honorable J. Thomas Ray IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, RECEIVED AUG 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUEANN WHISKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS MOTION TO INTERVENE Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley and Sue Ann Whisker for their Motion to Intervene state: 1. The Movants move to intervene in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). 2. The Movants have an interest in this Court's resolution of the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. The Movants seek to create a new school district in northeast Pulaski County by detaching territory from the PCSSD through the process set forth in Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1501 through 1505 (Michie Supp. 2002). In accord with that process,' 1The election will be the fourth step in the process established by Ark. Code Ann.  6- 13-1501 through 1505. The Movants initiated the process by commissioning an independent feasibility study. Next, they gathered petition signatures and submitted them to the State Board of Education, along with additional information required by statute. Third, on July 14, 2003, the State Board of Education held a hearing on the petition, found it complied with the detachment statute and voted to order an election. Page 1 of 4 the State Board of Education on July 16, 20032 ordered an election to be held September 16, 2003 so that voters residing in the proposed new school district may vote on whether to detach from the PCSSD. If a majority of voters favor detachment, the State Board of Education will order the creation of the new district. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505(a). In its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, the PCSSD argues that detachment will violate the Court's Consent Decree arising out of the parties' 1989 Settlement Agreement and asks the Court to order the State Board ofEducation to rescind its July 16, 2003 order and to stop the September 16, 2003 election on detachment. The Movants have an interest in seeing that the election go forward as a necessary part of the detachment process established by Ark. Code Ann.  6-13- 1501 through 1505. 3. If this Court grants the PCS SD the relief it seeks, it will as a practical matter - impair or impede the Movants' ability to establish an independent school district in northeast Pulaski County by the process established by Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1501 through 1505. The new district cannot be created without the election that the PCSSD seeks to stop. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505(a). 4. The Movants' interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties to this case. 5. The Movants' memorandum brief submitted in support of this motion is hereby incorporated by reference. 6. The Movants' proposed Motion to Dismiss the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to 2Although the hearing was July 14, 2003, the State Board of Education did not actually issue its order until July 16, 2003. Page 2 of 4 Enforce Settlement Agreement and the accompanying brief are attached hereto as Exhibit A and B, respectively. WHEREFORE, the Movants pray that they be granted leave to intervene and all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for Movants B:Yiimc. ~t-~,~ Fendley, Jr. Page 3 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 5, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Finn Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 4 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS THE PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley and Sue Ann Whisker (hereinafter the \"Bollen Intervenors\") for their Motion to Dismiss the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement state: 1. The Bollen Intervenors seek to create a new school district in northeast Pulaski County by detaching territory from the PCSSD through the process set forth in Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1501 through 1505 (Michie Supp. 2002). In accord with that process, 1 the State Board 1The election will be the fourth step in the process established by Ark. Code Ann. 6- 13-1501 through 1505. The Bollen Intervenors initiated the process by commissioning an independent feasibility study. Next, they gathered petition signatures and submitted them to the State Board of Education, along with additional information required by statute. 'Third, on July 14, 2003, the State Board of Education held a hearing on the petition, found it complied with the detachment statute and voted to order an election. Page 1 of 4 Exhibit A of Education on July 16, 20032 ordered an election to be held September 16, 2003 so that voters residing in the proposed new school district may vote on whether to detach from the PCS SD. If a majority of voters favor detachment, the State Board of Education will order the creation of the new district. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505(a). 2. In its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, the PCS SD argues that detachment will violate the Court's Consent Decree arising out of the parties' 1989 Settlement Agreement and asks this Court to order the State Board of Education to rescind its July 16, 2003 order and to stop the September 16, 2003 election on detachment. 3. Also in the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, individual PCSSD board members claim that the detachment statute denies them due process and equal protection because only those residing in the territory to be detached will be permitted to vote in - the September 16, 2003 election. See PCSSD's Motion, ,r 9. 4. This Court lacks jurisdiction over both the PCSSD's claims based on the Consent Decree and the individual board members' claims based on the U.S. Constitution. The Court has no jurisdiction over the PCSSD's claims because the PCSSD's alleged harm (detachment) is contingent upon a majority of voters approving detachment, and therefore, the PCSSD's claims are not ripe for adjudication. The Court has no jurisdiction over the individual board members' claims because their claims do not implicate the Consent Decree and because the board members, in their individual capacities, are not parties to this case. For these reasons, the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement should be dismissed. 2 Although the hearing was July 14, 2003, the State Board of Education did not actually issue its order until July 16, 2003. Page 2 of 4 WHEREFORE, the Bollen Intervenors pray that the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement be dismissed; that they be awarded their costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that they be awarded all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for Movants Page 3 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 5, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Finn Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon IO 10 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 4 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL PISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUEANN WHISKER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS THE PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT I. Ripeness. This Court must presume that it lacks jurisdiction \"unless 'the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.\"' Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546 (1986) (quoting King Bridge Co. v. Otoe County, 120 U.S. 225,226 (1887)). \"It is the responsibility of the complainant clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute and the exercise of the court's remedial powers.\" Bender, supra, at 546, n. 8 (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 517-518 (1975)). The PCSSD fails to allege facts demonstrating that its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is ripe for adjudication. \"The basic rationale of the ripeness doctrine is 'to prevent the courts, through avoidance Page I of 6 Exhibit B of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effect felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.'\" National Right to Life Political Action Committee v. Conner, 323 F.3d 684, 692 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977)). Consistent with this rationale, \"courts deciding whether a dispute is ripe should consider (1) the hardship to the plaintiff caused by delayed review; (2) the extent to which judicial intervention would interfere with administrative action; and (3) whether the court would benefit from further factual development.\" Id. Each of the three factors weighs in favor of a finding that the PCSSD's motion is not ripe. First. the PCSSD will suffer no hardship by delaying review until after the September 16. 2003 election. The detachment statute requires this Court's approval before detachment may actually take place. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505(b)(2). Consequently. the PCSSD will not suffer any harm before this Court has an opportunity to resolve the issues raised in its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Next, this Court granting the relief sought by the PCSSD would substantially interfere with administrative action taken by the State Board of Education. The State Board of Education ordered an electio.n based on its finding that the Bollen Intervenors satisfied the requirements of the detachment statute. The PCSSD's request that the State Board of Education be directed to rescind its order would, if granted, directly interfere with the State Board of Education's action taken pursuant to state law. Page 2 of 6 Finally, this Court could benefit from further factual development, in that the Court needs to wait and see whether the voters approve detachment. If they do not, the PCSSD's motion will be rendered moot. It is well-settled that \"[a] claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon 'contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.\"' Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998)(quoting Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568, 580-81 (1985)). The PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is not ripe for adjudication because the alleged harm is contingent upon voter approval of detachment in the September 16, 2003 election ordered by the State Board of Education. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the motion, and it should be dismissed. II. Individual Board Member Claims. The PCSSD may argue that a live controversy exists based on the constitutional claims made by individual PCSSD board members. In their individual capacities, they claim that the detachment statute denies them due process and equal protection because only those residing in the territory to be detached will be permitted to vote in the September 16, 2003 election. See PCSSD's Motion, ,r 9. However, this Court does not have jurisdiction to decide these claims as a part of the present case for two reasons. First, this Court's remedial authority is limited to interpretation and enforcement1 of its Consent Decree. Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997). In that case, this Court (the Honorable Susan Webber Wright) enjoined a strike by the PCSSD's teachers. The teachers 1Enforcement includes modification of the Consent Decree based on changed factual circumstances. See Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367,388 (1992). Page 3 of 6 appealed, and the Eighth Circuit noted that the Consent Decree does not address the teachers' right to strike and reversed holding, \"The jurisdiction of the District Court to enforce [the Consent Decree] does not include the authority to resolve other disputes among the parties or to adjust their legal rights and responsibilities arising from other sources.\" Id. Similarly, the individual board members' constitutional claims have nothing to do with the Consent Decree. They allege that the detachment statute denies them due process and equal protection because they cannot vote in the detachment election. The Consent Decree simply does not address who should be permitted to vote in a detachment election. Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to address the constitutional claims being asserted by the individual board members. Second, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the constitutional claims of the board members because they are not parties to this case in their individual capacities. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 543-44 (1986)(individual school board member sued in his official capacity lacks standing to appeal grant of declaratory judgment against school district); Doe v. Claiborne County, Tenn., 103 F.3d 495, 511 ((5111 Cir. 1996) (individual school board members cannot act under of color of state law as required for liability under  1983 ); Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-620 (establishing the power and duties of school boards). To pursue their individual claims, the board members must file a separate case. ill. Conclusion. In sum, this Court lacks jurisdiction over both the PCSSD's claims based on the Consent Decree and the individual board members' claims based on the U.S. Constitution. The Court has no jurisdiction over the PCSSD's claims because the PCSSD's alleged harm (detachment) is Page 4 of 6 contingent upon a majority of voters approving detachment, and therefore, the PCSSD's claims are not ripe for adjudication. The Court has no jurisdiction over the individual board members' claims because the claims do not implicate the Consent Decree and because the board members, in their individual capacities, are not parties to this case. For these reasons, the PCSSD's Motion to Fourth Enforce Settlement Agreement should be dismissed. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for Movants Page 5 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 5, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER,P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, RECEIVED AUG 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUEANN WHISKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley and Sue Ann Whisker (hereinafter collective referred to as the \"Bollen Intervenors\") move to intervene in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) requires the Court to permit intervention where (1) the party seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action, (2) the party seeking intervention is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, and (3) the interest of the party seeking intervention is not adequately represented by existing parties. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Motion, the Bollen Intervenors satisfy each of these requirements and should be granted leave to intervene. It may be argued that the State of Arkansas adequately represents the interest of the Page 1 of 3 Bollen Intervenors in this case. However, the State cannot be expected to litigate this case with the same commitment to detachment as the Bollen Intervenors. Toe State's commitment will be tempered by other considerations, such as the financial impact on the State. The Bollen Intervenors, on the other hand, have expended an incredible amount of time and money to create the new district, and they want detachment as soon as possible so that they may take control of their childrens' educational future. \"The burden resting on intervenors to show that their interests are not adequately represented by existing parties is a 'minimal' one.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 738 F.2d 82, 84 (8th Cir. 1984). This burden is more than met in the present case. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Page 2 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 5, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Finn Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 3 of 3 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS A 11r,  6 2003 IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLER!\u0026lt; By:. _______ -===:-:::-= DEP CLER~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On July 25, 2003, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) filed a Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief (Doc. No. 3760). If any party wishes to file a response to this motion, it should do so by 12:00 p.m., noon, Monday, August 11 , 2003 . On August 5, 2003, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley, and Sue Ann Whisker filed a Motion to Intervene (Doc. No. 3766). If any party wishes to respond to the \"Bollen Intervenors\"' (as they styled it) motion, this response should also be filed by 12:00 p.m., noon, Monday, August 11 , 2003. A hearing to address PCCSD's Motion to Enforce is schedule for 10:00 a.m., Monday, August 18, 2003. The Motion to Intervene by the \"Bollen Intervenors\" will also be addressed at this hearing. Lawyers for each party, including the Arkansas Department of Education, 1 are 1In an Order entered January 18, 1991 (Doc. No. 1418), Judge Wright dismissed the State/ADE as a party to this action \"pursuant to the terms of the parties' settlement agreement.\" However, the Settlement Agreement expressly provides \"that the Court may retain jurisdiction to 7 6 8 directed to be present at the hearing no later than 9:30 a.m .. Each party must have at least one representative, other than its lawyers, present at the hearing. IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of August, 2003. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wifil:ULE58AN~~C~ ON ~3 BY ... ~ address issues regarding implementation of the Plans.\" Attachments A, B, C, and D to the Settlement Agreement (Doc. No. 1174). Solidifying this position, in an Order entered August 18, 1993 (Doc. No. 1947), Judge Wright emphasized that, while the State/ADE was no longer a formal party in this action, \"it is the law of the case that the Court retains jurisdiction to ensure that the parties, including the State, comply with the terms of the settlement agreement as well as the settlement plans.\" EDWARD L. WRIGHT ( 1903 -1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT . JR. JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW GORDON S. RATHER. JR . ROGER A. GLASGOW C . DOUGLAS BUFORD. JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L . LOWTHER, JR. WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN JOHN D. DAVIS JUD'Y SIMMONS HENRY VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 360 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3699 (501) 371 - 0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www . wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY BRUCE R. LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOVER Writer 's Direct Dial No. 501 -212-1273 mjoDes@wlj .com August 8, 2003 KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKBR RAY F. COX , JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R. WILSON C. TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK D. WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING  UaasodMJJ11(11CdcebebrelbeUl1icdSIMO hfl:li ud Tndt!mvt O~ RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MOKITORIMG Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: Enclosed is a courtesy copy of PCSSD' s Board Members Motion to Intervene In Their Individual Capacities, together with supporting memorandum brief. The originals have been filed and the parties served. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. MSJ:ao Encls. cc/w/encls.: 439660-vl Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP Honorable J. Thomas Ray (via hand delivery) All Counsel of Record (via U.S. Mail) Mr. Ray Simon (via U.S. Mail) Mr. Scott Smith (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. Will Bond (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. Mike Wilson (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. Timothy Gauger (via hand delivery) Mr. Mark Burnett (via U.S. Mail) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MILDRED TATUM, GWEN WILLIAMS, PAM ROBERTS, JEFF SHANEYFELT and DON BAKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS PCSSD BOARD MEMBERS MOTION TO INTERVENE IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES The following PCSSD Board Members, for their Motion to Intervene state: 1. Mildred Tatum, Gwen Williams, Pam Roberts, Jeff Shaneyfelt, and Don Baker, are duly elected members of the Board of Directors of the Pulaski County Special School District. They are also residents in different areas of the PCSSD and taxpayers contributing to the funding of the PCSSD. 2. In such capacity, these board members are defendants in this action in their official capacities. 3. In their proposed Motion to Intervene, certain individuals (the Bollen Intervenors) residing in the Jacksonville area assert that the claims of the foregoing board members relating to equal protection of the law must be brought in a separate action. 438898-v1 4. To cure any such technicality, these board members, who are already defendants in this action, seek to intervene for the limited but substantial purpose of enforcing their individual rights to equal protection guaranteed by the United States and Arkansas Constitutions. Specifically, these intervenors contend that they will be denied equal protection of the law as they are precluded by state law from voting in the \"detachment election\" scheduled for September 16, 2003, even though they are all registered voters in the PCSSD, taxpayers in the PCSSD, have or have had children or grandchildren in the PCSSD schools, and otherwise have a vested interest in the operation, governance and vitality of the PCSSD as a whole. 5. Such an intervention will foster principles of judicial economy since these board members are already parties to this action in their official capacities and allowing their limited - intervention to assert their individual rights will neither prolong this action nor contribute to any judicial inefficiencies. 6. Your individual directors therefore request permission to intervene in their individual capacities for the limited but substantial purpose of protecting their rights to equal protection as guaranteed by the United States and Arkansas Constitutions. 7. As part of their request for intervention, these individual school board members request permission to adopt that certain motion, statement of material facts and brief in support of motion all filed by the PCSSD on July 25, 2003 . 8. Further, these intervenors observe that they and those situated similarly to them are further being denied equal protection of the law since they are required to pay the expenses of the special election for detachment pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 6-14-118. Thus, both as 438898-v1 2 individual taxpayers and in their capacity as directors, your intervenors are required to pay for the expenses of an election in which they are denied the right to vote. WHEREFORE, Mildred Tatum, Gwen Williams, Pam Roberts, Jeff Shaneyfelt and Don Baker pray for an order of this Court allowing their limited intervention as described above and authorizing their adoption of the previous motion, statement of material facts and  brief all as filed by the PCSSD on July 25, 2003. 438898-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August 1. 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via hand delivery on Mr. Timothy Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, 323 Center Street, Suite 200, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. via facsimile and U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 and via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 438898-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 4 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL -DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MILDRED TATUM, GWEN WILLIAMS, PAM ROBERTS, JEFF SHANEYFELT and DON BAKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE Mildred Tatum, Gwen Williams, Pam Roberts, Jeff Shaneyfelt and Don Baker adopt in their individual capacities the motion, statement of material facts and brief filed by the PCSSD on July 25, 2003. Equal Protection Considerations As the Supreme Court of the United States recently observed, federal courts presented with an appropriate controversy bear a duty to ensure that voting procedures adopted by a state \"are consistent with its obligation to avoid arbitrary and disparate treatment of the members of its electorate.\" Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 121 S. Ct. 525, 530 (2000). Furthermore, \"[b]ecause our democracy was founded on the principle that 'the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights,' our courts vehemently protect every citizen's right to vote, carefully and 439246-v1 meticulously scrutinizing any alleged infringement.\" Charfauros v. Board of Elections, 249 F.3d 941, 951 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 562 (1964)). The equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment guarantees fundamental rights to every person, including the right to vote, and these rights may not be impaired for reasons that are arbitrary or discriminatory. Id. This freedom has been rooted in our justice system for at least . a century, for the Supreme Court long ago recognized that the right to vote was a \"fundamental political right.\" Wick Yo v. Hop.kins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886). Nor does the right to the franchise end with the mere right to cast a ballot; there is in addition a \"constitutionally protected right to participate in elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction.\" Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 336 (1972). It is true that some restrictions on these rights have been permitted, but only when \"no discrimination is made between individuals\" in ways that violate the constitution. Carrington v. Rush, 380 U.S. 89, 91 (1965); when the state acts to disenfranchise, the limitations must be \"appropriately defined and uniformly applied.\" Dunn, 405 U.S. at 343. Imposition of Election Costs The rights of the intervenors to equal protection of the law are further compromised and vitiated by the operation of Ark. Code Ann.  6-14-118, which requires the school district to reimburse the County Board of Election Commissioners for the entire cost of any school election. Section (b) further states: At all annual or special elections, the board of directors of each district shall pay the expenses of the election out of the school fund. 439246-v1 2 Your intervenors submit that both in their role as individual taxpayers and patrons and in their official capacity as directors, they are denied the equal protection of the laws when they are denied the right to vote in an election the cost of which they must pay. Violation of Substantive Due Process Rights The immeasurable impact of the planned election on the individual Board members' . rights as voters also constitutes a violation of their right to substantive due process in matters that impinge on important rights. \"[A]n election is a denial of substantive due process if it is conducted in a manner that is fundamentally unfair.\" Bennett v. Yoshina, 140 F.3d 1218, 1226 (1998). Of course, there is a distinction between \"garden variety\" election irregularities and error that \"undermines the integrity of the vote.\" Id. The ultimate question is whether the election is fundamentally unfair . Id. and n.3 (citing as one example voter reliance on established procedures followed by a change in procedures that results in significant disenfranchisement). There is no precise definition of \"fundamentally unfair,\" but the Court is free to draw on precedent and the particular facts of the case to determine whether voters have been disenfranchised in a way that is arbitrary or capricious, and yet substantial. The Inconsistent Statutory Scheme Your intervenors further note that the companion statutory scheme to the detachment statutes does not deny equal protection of the laws. For instance, if consolidation of districts is proposed via an election, Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1404(a)(2) requires that: A majority of the qualified electors in the affected districts votes to approve consolidation of the affected districts into a resulting district or districts pursuant to a valid election.. . . Likewise, if a proposal to annex school districts via an election is presented, then Ark. - Code Ann.  6-13-1403(a)(2)(A) requires that: 439246-v1 3 A majority of the qualified electors in the affected district or districts vote to approve the annexation of an affected school district or districts to a receiving district or districts .... Thus, it is only under the circumstances of a \"detachment\" that the State has sought fit to restrict the grant of the franchise, a matter which your intervenors submit the State cannot properly do and comply with the equal protection clauses of the Arkansas and United States .Constitutions. Conclusion lntervenors pray that their motion to intervene be granted and for all proper relief. 439246-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 ..... ) Special 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August .e., 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via hand delivery on Mr. Timothy Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, 323 Center Street, Suite 200, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. via facsimile and U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 and via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon  Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 439246-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 5 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark_A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 John C. Fendley, Jr. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us August 8, 2003 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed the State's Request for Entry of Appearance and its Response to PCSSD'S \"Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement\" and for \"Allied Relief' which we filed today. MAH Enclosures cc: Mr. Scott Smith Very truly yours, ~.~. MARK A. HAGEM~ Assistant Attorney General IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOMITORlNG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S \"FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT\" AND FOR \"ALLIED RELIEF\" The Arkansas Department of Education submits this response to the PCSSD's1 \"Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief.\" For the reasons discussed below, PCSSD's motion should be dismissed. The PCSSD seeks an order that would squelch an election in which voters residing in the Jacksonville area will have the opportunity to vote on whether a proposal to create a new school district in the area should proceed. The election in question was approved by the State Board of Education pursuant to state statutes that govern the creation of new school districts by \"detachment\" of territory from existing districts.2 Those statutes require an election as a step in the process by which such a school district might be created. Furthermore, those statutes contain provisions that guarantee that the creation of such a district will not come to final fruition if 1 The opening paragraph of the motion states that the motion is brought by the PCSSD, its Board, and certain members of its Board \"in both their official and individual capacities.\" In this response the ADE will refer to all of the purported movants collectively as the \"PCSSD\" unless the context requires otherwise. 2 PCSSD asserts -- erroneously -- in Footnote 2 of its Brief that the statutes governing the creation of school districts by detachment \"appl[y] by definition only to the PCSSD and to no other school district.\" Arkansas Act 1397 of 2003 (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A) amended Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1502(d) so that, in addition to school districts that now or in the future serve 15,000 to 20,000 students, the detachment process might also be invoked in school districts that now or in the future encompass an area of 700 square miles or more. Presently, in addition to the PCSSD, the Waldron School District in Scott County encompasses an area in excess of750 square miles. doing so will hamper or impede desegregation efforts of school districts (such as the PCSSD) that operate under court-ordered or court-approved desegregation plans. The PCSSD ignores the possibility that the voters of the Jacksonville area might reject the proposed detachment, an occurrence that would put an end to the detachment process. 3 Instead, the PCSSD filed the instant motion in this Court seeking an order \"directing the State Board of Education to rescind its order of July 16, 2003, and cancel its authorization for an election.\" Additionally, the PCSSD filed an action in state court, which is still pending, that seeks essentially the same relief. See Exhibit 21 to PCSSD's Motion. As is discussed below, the PCSSD's motion is premature at best and should be dismissed on ripeness grounds. Under the applicable state statutes, no district can be created by detachment unless and until electors residing in the territory of the proposed new district vote in favor of the proposed detachment. If the voters reject the proposed detachment on September 16, that will be the end of the matter -- the PCSSD's motion will become moot and this Court will not have to consider the various factual and legal matters presented in the PCSSD's motion. Alternatively, a vote for the proposed detachment by electors on September 16 will not end the matter either. Under this circumstance, an appointed board of the proposed new district would be required by state law to come to this Court and secure any and all orders necessary to ensure that the creation of the new district will not undermine the districts' desegregation efforts. If this new Board ultimately does not seek and successfully obtain all such orders, for whatever reason, the new district will also not come into being. While the day may come when this Court is squarely and concretely presented with a proposed \"detachment\" district to consider, that day has not yet arrived, and indeed, it may never arrive. Furthermore, if PCSSD prevails in its pending 3 The State, unlike the PCSSD, does not presuppose or assume how the matter will fare at the election. 2 state court action on the state-law grounds it has asserted there, the motion filed in this Court will become moot. As regards the PCSSD's request for \"allied relief' -- a claim that the detachment statutes violate due process and equal protection because certain electors who reside in the PCSSD are not, under the statutes, eligible to vote on the proposed detachment -- this Court lacks _jurisdiction to grant such relief as well. The claim for \"allied relief' does not involve an allegation of an alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement, and in any event none of the purported movants has standing to assert the \"allied relief' claim in the context of this case. A. The PCSSD's Motion is Not Ripe for Review and Should Be Dismissed As noted, the relief sought is an order directing the State Board to \"rescind\" its order authorizing an election on the question of detachment, which would have the effect of canceling the upcoming election. The basis for this requested relief is the PCSSD's claim that the ultimate creation of the school district cannot happen in such a manner as will not violate some provision of the Settlement Agreement and/or impede their desegregation efforts. The PCSSD's motion should be dismissed because it is not ripe. The detachment process is governed by state law, specifically Ark. Code Ann.  6-13- 1501 et seq. The statutory scheme sets up a multi-step process, and the election is but one necessary step. Section 6-13-1503(2) provides that the detachment process can be initiated, as it was here, by a petition presented to the State Board of Education. If the State Board believes that the petition meets the statutory requirements, the State Board may, as it did here, \"order an election on the proposition of detachment to be held at the next annual school election or general election.\" Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1504(b)(l). Such an election, however, does not end the process. Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505 further provides as follows: 3 6-13-1505. Creation of district. (a) If all the requirements of this subchapter are met and a majority of the votes are cast for the proposition, the State Board of Education shall order the creation of the new school district. (b)(l) At the time the order creating the district is made, the state board shall appoint a board of seven (7) members for the new district to serve until the next regular election of members, when a board of directors shall be elected in compliance with Arkansas law. (2) Following the entry of the order creating the new district and the appointment of a board of directors for the new district but prior to the transfer of any assets, territory, property, liabilities, duties, or responsibilities, any new district created by detachment from an existing district that is a party to any court-ordered desegregation plan shall petition the court having jurisdiction in the desegregation matter and obtain any and all court orders or other relief necessary to ensure that the detachment will not cause the state or any affected school district to be in violation of any orders of the court or any consent orders or decrees entered into by the parties with regard to the desegregation plan. - (Emphasis added). The statutory scheme therefore makes it clear that (a) if the voters reject the proposed detachment, the process comes to an end; and (b ), if the voters approve the proposed detachment, a district with an appointed Board will be created but that \"district\" will have no assets, territory, property liabilities, duties or responsibilities unless and until that Board successfully secures from this Court all orders necessary to ensure that the creation of the district will not cause the State or any other school district to be in violation of any orders, consent orders or decrees entered in this case. If the Board of the proposed detached district is not successful in that regard, the process ends as well. By seeking to quash the election before it occurs, the PCSSD has \"jumped the gun\" because before any new district can be created, and before the statutory process can go forward, the voters must approve the proposed detachment at an election. 