{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_562","title":"Program evaluations, Volume I","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":["2003-03-14"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluations, Volume I"],"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/562"],"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\nBox 5 LRSD 1) Program Evaluations, March 14, 2003, Volumes I - IVCollection Number $ S O S' Box of Collection Name: OC^ (V\\ Q Coo PelsX ri X z a 2 VOLUME H  P3 \u0026gt; SC X X  RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING J 2 X \u0026gt;, 2 r e o e k/ o e z \u0026gt;6 O O oSOUTHWEST SF.m. PWXiKXM CHARTER SCHOOL EARl.Y LITERACYri ri LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education ri FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: J Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent ^bBonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: October 24, 2002 SUBJECT: Approval of the Charter School Program Evaluation Background Information Dr. Linda Watson and Ms. Krishna Young, former director of the LRSD Charter School, presented to the Board of Education in June 2001 the program evaluation for the Charter School. That report was presented as information, but the Section 2.7.1 Compliance Plan requires that the Board formally approve each of the program evaluations listed on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. The Charter School Program Evaluation was prepared by Dr. Larry McNeal, Professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Serving on the team with him were Dr. Linda Watson, Ms. Krishna Young, and Dr. Ed Williams, members of the LRSD staff. All of the Charter School teachers, grades 3-5, participated in administering the assessments: the Achievement Level Tests at grades 3-5, the SAT9 at grade 5, and the State Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark examinations at grade 4. and the Success for All quarterly assessments in reading. z The program evaluation included not only student achievement data, but also demographic data, student attendance rates, records of suspensions, student grades, and financial costs for the program. S 0p 99 Performance data for the program evaluation were not disaggregated by race. The student body, however, was 87 percent African American. Due primarily to budget constraints, the District eliminated funding for the Charter School in summer 2002 after two years of operation, so this program has now been abandoned. Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve the LRSD Charter School Program Evaluation for 2000-2001. BAL/adg Attachment 1 I  kI k1 ku LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2000 - 2001 ELEMENTARY CHARTER SCHOOL EVALUATION p 9 9 9 9 9 I 2 IJ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHARTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PI \u0026gt; -J \u0026gt; EVALUATION REPORT: 2000-2001 Prepared By Dr. Larry McNeal, Professor University of Arkansas at Little Rock Little Rock, Arkansas e 2 \u0026gt;2, t  ! 0 0 c p 9 9 3 Executive Summary The twentieth centurys influence on school choice is reflected in the introduction of charter schools, school vouchers, magnet schools, academy schools, alternative schools, and a host of other specialty schools that focus on specific and often time unique student groups. The recent interest in school choices can be traced to the Nation At Risk report, which was published by the National Commission on Excellence in Education in 1983. The findings about the poor quality of public education alarmed the American public. The report concluded that America was losing its competitive edge in the global marketplace because of its educational system. The result was the passage of educational reform laws and legislation that promoted standards for students, teachers, and administrators. The American educational system continues to search for programs and services that meet the developmental needs of its students. Charter schools are the latest spin-off to a discontented American public looking for vast improvements in educational practices that will better equip its children with marketable skills. Arkansas has also been influenced by this trend. Arkansas modified its existing charter school law in 1999 (Arkansas Charter School Act of 1999) and as a result the charter school movement in Arkansas took off. The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School opened its doors in the fall of 2000. The charter school offers a nontraditional innovative learning environment for students in the 3,4, and 5 grades. \u0026gt;  Pl \u0026gt; \u0026lt; Mission The missions of the Little Rock School District and the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School are mutually supportive and facilitative of student success. The intent of the missions of both are to provide students with programs and services that fit their educational and developmental needs, as well as prepare them with the knowledge and skills needed to compete in the marketplace. Z P O 9 9 P 9 9 Goal The goal of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is to provide opportunities for students educational and behavioral needs while guiding them to adjust 1 4 their behavior and habits in such a manner that they will become successful, lifelong learners and productive citizens. The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School accomplishes its goal through an alternative learning environment. Description of Need The description of need is an overview of the variables that influence student academic achievement and behavior at the elementary grade level. Collectively, these variables provide a richer understanding of what is happening at the elementary grade level to some students in the Little Rock School District and why it has become increasingly more difficult to educate all children in a regular classroom setting. Poverty and other factors present barriers for many children who reside in the city of ?5 \u0026gt; JC PI \u0026gt; \u0026lt; Little Rock from receiving the educational opportunities critical for their development. The inability to obtain preschool and other early-childhood education programs is evidenced in the Little Rock School Districts Early Childhood Program where an enrollment capacity of some 750 students leaves approximately 1,000 children on the programs waiting list each year. Once behind, children face a significant challenge of catching up in their school career and many of these children become potential school dropouts in later years. In the 1997-1998 school year, 921 students out of 10,628 students at the secondary level dropped out of school. This represents 8.7% of the Little Rock School District secondary student enrollment. Black students accounted for 69% of the dropout population, with black males representing 44% and black females representing 25.1% of the total. During the 1998-1999 school year the dropout rate increased to 9.7%. For many of these students, the barriers that they faced prior to elementary school were so overwhelming that it left them ill prepared for the challenges associated with schooling\ntherefore, less capable to take advantage of the educational opportunities at the secondary level. 