{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_787","title":"'Research Brief: SMART/THRIVE in the Little Rock School District''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Student assistance programs","Literacy","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["'Research Brief: SMART/THRIVE in the Little Rock School District''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/787"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nCREP \\cmitrfar iaE^htcatuaudPaiiey Center for Research in Educational Policy Research Brief The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38t 52 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 Reading Recovery in the Little Rock School District\\M^^ T0 ssS*^*^ WffWWIIIffltfiTglTrTWgl 1^ R CREP crater Jaf Ratarck ia EJueatiaaai Miey Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 Research Brief Reading Recovery in the Little Rock School District fl fl January 2006  Anna W. Grehan Steven M. Ross Lynn Harrison Center for Research in Educational Policy fl John Nunnery Old Dominion University fl IRESEARCH BRIEF: READING RECOVERY IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Background Reading Recovery is an internationally used intervention program, designed by noted literacy expert Dr. Marie M. Clay. It is a short-term intervention program for first grade students who are struggling in learning to read. The goal of Reading Recovery is to provide early, effective interventions, through one-on-one tutoring, which not only empowers struggling readers and increases their chances of continued success, but also reduces the cost of these learners to educational systems. In 1995. the Little Rock School District (LRSD) began implementing Reading Recovery in two elementary schools. Over the years the LRSD has expanded the Reading Recovery program and developed a partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) to conduct training and provide professional assistance for Reading Recovery specialists. At the end of the 2004-2005 school year the LRSD had 28 trained Reading Recovery teachers who were serving 18 of the 34 elementary schools in the district. In February 2005. researchers from the Center for the Research in Educational Policy (CREP) at the University of Memphis presented an evaluation plan for the Reading Recovery program to principals, representatives of the LRSD and other stakeholders. The evaluation plan for Reading Recovery was presented as part of a larger district study in which Reading Recovery and three other programs were evaluated. The evaluation plan for Reading Recovery included: (1) analyses of Reading Recovery student achievement and program data. (2) principal, teacher, and parent surveys and interviews, and (3) observations of Reading Recovery tutoring sessions. The evaluation plan was approved and researchers from CREP immediately began implementation. Purpose, Plan and Participants Purpose V The major goal of the study was to understand the impact Reading Recovery has had on African American students in the Little Rock School District. Specifically, through Reading Recovery, are African American students showing improvement in academic achievement? With that goal in mind, the primary research question for this evaluation was:  Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? In order to gain an even clearer picture of how well the Reading Recovery program has been used in the schools and the impact it has had on African-American students, six other questions were addressed. The information gathered to answer these questions provided a more complete understanding of how well the program has been carried out in the district. These additional questions were: I  What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the 18 schools implementing in 2004-2005? . What is the level of participation in Reading Recovery by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school?  What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other student participants in Reading Recovery in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued? What proportion of scheduled sessions are actually held, and what are the reasons for missed sessions? [NOTE: A 1 LI Reading Recovery student is discontinued when he/she demonstrates, through the appropriate assessments, ability to read on grade level with the regular class.]  What are the perceptions of Reading Recovery teachers regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of principals, regular first grade teachers, and other teachers in the school regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Reading Recovery students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Plan To answer these questions a research plan that collected a variety of information from numerous sources was required. Researchers used scores from the following standardized achievement tests or in- class assessments: H  Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS)  Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA)  Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)  An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement\nReading Recovery Subtests The CREP researchers also needed to determine how well the Reading Recovery teachers understood their tasks as teachers and how well they were able to follow the Reading Recovery program design. To answer these questions, data was collected data by using a Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire and a Reading Recovery observation tool. The questionnaire contained items for teachers to rate on an agreement-disagreement scale and open-ended items soliciting comments about the program. With the observation tool, trained Reading Recovery specialists monitored Reading Recovery teachers as they worked with students and recorded how well they followed Reading Recovery guidelines. CREP researchers interviewed, via telephone, four Reading Recovery teachers who were currently being trained to understand how effectively their training was being conducted. To determine how the program was thought of by principals, other teachers, and parents, questionnaires were specifically designed for each group. Classroom teachers from kindergarten through third grade in schools that had a Reading Recovery program were surveyed and asked both ratings items and open-ended questions. Parents with children currently in the Reading Recovery program were given a questionnaire to complete, also containing both types of items. Ten principals from Reading Recovery schools were randomly selected to participate in a phone interview in which their comments were recorded and transcribed. All of the data from observations were collected in March through May of 2005. Copies of all the instruments used and a complete breakdown of all results can be found the technical report. Participants Students: The overall sample of students that was used in this research included 1,094 first graders in the schools with Reading Recovery programs (18 schools) for the school year 2004-2005. Of this larger sample, 230 students were referred to the Reading Recovery program and became the Reading Recovery Group and 864 students who were not in the Reading Recovery program became the Comparison Group. There were similar numbers of African-Americans in both groups, but students in the Reading Recovery group were more likely to be male, in a lower income bracket, and to receive special education services. 2 ' -Principals: Ten principals from Reading Recovery schools were randomly selected to participate in a phone interview. The phone interview lasted approximately 45 minutes and responses to questions regarding the Reading Recovery program and its effectiveness were recorded and transcribed. Reading Recovery Teachers in-Training: Four randomly selected teachers currently being trained to become Reading Recovery specialists were interviewed through a 45-minute phone interview. These teachers provided insight into the current training efforts and professional development needs for new n teachers. Reading Recovery Teachers: There were 22 Reading Recovery Teachers who were surveyed through a specially designed questionnaire. In addition, 14 Reading Recovery Teachers were observed as they worked with their students. Classroom Teachers: Kindergarten through third grade teachers, working in schools with Reading Recovery programs, were also surveyed and 156 responded. Parents: Parents of students currently participating in a Reading Recovery program were sent a questionnaire and 95 were completed and returned. A survey in Spanish was sent when necessary, and 9 of those returned were completed in Spanish. n n Findings Researchers spent the summer and early fall compiling the information learned from the phone interviews, surveys, and observations. In late fall, achievement data and assessment records were obtained. Through careful analysis and with the use of statistical techniques, a thorough analysis of the Reading Recovery program was completed. The findings are best understood in context of the questions that were asked in the evaluation plan. Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? The impact of the Reading Recovery program on African-American students was comparable to students of other ethnicities. This impact, as it regards reading success, was more significant when students completed the entire program and were successfully discontinued. In addition, the benefits were more noticeable in areas of beginning reading skills that included basics such as hearing and recording sounds (Observation Survey) and phoneme segmentation (DIBELS), than in more advanced reading skills, such as text reading (DIBELS \u0026amp; DRA). However, there were no noticeable gains on statewide standardized tests (ITBS) for Reading Recovery students.  What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-2005? Reading Recovery appeared to be well implemented and there was a high degree of consistency in the way the Reading Recovery teachers carried out the program. Classroom observations, conducted by outside experts in Reading Recovery, agreed that in the majority of areas, teachers were well prepared and were following the guidelines outlined by the Reading Recovery program. In addition, when looking at students achievement information, there was no difference between those students who had a more experienced teacher and those having a teacher with less experience. This outcome suggested that teachers were well trained and were using the Reading Recovery model appropriately.   What is the level of participation in Reading Recovery by African-American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Most of the students participating in Reading Recovery were African-American, which was expected given that African-American students were the majority in the 18 schools being studied. 3 g| What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other student participants in Reading Recovery in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued ? What proportion of scheduled sessions are actually held, and what are the reasons for missed sessions? There are three categories in which a Reading Recovery student may be placed at the end of the program year: (1) Discontinued: successful completion of the program\n(2) Incomptete^stilHn the program without having enough time to complete the program\nand (3) Recommended for Further Action: Reading Recovery teachers believe that the student is in need of some other instructional support to be successful. African American students in Reading Recovery were as likely as other ethnic groups to be placed in the Discontinued or Incomplete categories\nand were slightly more likely to be Recommended * . .. .  .  . ... I'l__I. . iL .. AO rvlor'orJ fhn for Further Action. African-American students were more likely than other ethnicities to be placed in the Low/Lower Middle reading group by their classroom teachers, after completing Reading Recovery. Reading Recovery is a program designed to be a daily intervention. However, about one-fourth 4 of sessions were missed due to either teacher or student absence or teacher or student being unavailable. So. on average, there were 3.5 sessions held per week, instead of 5. B V  What are the perceptions of Reading Recovery teachers regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Reading Recovery teachers were extremely positive about the Reading Recovery program and were eager to see it continued. Teachers appeared to be very knowledgeable about the program- well- trained, prepared, and supported by their school and district. Reading Recovery teachers thought the program was having a positive impact on their students, including their African-American students. Reading Recovery teachers expressed a need for greater planning time and for more opportunities to continue to monitor their students after they completed the program. Teachers in-training were equally positive and committed to the Reading Recovery program. These teachers reported being well prepared by their training.  What are the perceptions of principals, regular first grade teachers, and other teachers in the school regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Principals were very supportive of Reading Recovery and reported being actively involved in ensuring that it was carried out correctly. Most principals agreed that, through Reading Recovery, the achievement gap was being bridged for their African American students. Classroom teachers at Reading Recovery schools had a clear understanding of the Reading They praised the program and felt it had a very positive impact on student Recovery program, achievement.  What are the perceptions of parents/ guardians or Reading Recovery students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents were generally very pleased with the Reading Recovery program and believed that the program was helping their child become a successful reader. Nearly all of the parents indicated a clear understanding of the program and appreciated the one-on-one attention their child was receiving. 4Compliance Remedy Questions Recommended Program Modifications Reading Recovery was extremely well received by parents, teachers and administrators and all reported a positive impact on those students who were in the program. It would be expected that higher achievement scores would also be detected\nyet this was not the case. However, given the focus of the program in improving reading performance, it might also be unrealistic to expect highly noticeable inrrM-sPs on norm-referenced multiole-choice standardized tests. Possible program modifications increases on norm-referenced multiple-choice standardized tests. needed to produce greater achievement gains are:  An expanded program that would include more Reading Recovery teachers. With more teachers, there could be greater monitoring of students after they discontinue the program to ensure that their momentum is maintained. There are many students in need of Reading Recovery in the Little Rock School District and Reading Recovery teachers may be pressed to discontinue one qroup of students in order to begin assisting another group. The necessary follow-up contact can not occur, and therefore the slippage in achievement that has been noted in the program in other states and districts may be found among students in the Little Rock School District. With an expanded program, these students could be more closely monitored and their gains could be maintained. In addition to an expanded program, a transitional plan for students who have discontinued  in aaoiiion lo an expanueu progiam, ci uciieiuuiiai ------------  ---------------  should be explored. Such a plan could involve daily monitored reading that would provide n another buffer against slippage.  Increased professional development of classroom teachers would enable them to understand how to integrate their Reading Recovery students back into the classroom once they have been discontinued, and how to provide the appropriate instruction and feedback so that students would continue to improve.  Increased partnership with University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) to help with the development of transitional plan and professional development for classroom teachers. n  Many of the principals, as well as Reading Recovery teachers, cited examples of profound student achievement and continued noteworthy success of former Reading Recovery African- American students. Although evidence of these success stories were not detected by analyzing standardized test scores as a whole, some African-American students are reported to be experiencing continued, sustained high levels of achievement. Future studies might provide a more in-depth analysis of a small number of students whose gains were maintained to determine what factors contributed to their successes and how these factors can be generalized to the Hi I  population as a whole. Expectations of Program Modifications Reading Recovery has valuable components that, with adaptation and modification, can be even more effective. With program modifications, the Little Rock School District could expect:  Progressive gains on standardized test scores over time.  An increased number of students involved in the Reading Recovery program.  A greater adherence to Reading Recovery guidelines, especially those relating to the number of sessions required for optimum benefits. 5  More teachers throughout the district better able to serve students at-risk in the areas of literacy and reading.  Sustained achievement of students upon completion of the Reading Recovery program. A stronger relationship with UALR professionals 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. a I 6 e I i-\n *CREP ' CenUrf^r Httevek ui Educational ^oEcy Center for Research in Educational Policy The Univetsity of Memphis 325 Browning Hal Memphis. Tennessee 38152 Tol Free 1-866-670-6147 Evaluation of Reading Recovery In the Little Rock School District TECHNICAL REPORT 9 A n nn H CREP xca/er ieutrci itt Educational policy Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, T ennessee 38152 Toll Free 1-866^70-6147 Evaluation of Reading Recovery In the Little Rock School District ai TECHNICAL REPORT 91 January 2006 -r ,1.