4 \"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.\" Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375,377 (1994) (internal citations omitted). The \"ripeness\" doctrine, which flows both from the Article III \"case or controversy\" jurisdictional requirement and from prudential considerations, requires federal courts to determine whether a particular dispute is \"fit for judicial resolution\" and whether the parties would \"experience hardship if the court withheld consideration of the case's merits.\" American Canoe Assoc. v. E.P.A., 289 F.3d 509, 512 (8th Cir. 2002) (citing Ohio Forestry Ass'n, Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 733 (1998)). Though it has been said that the ripeness doctrine is something of a \"cantaloupe,\" see Nebraska Public Power v. MidAmerican Energy, 234 F.3d 1032, 1038 (8th Cir. 2000), the Eighth Circuit has noted that the \"touchstone\" of a ripeness inquiry is \"whether the harm asserted has 'matured enough to warrant judicial intervention.\"' Vogel v. Foth and Van Dyke Associates, Inc., 266 F.3d 838, 840 (8th Cir. 2001) (quoting Paraquad, Inc. v. St. Louis Housing Authority, 259 F.3d 956, 958 (8th Cir. 2001)). The Eighth Circuit has also made it clear that \"a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.\" National Right to Life Political Action Committee v. Connor, 323 F.3d 684, 693 (8 th Cir. 2003). (quoting Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568, 580-81 (1985)). Here, the PCSSD seeks to derail the process under which a new school district might be created out of its existing territory. It is clear that such an \"injury,\" if any, to the PCSSD \"rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all,\" 5 namely, an election outcome favorable to detachment. While the PCSSD claims that the new district, if created, would harm its ability to comply with its desegregation obligations, it has not articulated any concrete harm that the election, by itself, will cause it to suffer. Unless and until at least the election is held and an outcome favorable to detachment occurs, PCSSD's claims are plainly not ripe for review, and they should be dismissed. B. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over The Request For \"Allied Relier' As regards the PCSSD' s request for \"allied relief,\" this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant such relief and that part of the PCSSD's motion should be dismissed as well. The \"allied relief' claim does not purport to be brought to address any alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement, and as PCSSD candidly concedes in the brief in support of its motion, \"the current jurisdiction of the District Court is 'only' to enforce the Settlement Agreement.\" (See PCSSD Brief at p. 23).4 If the claims for \"allied relief' are to be brought at all, such claims would have to be presented in a new, separate lawsuit, not as a \"motion\" filed in this case. Indeed, tacitly conceding this point, the PCSSD has already purported to bring this same claim in the separate action it has initiated in state court. See Exhibit 21 to PCSSD's motion. Further, the PCSSD, its Board, and its Board members in their \"official\" capacities lack standing to assert the rights of electors residing within the district. The PCSSD and its Board are not \"voters\" (see Conway School District v. Wilhoit, 854 F.Supp. 1430 (E.D. Ark. 1994)) and, in their \"official capacities,\" the Board members' claims must be treated as if they are brought by the PCSSD Board and the District itself, if at all. The PCSSD's effort to sidestep this issue by purporting to bring the motion on behalf of certain board members in their \"individual\" 4See Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997). Ironically, the Knight case involved an effort by the PCSSD to stretch the District Court's jurisdiction beyond its proper bounds after efforts in other forums to spare the PCSSD from dealing with a teachers' strike failed. 6 capacities is equally unavailing. Even if in some long-buried pleading in this case there is some reference to some particular member of the PCS SD Board as a party in an \"individual\" capacity, the course of proceedings in this case plainly demonstrates that the members of the PCSSD Board were parties in their \"official\" capacities only. No relief of any kind was ever awarded as against any Board member in his or her \"individual\" capacity. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534 543 (1986).5 The Board members have not moved to intervene in this action in their \"individual\" capacities so as to present their claim for \"allied relief,\" and there is no authority for such intervention in any event. For the foregoing reasons, the PCSSD's \"Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief' should be dismissed. 5 Indeed, if public school funds are being used by the PCSSD to, in part, pay for legal representation for board members for legal work that benefits the Board members personally, i.e., to pursue claims brought by Board members in their \"individual\" capacities to vindicate their personal rights under the due process or equal protection clauses, a serious question arises as to whether the PCSSD is improperly expending public school funds. See Ark. Constitution, Art. 14,  2 and 3. Ark. Code Ann. 6-13 -623 authorizes governing authorities of school districts to spend public school funds to employ legal counsel, but only to \"defend\" claims asserted against the governing authority \"or against any member thereof, by virtue of his actions in connection with his duties as such member.\" This statue would not appear to authorize the PCSSD board to employ legal counsel and use public school funds to initiate legal proceedings that purport to vindicate board members' personal rights in those members ' \"individual\" capacity. 7 Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General #95019 Senior Assistant Attome General MARK A. HAGEMEIER #94127 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on August _8_, 2003, a copy of the foregoing document was be served by first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 8 Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 John C. Fendley, Jr. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 . Mark A. Hagemeier 9 ...., 1 2 3 4 Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to the law as it existed prior to this session of the General Assembly. State of Arkansas 84th General Assembly Regular Session, 2003 Act 1397 of 2003 HOUSE BILL 2608 5 By: Representative Bond 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 For An Act To Be Entitled AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAWS PERTAINING TO CREATION OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT BY DETACHMENT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Subtitle AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAWS PERTAINING TO CREATION OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT BY DETACHMENT. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. Arkansas Code 6-13-1502(d), concerning minimum area and 22 attendance requirements for creation of a school district by detachment, is 23 amended to read as follows: 24 (d) This subchapter shall apply only to school districts that in the 25 school year immediately preceding the detachment had an average daily 26 membership of at least fifteen thousand (15,000) students but not more than 27 twenty thousand (20,000) students, or the school district encompasses a total 28 area of seven hundred (700) square miles or more, now or in the future. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 SECTION 2. EMERGENCY CLAUSE. It is found and determined by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that the Arkansas Constitution requires the State of Arkansas to provide a general, suitable, and efficient system of public education; that procedures to ensure a general, suitable, and efficient system of public education need to be in place prior to the beginning the 2003-2004 school year; and that this act is immediately necessary to allow school districts and the electors of those districts ... llllillllllllllllllllllllll~IIIIIII :\"! 'EXHIBIT 03081003KAS f.,. ,,, ~, l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 - 36 As Engrossed: H4/2/03 HB2608 sufficient time to organize and plan to for a general, suitable, and efficient system of education in the district prior to the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year. Therefore, an emergency is declared to exist and this act being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety shall become effective on: (1) The date of its approval by the Governor; (2) If the bill is neither approved nor vetoed by the Governor, the expiration of the period of time during which the Governor may veto the bill; or (3) If the bill is vetoed by the Governor and the veto is overridden, the date the last house overrides the veto. Isl Bond APPROVED: 4/15/2003 2 03082003KAS1250.TW0018 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Senior Assistant Attorney General Timothy G. Gauger hereby requests that the Court enter his appearance as additional counsel of record for the Arkansas Department of Education for the limited purpose of this Court's consideration and disposition of the PCSSD's \"Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief.\" Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General Senior Assistant orney General MARK A. HAGEMEIER #94127 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on August .8.__, 2003, a copy of the foregoing document was be served by first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address( es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 John C. Fendley, Jr. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 7207 6 2    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_695","title":"\"Quarterly Update to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua,'' Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006-03-01/2006-09-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["\"Quarterly Update to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua,'' Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/695"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["32 pages"],"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\nFebruary 28, 2006 RECEIVED MAR 1 - 2006 Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Marjorie Powell Associate Monitors Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Mr. Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Powell: This accompanies a copy of the quarterly written update of March 1, 2006, in compliance with the June 30, 2004 memorandum opinion of the U.S. District Court. Please let us know if you would like more information. Thank you for your adviee and support in earrying out our responsibilities. Sincerely yours. Karen Director, PRE xc: Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 FAX 501/447-7609 February 28, 2006 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker: This accompanies the quarterly written update of March 1, 2006 in compliance with the U. S. District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). Sincerely yours, Director, PRE Department xc: Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Gene Jones Ms. Marjorie Powell Mr. Robert Pressman Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 FAX 501/447-7609 February 28, 2006 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421-5817 Dear Mr. Pressman: This accompanies the quarterly written update of March 1, 2006 in compliance with the U. S. District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). Mr. Walker has asked that we furnish you with copies of reports. Sincerely yours, DeJamette, .D. Director, PRE Department xc: Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Gene Jones Ms. Marjorie Powell Mr. John Walker Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 FAX 501/447-7609 Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Marjorie Powell Associate Monitors Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED MAR 1 - 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Mr, Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Powell: On Monday, March 13 the evaluation team for Pre-K Literacy will convene at the IRC, 3001 South Pulaski Street, in room 10 at 10 AM. In a later mailing you will receive the proposed plan and questionnaires for the evaluation. We invite you to attend. Please contact us if you would like more information. Sincerely yoiKS, Karen DeJamette,rh.D. Director, PRE xc: Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 FAX 501/447-7609 February 28, 2006 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker: On Monday, March 13 the evaluation team for Pre-K Literacy will convene at the IRC, 3001 South Pulaski Street, in room 10 at 10 AM. In a later mailing you will receive the proposed plan and questionnaires for the evaluation. We invite you to attend. Please contact us if you would like more information. Sincerely yours, Karen DeJamette, Ph.D. Director, PRE Department xc: Mr. Gene Jones, Associate Monitor Ms. Marjorie Powell, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Chris Heller LRSD Counsel Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua Intervenors March 1, 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. M H PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206IN IN Little Rock School District (LRSD) IN IN QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua Intervenors IN IN March 1, 2006 IN RECEIVED mar 1 - 2006 OFFICEOF desegregation monitoring IN LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF IN V. IN PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.I ETAL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS IN KATHERINE KNIGHT, ETAL., INTERVENORS IN IN IN d Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 d dIntroduction This is the sixth quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department (PRE), submitted in accordance with the U. S. District Courts 2004 Compliance Rem^y (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). The organization of this report is that of the Compliance Remedy: II A. B. c. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction program. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. PRE must (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants . . . and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support... Evaluations will contain numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who contributed data, recommended program changes necessary for improved academic achievement by Afncan-American students, and brief explanations of how each change will increase a programs effectiveness. . . . PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval ... by December 31, 2004. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the . . . four step 2 program evaluations . . . during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year ... to ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1... [ODMs responsibilities.] [Joshuas responsibilities.] Four step 2 program evaluations are due to the U. S. District Courts October 1, 2005 and four more not later than October 1, 2006. The Compliance Report is due October 15, 2006. [This Compliance Remedy supersedes earlier one.] 11 11 k II II II * i K a Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Page 2 of 5M Status as of March 1, 2006 M A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals. I IN LRSD hired a highly trained team of professionals in 2004 who met the Compliance Remedys requirements and reported this accomplishment in its first quarterly written update of December 1, 2004. This team continues to carry out diligently the Compliance Remedy, as stated in this sixth quarterly written update. IN Arthur Olds joined the PRE Department in November 2005 as testing coordinator. His resume is in Appendix A. R B. Devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process. IN IN The PRE Department has continued to develop its comprehensive assessment process including a district portfolio, as reported in the fourth and fifth quarterly written updates. In addition to the LRSD senior administrators and principals who consult the portfolio, Dr. James Catterall used its data in his step 2 evaluation of the Districts Year-Round Education option in several schools. IN IN IN To support the portfolios expansion, frequent updates, and future utility, PRE is designing a data warehouse which LRSD staff and others can consult on a real-time basis. The LRSD Computer Information Department is consulting with Janis Group, Inc., a firm with expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently accessing data. After determining this sophisticated data warehouses purpose(s), this team is determining which data sets to include. The data warehouse will bring the portfolio alive by supporting frequent updates of the portfolio and timely reports for purposes of developing policy, planning, research, and evaluation at levels of classrooms, schools, grades, departments, and the district. IN IN Education for the Future (EFF) devised a welcome page and questionnaires for an on-line school climate survey. EFF based the questionnaires on interests that derived from consultations on the districts mission and operations. Principals, teachers, students, and parents will participate in the survey this spring, and its results will go into the district portfolio. Appendix B shows the questionnaire drafts. IN C. Hire outside consultant(s) to prepare eight formal step 2 evaluations. If If M Step 2 evaluations of 2004-2005 During LRSDs December vacation, the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP), directed by Dr. Steve Ross at the University of Memphis, submitted draft evaluation reports for CompassLeaming (CL), Reading Recovery (RR), and SMART/THRIVE (S/T). Dr. Catterall sent his draft evaluation report for Year-Round Education (YRE) in early January. LRSD forwarded these four draft reports, as they arrived, to the U. S. District Court, to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors. PRE received final reports by early February and forwarded them to the same parties prior to their due dates. Summaries of the evaluation reports, submitted to the LRSD Board of Directors for their approval February 23, are in Appendices C through F. They include recommendations and resulting expectations. Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Page 3 of 5LRSD evaluation policy requires follow-up of evaluation recommendations. Evaluation teams for each program will convene during the next year to consider how LRSD implements the external evaluators recommendations. To prepare for this, PRE will collect appropriate data from administrators of the four programs evaluated last year. Step 2 evaluations during the 2005-2006 school year Dr. Ross presented CREPs proposed designs for step 2 evaluations during the 2005-2006 school year21'-Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC), Pre-K Literacy (PKL), and Read 180to school principals January 18. In September, Dr. Catterall heard feedback about the evaluation design for A+ from the principal, teachers, and parents at Woodruff Elementary School. He also conducted a focus group and interviewed the principal. PRE recruited stakeholders for the four evaluation teams, and 22 participated on February 9 in reviewing their roles and discussing the four proposed evaluation designs (found in Appendices G, H, I, and J of this sixth quarterly written update). Their schedules indicate data collection starting in February. Joshua counsel did not attend\nbut ODM officers did and recommended more team members, with which PRE complied. Appendix K lists members of all four teams.  D. PRE (1) oversees the preparation of the step 2 evaluations, (2) works closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and (3) assists them. PRE continued working closely with the CREP team in completing their three step 2 evaluations of last year, reviewing closely and discussing with CREP its three draft reports in early January, convening the evaluation teams on January 12 for their reviews, submitting comments to CREP for incorporation into its final drafts, then submitting the final drafts to the Board of Directors for approval at its February session. PRE wrote evaluation teams questions and observations and distributed them the next day to all team members for further contributions and corrections. A week later, final comments went to CREP, and CREP sent a research brief, written in simpler language, for each program. Names of participants at the January 12 session and their comments appear in Appendix L.  On January 19, PRE convened the evaluation team for reactions to the draft report of the YRE evaluation and wrote down participants remarks, which went to all team members for additional contributions and corrections. After a week, having received no more, PRE sent the teams notes to Dr. Catterall for incorporation into his final draft. PRE submitted this final report to the Board of Directors for their approval February 23. Appendix L records participants names and their comments from January 19. I E. Evaluation will have (1) numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who submit data for evaluations, (2) recommended program changes necessary for improved achievement by African-American students, and (3) succinct explanations of how each change will increase its respective programs effectiveness. a During its critical reviews of the first four draft evaluation reports, PRE reminded the external evaluators of this requirement\nand the resulting final reports included these three required Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Page 4 of 5IN H elements. PRE will assure that the final four evaluation reports by external evaluators will also satisfy these requirements next year. F. Delivery of names of programs to be evaluated and the comprehensive program assessment process to ODM and Joshua. IN Earlier quarterly written updates have reported that PRE notified both ODM and Joshua of all eight LRSD programs selected for step 2 evaluations and furnished both parties with the LRSD comprehensive program assessment process per F of the U. S. District Courts June 30, 2004 remedy (page 65). In addition, PRE has notified ODM and Joshua of occasions when critical issues regarding the evaluations have been considered and decided. IN G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of step 2 evaluations. IN IN Per G of the June 30, 2004 remedy by the U. S. District Court (page 65), PRE submitted its first written quarterly update on December 1, 2004, its second on March 1, 2005, its third by June 1, 2005, the fourth prior to September 1, 2005, and the fifth written quarterly update by December 1, 2005. PRE now submits this sixth written quarterly update prior to its due date of March 1, 2005. To date, PRE has met all due dates of the remedy including the first annual report which the Court postponed from its original date of October 1, 2005. IN IN IN IN IN IN II n H N Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Page 5 of 5 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. 1. J. K. L. APPENDICES Resume of Mr. Arthur Olds, new Testing Coordinator Draft questionnaires for on-line climate survey of LRSD teachers Summary of CompassLearning Evaluation Summary of Reading Recovery Evaluation Summary of SMART/THRIVE Summary of Year Round Education Draft design for Step 2 Evaluation of A+ by Dr. James Catterall, UCLA Draft design for Evaluation of 2L^ Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) by CREP Draft design for Evaluation of Pre-K Literacy (PKL) by CREP Draft design for Evaluation of Read 180 by CREP Evaluation team members during 2006-2007 for A+, CCLC, PKL, and Read 180 Teams and their feedback to draft evaluation reports of CL, RR, and S/T January 12 and YRE January 19, 2006 Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendices  I I 1 H IN Appendix A IN IN Testing Coordinator IN  Arthur Clyde Olds DI ID Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District ID ID ID ID ID ID Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix AEDUCATION: FOREIGN LANGUAGES: TEACHING EXPERIENCE: Arthur Clyde Olds 23 Sandstone Conway, Arkansas 72034 (501) 329-6106 arthirr.olds@conwaycorp.net A.B.D. Michigan State UruversitySpanish M.A. Michigan State Urtiversity-Spanish (1974) B.A. Brigham Young University-Spanish/History (1970) Teaching Licensure-State of Aricansas: ESL (K-12), Spanish (K-12), Latin (K-12), Middle School Spanish: Read, Speak, Write-Excellent Latin: Very Good French: Very Good 1990-present: Dunbar Magnet Middle School ESL school coordinator/ESL testing. I keep the ACSIP plan up to date and keep the several administrators and faculty current concerning school wide statistics, as I serve as School Testing Coordinator. I help with the Title 1 plan and budget and recently wrote an awarded grant of $100,000 for our after-school tutoring program in math and literacy, which I help coordinate. Teach all levels of Latin and Spanish, including our \"Introduction to Foreign Language\" courses. I have also taught reading. Serve at Dunbar as a member of the Campus Leadership Team, the Steering Corrunittee, NCA/COE chair. Discipline Hearing Committee chair. Foreign Language Department chair. Building Coordination Committee, SECME chair and team member (summer workshop). Quiz Bowl team leader and OM judge at Region and State competitions. For the LRSD serve on the Foreign Language Curriculum Revision Committee, on the District Textbook Adoption Committee in two cycles, the Middle School Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment Committee and the Activities Advisory Board. Also serve as a \"Pathwise\" Mentor for new teachers and teach computer classes for teachers in the district. 1980-present: Spanish Instructor in the Public Schools of Arkansas Taught all levels of Spanish, operated the language laboratory and served as Sparush Club advisor. Organized two torrrs to Mexico. Schools include: Southside-Bee Branch/Guy-Perkins, Perryville/East End, Magnet Cove and Parkview (Little Rock). English Instructor in the Public Schools of Arkansas Taught all levels of English (7-12), including Honors English, same schools. Co-director of a nationally recogiuzed restructuring program at Perryville High School that coordinated English, History and Cultural Studies. Worked under the direction of the State Department of Education and the Arkansas International Center at UALR. University of Central Arkansas (Instructor of Spanish1980-84) Taught all levels of Spanish, organized and conducted two summer programs in Mexico, and served as advisor to student teachers in the dq3artment. Developed third and fourth year proficiency testing and taught general education courses. Also worked in tire Elderhostel Program (Division of Continuing Education.) Taught English Composition I and II. University of Arkansas at Little Rock (Instructor of Spanish) Taught all first second and third year comses. 1969-1980: Graduate Assistant and Visiting Assistant Professor of Spanish Michigan State University (1973-80), Alma College (1976), University of Wisconsin-Madison (1972-73) and Brigham Young Uruversity (1969-72). Taught all first and second year courses offered by the departments as well as special sections of \"Spanish for Travelers.\" Had full responsibility for planning and conducting classes, text selection and production of materials for special classes. Also had language laboratory responsibilities.  II w  II R   II R R RA. C. Olds, page 2 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE: 1990- Arkansas Foreign Language Teachers Association General Board present: and President of the Arkansas Classical Association. 1985-90: Arkansas State Coordinator for National Spanish Exam of the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese. I 1985-88: President and Vice President, American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese DeSoto Chapter and Member, General Board of the Arkansas Foreign Language Teachers Association. K 1980-84: Department of Foreign Languages, University of Central Arkansas Student teacher advisor, proficiency testing and evaluation, textbook selection, sponsor oiLasociedad hispdnica, high school language festival judge, local university coordinator of National High School Spanish Exams, department publicity. National Committee of the Educational Testing Service CLEP Exam revision, foreign language reviewer for Publications of the Arkansas Philological Association, book reviewer for La Celestinesca. M 1974-80: Michigan State University: Department Chair Search Committee, Graduate Committee, Graduate Steering Committee, Advisory Committee, College of Arts and Letters Graduate Committee. H 1971-72: Brigham Young University: Department representative to College of Humanities Graduate Committee and Graduate School Advisory Committee. n RELATED WORK EXPERIENCE: 2001: Six week technology workshop, University of Arkansas at Little Rock IN 1997: SECME Summer Workshop, Tuskegee Institute 1991: II Summer workshop, Kingston, Jamaica, sponsored by the Arkansas International Center at UALR 1988: II Summer workshop, Guadalajara, Mexico, sponsored by the Arkansas International Center at UALR n 1985: Oral Proficiency Workshop of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, held at UALR 1984: First cycle of Program for Effective Teaching II 1974- Contract translation (Spanish to English/English to Spanish) for local present: businesses and legal translation for lawyers and the court II 1983-84: Editorial Board, Publications of the Arkansas Philological Association 1973-79: Editor, Tropos II11 A. C. Olds, page 3 II PUBLICATIONS/LECTURES: Papers presented at the Arkansas Philological Association Meetings\n\"Calisto: el loco enamorado (La Celestina).\" (1997) \"Celestina: Character as Author (La Celestina).\" (1995) \"Parmeno and Sempronio (La Celestina) and the Process of Self-Creation.\" (1993) \"The Thrust and Parry of Rojas' Prose: The Ironic Vision of La Celestina.\" (1991) \"Mirrors of Ambiguity: The Author in Search of Self in Miguel de Unamuno's La novela de Don Sandalio, jugador de ajedrez.\" (1989) \"If I'm OK and You're OK, Why Can't We Communicate?\" More on the continuing Saga of Don Quijote and Sancho.\" (1988) \"Irony and La Celestina\nThe Wonders of Rojas'Prose.\" (1987) \"Penas arriba : Adventure ofthe Archetypal Hero.\" (1986) M B B Other papers / lectures: \"Coordination and Cooperation: The High School and the University in Global Studies.\" Ark. International Studies Conference (UALR, April 1989.) \"Don Quijote y Sancho: El problema de la comunicacion.\" Tropos, 8 (1980), 17-27. \"Structure and Narrative Technique in La Celestina: The Aside.\" Mid-West MLA (Indianapolis: November, 1979). \"Scholarly Publishing: Dialogue Between an Editor and a Graduate Student.\" American Association of Comparative Literature Meetings (State College, Pennsylvania: April, 1979). Lockert, Lucia Fox. Spanish and Spanish-American Women Novelists. Scarecrow Press, 1979. (Book-length translation) \"Testing and Foreign Language Teaching\" (1977) and \"Oral Practice in Context\" (1976). Presented as part of a series on Foreign Language Teaching organized at Michigan State University. B 11 B PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS: Arkansas Foreign Language Teachers Association, Modem Language Association, Mid-West MLA, American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese, Societe Rencesvals, Sigma Delta Pi, Comediantes, Arkansas Philological Association, Arkansas Classical Association, Mid-America Medieval Association, American Classical League, Classical Association of the Middle West and South B PROFESSIONAL TRAVEL\n1997: SECME workshop, Tuskegee Institute. 1991: Summer workshop, Kingston, Jamaica. 1988: Summer workshop, Guadalajara, Mexico. 1981, 1982, 1986, 1987: Guided study programs in Mexico. 1969-70 and 1970-71: Semester Abroad programs in Spain with BYU. 1970 and 1971: Extensive Summer European travel. 1966-1968: Close daily contact with Spanish-speaking people of Colorado, Texas and New Mexico. B B B REFERENCES: Available on request. B BAppendix B 4 I H n II n n n n n On-line Climate Survey Draft Questionnaires for Administrators (Principals), Staff (Teachers and others), Students, and Parents Prepared by Education for the Future For Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix B cII Education for the Future i I II Strongly Dim^ Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree w  I am a valued member of this School District I am able to participate meaningfully in District decisions that impact my responsibilities 1 am able to work with District leadership to generate special resources when I need them I am allowed to be an effective leader in my school I am encouraged to find unique solutions to issues in my school I clearly understand the specifics of what I am held accountable for in perfonnance reviews I enjoy my job 0.                              I understand what is expected of me in my role Others in the District have the same understanding of the nature of my role that I have People in the District can explain the Districts vision People in the District respect me      S)   11          Principals in the District generally like what they do here The District leadership cares about me The District leadership trusts my judgment The District provides an organizational climate in which all schools can succeed                  CD The District strategic plan will lead us to make our vision a reality There are opportunities forme to develop my skills There is a District-level strategic plan in place As a rule, District leadership requires that I use specific strategies to accomplish District goals in my school District leadership provides adequate resources for me to get my job done effectively District leadership provides me with direction District leadership supports my decisions II II II                                  Everyone who works in this District is expected to deliver high quality work Good work is consistently recognized in this District           II Copyright  1991 -2005 Education for die Future Initiative, Chico. CA. Page 1 of 2 II II II H Education for the Future I Wliat are the most effective things that the District does to facilitate your effectiveness? 