9 2 2 \u0026gt; ii Iz* b 9 9 9 s 9 Student performance on standardized tests also served as an indicator of the extent of at-riskness for some students in the Little Rock School District. Scores on standardized tests showed percentile ranks across the District and the racial disparity in academics in all grades and subjects. Standardized test scores in reading for the 1997-1998 school year 2 5 I revealed that overall more than one-third of Little Rock School District students were in the lowest 25% nationally for reading skills, with elementary students at 38%, junior high students at 36% and high school students at 34%. Standardized test scores for the 1998- 1999 school year revealed that overall approximately two-thirds of the students (64% of the fifth grade students tested, 63% of the seventh grade students tested and 70% of the tenth grade students) tested were at or below the 50* percentile. The pattern of low performance on standardized tests can be contributed to several factors with the lack of availability of early childhood education programs and low social development being but two. Children who come to school ready and able to learn usually face fewer educational barriers than students who come to school not ready and able to learn. These students are less capable of performing at the levels necessary to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to take advantage of the opportunities of education. n \u0026gt; \u0026lt; Student success can also be influenced by the composition of the family unit. Family composition is related to income and poverty for youth, with two-parent families generally having greater income than families with only one parent. Students coming from families with higher incomes are usually better prepared at an earlier age for schooling. Nationally, in white families a single parent heads two out of every ten households, while single parents head five out of ten Afincan American households. In the city of Little Rock single parents head about six out of ten Afincan American householders. The majority of whom are single mothers. The relationship between income, poverty and academic success suggests that some students who are attending school in the Little Rock School District may need more support prior to the formal schooling experience and perhaps throughout their educational career in the public school system. Students who experience behavior problems often times are not benefiting as much from the academic aspects of schooling because usually they are removed from the educational setting. The number of students who were long-term suspended and/or expelled from the Little Rock School District increased during the 1992-93 to 1997-98 school years. The District revamped its alternative learning environments during the 1997-98 school year by enlarging the Alternative Learning Center and establishing an Accelerated Learning i ! X9 \u0026gt; z p 9 O o p 9 9 3 6 Center for secondary students. During the 1998-99 school year, the District experienced a decrease in the number of long-term suspensions and a significant decrease in the number of expulsions. At the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year, the District established four elementary alternative classrooms in four of its elementary schools. The fall 2000 opening of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School was a logical progression in the Districts goal to provide for the educational and social needs of all students, especially, those with behavioral problems. The continued development of alternative learning environments is representative of the Districts commitment to providing the proper match between programs and services and students. The needs of some students cannot be met within the regular classroom setting and so alternative learning enviroiunents that focus on academics and behavior modification can ensure that all students receive an education that will prepare them to be lifelong learners and productive members of society. \u0026gt;P5 2 5P!I \u0026gt; Governance Two years of exploration and planning took place prior to the establishment of the charter school by the Little Rock School District Charter School Planning Team. The comprehensive effort included teachers, parents, and community members. The charter school model developed by the team was based on twelve years of research and evaluations by parents and teachers of the Alternative Classroom Experience (ACE) program at Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp. The team reviewed data to determine where the greatest needs exist. After careful review, subcommittees made up of classroom teachers, specialists, parents, and administrators discussed the implementation of various programs and services. For instance, a subcommittee examined the Success For All program while the Mental Health/Parental Involvement Team subcommittee investigated possible programs and services to include parents, families, and the community. Reports from the subcommittees were made to the Planning Team. After careful consideration, the Planning Team delineated issues, concerns, and discussed subsequent proposals. The Planning Team was later changed into an advisory group (Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School Advisory Committee). 4 IZ* P 9 9 9 P 9 9 7 The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School Advisory Committee met periodically to monitor the progress of the school as well as provide assistance and feedback to the charter school principal and staff. Little Rock School District personnel facilitated the planning and advisory process and provided technical assistance and support. District personnel were instrumental in supporting the charter through inservices on proven educational practices, data evaluation, and a review of the Title I plan. They also offered parental involvement suggestions as well as conducted research activities. D Instructional Program The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is located at the Badgett Elementary School. The Little Rock School District Elementary Charter School was modeled on proven methods and strategies used in the Alternative Classroom Experience at Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp. Those strategies include effective early intervention/prevention for academic underachievement, effective early intervention/prevention for socio-behavioral and personal failure, and an aggressive approach to rebuilding community and parent identity and support for public education. In addition to these methods and strategies, other innovations include Success For All, an Extended Day/After School Program, Gifted and Talented Program, Exceptional Children Services Program, Accelerated Reading Program, Read Across America Program, Media Center Program, Awards Programs, Incentive Programs and programming using computer technology, mathematics and science modules, field trips, the residential component located at Pfeifer Camp, music, experiential education, and physical education. Students also wore school uniforms. PI \u0026gt; 2\u0026lt; Pl I z 5 5 \u0026gt;1 21 fl z p 9 O e p 9 9 The charter school has six classrooms staffed with teachers and program assistants to teach each student. A gifted and Ulented teacher, resource teacher, reading specialist, reading tutor, media specialist, music teacher, speech therapist, occupational and physical therapist, counselor, nurse, school examiner, director, secretary, cafeteria personnel, and custodians provide other services. 5 8 I Student Demographics The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School offers a nontraditional innovative learning environment for students in the 3*, 4*, and 5* grades. Students attending the school come from a host of elementary schools in the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District\nhowever, priority admission was given to students cunently enrolled in Baggett Elementary School. Other students were eligible for admission if they were academically functioning one or more grades levels below grade placement\nhad a pattern of recurring absenteeism\nhad poor social and interactive skills (displaying unacceptable patterns of behavior and failure to fit the social environment of the school)\nwere retained one or more grades: and, were from an unstable family structure. 