\n Anna W. Grehan Steven M. Ross Lynn Harrison Center for Research in Educational Policy John Nunnery Old Dominion UniversityEXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION ^1 The Little Rock School District began implementing Reading Recovery during the 1995-1996 school year in two schools. During the first four years of implementation, the Little Rock School District was part of the Pulaski County Reading Recovery Site. By 1998 there were eight trained Reading Recovery teachers in seven schools in the Little Rock School District. In July 1999 the district became a Reading Recovery Site hiring a full-time teacher leader. In 2000-2001 the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) began conducting the Reading Recovery teacher training for the district. Between the 2000-2001 and 2004-2005 school years UALR trained 17 Reading Recovery teachers for the district. At the end of the 2004-2005 school year the Little Rock School District had 28 trained Reading Recovery teachers serving 18 of the 34 elementary schools in the district. Reading Recovery is one of eight literacy programs, interventions, and/or models used by Little Rock schools. Currently, Little Rock School District funds are used to support the program. The goal of Reading Recovery is to dramatically reduce the number of first grade students who have difficulty learning to read and write and to reduce the cost of these learners to educational systems. Reading Recovery is a short-term intervention program of one-to-one tutoring for the lowest-achieving first graders. The intervention is most effective when it is available to all students who need it and is used as a supplement to good classroom teaching. Individual students receive a half-hour lesson each school day for 12 to 20 weeks with a specially trained Reading Recovery teacher. As soon as students can read within the average range of their class and demonstrate that they can continue to achieve, their lessons are discontinued and new students begin individual instruction. The evaluation plan for the Reading Recovery program in Little Rock School District included: (1) analyses of Reading Recovery student achievement and program data, (2) principal, teacher, and parent surveys and interviews, and (3) observations of Reading Recovery tutoring sessions. This report is part of a larger district study of four programs evaluating the effectiveness in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students. This report includes results from 18 elementary schools participating in the Reading Recovery program. RESEARCH QUESTIONS The major goals of this research study were to evaluate African-American student achievement outcomes, program implementation fidelity, and principal, teacher, and parent perceptions concerning the Reading Recovery tutoring program for first grade students. Student achievement results on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement were analyzed to compare the progress of first graders enrolled in the Reading Recovery intervention program and comparison students in 2004-2005. Program implementation ratings were obtained from observations of 14 tutoring sessions in nine schools. The survey and interview results are based on the perceptions of 156 classroom teachers in grades K-3, 22 experienced Reading Recovery teachers, four teachers in-training, 10 principals, and 95 parents. The Reading Recovery evaluation was structured around the following seven primary and supplemental research questions. Primary evaluation question:  Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? 1n Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) evaluation questions: E  What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-2005?  What is the level of participation in Reading Recovery by African-American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school?  What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other student participants in Reading Recovery in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued?  What are the perceptions of Reading Recovery teachers regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of principals, regular first-grade teachers, and other teachers in the school regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Reading Recovery students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? DESIGN 4 The evaluation period extended from February 2005 through May 2005. The evaluation design was based on both quantitative and qualitative data collected from Reading Recovery intervention observations, principal and teacher in-training interviews, classroom teachers, Reading Recovery teachers, parent surveys, and Reading Recovery program data. Reading Recovery student-level achievement data on the ITBS, DRA, DIBELS, and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement was received in fall 2005 and incorporated in this report. The primary data collectors in this study were Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) trained site researchers. Site researchers: (1) conducted Reading Recovery intervention observations, (2) administered the Reading Recovery teacher survey, (3) conducted principal and teacher in-training interviews, and (4) collected program data. Principals at Reading Recovery schools were responsible for administering the classroom teacher and Reading Recovery parent surveys. Participants Little Rock School District is located in Central Arkansas and serves approximately 26,500 students, with African-Americans representing approximately 67% of the district student population, in 49 schools in an urban area with a population of 184,000. In the 2004-2005 school year 18 w elementary schools and 230 first grade students, of which 173 are African-American, 27 are Caucasian, 22 are Hispanic, and the remaining 8 are other ethnicities, participated in the Reading Recovery program in the district. Three schools were in their first year of program implementation (Bale, Stephens, and Terry) and survey and observation data were not collected from these schools. However, randomly selected teachers in-training and principals from these three schools were interviewed for this study. INSTRUMENTATION Six instruments were developed by CREP to collect the evaluation data: a classroom observation tool, a principal interview, a teacher in-training interview, a Reading Recovery teacher questionnaire, a classroom teacher questionnaire, and a parent survey. 2 Program Data Reading Recovery program information was obtained from data submitted to the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University in 2004-2005. Each year the schools and district submit program data and receive a site report. The report represents an examination of Reading Recovery student outcomes for Little Rock and accounts for all children served by Reading Recovery within the site during the 2004-2005 school year. In addition, attention is given to implementation factors that may be supporting or hindering the success of the intervention at the site. Student Achievement Results In addition to the program data, interviews, survey, and observation tools cited above, reading achievement data are derived from scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement. PROCEDURE Data for the evaluation were collected March-May for the 2004-2005 school year. On February 16, 2005 principals were given an overview of the evaluation and timelines for collecting data. On March 3-4 and April 14-15, 14 tutoring observations were conducted in nine randomly 91 selected experienced Reading Recovery schools by two Reading Recovery content experts from Georgia State and The Ohio State Universities. Only experienced Reading Recovery teachers were observed. On March 23 a CREP trained site researcher administered the Reading Recovery teacher survey to experienced teachers at a regularly scheduled monthly meeting at UALR. In April and May principals in experienced Reading Recovery schools administered the classroom teacher questionnaire to K-3 grade teachers. Principals also administered the parent survey to parents whose children were currently receiving first grade intervention services in the 15 experienced Reading Recovery schools. Four teachers in-training and 10 principals were randomly selected from the 18 Reading Recovery schools to participate in a phone interview in April and May conducted by CREP researchers. Reading Recovery program data were received in summer 2005 from the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University. Student achievement data were received from the district in fall 2005. METHODS - STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Sample. The sample included 1,094 first grade students who attended one of 18 schools that implemented the Reading Recovery program during the 2004-2005 school year. Of these, 230 were referred to the Reading Recovery program, and 864 were in the comparison group. The percentages of students who were African-American or of Limited English Proficiency were similar between the comparison and Reading Recovery groups (73.6% versus 75.6% and 7.3% versus 8.7%, respectively). However, Reading Recovery students were more likely to be eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (84.3% versus 73.1%), to receive special education services (15.7% versus 8.6%), and to be male (58.1 % versus 48.0%). Reading Recovery Treatment Level. In the Reading Recovery program, students who are deemed to have attained a reading level equivalent to their peers are assigned an end-of-program status of discontinued. Children who received 20 or more weeks of Reading Recovery services, but who do not attain a reading level equivalent to their peers are assigned a status of recommended action. Children who have received fewer than 20 weeks were assigned incomplete program status. Children designated as unknown status were removed from the program in fewer than 20 weeks due to reasons other than the school year ending. Other children were designated as having moved during the school year. The median number of sessions of recommended action (Md = 68.50\nn = 68) children was actually higher than the median for discontinued students (Md = 57.00\nn 3 = 90). The medians for incximplete students {n = 46) and unknown\" students (n = 12) were very similar (Md = 44.63 versus 46.08, respectively). For the purposes of this study, recommended action and discontinued students were categorized as complete program\n incomplete and 158 with a unknown students were categorized as incomplete program\n and students who moved were eliminated from the analyses. This left a total of 216 Reading Recovery students\n133 ...3.  4 4 complete program, and 58 with an incomplete program. Measures. Pretest (covariate) measures included: (a) Spring, 2004 Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) scores, (b) fall 2005 Observation Survey: Reading Recovery program subtests that included Letter Identification, Word Test, Concepts About Print, Writing Vocabulary, Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words, and Text Reading, and (c) the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) subtests in Letter Naming Fluency, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency, and Word Use Fluency. Outcome measures included Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading Normal Curve Equivalent Scores, DRA subtests. Observation Survey: Reading Recovery subtests, and DIBELS subtests administered in Spring 2005. To achieve some parsimony in the analyses, pretest measures were subjected to a principal components analysis, and regressionbased factors scores were constructed for pretest DRA, Observation Survey\nReading Recovery subtests, and DIBELS subtests. A single factor accounted for 60.1% and 60.5% of the variance in the DRA and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery subtests, and DIBELS subtests, respectively. Outcome measures included the DRA and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery, DIBELS subtests, and ITBS Reading. Student achievement analyses. A 3 (Program Status) by 2 (African-American versus other) multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was performed on two test batteries, using student gender, the pertinent pretest factor score, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status as covariates. One test battery included the DRA and subscales of the Observation Survey: Reading Recovery. The second test battery included subtests from the DIBELS. A similar 3 by 2 analysis of covariance was performed on ITBS Reading NCE scores using the 2003-2004 DRA score as a pretest covariate. For the multivariate analyses, Wilks lambda was used as the criterion of multivariate significance. Where Wilks lambda indicated a significant multivariate effect, follow-up univariate analyses were performed on each outcome variable using the Bonferroni procedure to control for experimentwise alpha. When significant univariate results were found, post hoc analyses were performed using Scheffes procedure. Effect size estimates were computed for all posttests by subtracting the adjusted mean for the comparison group from the adjusted mean from the Reading Recovery group within levels of race, then dividing by the total standard deviation of the posttest (Cohen, 1988\nHedges \u0026amp; Olkin, 1985). For ITBS Reading NCE effect size estimates, the population standard deviation of 21.06 was used. The effect size estimate (ES) represent the standardized difference between treatment and comparison group means, which allows for comparison across measures that have different metrics. Exploratory and supplementary analyses. Impact of teacher experience and number of sessions. The number of years experience with Reading Recovery was recorded for each teacher. Years experience ranged from 1 to 10 years. ITBS Reading NCE scores and DRA test scores for 2004-2005 were regressed on 2003-2004 DRA/RR Observation Survey factor scores and dummy- coded variables representing student ethnicity, free lunch status, gender, special education status, and LEP status. Standardized residuals were saved from each of these analyses, and plotted against teacher years of experience to graphically assess the nature of the relationship between teacher experience and teacher effectiveness in Reading Recovery for students who received a Complete program. Standardized residuals for each of these 2004-2005 tests were also plotted against number of Reading Recovery sessions received for all students (i.e., those who received either a Complete or Incomplete program). 4 r.iRESULTS Classroom Observation Results Reading Recovery Implementation Assessment Instrument (RRIAI) As indicated in the description of the RRIAI, the observation procedure primarily focuses on Reading Recovery Program Components and Program Strategies. The site observers used a four-point rubric (1 = poor or unacceptable, 2 = below average in comparison to other programs observed, 3 = meets nearly all standards of program quality, and 4 = above average in comparison to other programs) to rate the frequency and application of components and strategies of Reading Recovery instruction. m Reading Recovery Program Components The overall mean rating for the Reading Recovery Program Components was 3.46 which suggests a high level of program implementation. Of the six subcategories the highest observed ratings were: assembling a cut-up story and introducing and reading a new book observed to be above average in 85.7% of tutoring sessions. The program component subcategory with the lowest observed rating was working with letters and/or words using magnetic letters observed to be above average in only 35.7% of tutoring sessions. The six program components were observed in at least 92.9% of 14 tutoring sessions. m Reading Recovery Program Strategies The overall mean rating for the Reading Recovery Program Strategies was 3.61 which also indicates a high level of instructional effectiveness. Of the eight During Tutoring Lesson subcategories, the highest observed rating was for appropriate text selected throughout the lesson observed to be above average in 85.7% of tutoring sessions. The During Tutoring Lesson subcategory with the lowest observed rating was echo of focus throughout the lesson observed to be above average in just 42.9% of tutoring sessions. For the After Tutoring Lesson, has high expectations for the child and articulates child's strengths and needs were observed to be above average in 78.6% of tutoring sessions and accurate and up-to-date records were observed to be above average in 71.4% of tutoring sessions. The Reading Recovery Program Strategies were observed in at least 85.7% of tutoring sessions. Observer Perceptions of Reading Recovery Program Implementation Site observers reported being impressed with the dedication and commitment of the Reading Recovery teachers to the fidelity of the teaching procedures and the integrity of the implementation of the program. Almost all teachers observed were meeting all the standards, guidelines, and expectations of the Reading Recovery Council of North America and the North American Trainers Group. Since observations occurred in March and April, most of the students observed were second-round students, since teachers had discontinued their first-round students. Teachers reported that students who did not discontinue from Reading Recovery during the first-round were being considered for further intervention services. Site observers also reported that the Reading Recovery program in the Little Rock district receives an adequate allocation of time, materials, and other resources. However, several teachers and principals expressed the need for additional Reading Recovery teachers in their schools. Reading Recovery teachers also reported teaching literacy small groups the rest of the day, which enables them to give their Reading Recovery students more attention during the instructional day. By teaching these literacy groups, site observers suggested that the Reading Recovery 5 teachers expertise and knowledge gained from their training and practice benefits children across several grade levels. During visits site observers suggested areas in which some Reading Recovery teachers needed improvement. These instructional areas included: (1) hearing and recording sounds in words\n(2) making and breaking\n(3) doing away with the helping hand\nand (4) maintaining up-to-date records on each child as a basis for instruction. INTERVIEW RESULTS Reading Recovery Principal Interview 4 Principals at 10 of the Reading Recovery schools were randomly selected to participate in a 45-minute phone interview. Principals were asked a series of questions regarding general program implementation, classroom-level changes, program results, professional development opportunities and parental and community involvement. 81 Overall, principals were positive about the Reading Recovery program and the impact it has had on their schools. Most of the schools have been utilizing Reading Recovery for several years and faculty and staff are very comfortable with the program. Nearly all of the principals interviewed were instrumental in bringing Reading Recovery to their schools, and the decision to utilize Reading Recovery was made after considerable research and thoughtful consideration. Principals reported that Reading Recovery is a wonderful complement to the schools balanced literacy programs. The one-on-one attention the reading Recovery students receive is overwhelmingly the most effective of the strategies that the program employs. Other effective strategies mentioned included push-ins, literacy groups, running records, and the writing component. Principals reported being active advocates in their Reading Recovery programs. They described their roles as one of support and involvement, ranging from oversight of the program to more direct involvement including student selection for the program, review of student progress, and ongoing meetings and collaboration with the Reading Recovery specialists. 