4 What are the least effective things that the District does in relation to your effectiveness? What should the District be doing, that it is not doing currently, to help make you more effective? Hn fl fl - - - - - - - - - - - - Administrator Demographic Data- - - - - - - - - - - - - Demoi^raphic data, which is used for suniniary analysis, will not he reported if individualscan be identified. fl fl Ethnicity: (fi// in all that apply) Q African-American O American Indian/Alaskan Native O Asian O Caucasian 0 Hispanic/Latino O Other_______________ Gender\nO Female O Male 1 am a(ii): O Elementary Assistant Principal O Elementary Principal O Middle School Assistant Principal O Middle School Principal O High School Assistant Principal O High School Principal O Other School Administrator O DistrictAdministrator O specify:_________________ n n I have been in iny current position: I have been an administrator for: O 1st Year O 2-3 Years O 4-6Ycars O 7-t()Yc\nirs O ll-14Years O 15-20Years O 21-25 Years O 26+Yeiirs O pt Year O 2-3Years O 4-6 Years O7-10Years O ll-14Years O 15-20Years O 21-25 Years O 26-30Years O 31-35 Years O 36-4()Years O 41 +Years Copyright 1991-2005 Education for the Future Initiativc.Chico.CA. Pagc2()f2 Education for the Future This PDF file is for content review purposes onlynot intended for use in questionnaire administration. For more information about administering and analyzing Education for the Future questionnaires, please visit http:ileff.esuchico.edul(iueslionnaire_resourcesl. [ Strongly Agree Neutral Agree I feel: I Strongly Disagree Disagree Demographic daia, which is used for summary analysis, will not be reported if individuals can be identified. Ethnicity: (fiil in all that apply) O African-American O American Indian O Asian O Caucasian O Latino/IIispanic O Other like I belong at this school that the staff cares about me that learning can be fun that learning is fun at this school recognized for good work intrinsically rewarded for doing my job well clear about what ray job is at this school tliat others are clear about what my job is at this school I work with people who:                                   11 I am a(n): O classroom teacher O instructional assistant O certificated staff (other than aclasKTOcyni tcacitcr) O classified staff (other than an inairucttonal xssistant) treat me with respect listen if I have ideas about doing things better My administrators:     CD     Iremsfor teachers only: I teach: O pre-kindergarten O primary grades O upper elementary grades O middle school grades O high school grades 9-10 O high school grades 11-12 I have been teaching: O 1-3 years 04-6 years 07-lOyears O 11 or more years treat me with respect are effective instructional leaders facilitate communication effectively support me in my work with students support shared decision making allow me to be an effective instructional leader are effective in helping us reach our vision I have the opportunity to: develop my skills think for myself, not just carry out instructions I believe student achievement can increase through: differentiating instruction effective professional development related to our vision integrating instruction across the curriculum teaching to the state standards the use of computers the use of varied technologies providing a threat-free environment close personal relationships between students and teachers addressing student learning styles effective parent involvement using ongoing smdent assessments related to state standards student self-assessments teacher use of student achievement data /love: working at this school seeing the results of iny work with students Education for ihr Future Initiative (2tX\u0026gt;6) Chico, C A: Education For the Future                                       Continued                                                                     * K BIB i Education for the Future I j Strongly Agree 1 1 Neutral Agree 1 believe: j Strongly Disagree Disagree II M every student can leam the instructional program at this school is challenging this school provides an atmosphere where every student can succeed quality work is expected of all students at this school quality work is expected of me quality work is expected of all the adults working at this school the vision for this school is clear the vision for this school is shared we have an action plan in place which can get us to our vision this school has a good public image it is important to communicate often with parents 1 communicate with parents often about their childs progress 1 communicate with parents often about class activities the school buildings and grounds are clean I work effectively with: n II special education students English learners ethnically/racially diverse students students who live in poverty low-achieving students Morale is high on the part of: II n teachers students support staff administrators A A Items for teachers and instructional assistants only: Student outcomes for my class(es) are clear to me Student outcomes for my class(es) are clear to my students Teachers in this school communicate with each other to make student learning consistent across grades I know the state standards I teach to the state standards Learning is fun in my classroom 1 love to teach A A e Education for ihc Future Iniiiative(2006) tliico, C!A\nEducation for the Future fl                 CD             @  @                   Continued                                                                            (S\u0026gt;    \u0026gt; n Education for the Future i   What are the strengths of this school?  B B B What needs to be improved? B B B B B B B B  Education forthe Future Initiativc\u0026lt;2(\u0026gt;06) Chico.CA: Education for ibc Futurc BM Education for the Future H StudentsI Strongly Agree MH I am in: 03' Grade 04' Grade 05' Grade 06' Grade 07' Grade I am: 08*^ Grade 09'Grade O IChGrade O 11* Grade O 12' Grade I Neutral Agree I Strongly Disagree Disagree II H II AAA AAA A A O African-American O American Indiiin/ Alaskan Native O Asian O Caucasian O Hispanic/Lalino O Other I am: O Boy OGirl I am: O participating in extracurricular activities O involvedinacommunity service project O enrolletl in a service learning class When I am at school, I feel: I belong I am safe I have fun teaming I like this school This school is good 1 have freedom at school I have choices in the way 1 learn My teacher(s) treat me with respect My teacher(s) care about me My teacher(s) think I will be successful My teacher(s) listen to my ideas My principal cares about me My teacher(s) is a good teacher My teacher(s) believe I can leant I am recognized for good work I ani challenged by the work my teacher(s) a,sk me to do The work I do in class makes me think I know what I am supposed to be learning in my classes I am a good student 1 can be a better student Working hard will make me do well in school Very good work is expected at my school 1 behave well at school Students arc treated fairly by teachers Students are treated fairly by the principal Students are treated fairly by school resource officers (SRO) Students at my school treat me with respect I am safe from bullies Students at my school are friendly 1 have lots of friends I have support for learning at home My family believes\nI can do well in school My family wants me to do well in school My school building and grounds are clean Copyright  2006 EducaGon for the Future Initiative. Chico. CA.                                A                                                                                   5.                          Page 1 of2 Education for the Future Students I What do you like about this school? What do you wish was different at this school? Copyright  2006 Education f\u0026lt;r the Future Initiative, Chico, CA, Page2of2    II      M  Education for the Future H This PDF file is for eowteiit review purposes onlynot Intended for use in questionnaire administration.. For more information about administering and analyzing Education for the Future questionnaires* please visit htlp:/!cffx!iuchico.edulqiiestumnaire,_re3oiirccsi. Disagree = Strongly Disagree I feel welcome at my childs school j Stron^yAg^ Neutral Agree  H 14 14 14 14 14 14 I am informed about my childs progress I know what my childs teacher(s) expect of my child My child is safe at school My child is safe going to and from school There is adequate supervision during school There is adequate supervision before and after school Teachers show respect for the students Students show respect for other students The school meets the social needs of the students The school meets the academic needs of the students The school expects quality work of its students The school has an excellent learning environment I know how well my child is progressing in school I like the schools report cards/progress report I respect the schools teachers I respect the schools principal Overall, the school performs well academically The school succeeds at preparing children for future work The school has a good public image The schools assessment practices are fair My childs teacher(s) help me to help my child learn at home 1 support my childs learning at home I feel good about myself as a parent I feel educational opportunitie.s at my child's school are provided equitably The school buildings and grounds are clean I feel 1 am a valued parmcr in my childs education 1 have access to school materials and resources that support my childs education    CO                 14 14 14 fl Childrens grades: O Kindergancn O First Grade O Second Grade O Third Grade O Fourth Grade O Fifth Grade O Sixth Grade O Seventh Grade O Eighth Grade O Ninth Grade O Tenth Grade O Eleventh Grade O Twelfth Grade Number of children in this school: CD My native language is: O Chinese O Eastern European O English O Japanese O Koretm O Spanish O Vietnamese O Other______________ Copyright  2006 Education for die Future Initiative, Chico.CA.                                                            @                   Number of children in the household:  Ethnic background: (fill in all that apply) o Black O American Indian/Alaskan Native O Asian O White O Hispanic/Latino O Other_______________ Responding: O Mother O Father O Guardian O Other                  @ @   Page 1 oQ Education for the Future i M M What are the strengths of this school?  H What needs to be improved? K  Copyright  2006 Education for the Future Initiative, Chico, CA. Pagc2of2 H Appendix C n H H H fl CompassLeaming (CL) Evaluation by Center for Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis Summary and Evaluation Team Prepared by Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District Quarterly Written Update March 1, 20006 Appendix C Summary: CompassLearning Evaluation Evaluation conducted by Dr. Steven Ross (CREP) Reported by PRE Department  B Summary of CompassLearning (CL) Implementation in LRSD: CL is a computer-based program for improving learning in language arts, reading, and math with personalized lessons tailored to each students needs. CL also helps teachers manage their students learning and gives administrators on-going perfonnance reports. LRSD introduced CL (initially called Jostens) ten years ago but left election to use CL to each school. During 2004-2005, 19 elementary schools used CL in grades K-5. Lab attendants and/or technology specialists assist teachers with integrating lessons into their curriculums. Students work on language arts, reading, and/or math for 30 to 60 minutes per week in computer labs with a lab attendant and classroom teacher present. Some also had CL activities in their regular classrooms.  B B Plan and Participants: The evaluation plan for CL included: (1) analyses of CL student achievement and program data, and (2) surveys and interviews with principals, CL specialists, teachers, and parents. At school faculty meetings, 356 elementary teachers returned questionnaires in which they indicated their familiarity with CL and their opinions of it\n318 indicated at least some experience with CL. At the next page are evaluation team members. Bl B B Results:  Evaluators found mixed, small CL effects in African American achievement scores.  While LRSD provided fully adequate computer equipment and personnel, teachers used CL student reports little and exposed their students to less CL than prescribed.  Teachers, lab attendants, and technology specialists regarded CL program implementation, impacts, and strengths very highly  Parents/guardians of CL students supported CL, too, but did not fully understand it.  Principals who stopped CL still supported it. Recommended Program Modifications: \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Ensure students spend the recommended effort60 minutes each for language arts, reading, and math each week for grades K - 5, or 90 minutes in grades 3 - 5. Teachers should understand CL reports most critical for adapting lessons to needs of African American students and use the CL reports to assist lab attendants. Principals must use monthly CL class-level and school-level reports to monitor and adjust instructional interventions for African American students. Improve district coordination to ensure language and math activities align with the LRSD curriculum and follow recommended CL guidelines. B Expectations of Program Modifications \u0026lt; Progressive gains on standardized test scores over time 4 Closer adherence to CL guidelines 4 More proficiently using student perfonnance data to meet the individuals needs B B B Quarterly Written Update March 1, 20006 Appendix C4. More effective instructional leaders of schools through deeper understanding of CL 4 resources and teacher skills to address student learning deficiencies Frequent monitoring and more timely supportive interventions Evaluation Team Members for CompassLeaming H Team Leader - Dr. Karen DeJamette, PRE Department CL program specialist - Mr. Travis Taylor, Instractional Technology Department Statistician - Jim Wohlleb, PRE Department Programmer - Mr. Ken Savage, Computer Information Services Department Technical writer - Dr. Deborah Lowther, University of Memphis Center for Research in Educational Policy External consultants - Dr. Deborah Lowther, Dr. Dan Strahl, Mr. Aaron McDonald, and Dr. Steve Ross, University of Memphis Center for Research in Educational Policy External reviewer - Dr. James Catterall, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies PRE Reviewers - Ms. Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, and Dr. Ed Williams, PRE Department Parent - Ms. Amy Thompson Teachers - Ms. Amy Thompson and Ms. Thelma Watson, Fulbright Elementary School Principal - Ms. Deborah Mitchell, Fulbright Elementary School M IN IN IN IN IN IN Quarterly Written Update March 1, 20006 Appendix C Appendix D Reading Recovery (RR) Evaluation by Center for Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis Summary and Evaluation Team      M H   Prepared by Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District a K   H Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix D riSummary: Reading Recovery Evaluation Evaluation conducted by Dr. Steven Ross, University of Memphis Summary by PRE Department Summary of Reading Recovery (RR) Implementation in LRSD: RR teachers tutor students one-on-one for 30 minutes every school day for 12 to 20 weeks. Successful completion (called discontinued) equips students to learn at grade level and lessens the need for special attention. RR teachers designate students not up to grade in less than 20 weeks as Incomplete and those not up to grade by 20 weeks as recommended for further action. LRSD has expanded RR and partnered with the UALR College of Education to train teachers and advance their skills. In the 2004-2005 school year, 28 trained RR teachers served 18 of the districts 34 elementary schools. Plan and Participants: The evaluation plan for Reading Recovery included: (1) analyses of RR student achievement and program data, (2) principal, teacher, and parent surveys and interviews, and (3) observations of RR tutoring sessions. H Evaluators observed 16 RR teachers and collected questionnaires from 22 and another 156 nonRR teachers in classrooms. They also interviewed 10 principals and 4 teachers in training. Evaluation team members are found on the next page. H Results: n 91 9i in iR H 9{ RR improved African-American students reading skills. There are opportunities for further improvements in RR. RR experts observed well trained teachers who applied the RR model with high fidelity. RR teachers regard RR program highly for aiding African American students. RR impressed non-RR, classroom teachers, too, as beneficial to African American students. Principals agreed that their African American students are bridging the achievement gap through RR. Parents/guardians of RR students perceived RR as benefiting their children. H [fl Recommended Program Modifications:  An expanded program with more RR teachers should monitor students more often after they discontinue RR to ensure sustaining their momentum. More LRSD students need RR than RR teachers can tutor. RR teachers might feel pressure to discontinue one group of students in order to begin another group. If true, the necessary follow-up contact can not occur\nand therefore the fl slippage in achievement that has been seen in other districts might occur in H LRSD, too. In an expanded RR program, RR teachers can more closely monitor their discontinued students and maintain their gains. In addition to expanding RR, LRSD should explore a transitional plan for students who discontinue. Such a plan could involve daily monitored reading that would also buffer against slippage. Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix D fl Increased professional development of classroom (non-RR) teachers would better enable them to integrate their RR students back into the classroom once discontinued and to give them appropriate instruction and feedback so that they keep on improving. Increase LRSDs partnership with UALR to help develop the transitional plan and the professional development for classroom (non-RR) teachers. Future studies might analyze more in-depth a small number of students who kept on gaining after discontinuing RR. Many principals and RR teachers cited examples of profound student achievement and sustained, noteworthy success of former African-American RR students. Such studies could determine what factors led to successes and how teachers can better help other students.   H Expectations of Program Modifications: Reading Recovery has valuable components that, with changes, can be even more effective. With program modifications, the Little Rock School District could expect:  Progressive gains on standardized test scores over time.  Increased number of students involved in the Reading Recovery program.  Closer adherence to Reading Recovery guidelines, particularly the number of sessions required for optimum benefits.  More teachers throughout the district better able to serve at-risk students.  Sustained achievement of students upon completion of the Reading Recovery program.  A stronger relationship with experts at UALR that would continue to provide the Little Rock School District with the most up-to-date research findings and best practices for reading and literacy instruction.     Evaluation Team Members for Reading Recovery  Team Leader - Jim Wohlleb, PRE Department Reading Recovery program specialist - Ms. Pat Busbea, Early Childhood / Elementary Literacy Department, and Dr. Linda Dorn, UALR College of Education Statistician - Dr. Ed Williams, PRE Department Programmer - Mr. Ken Savage, Computer Information Services Department Technical writer - University of Memphis Center for Research in Educational Policy External consultant - Dr. Anna Grehan, Mr. Aaron McDonald, and Dr. Steve Ross, University of Memphis Center for Research in Educational Policy External reviewer - Dr. James Catterall, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies PRE reviewer - Ms. Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, PRE Department Parent - Ms. Michelle Bonds-Hall Teacher - Ms. Michelle Dorsey, Chicot Elementary School        Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix Dfl fl fl fl fl N fl fl fl Appendix E SMART/THRIVE (S/T) Evaluation by Center for Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis Summary and Evaluation Team n Prepared by Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District M M Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix E fl  Summary: SMART/THRIVE Evaluation Evaluation conducted by Dr. Steven Ross, University of Memphis Reported by PRE Department  Summary of SMART/THRIVE (S/T) Implementation in LRSD: SMART and THRIVE, designed by two veteran LRSD teachers, serve at-risk students. In 1999, LRSD implemented and funded them in part by the Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement Program and NSF. w I S/T purposes are to prepare students entering Algebra I (8 to 9* grade) through supplemental lessons (SMART), prepare students to meet state standards in Algebra I (THRIVE), and instill confidence. SMART meets for two consecutive weeks in the summer. THRIVE meets every other Saturday in spring semester. SMART uses a co-teaching model with one teacher and one high school student mentor, while THRIVE uses a co-teaching model with two certified teachers. II Plan and Participants: The evaluation plan for S/T included: (1) analyses of S/T student achievement and program data\n(2) surveys, focus groups, and interviews with principals, S/T specialists, teachers, students, and parents\nand (3) observations of classes and teachers. I I Evaluators observed five O^-grade classes and collected questionnaires from S/T teachers (IOS and 18 T) and Algebra I teachers (25 S and 33 T). Evaluation team members are listed on page 2. Results: o o o O O n Eighth and ninth grade African American students in either S, T, or both more likely scored as proficient or advanced. Substantial gains on Algebra I End of Course exam, strongest among students in both S and T. African American students in both comparison and S/T groups performed the same as others on the ITBS. Students, their parent and instructors, and principals expressed satisfaction with S/T. Students and teachers noted increased self-confidence. Recommended Program Modifications: \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt;  1  Expand scope of S/T to more students. Increase frequency of classes for S/T. Train more teachers for S/T. Follow S/T students through graduation and beyond to learn long-term outcomes. Provide transportation to students.    Expectations of Program Modifications A A raising student achievement among African American students provide the district with a model that can be easily replicated, gain information about factors that set S/T apart from classroom Algebra and preAlgebra classes sustained remediation of African American students   Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix EEvaluation Team Members for SMART/THRIVE n Team leader - Ms. Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, PRE Department Smart / Thrive program specialist - Ms. Vanessa Cleaver and Ms. Marcelline Carr Statistician - Dr. Ed Williams, PRE Department Programmer - Mr. Ken Savage, Computer Information Services Department Technical writer - University of Memphis Center for Research in Educational Policy External evaluators - Dr. Lyle Davis, Mr. Aaron McDonald, and Dr. Steve Ross, University of Memphis Center for Research in Educational Policy, and Gail Weems, UALR College of Education External reviewer - Dr. James Catterall, UCLA Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies PRE reviewer - Jim Wohlleb, PRE Department Parent - Ms. Rose Cook Teacher - Ms. Tonjuna Iverson, Parkview Magnet High School N H H H M H M Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix E Appendix F    Year Round Education (YRE) Evaluation  by  James Catterall, Ph.D. University of California at Los Angeles    Summary and Evaluation Team   Prepared by Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District      n Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix FN M Summary: Year Round Education Evaluation Conducted by Dr. James Catterall Reported by PRE Department Summary of Year Round Education (YRE) Implementation in LRSD: The YRE design is a single track 45-10 calendar in which all students and teachers in the school are in class or on vacation at the same time. The 45-10 refers to 45 days enrolled during a quarter then 10 days of Intersession/vacation. Formal Intersession programs operate for five days within an Intersession break, and student attendance is voluntary. Mabelvale, Stephens, and Woodruff Elementary Schools have operated on a YRE calendar since school year 2000-2001, while Cloverdale and Mitchell Elementary Schools began YRE in 2002-2003. fl Evaluation Plan and Participants: The evaluation plan for YRE included: analyses of YRE student achievement and program data, and surveys and interviews with administrators and principals, special education teachers, classroom teachers, and parents from each school. The following list shows the number of teachers included from each grade level\nPre-K, 10\nK, 9\n1 8\n2\"*, 9\n3\"*, 8\n4', 7\n5\"', 7\nself-contained, 3\nprincipal, 1\nand LRSD office, 3. fl fl Results: Conclusion III.l. YRE schools outperformed the comparison schools with respect to percentages of students proficient in literacy and mathematics over a five-year span leading up to spring 2005, an advantage measured in percentage changes in scores over the base year as well as in absolute percentage proficient point gains. fl fl Conclusion III.2. Based on analyses of test score residuals, YRE schools outperformed other schools very modestly in literacy and significantly in math on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmarks. This means that YRE schools generally performed higher than would be expected from both past performance and student demographics. It also means that comparison schools generally fell short of predicted scores, particularly in mathematics. fl fl Conclusion IV. 1. YRE schools showed significantly more progress between 2000 and 2005 than did comparison schools in five important indicatorsstudent mobility, disciplinary referrals, short-term suspensions, and African American student proficiency in both math and literacy. Attendance rates showed no meaningful change for either school group. The magnitude of these changes for YRE schools and their consistent outpacing of changes in comparison schools are significant indications of positive developments in YRE schools. fl fl Conclusion V.l. Two different analyses point to small performance advantages for students who attend YRE-school Intersessions in comparison to students who do not\nDirect comparisons of the percentages of students proficient on the 2005 Benchmark tests and correlations between Intersession attendance and academic indicators come to the same conclusion. Either in one way or in some combined way, the observed differences may reflect just which students chose to attend Intersessions and which students did not. Under either circumstance, a sound argument for attending Intersessions can be made. fl Conclusion VI. 1. Parent, student, and teacher surveys accumulated over three years provide an overall appraisal of achievement conditions in YRE- versus regular-calendar schools. With respect to academic advantages or conditions that might contribute to academic advantages, about 60-65 percent of parents and students reported higher achievement in YRE schools. Teachers Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix F fl reported better conditions for learning, but feweronly about 35 percentreported actual academic achievement differences favoring YRE schools when asked this question directly. Recommended Program Modifications:  Institute academic-enrichment and student-tutoring sessions during Intersessions, which are mainly recreational, or craft-, special interest-, or hobby-focused. Intersessions could be occasions of voluntary or urged academic assistance.  Increase the numbers of students who participate in Intersessions. Since they particularly and YRE education generally showed positive impacts on student achievement, it makes sense to help the Intersession program reach more students. About 36 percent of all students in grades 3, 4, and 5 across YRE schools had never attended an Intersession as of spring 2005. Potentially effective steps to boost participation are communications between teachers and parents (although we did not find inadequacies in this area), family assistance that might foster attendance (such as child care for very young siblings), and added incentives for teachers to create and offer attractive opportunities. H Ml Ml Ml Ml Bl Bl  Boost African American student participation in Intersessions. Participation rates among the few white and other non-African American students are extremely high. Attempts to recruit students for Intersessions will largely be greeted by African American audiences. Bl  Retain the YRE structure of four evenly spaced terms punctuated by the two-week Intersession and vacation periods. Bl Bl Expectations of Program Modifications:  The modification of Intersessions to include academic opportunities would increase instructional time and effectively shorten breaks between academic terms. This would add academic continuity. A direct expectation would be higher academic achievement levels. An indirect benefit would be improving teacher-student relationships through exposing more teachers and students to each other and additional experiences of teachers with the same students. n   Increasing participation in Intersessions would extend academic benefits to greater portion of YRE-school students and permit additional Intersession course offerings. Both of these changes would lead to higher achievement. Similar to the indirect benefit above, expanded Intersession program would greater exposure would improve teacher-student relationships. M M  Boosting Intersession enrollments of African American students would increase their academic success.  B  Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix FEvaluation Team Members for Year Round Education 4 4 Team Leader - Dr. Ed Williams, PRE Department YRE program specialists - Ms. Janice Wilson, Principal of Woodruff Elementary School, and Ms. Sophia Parchman, Assistant Principal of Mann Arts and Science Middle School Statistician - Ms. Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, PRE Department Programmer - Mr. Ken Savage, LRSD Computer Information Services Department Technical writer - Dr. James Catterall, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies External evaluators - Dr. James Catterall, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies External reviewer - Dr. Steve Ross, University of Memphis Center for Research in Educational Policy, and Gail Weems, UALR College of Education PRE reviewer - Jim Wohlleb, PRE Department Parent - Ms. Diana Layne-Jordan, parent and PT A president, Stephens Elementary School Teacher - Ms. Judy Harbour, fifth grade teacher at Stephens Elementary School N fl fl fl fl fl fl Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix F Appendix G Proposed Plan for Evaluation of the A+ Program at Woodruff Elementary School James Catterall, Ph.D. University of California at Los Angeles   II  II            Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix GProposal for the Evaluation of the A+ Program at Woodruff Elementary School 4 Evaluation Questions Primary Evaluation Question'. 4 1. Has the A+ program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Proposed Design Examination of achievement test scores between 2001 and 2005for Woodruff School and for comparison schools developed for the 2005 YRE program evaluation. (Scores will include 2006 if scale scores are made available for all applicable grades 60 days in advance of the due date of the draft report.) Descriptive year-to-year test score changes will be described. A predictive model for 2006 Benchmark test scale scores will be undertaken if data are available. H H Examining performance indicators from the Portfolio of Data for the Little Rock School District for differences between African American and white students (2005 edition or 2006 edition if available). These data include Benchmark proficiency scores, attendance, student mobility, and student behavioral indicators. Supplemental (Qualitative/Level 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of A+ at Woodruff Elementary School in 2005-06? Proposed Design Surveys and interviews with all Woodruff teachers will assess the scope and history of teacher and staff participation in A+. Expert observation of one demonstration A + lesson of each teacher followed by expert debriefing of teachers regarding purposes and methods, and teachers appraisal of outcomes. H Assessment of the impact of A+ on the Woodruff School Culture (norms, assumptions about students and teaching and learning) based on intervie'ws, surveys, and follow-ups. H M Collection of sample student group or individual art products with brief written student comment about the objects connections to their learning. Students to decide. About 2 per classroom. Public display in school hall(s). Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix G H n 2. What is the level of participation in A+ by African American students relative to other ethnic groups? Proposed Design Assessing student participation by classroom for 2005-06 and 2004-05 using archival records and current student rosters. What are the perceptions of teachers and Art Specialists regarding A+ program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Proposed Design Assessed by surveys, interviews and observations of teachers and art specialists. 3. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of A+ regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Proposed Design It Assessed through a universal parent survey and by randomly selected telephone interviews of about 25 parents throughout the school, stratified K-2 versus grade 3-5. Basic school statistics 2005-06 Woodruff has 219 students in grades K-5  17 Caucasian, 2 other, and 238 African American (92% A-A) It It Summary of Instruments and Participants by Evaluation Question It Evaluation Question Primary Question: 1. What are the effects of participation in A+ on the achievement of African American and other students? Participants Students at Woodruff and comparison school(s Data Sources It  ITBS Grades K-5  Arkansas Benchmarks for 3-5) It It Supplemental Questions: 1. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of A+ at Woodruff in 2005-06? All students  All teachers  Art Specialists  District Arts Coordinator  Grade 3-5 student surveys  Parents Student surveys  Teacher Survey (faculty meeting)  Art Specialist Phone Interview  District Art Coordinator Phone Interview  Classroom Observations It M M H Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix G4 4 4 4 4 4 2. What is the level of participation in A+ by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school?_____________________ 3. What are the perceptions of teachers and Art Specialists regarding A+ implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of A+ students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  All students  Comparison schools  All African American vs. all Caucasian  All teachers  Art Specialists Parents School records/archival data ITBS and Benchmark scores.  Teacher Survey  Art Specialist Interview  Parent Survey  In-depth parent interviews 4 Timelines September, 2005 Initial meeting with principal and lead teachers 4 January, 2006: 4 February: 4 March-April: May-June: July-August: 4 4 September 1: October 1: Planning/refinement, consultation with PRE and instrument development Review of proposed evaluation by team and any changes Begin observations. District Arts Coordinator Interview (phone)\nselect Art Specialist and Observation School Samples\nbegin Art Specialist Interviews (phone) Teacher Survey (at faculty meetings), complete Art Specialist Interviews\ncomplete observations\ncomplete Student Focus Groups. Records/Archival data analyses Achievement data analyses/complete survey and interview analyses, review of draft report by PRE and evaluation teams, feedback from PRE, and preparation of final report Submit final report to PRE. LRSD submits final report to U.S. District Court. 4 Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix GAppendix H Proposed Plan for Evaluation of 21 Century Community Learning Centers Center for Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis p H W P P P P P P n R n n p  p p Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix HProposal for Evaluation of 21 Century Community Learning Centers in the Little Rock School District (LRSD)^ Evaluation Questions Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Have the 2L Century Community Learning Center (CCLC) programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What is the nature and level of implementation of the CCLC programs? 2. What is the level of participation in CCLCs by African American students? 3. What are the perceptions of teachers and school administrators regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians and students of program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? School and Program Descriptions fl fl Several schools in the LRSD have hosted CCLCs, which offer academic support\nmath/science activities\nmusic/arts/drama\nentrepreneurial programs\ndrug/violence prevention, counseling, and character education\ntutoring/mentoring\nparent involvement\ntechnology and communication\nfamily literacy/education\nrecreational programs\nextended library hours\nand services for truant, suspended or expelled students. Individual centers provide a subset of the possible activities. A summary of CCLC programs, based on their respective grant applications, is provided below\nfl fl Woodruff Elementary School (WES) is one of 30 elementary schools in the district. The WES program includes visual and performing arts enrichment, family services, educational technology, cultural activities, and educational and recreational field trips. Program sessions are both before- and after-school, on Saturdays, and during intersessions. Parent/family services are also provided. fl fl Henderson Health Sciences Middle Magnet School (HHSMMS) is one of eight middle schools in the district. The HHSMMS program was developed as a comprehensive out-of-school program which includes before- and after-school elements, a summer program, and a Saturday program. An after-school Tutoring Club is designed to assist students academically. Morning sessions are organized to provide homework help and extended access to the library and technology resources. Enrichment opportunities are coordinated with community partners. A summer camp focuses on mathematics, literacy, and science, with technology as a strong component. H M Mabelvale Magnet Middle School (MMMS) is another of eight middle schools in the LRSD. The CCLC at MMMS is intended to provide remediation and enrichment in the areas of mathematics and literacy, as well as social and emotional development for students. This Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix H fl  program extends the schools magnet thematic programs and also builds on a previous Safe Schools/Healthy Schools grant. The program includes an after-school Tutoring Club, a Homework Club, and an Enrichment Club which provide extended learning opportunities relating to MMMSs magnet areas of Environmental Science, Medical Studies, and Technology. ri ri Southwest Middle School (SMS) is the third LRSD middle school that provides a CCLC. The grant application from this site was not available for review, but CREP presumes that its program is similar to that of the other two middle schools in the district which host a CCLC. The design ofthe program will be determined during the initial implementation of the evaluation. ri ri McClellan High School (McCHS) is one of five high schools in the district. Its program includes a drug and violence prevention program and a youth development component emphasizing counseling, service learning, mentoring and employment opportunities. Program sessions are scheduled both before- and after-school and on Saturdays. The program also operates in the summer, with a six-week Algebra 1 program and a two-week 9*** grade transition program. Parent/family sessions are also provided. ri ri Hall High School (HHS) is another of the five high schools in the district. The HHS program includes a drug and violence prevention program and a youth development component emphasizing counseling, service learning, mentoring, and employment opportunities. Program sessions are scheduled both before- and after-school and on Saturdays. The program also operates in the summer with a six-week Algebra 1 program and a two-week 9*** grade transition program. Parent/family sessions are also provided. ri ri Proposed Design ri A mixed methods design will be used to gather information about the various CCLCs in the LRSD. In addition, a case study design will be used gather information about MMMSs CCLC. The goal of the mixed methods design is to obtain broad information regarding a variety of programs with respect to stakeholder perceptions of implementation and impact. The goal of the case study design is to obtain in-depth information to assist in understanding and judging a program in the context in which it operates. The detailed program description can then lead to naturalistic generalization of the program to other contexts (Worthen, Sanders, \u0026amp; Fitzpatrick, 1997). Both quantitative and qualitative data sources will be employed to address the research questions as follows: 3 n n Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix H n K H ri riH  I Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Have the Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students?  