2\u0026gt; P5 % \u0026gt; Once students were selected multiple assessment measures were used to assess them. The assessments included Success For All Baseline Assessment (which is reported in terms of grade level). District Achievement Level Test (RIT Score), State Benchmark Test (4 grade 2000 only) and Teacher Recommendations. The data generated from the assessments facilitated a better understanding of the needs of individual students. i 5X \u0026gt;1 2 Initially, 116 students made application to enrolled in the school\nhowever, 17 students did not attend for various reasons including relocation out of the District, logistics (parents wanting their children to all attend the same school or schools closer to home). program fit (some parents concluded that the program and services offered were not appropriate for their child), and a few students withdraw prior to the start of the 2000- 2001 school year. Ninety-nine students attended the school at some period during the school year of which eighty-seven students completed the school year at the school. z p 0 p 9 9 The demographic data shows that overall the characteristics of the students enrolled were similar to other schools within the District\nhowever, there were significant differences in some aspects. For instance, the school was different than most other elementary schools because of its concentration of students who were academically underachieving and 6 9 I I behaviorally and socially challenged. No other elementary school in the District had an exact similar student population. I I The demographics of this student population are highlighted in Tables 1, 2, and 3. The demographic data examined include racial makeup, grade level, attendance, absenteeism, and discipline. In addition, social economic statue and mobility are discussed. I I Table 1 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS Racial Make Up Black Female White Female Black Male White Male 3rd Grade 4 3 23 1 4th Grade 2 3 24 1 Sth Grade 10 1 23 4 Total 16 7 70 6 Percentage 16% 7% 71% 6% Total Student Count 31 30 38 99 100% \u0026gt; g Pl ? \u0026lt; 3 A review of the data shows that the majority of the students attending the school were black. The majority of the students were black males followed by black females. The number of white females and males attending was about the same. The overall gender and racial make up of the school does not reflect the gender and racial make up of the average elementary school in the Little Rock School District. The above data includes student suspension data. If the suspension data were subtracted from the data, the overall attendance rate would be 94.5%. 2 2 \u0026gt;, pj z p o p 9 9 In addition, an examination of student records shows that an overwhelming majonty of the students in attendance receive reduced or free lunch. Of the students attending the school, 91% receive reduced or free lunch. Again, this percentage is higher than the average elementary school in the District. The combination of gender, race, and reduced or free lunch provides a better understanding of the social-economic status of the student population at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. 7 10   L Part of the criteria for admission to the school was a pattern of recurring absenteeism. On average absenteeism is lower at the elementary school level than at any other grade level\nhowever, the absenteeism rate for students attending the charter school is higher than normal. The attendance history of the student body is presented in Table 2. Table 2 STUDENT ATTENDANCE BY QUARTER Grade Level 3rd Grade 4th Grade Sth Grade__ Qverall Average 1st Quarter 87% 84% 92% 88% 2nd Quarter 94% 83% 87% 88% 3rd 4th Quarter Quarter 84% 92% 89% 88% 83% 85% 82% 83% Average 87% 86% 88% 87% The overall average attendance rate for all grades was 87%, which means that the school had an absenteeism rate of 13%. The attendance percentage is lower than the District elementary school average of 95%. The attendance and absenteeism rates of students in attendance at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School are more similar to the attendance and absenteeism rates of other schools with similar students. In addition, the mobility rate of the school was 14%\nhowever, the adjusted mobility rate was 4%. Mobility can be understood as the relationship between the number of students who started out the school year attending a particular school and the number of students who were still in attendance at that same school at the end of the school year. The number of student transfers and suspensions impacted the mobility rate at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. When the impact of the transfers and suspensions are factored out, the mobility rate declines from 14% to 4%. A major criterion for admission to the school was a history of academic, social and behavior problems. Students attending the school usually had poor social and interactive skills along with imaccepUble patterns of behavior. As a result students who attended the 8 n \u0026gt;2 P3 ft \u0026lt; j: V. i XX \u0026gt;, ! Z p 9 e p9 0 11 school usually had experienced more instances of inappropriate behavior, which resulted in more suspensions than other students. Students with poor social and interactive schools came from all three of the school Districts. Table 3 reflects the disciplinary records of students. Table 3 STUDENT DISCIPLINE Total Number of Suspensions Total Enrollment________________________ Total Number of students with Suspensions Total Number of students with No Suspensions Percentage of student with Suspensions______ Percentage of students with NO suspensions 66 99 37 62 37% 63% P5 \u0026gt; 2 P5 r\n\u0026lt;  When considering the grade level of students being suspended the 3\"* and 4* grades had 13 student receiving suspensions, and the 5* grade had 11 students receiving suspensions. Several of the students had multi-suspensions. In addition, some of the students who were suspended no longer attend the school. The majority of students attending the charter school had no suspensions. Furthermore, it is anticipated that suspensions will decrease in the 2001-2002 school year with the _. cih current 5 grade class leaving and with the 3\"* and 4* grade students returning to an environment that advocates behavior and social management. Student Academic Achievement The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School complies with all mandated state and federal testing, and other assessments based on student needs, which the teacher deems most appropriate. Student performance is measured in part by the same critena as for the rest of the schools in the Little Rock School District. The performance indicators include the Primary Benchmark Exam at Grade 4, Achievement Level Tests at grades 3-5, Success For All. quarterly grades, WRAT (pre 9 12 V 5 \u0026gt;1 2 z p 9 9 9 9 9 Iand post), and SAT 9 at grade 5. These performance indicators are examined in the tables and charts contained in this section. The data presented in Table 4 represents the 1999-2000 school year student literacy achievement as measured by the Primary Benchmark Exam at Grade 4 for current 5* graders at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. Table 4 PRIMARY (GRADE 4) BENCHMARK EXAMINATION FOR LITERACY: SCHOOL YEAR 1999-2000 PREFORMANCE LEVEL _______ BELOW BASIC BASIC PROFICENT ADVANCED PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 86% 7% 7% 0% As illustrated in the table, only 7% of the then 4* grade students were proficient in literacy. The majority of students fall within the below basic range. This can be interpreted, as the overwhelming majority of 4* grade students who entered the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School in the fall of 2000 could not read at grade level. An examination of the results of the 2000-2001 benchmark scores, as presented in Table 5, further illustrates the challenging task of improving student reading achievement. Table 5  PRIMARY (GRADE 4) BENCHMARK EXAMINATION FOR LITERACY: SCHOOL YEAR 2000-2001 PREFORMANCE LEVEL PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS BELOW BASIC 83% BASIC 17% PROFICENT ADVANCED 0% 0% 10 13 Pl P\u0026gt;l 2 Z P 0 c p 9 9 STAFF Staff Title I Staff Residential Component TOTAL Materials \u0026amp; Equipment Computers Classroom equipment/ Furniture Printers Computer Tables Computer Software_______ Cabling________ Server(s) Hubs__________ Classroom supplies Office