4  All principals noted that teachers were very supportive of the Reading Recovery program and appreciated the impact it has had on overall student achievement. Most of the resources needed for effective program implementation are available\nhowever, principals reported an ongoing need for books, additional teachers and tutors, and more planning time. Principals described the African- American population as being well-served by Reading Recovery, and most agreed that through Reading Recovery the achievement gap is being bridged for their African-American students. In most of the schools, African-American students are a large percentage of the Reading Recovery program, and the early intervention provided by Reading Recovery allows the student to be encouraged by being successful at a younger age. Teacher In-Training Interview q  In the spring 2005, four teachers in their first year in the Reading Recovery program were contacted by phone for a 30 to 45-minute phone interview. The teachers in-training were attending classes concerning Reading Recovery instruction, as well as working in their schools implementing the Reading Recovery strategies. Feedback from the teachers was solicited regarding general program information, classroom level changes, results, professional development, and parental involvement and support. All teachers described the process of integrating Reading Recovery into the schools literacy program as well planned and organized. Reading Recovery teachers work individually with the lowest performing students and then follow up individual instruction with literacy groups. Reading Recovery 6^1 teachers reported a thorough selection process that involved collaboration with the classroom teacher and comprehensive testing and assessment. In general, the Reading Recovery teachers reported strong support from the classroom teachers, that classroom teachers appreciated the effectiveness of the one-on-one approach, and the fact that Reading Recovery is able to provide this type of support, freeing the classroom teacher to work more effectively with the other students. The Reading Recovery teachers in-training strongly felt that Reading Recovery helped to equalize learning and achievement opportunities for African-American students at their schools. Most of the students in Reading Recovery are African-American, and these teachers were able to see positive gains. Reading Recovery helps all struggling readers by actively engaging them in reading and allowing them to feel successful at reading. The Reading Recovery teachers in-training reported a significant increase in self-confidence and improvement in overall attitude among the Reading Recovery students. As the students begin to experience success, they are less frustrated and angry. This improvement in attitude improves their classroom behavior and relationships with other teachers and students. Some of these teachers have seen dramatic increases in test scores and other achievement data, while others have not yet been able to see these gains. Reading Recovery teachers in-training reported professional training that ranged from adequate to thorough. Changes in Reading Recovery course instructors led to some confusion for some of the teachers in training, and some reported the need for increased classroom hours. However, overall, these teachers reported feeling well-prepared to work with the students. The strategies they have learned have been very helpful. Although the teachers in-training reported having significant classroom experience, they are learning unique techniques that have been very beneficial. Survey Results 4 Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ) Descriptive results. Reading Recovery teachers had extremely favorable attitudes toward the program at their schools. All of the teachers strongly agreed or agreed that they have a thorough understanding of the program, teachers in their school are generally supportive of the program, ongoing communication exists between Reading Recovery tutors and classroom reading teachers, Reading Recovery monthly meetings are effective and useful, instructional materials needed to implement the Reading Recovery program are readily available, and the Reading Recovery program is aligned with state and district reading and language arts standards. There was also strong agreement that Reading Recovery teachers received support, with 86.4% of the teachers reporting that the school administration and Reading Coach supported their efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher. Almost 75% (72.7%) of teachers reported receiving extensive district support. The items with the highest level of disagreement (disagree and strongly disagree) concerned Reading Recovery teachers having sufficient planning time (36.4%) and enough tutors to fully implement the Reading Recovery program (18.2%). Demographic data. All Reading Recovery teachers (100%) reported having at least six years of teaching experience and 31.8% reported at least six years experience as a Reading Recovery teacher. Approximately 85% (86.4%) of Reading Recovery teachers reported having a Masters Degree and beyond. The majority of Reading Recovery teachers were Caucasian (72.7%) and 13.6% reported their ethnicity as African-American. H Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (RRCTQ) Descriptive results. For the classroom teachers, the three items on which 80% or higher agreed included: teacher support of the program (93.6%), positive impact on student achievement 1(87.8%), and improving achievement of African-American students (82.1%). The two items on which classroom teachers expressed the strongest disagreement or disagreement included: sufficient faculty and staff to fully implement the program (23.1%) and because of Reading Recovery, parents are more involved in the literacy program (14.7%). Demographic data. K-3 classroom teachers reported less teaching experience and education attainment than Reading Recovery teachers. Close to 30% (28.9%) reported less than one year to five years teaching experience in any school and 57.7% reported having a Bachelors degree. However, more classroom teachers reported their ethnicity as African-American (28.9%) than Reading Recovery teachers with the majority (68.6%) reporting ethnicity as Caucasian. Reading Recovery Parent Survey (RRPS) 4 Descriptive results. 4 Descriptive results. Generally, parents had favorable attitudes toward the Reading Recovery program. A majority of the parents (90.5%) reported that, because of Reading Recovery tutoring, they believed that their child would be successful in school and 86.3% reported that Reading Recovery had improved their child's reading skills. However, less than 75% (66.3%) of parents strongly agreed or agreed that they have many opportunities to talk with the Reading Recovery teacher about their childs progress. Demographic data. Almost 70% (68.4%) of parents reported the ethnicity of their child as African-American and 13.7% reported their childs ethnicity as Hispanic and 7.4% reported the ethnicity of their child as Caucasian. m Reading Recovery Level of Participation and Program Measures African-American students were in the majority in all of the 18 schools in the study. Not surprisingly, at 72.5% of the comparison student population and 75.0% of the Reading Recovery student population, African-American students were also a majority of the Reading Recovery students in this study. In 10 of the 18 schools, the percentage of African-American students in Reading Recovery exceeded their percentage of the comparison population. How meaningful this difference is may be debatable given instances where 100% of the Reading Recovery students are African-American in a school in which 98.3% of the comparison students are African-American (Watson Elementary) or where there are just 8 Reading Recovery students in a school with more than 100 first grade students (Terry Elementary School). Reading Recovery End of Program Status by Race A comparison of the total African-American Reading Recovery student population to the total other students involved in Reading Recovery indicates that the students were nearly equally represented in two of the three program specific measures. The percentage of African-American students Discontinued (43.3%) was not considerably different from the percent of other students Discontinued (46.3%). In addition, in the Incomplete status, the percentage of African-American students (21.3%) was not very much different than that of the other students (25.9%). Only in the Recommended status did the percentage of African-American students considerably exceed the percentage of other students (34.5% vs. 27.8%). fl Reading Recovery Year End Reading Group by Race With-in school comparisons are again difficult to make due to the unequal number of African- American students compared to other students participating in the program. On an overall basis however, the percentage of African-American students in the high/upper-middle group at 25.7% was 8 I fl fl fl fl lower than the percent of other students in this group (38.2%). In addition, almost 75% of the African-American students were in the low/lower-middle group compared to less than 66% of other students. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT RESULTS DRA and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery Subtests. A total of 142 Reading Recovery students (66% pretest-posttest match rate) and 562 comparison students (65% rate) had matching 2005 DRA subtest scores, demographic information, and 2004 DRA/Observation Survey factor scores. Wilks lambda indicated significant multivariate effects for Reading Recovery status (Fa 1380 = 6.83, p \u0026lt; .001), special education status ( Ft.ego = 3.93, p \u0026lt;.01), and 2003-2004 DRA/Observation Survey factor scores (F4 ego = 111.32, p \u0026lt;.001). Follow-up univariate tests indicated significant Reading Recovery status effects on Hearing and Recording Sounds (^2,093 = 6.34. p \u0026lt;.01) and DRA scores (F2,693 = 9.99, p \u0026lt; 001). Post hoc analyses revealed that: (a) Reading Recovery students in both the Incomplete Program = 36.32\nS =+0.43) and the Complete Program (M = 35.96\nES =+0.37) had a significantly higher adjusted mean Hearing and Recording Sounds score than students in the comparison condition (Ivf = 33.82)\nand (b) students in the comparison condition //Vf = 17.64) and the Complete program 16.42\nES = -0.18) had a higher mean DRA score than students receiving the Incomplete Program (M = 13.02\nES = -0.68). No program by race interaction effect occurred, indicating that African-American and other students were equally affected by participation in Reading Recovery. DIBELS Subtests. A total of 67 Reading Recovery students (31%) and 53 comparison students (28%) had matching 2005 DIBELS subtest scores, demographic information, and 2003-2004 DIBELS factor scores. Wilks lambda indicated significant multivariate effects for Reading Recovery status (3212 = 4.12. p \u0026lt; .001). special education status ( E4.106 = 3.50. p \u0026lt;.01). and 2003-2004 DRA factor scores (4,106 = 3.69. p \u0026lt;.01). Follow-up univariate tests indicated significant Reading Recovery status effects on Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (2,109 = 3.39. p \u0026lt;.O5) and Oral Reading Fluency (2109 = 6.59, p \u0026lt; .01). Post hoc analyses revealed that: (a) Reading Recovery students in both the Incomplete Program (M = 54.81\nES = +0.65) and the Complete Program {M = 54.02\nES = +0.58) had a significantly higher adjusted mean Phoneme Segmentation Fluency score than students in the comparison condition (M = 47.23 )\n(b) students in the comparison condition (M = 40.35) and the Complete program (M- 33.45) had a higher mean Oral Reading Fluency score than students receiving the Incomplete Program {M = 21.62\nES = -0.91)\nand (c) students in the comparison condition had a higher adjusted mean Oral Reading Fluency score (A/f = 40.35) than students receiving the Complete program (Af = 33.45\nES =-0.33). No program by race interaction effect occurred, indicating that African-American and other students were equally affected by participation in Reading Recovery. ITBS Reading NCE. A total of 140 Reading Recovery students (65%) and 562 comparison students (65%) had matching 2004-2005 Reading Recovery subtest scores, demographic information, and 2003-2004 DRA factor scores. The ANCOVA indicated statistically significant effects for Reading Recovery status (2,591 = 6.62. p \u0026lt;.001). free lunch status (1,591 = 7.83. p \u0026lt;.01). and 2003-2004 DRA/Observation Survey factor scores (1,591 = 195.81. p \u0026lt;.001). No program by race interaction effect occurred, indicating that African-American and other students were equally affected by participation in Reading Recovery. Post hoc analyses showed that comparison students (M = 53.82) had a significantly higher adjusted mean ITBS Reading NCE score than students receiving the Complete program (AT = 46.65\nES = -0.34). The effect size for African-American students receiving a complete program was -0.46. versus 0.09 for those receiving an incomplete program. Exploratory and supplemental results. Exploratory analyses of second and third grade results showed no effects on 2004-2005 DRA and effect sizes ranged from -0.16 to -1.34 on ITBS for Reading Recovery students. These results need to be viewed with caution, however, due to low matching rates in second grade and the lack of a true pretest measure. There was no relationship between number of teacher years of experience with Reading Recovery and ITBS standardized 9n residuals or DRA standardized residuals for students receiving a complete program, after controlling for 2003-2004 DRA factor scores and student ethnicity, gender, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status. Likewise, there was no relationship between number of sessions attended and ITBS residuals. A statistically significant, small positive relationship was observed between total number of sessions attended and DRA residuals (r = 0.21, p \u0026lt;.O5). The median effect size estimate across all posttests for African-American students with a complete program was Md = +0.17, with a range from -0.25 to +0.52. For African-American students receiving an incomplete program, effect size estimates ranged from -0.78 to +0.50, with a median of -0.23. Thus, receiving a complete program yielded a directional advantage for African-American students, whereas the reverse occurred for receiving an incomplete program. FINDINGS Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? 4 m  The Reading Recovery program had equal effects on African-American and other students.  Students receiving the complete program had significantly higher adjusted means than comparison students on Phoneme Segmentation (ES = +0.58) and Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words (ES = +0.36)  Students receiving an incomplete program had significantly higher adjusted means than comparison students on Phoneme Segmentation (ES = +0.65).  Students in the comparison condition had significantly higher adjusted means than students receiving a complete program on Oral Reading Fluency (ES = -0.33) and on ITBS Reading NCE scores (ES = -0.34).  Students in the comparison condition had significantly higher adjusted means than students receiving an incomplete program on DRA test scores (ES = -0.68) and Oral Reading Fluency (ES = -0.91).  No relationship was observed between teacher experience with Reading Recovery and 2004- 2005 student achievement outcomes after controlling for 2003-2004 achievement, student ethnicity, gender, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status.  No relationship was observed between number of Reading Recovery sessions and 2004- 2005 ITBS Reading NCE scores, after controlling for 2003-2004 achievement, student ethnicity, gender, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status.  A small but statistically significant positive relationship was observed between number of Reading Recovery sessions and 2004-2005 DRA test scores, after controlling for 2003-2004 achievement, student ethnicity, gender, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status.  The median effect size estimate across all posttests for African-American students receiving a complete program was +0.16\nfor students receiving an incomplete program, the median effect size estimate was -0.09.  Positive effects of Reading Recovery tended to be associated with lower-order or beginning reading skills like phoneme segmentation and hearing and recording sounds, while less positive effects tended to be associated with more complex, higher-order skills like Oral Reading Fluency and DRA scores. n What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-2005? Classroom observations indicate that Reading Recovery teachers instructional practices conform to the recommendations and requirements of the program throughout the district. Given that there are no national comparisons or benchmarks for the RRIAl, a mean of approximately 3.50 on a 4.00 scale suggests a high level of Reading Recovery implementation in the district. Site researchers noted only three areas in which some teachers were observed below average to some degree, reading familiar stories, appropriate pacing of the lesson components, and working 10 with letters and or/words. However, the observed lack of quality implementation in some classrooms in reading familiar stories and appropriate pacing of the lesson components might begin to explain the lack of oral reading fluency, text reading, and ITBS effects for Reading Recovery students. There appears to be a high level of consistency of program delivery across the district. This suggests that generally teachers have a high degree of fidelity to the model. In addition, the student achievement analysis found that there was no relationship between teacher experience with Reading Recovery and 2005 achievement scores after controlling for 2004 achievement and other variables. What is the level of participation in Reading Recovery by African-American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? The data indicate that African-American students made up a majority of the students participating in Reading Recovery in the 18 schools included in this study. This finding shouldnt be surprising since African-Americans are the majority of the students in each of the participating schools. Information compiled from the student achievement analyses also indicates the percentage of African-American students receiving Reading Recovery services (75.2%) is very similar to the ethnic makeup of the students used for comparison purposes (73.6%). However, Reading Recovery students were more likely to receive free or reduced-price lunch (84.3% vs. 73.1%) and special education services (15.7% vs. 8.6%) than comparison students, and were more likely to be male (58.1% vs. 48.0%). What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other student participants in Reading Recovery in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued? What proportion of scheduled sessions are actually held, and what are the reasons for missed sessions? Table 11 indicates that African-American students, when compared with Reading Recovery students of other ethnicities, were nearly equally represented in two of the three program specific measures examined. The percentage of African-American students Discontinued at 43.3%, was not considerably different than the percentage of students Discontinued of other ethnic backgrounds, 46.3%. In addition, in the Incomplete status, the percentage of African-Americans (21.3%) was, again, not much different than students from other ethnicities (25.9%). African- American students, at 34.5%, were more likely to be Recommended for further actions than other students (27.8%). 