For the achievement analysis, the preliminary plan is to employ a quasi-experimental design which compares students participating in CCLCs activities versus matched comparison students who do not participate in CCLC activities. The actual analysis used will be the approach that is the most rigorous for the data sources available. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. What is the nature and level of implementation of the CCLC programs?  Interviews will be conducted with the school principal and site coordinator. All teachers will be surveyed. Students who participate in the program will be surveyed.  For the Mabelvale case study, observations of program components will also be conducted. A brief (20-min.) student focus group (n = 5 to 7 students) will also be conducted to ascertain students perspectives of the program components. What is the level of participation in CCLCs by African American students?  Participation records and observation data will be analyzed. What are the perceptions of teachers and school administrators regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  This question will be addressed via the teacher survey and administrator interviews. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians and students of program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  A parent survey consisting of closed- and open-ended items will be administered to parents. A student questionnaire will be administered at all schools. A focus group will be conducted with MMMS students. Table 1 below provides a summary of the research questions and associated data collection sources. Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix H Table 1. Summary of Instruments and Participants by Evaluation Question K Evaluation Question Primary Question: 1. Have the Century Community Learning Center (CCLC) programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Participants Data Sources LRSD Students ITBS and Arkansas Benchmark Reading and Math Subtests Supplemental Questions: 1. What is the nature and level of implementation of the CCLC programs? CCLC Program/School administrators CCLC Teachers CCLC Students Administrator Interviews Teacher Survey Student Survey Student Focus Group (case study) CCLC Observations (case study) A ] 2. What is the level of participation in CCLCs by African American students? CCLC Students School records/participation rosters CCLC Observations (case study) i 3. What are the perceptions of teachers and school administrators regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians and students of program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 2005 - 2006 Timeline September-February: Spring Semester\nMay-June: July-August: September 1: October 1: CCLC Teachers CCLC Program/School Administrators Teacher Survey Administrator Interviews K Parents of CCLC students CCLC Students Parent Survey Student Survey Student Focus Group (case study) \u0026gt;] li Planning/refmement, consultation with PRE and CCLC representatives, and instrument development\nreview by evaluation team Conduct observations, administer teacher questionnaire (at faculty meeting), conduct interviews and focus group, and administer parent and student questionnaires Analyses of records data\nanalyses of survey, observation, and interview data Analyses of achievement data\nanalyses of survey, observation, and interview data, submission of draft report of findings to PRE, review by evaluation team and feedback from PRE Delivery of final report to PRE LRSD delivers report to US District Court. Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix H H H H  LRSD 21\"* CCLC (Mabelvale) DRAFT Observation Tool 4 444 44 4 44 44 Date Day of Week Time in Time Out Have attendance Sheet  Yes/  No Which program was being observed? After school tutoring Homework Club Enrichment Club Summer Camp Other      Locale: Locale: Locale: Locale:  Library  other: Student composition Number: | Estimate of the number of students identified as African-American: [ Student Activity: What were the students doing? (Check all that apply and annotate briefly)  Literacy  Math  Computer use for: research, recreation, academic support/skiii development, homework  Exploring Environmental Science Medical Studies Technology  other: Were students working Alone? Purposively together? With an adult (teacher/volunteer/parent)? Adults: How many adults were present? Who were the responsible adults? What were the responsible adults doing? Were parents present?  community volunteer  CCLC staff Other: Yes No If yes, what were they doing?       I I I I ] ] [ o o ] Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix H r  Describe the student/staff interaction: ID What materials were in use? n Overall Quality of Time and Social Atmosphere: How well did this slice of time represent a learning center? B Characteristic incius/Veness 4 All of the students were involved Time spent involved Students involved were involved all of the time Quality of activities: enqapement Quality of activities: academic relevance Individualized attention Activities were engaging for students Activities were relevant academically and adapted to the students needs Individualized attention was provided in a timely manner to students in need of it 3 Most of the students were involved Students who were involved were involved most of the time Activities were usually enqaqinq for students Activities were relevant to academics but less adapted to student needs Individual attention was provided when students asked 2 Some of the students were involved 1 Few to none of the students were involved B Inclusion of peers The students appeared to include all their peers in their group activities Students generally included one another in their group activities Students involved were involved some of the time Activities were marginally enqaqinq for students Academic relevance of activities was minimal or difficult to ascertain Individual attention was provided, but it was sporadic or delayed Student involvement was marginal at best Activities were not enqaqinq for students Activities were not academically relevant Students with needs for individual attention appeared to be ignored B B Interactions: social acceptability and resolution Most students were engaged effectively with others and in a socially acceptable manner Student interactions were occasionally marked by minor conflicts which were quickly and amicably resolved Social isolation appeared in a few instances (other than for disciplinary purposes) Student interactions were marked by minor conflicts which were somewhat resolved eventually Some students were clearly isolated by their peers Student interactions were contentious and adult intervention did not occur Additional Comments: Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix H I F n n H H B BLRSD 2P' CCLC DRAFT Interview Items' Subjects'. Principal, Counselor, Coordinator What role(s) do you play in the operation of the 2P' CCLC at your school? 4 What is the primary purpose of your 2P CCLC program? Whom does your program serve? What type(s) of students do you believe benefited the most from the program? 4 Why? How? What do you see as the most successful aspects of the program? What challenges, if any, have there been to implementing the program? In terms of recruiting and retaining students, how successful do you think the program has been? What kinds of practices have contributed to success in recruiting and retaining students? If you do not think the program has been successful in recruitment and retention, what do you think has inhibited those efforts? How successful do you think the program has been in establishing a close partnership between the Center and your school? What kinds of practices have contributed to your success in establishing a close school/program relationship? If you do not think there is a close partnership, what do you think has hindered the relationship?  How successful do you think your program has been in engaging the parents of the students who participate in the program? What kind of practices have contributed to your success in this area? If you do not think the program has engaged the parents, what do you think has stood in the way? How successful do you think your program has been in initiating community involvement or partnerships for the program? ' Items modeled on the CEEP Evaluation of KentuckyE 21 Century Community Learning Centers. Year 2 Interim Report. P 37 ff. Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix HWhat kinds of practices have contributed to your success in this area? If you think you have not been successful, what do you think have been the barriers? Your program offers a variety of approaches (clubs) and program schedules for reaching students. Have you seen any differences in participation by students of various ethnicities in any of these programs? (sub questions to be modified dependent upon individual program design) Approaches Homework club Tutoring club Enrichment club Program schedules Saturday program Summer camp (2005\n2006) Before-school program After-school program Is there anything else that you think we should know about your programs efforts to provide students with a 2T Century Community Learning Center? Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix H  I 14 14 Id   n RI   n  MLRSD 2 TCCLC DRAFT Teacher Survey Items^ We are interested in knowing what you think about the 2P Century Community Learning Center (CCLC) program at your school. Your answers will remain anonymous. What is your role in the 2P Century Community Learning Center? (Mark the best description) 4 o o o I am part of the faculty at the school and I also work with the CCLC. I am part of the faculty at the school but I do not work with the CCLC. I am not part of the faculty\nI work only with the 2P Century Community Learning Center program. What is your opinion of the following statements about 2P Century Community Learning Center program at your school? (strongly agree\nagree\ndisagree\nstrongly disagree) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The CCLC program offers students enough choice of activities. The CCLC program offers academic help to students who need it. The CCLC offers students a safe place to be after school. The CCLC program appeals to a wide variety of students. The CCLC program reaches students families. How many of the students that you know who participate in the program are exhibiting the following (Almost all of them, many of them, some of them, a few of them, almost none of them)? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Improved academic performance Increased school attendance Improvement in how they relate to classmates Improvement in how they relate to teachers Improvement in how they behave in class Greater self-worth and self-esteem Involvement in community services Development as leaders Greater awareness of health issues Greater awareness of drug and violence issues Improvement in computer skills/computer literacy Open-ended: 1. What do you think are the strengths of the current 21 Century program at your school? 2. In what ways, if any, do you think the program at your school might be improved? w T. Some items derived from the Fort Worth after-school teacher survey (program teachers, atxxjt the program) Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix HLRSD 21 CCLC Possible Student Survey Items We would like to know what you think about your schools 2T Century Community Learning Center (CLCC). We will not use your name, but we do -want to know something about you. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. What grade are you in this year? (6, 7, 8) What is your gender? {male, female) Which ethnic group best describes you? {Native American, Asian American, African American, Hispanic American, Caucasian American, Other). Do you belong to the CLCC Homework Club? (Yes/No) Do you belong to the CLCC Tutoring Club? (Yes/No) Do you belong to the CCLC Enrichment Club? (Yes/No) Do you participate in the program before school? (Yes/No) Do you participate in the program after school? (Yes/No) Do you participate in the Saturday program? (Yes/No) Do you plan to attend the Summer Camp this summer? (Yes/No) I I n Please tell us how much you agree with these statements about the programs at your schools 2L' Century Community Learning Center, (strongly agree\nagree\ndisagree\nstrongly disagree) 1. I like the programs the community learning center offers. 2. There are enough different activities from which to choose. 3. I like the teachers who work in the community learning center program. 4. Being in the after-school program is better than other things I could be doing after school. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Teachers in the program give me help when I ask for it. I feel safe in the after-school program. Teachers and other adults in the program make me feel comfortable. I would sign up again for the program. 1 would tell other kids to sign up for the community learning center activities. n Please select the answer that best describes what you think. The Center has helped me to... 1. Like school more (a great deal, somewhat, a little, not at all) 2. Come to school more often (a great deal, somewhat, a little, not at all) 3. Get better grades (a great deal, somewhat, a little, not at all) 4. Behave better at school (a great deal, somewhat, a little, not at all) 5. Work better with other students (a great deal, somewhat, a little, not at all) b. Feel better about myself (a great deal, somewhat, a little, not at all) 7. Talk to my teachers more (a great deal, somewhat, a little, not at all) 8. Understand the importance of graduating from high school (a great deal, somewhat, a little, not at all) n n n n  Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix HLRSD 21 CCLC (Mabelvale) DRAFT Student Focus Group Items We would like to know what you think about Mabelvale's 21' Century Community Learning Center. 1. 2. What do you think are some of the best things at the Center? Do a lot of kids participate in the program? Why do you think that is? 3. What is the best thing about the Enrichment Club?  Homework Club? 4. How could the program be improved? The Tutoring Club? 5. Does participating in the program help you with your school work? How do you know? 6. Does this program make you want to come to school? Why or why not? 7. What have you learned about working with other kids by participating in this program? 8. Does this program offer you extra opportunities that you dont have a chance to investigate during the regular school day? If so, what are some of them? 9. Do you plan to take part in the Summer Camp this year? Why? Why not? 10. Do you like being part of the schools Community Learning Center? 11. What activities offered by the Learning Center have the grown-ups in your family enjoyed? Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix HAppendix I IB HI HI w Proposed Plan for Evaluation of Pre-Kindergarten Literacy BB IB  Bl Center for Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis n Hl Hl HI HI Hl HI Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix 1fl fl Proposal for the 2005-2006 Evaluation of the Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Program Little Rock School District Outline Version Evaluation Questions Primary Evaluation Question 1. Has the pre-kindergarten program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of pre-kindergarten literacy programs in elementary schools with pre-kindergarten programs in the Little Rock School District in 2005-2006? 2. What is the level of participation in the pre-kindergarten program by African- American children relative to other ethnic groups at the school? 3. To what extent does the pre-kindergarten program provide screening assessments and other appropriate measures to help identify African-American children who may be at-risk for academic failure and monitor progress? 4. What are the perceptions of pre-kindergarten teachers and paraprofessional teachers regarding the pre-kindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of the principal, kindergarten teachers, and first grade teachers in the school regarding the pre-kindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of pre-kindergarten children regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Program Description The Little Rock School District recently developed a Curriculum System for Pre- K Literacy. The program is a comprehensive map which emphasizes communication. collaboration, and coherency. Implemented in fall 2005 in all pre-kindergarten classrooms in the district, the Map for Pre-K Literacy provides content guides with strategies and resources, concrete benchmarks for each month of the school year, and formative assessments for planning. The structure specifically addresses critical early Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix 1 learning skills such as oral language, listening comprehension, vocabulary, phonological awareness, print awareness, and alphabet knowledge and early mathematics skills. Instructional orientations include group activities and learning centers using a variety of literature and hands-on activities which are theme-based. The curriculum map calls for recommended and required formative monthly assessments. pi PI Elementary Schools with Pre-K classrooms # of Pre-K Classrooms Bale Brady Baseline Fair Park Forest Park Chicot Western Hills Jefferson Carver Dodd Meadowcliff M. L. King Geyer Springs Pulaski Heights Romine Washington Wilson Woodruff Mabelvale Terry Fulbright Otter Creek Wakefield Watson Franklin Stephens Rockefeller McDermott 2 2 2 2 4 1 2 1 2 2 4 2 1 3 4 1 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 2 2 PI  pl PI   p  n TOTAL 69  Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix 1Proposed Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question 1. Has the pre-kindergarten program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students?  A. 2005-2006 Pre-Kindergarten Students: A treatment school, pre- and post-test design will be employed for pre-kindergarten students. All elementary schools with pre-kindergarten classrooms will be examined.  Pretests'. Posttests'. Work Sampling System by Pearson Work Sampling System by Pearson  B. 2005-2006 Pre-Kindergarten Students as Incoming Kindergarten Students in Fall 2006: In fall 2006 (when pre-kindergarten students enter kindergarten)   comparisons will be made between students who attended pre-kindergarten in the district and those students who did not. Cunently, there are approximately 12 elementary schools in the district that administer Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) to incoming kindergarten students. c. H 2004-2005 Pre-Kindergarten Students: Within each of the elementary schools in the district, kindergarten students who participated in the Little Rock district pre-kindergarten program in 2004-2005 will be identified and their achievement gains compared to other kindergarten students in the district. M Pretests'. Posttests'. DRA or DIBELS (whichever has the most usable database) administered in Kindergarten 2005-2006 Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading and Math Subtests H Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions fl 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of pre-kindergarten classroom environments and instruction at the schools implementing in 2005- 2006? fl  Observations of pre-kindergarten classrooms will be made at a sample of schools. A minimum of 15 classroom observations will be conducted. The pre-kindergarten teacher survey will address this question via closed-ended and open-ended items. Paraprofessional teachers in each pre-kindergarten classroom will also be surveyed through closed-ended and open-ended items. A random sample of 10 principals will be interviewed Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix I v by phone. Kindergarten and first grade classroom teachers in schools with pre-kindergarten classrooms will also be surveyed. 2. What is the level of participation in the pre-kindergarten program by African- American children relative to other ethnic groups at the school?  Student records/archival data for 2005-2006 will be analyzed. 3. To what extent does the pre-kindergarten program provide screening assessments and other appropriate measures to help identify African- American children who may be at-risk for academic failure and monitor progress?  Analysis of available pre-kindergarten screening and program assessment data, including the Early Screening Inventory. The pre-kindergarten teacher survey, paraprofessional teacher survey, principal interview, and classroom observations will also address this question. 4. What are the perceptions of pre-kindergarten teachers and paraprofessionals regarding the pre-kindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? p   The pre-kindergarten teacher survey and paraprofessional teacher survey will directly address this question. m 5. What are the perceptions of the principal, kindergarten teachers, and first grade teachers in the school regarding pre-kindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? n  The kindergarten and first grade classroom teacher survey will address this question via closed-ended and open-ended items. A random sample of principals will be interviewed by phone. w 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of pre-kindergarten children regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?   The parents of pre-kindergarten children survey will be conducted to address this question via an instrument including closed- and open-ended items in schools with pre-kindergarten programs.    Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix 1 Summary of Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Primary Question Participants Data Sources  1. Has the pre-kindergarten program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of Afiican-American students? All kindergarten and first grade students at 30 pre-kindergarten schools and other elementary schools Pre-kindergarten student participants within above samples DIBELS (fall 2006 - approximately 12 schools for incoming K students) ITBS (2005-2006 kindergarten data) Pre-kindergarten student program data - Work Sampling System scores (2005-2006 data)  Supplemental Questions II 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of pre-kindergarten classroom enviromnents and instruction at the 30 schools in 2005- 2006? All pre-kindergarten teachers All kindergarten and first grade classroom teachers at schools with pre-kindergarten programs Principals at pre-kindergarten schools Pre-kindergarten teacher survey Paraprofessional teacher survey Random sample of 10 principal phone interviews Kindergarten and first grade classroom teacher survey (faculty meeting) Pre-kindergarten classroom observations (min. of 15 observations)  H II 2. What is the level of participation in pre-kindergarten by African- American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? All pre-kindergarten schools School records/archival data   3. To what extent does the pre-kindergarten program provide screening assessments and other appropriate measures to help identify African-American children who may be at-risk for academic failure and monitor progress? All pre-kindergarten teachers All pre-kindergarten teachers will provide student assessment data Principals at pre-kindergarten schools  Pre-kindergarten student program and assessment data including the Early Screening Inventory.  Pre-kindergarten teacher survey, paraprofessional teacher survey, and classroom observations (min. of 15 observations in at least 10 schools)   Random sample of 10 principal phone interviews Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix 1 4. 5. 6. Summary of Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question, Continued Evaluation Question What are the perceptions of pre-kindergarten teachers and paraprofessional teachers regarding pre-kindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of principal, kindergarten, and first grade classroom teachers regarding the pre- kindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of pre- kindergarten children regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Fall 2005- February 2006 February-March April May-June July-August September 1 October 1 Participants  All pre-kindergarten teachers All K-3 classroom teachers in experienced RR schools Principals at pre-kindergarten schools Parents of pre-kindergarten children in schools with programs Timelines Data Sources Pre-kindergarten teacher survey Paraprofessional teacher survey Kindergarten and first grade classroom teacher survey (disaggregated by grade) Random sample of 10 principal phone interviews Pre-kindergarten parent survey Planning, refinement, and consultation with PRE and pre-kindergarten experts\ninstrument development\nreview by evaluation team Conduct observations. Pre-Kindergarten Teacher, Paraprofessional Teacher, Kindergarten Teacher and First Grade Teacher Surveys Pre-kindergarten school Principal Phone Interviews Pre-Kindergarten student data, records/archival data analyses Achievement data analyses/complete survey and interview analyses Submit draft report of findings to PRE for review by evaluation team and feedback from PRE. Deliver final report to PRE. LRSD submits final report. Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix 1 H I I I I I I I I I n  DRAFT Principal Interview Questions Little Rock School District Pre-K Schools I. General Information Describe the implementation of your schools PRE-K program.  How does the PRE-K program fit within the broader literacy initiative in your school?  Which of the components provided by the PRE-K literacy program do you feel are most effective? Are there any components that you feel are ineffective? Describe your role in the PRE-K program implementation. How would you describe teacher support for the PRE-K program? Can you think of specific positive or negative comments made by teachers about the program? What additional resources have been needed to support your PRE-K program?  Resources include time, space, materials and personnel. Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix I IL Classroom Level Changes Specifically, what contributions has the PRE-K program made in terms of\n  Providing African American students with equal learning and performance opportunities? V  Reading instruction? H  Identifying those children at risk for academic failure (especially with regard to African American students V n  Teacher professional development? I  Monitoring of student progress and achievement? n How does your PRE-K program accommodate special needs children? I n HI. Results What differences in achievement have you seen in PRE-K students? Specifically, how has the program impacted the achievement of African American students? I Do you think that PRE-K program is helping to close the achievement gap between African American and white students? Explain. I How has the PRE-K program impacted classroom teachers? I Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix 1  RIV. Professional Development What specific training or support have you received as an administrator regarding the PRE-K program? What training or support have the PRE-K teachers received regarding the PRE-K program?  Any plans/suggestions for continuing the professional development process at your school?  V. Parental Involvement How would you describe parent support for the PRE-K program? Describe efforts to inform and involve parents. Are parents more involved now than in the past? How would you describe community support for the school in general, and the PRE-K students in particular? VI. Closure Do you have any suggestions to improve the PRE-K program? Are there any important aspects of program implementation that have not been mentioned today? Any additional comments you would like to make? Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix 1 I DRAFT PRE-K TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE School Name:_________________ General: Please evaluate using the scale provided'. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree I have a thorough understanding of my schools PRE-K program.____________________________________ I have received adequate initial and ongoing professional development/training for implementation of the PRE-K program._____________ Professional development provided by the district has been valuable.__________________________________ The principal is an effective instructional leader. Teachers are given sufficient planning time to implement the PRE-K program.____________________ Student achievement has been positively impacted by the PRE-K program.____________________________ Overall, this program is valuable for improving the achievement of African-American students._________ I have time to collaborate with other PRE-K teachers.____________________________________________ I have adequate materials to implement the program.___________________________________________ The content areas presented in the curriculum map are appropriate for pre-k literacy instruction._______ The monthly benchmark goals are realistic for pre-k literacy programs.__________________________________ The interim and anchor assessments in the pre-K literacy curriculum are useful in assessing growth and progress._______________________________________ I have a thorough understanding of the pre-k curriculum map.___________________________________ Because of the PRE-K program, more parents are involved in the school.______________________________ Preschool teachers in the school are generally supportive of the PRE-K program._________________ Teachers in the school (not preschool teachers) are generally supportive of the PRE-K program._______ Teachers are encouraged to communicate concerns, questions, and constructive ideas regarding the PRE-K program.__________________________________ The PRE-K program is useful in monitoring progress of African American students.____________ The PRE-K program is useful as a screening tool for assessing at-risk African American students._______ With the PRE-K program, children are excited about learning. u I I I n H n  Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix I  Effectiveness of PRE-K Literacy Components: Please rate the effectiveness of the following components: Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree The PRE-K program is valuable in preparing children for kindergarten._____________________ Instructional elements of the PRE-K program assessments, programs, materialsare based on scientifically-based reading research.___________ Because of the PRE-K program, systematic and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, oral language, vocabulary, concepts of print, and comprehension occurs daily in our schools classrooms.______________________________ The literacy and language components are effective for reading readiness.________________ Group activities engage the students and complement instruction.______________________ Learning centers engage the students and complement instruction. DEMOGRAPHICS: How many years of experience do you have as a PRE-K teacher? 5 years or less___ 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-20 yrs___20 or more yrs__ How many years of experience do you have as an employee in any school? 5 years or less___ 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-20 yrs___20 or more yrs__ How many years of experience do you have as an employee in this school? Less than one yr.___ 1-5 yrs___ 6-10 yrs____ 11-15 yrs___15 or more yrs___ What is the highest level of education you have completed? High School Diploma or less___Associates Degree/Some college Bachelors Degree____Masters Degree____ Degree beyond Masters   What best describes your cultural background? American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific Islander African American Hispanic/Latino___Caucasian Multi-Racial Gender: Male____ Female Age range: 29 yrs. or less 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older Open-Ended: What are the most effective aspects of the PRE-K program? What are the least effective? Do you think the PRE-K program should be continued? Why or Why Not? Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix I DRAFT CLASSROOM TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE PRE-K SCHOOL PROGRAM School Name: Grade Level: Please describe your understanding of the PRE-K program at your school: n I have a thorough understanding of my schools PRE- K program.__________________________________________ The PRE-K program will positively impact students at the school._________________________________________ The PRE-K program will improve the overall achievement of African American students at this school._______________________________________________ Our school has a sufficient number of preschool teachers._____________________________________________ Preschool teachers are positive about the PRE-K program.____________________________________________ The PRE-K program will help prepare students for success in kindergarten.______________________________ The PRE-K program can help identify at-risk students._____________________________________________ The PRE-K program will prepare students for reading readiness.___________________________________ It is my understanding the components of the PRE-K program are based on scientifically-based research. The principal supports the PRE-K program._________ Because of the PRE-K program, systematic and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, oral language, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension occurs daily in our schools classrooms.______________ The PRE-K program is actively engaging parents in their childs learning. Strongly Agret Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix I M M DEMOGRAPHICS: How many years of experience do you have as an employee in any school? 5 years or less___ 6-10 yrs____ 11-15 yrs____ 16-20 yrs___20 or more yrs__ II How many years of experience do you have as an employee in this school? Less than one yr.___ 1-5 yrs___ 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs___15 or more yrs___ II What is the highest level of education you have completed? High School Diploma or less___ Associates Degree/Some college____ II Bachelors Degree Masters Degree____Degree beyond Masters What best describes your cultural background? II American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific Islander African American Hispanic/Latino___Caucasian Multi-Racial II Gender: Male Female Age range: 29 yrs. or less___30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older II II Open-Ended: What are the most effective aspects of the PRE-K program? Il What are the least effective? Il Do you think the PRE-K program should be continued? Why or Why Not? II II II If Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix I  DRAFT PRE-K PARAPROFESSIONAL TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE   School Name:  General: Please evaluate using the scale provided:  Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree  I have a thorough understanding of my schools PRE-K program.________________________________ I have received training and development regarding my work with PRE-K students._______ The PRE-K teacher in my classroom is an effective leader._________________________________ The principal at this school is an effective instructional leader._____________________________ I am able to communicate concerns regarding the students with the PRE-K classroom teacher. The classroom teacher and I spend time planning instructional activities._________________ Student achievement has been positively impacted by the PRE-K program._______________ Overall, this program is valuable for improving the achievement of African-American students. I have time to collaborate with other PRE-K paraprofessionals at this school._________________ I have adequate materials in the classroom to do nyjob-_________________________________________ Pre-K classroom teachers in the school are generally supportive of the program.