materials and supplies Repairs of equipment Textbooks Periodicals Audiovisual materials TOTALS CHARTER SCHOOL BUDGET 2000-2001 Proposed 725,000 96,000 821,000 53,100 35,000 7,000 8,500 1,500 20,000 10,000 1,000 2000-2001 Acutal 345,000 71,000 20,000 400 2,000 158,000 89,000 505,000 61,596 34,147 7,000 8,500 1,500 31,176 3,811 26,681 Source of Funds LRSD Title I Provided Provided 174,411 2001-2002 345,000 71,000 ADE Grant ADE 43,000 USDE 62,335 ADE 35,000 LRSD LRSD LRSD ADE 36,000 USDE 43,700 USDE USDE ADE LRSD LRSD LRSD 33,500 449,500 7,000 3,000 5,000 5,700 1,000 5,000 Provided Provided 26,700 Source of Funds LRSD Title I LRSD LRSD USDE LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD 1 14 B \u0026gt; \u0026lt; d PI JB \u0026gt; J i 3 ?) z I* p 9 9 9 P 9 9fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl nn HH fl fl Contractual 2000-2001 Proposed 5,000 2000-2001 Actual 10,000 Staff Development Training \u0026amp; Curriculum/ Improvement Success for All - Staff Development \u0026amp; Materials Travel Dues and Fees Telephone Postage Printing Utilities Maintenance Supplies \u0026amp; Equipment Construction \u0026amp; Repairs Transportation Other Support Services TOTAL GRAND TOTAL 50,000 49,135 40,000 10,000 1,200 500 500 500 30,000 3,500 100,000 (at least) 150,000 346,200 1325,700 9,751 1,000 38 144 Provided Provided 175,000 224,263 S09331 1,188,742 Source of Funds USDE 35,000 USDE 50,000 ADE 40,000 USDE 10,000 USDE LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD 2001-2001 Proposed 50,000 4,700 10,000 2,500 1,200 500 300 500 Provided 3,500 250,000 5,000 328,200 804,400 Source of Funds USDE USDE LRSD USDE LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD NOTE: The above budget included grant funds from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and United States Department of Education (USDE). 1 15 P5 \u0026gt; r 5 Pl XX \u0026gt;1 2 z * p Q9 0 P 9 0 5     The number of students scoring below basic decreased from 86% to 83%. The largest increase occurred in the number of students rated basic. The number increased from 7% to 17%. Overall, the student of students who were rated as proficient readers decreased from 7% to 0%. The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary Schools emphasis on reading has not yet impacted student reading achievement.   The data presented in Table 6 represents the 1999-2000 school year student mathematics achievement as measured by the Primary Benchmark Exam at Grade 4 for current 5*'' graders at the school. As previously mentioned he current 5* graders were not in attendance at the school during the 1999-2000 school year.  ?5 \u0026gt; P5 \u0026lt; Table 6  PRIMARY (GRAPE 4) BENCHMARK EXAMINATION FOR MATHEMATICS^ SCHOOL YEAR 1999-2000 PREFORMANCE LEVEL _____ BELOW BASIC BASIC PROFICENT PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 86% 7% 7% 0% i \u0026gt;1 Seven percent of the then 4* grade students were proficient in mathematics. The overwhelming majority of students fall within the below basic range which indicates that students were not proficient in mathematics at grade level prior to attending the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School in the fall of 2000. An examination of the results of the 2000-2001 benchmark scores, as presented in Table 7, further illustrates the challenging task of improving student mathematics achievement.  P 0 0 P 0 0 t 0 11 16  Table 7  PRIMARY (GRADE 4) BENCHMARK EXAMINATION FOR MATHEMATICS\nSCHOOL YEAR 2000-2001     PREFORMANCE LEVEL ______ BELOW BASIC BASIC PROFICENT ADVANCED PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 96% 0% 4% 0% The number of students scoring below basic increased from 86% to 96%, while the number of students rated basic and proficient decreased 7% to 0% and from 7% to 4% respectfully. Again, the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary Schools emphasis on mathematics has not yet impacted student reading achievement. \u0026gt; g W I   In addition to the benchmark examinations, the Little Rock School District Elementary Charter School has an array of iimovative programs and services to offer students that focus on their academic development. A variety of means exist to measure the effectiveness of those programs, for instance, the grade level reading and mathematics tests. These tests are given in the fall and spring of the year. The grade level achievement tests highlight student progress. They measure students progress over the school year. The reason for measuring the rate of student growth is because it serves as an indicator of how much progress students are making compared to themselves over a defined period of time. I \u0026gt;,  The data are presented in Charts 1 and 2. The data presented compare the growth rate of students in the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School to similar students in the Little Rock School District and nation. In Chart 1 the grade level reading achievement growth rate is presented. Z P o c p 9 9 0 12 17E 14 12 Chart 1 READING ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL TEST FALL 2000 TO SPRING 2001 LU s *r P s  z \u0026lt; 5 UJ S 10 I6.J' i5 1^5 J5.4\n Charter\n District j I National \u0026gt; ft \u0026lt; OJ' 3rd Grade 31- 4 Grade Sth Grade 8 6 4 1 ' ^5 I At the 3* and 4* grade levels, the growth rate exceeds those for students in the Little Rock School District and in the nation. The increases range from 4.2% at 3\"* grade to 2.5% at 4* grade. The growth rate in both cases is significant. At the 5* grade level, the growth rate is equal to those of students in the Little Rock School District and only slightly below the national growth rate for similar students. 2 * 21 In Chart II the grade level mathematics achievement growth rate is presented. The data contained in the chart also indicate that the growth rate for students in the Little Rock * P 9 O Q P o 9 School District Charter Elementary School is either higher or slightly below that of the Little Rock School District and the nation depending on the grade level. 9 13 18E 16 14 12 10 Chart 2 MATH ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL TEST FALL 2000 TO SPRING 2001 111.9 U15| \u0026gt;n 2 P |9 8.7 s O Z. \u0026lt; uS 2 a'  Charter  District  National 0-* JI 10 2 Si 3rd Grade 4th Grade Sth Grade ?! 8 6 4 2 w ( i 1 i + ! I 8 1^11 yi Similar statements can be made about student performance on the mathematics achievement level test. At the 3\"* and 4* grade level the growth rates exceed those for students in the Little Rock School District and in the nation. The increases range from .1% at 3\"* grade to 6.3% at 4* grade. The growth rate at 4* grade is significant. At the 5' grade level, the growth rate is 1% lower than the Little Rock School District and 2% lower the national growth rate for similar students. th p e o e p o 9 The Charter School also used the Success For All program. The program has been used in more than 1000 schools. Benefits are particularly strong for students who are at risk. This is especially the case for those students in the lowest 25th percentile of their class. 