4 African-American students were, however, more likely to be in the Low/Lower Middle reading group at the end of the school year than other students (74.3% vs. 61.8%). This finding may present a dilemma for the program and the district. While African-American students are generally progressing similarly to other students on program-specific measures, at the end of the school year, the majority of African-American students are still struggling to maintain or falling below grade level in reading. About 22% of scheduled sessions were missed due to the teacher being unavailable (7%), student absence (6%), teacher absence (5%), or the student being unavailable (4%). These missed sessions could contribute to the mean number of sessions per week being 3.5. What are the perceptions of Reading Recovery teachers regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Reading Recovery teachers had extremely favorable attitudes toward the Reading Recovery program. Teachers reported a thorough understanding of the program, that they received adequate professional development which was valuable for improving the achievement of African- American students, and that they had the support from teachers in the school. The majority of Reading Recovery teachers also reported receiving extensive administrative, Reading Coach, 114 - V and district support. The items and areas of most concern were sufficient planning time, enough tutors to fully implement the program, and time to routinely monitor first grade students progress after they were discontinued from Reading Recovery tutoring. Additionally, Reading Recovery teachers indicated that only 63.6% of faculty, staff, and administration believe that all children can read at grade level or above by the end of third grade and that parents are more involved in the literacy program of this school as a result of the program. Reading Recovery teachers, on average, appear to be more experienced and better educated. Eighty percent had a Masters degree or beyond in educational attainment and 100% reported at least six year or more years of teaching experience. In addition, the majority (68.18%) reported one to five years of experience as a Reading Recovery teacher. The four teachers in-training were equally committed and positive about the program and overall, felt they were well prepared to work with students. The teachers in-training also felt strongly that Reading Recovery helped to equalize learning and achievement opportunities for African-American students. Teachers in-training emphasized the importance of using data to monitor the progress of the students to develop effective teaching strategies based on the individual needs of each student. Finally, teachers in-training also reported the need for more time to plan and implement as well as for continuing support to understand Reading Recovery components more thoroughly. What are the perceptions of principals, regular first-grade teachers, and other teachers in the school regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A review of Reading Recovery principal interview responses indicates that principals are very supportive and actively involved in the program. All of the principals interviewed reported that they understood the program and were advocates of their program having a positive impact on overall student achievement. Principals indicated that the one-on-one tutoring program supplements and enhances the schools balanced literacy program. Most principals agreed that, through Reading Recovery, the achievement gap is being bridged for their African-American students. Principals also noted that teachers were very supportive of the program. K-3 classroom teachers shared the principals enthusiasm for the Reading Recovery program, as evidenced by responses on the RRCTQ. A majority of the classroom teachers reported that they had an understanding of the program, were generally supportive, and that student achievement had been positively impacted. Principals and teachers also agreed that most of the resources and support needed for effective program implementation was available\nhowever, they also reported an ongoing need for additional teachers and tutors to support more students and time to plan, review student progress, and collaborate together. All (102) of the teachers responding agreed that their school should continue the Reading Recovery program. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Reading Recovery students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents were generally very pleased with the results of the Reading Recovery program. Approximately 90% of the parents responding to the parent survey agreed that: Reading Recovery tutoring had improved their childs reading skills and because of Reading Recovery their child will be successful in school. Less than three percent of those who responded reported that they did not know or understand the program. In the three open-ended responses parents indicated a very good understanding of the program, appreciation of one-on-one tutoring sessions, and the improvement in their childs reading skills. However, a few parents did express the need for longer and more frequent tutoring sessions and more opportunities to talk with the Reading Recovery teacher about their childs progress. 12 RECOMMENDED PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS In summary, the Little Rock School District has a strong Reading Recovery program implementation. Teachers, principals, and parents appear to be actively engaged in the program and the district tries to provide adequate levels of resources and support. However, the lack of clear program effects may be the result of factors that have been identified in prior studies of Reading Recovery. Possible factors and recommended program modifications to produce greater achievement gains include:  It would be expected that Reading Recovery students would perform better on assessments more closely aligned with the instructional program (DRA, DIBELS, Observation Survey) than the norm-referenced, group-administered ITBS. In m particular, Reading Recovery enhanced learning for complete program students tests involving Phoneme Segmentation and Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words, However, it had less positive effects on tests assessing Oral Reading Fluency and ITBS Reading NCE scores. Reading Recovery is also most likely serving as a first line of defense for students who many later be referred for special education services. While classroom teachers are receiving help for their neediest students, this may put an extra burden on the program that was designed to help students who could benefit quickly from quality instruction in 20 weeks. w  The district should examine the feasibility of expanding the program to provide tutoring support to all incoming first grade students who need services. In the 2004- 2005 school year, the 18 Reading Recovery schools indicated that 365 students needed tutoring services and approximately half of this number received a complete round of lessons and were discontinued. The Reading Recovery program guidelines state that if a school has more children who need services than one teacher can provide, then it will never realize the full benefit of Reading Recovery for later school achievement. It is especially difficult for classroom teachers to continue to scaffold discontinued students learning while supporting a large number of other at-risk students reading below grade level. q q q  In addition to an expanded program, a transitional plan for students who have discontinued should be explored. The data suggest that after Reading Recovery students are discontinued and return to the classroom at the same reading level as their peers, they may not maintain the same growth rate and achievement does not keep pace with their peers. Although research indicates that former Reading Recovery students perform well in their classes, some slippage in achievement can occur (Clay, 1993). Although Clay (1993) provides guidelines for transition back to the classroom after the student is discontinued\nit is possible that students were returned to the classroom without benefit of a transition plan. As noted by Reading Recovery teachers, few teachers have the opportunity to routinely monitor discontinued students progress. Such a plan could involve daily monitored reading RI that would provide another buffer against slippage. Also in tutoring sessions, children have opportunities to read texts at their instruction level on a daily basis, but they may not have adequate time for daily reading in the regular classroom. q q  The quality of instruction that Reading Recovery students receive once they return to the classroom is an important factor that was not examined in this study. Increased professional development of classroom teachers would enable them to understand how to integrate their Reading Recovery students back into the classroom once they have been discontinued, and how to provide the appropriate instruction and feed back so that students would continue to improve. 13m9 4 Bl  Increased partnership with UALR to help with the development of a transition plan and professional development for classroom teachers would seem to be warranted given these study results.  Additional research could provide critical insight into the optimum classroom environment for discontinued, recommended, and incomplete Reading Recovery students. Further studies might also provide a more in-depth analysis of a small number of students whose gains were maintained to determine what factors contributed to their success and how these factors can be generalized to all Reading Recovery schools. EXPECTATIONS OF PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS Reading Recovery has valuable components that, with adaptation and modification, can be even more effective. With the recommended program modifications, the Little Rock School District could expect: Progressive gains on standardized test scores for African-American students over time. An increased number of students involved in the Reading Recovery program. A greater adherence to Reading Recovery guidelines, especially those relating to transition services and the number of sessions required for optimum benefits. More teachers throughout the district better able to serve students at-risk in the areas of literacy and reading. Sustained achievement of students upon completion of the Reading Recovery program. A stronger relationship with UALR professionals that would continue to provide the Little Rock School District with the most up-to-date research findings and best instructional practices for reading and literacy instruction. 14 4 4 EVALUATION OF READING RECOVERY IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: 2005 AGGREGATE REPORT INTRODUCTION The Little Rock School District began implementing Reading Recovery during the 1995-1996 school year in two schools. During the first four years of implementation, the Little Rock School District was part of the Pulaski County Reading Recovery Site. By 1998 there were eight trained Reading Recovery teachers in seven schools in the Little Rock School District. In July 1999 the district became a Reading Recovery Site hiring a full-time teacher leader. In 2000-2001 the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) began conducting the Reading Recovery teacher training for the district. Between the 2000-2001 and 2004-2005 school years UALR trained 17 Reading Recovery teachers for the district. At the end of the 2004-2005 school year the Little Rock School District had 28 trained Reading Recovery teachers serving 18 of the 34 elementary schools in the district. Reading Recovery is one of eight literacy programs, interventions, and/or models used by Little Rock schools. Currently, Little Rock School District funds are used to support the program. The goal of Reading Recovery is to dramatically reduce the number of first grade students who have difficulty learning to read and write and to reduce the cost of these learners to educational systems. Reading Recovery is a short-term intervention program of one-to-one tutoring for the lowest-achieving first graders. The intervention is most effective when it is available to all students who need it and is used as a supplement to good classroom teaching. Individual students receive a half-hour lesson each school day for 12 to 20 weeks with a specially trained Reading Recovery teacher. As soon as students can read within the average range of their class and demonstrate that they can continue to achieve, their lessons are discontinued and new students begin individual instruction. Reading Recovery was developed by New Zealand educator and researcher Dr. Marie M. Clay over 20 years ago. More than one million first graders have been served in 49 states since Reading Recovery was introduced in the United States in 1984. Professional development is an 15 essential component of the Reading Recovery program. Training utilizes a three-tiered approach that includes teachers, teacher leaders, and university trainers. In schools, special trained teachers work with children. At the site level, teacher leaders work with children, train teachers, and assist and monitor implementation with the help of a site coordinator. In university training centers, trainers work with children, train teacher leaders, engage in research, and support program implementation at affiliated sites. Professional development for teachers and teacher leaders begins with year-long graduate level study and is followed by ongoing training in succeeding years. Since 1984, the program reports that 80% of students who completed the full 12 to 20 week series of lessons, and 59% of all students who have any lessons in Reading Recovery, can read and write with the average range of performance of their class. Program follow-up studies also indicate 4 that most Reading Recovery students also do well on standardized tests and maintain their gains in later years. The evaluation plan for the Reading Recovery program in Little Rock School District included: (1) analyses of Reading Recovery student achievement and program data, (2) principal, teacher, and 4 parent surveys and interviews, and (3) observations of Reading Recovery tutoring sessions. This 4 report is part of a larger district study of four programs evaluating the effectiveness in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students. This report includes results from 18 elementary schools participating in the Reading Recovery program. RESEACH QUESTIONS The major goals of this research study were to evaluate African-American student achievement outcomes, program implementation fidelity, and principal, teacher, and parent perceptions concerning the Reading Recovery tutoring program for first grade students. Student achievement results on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), Developmental Reading Assessment a (DRA), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement were analyzed to compare the progress of first graders enrolled in the Reading a Recovery intervention program and comparison students in 2004-2005. Program implementation ratings were obtained from observations of 14 tutoring sessions in nine schools. The survey and a 16interview results are based on the perceptions of 156 classroom teachers in grades K-3, 22 experienced Reading Recovery teachers, four teachers in-training, 10 principals, and 95 parents. The Reading Recovery evaluation was structured around the following seven primary and supplemental research questions\nPrimary evaluation question:  Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) evaluation questions:  What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-2005? q  What is the level of participation in Reading Recovery by African-American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school?  What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other student participants in Reading Recovery in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued? What proportion of scheduled sessions are actually held, and what are the reasons for missed sessions?  What are the perceptions of Reading Recovery teachers regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of principals, regular first-grade teachers, and other teachers in the school regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Reading Recovery students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 17EVALUATION DESIGN AND MEASURES The evaluation period extended from February 2005 through May 2005. The evaluation design was based on both quantitative and qualitative data collected from Reading Recovery intervention observations, principal and teacher in-training interviews, classroom teachers, Reading Recovery teachers, parent surveys, and Reading Recovery program data. Reading Recovery student-level achievement data on the ITBS, DRA, DIBELS, and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement was received in fall 2005 and incorporated in this report. The primary data collectors in this study were Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) trained site researchers. Site researchers (1) conducted Reading Recovery intervention observations, (2) administered the Reading Recovery teacher survey, (3) conducted principal and teacher in-training interviews, and (4) collected program data. Principals at Reading Recovery schools were responsible for administering the classroom teacher and Reading Recovery parent surveys. Participants Little Rock School District is located in Central Arkansas and serves approximately 26,500 students, with African-Americans representing approximately 67% of the district student population, in 49 schools in an urban area with a population of 184,000. In the 2004-2005 school year 18 elementary schools and 230 first grade students, of which 173 are African-American, 27 are Caucasian, 22 are Hispanic, and the remaining 8 are other ethnicities, participated in the Reading Recovery program in the district. However, the schools indicated that 365 first grade students needed Reading Recovery services. Three schools were in their first year of program implementation (Bale, 1 Stephens, and Terry) and survey and observation data were not collected from these schools. However, randomly selected teachers in-training and principals from these three schools were interviewed for this study. A profile of the Reading Recovery schools and participants included in this study is shown in Table 1. The profile data were obtained from either the 2003-2004 Common Core of Data from the National Center for Education Statistics, the 2004-2005 Reading Recovery Site Report for Little Rock from the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University, or provided by the district. As indicated in Table 1, the number of years schools have implemented the 18 Reading Recovery program ranged from one to 10. The Reading Recovery schools were predominately African-American, ranging from 50% of the student population to 99%. The district reported that four Reading Recovery schools did not receive Title I funding and the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced price lunch ranged from a low of 33% to a high of 94% at all Reading Recovery schools. Table 1 Reading Recovery Participating Schools: 2004-2005 School Name Students Teachets Aftican- Ametican Bale Elementary School 319 27 87% School Wide Populalion Asian 0% Hispanic Caucasian 7% 5% %Freeand Reduced Lurch 88.4% ReaiiTgRecowiyParticiMnlWaTOlion % Below Proficient* Number of RR Teachets Number of K-3 Teachers Nutter of RR Yeats n RR Students Piogram 45% 10 Bi Booker Arts Magnet ES 605 55 55% 1% 4% 40% 63.3% 22% 20 32 Bl Carver Magnet Elem School Chicot Elem School David ODodd El School Franklin Incentive Elem School Geyer Springs El School 496 536 261 387 299 43 44 27 35 23 54% 75% 58% 97% 89% 3% 3% 40% 53.0% 18% 16 16 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 10% 86.6% 38% 17 26 10% 32% 68.9% 30% 10 0% 2% 943% 51% 12 18 4% 7% 806% 48% Bl Gibbs Magnet El School Meadowdiff Elem School Mitchell Incentive Elem School Otter Creek El School Rightsell Incentive Elem School Stephens Elem School 310 349 156 511 262 499 30 24 22 31 26 39 52% 77% 98% 56% 99% 95% 4% 3% 41% 43.9% 11% 14 1% 9% 13% 85.1% 44% 0% 0% 2% 91.7% 59% 1% 6% 36% 55.7% 19% 14 10 0% 0% 1% 876% 49% 1% 3% 2% 90.6% 59% 18 B! Terry Elem School 577 36 51% 7% 5% 36% 475% 12% 18 Wakefield Elem School 451 29 83% 0% 15% 2% 920% 33% 13 18 Watson Elem School 456 34 95% 0% 3% 2% 932% 64% 15 10 Williams Magnet Elem School 461 36 52% 9% 1% 38% 33.6% 10% 13 13 Wilson Elem School 285 27 89% 1% 4% 6% 91.9% 36% H 4 * Proficiency levels are based on 2003-2004 school year ACTAAP Grade 4 Reading, Language, and Writing data. 1 8 1 4 7 2 3 3 5 1 8 9 2 7 1 8 8 7 2 8 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 9 5 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8 3 2 3 1 1 3 3 9 5 4 19Instrumentation Six instruments were developed by CREP to collect the evaluation data: a classroom observation tool, a principal interview, a teacher in-training interview, a Reading Recovery teacher questionnaire, a classroom teacher questionnaire, and a parent survey. A detailed description of each instrument follows. Classroom Observation Measure Reading Recovery Implementation Assessment Instrument (RRIAl) 4 The RRIAl was designed for observation in Reading Recovery classrooms and was developed by researchers at CREP and Reading Recovery faculty at UALR. Ratings are organized Ql around two