____________ Pre-K Paraprofessionals in the school are generally supportive of the program.____________ Children in the PRE-K class are excited about learning.________________________________________ The PRE-K program is useful in monitoring progress of African-American students._________ The PRE-K program is valuable in preparing children for kindergarten.______________________ My role as a PRE-K Paraprofessional is valuable in the PRE-K classroom.________________________ Mentoring and/or coaching I receive from the Pre-K classroom teacher is helpful to me._______ Because of the Pre-K program, more parents are involved in the school.   Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix I DEMOGRAPHICS: How many years experience do you have as a PRE-K Paraprofessional? 5 years or less___ 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-20 yrs___20 or more yrs__ How many years experience do you have as an employee in any school? 5 years or less___ 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-20 yrs___20 or more yrs__ How many years experience do you have as an employee in this school? 5 years or less___ 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-20 yrs___20 or more yrs__ What is the highest level of education you have completed? High School Diploma or less Associates Degree/Some college Bachelors Degree Masters Degree Degree beyond Masters What best describes your cultural background? American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific Islander African American Hispanic/Latino___Caucasian Multi-Racial Gender: Male Female II Age Range: 29 yrs. or less 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older II OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS: H M M II What are the most effective aspects of the PRE-K program? II What are the least effective? Il II Do you think the PRE-K program should be continued? Why or Why Not? Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix I DRAFT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PRE-K PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE   Dear Parent/Guardian: We would like to know what you think about your childs preschool experience. Please take a few minutes to complete the following survey. All responses are completely confidential.  Ethnicity of your Child:  African American Caucasian_______ Hispanic________ Asian___________ Other   Gender: Male Age:__ Female Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree strongly Disagree My child enjoys the preschool class. I believe my childs preschool class is adequately preparing him/her for kindergarten.________________________ My child is excited about learning. I receive information from my childs teacher regarding units or themes of study.________________________________ My child is becoming reading ready due to preschool._____________ I receive feedback regarding my childs language skills. My child enjoys group activities in the preschool class.___________________ My child enjoys the learning centers in the preschool class.________________ My childs preschool teacher is an effective instructor.__________________ My child enjoys looking at books/ being read to at home._______________ My child brings home information from the school that helps me understand what he/she is learning. 1 like the school my child is attending. I believe my child can get a good education at this school. I believe African American students can achieve at this school.  Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix I R  What are the best things about your childs preschool experience? What changes would you like to see in the preschool program at this school? M II II II II II II II H Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix I  Appendix J   Proposed Plan for Evaluation of Read 180 I   Center for Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis   I Quarterly Written Update March I, 2006 Appendix J * Formatted: Left, Border: Top: (Single solid line, Auto, 1 pt Line width), Tabs: 5.75\", Centered + 5.88\", Centered     a I  Proposal for the Evaluation of Read 180 in the Little Rock School District: Outline Version DRAFT COPY ONLY Evaluation Questions  Primary Evaluation Question-. 1. Has the Read 180 program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions:  1. What are the quality and level of implementation of Read 180 at the schools implementing it in 2005-06? 2. What is the level of participation in Read 180 by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? 3. What are the perceptions of Read 180 teachers regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. M 5. What are the perceptions of other teachers in the school regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Read 180 students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Program Description H Read 180 is a reading intervention program that is aimed at assisting struggling adolescent readers. Currently, five middle schools and all eight high schools in LRSD use this program. Students are targeted to participate in the program based on results from the Arkansas Benchmark Exam. Students that participate in the program typically spend equal portions of their 90-minute English or Language Arts class working with adaptive software, reading independently, and receiving instruction in large and small group settings. H I Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Formatted: Left, Border: Top: (Single solid line, Auto, 1 pt Une width). Tabs: 5.75\", Centered + 5.88\", Centered Appendix J fl I  Proposed Design H A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question'. n 1. Has the Read 180 program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? The preliminary plan is discussed below. The actual analysis used will be the approach that is the most rigorous for the available data sources. I A. Whole School'. A treatment-control school, pretest-posttest design will be employed in Grades 6-9. The analysis will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. It may be decided to examine (a) all schools relative to the entire district middle and high school database or (b) a stratified random sample of Read 180 schools relative to matched control schools (this will only be possible in the middle schools). p n B. Read 180 Sub sample: Within each of the Read 180 schools, students who participated in the program will be identified and their achievement gains compared to predicted scores based on school status, student pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. n Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: n 1. What is the quality and level of implementation of Read 180 at the schools implementing it in 2005-06? n Read 180 teachers will be surveyed and a random sample will be interviewed. The principals will also be interviewed. Observations of Read 180 sessions will be made at a sample of schools. A minimum of 10 observations will be conducted. To the extent resources are available an attempt will be made to observe at all the sites. n 2. What is the level of participation in Read 180 by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? n Student-level Read 180 records/archival data will be analyzed. n 3. What are the perceptions of Read 180 teachers regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? n All of the Read 180 teachers will be surveyed, and a random sample will be asked to participate in brief interviews to address this question. 4. What are the perceptions of other teachers in the school regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? I Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix) * Formatted: Left, Border: Top: (Single solid line, Auto, 1 pt Line width). Tabs: 5.75\", Centered + 5.88\", Centered -n 4i A survey will be developed and administered to non-Read 180 teachers to address this question. 5. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Read 180 students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  A parent survey will be administered to address this question. Summary of Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question   fl fl fl fl   fl fl Evaluation Question Primary Question: 1. Has the Read 180 program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African- American students? Supplemental Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of Read 180 at the schools implementing it in 2005-06? 2. What is the level of participation in Read 180 by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? 3. What are the perceptions of Read 180 teachers regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of other teachers in the school Participants Data Sources Read 180 students ITBS and Benchmark Exam  Read 180 teachers  Principals at Read 180 schools  Read 180 students All Read 180 schools Read 180 teachers Non-Read 180 Teachers at schools using the program I Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006  Read 180 Teacher Survey  Read 180 Teacher Interviews  Principal Interviews  Read 180 Observations (min. of 10 1-hour observations) SOM/Read 180 SCU/Quality Assessment Form  Read 180 Student Survey (all Read 180 students)  Read 180 Student Focus Group (random sample)  School level Read 280 reports  Read 180 Teacher Survey  Teacher Survey (random selection of teachers) Appendix J * Formatted: Left, Border: Top: (Single solid line, Auto, 1 pt Line width). Tabs: 5.75\", Centered + 5.88\", CenteredI  Evaluation Question regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Read 180 students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Timelines January February-April May-June July-August September 1 October 1 Participants Data Sources  v Parents of Read 180 students  Read 180 Parent Survey H W  Planning, refinement with PRE and other LRSD staff  Instrument development  Begin observations  Continue observations  Principal and teacher interviews  Administer parent and teacher questionnaires  Data analysis on non-achievement data sources  Achievement data analysis  Submit draft report of findings to PRE  Receive feedback from PRE and evaluation teams  Submit final report to PRE for Board approval the same month  LRSD submits final report to court n n n n I n n n 1 Quarterly Written Update March I, 2006 Formatted: Left, Border: Top: (Single solid line, Auto, 1 pt Line width). Tabs: 5.75\", Centered + 5.88\", Centered Appendix J * n  I   ( Pead 180 Questionnaire For Non-Read 180 Teachers Draft Copy Only (NOTE: The Read 180 Questionnaire will be presented to teachers on a form that can be scanned) Circle the grade level(s) you teach: 6 7 8 9 Circle your ethnicity: Caucasian African American Circle your gender. Hispanic Asian Male I Multi-Ethnic Female Please let us know what you think about the effectiveness of Read 180 by rating the following items from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Arc you able to identify which students are taking or have taken the Read 180 classes? Yes No If \"yes\" please answer the flowing questions: Read 180 Items 1. I have an understanding of the Read 180 program _______goals._________________________________________ 2. I have an understanding of the Read 180 program classroom implementation (how the classes are _______structured).____________________________________ 3. The students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes demonstrate continuous _______improvement in literacy skills_____________________ 4. The students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes submit work that reflects _______improved writing._______________________________ 5. The students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes show more willingness to read _______aloud in class.__________________________________ 6. The students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes demonstrate improved _______written and orol vocabulary skills._________________ 7. The students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes demonstrate better test _______taking skills.___________________________________ 8. The students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes show increased _______comprehension of assigned reading._______________ 9. The students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes show increased attention and interest in learning. Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree strongly * Agree Appendix J * { Formatted Table Formatted: Left, Border: Top: (Single solid line, Auto, 1 pt Line widfti), Tabs: 5.75\", Centered + 5.88\", Centered10. The students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes have improved classroom behavior. H Open ended:  What do you think are the strengths of the Read 180 program?  What do you think are the weaknesses of the Read 180 program?  What changes do you recommend for the Read 180 program?  Should your school continue using Read 180? _Yes _No Briefly explain why_____________________________________ I V H Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix) n n n n n n I n Formatted: Left, Border: Top: (Single solid line, Auto, 1 pt Line width). Tabs: 5.75\", Centered + 5.88\", Centered n  Survey of Computer Use for Read 180 Draft Copy Only School Observer Name Observation  Date Grade Observed 6 7 3 9  Number of Students in Read 180 Class (by ethnicity):_____African American _____Non-African American How many computers were available for Read 180? ___One ___2-4 ___5-10 ___11 or more Computer Configuration and Use How frequently did malfunctions occur on computers used for Read 180? ___Never ___Rarely ___Occasionally ___Frequently ___Extensively Most of the computers used for Read 180 were: ___Up-to-date ___Aging but adequate ___Outdated/limited capacity  Read 180 Computer Activities______________ In which subject areas did students complete Read 180 computer work (check all that were observed)? ___Reading Comprehension ___Vocabulary ___Spelling  What was the overall level of African American student attention, interest, and engagement while using the Read 180 computer program? ___Low ___Moderate ___High TALLY the types of questions students asked while using the computer Read 180. ___Content area (e.g. how to solve a problem\nthe meaning of a word) ___Software use (e.g., how to log in\nhow to move to next section, how to take a test) ___Computer use (e.g., how to get the mouse or keyboard to work properly) ___Non-Read 180 questions, (e.g.. Do 1 have to sit next to John? Can I go to the restroom?) TALLY each time the teacher provided the following types of instruction specifically for student use of Read 180 computer activities: ___Content area (e.g. reading, vocabulary) ___Software use (e.g., how to log in, find correct lesson) ___Computer use (e.g., locate software, use mouse) ___Classroom behavior rules ___No Instructions were given Observer Notes: What was the overall level of NON-African American student attention, interest, and engagement while using the Read 180 program? ___Low ___Moderate ___High What was the level of academically focused time while students were using the computer for Read 180? ___Low ___Moderate ___High I Quarterly Written Update March I, 2006 Appendix J Formatted: Left, Border: Top: (Single solid line, Auto, 1 pt Line width), Tabs: 5.75\", Centered + 5.88\", Centered Draft Copy Only Parent/Guardian Consent Form Hl * Dear parent or guardian, As part of a study conducted by the Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis, and endorsed by the Little Rock School District, we are requesting permission for your child to participate in a group interview of 5 to 7 students from your childs school. During the group interview (focus group), a trained researcher will ask your child questions regarding his/her participation in the Read 180 program (your son's/daughter's language arts/reading class). The questions are designed to help us find out how well the Read 180 program is helping to improve student reading skills and learning. IB The focus group should take approximately 20 minutes and will only pertain to the Read 180 class that your child is taking. The focus group will be conducted during a Read 180 class. Individual responses to the questions will not be seen by anyone at the school, and the identity of individuals participating in the focus group will remain confidential. The responses to the focus group will be reported together in summary form to school personnel. I n Please note that your child is not required to participate in the focus group. Your permission is required to participate. If you give permission, please have your child return the completed form to his/her teacher. n\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_1747","title":"District Court, memorandum opinion.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2002-09-13"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","African Americans--Education","School integration","School discipline","Student activities","Education--Evaluation","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, memorandum opinion."],"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/1747"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["43 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eThis transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    R;~l~f!~O EAsr~~lkf~s,s OFFICE OF ' ' . Sf p l ,a :zooz  DESEGREGATION MONITORING . J~MES . By, IN THE UNITED. STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKJ COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM OPINION ---- - ------------ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS . __ ., INTERVENORS I. II. ill. N . A072A INDEX Page Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Long History Of Desegregation Litigation .In Pulaski County .............. 11 A. 1956 Through 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 B. 1973 Through 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 C. Interdistrict Litigation And Interdistrict Relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 D. The 1990 Settlement Agreement And Settlement Plans . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 20 E. LRSD's Implementation Oflts Desegregation Obligations Between 1991 And F. G. H. I. J. K. 1995 .... ..... ......................... .... ........ . ..... . . .. 24 Joshua's Request For An Interim Award Of Attorney's Fees For Performing Monitoring Activities After The 1990 Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 LRSD's First Attempt To End Federal Court Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 The Pexplexing Final Resolution Of Joshua's Request For Still More Attorneys' Fees From LRSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Final Approval Of Revised Desegregation And Education Plan . . . . . . . . . . 45 LRSD's Implementation Oflts Obligations Under The Revised Plan . . . . . 46 LRSD Seeks Unitary Status Based Upon Its Substantial Compliance With The Revised Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Relevant Provisions Of Revised Plan ......................... . .... ... ... 52 A. LRSD's Obligation Of Good Faith ................. ... . ... .. . ..... 55 B. LRSD's Obligations Regarding Student Disciplip.e ............ : .. ... .. 55 C. LRSD's Obligations To hnprove And Remediate The Academic Achievement Of African-American Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 D. E. F. G. 11. I. LRSD's Obligations Regarding Extracurricular Activities, Advanced Placement Courses, And Guidance Counselors ................... ; . . . 56 LRSD's Obligations To Develop Remedies, Where Appropriate, For Racial Disparities In Programs And Activities ............ , , .... , . , . . . . . . . . . 57 Procedure For Raising Compliance Jssues ............... : . .. . . . . . . . . . 57 Duration Of Revised Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 rrocc:;uure ror ;::;eeKlllg Urutary ;::;rams ............................. . Effect OfLRSD's Failure To Meet \"Specific Goals\" In The Revised Plan 59 60 Controlling Principles Of Law .......................................... 60 A. The Evolving Concept of Unitary Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 B. Applicable Standard For Determining IfLRSD Is Unitary ........ ... . .. 69 C. Burden Of Proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 D. Meaning Of\"Substantial Compliance\" ............................. 75 E. The Metaphysics Of Using The \"Achievement Gap\" As A Factor In Deciding Unitary Status ..... .. ... .. ..... .........................  ....... 77 -1- A072A V. Findings Of Fact .............. . ..... . .. _ ............. , .... . ........ . .. 85 A.  Good Faith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 B. Student Discipline . . .. . .................. . ... . ................. 95 C. Extracurricular Activities . . . . .... . . . ............ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 D. Advanced Placement Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Promote Participation and Remove Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Identify and Encourage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Assist . . .................. . ... . ............ . .. .. . ; . . . . . . . . . . 135 E. Guidance And Counseling ........... . ......... : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 F, Academic Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 G. Program Assessment/Program Evaluation ................. . ........ 150 VI. Conclusions Of Law ... . .. . ........ . .. . .......... . .. . .... ... . .. ; ..... . 160 A. Unitary Status .. . ....... . . . .  .... . .......... . ..............  .... 160  B. Burden Of Proof . . . . .... . .... . ............... . ...... . ...... . .. 160 C. Substantial Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 D. Good Faith . .. .. . .. ...... . . .. . . ......... . .........  ... .. . . .. . . 161 E. Student Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 F. Academic Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 G. Partial Unitary Status . .... .. . .. .... . ... . .... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 H. Tune To Fly .... . . . . . ......... . .... . ...... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 VII. Compliance Remedy ......... .. .. .. ........ . ..................... . '. . 170 VIll. Conclusion . .. : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 -ii- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 I. Introduction2 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On December 12, 1990, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the \"Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement,\" as revised September 28, 1989; separate Settlement Plans for the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), the North Little Rock School District (''NLRSD\"), and the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD''), dated 11t was my good fortune to have The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray, U.S. Magistrate Judge, assigned to this case with me. I would be sorely remiss ifl did not acknowledge, here and now, the prodigious effort and talent he has brought to this project. As authors. are wont to say, \"any errors, however, are mine alone.\" 2As a Bryan Garner disciple (beginners' class), I generally favor putting all substantive legal analysis in the text and citing the supporting cases in footnotes. However, so many issues in this case beg for digressions that I have been unable to resist the temptation to include substantive legal analysis in some of the footnotes. A07?A .  .  . . --~ - ---- -- -- ..  ... - ........ . ... ... ~ ........ - - .. , . - - ------- ---  -  . -----------~-  ... - -  - ---- ~ - - - - . .... . . . . . ---  -  .. January 31, 1989; and a separate Interdistrict Settlement Plan.3 LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990). At that time, both the district court and the Eighth Circuit believed that this historic settlement created the \"benchmark for the future path of this case,\" Appeal of LRSD, 949 F.2d 253,255 (8th Cir.1991), and \"a sure guide for ending this dispute and getting the parties out of court.\" LRSDv. PCSSD, 769F. Supp. 1491, 1494 (E.D; Ark. 1991), order vacated, 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991). In the years following the Eighth Circuit's approval of the parties' final settlement of this case, all three Pulaski County school districts implemented their respective Settlement Plans under the supervision of the district court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\"). 4 Subsequently, the district court and Eighth Circuit established guidelines for allowing the parties 3 Each of the Settlement Plans for the individual school districts contained their respective desegregation obligations. In addition, the Interdistrict Settlement Plan contained the interdistrict desegregation obligations for all three school districts. These Settlement Plans had been agreed to by the parties and approved by the Court, making them \"consent decrees.\" In their pleadings, the parties sometimes refer to these Settlement Plans as \"desegregation plans.\"  The three individual Settlement Plans for LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD, and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan were submitted to the district court for approval during early 1989. However, becausethey were not approved by the Eighth Circuit until December 12, 1990, LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F .2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990),. the parties and the district court generally have referred to these settlement documents as the 1990 Settlement Agreement, the 1990 Settl.ement Plans, and the 1990 Intei-district Settlement Plan. In contrast, the Eighth Circuit has usually referred to these settlement documents as the 1989 settlement agreement and 1989 settlement plan or plans. Appeal of LRSD, 949 F .2d 253, 254 (8th Cir. 1991) (\"We recognized, however, that the approved plans, which we shall call the 1989 plan or plans, would need some modification because of the passage of time\"). Regardless of the terminology used, the parties, the qistrict court, and the Eighth Circuit are all referring to the same settlement documents. In the interest of consistency, I will refer to those documents in this opinion as the 1990 Settlement Agreement, the 1990 Settlement Plan or Plans, and the 1990 Interdistrict Settlement Plan. \"The Eighth Circuit directed the district court to create and staff the ODM with the personnel it \"shall deem appropriate\" to help ensure compliance with all aspects of the 1990 Settlement Agreeinent and the four separate Settlement Plans. LRSD, 921 F .2d at 1388. -2- A072A to make agreed changes to the details of the Settlement Plans, as fong as they did not affect the \"major substantive commitments to desegregation\" embodied in those Plans. Appeal ofLRSD, 949 F.2d at256; see also LRSD, 769 F. Supp. 1491; LRSD v.. PCSSD, 769 F. Supp. 1483 (E.D. Ark. 1991), order vacated, 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991). Between 1991 and 1996, LRSD worked toward implementing its desegregation obligations under the settlement documents. On May 1, 1992, the district court entered an Order ( docket no. 1587) approving certain changes to LRSD' s 1990 Settlement Plan and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan. A copy ofLRSD's modified settlement plan and interdistrict plan, referred to as \"LRSD' s May 1992 Desegregation Plan\" and the \"May 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan,\" were attached to the court's May 1, 1992 Order. By 1996, it had become apparent to the parties and the district court that some of the desegregation obligations imposed on LRSD by the settlement documents might never be successfully implemented, regardless ofLRSD's best efforts .. Accordingly, on September 25, 1996, Judge Wright entered a Memorandum Opinion ( docket no. 2821) in which she \"invite[ d] the parties to modify the parts of the [ settlement] plan that are ineffective or unworkable.\" As a result, in late 1996 and 1997, LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\")5 entered into vu.1,11uu11,1.:1,17u\"T,111111u1..- ~,  _c:1 61 uu.l'u11\\ 1 .. ~ -f\\lller,.......u.puouc school children enrolled in the three Pulaski County school districts, filed a \"Petition io Intervene\" ( docket no. 452). The Petitioners sought intervenor status ''for themselves and the other Black public school children of Pulaski County through their parents and next of friends .... \" Mrs. Lorene Joshua was the lead named parent and next of friend for her three minor school children. On May 24, 1984, the Eighth Circuit entered an Order (docket no. 565) that, in effect, granted the Petition to Intervene. Thereafter, the district court and the parties began referring to these intervenors simply as \"Joshua\" Because the intervenors represent the group of all AfricanAmerican school children in the Pulaski County public schools, I will sometimes use the plural pronoun ''they'' to refer to Joshua On occasion, the Eighth Circuit has elected to consider -3- . . , . .. -\"'-  -  -    ---..,-- ......   ..   - --- - ---  .. . protracted negotiations to modify various aspects ofLRSD 's Settlement Plan. These negotiations bore fruit in the January 16, 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (the \"Revised Plan\"); which LRSD and Joshua jointly submitted to the district court for approval on January 21, 1998 ( docket nos. 31 o7 and 3136), 6 On April 10, 1998, the district court entered an Order ( docket no. 3144) approving the Revised Plan,7 which it viewed as \"an entirely new consent decree or settlement agreement between LRSD and Joshua.\"8 Unlike LRSD's 1990 Settlement Plan, as modified by the May 1992 Desegregation Plan, the Revised Plan included a section establishing a specific procedure \"Joshua\" to be only the first named intervenor, Mrs. Lorene Joshua, and properly used the singular pronoun \"she\" to refer to \"Joshua\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995). Either pronoun usage is correct, as long as the reader understands how the Court is  defining \"Joshua;\" 6 According to the explicit language of the Revised Plan, it \"shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders\" in this case \"and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation\" of the LRSD with the following exceptions: a . The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 (\"Settlement Agreement\"); b. The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987; c. Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee;  d: The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; and, a eals int retin and enforcin sections a through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Plan. 7buring the hearings on unitary status, the Revised Plan was introduced into evidence as ex 871. 8In its April 10 Order, the district court concluded, in the alternative, that, even if the Revised Plan was considered to be a \"modification\" ofLRSD's May 1992 Desegregation Plan, rather than \"an entirely new consent decree,\" it still should be approved under the test for seeking modification of a consent decree established by the Court in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 393 (1992). See also LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d at 914; LRSD, 921 F.2d at 1387. -4- A072A and time schedule under which LR.SD might achieve unitary status: SECTION 11: Unitary Status. At the conclusion of the 2000'-01 school year, the district court shall eriter ail order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof If no party challenges LRSD 's compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without farther proceedings. (Emphasis added.) Because none of the parties appealed the district court's April 10 Order approving the Revised Plan, it became a final consent decree, which now governs LRSD's desegregation obligations and establishes the path tha~ LRSD must follow to achieve unitary status and release from federal court supervision.9 On March 15, 2001, LR.SD filed a Request for Scheduling Order and Compliance Report 91n most school desegregation cases, a federal court's jurisdiction depends on the existence of constitutional violations by the school district Once the school district complies with all of its obligations under the Constitution, it achieves \"unitary status,\" and the federal court's jurisdiction ends. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1971). .   1 .   In Green v. County School Bd. of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 4~5-38 (1968), the Court identified the following areas of a school district's operations that must be carefully exannncu m oetemnnmg wnemer 1t.nas successtu.lly converteo .. to a unnary system m whlch racial discrimination [has been] eliminated root and branch\": ( 1) student assignment; (2) faculty and staff assignment; (3) transportation; (4) extracurricular activities; and (5) facilities . . These so-called Green factors establish the floor for a school district's compliance with its constitutional obligations under the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, in all school desegregation cases, a school district's compliance with the Green factors is a condition precedent to unitary status. Importantly, the Revised Plan required LRSD to comply with not only the Green factors, but also a host of other desegregation obligations that went well beyond the constitutional floor established by the Court in Green. Thus, in this case, the question of unitary status turns on whether LRSD has substantially complied with its desegregation obligations under the Revised Plan. -5- A072A ( docket no. 3410), 10 pursuant to Section 11 of the Revised Plan, seeking \"an order finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations.\" On June 25, 2001, Joshua filed an Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report (docket no. 3447), which vigorously challenged LRSD's contention that it was entitled to a declaration of unitary status and argued that LRSD was not in \"substantial complian?e\" with certain of its desegregation obligations under the Revised Plan. On July 5 and 6, August 1 and 2, and November 19 and 20, 2001, my colleague and predecessor in this case,United States CbiefDistrict Judge Susan Webber Wright, conducted five and one-half days of evidentiary hearings to develop the facts surrounding what Joshua believed were their three strongest grounds11 for challenging LRSD's request for unitary status: first, that LRSD had not acted in good faith in implementing its desegregation obligations( 2.1 of the Revised Plan); second, that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations regarding student discipline (  2.5 through 2.5 .4 of the Revised Plan); and third, that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations to implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to improve the academic achievement of African-American students ( 2.7, 2.7.1, and 5.1-5.8 of the Revised Plan). In a scheduling conference on December 11, 2001, Judge Wright desi~ated the week of , . January 28, 2002, to hear no more than five additional days of testimony regarding the last three 10During the hearings on unitary status, the Final March 15, 200 l Compliance Report was introduced into evidence as CX 870. 111n a telephone conference with counsel on June 29, 2001; Judge Wright made it clear that counsel for Joshua should present his strongest arguments and evidence first, followed by subsidiary arguments and evidence (docket no. 3461 at 54-55). -6- areas of the Revised Plan in which Joshua claimed LRSD had :failed to substantially comply with its obligations: advanced placement courses ( 2.6 and 2.6.2 of the Revised Plan); extracurricular activities( 2.6 and 2.6.3 of the Revised Plan); ~d guidance counseling (.2.6.1 of the Revised Plan) ( docket no. 3597 at 31-37).12 Judge Wright made it clear tha~ after she had heard the testimony concerning these last three areas of LRSD's alleged noncompliance, she  would decide the question of unitary status. Id. at 36-37. On January 3, 2002, after presiding over this case with great perseverance and distinction for eleven years, 13 Judge Wright determined that it was the \"appropriate tiine to reassign this case to another judge with minimal disruption to the parties and to allow a smooth transition\" ( docket no. 3569). That same day, the case was assigned to me by random selection ( docket no. 3570).14 On March 15, 2002, one year to the day after submitting its Request for Scheduling Order and Compliance Report, LRSD filed a Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status 12Judge Wright also ruled that Joshua could present non-curi:mlative evidence regarding: (a) LRSD's lack of good faith in implementing its obligations regarding. advanced placement courses, extracurricular activities, and guidance counseling; and (b) the ways in which LRSD's failure to substantially comply with its obligations regarding advanced placement courses and guidance counseling adversely impacted the academic achievement of African-American students . . 