1 i 14 19 IM The data contained in Chart 3 show the progress of students at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School during the 2000-2001 school year. Charts SUCCESS FOR ALL READING BY GRADE LEVEL d ! fl u o \u0026lt; UJ u 100%/r 90% ** 80%'*' 70%-*' 60%** 50%-^ AS/? !56%r|  BASELINE ' PI \u0026gt; Pl 40% 30% 20% 10% 132% :24'}^n ir^39?i38% llnl iQ FIRST SECOND IBTHIRD io FINAL A 3 pi third grade FOURTH GRADE FIFTH GRADE The 3\"* grade reading scores have increased each quarter of the school year. The percentage of students reading at grade level in the 3\" grade went from 0% to 56% over the course of the school year. The 4*\" grade reading scores have remained fairly constant with 40% of the students reading at grade level at the beginning and end of the school year The 5* grade reading scores have also increased from 24% to 38% during the same time period. Student reading scores have increased as a result of the Success For All reading program and other such programming activities. Those other activities include a total of 1,776 hours of staff development in such areas as Success For All, active learning with technology, experiential education, Smart Step, and cooperative learning. Student grades are also indictors of achievement. Student report card grades are presented in Charts 4 and 5. In Chart 4 reading grades by grade level and quarter are presented 15 20 I IS \u0026gt; z r  o e p  d d d I _ I I I I X Chart 4 READING SCORES BY GRADE  A 60/ u g H CZ3 b O u o \u0026lt; u CU 50--^' 40 30^ 20 10 J21 14 1616 2( JS11 28 124 1 24' X-  1ST QUARTER READING  2ND QUARTER READING  3rd QUARTER READING '  4th QUARTER READING \u0026gt;n 2 P3 r\u0026lt;\nGRADE The number of students receiving an A and B grade increased at the same time that the number of students receiving a C grade decreased in the 4* quarter. The number of students receiving a D grade also increased. Overall, 2 more students received an A grade by the 4'*' quarter and 31 more students received a B grade by the 4* quarter. The number of students receiving a C grade decreased by 17, while the number receiving a D grade increased by 1 in the 4* quarter. Reading grades have continued to rise with significant improvement occurring in the number of students receiving a B grade along with the decrease in the number of students receiving a C grade. fl I\u0026gt; Si P V- r n e a e u o o 16 2X \u0026lt;3 I I I t 1 B 0 A B C D Math scores have also risen with a significant increase in the percentage of students receiving a B grade. Chart 5 MATHEMATICS SCORES BY GRADE LEVEL 60/   50-^ i43 UJ O  CZ5 o UJ o  UJ U 40-^ 30 i22!\n28 28 20-'\" 120B 10 1321 :23 H3B3 13  FIRST QUARTER MATH B SECOND QUARTER MATH J B THIRD QUARTER MATH i BFOURTH QUARTER MATH\nP5 \u0026gt; g Pl 5C \u0026gt; r: I\n37 I 1 I I 0 1 0  B A c GRADE s X X \u0026gt; F D The percentage of students receiving a B grade has increased over the course of the year, while the number of students receiving an A, C, D or F grade has decreased. Overall, the number of students receiving a B grade increased from 28 in the 1 quarter to 51 in the 4* quarter. The biggest decrease was in the number of students receiving a C grade. That number went from 43 to 23. There were also small decreases in the number of students receiving an A, D, or F grade. The numbers ranged from 2 to 3. The decrease in the number of students receiving an A, C, D, or F grade is offset by the increase in the number of students receiving a B grade. Z P o c p 9 9 \u0026lt; 17 22 Additional data about student performance at the Little Rock School District Charter School can be glanced from results of the Math WRAT assessment. Student performance on this examination is presented in Chart 6. The examination was administered both as a pretest and posttest to students in the 3\"*, 4*, and 5* grades in the fall and spring of the 2000-2001 school year. Chart 6  g \u0026lt;  ou u\u0026gt; \u0026lt; O s oo cU4J a 2 z 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 1 0 MATH WRAT ASSESSMENT 3RD GRADE 4TH GRADE STH GRADE  PRE i I a post\n9 i /i V 2 2 Student performance as measured by WRAT indicates an increase in the average number of correct responses at all three grade levels. In 3\"* grade the average number of correct responses increased by 2.5. In 4* grade the average number of correct responses increased by 1.3. In 5* grade the average number of correct responses increased by 2.6. B z * p e c p e 0 The final academic assessment examined is the Stanford 9 Basic Battery for the 5 grade from fall 2000. As shown in Table 7, the examination provides another view on student performance. The test was administered to 5* grade students shortly after the start of the 2000-2001 school year. B The performance of the 5* graders reflects their prior academic preparation rather than their preparation at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. The 18 23 a students had been attending the school for only several weeks before the test was administered. I 1 Chart 7 a STANFORD 9 NORM REFERENCE TEST NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK BASIC BATTERY STH GRADE FALL 2000 1 a a a a a CZ3 LU Q  H CZ2 LU O LU u u oi u Qb 100 90- 80 10 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ,88 12 OE 0%-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76%-99% QUARTILES The test results show that 88% of the student population performed in the 0 - 25% quartile, while the remaining 12% of the students performed in the 26% - 50% quartile range. Student performance for this group represents past academic preparation efforts. This groups performance should be compared with that of the fall 2001 S* graders who were 4 .* graders during 2000-2001 school year. This kind of comparison would ascertain the affect of the charter school program on 4* grade students during the 2000-2001 school year. Academically, the students at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School have made progress. The arrays of assessments highlight this improvement in 19 24 Pl 2 Pl ft 5/5 I % \u0026gt; 2 7- C C o o t Ia mathematics and reading. The schools success is a measure of the effectiveness of the programs and services provided in the innovative alternative learning environment. Financial The program and services provided during the 2000-2001 school year by the Little Rock School District Elementary Charter School cost $1,182,842 (see attached budget).  fl Even in an otherwise well-conceived and fairly funded charter school the need to purchase textbooks, instructional materials and supplies, computers and equipment as well as provide for the staff development training needs of staff can make it appear to be an expensive venture. Given the singular nature of several of the expenditures, the overall cost of operating the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School should decrease during the remaining years of the charter school contract (see attached budget). W \u0026gt; 2 P5 \u0026gt; ft \u0026lt; fl fl Also, in comparing the start up cost of the charter school to similar schools a more reasonable comparison would be with other elementary schools in the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, or Pulaski County Special School District that have opened within the past three years. Just like in these schools the initial cost is high but tends to decrease over a period of time. Another comparison could be made between other schools in the Little Rock School District that are serving students with special needs such as the magnet or incentive schools. 1 ?! y z ?! 2 2 \u0026gt; 2 Conclusion Virtually all charter schools have had to overcome obstacles during development and implemenUtion. The barriers range from lack of start-up funds, lack of planning time, inadequate operating funds, inadequate facilities, state or local board opposition, internal conflicts, hiring staff, acquiring enough students, determining the right mix of programs and services, accountability requirements, and community opposition. While not all of the barriers apply to the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School, some did. They include barriers associated with sharing a building, acquiring enough students, and meeting accountability standards. In addition, to the biggest challenge of them all pi z p 9 0 P 9 9 / 20 25a which was meeting the needs of all of the students who were academically, socially, and behaviorally challenged through the right mix of programs and services. The ability of an organization to respond to these bamers can be somewhat quantified by examining student demographic data, student academic data, staff commitment to program goals, and stakeholders satisfaction. The demographic data indicates a student a a population that is highly challenged academically, socially, and behaviorally. The impact of this challenge is felt in the areas of student attendance, mobility, and discipline. The school can positively impact attendance and discipline, however, its