categories: Reading Recovery Program Components and Reading Recovery Program Strategies. The RRIAl observation tool provides an overall rating for each category based on a rubric that ranges from (1) poor or unacceptable\n(2) below average in comparison to other programs observed\n(3) meets nearly all standards of program quality\nand (4) above average in comparison to other programs. The RRIAl has been aligned to the essential components of the Reading Recovery program. Sub-categories of the program components include: reading familiar stories, reading a story that was read for the first time the day before, working with letters, writing a story, assembling a cut-up story, and introducing and reading a new book. The tool was designed to be utilized by experienced Reading Recovery trainers during the 30-minute tutoring session with additional time allocated for observer questions and examination of student records after the session. Site observers received observation protocol training in February 2005 and a copy of the observation guidelines are included in Appendix A. Site observers were also asked to provide overall perceptions of Reading Recovery program implementation in the Little Rock schools. Interviews Reading Recovery Principal Interview Randomly selected principals from 10 Reading Recovery schools participated in approximately 45-minute phone interviews with CREP researchers. Interview questions addressed 20 the principals general experiences and reactions to the Reading Recovery implementation and the associated outcomes for the school, students, teachers, and parents. A copy of the principal interview protocol with summary responses is included in Appendix B. Reading Recovery Teacher in-Training Interview In the 2004-2005 school year, six teachers were beginning their first year as a Reading Recovery teacher and considered as teachers in-training. Three were located in experienced schools and three were located in the schools beginning their first year of implementation: Bale, Stephens, and Terry. Four randomly selected teachers in-training participated in an approximately 45-minute phone interview with CREP researchers. Interview questions addressed the teachers in-training experiences with and perceptions of the Reading Recovery program implementation with regard to such areas as q resources, professional development, parent involvement, support, and student outcomes. A copy of the teacher in-training interview protocol with summary responses is included in Appendix C. Surveys Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (RRCTQ) 4 Reading Recovery teachers in the 15 experienced Reading Recovery schools were asked to complete the RRTQ, which includes four sections. Section I contains 20 items to which teachers respond using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed the general impressions of the Reading Recovery program, professional I development, support for the program, impacts on student achievement, and alignment of state and district reading and language arts standards. In a second section, teachers were asked to indicate to what degree the listed items occurred. The focus of the four items were (1) administration support of Reading Recovery teacher efforts\n(2) Reading Coach support of Reading Recovery teacher efforts\n(3) district support of Reading Recovery teacher efforts\nand (4) the time to routinely monitor first n grade students progress after they were discontinued from tutoring. Open-ended questions asked Reading Recovery teachers to respond to the statements: Whaf are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? What are the weakest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? Do 21 you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? A final section of the RRTQ contained general questions regarding years of teaching experience, race, and level of education. Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (RRCTQ) All K-3 teachers who taught in experienced Reading Recovery schools were asked to complete the RRCTQ, which contains 13 items to which teachers respond using a five-point Likert- type scale that ranges from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed the specific program elements of Reading Recovery such as: understanding of the program, impacts on student achievement, teacher support for the program, and parent involvement. Open-ended questions asked classroom teachers to respond to the statements: Please describe your understanding of the Reading Recovery program in your school. What are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery Bl program? Do you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? final section of the RRCTQ contained general questions regarding years of teaching experience, race, and level of 4 education. Reading Recovery Parent Survey (RRPS) Parents whose first grade children were currently receiving Reading Recovery tutoring services were asked to complete the RRPS, that contains six items to which parents respond using a five-point Likert-type scale that ranges from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed general impressions of the program such as: improvement in childs reading skills, childs enjoyment of tutoring sessions, and opportunities to communicate with the Reading Recovery teacher. Both English and Spanish versions were made available to schools. Open-ended questions asked parents to respond to the statements: Please describe your understanding of the Reading Recovery tutoring program at your childs school. What is the BEST thing about your childs involvement with the Reading Recovery tutoring program? What CHANGES would you like to see in the Reading Recovery tutoring program? A final section of the RRPS asked parents to indicate the race, grade, and age of their child. 22Program Data Reading Recovery program information was obtained from data submitted to the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University in 2004-2005. Each year the schools and district submit teacher, school, and student program data and receive a site report. The report represents an examination of Reading Recovery student outcomes for Little Rock and accounts for all children served by Reading Recovery within the site during the 2004-2005 school year. In addition, attention is given to implementation factors that may be supporting or hindering the success of the intervention at the site. Student Achievement Results ^1 In addition to the program data, interviews, survey, and observation tools cited above, reading achievement data are derived from scores on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS), Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement. A description of each assessment follows. Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS). The ITBS Form A is a norm-referenced group administered test that measures the skills and achievement of students in grades K-8 and was developed at The University of Iowa. The ITBS provides an in-depth assessment of students achievement of important educational objectives. Tests in Reading, Language Arts, Mathematics, Social Studies, Science, and Source of Information yield reliable and comprehensive information both about the development of students skills and about their ability to think critically. The emphasis of the K-1 assessment is on academic skills found in the early childhood curriculum. These tests are neither measures of readiness for school nor readiness to read. Rather, they assess the extent to which a child is cognitively prepared to begin work in the academic aspects of the curriculum. Test materials have been extensively field tested for psychometric soundness and evaluated for fairness to gender. racial, ethnic, and cultural groups. Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA). The Developmental Reading Assessment provides teachers with a method for assessing and documenting primary students development as readers over time with a literature-based instructional reading program. The DRA is designed to be 23used in K-3 classrooms with rich literacy environments. The assessments are conducted during one- on-one reading conferences as children read specially selected assessment texts. A set of 20 stories, which increase in difficulty, are used for the assessment. The DRA evaluates two major aspects of reading\naccuracy of oral reading and comprehension through reading and retelling of narrative stories. Questions pertaining to concepts about print are also included in the assessment with lower leveled texts. Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). DIBELS is a tool for early identification of children with potential literacy problems and an assessment of response to instruction. The assessment is individually administered to K-3 children at least three times per year. The DIBELS assessment is designed to enable educators to modify their approach if a student is not on course to achieve reading goals. The Early Childhood Research Institute on Measuring Growth and Development at the University of Oregon constructed DIBELS (2000). The Institute reports it has validated the instruments ability to predict outcomes and has tested its reliability with young children across the country. Reading Recovery schools that have received Reading Excellence Act or Reading First grant funding use the DIBELS assessment in Little Rock. An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement: Reading Recovery Subtests. Six tasks in Marie Clays (2002) An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement (Observation Survey) were used as pretest and posttest measures. The Survey tasks have the qualities of sound assessment instruments with established reliabilities and validities. The purpose of the assessment is to determine 4 r an appropriate level of text difficulty and to record, using a running record, what the child does when reading continuous text. All six tasks of the Observation Survey were administered to Reading Recovery students in the fall (start of the school year) and/or at entry to the intervention. These scores served as pretest measures in the evaluation design. The six tasks were also administered to Reading Recovery students upon discontinuing or exiting from the program. In the spring (end of school year), the six tasks were again administered to all students who received Reading Recovery services during the year. Year-end scores served as the posttest measures in comparing the progress made by Reading Recovery children in the various end-of-program status groups. 24PROCEDURE Data for the evaluation were collected March-May 2005 for the 2004-2005 school year. On February 16, 2005 principals were given an overview of the evaluation and timelines for collecting data. On March 3-4 and April 14-15, 14 tutoring observations were conducted in nine randomly selected experienced Reading Recovery schools by two Reading Recovery content experts from Georgia State and The Ohio State Universities. Only experienced Reading Recovery teachers were observed. On March 23 a CREP trained site researcher administered the Reading Recovery teacher survey to experienced teachers at a regularly scheduled monthly meeting at UALR. In April and May principals in experienced Reading Recovery schools administered the classroom teacher q questionnaire to K-3 grade teachers. Principals also administered the parent survey to parents whose children were currently receiving first grade intervention services in the 15 experienced Reading Recovery schools. Four teachers in-training and 10 principals were randomly selected from the 18 Reading Recovery schools to participate in a phone interview in April and May conducted by CREP researchers. Reading Recovery program data were received in summer 2005 from the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University. Student achievement data were received from the district in fall 2005. METHODS - STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Sample. The sample included 1,094 first grade students who attended one of 18 schools that implemented the Reading Recovery program during the 2004-2005 school year. Of these, 230 q were referred to the Reading Recovery program, and 864 were in the comparison group. The percentages of students who were African-American or of Limited English Proficiency were similar q between the comparison and Reading Recovery groups (73.6% versus 75.6% and 7.3% versus 8.7%, respectively\nsee Figure 1). However, Reading Recovery students were more likely to be eligible for q free or reduced-price lunch (84.3% versus 73.1%), to receive special education services (15.7% versus 8.6%), and to be male (58.1% versus 48.0%\nsee Figure 1). A random sample of about 11 comparison students was selected from each school (total n = 189) for administration of the DIBELS and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery test batteries. 25I Figure 1. Percentage of Students with Selected Demographic Characteristics by Reading Recovery Status 100.0 90.0------- 84.3 80.0 70.0 - 60.0 - 50.0 - 40.0 - 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 73.6 75.6 ft l?\u0026gt;( if African American 73.1 15.7 p. 7.3 8-7 8.6p^ 48.0 58^1 S Free lunch LEP Special Education Male  o 7- ??  B Comparison  Reading Recovery a Reading Recovery Treatment Level. In the Reading Recovery program, students who are deemed to have attained a reading level equivalent to their peers are assigned an end-of-program status of discontinued. Children who received 20 or more weeks of Reading Recovery services, but who do not attain a reading level equivalent to their peers are assigned a status of recommended action. Children who have received fewer than 20 weeks were assigned incomplete program status. Children designated as unknown status were removed from the program in fewer than 20 weeks due to reasons other than the school year ending. Other children were designated as having moved during the school year. As shown in Figure 2, the median number of sessions of recommended action {Md = 68.50\nn = 68) children was actually higher than the median for discontinued students {Md = 57.00\nn = 90). The medians for incomplete students {n = 46) and unknown students (n = 12) were very similar {Md = 44.63 versus 46.08, respectively\nsee Figure 2). a For the purposes of this study, recommended action and discontinued students were categorized as complete program\n incomplete and unknown students were categorized as incomplete 26program\n\" and students who moved were eliminated from the analyses. This left a total of 216 Reading Recovery students: 158 with a complete program, and 58 with an incomplete program. Figure 2. Boxplot of Number of Reading Recovery Sessions by Student Status Upon Exiting the Program 80- (A C o w (A Q s Ct  40- M o o I- 20- Discontinued T T T Incomplete Moved Unknown Recommended action o o o T * T Status  Note. Heavy dark lines indicate median. Gray boxes indicate interquartile range. 'Whiskers indicate range, excepting extreme values. Extreme values denoted by circles or asterisks. n 21 Measures. Pretest (covariate) measures included: (a) Spring. 2004 Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) scores, (b) Fall 2005 Observation Survey: Reading Recovery program subtests that included Letter Identification, Word Test, Concepts About Print, Writing Vocabulary, Hearing and 4 Recording Sounds in Words, and Text Reading\nand (c) the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) subtests in Letter Naming Fluency. Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency, and Word Use Fluency. Outcome measures included Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading Normal Curve Equivalent Scores. DRA scores. Observation Survey: Reading Recovery subtests, and DIBELS subtests administered in Spring 2005. To achieve some parsimony in the analyses, pretest measures were subjected to a principal components analysis, and regressionbased factors scores were constructed for pretest DRA and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery 4 4 subtests, and the DIBELS subtests. A single factor accounted for 60.1% and 60.5% of the variance in the DRA and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery subtests, and the DIBELS subtests, respectively. Outcome measures included the DRA and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery. DIBELS subtests, and ITBS Reading. Student achievement analyses. A 3 (Program Status) by 2 (African-American versus other) multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was performed on two test batteries, using student gender, the pertinent pretest factor score, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status as covariates. One test battery included the DRA and subscales of the Observation Survey: Reading Recovery. The second test battery included subtests for the DIBELS. A similar 3 by 2 analysis of covariance was performed on ITBS Reading NCE scores using the 2003-2004 DRA score as a pretest covariate. For the multivariate analyses, Wilks lambda was used as the criterion of multivariate significance. Where Wilks lambda indicated a significant multivariate effect, follow-up univariate analyses were performed on each outcome variable using the Bonferroni procedure to control for experimentwise alpha. When significant univariate results were found, post hoc analyses were performed using Scheffes procedure. Effect size estimates were computed for all posttests by subtracting the adjusted mean for the comparison group from the adjusted mean from the Reading Recovery group within levels of race, then dividing by the total standard deviation of the posttest (Cohen. 1988: Hedges \u0026amp; Olkin. 1985). For ITBS Reading NCE effect size estimates, the population 28 standard deviation of 21.06 was used. The effect size estimates (ES) represent the standardized difference between treatment and comparison group means, which allows for comparison across measures that have different metrics. Exploratory and supplementary analyses: Impact of teacher experience and number of sess/ons. The number of years experience with Reading Recovery was recorded for each teacher. Years experience ranged from 1 to 10 years. ITBS Reading NCE scores and DRA test scores for 2004-2005 were regressed on 2003-2004 DRA/RR Observation Survey factor scores and dummy-coded variables representing student ethnicity, free lunch status, gender, special education status. and LEP status. Standardized residuals were saved from each of these analyses and plotted against teacher years of experience to graphically assess the nature of the relationship between teacher experience and teacher effectiveness in Reading Recovery for students who received a Complete program. Standardized residuals for each of these 2004-2005 tests were also plotted against number of Reading Recovery sessions received for all students (i.e., those who received either a Complete or Incomplete program). DATA COLLECTION Table 2 provides the type of measures, instrument names, administration timeline, and a brief data collection description for each of the instruments. 29 4 Table 2 Data Collection Summary t-fl Type of Measure Site Visits Surveys Interviews Data Analysis and Reporting Instrument RR Implementation Assessment Instrument RR Teacher Questionnaire RR Classroom Teacher Questionnaire RR Parent Survey Principal Interviews Teacher In-Training Interviews ITBS, DRA. DIBELS, \u0026amp; Observation Survey\nRR Little Rock School District Reading Recovery Aggregate Report Timeline Spring 2005 Spring 2005 Spring 2005 Spring 2005 Spring 2005 Spring 2005 Fall 2005 Description/ _____ Response rate  14 conducted  22 respondents/100%  156 respondents/  approximately 90%  95 respondents/9 Spanish  approximately 86%_____  10 conducted  4 conducted  1,094 first grade students . 