13JnLRSD v. NLRSD, 148 F .3d 956,967 (8th Cir.1998), the Court recognized the expertise Judge Wright had gained during her many years of service in this case: In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful that Judge Wright has been responsible for administering and interpreting the settlement agreement for some time now, ever since 1990, when she took over this case. Our review of the District Court's interpretation of the settlement agreement is, as a formal matter, de novo. But we still think it appropriate to pay some heed to the reasoned determinations of the experienced District Judge, who faces decisions in this case every month, if not every week. 14Of course, the five days of evidentiary hearings that Judge Wright had scheduled for the week of January 28, 2002, were cancelled. -7- (docket no. 3580) and Supporting Memorandum Brief_(docket no. 3581). On May 9, 2002, I entered a fourteen-page Order ( docket no. 3598) explaining to the parties my understanding of the current status of the case. Because the passing of the baton is a key factor in any relay race, the May 9 Order noted: Judge Wright, my immediate predecessor in this case, has done an outstandingjob of narrowing the issues and establishing a schedule that should allow nie to conduct no more than five additional days of evidentiary hearings on the four remaining issues and then be in a position to decide the LRSD's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. For that reason, the Court intends to pick up where Judge Wright left off, without disturbing the schedule that was established and agreed to by the parties and the Court during the December 11, 2001 hearing. May 9, 2002 Order at 12 (docket no. 3598) (footnote omitted). In a telephone conference with counsel on May 14, 2002, I rescheduled for July 22-26, 2002, the last five days of evidentiary hearings on the question of whether LRSD had substantially complied with its obligations under the Revised Plan . . In an Order (docket no. 3600) entered the next day, I set forth the schedule adopted during the May 14 telephone conference. On May 30, 2002, Joshua filed their Response in Opposition-to LRSD's Motion for an hnmediate Declaration ofUnitary Status ( docket no. 3604). On June 7, 2002, LRSD filed a Reply i Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status ( do.cket no. 3607). relevant to the determination of whether LRSD is entitled to a declaration of unitary status. Thus, the record is now complete, and the issue of unitary status is ready for decision. During the last eight months, I have spent many an hour trying to educate myself on the significant rulings and agreements that have shaped the current contours of this twenty-year-old -8-  A072A case.15 I have also read a ground-slide load of cases to gain an understanding of the evolution of school desegregation litigation during the last five decades and to grasp the issues a court must resolve in deciding whether a . school district has achieved unitary status. I have learned that desegregation cases are invariably complex, involve difficult-to-understand jargon, and frequently generate book-length appellate decisions, with seemingly obligatory concurring and dissenting opinions. Of course, I have found none of these discoveries to be surprising. After all, the issue of desegregation goes to both the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment's promise of \"equal protection\" and the dark soul of what was, in many parts of the country in the I 950's, a de jure segregated public school system that only grudgingly gave ground to integration-after most school districts had exhausted all available means of delay. In 1954, the Supreme Court rendered its landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 495 (I 954) (\"Brown I\"), holding that \"in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place\" and that segregation of public education is a denial of\"equal protection of the laws.\"16 Three years later, Little Rock suddenly found itself at the epicenter of this country's first major school desegregation effort. In early August  of 1957, LRSD school officials (including the school board) were prepared to implement a plan to admit a small number of African-American students to Central High School. Arkansas's Governor, Orval Faubus, ostensibly supported that plan, which, if 15This action was filed on November 30, 1982, as the last in a long line of desegregation cases, dating back to 1956. See infra, note 18. The pleadings in this case alone now occupy hundreds of feet of file space in the Clerk's office. 16The next year; the Court explicitly directed the lower federal courts to accomplish desegregation ''with all deliberate speed.\" Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 301 (1955) (\"Brown II\"). -9- _ A072A ' . . .. .. ~ . implemented with the support of the State, may well have led to the peaceful integration of Central. As it turned out, however, just as school started, Faubus called out the Arkansas National Guard to prevent the \"Little'Rock Nine\" :froin entering Central. 17 Faubus, who was known as somewhat of a moderate up to that time, shamelessly fanned  the flames of racism under the rubric of \"state' s rights,\" \"interposition,\" and the like. Thus, Little Rock became the first great legal .battleground in the long struggle to desegregate this country's public school system, a distinction that has left lasting wounds in this community. One can only wonder how the history of school desegregation might have been different if the first southern governor to squarely face the dictates of Brown I had done his plain, sworn constitutional duty. In view of the historical importance of this case, I believe I should review the long and winding path trod by LRSD in carrying out its constitutional duty, under Brown I and its progeny, to rid the Little Rock school system, to the extent practicable, of the vestiges of de jure segregation. Withoutatleast some understanding of that history, it is impossible to appreciate the deep passions this case still. stirs iii the litigants, lawyers, and judges who have been involved in almost five decades of continuous, unremitting school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County.18 17Faubus, of course, cited public safety concerns as bis reason for mobilizing the National Guard. He claimed \"secret intelligence reports\" indicated that dangerous outside agitators were at work in Little Rock, but these reports were never substantiated. In fact, the evidence now available suggests that the white mob which confronted the \"Little Rock Nine\" was mobilized by Faubus' own demagoguery, rather than by unidentified \"outside agitators.\" And, of course, other demagogues of a like mind were quick to pitch in. R. Reed, Faubus: The Life And Times Of An American Prodigal (1997). 18Jn 1956, the plaintiffs inAaron v. Cooper, 143 F. Supp. 855 (E.D. Ark.1956), filed suit against LRSD to force it to desegregate pursuant to the Court's holding in Brown I. In 1964, the plaintiffs filed Clark v. Board of Educ. of LRSD as a continuation of the desegregation action -10-   .  . . _ ..... - .,: ' - - - - . -  .. 1- ..   ., ... ... ,_ .. . .. --. ... ; .  ~ . . ....  - .... -  . .. '   A. II. The Long History Of Desegregation Litigation In Pulaski County 1956 Through 1973 mLRSDv. PCSSD, 584F. Supp. 328, 331-32 (E.D. Ark. 1984), the late and distinguished United States District Judge Henry Woods, the first judge to preside over this case, chronicled  in great detail the history of desegregation in Pulaski County. m bis scholarly decision, Judge Woods descnbed: the operation of LRSD m 1930, when it was a dejure segregated school district operating under the \"separate but equal\" doctrine;19 the Court's decision in Brown I, which overturned Plessy v. Ferguson; the court-ordered implementation of a plan to admit a small number of African-American students to Little Rock Central High School in September of1957;20 Governor Faubus' use of Arkansas National Guard troops at Central to place it \"off limits\" to African-American students and the subsequent removal of those troops after the issuance of an injunction by United States District Judge Ronald Davies in Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. 220 commenced against LRSD in Aaron v. Cooper. See Judge William Overton's July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order in Clark, a copy of which, marked Exhibit 1, is attached to LRSD's Memorandum Brief in Support ofMotion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status (docket no. 3581 ). On Noveinber 30, 1982, LRSD initiated this action against the PCS SD, NLRSD, and thP ,\\ -1 Roard nfPnnr\u0026lt;itinn ., .... v;no the consolidation of all three school districts in Pulaski County as the appropriate interdistrict desegregation remedy.  Thus, LRSD has been involved continually in federal desegregation litigation for forty-six years. 19Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), overruled by Brown I, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). 20See Aaron v. Cooper, 143 F. Supp. 855 (E.D. Ark. 1956). As discussed supra at note 18, Aaron was filed in 1956 to force LRSD to desegregate pursuant to the Court's holding in Brown. United States District Judge John E. Miller entered a decree on August 27, 1956, approving LRSD's plan of gradual school integration beginning with senior high school classes in the fall term of 1957. The Eighth Circuit subsequently affirmed that decision. Aaron v. Cooper, 243 F .2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957). -11- AQ_7~_ (E.D. Ark. 1957);21 the nine courageous African-American students entering Central on September 23, 1957, in the face of a large, threatening mob of whites; and, finally, President Eisenhower dispatching troops to Central to ensure the safety of the African-American students and to enforce Judge Davies' desegregation order.22 Judge Woods also traced desegregation plans advanced by LRSD in \"the decade of 1960 in a good faith effort to provide a solution to continuous litigation\" and the failure of those plans m \"the hysterical political atmosphere of that period.\" LRSD, 584 F. Supp. at 334. In 1966, the Eighth Circuit approved LRSD.'s \"freedom of choice\" desegregation pl~, which remained in effect through the 1968-69 school year. Clarkv. Board of Education ofLRSD, 369 F.2d 661 (8th Cir. 1966). Significantly, in its decision, the Court noted LRSD's good faith commitment to desegregation: Many of the problems encountered are not of the Board's making or choosing and, we believe, the Board has evidenced a genuine desire to follow the commands of the Brown case to ultimately place into effect a non-racially operated school system._ 21In 1957, the Eighth Circuit assignedJudge Davies, of Fargo, North Dakota, to preside over Aaron. On September 21, 1957, Judge Davies issued an injunction ordering Governor au us, e ~utant ener o e tate o ansas, an 1eutenant_ o one anon . Johnson of the Arkansas National Guard, and their officers, agents, and employees to cease and desist \"obstructing or preventing, by means of the Arkansas National Guard, or otherwise, Negro students, eligible under said plan of school integration to attend the Little Ro~k Central High School, from attending said school .... \" Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. at 222. See also Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1958). 22Scenes of angry mobs of white protesters confronting the nine African-American students as they entered Central and, later, troops of the 101 st Airborne Division rolling across the Broadway Bridge to restore order in Little Rock are still deeply etched in the minds of many Arkansans. -12- l A072A Id. at 666.23 In Green v. County School Board ofNe',11 Kerit County, 391 U.S. 430, 439-40 (1968), the . . Court held that school districts such as LRSD, which were the product ofde jure segregation, could not satisfy their constitutional obligations under \"freedom of choice\" plans. Therefore, LRSD formulated a new desegregation plan for the 1969-70 school year that was based on geographic attendance zones. However', because segregated housing patterns created a number of racially identifiable schools under the plan, the Eighth Circuit found it to be unconstitutional. Clarkv. Board of Education ofLRSD, 426 F.2d 1035, 1043 (8th Cir. 1970). In the 1971-72 school year, LRSD began crosstown busing to achieve racial balance in grades 6 through 12. Clarkv. Board of Directors ofLRSD, 328 F. Supp. 1205, 1209, 1214 (E.D. Ark. 1971, rev'd in part, 449 F.2d 493 (8th Cir. 1971). The following school year, crosstown busing was used to achieve racial balance in grades 4 and 5. Clark v. Board of Education of LRSD, 465 F.2d 1044, 1046 (8th Cir .. 1972). Finally, during the 1972-73 school year, all LRSD schools and all LRSD grade levels were racially balanced. B. Events Leading To Initiation Of This Action On July 9, 1982, United States District Judge WiUiam R. Overton entered a Memorandum and Order in Clark which contained many of the findings that underpinned LRSD's subsequent 23Likewise, in Cooper, 358 U.S. at 9, the Supreme Court acknowledged that LRSD was prepared to implement the plan, approved by Judge Miller in Aaron, 156 F. Supp. 220, to gradually integrate senior high school classes in the fall term of 1957. However, LRSD was prevented from following that plan by the flagrantly unlawful actions of Governor Faubus, which the Supreme Court noted \"had not been requested by the school authorities, and [were] entirely unheralded.\" Cooper, 358 U.S. at 9. -13- A072A decision to file this action.24 In many respects, Judge Overton's decision was a ringing endorsement of LRSD for successfully implementing its school desegregation plan over the last nine years. For example, Judge Overton explicitly found: (1) \"no evidence of vestiges of discrimination in the district policies or practices\"; (2) ''the district has done an admirable job in the task of desegregation\"; and (3) \"the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system and isolated complaints of discrimination without persuasive specific evidence to the contrary do not detract from that record.\" July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order at 16 (docket no. 3581) ( emphasis added). 25 Although Judge Overton found that LRSD was operating \"as a completely unitary desegregated school system,\" he made a number of findings that raised serious questions about the future prospects for LRSD remaining an integrated school district. For' example, Judge Overton found that: ( 1) in the years after the desegregation ofLRSD elementary schools in 1973- 7 4, \"there has been a steady trend ofincreasing black enrollment and decreasing white enrollment 24As indicated previously, a copy of Judge Overton's July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order is attached as Exhibit 1 to LRSD's Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status (docket no. 3581). 25Eleven years later, Judge Wright, in describing the operation of LRSD in the years before it filed this action, observed that many believed desegregation litigation in the LRSD \"[had] been brought to a successful conclusion and the Little Rock school system seemed to have entered a period of relative tranquility and complete self-management.\" See Judge Wright's Statement to LRSD Board of Directors and Counsel on March 19, 1993, attached as Exhibit 1 to Joshua's August l, 1996 Memorandum in Opposition to LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction ( docket no. 2730). -14- A072A ~-- in the elementary schools ... and [to a lesser extent] in the upper grades\";26 (2) despite LRSD's efforts to modify student assignment plans to correct the growing disparity in the black-white student ratio in elementary schools,\"[ a ]11 of the persuasive evidence indicates the school district will have enrollment which is essentially all black, particularly in the elementary grades, within the next few years\"; and (3) by the fall of 1981, LRSD faced a host of problems surrounding the school attendance plan, including a \"significant disparity in the black-white ratio at the various elementary schools,\" complaints ofblack parents \"that their children were being bused across the city to attend all black classes,\" and the defeat of \"the last two millage increase proposals ... by the electorate ... [ creating] severe financial problems and an eroding financial base.\" July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order at 1-6, attached as Exhibit 1 to LRSD's Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status (docket no. 3581). In an effort to retain and supplement the shrinking pool of white students, Judge Overton approved the Partial K-6 Plan,27 which created twelve K-6 neighborhood schools and retained fourteen paired schools with grades K-3 at one site and grades 4-6 at another. Eight of the twelve neighborhood schools were racially balanced, and four were virtually all black. Under the plan, 26In the fall of 1971, 42% of the students in LRSD were black. In each year from 1971 through 1981, the number of black students increased, while the number of white students decreased. In the fall of 1981, 76% of elementary students and 55% ofhigh school students were black. See LRSD, 584 F. Supp. at 335. In the December 16, 1981 Report prepared by the Desegregation Assistance Team from Stephen F. Austin University, the authors concluded that, if existing trends continued, 90% of the students entering the first grade in LRSD in the fall of 1989 would be black. See Stephen F. Austin Report at 19, attached as Exhibit 2 to LRSD's Memorandum Briefin Support ofMotion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status ( docket no. 3581). 27This was a shorthand reference for LRSD's desegregation plan for children attending kindergarten through the sixth grade. -15- A072A Booker Junior High School became an intermediate school; a magnet school was to be created west ofUniversity Avenue; and a committee was appointed to ensure that the four virtually all black schools would be treated equally. See July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order at 6-11.28 Finally, Judge Overton noted that LRSD had taken a number of steps to address the problems that confronted it. First, LRSD had commissioned a study and report by a ' \"Desegregation Assistance Team\" at Stephen F. Austin University on its desegregation efforts and the challenges it faced in the future.29 Second, LRSD had begun investigating \"the possibility of seeking an interdistrict remedy through legal proceedings against the adjacent County School District and [had] hired a law firm to pursue that remedy.\" See July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order at 6. C. Interdistrict Litigation And Interdistrict Relief On November 30, 1982, LRSD filed this action-a new case30--against PCSSD, NLRSD, the State of Arkansas, and the Arkansas Department ofEducation (\"ADE\") seeking consolidation of the three Pulaski County School Districts as the most appropriate and effective desegregation remedy for all three school districts. In its Complaint ( docket no. 10), LRSD alleged that PCS SD 28Judge Overton's July 9 decision approved LRSD's Partial K-:6 plan as a \"stop gap\" student assignment plan for elementary grades. The Eighth Circuit later affirmed that decision in Clarkv. Board of Educ. of LRSD, 705 F.2d 265 (8th Cir. 1983). 29 As indicated, supra at note 26, this report, entitled \"Building on a Generation of Accomplishment Maintaining and Strengthening Desegregation in Little Rock\" (hereinafter referred to as the \"Austin Report\"), is attached as Exhibit 2 to LRSD's Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status (docket no. 3581). 3Because this action involved claims for relief and remedies that were different from those involved in Clark, it was considered to be a new case and was randomly assigned to the Honorable Henry Woods. -16- A072A and NLRSD engaged in \"a series of intradistrict constitutional violations with interdistrict effects\" and that the State of Arkansas and Arkansas Department of Education (hereinafter referred to collectively as the \"State/ADE\"), through funding and other state action, \"operated, maintained and/or condoned a racially segregated structure of public education under color of state law.\" After conducting a trial on the merits of the claims asserted in LRSD's Complaint, Judge Woods entered a Memorandum Opinion setting forth detailed findings of fact and conclusions oflaw to support his detennination that each of the three Defendants had violated the Constitution by creating \"racial isolation between and among the districts\" that had caused six specific \"interdistrict effects.\" LRSD, 584 F. Supp. at 349-51.31 Judge Woods noted that, at a later date, he would conduct a hearing to take evidence regarding the precise nature of the remedy that should be fashioned to cure the interdistrict effects of \"substantial interdistrict segregation.\" Id. at 352-53. During the subsequent remedial hearings, PCSSD advanced a plan that retained the three autonomous school districts and relied on the development of specialty or magnet schools to attract students from one district to another. LRSD v. PCSSD, 597 F. Supp. 1220, 1222-23 (E.D. Ark. 1984). NLRSD advanced a plan that retained the three autonomous school districts, transferred certain geographic areas from PCSSD to LRSD and from LRSD to PCSSD, and depended heavily on the use of majority to minority transfers (\"M to M transfers\") to achieve racial balance. Id. at 1223. Although not advancing a specific plan, Joshua used testimony from 31 Judge Woods made 105 specific findings of fact and drew 14 conclusions oflaw to support his determination of the issue of liability. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed all of those findings of fact and conclusions oflaw. LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404, 429-34 (8th Cir. 1985). -17- i! A072A ,c--o,a,,, two expert witnesses to suggest three options: (1) altering boundary lines in accordance with the NLRSD plan; (2) altering boundary lines to transfer other geographic areas among all three districts; or (3) transferring certain geographic areas to LRSD and having all of the remaining area of PCSSD consolidated with NLRSD. Id. at 1223-24. LRSD advanced a plan that involved the county-wide consolidation of all three school districts. Id. at 1224-25. After considering all of the evidence, Judge Woods concluded that \"a countywide interdistrict remedy must be utilized to correct the countywide interdistrict violation found to exist and that this is the only manner of placing the victims of this discrimination in the position they would have occupied absent the discrimination.\" Id. at 1225. 32 Judge Woods also concluded that the State/ ADE: (a) failed to discharge its affirmative duty to encourage desegregation, which had an interdistrict effect on LRSD, PCS SD, and NLRSD; and (b) had \"remedial responsibilities with respect to this case.\" Judge Woods noted that the \"precise nature of [the State/ADE's] financial and oversight responsibilities must await further refinement of the consolidation plan and development of a budget for such consolidated district.\" Id. at 1228. PCSSD, NLRSD, and the State/ADE appealed Judge Woods' decisions inLRSD, 584 F. Supp. 328, and LRSD, 597 F. Supp. 1220. The Eighth Circuit, sitting en bane, affirmed Judge Woods' finding on liability for interdistrict constitutional violations by PCSSD,'NLRSD, and the State/ ADE, but reversed his remedy of consolidation33 on the ground that, while the interdistrict violations of the Constitution called for an interdistrict remedy, consolidation of the three school 32Tous, the cat had been belled--for the time being. 33Toe cat was not long belled. -18- A0 7 ?A districts was not required. LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404, 429-34 (8th Cir. 1985).34 Rather than remanding the case to the district court for further findings and a detailed remedial decree, the Court spelled out its own interdistrictremedy.35 Id. at 434-36. Although this interdistrict remedy allowed LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD to remain autonomous, it called for, among other things: changing boundaries between PCS SD and LRSD; revising attendance zones so that each school would reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district within a permitted variance of plus or minus 25% of the minority race; encouraging intradistrict and interdistrict M to M transfers; and creating a limited number of magnet or specialty schools. Id. at 435-36. The principles of the interdistrict remedy outlined in the majority opinion later became the basis for the desegregation plans that were implemented in each of the three Pulaski County school districts. LRSD proceeded to develop a \"controlled choice\" desegregation plan, which was approved by Judge Woods on February 27, 1987 (docket no. 739). Under this plan, LRSD was divided into two attendance zones of approximately equal racial balance. Students were assigned to schools so that each grade at each school reflected the racial balance within that attendance 34Judge Woods later wrote an article in the Arkansas Law Review critiquing the Eighth Circuit's decision. Judge Henry Woods and Beth Deere, Reflections on the Little Rock School Case, 44 Ark. L. Rev. 971 (1991). 35In a separate opinion, Judge Richard S. Arnold made the following observation about the remedy fashioned by the majority: The District Court (though we are today disagreeing with some ofits conclusions) is presided over by a scholarly and distinguished judge. That court, not this one, is in the best position to write a decree. Instead, a decree today springs full-grown from the brow of this Court, a decree that will, I dare say, startle all the parties to this case, including even those (if there are any) who like what they see. LRSD, 778 F.2d at 437 (Arnold, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). -19- l\\07?A zone. After a student was assigned to a school, the student's parents could request reassignment to another school within their attendance zone. That request would be granted so long as each school would remain within a range of plus or minus 12.5% of the black student population at the school. The plan also provided for eight magnet schools (four elementary, two junior high, and two high schools), with seats reserved for students of each of the three Pulaski County school districts. The target racial composition of the magnet schools was 50%-50%. Finally, the plan established a Magnet Review Committee, with representatives of each of the three districts, along with a non-voting member representing Joshua and the Knight Intervenors.36 The controlled choice plan was implemented beginning with the 1987-88 school year (docket no. 670). While the controlled choice plan was intended to create racial balance, it resulted in many central and east Little Rock schools having fewer than fifty white students. For that reason and others, Judge Woods later found the plan to be \"ill-conceived.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. 1162, 1188 (E.D. Ark. 1989), rev'd., 921 F.2d 1371 (1990). LRSD submitted a new desegregation plan for the 1988-89 school year, which all parties agreed would be a \"stabilizing year'' to allow LRSD to carefully plan for the 1989-90 school year and beyond. Id. With that understanding, Judge Woods approved LRSD's proposed desegregation plan for the 1988-89 school year. Id. D. The 1990 Settlement Agreement And Settlement Plans After long and difficult negotiations that began in 1988, LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, Joshua, and the State/ADE agreed to a global settlement of all aspects of this case. In the spring of 1989, 36The Knight Intervenors are members of the LRSD Classroom Teachers Association. -20- ii A072A the parties submitted the following final settlement documents37 to Judge Woods: (a) The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement,38 which, among other things, fixed the State/ADE's total financial liability to the three school districts to be an amount \"not to exceed $129, 750,000\";39 and (b) separate comprehensive \"Settlement Plans\" for LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD and a comprehensive \"lnterdistrict Settlement Plan.'\"'0 Judge Woods rejected each of the four separate Settlement Plans41 and the 1990 Settlement Agreement,42 as submitted; 31See footnote 3, supra, for an explanation of the terminology I will use in referring to these settlement documents. 38A copy of the 1990 Settlement Agreement is attached to LRSD's and Joshua's \"Joint Motion\" seeking approval of that agreement (docket no. 1174). 39The 1990 Settlement Agreement contained detailed prov1s1ons governing the State/ADE's role in funding and implementing the separate LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD, and Interdistrict Settlement Plans. Among other things, the State agreed to pay the three school districts a total of not more than $129,750,000. All of the parties agreed to release all claims against each other and to dismiss this case, with prejudice, as to each party. 40 As indicated previously, these four Settlement Plans contained the detailed desegregation obligations that LRSD, PCS SD, and NLRSD contractually agreed to implement under the district court's supervision. See footnote 3, supra. 41 Judge Woods refused to approve the Settlement Plans because he believed they were \"facially unconstitutional\" and outside the mandate of the Eighth Circuit: In LRSD 's proposed plan almost one-fourth of the elementary schools are contemplated to be all black. The entire mandatory busing burden at the elementary level for desegregation purposes falls on black children. . . . All of the historically \"black\" schools lie east ofUniversity A venue, and all are proposed to be all-black incentive schools. Double funding is promised for the all-black schools. Yet it is impossible to determine from the submissions how the funds will be spent. LRSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1169. 42Judge Woods refused to approve the 1990 Settlement Agreement because it was \"contingent upon legislative approval and a legislative appropriation to fund it. I cannot in good conscience accept this bill as having passed.\" LRSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1 164. -21- ~-0 72A ordered the parties to implement a more comprehensive plan known as the Tri-District Plan; appointed Eugene Reville to the position of Metropolitan Supervisor; and conferred upon Mr. Reville a wide array of powers over all three school districts that, in many respects, closely resembled consolidation--the remedy the Eighth Circuit had previously rejected. LRSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1164-69. Shortly after Judge Woods entered his decision, the Arkansas Legislature passed a bill funding the over $100,000,000 that the State/ADE was obligated to pay to the three school districts under the 1990 Settlement Agreement. Based on this new development, the parties resubmitted the Settlement Agreement to Judge Woods for approval. On December 11, 1989, Judge Woods entered an Order which added certain new conditions to the Settlement Agreement; approved it, as modified; and directed the parties to carry out its terms. LRSD v. PCSSD, 726 F. Supp. 1544, 1549-51 (E.D. Ark. 1989). Judge Woods' December 11 Order also specifically disapproved that portion of the Settlement Agreement which called for LRSD to pay $2,000,000 of the $3,150,000 in attorneys' fees that the parties had agreed to pay to Joshua's counsel. Id. at 1554-56.43 Each of the school districts and Joshua appealed the district court's decisions to the Eighth Circuit, which reversed and remanded the case with instructions to approve the 1990 Settlement Agreement and the four Settlement Plans, as submitted by the parties. LRSD, 921 F.2d 1371. In reaching that decision, the Court made a number of important rulings that have had a profound 43Under the terms of the 1990 Settlement Agreement, Joshua's counsel was to be paid attorneys' fees of $3,150,000, which the parties agreed should be allocated as follows: LRSD: $2,000,000; the State/ADE: $750,000; PCSSD: $300,000; and NLRSD: $100,000. LRSD, 921 F.2d at 1390. -22- influence on future developments in the case. First, the Court noted that the appeal arose from settlements agreed to by all the parties (a \"most important fact\") and that \"[t]he law strongly favors settlements\" which should be \"hospitably'' received: This may be especially true in the present context--a protracted, highly divisive, even bitter litigation, any lasting solution to which necessarily depends on the good faith and cooperation of all the parties, especially the defendants. Id. at 1383. As further support for that conclusion, the Court made the following observation: This is, after all, no ordinary litigation. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, its lawyers and its predecessors, have vigorously prosecuted this case and its ancestors for more than 30 years. Absent an extremely good reason--and we have been given none--we are reluctant to disregard their judgment as to what is best for their own clients. Id. at 1386. Second, the Court explicitly recognized theimportantroleof futuremonitoringin the case and the need for it to continue \"for a long time\": \"In the present case, for example, any remedy will necessarily require some judicial supervision--monitoring, at least--for a long time.\" Id. at 13 83 ( emphasis added). The Court also emphasized the importance of the district court ensuring that \"the settlement plans [are] scrupulously adhered to,\" that monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties do not live up to their commitments.\" Id. at 1386. Third, the Court recognized that \"a necessary condition of our holding that the plans are not facially unconstitutional is that the parties' compliance with them will be carefully monitored.\" Id. at 1388. Therefore, the Court directed the creation of the ODM ''to be headed by a Monitor appointed by the District Court, with such additional personnel as the District Court shall deem appropriate.\" Id. -23- A07.2A_ Finally, the Court reversed Judge Woods' decision on attorneys ' fees and awarded counsel for Joshua $3,150,000, the full amount of attorneys' fees provided for under the Settlement Agreement. These attorneys' fees were allocated and payable among the parties as follows: LRSD ($2,000,000);44 State/ ADE ($750,000); PCS SD ($300,000); and NLRSD ($100,000). Id. at 1390. In an Order entered July 6, 1990, Judge Woods concluded that, because he was \"unable to successfully implement a plan to bring equity to the children of this county under the restrictions imposed by the Court of Appeals,\" the time had come \"for another judge to assume the burden of this litigation since it is my unalterable decision to recuse.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 740 F. Supp. 632, 636 (E.D. Ark. 1990). Later that day, the case was reassigned, by random selection, to the Honorable Susan Webber Wright (docket no. 1373). E. LRSD's Implementation Oflts Desegregation Obligations Between 1991 And 1995 Section IV of the Settlement Agreement explicitly provided that the State/ADE \"conditions this settlement upon its dismissal from this Litigation with prejudice in accordance with the terms of Attachment A.\" Attachment A was a \"Release of All Claims Against the State,\" pursuant to which all parties to this litigation released all claims they might have against the State/ ADE relating \"to racial discrimination or segregation in public education in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas or to the violation of constitutional or other rights of school children based on race or color in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas.\" Attachments B, C, and D were identical releases that ran in favor of LRSD, PCSSD, and \"\"The State/ADE agreed to advance LRSD's share of these attorneys' fees, which were to be deducted from payments the State/ADE owed LRSD under Section VI of the Settlement Agreement. LRSD, 921 F.2d at 1390. -24- A072A /gp-'L8Ja2}__ NLRSD. Finally, Attachments A, B, C, and D each contained the same language providing that this action (LR-C-82-866) \"is to be dismissed with prejudice\" as to the State/ ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD. Thus, the Settlement Agreement expressly provided for the dismissal of this case, with prejudice, \"except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the Plans. \" Attachments A, B, C, and D to the Settlement Agreement (docket no. 1174) (emphasis added). On the date the Eighth Circuit entered its decision approving the 1990 Settlement Agreement and Settlement Plans, only the State/ ADE had moved to be dismissed, with prejudice, as a party to this action.45 Thus, one of Judge Wright's first rulings in this case was a January 18, 1991 Order that: (1) dismissed the State/ADE as a party to this action \"pursuant to the terms of the parties' settlement agreement\"; and (2) converted the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor to the ODM, which she \"vested with the authority to monitor the school districts' compliance with the settlement plans and settlement agreement, including any future modification of, or addition to, such plans and agreements\" ( docket no. 1418). Ann Marshall, Anna Hart, Polly Ramer, and Linda Bryant, all of whom previously worked for Mr. Reville in the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor, were allowed to \"continue in their present positions subject to the later approval of 45ln its December 12, 1990 decision approving the 1990 Settlement Agreement and four separate Settlement Plans, the Eighth Circuit directed the district court to \"enter a fresh order dismissing the State as a party pursuant to the terms of the parties' settlement agreement.