ability to impact mobility is questionable. a a The academic data also illustrates a population that produces mixed results. Pre and post student achievement scores range from above average to below average. The school has the capacity to positively impact student achievement with its array of programs and services. The issue of matching students with the right program may still need to be refined. a P5 \u0026gt; P5 ft \u0026lt; I ifi Another way of quantifying the organizations ability to respond is by examining the diligent and commitment of staff to the goals of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. The closer the alignment of diligent and commitment to goals the better the chance that the needs of all students will be met. The numerous hours devoted to staff development and volunteerism is an indicator of the staffs diligent and commitment to students. JO 2 \u0026gt; a Still another way to quantify the affect of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is through the impact that it has on stakeholders. Those stakeholders are the parents, children, teachers, and staff of the school. Stakeholder satisfaction is crucial to the overall success of the program. The overall impact of the charter school to stakeholders can best be summarized by the responses attained from a survey given earlier in the school year to parents, students, and staff and from the comments of parents at the end of the school year. Stakeholders developed consensus on the importance of curriculum, instruction, sUff development, and parental involvement. These items were a z r c c e p 9 0 21 26a key elements in the program and related directly to successful student outcomes. The stakeholders felt these items would provide the foundation for long-term success.  a In closing, the overall impact of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is apparent not so much in the data presented but in the comment of one parent who perhaps speaks for all stakeholders. She comments, The benefits that my child received from being in the program can not be understated. He is better as a result of being at the charter school. a a \u0026gt; 2 r 5 P5 \u0026gt; \u0026lt; a a Vi 3 4 fl fl n 2 ?! 2 z r c p 9 9 a a 22 27EARLY LITERACY 1 Lisa 7 i J J '3 fl LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206  fl TO: Board of Education fl FROM: PREPARED BY: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ^^onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Pat Price, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy DATE: October 24, 2002 SUBJECT: Early Literacy Program Evaluations fl fl Background The Board of Education approved in its 1999-2000 program evaluation agenda the Early Literacy program, which began implementation in fall 1999. During July and August 2000 the Assistant Superintendent of PRE presented to the Board drafts of this evaluation, which the Board tabled in August 2000 pending completion. That early draft was never completed and was not again submitted to the Board of Education for review and approval. ys 23 I j: ri 2  During summer 2001 Dr. Bonnie Lesley, on behalf of the Early Literacy Program Evaluation team (Pat Price, Pat Busbea, Ann Freeman, Ed Williams, Ken Savage, Anita Gilliam, and Sharon Kiilsgaard) presented a completed 204-page program evaluation: Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District (1999-2000 and 2000-2001). This report was presented for information, but our Section 2.7.1 Compliance Plan now requires that all program evaluations be presented for Board acceptance and approval. z* p c p 9O Dr. Steve Ross of the University of Memphis had served as an external consultant to the team. He read both a near-complete draft and made several suggestions for its improvement, which were incorporated into the final draft. He also read the final draft and responded. 1, All grades K-2 teachers administered the assessments, both fall and spring, in all three years, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002. All elementary principals supervised both the fall and spring administrations of the Developmental Reading Assessment and the Observation Surveys and the Achievement Level Tests at grade 2. Central office Elementary Literacy staff conducted the training for the assessments, collected the answer documents, and participated in the analysis of data: Patricia Price, Pat Busbea, Judy Milam, Judy Teeter, Kris Huffman, and Ann Freeman. Both Dr. Ed Williams and 28 f D Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Two II II Ken Savage assisted in the production and analysis of score reports. Anita Gilliam and Sharon Kiilsgaard assisted in checking the data tables for accuracy and in preparing the final reports. Copies of this program evaluation were provided to Mr. John Walker, to Ms. Ann Marshall at ODM, and to all elementary principals and elementary literacy staff. Executive summaries, including the program evaluation recommendations, were sent to all K-2 teachers with a cover memorandum congratulating them on their successes. The program evaluation was comprehensive, including the following:  an introduction\n a chapter on the literacy program design and its relationship to the Districts Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\n a description of all of the K-2 assessments used to measure student progress\n a chapter aligning the program with national research studies on effective early literacy programs\n numerous tables displaying the data in several different ways, disaggregated by grade level and race\n an analysis of the results (based on student performance data)\n an analysis of additional data relating to achievement gap among schools and the impact of professional development on student achievement:  a chapter on findingsanswers to the six research questions originally posed\n a bibliography: and  tables of school-level data on each assessment for the two-year period. An important chapter of the program evaluation relating to Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was the one on findings. Research Question 2 was as follows: Is the new program effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? The discussion filled pages 81-96. The following paragraph includes the criteria that were used to determine effectiveness.\" To determine the effectiveness of the new program in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students, the District used the performance results of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment. The basic criterion established in determining program effectiveness for black students was that black student achievement would have to improve and then that growth over the two-year period of the programs implementation would need to be equal to, but preferably greater than, the growth of non-black students, (p. 81) II II n n H B n n n n H n 29I - 7 1 i Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Three I The report included a detailed analysis of all available data: I I I - I The following findings based on Observation Survey, Developmental Reading Assessment, and Achievement Level Test results make it possible to conclude that the new early literacy program has so far been effective in improving and remediating the reading achievement of African American students, as well as all students. It is unusual in any District to find gains by both blacks and non-blacks over a two-year period on eight different measurements, as this study finds. Again, however, experts on program implementation advise that it takes approximately five years to determine program effectiveness, so this year 2 study at best establishes baseline and early trend data for comparisons in future years, (pp. 82-83) In this sections conclusions, the program evaluation included not only a summary of findings as they relate to the achievement gap, but also how they compare to the findings in recent national research on reading achievement among African American and white students: The results of two years of changes in the LRSD