230 RR  864 comparison group  1 Final Report RESULTS The results of the Reading Recovery evaluation are presented below by instrument. A copy of each instrument is included in Appendix I. In the Conclusion section, findings are synthesized across instruments to address each research question. J -i Reading Recovery Implementation Assessment Instrument (RRIAl) As indicated in the description of the RRIAl, the observation procedure primarily focuses on Reading Recovery Program Components and Program Strategies. The site observers used a four-point rubric (1 = poor or unacceptable, 2 = below average in comparison to other programs observed. 3 = meets nearly all standards of program quality, and 4 = above average in comparison to other programs) to rate the frequency and application of components and strategies of Reading Recovery instruction. More precise data regarding observed Reading Recovery instructional practices measured by the four-point rubric for the 14 observations are presented in Table 3. 30 Reading Recovery Program Components The overall mean rating for the Reading Recovery Program Components was 3.46 which suggests a high level of program implementation. Of the six subcategories the highest observed ratings were\nassembiing a cut-up story and introducing and reading a new book observed to be above average in 85.7% of tutoring sessions. The program component subcategory with the lowest observed rating was working with tetters and/or words using magnetic tetters observed to be above average in only 35.7% of tutoring sessions. Reading a famitiar story and reading a story that was read for the first time the day before was observed to above average in 64.3% of visits. The six program components were observed in at least 92.9% of 14 tutoring sessions. Reading Recovery Program Strategies Cl The overall mean rating for the Reading Recovery Program Strategies was 3.61 which also indicates a high level of instructional effectiveness. Of the eight During Tutoring Lesson subcategories the highest observed rating was for appropriate text setected throughout the tesson 4 observed to above average in 85.7% of tutoring sessions. The During Tutoring Lesson subcategory with the lowest observed rating was echo of focus throughout the tesson observed to be above average in just 42.9% of tutoring sessions. For the After Tutoring Lesson, has high expectations for the chiid and articutates chitds strengths and needs were observed to be above average in 78.6% of tutoring sessions and accurate and up-to-date records were observed to be above average in 71.4% of tutoring sessions. The Reading Recovery Program Strategies were observed in at least 85.7 of tutoring sessions. Observer Perceptions of Reading Recovery Program Implementation Site observers reported being impressed with the dedication and commitment of the Reading Recovery teachers to the fidelity of the teaching procedures and the integrity of the implementation of the program. Almost all teachers observed were meeting all the standards, guidelines, and expectations of the Reading Recovery Council of North America and the North American Trainers m Group. Since observations occurred in March and April, most of the students observed were second- round students, since teachers had discontinued their first-round students. Teachers reported that students who did not discontinue from Reading Recovery during the first-round were being considered 31for further intervention services. Site observers also reported that the Reading Recovery program in the Little Rock district receives an adequate allocation of time, materials, and other resources. However, several teachers and principals expressed the need for additional Reading Recovery n w teachers in their schools. Reading Recovery teachers also reported teaching literacy small groups the rest of the day which enables them to give their Reading Recovery students more attention during the instructional day. By teaching these literacy groups, site observers suggested that the Reading Recovery teachers expertise and knowledge gained from their training and practice benefits children across 4 q q several grade levels. During visits site observers suggested areas in which some Reading Recovery teachers needed improvement. These instructional areas included: (1) hearing and recording sounds in words\n(2) making and breaking\n(3) doing away with the helping hand\nand (4) maintaining up-to-date records on each child as a basis for instruction. A summary of observers general findings for each classroom observation is included in Appendix D. q q q q q 32 ATable 3 Reading Recovery Implementation Assessment Instrument: Spring 2005 N=14 1. II. Please check: Observed: 0 Not Observed: N Please rate each of the following items in terms of the quality of implementation by using the appropriate number according to the following scales: Quality 1 = Poor or unacceptable 2 = Below average in comparison to other programs obsen/ed 3 = Meets nearly all standards of program quality 4 = Above average in comparison to other programs Obseived Not Observed Reading Recoveiy Progtam Components % Poor 4 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 92.86 7.14 Reading familiar stories Reading a story that was read for the first time the day before - incorporates nmning record Working with letters and /or words using magnetic tetters 0.0 0.0 0.0 92.86 7.14 Writing a story 0.0 92.86 7.14 Assembling a cut-up story 0.0 92.86 7.14 Introducing and reading a new book 0.0 4 (Overall rating: Follows the Reading Recovery lesson frameworks Observed Not Obsen/ed Reading Recovery Program Strategies % Poor 92.86 7.14 Appropriate pacing of lesson components 0.0 4 92.86 7.14 100.0 0.0 Appropriate text selected throughout the lesson Appropriate prompts are used for scaffolding the child to problem solve 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Child is engaged in constaictive problem solving 7.14 92.86 7.14 Echo of focus throughout the lesson 0.0 92.86 7.14 Procedures are adjusted according to child's needs 0.0 92.86 7.14 Balance of fluency phrasing practice and problem solving 0.0 85.71 7.14 Opportunities to develop phonological awareness within the lesson 0.0 85.71 85.71 7.14 7.14 Accurate up-to-date records Articulates childs strengths and needs 0.0 0.0 85.71 7.14 Has high expectations for the child 0.0 % Below Average 1429 7.14 4286 0.0 0.0 0.0 % Below Average 21.43 7.14 7.14 0.0 7.14 0.0 7.14 7.14 7.14 0.0 0.0 Quality % Meets 21.43 28.57 1429 21.43 7.14 7.14 Quality % Meets 7.14 0.0 1429 21.43 42.86 1429 7.14 21.43 14.29 14.29 14.29 Overall Rating: \"NOTE: Item percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from observers. % Above Average 6429 6429 35.71 71.43 85.71 85.71 Mean:3.46 SD\n0.54 % Above Average 64.29 85.71 78.57 71.43 42.86 78.57 78.57 64.29 71.43 78.57 78.57 Mean: 3.61 SO: 0.66 33 INTERVIEW RESULTS Reading Recovery Principal Interview Principals at 10 of the Reading Recovery schools were randomly selected to participate in a 45-minute phone interview. Principals were asked a series of questions regarding general program implementation, classroom level changes, program results, professional development opportunities and parental and community involvement. A summary of the principal responses can be found in Appendix B. Overall, principals were positive about the Reading Recovery program and the impact it has had on their schools. Most of the schools have been utilizing Reading Recovery for several years and faculty and staff are very comfortable with the program. Nearly all of the principals interviewed were instrumental in bringing Reading Recovery to their schools, and the decision to utilize Reading Recovery was made after considerable research and thoughtful consideration. Principals reported that Reading Recovery is a wonderful complement to the schools balanced literacy programs. The one-on-one attention the reading Recovery students receive is overwhelmingly the most effective of the strategies that the program employs. Other effective strategies mentioned included push-ins, literacy groups, running records, and the writing component. Principals reported being active advocates in their Reading Recovery programs. They described their roles as one of support and involvement, .ranging from oversight of the program to more direct involvement including student selection for the program, review of student progress, and i - ongoing meetings and collaboration with the Reading Recovery specialists. All principals noted that teachers were very supportive of the Reading Recovery program and appreciated the impact it has had on overall student achievement. Most of the resources needed for effective program implementation are available\nhowever, principals reported an ongoing need for books, additional teachers and tutors, and more planning time. Principals described the African- American population as being well-served by Reading Recovery, and most agreed that through Reading Recovery the achievement gap is being bridged for their African-American students. In most of the schools, African-American students are a large percentage of the Reading Recovery program. 34and the early intervention provided by Reading Recovery allows the students to be encouraged by being successful at a younger age. Teacher in-Training Interview In the spring 2005, four teachers in their first year in the Reading Recovery program were contacted by phone for a 30 to 45-minute phone interview. The teachers in-training were attending classes concerning Reading Recovery instruction, as well as working in their schools implementing the Reading Recovery strategies. Feedback from the teachers was solicited regarding general program information, classroom level changes, results, professional development, and parental involvement and support. A summary of the teacher in-training responses can be found in Appendix C. All teachers described the process of integrating Reading Recovery into the schools literacy program as well planned and organized. Reading Recovery teachers work individually with the lowest performing students and then follow up individual instruction with literacy groups. Reading Recovery teachers reported a thorough selection process that involved collaboration with the classroom teacher and comprehensive testing and assessment. In general, the Reading Recovery teachers reported strong support from the classroom teachers, that classroom teachers appreciate the effectiveness of the one-on-one approach, and the fact that Reading Recovery is able to provide this type of support. freeing the classroom teacher to work more effectively with the other students. 4 The Reading Recovery teachers in-training strongly felt that Reading Recovery helped to equalize learning and achievement opportunities for African-American students at their schools. Most 4 of the students in Reading Recovery are African-American, and these teachers were able to see positive gains. Reading Recovery helps all struggling readers by actively engaging them in reading and allowing them to feel successful at reading. Through detailed daily records and periodic testing all inherent in the Reading Recovery programstudent progress is effectively monitored and lessons can be planned that are tailor made for each individual child. Additionally, the Reading Recovery program often serves as a first line of defense in determining special education needs. Often, Reading Recovery will be used prior to special education referral. 4 Teachers in-training emphasized the importance of the daily data reports they collect and 4 view them as essential to the success of the program. Reading Recovery teachers collect and use 35 data to monitor the progress of the students and to help develop appropriate, effective teaching strategies based on the individual needs of the student. Data are often shared with the classroom teacher and the principal so that a collaborative team develops to help plan and implement instruction for the student. The Reading Recovery teachers in-training report a significant increase in self-confidence and improvement in overall attitude among the Reading Recovery students. As the students begin to experience success, they are less frustrated and angry. This improvement in attitude improves their classroom behavior and relationships with other teachers and students. Some of these teachers have seen dramatic increases in test scores and other achievement data, while others have not yet been able to see these gains. Again, from the perspective of the teachers in-training, the Reading Recovery program is helping to close the achievement gap of African-American students. Reading Recovery teachers in-training reported professional training that ranged from adequate to thorough. Changes in Reading Recovery course instructors led to some confusion for some of the teachers in-training, and some reported the need for increased classroom hours. However, overall, these teachers reported feeling well-prepared to work with the students. The strategies they have learned have been very helpful. Although the teachers in training reported having significant classroom experience, they are learning unique techniques that have been very beneficial. 4 There is considerable support from the district teacher, and all teachers expressed a desire and need for continuing support in the upcoming school year. Parental support has been mixed. although all the teachers reported active attempts at engaging the parents in the Reading Recovery program. Reading Recovery teachers in-training concurred that the exposure to print and the one-on-one attention were the most critical elements of the Reading Recovery program. Teachers reported the need to understand several components better, including the make and break lesson and the writing component\nand the need for time to plan and implement the program is always a factor. Overall, the components of Reading Recovery were well understood and effective. r,1 36 SURVEY RESULTS Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ) Descriptive results. The results of the RRTQ are summarized in Table 4. Reading Recovery teachers had extremely favorable attitudes toward the program at their schools. As 4 illustrated in Table 4,100% of teachers strongly agreed or agreed that they have a thorough understanding of the program, teachers in their school are generally supportive of the program, ongoing communication exists between Reading Recovery tutors and classroom reading teachers, Reading Recovery monthly meetings are effective and useful, instructional materials needed to implement the Reading Recovery program are readily available, and the Reading Recovery program is aligned with state and district reading and language arts standards. There was also strong agreement that Reading Recovery teachers received support, with 86.4% of the teachers reporting that the school administration and Reading Coach supported their efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher. Almost 75% (72.7%) of teachers reported receiving extensive district support. The items with the highest level of disagreement (disagree and strongly disagree) concerned Reading Recovery teachers having sufficient planning time (36.4%), enough tutors to fully implement the Reading Recovery program (18.2%), and time to routinely monitor first grade students progress after they were discontinued from Reading Recovery (9.1 % not at all, and 72.7% somewhat). Demographic data. All Reading Recovery teachers (100%) reported having at least six years of teaching experience and 31.8% reported at least six years experience as a Reading Recovery teacher. Approximately 85% (86.4%) of Reading Recovery teachers reported having Masters Degree or beyond. The majority of Reading Recovery teachers were Caucasian (72.7%) R R and 13.6% reported their ethnicity as African-American. Open-ended responses. Reading Recovery teachers were asked to respond to three open-ended questions in addition to the 24 items on the questionnaire. Respondents were instructed to list the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery program, the weakest aspects of the Reading Recovery program, and reasons for continuing or discontinuing Reading Recovery at their school. There were 22 Reading Recovery teachers who filled out the questionnaire, and 21 of those also answered the open-ended questions. Many of the Reading Recovery teachers answered in detail. 37 listing multiple responses for each of the questions. The open-ended responses are summarized in Table 5, and a verbatim listing of teacher responses can be found in Appendix E. Of the 21 who listed strong aspects of the Reading Recovery program, the two most popular answers were individualized, one-on-one instruction, 57.1%, and the ability to reach the lowest performing students and bridge the achievement gap for these students, 47.6%. Reading Recovery teaching strategies and components were listed in 19% of the responses, and both the early intervention element and the support from the other teachers were listed in 14.3% of the responses. Respondents were also asked to list what they considered the weakest elements of the Reading Recovery program. Time was a factor in many of the responses with lack of planning time most frequently mentioned at 33.3%. Lack of time to complete the lesson was mentioned in 19.0% of 4 the responses. Teachers' inability to help all the students who need help was also mentioned in 19.0% of the responses. All of the 21 teachers responded positively to the question Do you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? Why?\"\nand 20 teachers elaborated on their positive response listing reasons for continuing Reading Recovery. The ability of Reading Recovery to help J struggling readers was listed in half of the responses (50.0%), and strong progress and results were mentioned in 40.0% of the responses. The fact that Reading Recovery decreases the number of special education referrals was listed in 15.0% of the responses. There was one respondent who pointed out that although he/she felt Reading Recovery should be continued at the school, there needed to be better implementation to make it effective. Overall, as reflected in the other items on the questionnaire, the open-ended responses were very positive. Reading Recovery teachers appear knowledgeable and committed to their roles as Reading Recovery teachers and believe strongly in the positive impact the program is having at their schools. Based on survey response and comments provided through the open-ended questions. Reading Recovery teachers are able to see a strong impact from the individualized instruction they provide. 38 Table 4 Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ): 2004-2005 N = 22 ______________________________________________ RRTQ Items 1. a 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. I have a thorough understanding of the schools Reading Recovery program. I have received adequate initial and ongoing professional development/training for implementation of the Reading Recovery program. Our Reading Recovery program has positively impacted student achievemenl Because ot Reading Recovery, Literacy Group interventions occur for students in grades K-3. Overall, this program seems valuable for improving the achievement of African-American students. Reading Recovery teachers are given sufficient planning time to implement the program. Our school has enough tutors to fully implement its Reading Recovery program. The administration protects the time for daily uninterrupted Reading Recovery tutoring and Literacy Small Group interventions. Because of our Reading Recovery program, parents are more involved in the literacy program of this school. This school has a plan for evaluating aU elements of our Reading Recovery program. Teachers in this school are generally supportive of the Reading Recovery program. Ongoing communication exists between Reading Recovery tutors and classroom reading teachers. Reading Recovery teachers are encouraged to communicate concerns, questions, and constnictive ideas regarding the program. Our Reading Recovery program adequately addresses the requirements of children with special needs. Reading Recovery teachers participate in the special education referral process to provide early literacy intervention. Because of Reading Recovery, teachers in this school spend more time working togethrer to plan instruction and review student progress. Reading Recovery monthly meetings (continuing contact) are effective and useful. Instructional materials (books, assessments, and other resources) needed to implement our Reading Recovery program are readily available. The faculty, staff, and administration believe that all children can read at grade level or above by the end of third grade. The Reading Recovery program is aligned with state and district reading and language arts staiidards. Percent Strongly Agree And Agree 100.00 95.45 95.45 95.45 86.36 54.55 59.09 7727 63.64 86.36 100.00 100.00 81.82 7727 86.36 81.82 100.00 100.00 63.64 100.00 1. 