\" LRSD, 921 F .2d at 1394. Under the explicit language of the Settlement Agreement, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD were each entitled to the entry of a similar order dismissing them, with prejudice, as parties to this action. Forreasons that are not apparent from a review of the record, LRSD waited until November 30, 1995, to move for an order dismissing this case with prejudice (docket no. 2573). See discussion infra at pp. 31-32. On January 26, 1998, Judge Wright entered an Order ( docket no. 3109) pursuant to which LRSD was dismissed, with prejudice, as a party to this action and the case was administratively terminated ( docket no. 3110). -25- An\"'\"\" the court-appointed monitor.\" In a Memorandum Opinion entered February 28, 1991 ( docket no. 1442), the district court made it clear that, even though the State had now been dismissed as a party, it remained obligated to comply with its settlement obligations, which \"when understood in conjunction with the language in both the Eighth Circuit's order of December 12, 1990, and this Court's order of January 18, 1991, also obligate the State to continue funding the ODM\" by making the annual contribution of $200,000 required in Judge Woods' June 27, 1989 Order.46 Likewise, LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD were required to continue their annual funding of the ODM on a per pupil pro-rated basis. On April 5, 1991, Judge Wright entered a Memorandum and Order(docket no. 1459) that appointed Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor, at an annual salary of$98,000.47 46In an Order entered August 18, 1993 ( docket no. 194 7), Judge Wright emphasized that, while the State/ ADE was no longer a formal party in this action, \"it is the law of the case that the Court retains jurisdiction to ensure that the parties, including the State, comply with the terms of the settlement agreement as well as the settlement plans.\" In an Order entered December 10, I 993 ( docket no. 2045), Judge Wright held that the State agreed not only to the obligations contained in the 1990 Settlement Agreement, but also to the obligations contained in.the May 31, 1989 letter from its counsel, H. William Allen, which is referred to in Secti0n III of the 1990 Settlement Agreement as the \"Arkansas Department of Education monitoring plan.\" In their pleadings, the parties often refer to this latter document as \"the Allen letter.\"  47The first budget Judge Woods approved for the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor was for fiscal year July 1, 1989, to June 30, 1990. That budget totaled $353,710.24 and included Mr. Reville's salary of $98,500, plus the salary and overhead for four other employees (docket no. 1246). Over the next ten years, the budget for the ODM more than doubled to reach $784,188 for fiscal year 2000-01. The staffing of the ODM also more than doubled to reach ten employees. As indicated previously, under the 1990 Settlement Agreement, the State/ADE was required to pay $200,000, annually, as its share of the cost of the ODM. The balance of the ODM budget was paid by LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD on a pro-rata basis that was calculated based upon the percentage of students in Pulaski County who attended each of the three school districts. For example, the ODM's 2000-01 fiscal year budget of$784,188 was allocated among the parties as follows: -26- A072A During the first few months of 1991 , LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, and Joshua entered into negotiations that resulted in numerous modifications to the 1990 Settlement Plans. It was the parties' position that they were authorized to make those changes based upon language in the Eighth Circuit's December 12, 1990 decision providing that the parties were \"free, by agreement, to modify the settlement plans .. . subject, of course, to the approval of the District Court.\" LRSD, 921 F.2dat 1393 n. 15. Subsequently, the parties submitted the modified Settlement Plans to the district court for approval. On June 21, 1991 , Judge Wright entered a Memorandum and Order rejecting all of the $784,188 - 200,000 (State/ADE payment) $584,188 LRSD's share (47.64% of total Pulaski County enrollment) PCSSD's share (35 .36% of total Pulaski County enrollment) NLRSD's share (I 7.00% of total Pulaski County enrollment) $278,307.16 206,568.88 99,311.96 $584, I 88.00 On September 28, 2001 , Judge Wright entered an Order ( docket no. 3 522) approving the ODM's budget for the current fiscal year, which is $707,071, This budget included a 5% pay raise for all employees, which totaled $21,042. Ms. Marshall's salary increased from $111,131 to $116,688 (docket no. 3509). Since the creation of the ODM, the district court has approved the following budgets: I. 1989-90 $353,710.24 (docket no. 1246) 2. 1990-91 $293,833.74 (docket nos. 1391 \u0026amp; 1405) 3. 1991-92 $591,557.52 (docket no. 1497) 4. 1992-93 $578,060.81 (docket nos. 1822 \u0026amp; 1836) 5. 1993-94 $646,617.00 (docket nos. 2055 \u0026amp; 2155) 6. 1994-95 $661 ,768.00 (docket nos. 2359 \u0026amp; 2380) 7. 1995-96 $631 ,273.00 (docket nos. 2567 \u0026amp; 2599) 8. 1996-97 $730,756.00 (docket nos. 2852 \u0026amp; 3001) 9. 1997-98 $730,716.00 (docket nos. 3158 \u0026amp; 3167) 10. 1998-99 $751 ,639.00 (docket nos. 3158 \u0026amp; 3167) 11. 1999-00 $764,872.00 (docket nos. 3361 \u0026amp; 3364) 12. 2000-01 $784,188.00 (docket nos. 3361 \u0026amp; 3364) 13. 2001-02 $707,071.00 (docket nos. 3509 \u0026amp; 3522) Thus, in the twelve years since its creation, the ODM has requested that LRSD, PCS SD, NLRSD, and the State/ADE pay for budgets totaling $7,932,228.57. As the largest of the three school districts, LRSD has been required to pay approximately 35% of the total cost of the ODM. -27- \"legion of proposed modifications\" to the Settlement Plans on the ground that they fell \"outside the narrow realm of modifications and adjustments deemed permissible by the Eighth Circuit [in its December 12, 1990 decision].\" LRSD, 769 F. Supp. at 1483, 1489.48 On July 15, 1991, the district court entered a lengthy Memorandum and Order denying the parties' motion to reconsider its rejection of their proposed modifications to the 1990 Settlement Plans. LRSD, 769 F. Supp. 1491. In doing so, Judge Wright made it clear that: (a) she disagreed with the parties' position that the Settlement Plans are \"fluid, open to continual and considerable revision as long as the parties agree and the changes are not facially unconstitutional\"; and (b) she viewed the Eighth Circuit's approval of the Settlement Plans as being \"akin to establishing a benchmark ... a sure guide for ending this dispute and getting the parties out of court.\" Id. at 1494. LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD, and Joshua appealed on the ground that the district court's decisions \"confined them within limits that are too narrow, and that all of their proposed changes, being constitutional, workable, and fair, should have been approved.\" 48 Among the changes the parties sought to make in the four 1990 settlement plans were the following: (1) deleting from PCSSD's settlement plan major portions of the section on special education, especially concerning handicapped children; (2) eliminating provisions in PCSSD's settlement plan addressing issues related to black students being disciplined disproportionately; (3) removing several programs from PCSSD's settlement plan aimed at improving student achievement; (4) deleting from PCSSD's settlement plan the parties' agreement to abide by fourteen \"guiding principles\" which apply to the \"process of permanent plan development\"; (5) eliminating from LRSD's settlement plan science and social studies as core areas emphasized in remediation programs at the secondary level; (6) changing LRSD's settlement plan to limit the four-year-old program originally scheduled for all schools by 1993-94 to only eleven schools, with a promise that a \"long-range implementation plan will be developed for additional four-year-old classes\"; (7) changing LRSD's settlement plan to delay the development of parent home study guides and computer managed instructional technology for tracking student progress; (8) changing LRSD' s settlement plan by eliminating staff positions for program specialist and specialist for alternative classrooms; and (9) changing the interdistrict plan to reduce from six to four the number of interdistrict schools planned for the future. LRSD, 7 69 F. Supp. at 1484-87. -28-  I A072A / C-uo/oo.\\.. Appeal ofLRSD, 949 F.2d at 255. In affirming in part and reversing in part, the Eighth Circuit noted that \"[t]here is much in the District Court's opinions with which we agree,\" including the observation that the 1989 settlement \"should indeed be a benchmark for the future path of this case.\" Id. However, the Court went on to hold that the district court was \"too strict with itself' in not allowing the parties to modify details of those settlement plans that did not affect the three school districts' \"major substantive commitments to desegregation\": The desegregation obligations undertaken in the 1989 plan are solemn and binding commitments. The essence and core of that plan should not be disturbed . . . . If a question is truly one only of detail, not affecting the major substantive commitments to desegregation, the District Court has the authority to consider it. Id. at 256.49 Finally, to provide guidance to the district court, the Eighth Circuit set forth seven elements that form the \"essence and core\" of the Settlement Plans and from which there can be \"no retreaf': It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. They are as follows: (1) double funding for students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools; (2) operation of the agreed number of magnet schools according to the agreed timetable; (3) operation of the agreed nlJffiber of interdistrict schools according to the agreed timetable; (4) intradistrict desegregation of PCS SD according to the agreed timetable; (5) the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races; ( 6) the agreed elements of early-childhood education, at least in the incentive schools; and (7) appropriate involvement of parents. 49 As indicated supra at footnote 3, the district court and the parties generally have referred to the 1989 settlement documents as the 1990 Settlement Agreement and the 1990 Settlement Plans because the Eighth Circuit did not approve those settlement documents until December 12, 1990. Regardless of the year used to reference these documents, the Eighth Circuit and the district court are referring to the same Settlement Agreement and Settlement Plans. -29- AOZ2A Id. ( emphasis added). On May 1, 1992, Judge Wright entered an Order approving most of the proposed modifications to LRSD's 1990 Settlement Plan and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan, which the parties referred to as \"LRSD's May 1992 Desegregation Plan\" and the \"May 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan.\" Judge Wright attached copies of both of these Plans to her May 1, 1992 Order (docket no. 1587). LRSD's implementation of its obligations under the 1992 Plans did not always go smoothly. For example, on March 19, 1993, Judge Wright delivered a strong statement to LRSD's School Board and attorneys explaining the importance ofLRSD fully and completely implementing its desegregation obligations under the Settlement Plans: Since the time of victory by the Little Rock School District in this case, when the Court of Appeals granted almost every facet of relief requested by Little Rock, the Little Rock School District has shown a tendency to drag its feet and act as if it had lost, rather than won, the litigation which it instituted. The Little Rock School District and the other school districts are in court because the Little Rock School District won its case and won the relief it requested. Yet the major complainer, the chief whiner, the number one barrier to a legitimate declaration of a unitary desegregated school system is the victorious complaining party, the Little Rock School District. The biblical reference, in a different context, is to the effect that if you ask, you will receive. Well, you asked, you got it, and it is the basic job of this Court to see that you receive it in full measure. * * * I have never seen, heard or read of a case in which the victors conducted themselves like the vanquished -- until now. If we have to have two full hearings a month, in which Board members are required to be present, then we will do so. We will do everything that is required to see that you take the medicine to achieve the cure that you asked the Federal Courts to give you. Judge Wright's Statement to LRSD Board members and Counsel at 2-3 and 6, attached as -30- A072A Exhibit I to docket no. 2730.50 Between 1991 and 1996, almost all of the district court's Orders involving LRSD related to the following issues: the approval ofLRSD's annual budgets (docket nos. 1759, 1897, 1958, 2216, 2280, 2319, and 2709); LRSD's closing of certain elementary schools (docket nos. 1926 and 2351); and LRSD's designation and construction of the interdistrict and magnet schools called for under the Settlement Plans ( docket nos. 1550, 1832, 1848, 1895, 2225, and 2329). During this period of time, the Eighth Circuit also entered several important decisions that: ( 1) extended school district millages under the 1990 Settlement Agreement, LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F .2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992); (2) upheld the new zoning plan for electing school board members for LRSD and PCSSD, LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904 (8th Cir. 1995); and (3) clarified language in the 1990 Settlement Agreement regarding the State's funding obligations to LRSD, PCS SD, and NLRSD, LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). On November 30, 1995, LRSD filed a Motion for Order of Dismissal ( docket no. 2573), requesting the district court to dismiss this case, with prejudice, pursuant to Attachment B to the 1990 Settlement Agreement.51 Attachment B stated, in pertinent part: It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, :Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School 50In People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 246 F.3d I 073, 1078 (7th Cir. 2001 ), Judge Posner observed that \"state and local officials are under no duty to love the chains that federal judges, however justifiably, fasten upon them.\" In this case, it is more than a little ironic that LRSD has forged each link in the chains that have bound it for the last thirteen years. 51 As indicated previously, Attachment Bis a fully executed Release pursuant to which all parties agreed to release any and all claims they had against LRSD arising from or relating to this litigation. -31- A072A ~  ._a _JOftL.___.. District No. I, et al., No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to, Cooper v. Aaron, Norwood v. Tucker, and Clark v. Board of Education of Little Rock School District (the \"Litigation\") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the LRSD and the former and current members of its board named in the Litigation. This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the Plans. Attachment B to the 1990 Settlement Agreement ( docket no. 1174). In seeking that relief, LRSD acknowledged that the dismissal would not affect the district court's jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of its . desegregation obligations or to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement or the terms of the Settlement Plans. On March 11 , 1996, the district court entered a Memorandum and Order ( docket no. 2640) denying LRSD's Motion for Order of Dismissal on the ground that: The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance towards its commitments and has been slow to implement many aspects ofits agreements (although some improvements have been made). Therefore, the Court finds that an order of dismissal should be deferred in order to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement. Even had the LRSD acted in good faith throughout the years, the logistics and complexity of this case are such that this Court's monitoring function would be impaired by entering an order of dismissal at this time. LRSD appealed that decision to the Eighth Circuit. I On December 15, 1997, the Court reversed and retiianded the case to the district court with instructions to enter an order dismissing the case with prejudice, as provided for under the terms of the 1990 Settlement Agreement. LRSD v. PCSSD, 131 F.3d 1255 (8th Cir. 1997). In reaching this decision, the Court stated the following: Although we can well understand the frustration the district court has experienced over the years in carrying out our instructions, we conclude that the District's motion should have been granted. As we held in our 1992 decision, the terms of the settlement agreement became the law of the case. See Little Rock -32- I I : I A072A School District, 971 F.2d at 165. As the agreement specifically provides, the district court is permitted (and indeed must, in order to comply with our instructions), to retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the desegregation plans. Moreover, the desegregation plaintiffs may bring proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement and the terms of the desegregation plans. In short, the entry of such an order would do nothing to relieve the three districts of their continuing obligation to honor their commitments as set forth in the settlement agreement and the plans. Id. at 1257-58 (footnote omitted). On January 26, 1998, the district court entered an Order ( docket no. 3109) that dismissed this case and \"cases consolidated herein, including, but not limited to, Cooper v. Aaron, Norwood v. Tucker, and Clarkv. Board of Education ofLRSD,\" with prejudice, as to LRSD and \"its current and former board members named in this litigation.\" The district court also entered a Memo to the File ( docket no. 3110) stating that, because the Plaintiff in this case was dismissed with prejudice, \"the Clerk is instructed to administratively terminate this case,\" but to \"keep the case files open and in their current location in the Clerk's office\" so that the Court can continue to perform its ongoing duties regarding the supervision and implementation of the desegregation plans. F. Joshua's Request For An Interim Award Of Attorneys' Fees For Performing Monitoring Activities After The 1990 Settlement On November 22, 1995, counsel for Joshua moved for an interim award ofattomeys' fees and costs in the amount of $805,611.81 for monitoring work performed after the Eighth Circuit approved the settlement of this case on December 12, 1990 ( docket no. 2565). Counsel for Joshua later reduced the amount of this request to $795,301.81 ( docket no. 2791) and argued that it should be apportioned among the three Pulaski County school districts as follows: LRSD: 75% to 80%; NLRSD: 5% to 10%; and PCS SD: 15% to 20%--with the final percentages totaling -33- ~-072A 100% (docket no. 2792). LRSD filed a Response and Supporting Memorandum of Law (docket nos. 2636 and 2637) challenging Joshua's right to be awarded any attorneys' fees or costs for post-settlement monitoring activities. LRSD argued that, as a part of the consideration for LRSD paying Joshua's counsel $2,000,000 in attorneys' fees in connection with the 1990 settlement, Joshua's counsel had specifically agreed, on the record, that they would not seek future fees from LRSD for monitoring activities during the life of the settlement plans. In support of its position, LRSD relied upon the following colloquy between counsel and the Eighth Circuit appellate panel during oral argument in LRSD, 921 F.2d 1371 : NORMAN CHACHKIN, ATTORNEY FOR JOSHUA INTERVENORS: I just want to make one other observation and Mr. Heller can confirm this. Although it is not written into the settlement agreement we are happy to confirm it here and to be bound by it. The agreement between Little Rock and Joshua was that the fee payment from the Little Rock School District would also cover out of the court monitoring activities by the attorneys for Joshua during the life of the settlement plans so long as it wasn't necessary to go back to court. If the settlement plans go forward as Mr. Walker suggested, the parties are committed to a monitoring system and committed to working together to ease any implementation problems and avoid any difficulties. That 's going to take attorney time. We have committed to Little Rock that we will not seek any fees from them for those activities unless it is necessary to go back to court for enforcement purposes and in that instance we '11 simply be free to make an application if we think we 're entitled to it. JUDGE RICHARD S. ARNOLD: Alright, thank you. Now, Mr. Heller, you are recognized. -34- ~ _ AO_Z2A_ CHRIS HELLER, A TIORNEY FOR LRSD: * * * I'd like to confirm what Mr. Chachkin said about the agreement. Because of the responsibilities assigned to the Joshua Intervenors in our settlement plans, there is significant work for them to do over the next six or seven years, and our agreement on the fees did contemplate that there would [be] no further payment for that work. (Emphasis added.) In a Memorandum Opinion and Order (docket no. 2821) filed on September 23, 1996, Judge Wright concluded that LRSD and Joshua contractually agreed that the $2,000,000 in attorneys' fees paid by LRSD in connection with the 1990 settlement also covered all monitoring activities performed by Joshua's counsel during the life of the Settlement Plans. Therefore, Judge Wright ruled that Joshua's counsel was not entitled to recover any attorneys' fees from LRSD for performing monitoring activities. On October 3, 1996, Joshua's counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Fee Petition (docket no. 2833) and supporting Memorandum of Law (docket no. 2834), in which he urged the district court to award attorneys' fees under the \"bad faith\" exception to .the general rule that, absent a statute or enforceable contract, litigants must pay their own attomeys'.fees. On March 24, 1997, Judge Wright entered an Order (docket no. 2959) denying Joshua's Motion for Reconsideration. On April 22, 1997, counsel for Joshua filed a Notice of Appeal (docket no. 2966) of the district court's March 24, 1997 Order denying his request for interim attorneys' fees. I will return to discuss the final resolution of this issue later in this decision. -35- A072A G. LRSD's First Attempt To End Federal Court Jurisdiction On May 17, 1996, LRSD filed a Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction (docket no. 2665) and supporting Brief (docket no. 2666). In these pleadings, LRSD argued that: (1) it was only required to implement its desegregation obligations under its Settlement Plan and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan for six years; (2) it had implemented the Settlement Plan, beginning with the 1990-91 school year, and \"the six year term of the Plans will expire at the end of the 1995-96 school year''; and (3) \"LRSD has implemented in good faith many desegregation plans for more than three decades. LRSD was a substantially unitary school district in 1982, but it nevertheless filed this interdistrict litigation in a good faith effort to maintain a biracial public school system in Little Rock. A recent and exhaustive audit ofLRSD's desegregation obligations shows that LRSD is in substantial compliance with the Plans.\" Docket no. 2665. On August I, 1996, Joshua filed a Memorandum Opposing LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction (docket no. 2730) in which they challenged LRSD's contention that the 1990 Settlement Plans called for a six-year implementation period. In support of their position, Joshua pointed out that no provision in any of the settlement documents limited LRSD's implementation of its desegregation obligations to six years. Joshua also argued that LRSD had failed to discharge its burden of establishing \"the requisite implementation of the court-approved settlement.\" On September 23, 1996, Judge Wright entered a Memorandum and Order (docket no. 2821) denying LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction on the grounds that: (1) the 1990 Settlement Agreement and Settlement Plans do not contain any provision that allowed LRSD to terminate \"its duty to comply with the settlement plans after ... six years;\" and (2) -36- LRSD failed to provide sufficient evidence that it had \"substantially complied\" with its obligations under the Settlement Plans. The district court went on to urge LRSD and Joshua to modify ''the parts of the plan that are ineffective or unworkable\" so that LRSD could better position itself to argue that it is entitled to unitary status and relief from court supervision: Instead of presenting substantial evidence of its compliance with its goals as set forth in the plan, the LRSD submits arguments that it has achieved unitary status because data from the LRSD compares favorably with data from districts which have been declared unitary. The Court would be inclined to agree with the LRSD with respect to many of these arguments if the LRSD were not contractually bound by the plan which it voluntarily adopted. The Court has encouraged the parties to consider modifying those parts of the plan that are ineffective or unworkable. The Court has provided the parties with the testimony of experts to assist in the modification process. Instead, the LRSD has used the testimony of these experts to ask the Court to end Court jurisdiction without first proceeding with plan modifications. The Court cannot so easily relieve the district of its contractual obligations. Once again the Court invites the parties to follow procedures to modify the parts of the plan that are ineffective or unworkable. Docket no. 2821 at 12 (emphasis in original). On December 6, 1996, LRSD filed a Motion for Approval of Plan Development Period ( docket no. 2878) that requested Judge Wright: (I) to allow a six to nine month period for LRSD to concentrate its efforts to develop plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district; (2) to allow LRSD to use the ODM as a consultant to participate in the development of plan modifications in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignments, and resolution of discipline issues; and (3) to withhold any further monitoring of the LRSD desegregation plan during this six to nine month period. In support of its Motion, LRSD noted that the Knight lntervenors, PCSSD, and NLRSD supported its request. -37- A072A ~ - LB,,_v_ On December 18, 1996, Joshua filed a Response ( docket no. 2891) that did not oppose LRSD's request for an interval of time to develop a new desegregation plan, but expressed reservations about ODM, \"as an ann of the court,\" participating in the negotiations between the parties. Joshua also urged Judge Wright to appoint additional monitors to work on a matter of particular concern to them--the alleged \"ill-treatment of class members.\" On December 27, 1996, Judge Wright entered an Order (docket no. 2901) granting LRSD's Motion. In this Order, Judge Wright held that: (1) LRSD \"will benefit from a temporary hiatus from monitoring and from the expertise of the ODM, in order to develop proposed modifications to the LRSD desegregation plan\"; and (2) ODM can advise LRSD and other parties during the negotiations for plan modifications and ODM can \"participate in negotiations as a facilitator,\" but \"ODM cannot be a negotiator for any party.\" Judge Wright also denied Joshua's request to hire \"additional monitors to handle complaints about mistreatment of class members.\" December 27, 1996 Order at 3 (docket no. 2901). H. The Perplexing Final Resolution Of Joshua's Request For Still More Attorneys' Fees FromLRSD On September 26, 1997, LRSD filed a Motion for Approval of Revised Desegregation and Education Plan ( docket no. 3049) and a supporting Memorandum Brief ( docket 1.10. 3050). After Joshua objected to a number of provisions in the proposed revised plan, LRSD and Joshua engaged in extensive negotiations to develop a revised plan which both parties could support. As part of these negotiations, LRSD and Joshua took up the still unresolved issue of Joshua's request for $795,301 in attorneys' fees for performing post-settlement monitoring -38- : I ' ' A072A activities, which was pending on appeal to the Eighth Circuit. 52 On January 21, 1998, LRSD and Joshua filed a Joint Motion for Approval ofLRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan ( docket no. 3107) in which they admitted that ongoing negotiations were taking place on the attorneys' fees issue: \"Joshua has agreed that they will request that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit hold their two pending appeals in abeyance, and LRSD and Joshua have further agreed that they will attempt to resolve Joshua's past, present, and future claims for attorneys' fees and costs by mediation.\" January 21, 1998 Joint Motion at 2 ( docket no. 3107). See also Renewed Joint Motion for Approval ofLRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan filed on March 23, 1998 (docket no. 3136). On February 27, 1998, the Eighth Circuit entered a Mandate (docket no. 3125) which granted \"the stipulation of the parties for dismissal of the appeal\" of Judge Wright's March 24, 1997 Order denying Joshua's request for interim attorneys' fees. The entry of this voluntary Judgment dismissing Joshua's appeal of the attorneys' fees issue strongly suggests that, sometime prior to February 27, 1998, LRSD and Joshua arrived at a settlement of that issue. In a letter agreement dated June I 0, 1998, 53 LRSD and Joshua formally documented their 52 As indicated previously, on April 22, 1997, Joshua appealed Judge .Wright's Order denying their requested interim attorneys' fees ( docket no. 2966). At the time the parties entered into these negotiations, that appeal was still pending before the Eighth Circuit. 53The first time this letter agreement became part of the record in this case was on March 15, 2002, when LRSD attached it as Exhibit 7 to its Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status (docket no. 3581). Thus, before her decision to step down in this case, Judge Wright was never made aware of the facts surrounding the agreement that LRSD would pay Joshua's counsel $700,000 in attorneys' fees for past monitoring work, plus $48,333.33 per year for three years of future monitoring work. Furthermore, absent LRSD 's decision to make the June 10, 1998 letter part of the record, I would have very likely missed the troubling implications associated with the confluence of agreements on both the Revised Plan and the issue of Joshua's past and future attorneys' fees. Therefore, my -39- A072A settlement of all past and future claims for attorneys ' fees and costs as follows: LRSD will make the following payments [to counsel for Joshua] for past fees and costs: $100,000.00 on or before June 30, 1998; $100,000.00 on or before August 31, 1998; and $500,000.00 on or before October 31 , 1998. For fees and costs incurred for implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD will reimburse your firm up to $48,333.33 per year for three years beginning July 1, 1998. The payments described in this letter will constitute full and complete payment in satisfaction of all past or future claims for attorney's fees and costs except as specifically set forth in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. June 10, 1998 letter agreement, attached as Exhibit 7 to LRSD's Memorandum Briefin Support of Motion for an hnmediate Declaration of Unitary Status ( docket no. 3581) ( emphasis added). 54 Although not directly relevant to the issue of unitary status, I can think of no good explanation for LRSD's decision to voluntarily pay Joshua's counsel an additional $700,000 in attorneys' fees for performing monitoring work for which Judge Wright had ruled he was not entitled to be paid anything from LRSD. On top of this, one of Joshua's own attorneys, Mr. Chachkin, previously had admitted during oral argument before the Eighth Circuit that the attorneys' fees paid under the 1990 Settlement Agreement included future attorneys' time raising this issue now, based upon facts that were not known to Judge Wright w!Jile she presided over this case, should in no way be construed as a criticism of Judge Wright for not raising this issue earlier. As I have emphasized, it was LRSD's decision to file its counsel's June 10, 1998 letter as an exhibit to its March 15, 2002 Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an hnmediate Declaration of Unitary Status that alerted me to this issue. 54As indicated previously, Joshua's counsel argued to Judge Wright that LRSD should be allocated 75% to 80% of his $795,301 in attorneys' fees associated with performing past monitoring activities ( docket no. 2792). If those attorneys' fees had been allocated on that basis, LRSD would have been responsible forpayingJoshua's counsel between $596,475 and $636,240. I am at a loss to understand why LRSD would agree, in the June l 0, 1998 letter, to voluntarily pay Joshua's counsel $700,000, almost $ I 00,000 more than the median amount Joshua's counsel originally sought to recover from LRSD for his post-settlement monitoring work. -40- A072A 113eYA/ expended in connection with monitoring activities.55 It appears to me that Judge Wright's wellreasoned Memorandum Opinion (docket no. 2821) denying Joshua's Request for an Interim Award of Attorneys' Fees and her subsequent Order (docket no. 2959) denying Joshua's Motion for Reconsideration placed LRSD in an excellent position to prevail on Joshua's appeal of the district court's rulings to the Eighth Circuit. Holding what seemed to be the winning hand on appeal, I find it passing strange that LRSD would voluntarily agree to pay Joshua's counsel an additional $700,000 for post-settlement monitoring work when, as stated above, one of Joshua's other attorneys admitted this work was already included in the $2,000,000 LRSD paid to Joshua's counsel under the 1990 Settlement Agreement. I find it somewhat discomforting that LRSD and Joshua had a meeting of the minds on an essentially new desegregation settlement plan at the same time their attorneys were discussing the settlement of Joshua's counsel's request for a large interim award of attorneys' fees. However, I know of no facts establishing that the simultaneous negotiation of those two unrelated issues did not take place at arms length or involved a quid pro quo. From the inception of this case, Joshua's counsel has fought hard for his clients and has a well-documented record of zealously protecting their interests. I also rec~gnize that Joshua's counsel has manned the barricades of civil rights litigation in Arkansas for over four decades and that he has a reputation for never yielding on matters of principle. Accordingly, while I do not conclude that anything improper occurred in the simultaneous negotiation of these two unrelated issues, I do have a real concern about the public's perception of the timing of these events--which I fear has raised troubling questions and lingering doubts. 55See supra, pp. 34-35. -41- I also find it unsettling that, going forward, LRSD agreed to pay Joshua's counsel ''up to $48,333.33 per year for three years beginning July 1, 1998,\" for \"fees and costs incurred for implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.\" June 10, 1998 letter agreement, attached as Exhibit 7 to docket no. 3581. At a minimum, all of the terms and conditions of such an unusual arrangement should have been spelled out in writing, with a clear statement regarding the duties, if any, that Joshua's counsel owed to LRSD, the party paying his fees formonitoringthe implementation of the Revised Plan, and whether, under this arrangement, LRSD and Joshua's counsel entered into an attorney-client relationship. In any case, at least one thing is clear from the June 10, 1998 letter agreement: In exchange for being paid $4,027.78 per month by LRSD, Joshua's counsel specifically agreed to undertake the obligation of monitoring all aspects ofLRSD's implementation of the Revised Plan. Subsequently, Joshua's counsel submitted to LRSD periodic \"Statements for Legal Services Rendered\" for attorneys' fees incurred in connection with his work \"implementing and monitoring\" the Revised Plan.56 See Exhibit 8 to docket no. 3581. According to Joshua's counsel's periodic statements for legal services, LRSD paid him a total of $124,861.15, which was billed in the following installments: July, 1998, through October, 1998: $16,111.12; November, 1998, through October, 1999: $48,333.33; November, 1999: $4,027.78; December, 1999: $4,027.78; January, 2000, through May, 2000: $20,138.90; June, 2000: $4,027.78; July, 2000: $4,027.78; August, 2000, through September, 2000: $8,055.56; October, 2000: $4,027.78; 56As discussed infra at pp. 57-59, at no point between the district court's approval of the Revised Plan on April 10, 1998, and thefilingofLRSD's Compliance Report on March 15,2001, did Joshua's counsel ever raise any of the compliance issues that are now before me, pursuant to  8.2 through 8.2.5 of the Revised Plan. -42- A072A November, 2000: $4,027.78; December, 2000: $4,027.78; and January, 2001: $4,027.78. See Exhibit 8 to docket no. 3581.57 Thus, for each month between July, 1998, and January, 2001, LRSD paid Joshua's counsel $4,027.78 for attorneys' fees incurred \"monitoring\" LRSD's implementation of the Revised Plan. For good reason, there is a widespread public perception that this case has become a decades-old cottage industry--and a large one at that--for lawyers. Over ten years ago, in Judge Woods' decision to step down from this case, he decried \"the many appeals perfected in this case, some of which have accomplished nothing but enrichment of the participating attorneys,\" and called the lawyer fees paid by the three districts \"grossly exorbitant.