3. Percent Neutral 0.00 4.55 0.00 0.00 4.55 9.09 18.18 22.73 18.18 13.64 0.00 0.00 18.18 13.64 9.09 18.18 0.00 0.00 31.82 0.00 4. RRTQ Items To what degree did your school administration support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? To what degree did your school Reading Coach support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? To what degree does the district support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? To what degree did your schedule allow the time to routinely monitor first grade students' progress after they were discontinued from Reading Percent Extensively 86.36 86.36 72.73 18.18 Percent Somewtiat 13.64 4.55 2727 72.73 Percent Disagree and Strongly Disagree 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.55 0.00 36.36 18.18 0.00 13.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.09 4.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.55 0.00 Percent Not at all 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.09 ________Recovery tutoring?________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NOTE: Item percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents. 39Table 4, continued Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ): 2004-2005 N = 22________________________________________ Total Years of Experience in this School Less than 1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years More than 15 years Number of Respondents Total Years of Experience in any School Less than 1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years More than 15 years ______________Number of Respondents How many years experiences have you had as a Reading Recovery teacher? Less than one year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years More than 15 years ______________Number of Respondents Educational Attainment Bachelor's degree Master's degree Master's plus 20 hrs Education Specialist's Doctoral ______________ Number of Respondents ______________________ Ethnicity/Race Asian or Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaskan Native Black, not of Hispanic origin Hispanic, regardless of race White, not of Hispanic origin Multi-racial / Other Number of Respondents Percent 0.00 36.36 31.82 18.18 9.09 22 Percent 0.00 0.00 18.18 13.64 68.18 22 Percent 0.00 68.18 31.82 0.00 0.00 22 Percent 13.64 36.36 40.91 9.09 0.00 22 Percent 0.00 0.00 13.64 0.00 72.73 9.09 22 NOTE: Item percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents. 40 Table 5 Open-Ended Responses on the RRTQ Question Positive Comments 1. What are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery Program? 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. 9. Teacher Selection_________________ __________Responses_________________ One-on-one intervention/ Individualized lessons Bridging achievement gap by reaching lowest performing students Reading Recovery teaching strategies and components of instnjction Early intervention Support from other RR teachers Continuing contact with students Professional training and development Addresses both reading and writing Increases students' confidence Frequency Percent 12 10 57.1 47.6 10. Collaboration with classroom teacher 11. Close contact with parents_________ Total Responses N = 21 43 32 221 11 19.0 14.3 14.3 9.5 9.5 9.5 4.8 4.8 4.8 Sample responses  Working one-on-one with an at-risk child. \nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"aru_unequal_23","title":"Stony Point Community Church Anti-Gay Marriage Sign","collection_id":"aru_unequal","collection_title":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044"],"dcterms_creator":["Timothy G. Nutt"],"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["A sign erected by the Stony Point Community Church near Bigelow, Perry County, Arkansas, urging community members to support Amendment 83 (2004) to the Arkansas constitution, which specifically prohibits same-sex marriages.","Gays and Lesbians -- Homosexuality -- Gay Rights -- Bigelow -- Perry County"],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Fayetteville, Ark. : University of Arkansas Libraries"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Timothy G. Nutt"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Arkansas","Civil rights--Arkansas","Race discrimination--Arkansas","Segregation--Arkansas"],"dcterms_title":["Stony Point Community Church Anti-Gay Marriage Sign"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.uark.edu/cdm/ref/collection/Civilrights/id/23"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact Special Collections for information on copyright."],"dcterms_medium":["photographs"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"suc_tomcrosbystr","title":"Tom Crosby’s Rosenwald School oral history collection, 2006-2011","collection_id":null,"collection_title":null,"dcterms_contributor":["South Caroliniana Library. Office of Oral History","Crosby, Tom, 1940-","L'Hommedieu, Andrea,"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Richland County, 34.0218, -80.90304","United States, South Carolina, Richland County, Columbia, Allen University, 34.01071, -81.02037","United States, South Carolina, Union County, 34.68928, -81.61942","United States, South Carolina, Union County, Union, Sims High School, 34.70097, -81.6101"],"dcterms_creator":["Crosby, Tom, 1940-","Dorrah-Evans, Dorothy Mae Lomax, 1906-2012","Floyd, James, 1935-","Gamble, Dill, Jr., 1934-","Alston, Kenneth, 1951-","Bates, John H., 1938-","Boyd, Telicious Kenly, 1919-2009","Brown, Joe E. (Joe Ellis), 1933-","Burgess, Agnes, 1914-2012,","Cannon, William, 1928-","Carter, Durham, 1928-","Dillard, Mary Gregory, 1938-","Felder, Rosana, 1909-2012,"],"dc_date":["2006/2011"],"dcterms_description":["The Rosenwald Schools of South Carolina exhibit features as its center the forty-three oral history interviews forming the Tom Crosby Oral History Collection that describe the educational experiences of African Americans in South Carolina 1910s-1970s, most of whom attended Rosenwald schools and/or Allen University. Accessible from the Interviews tab, all interviews are available as transcripts and sound recordings. Interview synopses, with biographical data, precede each transcript link.","","What is a Rosenwald school? In 1917, Julius Rosenwald (1862-1932), President of Sears, Roebuck and Company, initiated the Julius Rosenwald Foundation which built more than 5000 schools, shop buildings and teachers’ houses for African Americans across the South. African Americans participated in the building of schools in their communities including land acquisition, fund raising, school management and curriculum. About 500 schools were built in South Carolina. The program ended in 1932, but many of the schools continued operating until desegregation in the early 1970s."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. South Caroliniana Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Education--South Carolina--History--20th century","African Americans--Social life and customs--20th century","African Americans--South Carolina--Interviews","African American schools--South Carolina--Union County--History--20th century","Allen University--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews","African American schools--South Carolina--Richland County--History--20th century","Sims High School (Union, S.C.)--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews","African American school administrators--South Carolina--Interviews","African American teachers--South Carolina--Interviews","Booker T. Washington High School (Columbia, S.C.)--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews","High school athletes--South Carolina--Union County--History","African American schools--South Carolina--Newberry County--History--20th century","Allen University--Alumni and alumnae","African American schools--South Carolina--Clarendon County--History--20th century","African American schools--South Carolina--Laurens County--History--20th century","African American schools--South Carolina--Sumter County--History--20th century","African American teachers--South Carolina","Benedict College--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews","Booker T. Washington High School (Columbia, S.C.)--Faculty--Interviews","Crosby, Tom, 1940---Interviews","Dorrah-Evans, Dorothy Mae Lomax, 1906-2012--Interviews","Floyd, James, 1935---Interviews","Gamble, Dill, Jr., 1934---Interviews","Julius Rosenwald Fund","Negro Rural School Fund, Inc.","Sims High School (Union, S.C.)--Football--History--20th century","South Carolina State College--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews","South Carolina State University--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews"],"dcterms_title":["Tom Crosby’s Rosenwald School oral history collection, 2006-2011"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["South Caroliniana Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.library.sc.edu/collections/tom-crosby-oral-history-collection-2006-2011/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright: University of South Carolina. The transcript and audio are provided for individual Research Purposes Only; for all other uses, including publication, reproduction, and quotation beyond fair use, permission must be obtained in writing from: The South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, 910 Sumter Street, Columbia, SC 29208"],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Long, Lawrence W. -1985"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"ugafs_fsp","title":"Unsung foot soldiers : The Foot Soldier Project for Civil Rights Studies at the University of Georgia","collection_id":null,"collection_title":null,"dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["Web site with information about the Unsung Foot Soldier Project at the University of Georgia. The project researches and documents the lives and work of significant, but less-well-known players in the Civil Rights movement, particularly those from Georgia. The project has produced books and films about Horace Ward and Hamilton Holmes. Portions of those films are available on the site as well as biographies of other influential activists. The site also contains curriculum guides about Hamilton Holmes, Emmett Till, and working with oral histories.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights workers--United States","African American civil rights workers","African Americans--Civil rights","Civil rights movements--United States","United States--Race relations","Oral history--Study and teaching"],"dcterms_title":["Unsung foot soldiers : The Foot Soldier Project for Civil Rights Studies at the University of Georgia"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Foot Soldier Project for Civil Rights Studies at the University of Georgia"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.footsoldier.uga.edu/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["instructional materials","articles","lesson plans","biographies"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Bootle, William A., 1902-2005","Hollowell, Donald","Motley, Constance Baker, 1921-","Ward, Horace T. (Horace Taliaferro), 1927-","Holmes, Hamilton, 1941-","Early, Mary Frances","Till, Emmett, 1941-1955--Assassination"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"valdosta_vscintegration","title":"Valdosta State College Integration","collection_id":null,"collection_title":null,"dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Lowndes County, Valdosta, 30.83334, -83.28032"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["This online exhibit summarizes the history of integration at Valdosta State College, and the challenges met by African Americans to integrate Georgia educational institutions. Materials include photographs, newspaper clippings, documents, and links to related resources.","Taken from items held in the Archives and Special Collections, Valdosta State University"],"dc_format":["image/jpeg","text/html"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Valdosta State College","Valdosta State College--History--20th century","Civil rights--Georgia--Valdosta","Segregation in education--Georgia--Valdosta","Segregation in higher education--Georgia--Valdosta","African Americans--Education--Georgia--Valdosta","African Americans--Education (Higher)--Georgia--Valdosta","College students--Georgia--Valdosta","African American college students--Georgia--Valdosta"],"dcterms_title":["Valdosta State College Integration"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Valdosta State University. Odum Library. Archives and Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.valdosta.edu/academics/library/depts/archives-and-special-collections/vsu-history/100-years/integration.php"],"dcterms_temporal":["1924/1974"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["photographs","online exhibitions","clippings (information artifacts)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_69126080","title":"Voting rights enforcement and reauthorization [electronic resource] : the Department of Justice's record of enforcing the temporary Voting Rights Act provisions","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["A digital version of the report published by the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["United States. Voting Rights Act of 1965","Election law--United States","African Americans--Suffrage--Government policy","Elections--Government policy--United States"],"dcterms_title":["Voting rights enforcement and reauthorization [electronic resource] : the Department of Justice's record of enforcing the temporary Voting Rights Act provisions"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS70103"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["1 v. (various pagings) : digital, PDF file."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"txh_wims","title":"Wednesdays in Mississippi : Civil rights as women's work : Breaking down barriers and mobilizing women, an exhibit Website","collection_id":null,"collection_title":null,"dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Illinois, 40.00032, -89.25037","United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","United States, New York, 43.00035, -75.4999","United States, Southern States, 33.346678, -84.119434"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006/2020"],"dcterms_description":["Wednesdays in Missisisppi is an online exhibit documenting the 1964 and 1965 program which brought Northern women into Mississippi to work with Freedom Summer and the Freedom Schools. Interracial and interfaith teams traveled to Mississippi on Tuesdays and returned on Thursdays. The program was organized by Dorothy Height and Polly Cowan under the umbrella of the National Council of Negro Women with the assistance of Susie Goodwillie and Doris Wilson. The exhibit includes newspaper articles, black-and-white photographs, pamphlets, biographies, interviews, letters, and a summary of experiences written by Polly Cowan after the first summer. The exhibit also includes a glossary listing and defining individuals, places, organziations, and terms used in the exhibit. In addition to describing and documenting race relations in the Northern states of New York and Illinois during the 1960s.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["National Council of Negro Women","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","Women civil rights workers--Mississippi","Women social reformers--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--United States","Women civil rights workers--United States","Women social reformers--United States","Segregation--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century","Race relations","Race discrimination--Mississippi","United States--Race relations--History--20th century","Southern States--Race relations--History--20th century","Segregation--Southern States","Race discrimination--Southern States","Race discrimination--United States","Racism--Mississippi","Racism--Southern States","Racism--United States","Discrimination in housing--United States","Discrimination in housing--Illinois","School integration--Massive resistance movement--Mississippi","African Americans--Violence against--Mississippi","School integration--United States","School integration--New York (State)--New York"],"dcterms_title":["Wednesdays in Mississippi : Civil rights as women's work : Breaking down barriers and mobilizing women, an exhibit Website"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Houston"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://classweb.uh.edu/wims/"],"dcterms_temporal":["1964/1965"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["letters (correspondence)","articles","black-and-white photographs","pamphlets","reports","online exhibitions"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Height, Dorothy I. (Dorothy Irene), 1912-","Goodwillie, Susan, 1941-","Cowan, Polly, 1913-1976","Wilson, Doris, 1920-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"txh_wims_wimscr","title":"Wednesdays in Mississippi : Civil rights as women's work : Breaking down barriers and mobilizing women, an exhibit Website","collection_id":"txh_wims","collection_title":"Wednesdays in Mississippi : Civil rights as women's work : Breaking down barriers and mobilizing women, an exhibit Website","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Illinois, 40.00032, -89.25037","United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","United States, New York, 43.00035, -75.4999","United States, Southern States, 33.346678, -84.119434"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006/2020"],"dcterms_description":["Wednesdays in Missisisppi is an online exhibit documenting the 1964 and 1965 program which brought Northern women into Mississippi to work with Freedom Summer and the Freedom Schools. Interracial and interfaith teams traveled to Mississippi on Tuesdays and returned on Thursdays. The program was organized by Dorothy Height and Polly Cowan under the umbrella of the National Council of Negro Women with the assistance of Susie Goodwillie and Doris Wilson. The exhibit includes newspaper articles, black-and-white photographs, pamphlets, biographies, interviews, letters, and a summary of experiences written by Polly Cowan after the first summer. The exhibit also includes a glossary listing and defining individuals, places, organizations, and terms used in the exhibit. In addition to describing and documenting race relations in the Northern states of New York and Illinois during the 1960s.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["National Council of Negro Women","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","Women civil rights workers--Mississippi","Women social reformers--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--United States","Women civil rights workers--United States","Women social reformers--United States","Segregation--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century","Race relations","Race discrimination--Mississippi","United States--Race relations--History--20th century","Southern States--Race relations--History--20th century","Segregation--Southern States","Race discrimination--Southern States","Race discrimination--United States","Racism--Mississippi","Racism--Southern States","Racism--United States","Discrimination in housing--United States","Discrimination in housing--Illinois","School integration--Massive resistance movement--Mississippi","African Americans--Violence against--Mississippi","School integration--United States","School integration--New York (State)--New York"],"dcterms_title":["Wednesdays in Mississippi : Civil rights as women's work : Breaking down barriers and mobilizing women, an exhibit Website"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Houston"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://classweb.uh.edu/wims/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["letters (correspondence)","articles","black-and-white photographs","pamphlets","reports","online exhibitions"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Height, Dorothy I. (Dorothy Irene), 1912-","Goodwillie, Susan, 1941-","Cowan, Polly, 1913-1976","Wilson, Doris, 1920-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"ncpl_ncpedia_wilmington","title":"Wilmington Ten","collection_id":"ncpl_ncpedia","collection_title":"NCpedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, New Hanover County, Wilmington, 34.22573, -77.94471"],"dcterms_creator":["Graham, Nicholas"],"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["Entry about African American civil rights in North Carolina."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American civil rights workers--North Carolina","Civil rights movements--North Carolina","African Americans--Civil rights--North Carolina"],"dcterms_title":["Wilmington Ten"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["North Carolina. Division of State Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://ncpedia.org/wilmington-ten"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"nge_ngen_lena-baker-case","title":"Lena Baker case","collection_id":"nge_ngen","collection_title":"New Georgia Encyclopedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Tattnall County, Reidsville, 32.08686, -82.1179"],"dcterms_creator":["Phillips, Lela B., 1944-"],"dc_date":["2005-12-09"],"dcterms_description":["Encyclopedia article about the Lena Baker case. Lena Baker was the first and only woman to be executed in Georgia's electric chair. She was executed in 1945, after she was convicted of murdering a man who had imprisoned her. At the time of Baker's execution, the Georgia prison system was under scrutiny for reform. In August 2005 Baker was pardoned posthumously by the state Board of Pardons and Paroles. The board acknowledged that the 1945 decision to deny Baker clemency was \"a grievous error\" and that Baker could have been charged with the lesser crime of voluntary manslaughter, which would have prevented the sentence of capital punishment.","GSE identifier: SS8H10"],"dc_format":["text/html"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of the New Georgia Encyclopedia."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of the New Georgia Encyclopedia."],"dcterms_subject":["Capital punishment","Female offenders--Georgia--Reidsville","Women murderers--Georgia--Reidsville","Death row inmates--Georgia--Reidsville","Prisoners--Georgia--Reidsville","Women prisoners--Georgia--Reidsville","Electrocution--Georgia--Reidsville","Women death row inmates--Georgia--Reidsville","Crime and race--Georgia","Criminal justice, Administration of--Georgia","Discrimination in criminal justice administration--Georgia"],"dcterms_title":["Lena Baker case"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["New Georgia Encyclopedia (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/lena-baker-case/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: \"ARTICLE TITLE,\" New Georgia Encyclopedia. Retrieved [date]: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org."],"dlg_local_right":["If you wish to use content from the NGE site for commercial use, publication, or any purpose other than fair use as defined by law, you must request and receive written permission from the NGE. Such requests may be directed to: Permissions/NGE, University of Georgia Press, 330 Research Drive, Athens, GA 30602."],"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Baker, Lena, 1900-1945"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1408","title":"\"2005-06 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the Pulaski County Special School District,\" Office of Desegregation and Monitoring","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["2005-12-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["\"2005-06 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the Pulaski County Special School District,\" Office of Desegregation and Monitoring"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1408"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["100 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_69","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2005-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/69"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nArkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 SfATE CAPITOL MALL  LITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (SOI) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education December 22, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED JAN 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of December 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, oo'FI O ~ ~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia, Vice Chair - Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: *Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro *Shelby Hillman, Carlisle* Dr. Calvin King, Marianna *Randy Lawson, Bentonville *MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for December 2005. Respectfully Submitted, g'H 2:-h,,_ Scott Smitfi\nBaf'i 92251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on December 22, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Based on the information availaole at Novemoer 30, 2005, the' ADE calculated the State Fo~ndation Funding for FY 05/06 sub'ect to eriodic ad'ustments B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 On November 30 2005 aistributions of State Founaation Funding for FY 05/06 were as follows RSD - $23,333,628 NLRSD -$12,150,580 PCSSD - $20 208 384 Jhe allotments of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 05/06 at November ~O 2005 subject to eriodic adjustments, were as allows~ LRSD - $64,167,477. NLRSD - $33,414,099 PCSSD - $55,573 06 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at November 30, for fY 05/06 sub\"ect to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal SeNices Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 005 ntly the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Based on the information available, the ADE calculatei:I at November 30, 200 for FY 05/06 subject to Qeriodic adjustmentsf G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 Distributions for FY 05/06 at November 30, 2005, totaled $5,082,872. Allotmen ~alcul9ted for FY 05/06 was $13 977,904 subject to eriodic ad\"ustments H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 Calculated for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 istributions ot FY 05/0-6 at ovemoer 30 2005 were RSD - $1,21 ,45 t,ILRSD - $1,209,561 PCSSD - $3 240 288 uhe allotments 05/06 at November 30 2005 sub\"ectto adjustments, w RSD - $4,048,176 NLRSD-$4,031,872 CS_SD,\n_$10,800,964 IC J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing , December of each year. 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing , annually. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 In March 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay ttie third one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. In October 2005, General Finance w~notified to P-aY. the first one-third ~yment fm\nFY 05/06 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 In March 2005, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At March 2005, the following had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSD - $2,650,087.34 NLRSD - $550,666.66 PCSSD - $1,690,442.44 In Novemoer 2005, General Finance made t e last one-thira payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transP.ortation budget. The budget is now P.aid out in three egual installments RSD - $4, 1 3, 06.00 NLRSD -$834,966.13 PCSSD - $2J884,201.56 aia for FY 04/05 In November 2005, General-Finance made the first one-thira payment to the pistricts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now P.aid out in three equal installments At November 2005 tlie following had bee LRSD- $1,415,633.33 ~LRSD -$284,716.52 PCSSD - $974,126.58 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, P._aperwork was generated for tlie f!rst P..ayment i tlie 05/0(! ~ch6Q!..year for the Magnet and M-to-M fransQortation J:Qgram N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD -6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued} In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q . Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. 10 1. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 12 II. MONITORING COMP EN SA TORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was  requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 14 JI. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment {SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 15 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 {Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 {Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool {PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled afterthe Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201- A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 18 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearance Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 19 IL MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 20 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 8. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailed'under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation.  As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION {Continued} E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. {Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 {Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to reviewtheirfindings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued} E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued} 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued} The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regularoversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMTand its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regularoversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 {Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month. of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 39 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued} A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted . 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued} 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher,  class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) D. 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas.   1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. , 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented  to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 49 VJ. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 {Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children {BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, {i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate {Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course {Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 50 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 {Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference atthe ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency {LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001 . Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Prfncipal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from sch_ool districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001 , there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 54 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 {Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001. The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001. Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0. Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Horne, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.rn. until 11 :30 a.rn. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.rn. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, co-sponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Leaming\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregation, and National Board. The Educational Accountability Unit of the ADE hosted a workshop entitled \"Strategies for Increasing Achievement on the ACT AAP Benchmark Examination\" on June 13-14, 2002 at the Agora Center in Conway. The workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on \"The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known speaker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increasing student achievement. The NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 8-9, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The Smart Start Initiative focuses on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Bena Kallick presented the ke\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":278,"next_page":279,"prev_page":277,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":3324,"total_count":81191,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40200},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35114},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4552},{"value":"Sound","hits":3248},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9441},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8347},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5895},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5607},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4436},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3530}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1809},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1282},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1909},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":431}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1763},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":965},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":704},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17820},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5428},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4862},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4610},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4177},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3943},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2579},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2430},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2387}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12843},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11307},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10219},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8503},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4583},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3770},{"value":"Florida","hits":2601},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2391},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1893},{"value":"New York","hits":1667}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10514},{"value":"1963","hits":10193},{"value":"1965","hits":10119},{"value":"1956","hits":9832},{"value":"1955","hits":9611},{"value":"1964","hits":9268},{"value":"1968","hits":9243},{"value":"1962","hits":9152},{"value":"1967","hits":8771},{"value":"1957","hits":8460},{"value":"1958","hits":8242},{"value":"1961","hits":8241},{"value":"1959","hits":8046},{"value":"1960","hits":7940},{"value":"1954","hits":7239},{"value":"1969","hits":7235},{"value":"1950","hits":7117},{"value":"1953","hits":6968},{"value":"1970","hits":6743},{"value":"1971","hits":6337},{"value":"1977","hits":6280},{"value":"1952","hits":6161},{"value":"1972","hits":6144},{"value":"1951","hits":6045},{"value":"1975","hits":5806},{"value":"1976","hits":5771},{"value":"1974","hits":5729},{"value":"1973","hits":5591},{"value":"1979","hits":5329},{"value":"1978","hits":5318},{"value":"1980","hits":5279},{"value":"1995","hits":4829},{"value":"1981","hits":4724},{"value":"1994","hits":4654},{"value":"1948","hits":4596},{"value":"1949","hits":4571},{"value":"1996","hits":4486},{"value":"1982","hits":4330},{"value":"1947","hits":4316},{"value":"1985","hits":4226},{"value":"1998","hits":4225},{"value":"1997","hits":4202},{"value":"1983","hits":4174},{"value":"1984","hits":4065},{"value":"1946","hits":4046},{"value":"1999","hits":4018},{"value":"1945","hits":4017},{"value":"1990","hits":3937},{"value":"1986","hits":3919},{"value":"1943","hits":3899},{"value":"1944","hits":3895},{"value":"1942","hits":3867},{"value":"2000","hits":3808},{"value":"2001","hits":3790},{"value":"1940","hits":3764},{"value":"1941","hits":3757},{"value":"1987","hits":3657},{"value":"2002","hits":3538},{"value":"1991","hits":3507},{"value":"1936","hits":3506},{"value":"1939","hits":3500},{"value":"1938","hits":3465},{"value":"1937","hits":3449},{"value":"1992","hits":3444},{"value":"1993","hits":3422},{"value":"2003","hits":3403},{"value":"1930","hits":3377},{"value":"1989","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3306},{"value":"1933","hits":3270},{"value":"1934","hits":3270},{"value":"1988","hits":3269},{"value":"1932","hits":3254},{"value":"1931","hits":3239},{"value":"2005","hits":3057},{"value":"2004","hits":2909},{"value":"1929","hits":2789},{"value":"2006","hits":2774},{"value":"1928","hits":2271},{"value":"1921","hits":2123},{"value":"1925","hits":2039},{"value":"1927","hits":2025},{"value":"1924","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2009},{"value":"1920","hits":1975},{"value":"1923","hits":1954},{"value":"1922","hits":1928},{"value":"2016","hits":1925},{"value":"2007","hits":1629},{"value":"2008","hits":1578},{"value":"2011","hits":1575},{"value":"2019","hits":1537},{"value":"1919","hits":1532},{"value":"2009","hits":1532},{"value":"1918","hits":1530},{"value":"2015","hits":1527},{"value":"2013","hits":1518},{"value":"2010","hits":1515},{"value":"2014","hits":1481},{"value":"2012","hits":1467}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":500952,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10708},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9437},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2740},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41178},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17554},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8828},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":6864},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":197},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8146},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4024},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3212},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2633},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":80736},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":80994},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}