\" LRSD, 740 F. Supp. at 635. Since that time, things appear to have changed little, with all three school districts paying substantial annual attorneys' fees to their own lawyers and substantial annual payments to the ODM, whose requested annual budget for the last several years has been in the range of$700,000. At the same time, the threat of paying large future attorneys' fees to Joshua's counsel hangs like the sword of Damocles above the heads of all the parties.58 57The record fails to contain an explanation of why Joshua's counsel did not submit \"Statements for Legal Services Rendered\" for the months of February thr01;igh June, 2001. 58As everyone knows, Arkansas is one of the poorest states in the country and has always had difficulty finding funds for public education. Although LRSD is better off than many school districts in the State, it is by no means affluent. Like other school districts, it struggles each year to make ends meet. For example, during the last few years, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette has reported on the need for the repairorrenovation of the basic infrastructure in many LRSD schools and on school teachers who have been forced to purchase pencils and other basic school supplies for their students. By my calculations, since 1990, counsel for Joshua has been paid $3,974,861 ($3,150,000 + $700,000 + $124,861). Over that same period of time, I would guess LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD have paid their own attorneys a total of at least $4,000,000. If my estimate is correct, that means, since 1990, the attorneys for all parties in this case have been paid at least $8,000,000. As indicated, supra at footnote 47, the ODM has submitted budgets totaling $7,932,228.57. -43- I- A072A ~ /RAV R/R?I All members of the professional group, who have directly benefitted from the perpetuation of this case, are placed on notice that I intend to monitor closely the costs associated with this action. Being born and raised in Scott County, one of the poorest counties in Arkansas, I understand the meaning ofbeing careful with a dollar, and I expect the professional group to keep that important point fixed in their minds from here on out. Thus, since 1990, the \"professional group\" in this case probably has been paid close to $16,000,000. Counsel for LRSD, Joshua, and the staff of the ODM know that LRSD grapples annually with funding and budget issues. They also know that the approximately $16,000,000 paid to them since 1990 has come from funds earmarked for the school children of this district. In making this observation, I in no way mean to imply that lawyers and monitors have not been necessary to ensure that LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD properly implemented and \"scrupulously adhered to\" their desegregation obligations under the Settlement Plans. My only point is that I would have hoped this \"professional group\" would have kept uppermost in their minds that every penny paid to them for their work in this case is one less penny available to help in the education of a child. Thus, I would have also hoped that the \"professional group\" would have been as frugal and judicious as possible in the expenditure of their time or budgeted funds. One of the ways the attorneys could have kept this covenant with the district's school children would have been to discount their normal hourly billing rates. In the case of the ODM, it might have foregone raises and minimized staff and office space requirements in the interest of bringing this case to a close as economically as possible. My review of the pleadings since 1990 has dashed all such utopian hopes. For example, Judge Woods cited the \"grossly exorbitant\" lawyer fees paid by the three school districts as the \"principal reason for [their] poor financial situation\" and noted that LRSD' s attorneys had billed \"31 days in a 30-day month.\" LRSD, 740 F. Supp. at 635. Similarly, Judge Wright noted in her September 23, 1996 Memorandum Opinion denying Joshua's motion for interim attorneys' fees that their counsel was attempting to bill his time at the rate of $250 per hour, which she found was not \"reasonable.\" September 23, 1996 Memorandum Opinion at footnote 6 (docket no. 2821). Likewise, the staff and budget for the ODM has more than doubled since 1989, even though the more streamlined obligations of the Revised Plan approved in early 1998 would seem to have required less monitoring ofLRSD's implementation of those obligations. Similarly, for the last few years, it appears NLRSD has been unitary and has required very little in the way of monitoring by the ODM. Thus, I would have expected annual reductions in the staff and budget for the ODM, beginning in 1998, and continuing through the current fiscal year. That has not happened. -44- A072A I. Final Approval Of Revised Desegregation And Education Plan On April 10, 1998, Judge Wright entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order ( docket no. 3144) approving the Revised Plan. Importantly, Judge Wright held that the Revised Plan constituted a \"new consent decree or settlement agreement\" between LRSD and Joshua: The LRSD and Joshua have agreed that, if approved, the proposed Plan: shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in the Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, U .S.D. C. No. LR-C-82- 866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") with the following exceptions: a. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 (\"Settlement Agreement\"); b. The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987; c. Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee; d. The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; and, e. Orders of the district court and court of appeals interpreting and enforcing sections a. through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Plan. Based upon this provision, this Court considers the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan an entirely new consent decree or settlement agreement between the LRSD and Joshua. April 10, I 998 Memorandum Opinion and Order at 3 (docket no. 3144) (emphasis added). Alternatively, Judge Wright concluded that, even if the Court considered the Revised Plan as a modification to the 1990 Settlement Plan,59 she would still approve the Revised Plan because 59 As indicated supra atp. 27, LRSD and Joshua agreed to certain changes in LRSD's 1990 Settlement Plan and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan. In a forty-four page Order entered on May 1, 1992 (docket no. 1587), Judge Wright approved most of those proposed modifications which were incorporated in the \"LRSD May 1992 Desegregation Plan\" and the \"May 1992 lnterdistrict Desegregation Plan.\" Judge Wright's April I 0, 1998 Memorandum Opinion fails to mention those Plans, which were the operative consent decrees LRSD was operating under at the time she entered her decision. -45- A072A I D- --- the parties had satisfied the standard for modifying a consent decree established by the Court in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 393 (1992), and LRSD, 56 F .3d at 914. In reaching this conclusion, Judge Wright noted that LRSD had implemented certain aspects of the 1990 Settlement Plan so successfully that the district court had withdrawn supervision over those areas. 60 However, the court also recognized that some goals in the 1990 Settlement Plan\"[ were] out of date for the current situation that exists in the LRSD and other specific, rigid goals in the 1990 Plan ... may never be met, regardless of the amount of effort and good faith put forth by the LRSD.\" April 10, 1998 Memorandum Opinion and Order at 6 (docket no. 3144) (footnotes omitted). One such group of potentially unreachable goals cited by Judge Wright were the \"goals in the 1990 Plan regarding achievement disparities [which] may never be met regardless of the effort put forth by LRSD.\" Id. See Testimony of Dr. Herbert J. Walberg at 17-25 (docket no. 2692); Testimony of Dr. David J. Armor at 18-39 (docket no. 2693); and Testimony of Dr. Gary Orfield at 25-31 ( docket no. 2768). J. LRSD's Implementation Of Its Obligations Under The Revised Plan Between April 10, 1998, and March 15, 2001, the date LRSD filed its Request for Scheduling Order and Compliance Report seeking unitary status, LRSD and Joshua filed no substantive pleadings addressing any problems arising from LRSD 's implementation of its obligations under the Revised Plan. In fact, only three documents dealing with LRSD's 601n an Order entered on March 27, 1996 ( docket no. 2648), Judge Wright released LRSD from Court supervision and monitoring in the areas of Multicultural Curriculum (LRSD May 1992 Desegregation Plan, docket no. 1587 at 63-80), Vocational Education (LRSD May 1992 Desegregation Plan, docket no. 1587 at 98-105), and Computerized Transportation System (LRSD May 1992 Desegregation Plan, docket no. 1587 at 227-28). See also February 9, 1996, Stipulation for Order (docket no. 2626). -46- implementation of the Revised Plan were filed during that period of time. First, on August 11, 1999, the ODM filed a lengthy Report (docket no. 3289) on LRSD's preparations for implementation of the Revised Plan. This Report reviewed the status ofLRSD's implementation of all aspects of the Revised Plan, including the following areas that have special relevance to Joshua's opposition to LRSD's pending request for unitary status: Extracurricular Enrichment Activities (pp. 12-16); LearningEnvironment(pp. 20-22); Mathematics(pp. 27-31); Program Assessment (pp. 42-43); Reading and Language Arts (pp. 44-48); Remediation (pp. 49- 52); and Student Discipline (pp. 67-71 ). The ODM's \"Summary and Conclusions\" that followed each section of the Report indicated that, overall, LRSD was doing a satisfactory job of implementing the Revised Plan. Second, on April 18, 2000, LRSD filed a 129-page Interim Compliance Report (docket no. 3356 dated March 15, 2000). Although LRSD was not obliged to file this Report, it voluntarily did so for two stated reasons: (1) \"to help the District assess its progress toward full compliance and to reassure the court, the parties, and the community of the District's good faith efforts to be in total compliance with the Revised Plan\"; and (2) \"[t]he District hopes to receive comments and suggestions from interested persons as to the Distric;t's compliance with the Revised Plan and the format and content of this status report.\" Interim Compliance Report at 1 (docket no. 3356). The Interim Compliance Report set forth in detail all of the programs, policies, and procedures that LRSD was implementing in accordance with its obligations under the Revised Plan. The ODM did not file any comments or objections to anything contained in LRSD's Interim Compliance Report. Likewise, nothing contained in that Report caused Joshua's counsel, -47- ! A072A who was being paid $4,027.78 per month by LRSD to monitor its implementation of the Revised Plan, to raise any compliance issues. Finally, no \"interested party'' raised any questions concerning whether, based on the programs, policies, and procedures described in the Interim Compliance Report, LRSD was in substantial compliance with its obligations under the Revised Plan. This silence, it seems to me, speaks rather eloquently. Third, on June 14, 2000, the ODM filed a 127-page Report of Disciplinary Sanctions in the LRSD (docket no. 3366).61 The introduction to this Report contained a broad disclaimer of what was not being evaluated: This document neither evaluates the district's discipline policies and procedures nor determines how the policies are followed at various schools. Moreover, the report does not measure the effectiveness of any program, training or practices the district may have instituted to address the need for all students to be disciplined fairly and equitably, regardless of their race or sex. While the disciplinary procedures are represented by the data are legitimate and important areas of inquiry, we have not examined them here. We do provide some additional information to explain the district's general approach to discipline and to set the context for our findings, but our report focuses on the LRSD's own records and what they reflect. Report of Disciplinary Sanctions at 1 (docket no. 3366).62 Furthermore, because LRSD maintained disciplinary records on only \"suspensions and expulsions,\" the Report was limited to an examination of LRSD's raw data, broken down by race and sex, for students who were 61The ODM prepared this Report as part of its ongoing monitoring of the way all three Pulaski County school districts imposed disciplinary sanctions on students. In previous years, the ODM had prepared similar Reports on NLRSD and PCSSD. Thus, the ODM's June 14 Report was not triggered by or related to anything in LRSD's March 15, 2000 Interim Compliance Report. 62By failing to evaluate and examine the many important areas covered by this disclaimer, the ODM substantially reduced the usefulness of its Report and made it virtually impossible to draw any conclusions from the Report that were not based on pure speculation. -48- I  I A072A ( suspended or expelled from each elementary school, junior high school, and high school during six school years, 1993-94 through 1998-99. While the data compiled in the Report revealed that a disproportionate number of AfricanAmerican male students were suspended or expelled at many schools, the lack of specific facts surrounding each suspension and expulsion (e.g., a description of the conduct giving rise to the disciplinary sanction, race of teacher or administrator issuing disciplinary sanction, socioeconomic background of student, etc.) made it impossible to determine, without speculation, the reason for this disparity. 63 Additionally, because LRSD administrators assigned many of the suspended or expelled students to alternative education programs64 but failed to maintain records documenting which suspended and expelled students were sent to those programs, it was impossible to determine from the Report how many days of school each of the suspended and expelled students actually missed. Finally, because the Report did not include any data for the 1999-00 school year, it was impossible to determine if converting LRSD's junior high schools to middle schools improved behavior problems and reduced the number of suspensions and expulsions. However, the Report made it clear that this change could affect future data: Beginning with the 1999-2000 school year, the district made a fundamental commitment to improving students' performance, both academic~lly and 63The preface to the Report made it clear that the disproportionate number of AfricanAmerican students suspended or expelled from school is a nationwide phenomenon. The Report also pointed out that the way students behaved in school was affected by a host of factors that were beyond the influence of school personnel, \"such as home environment, family values, and the level of socialization prior to starting school. ... \" Report at 6. Finally, the Report observed that: \"Another aspect of discipline that requires note is the tremendous increase in the number of single-parent households in our society. . . . This deficiency is particularly significant for adolescent males who live with only their mothers.\" Report at 7. 64See Report at 10-12. -49- A072A _ IJ3 D_ V A/A?\\ behaviorally, by converting to a middle school system (grades 6-8). Studies have shown that the grade 6-8 configuration is developmentally appropriate. The teaming practiced in middle schools is to provide a nurturing environment in which students can learn and also find help with the physical and emotional changes they are experiencing. Because the discipline data for 1999-2000 were not available at the time we prepared this report, we could not assess whether discipline and sanctions have changed in ways that might be attributable to the middle school approach. Report at 126. In the Report's \"Conclusions,\" the ODM made two primary criticisms of LRSD's disciplinary practices: (1) it had not maintained and compiled \"comprehensive data on all the discipline sanctions [which] may leave some problems uncovered, as well as thwart assessment of the extent to which the district is preventing racial discrimination in disciplinary actions overall\"; and (2) \"[ w ]bile the report data do not reflect overall serious behavior problems in LRSD, African-American males are being disciplined in disproportionately high numbers.\" Report at 125. The ODM also offered seven \"ideas . .. as suggestions for improving disciplinary procedures for all students in LRSD, while also reducing the over-representation ofblack students in disciplinary actions.\" Report at 127. K LRSD Seeks Unitary Status Based Upon Its Substantial Compliance With The Revised Plan On March 15, 200 I, LRSD filed a Request for Scheduling Order and Compliance Report ( docket no. 3410) and requested the court to declare it ''unitary with respect to all aspects of school operations.\" On June 25, 2001, Joshua filed their Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report ( docket no. 3447) in which they argued LRSD was not entitled to unitary status under the Revised Plan. On March 15, 2002, LRSD filed the pending Motion for an Immediate Declaration of -50- A072A ,~ --- Unitary Status (docket no. 3580) and Supporting Memorandum Brief (docket no. 3581). On May 30, 2002, Joshua filed their Response in Opposition to LRSD's Motion for hnmediate Declaration of Unitary Status (docket no. 3604). On June 7, 2002, LRSD filed its Reply Brief (docket no. 3607). As indicated previously, under  11 of the Revised Plan, LRSD was entitled to the entry of an order declaring it unitary if no party challenged its substantial compliance with th~ Revised Plan. Because Joshua chose to challenge LRSD's \"substantial compliance,\" 11 of the Revised Plan imposed on them the burden of proof on that issue. Joshua's counsel has acknowledged that the Revised Plan imposed on his clients the burden of proving that, as of March 15, 2001, 65 LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations under the Revised Plan. See Transcript of Proceedings on June 29, 2001, at 26 (docket no. 3461), and Transcript of Proceedings on July 9, 2001, at 26 (docket no. 3464). 65In its October 3, 200 I Order ( docket no. 3515), the district court required LRSD to elect between two options: Option!: (A) Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Plan beyond the date of March 15, 2001; and- (B) Produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. Option 2: (A) Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Plan up to the date of March 15, 2001, and not beyond; and (B) Correspondingly, the LRSD would have no obligation to produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. LRSD filed a Response to the October 3, 2001 Order ( docket no. 3517) objecting ''to being forced to select from the two options offered by the Court.\" Subsequently, LRSD advised Judge Wright that, without waiving its objections, it selected \"Option 2.\" Therefore, any evidence ofLRSD's \"compliance activities\" that took place after March 15, 2001, cannot be considered in deciding the question of unitary status. -51- A072A IAou A/0'\u0026gt;\\ rn. Relevant Provisions Of Revised Plan In Joshua's Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report (docket no. 3447), they include a \"Seriatim Response to District's March 15, 2001 Compliance Report\" in which they list compliance problems or concerns with the following sections of the Revised Plan:  2.1 (LRSD's obligation of good faith);  2.1.1, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, and 2.2.7 (LRSD's obligations regarding faculty and sta:fl);  2.3 (LRSD's obligations regarding student assignment);  2.4 (LRSD 's obligations regarding special education and related programs);  2.5, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5 .3, and 2.5 .4 (LRSD' s obligations regarding student discipline);   2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, and 2.11. l (LRSD's obligations regarding extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, and guidance counseling); 2. 7 and 5 (LRSD's obligations regarding improving African-American academic achievement);  2.8 (parental involvement); and  3.6 (school construction and closing). Importantly, Joshua's Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report was careful to note that their concerns regarding LRSD's compliance with faculty and staff, student assignment, special education and related programs, parental involvement, and school construction and closing were based primarily on \"information and belief' or involved \"generalized suspicions\" regarding LRSD's future actions. After filing that Opposition, Joshua conducted consid~ble discovery to develop the facts to support their challenges to LRSD's request for unitary status. As indicated previously, before beginning the evidentiary hearings on Joshua's Opposition to LRSD's request for unitary status, Judge Wright instructed Joshua's counsel to present his argument beginning with his strongest first and proceeding to his weakest ( docket no. 3461 at 54- 55). During a hearing on July 9, 2001, which took place after the completion of the first two days -52- A072A ~ /1=1 ---- of testimony on July 5 and 6, 2001, Joshua's counsel stated that LRSD's three most serious areas of noncompliance under the Revised Plan were its failure to meet its obligations regarding: (1) good faith; (2) improvement of academic achievement for African-American students;66 and (3) improvement of the racial disparity in student discipline (docket no. 3464 at 26-29). During the evidentiary hearings on August 1 and 2, 2001, Joshua completed calling all of their witnesses on the issues ofLRSD's alleged substantial noncompliance with those three areas of the Revised Plan. At the beginning of the fifth day of evidentiary hearings on November 19, 2001, Judge Wright noted, on the record, that counsel for Joshua had \"rested his case\" on the first three areas  of LRSD's alleged noncompliance (docket no. 3558 at 14-15). After Judge Wright denied LRSD's Motion for Directed Verdict, it presented its case on November 19 and 20 (docket nos. 3558 and 3559). On December 11, 2001, Judge Wright conducted a hearing to schedule the remaining days of evidentiary hearings on Joshua's Opposition to LRSD 's request for unitary status ( docket no. 3560). During this hearing, Judge Wright agreed to allow Joshua and LRSD no more than five days to present additional testimony on what Joshua's counsel identified as the last three areas ofLRSD's alleged noncompliance with the Revised Plan: (1) advanced placement courses; (2) .. extracurricular activities; and (3) guidance counseling. Judge Wright also agreed to allow Joshua to present non-cumulative testimony regarding: LRSD's alleged failure to comply with its overall obligation of good faith regarding its implementation of programs, policies, and procedures 66Part of Joshua's argument that LRSD had failed to substantially comply with its obligation to improve the academic achievement of African-American students included the contention that LRSD had failed to make the annual \"assessments\" of the academic programs implemented to improve the achievement of African-American students as required by 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. -53- A,_0 72_A_ _ _ ,. regarding advanced placement courses, extracurricular activities, and guidance counseling-, and how LRSD's programs, policies, and procedures governing advanced placement courses, extracurricular activities, and guidance counseling had adversely affected the academic achievement of Afiican-American students. I conducted the final three days of evidentiary hearings on those issues, beginning on July 22, 2002. At no point during those hearings, or during the six previous days of ev:identiary hearings, did Joshua present any evidence or arguments -to support the contentions in their Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report (docket no. 3447) that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations regarding faculty and staff( 2.1.1, 2.2-2.2.5, and 2.2.7); student assignment( 2.3); special education and related programs( 2.4); parental involvement( 2.8); and school construction and closing( 3.6). Joshua's failure to present any evidence to support their contention regarding LRSD's alleged failure to substantially comply with those sections of the Revised Plan requires a finding that they have abandoned those arguments. In any case, Joshua clearly failed to maintain their burden of proving that LRSD failed to substantially comply with any of those particular sections of the Revised Plan. Thus, the detennination of LRSD 's request for unitary status turns on whether Joshua has ,' maintained their burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the following obligations imposed on it under the Revised Plan: (I) good faith as set forth in  2.1; (2) student discipline as set forth in  2.5 through 2.5.4 and 2.12.2; (3) academic achievement of Afiican-American students as set forth in 2.7, 2.7.1, 5.1 through 5.8, and 2.12.2; ( 4) extracurricular activities as set forth in  2.6, 2.6.3, and 2.12.2; (5) advanced placement courses as set forth in 2.6, 2.6.2, and 2.12.2; and (6) guidance counseling -54- I AO~-- as set forth in  2.11.1. The provisions of the Revised Plan containing LRSD's obligations in these six disputed areas, along with other provisions of the Revised Plan that are relevant to the resolution of the issue of unitary status, are summarized below. A. LRSD's Obligation Of Good Faith Toe first obligation imposed on LRSD was to act in \"good faith.\" Because of the importance of this obligation to the question of unitary status, 2.1 of the Revised Plan ought, in fairness, to be quoted in its entirety: LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. B. LRSD's Obligations Regarding Student Discipline Sections 2.5 through 2.5.4 set forth LRSD's obligations regarding student discipline. Section 2.5 obligated LRSD to implement programs, policies, and/or procedures \"designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to discipline.\" Section 2.5.1 required LRSD to \"strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner,\" and 2.5.2 required LRSD to \"purge students discipline records after the fifth and eighth grades of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery.\" Section 2.5.3 established the position of \"ombudsman,\" who was responsible for \"acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints ofrace-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions.\" Finally,  2.5.4 obligated LRSD to ''work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit -55- A072A IR-\u0026lt;\u0026gt;ID'\u0026gt;\\ frequent misbehavior.\" C. LRSD's Obligations To Improve And Remediate The Academic Achievement Of African-American Students Section 2.7 contained LRSD's core obligation regarding the academic achievement of African-American students: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. Very significantly, nowhere in this section or any other section of the Revised Plan does LRSD assume any obligation to narrow or close the academic achievement gap between white students and African-American students. In order to detennine the effectiveness of LRSD's academic programs designed to improve African-American achievement, Section 2. 7. l obligated LRSD to \"assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2. 7 after each year.\" If the results of those assessments \"[reveal] that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program.\" D. LRSD's Obligations Regarding Extracurricular Activities, Advanced Placement Courses, And Guidance Counselors Section 2.6 required LRSD to \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracunicular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program.\" Section 2.6.1 and 2.11.1 required LRSD to implement training programs to assist teac    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_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":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":["228 pages"],"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":13,"next_page":14,"prev_page":12,"total_pages":27,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":144,"total_count":319,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":8},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":5},{"value":"learning modules","hits":1},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":292},{"value":"Sound","hits":20},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":13},{"value":"StillImage","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":41},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":21},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":16},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":6},{"value":"Bushman Court Reporting","hits":4},{"value":"Bell, Lorenzo, 1925-2001","hits":2},{"value":"Brown, Myers; Johnson, Ahnekii","hits":2},{"value":"Joshua Intervenors","hits":2},{"value":"Pulaski County Special School District","hits":2},{"value":"William Gordon Associates","hits":2},{"value":"Abernathy, Juanita, 1929-","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":254},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":210},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":166},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":127},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":105},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":88},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","hits":74},{"value":"School integration","hits":65},{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":64},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":64},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":52}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":6},{"value":"Kennedy, John F. (John Fitzgerald), 1917-1963","hits":3},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":3},{"value":"Abernathy, Ralph, 1926-1990","hits":2},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":2},{"value":"Bond, Julian, 1940-2015","hits":2},{"value":"Shuttlesworth, Fred L., 1922-2011","hits":2},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":2},{"value":"Abernathy, Juanita, 1929-","hits":1},{"value":"Barnes, Billy E. (Billy Ebert), 1931-2018","hits":1},{"value":"Barnett, Ross R. (Ross Robert), 1898-1987","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":7},{"value":"Abernathy, Ralph, 1926-1990","hits":2},{"value":"Bond, Julian, 1940-2015","hits":2},{"value":"Kennedy, John F. (John Fitzgerald), 1917-1963","hits":2},{"value":"Shuttlesworth, Fred L., 1922-2011","hits":2},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":2},{"value":"Abernathy, Juanita, 1929-","hits":1},{"value":"Barnes, Billy E. (Billy Ebert), 1931-2018","hits":1},{"value":"Barnett, Ross R. (Ross Robert), 1898-1987","hits":1},{"value":"Bell, Griffin B., 1918-2009","hits":1},{"value":"Borders, William Holmes, 1905-1993","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":6},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":2},{"value":"Integration of Clemson University","hits":2},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":2},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":2},{"value":"Brown versus Board of Education","hits":1},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":1},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":1},{"value":"Montgomery Bus Boycott","hits":1},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":263},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":257},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":249},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":233},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":9},{"value":"United States, Southern States, 33.346678, -84.119434","hits":5},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 33.8498, 84.4383","hits":4},{"value":"United States, North Carolina, Guilford County, Greensboro, 36.07264, -79.79198","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":258},{"value":"Georgia","hits":15},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":10},{"value":"Alabama","hits":9},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":5},{"value":"","hits":4},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":3},{"value":"Florida","hits":3},{"value":"Illinois","hits":3},{"value":"Louisiana","hits":3},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"2000","hits":73},{"value":"1999","hits":69},{"value":"2001","hits":67},{"value":"2002","hits":65},{"value":"1996","hits":62},{"value":"1994","hits":58},{"value":"1995","hits":58},{"value":"1997","hits":55},{"value":"1992","hits":53},{"value":"1993","hits":53},{"value":"1998","hits":53},{"value":"2003","hits":46},{"value":"1991","hits":44},{"value":"2004","hits":43},{"value":"2006","hits":34},{"value":"2005","hits":32},{"value":"1990","hits":24},{"value":"1989","hits":19},{"value":"2007","hits":14},{"value":"2013","hits":14},{"value":"2008","hits":11},{"value":"2014","hits":11},{"value":"1980","hits":10},{"value":"2010","hits":10},{"value":"2012","hits":10},{"value":"2016","hits":10},{"value":"1983","hits":9},{"value":"1984","hits":9},{"value":"2009","hits":9},{"value":"2011","hits":9},{"value":"2015","hits":9},{"value":"2017","hits":9},{"value":"2018","hits":9},{"value":"1975","hits":8},{"value":"1978","hits":8},{"value":"1988","hits":8},{"value":"1967","hits":7},{"value":"1970","hits":7},{"value":"1974","hits":7},{"value":"1977","hits":7},{"value":"1979","hits":7},{"value":"1981","hits":7},{"value":"1982","hits":7},{"value":"1985","hits":7},{"value":"1986","hits":7},{"value":"1960","hits":6},{"value":"1962","hits":6},{"value":"1964","hits":6},{"value":"1965","hits":6},{"value":"1968","hits":6},{"value":"1971","hits":6},{"value":"1972","hits":6},{"value":"1973","hits":6},{"value":"1976","hits":6},{"value":"1987","hits":6},{"value":"2019","hits":6},{"value":"1959","hits":5},{"value":"1961","hits":5},{"value":"1966","hits":5},{"value":"1969","hits":5},{"value":"2022","hits":5},{"value":"1945","hits":4},{"value":"1950","hits":4},{"value":"1951","hits":4},{"value":"1952","hits":4},{"value":"1953","hits":4},{"value":"1954","hits":4},{"value":"1955","hits":4},{"value":"1956","hits":4},{"value":"1957","hits":4},{"value":"1958","hits":4},{"value":"1963","hits":4},{"value":"2020","hits":4},{"value":"2021","hits":4},{"value":"1900","hits":3},{"value":"1901","hits":3},{"value":"1902","hits":3},{"value":"1903","hits":3},{"value":"1904","hits":3},{"value":"1905","hits":3},{"value":"1906","hits":3},{"value":"1907","hits":3},{"value":"1908","hits":3},{"value":"1909","hits":3},{"value":"1910","hits":3},{"value":"1911","hits":3},{"value":"1912","hits":3},{"value":"1913","hits":3},{"value":"1914","hits":3},{"value":"1915","hits":3},{"value":"1916","hits":3},{"value":"1917","hits":3},{"value":"1918","hits":3},{"value":"1919","hits":3},{"value":"1920","hits":3},{"value":"1921","hits":3},{"value":"1922","hits":3},{"value":"1923","hits":3},{"value":"1924","hits":3},{"value":"1925","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1860","max":"2033","count":1494,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":143},{"value":"filing","hits":63},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":18},{"value":"reports","hits":18},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":14},{"value":"transcripts","hits":13},{"value":"correspondence","hits":12},{"value":"sound recordings","hits":12},{"value":"lesson plans","hits":8},{"value":"photographs","hits":8},{"value":"web sites","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":263},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":31},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":10},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":6},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":4},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":255},{"value":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","hits":7},{"value":"Teaching with Historic Places","hits":6},{"value":"John Burrison Georgia Folklore Archives Collection","hits":4},{"value":"Historical Manuscripts and Photographs","hits":3},{"value":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","hits":3},{"value":"Alabama History Education Materials","hits":2},{"value":"Augusta Baker papers, 1911-1998","hits":2},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Audio Collection","hits":2},{"value":"Civil Rights Clippings from Guilford College Publications","hits":2},{"value":"Civil Rights Papers","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":257},{"value":"Atlanta History Center","hits":8},{"value":"University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)","hits":7},{"value":"United States. National Park Service","hits":6},{"value":"University of Southern Mississippi. Libraries","hits":3},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":2},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":2},{"value":"Guilford College. Library","hits":2},{"value":"Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance","hits":2},{"value":"John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum","hits":2},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":311},{"value":"Collection","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":312},{"value":"true","hits":7}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}