policies, programs, and procedures in grades PreK-2 indicate that both black and non-black children in the Little Rock School District are learning to read independently by grade 3 (see Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan). The findings and analyses in this report indicate trends in the opposite direction of the national research findings cited above and of scores of other similar studies. Instead of black students growing at slower rates than non-blacks, in most of the measurements the LRSD results indicate higher rates of growth of black students than non-blacks. Instead of the gap widening between grades 1 and 2 as it does in national studies, it narrows significantly in the LRSD by every one of the eight measures (fve sub-tests of the Observation Survey, the Developmental Reading Assessment, and two sub-tests of the Achievement Level Test), (p. 94) 3 fl fl i \u0026gt; {fl z p 9 e p 0 0  Pages 107-113 included recommendations for improvement in instruction, parent involvement, interventions, and professional development. Five schools were identified for improvement since they were the lowest performing schools in at least two of the three grades tested. Recommendations for the next program evaluation were also included. These recommendations were all considered by the program staff and by school-level staff and many were immediately implemented, as well as others identified in formative evaluations during year 3. The major recommendations made to principals for program improvement included (1) ensuring that all teachers are fully trained and are implementing the District program\nand (2) adding Reading Recovery and literacy coaches wherever possible, since both of these actions in some schools had resulted in higher achievement. / I 30B Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Four B B At the end of 2001-02 the staff decided that another comprehensive study was not necessary so early in the programs implementation (year 3). They, therefore, presented to the Board of Education in June 2002 an update that included all the 2001- 02 scores on the Observation Surveys and Developmental Reading Assessment, along with a summary of analysis of performance, especially comparisons of African American student achievement with other students. Those findings not only confirmed the findings of the 1999-2001 study, but the results were even stronger in year 3. At the end of year 3. African American students scores were at least 90 percent of other student scores on all five measures of the Observation Survey by the end of grade 2. In other words, the achievement gap was either closed on these measurements or almost closed, given the standard of 90 percent as an acceptable ratio. On the Developmental Reading Assessment, the most difficult of the measurements, the black to non-black ratio grew from 35 percent at the beginning of kindergarten in fall 1999 to 82 percent at the end of grade 2 in 2002. Deeper analysis also revealed that although many African American children from poverty were not learning to read in grade 1, they did successfully learn to read in grade 2, so they will most likely reach the goal of independent reading by grade 3, even though they began far behind their peers. Interestingly, the growth of other students generally exceeded African American student growth on the DRA in grade 1, but African American growth exceeded other student growth in grade 2. Copies of the program evaluation and the update are attached for Board members review. Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve, as submitted, the following: Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District. 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Update on the Implementation of the PreK-2 Literacy Program, Little Rock School District, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02 BAUadg Attachments B B B B B B B B n nnn H 31 i: k:t It-  Ir b-' b- Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Presented to the Board of Education Little Rock School District October 2001 I fl 9 2 \u0026gt;2 Ir b^ pj z r p G G G y G G I Prepared by Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley Dr. Ed Williams Patricia Price Pat Busbea Ann Freeman Ken Savage Anita Gilliam Sharon Kiilsgaard 1 I 32 p I i p Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 s Section I: Introduction I I 1 d i 1 Introduction During March 2000 the Little Rock School District provided to the Board of Education, the federal court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and administrators an Interim Compliance Report, which included a status report on the implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program (pp. 93-105) relating to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP). In August 2000 the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) office provided to the Board and staff a draft copy of a program evaluation for the first year of implementation of the K-2 Literacy Program. At least two subsequent drafts were developed as more data became available, but these were not presented to the Board of Educationjust discussed among staff members.  An implementation update was provided to the Board in January 2001 by the curriculum staff, on the status of program implementation and including an analysis of available data, along with an outline of next steps. Then in March 2001 the staff provided a summary evaluation in the Compliance Report (pp. 72-93) relating to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan that was filed with the federal court and provided to members of the Board of Education. 3 d 5 5 fl fl I \u0026gt; The Board of Education approved on second reading in March 2001 a new policy on program evaluation. Policy IL: Evaluation oflnstructional Programs requires that the staff evaluate the instructional programs designated by the Board of Education in their annual approval of the program evaluation agenda. Each evaluation is to provide valuable insights into how programs arc operating, the extent to which they are serving the intended purpose of increasing student achievement, the strengths and weaknesses, the cost-effectiveness, and directions for the future. In August 1999, 2000, and 2001, the Board of Education included the PreK-2 literacy program on its approved research agenda for the following year. P c p 9 0 An interim program evaluation was provided to the Board of Education in June 2001, the first analysis of the scores on the Developmental Reading Assessment in grades K-2 for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. At that time the scores were reported as the percent of students at each grade level, by race, who met the standard for readiness, the level that would predict success at the next grade level (level 2 at kindergarten\nlevel 16 at grade 1\nand level 24 at grade 2). Copies of that report, plus the summary and the slides were immediately sent via e-mail to principals to use in their own analysis and to provide to J 1 33 I' I' (' I. I' 1 E. Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, Highlights of Grades K-2 Results: Developmental Reading Assessment, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, and a copy of the slides for the June 2001 presentation to the Board of Education n I I B B B B B n n n 34 I ' Table of Contents Section I: Introduction Introduction Research Questions Methodology Outline of Program Evaluation Sections Outline of Appendices 1-6 1-2 3 3-5 5-6 6 I Section II: Background on Program Design Background on Program Requirements: Design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Background on Program Requirements: LRSD Strategic Plan Background on Program Requirements: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan 7-13 7-8 8 8-13  Section III: The Assessments The Assessments: Observation Survey The Assessments: Developmental Reading Assessment Defimtion of Readiness vs. Proficiency Reliability and Validity: National Study Reliability and Validity: LRSD Study Developmental Appropriateness of Testing Instruments The Assessments: Achievement Level Tests in Reading and Language Usage 14-25 14-15 15-21 16-19 19-20 20-21 21-23 23-25 V: I JC I Section IV: Alignment with National Research on Early Literacy 26-29 Section V: Description of Tables Table 1: Kindergarten, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 2: Kindergarten, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 3: Grade 1,1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 4: Grade 1,2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 5: Grade 2,1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 30-42 31 31 32 33 33 35 [fl r G C\u0026gt; c p 9 9 I I I Table 6\nGrade 2,2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 7\nCohort 1, Kindergarten Fall 1999 and Grade 1 Spring 2001 Table 8\nCohort 2, Grade 1 Fall 1999 and Grade 2 Spring 2001 Table 9: Grades K-2,1999-2000, Fall to Spring Performance, All Students Table 10: Grades K-2,2000-01, Fall to Spring Performance, All Students Table 11: Percent of Maximum Scores, Kindergarten Black Students Table 12: Percent of Maximum Scores, Kindergarten Non-Black Students Table 13: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 All Students Table 14: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 Black Students Table 15: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 Non-Black Students Table 16: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 All Students Table 17: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 Black Students Table 18: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 Non-Black Students Table 19: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 All Students Table 20: Cohort 1All Students, Kindergarten Fall 1999 and Grade 1 Spring 2001 Table 21: Cohort 2All Students, Grade 1 Fall 1999 and Grade 2 Spring 2001 Table 22: Percent Readiness, DRA, Black and Non-Black Students Table 23: Percent Readiness, DRA, All Students Table 24: Grade 2 Reading, ALT, Black and Non-Black Comparisons Table 25: Grade 2 Reading, ALT, All Students Table 26: Grade 2 Language Usage, ALT, Black and Non-Black Comparisons Table 27: Grade 2 Language Usage, ALT, All Students 34 35 35 36 37 37 38 38 38 38 39 39 39 39 40 40 41 41 41 42 42 42 36 i- I i 3 Section VI: Analysis of Results, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Letter Identification Word Test Concepts about Print Writing Vocabulary Hearing and Recording Sounds Developmental Reading Assessment 43-67 43-46 47-51 52-54 55-59 60-63 64-67 f Section VII: Additional Data Achievement Gap Among Schools Impact of Professional Development 68-71 68-70 70-71 I I Section VIII: Program Evaluation Findings and Recommendations for Improvement Research Question 1^Program Effectiveness Research Question 2Achievement Disparities Research Question 3Professional Development Research Question 4Four Literacy Models Research Question 5^Program Strengths and Weaknesses Research Question 6Cost Effectiveness Recommendations for Improvement Instruction Parent Involvement Interventions Professional Development Schools Identified for Improvement Year 3 Program Evaluation 72-113 72-80 81-96 96-100 100-103 103-105 105-106 106- 107-109 109-110 110-112 112 112 112-113 ( pl V! pl 9 IB2 \u0026gt; Section IX: Bibliography 114-116 Section X: School-Level Data Letter Identification, Kindergarten Word Test, Kindergarten Concepts about Print, Kindergarten Writing Vocabulary, Kindergarten 117-205 119-122 123-126 127-130 131-134 135-138 pj z r p 0 c Hearing and Recording Sounds, Kindergarten Developmental Reading Assessment, Kindergarten 139-142 Letter Identification, Grade 1 Word Test, Grade 1 Concepts about Print, Grade 1 Writing Vocabulary, Grade 1 Hearing and Recording Sounds, Grade 1 143-146 147-150 151-154 155-158 159-162 I 37 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grade 1 163-166 Word Test, Grade 2 Writing Vocabulary, Grade 2 Hearing and Recording Sounds, Grade 2 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grade 2 167-170 171-174 175-178 179-182 Cohort 1^Letter Identification, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1Word Test, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1Concepts about Print, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1Writing Vocabulary, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1Hearing and Recording Sounds, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1^Developmental Reading Assessment, Black and Non-Black 183 184 185 186 187 188 Cohort 2Word Test, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2Writing Vocabulary, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2^Hearing and Recording Sounds, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2^Developmental Reading Assessment, Black and Non-Black 189 190 191 192 Percent Readiness, Developmental Reading Assessment, K-2 Percent Readiness, DRA, Rank Order, K-2 Percent Readiness, DRA, Black and Non-Black 193-195 196-198 199-201 ! Grade 2 ALT, ReadingAll Students Grade 2 ALT, Reading, Black and Non-Black Grade 2, ALT, Language Usage, All Students Grade 2, ALT, Language Usage, Black and Non-Black 202 203 204 205 Appendices A. B. C. D. PrcK-3 Literacy Program Plan Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plans March 2000 Interim Compliance Report Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plans March 2001 Compliance Report Presentation to the Board of Education, January 2000 (update on program implementation and early results) 38 I teachers and parents. (See Appendix E.) Elementary principals used these materials in their August 2001 preschool inservice sessions. I I This Year 2 Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District builds on the information provided in all earlier reports. It is intended to meet the requirements specified in Policy IL for the 2000-01 school year, as well as to fulfill the requirements in Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan. The grade levels evaluated include only grades kindergarten through grade 2. Another report will include grades 3 through 5. I I The curriculum staff received from PRE on July 19,2001, the report on the mean scores for K-2 students on both the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment for 2000-01. Achievement Level Test data were available earlier, but they had not yet been disaggregated by race. This program evaluation, therefore, differs from, but builds upon, the evaluation report that was presented to the Board of Education in June. It includes a much more detailed analysis of data\nit includes the results of the five sub-tests of the Observation Survey\nand it includes the average performance scores for each school on each sub-test^not just the percent of students meeting the standard. It also includes the results of the grade 2 Achievement Level Tests in reading and language usage. The new data permit the staff to calculate and analyze the scores in a different way (mean performance vs. percent readiness), and they permit the calculation of a black to non-black student ratio so that the degree to which the achievement gap in narrowed can be measured, as well as how the gap has changed over the two years of program implementation. One caution in comparing the 1999-2000 and 2000-01 pre-test scores on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment is that some schools did not complete their fall testing by the deadline in 1999 and so their pre-test scores were higher than they would have been had the testing been done in a timely manner. There were instances when there were several weeks difference in the test date, so this variance would affect the pre-test scores. The kindergarten pre-test scores in fall 2000, for instance, were generally lower than those for fall 1999, for both black and non-black students. These differences do not necessarily indicate that this past years kindergarten class was that much weaker than the one the year beforeespecially when this past years end-of-year scores were higher than the previous classs end-of-year scores. The third and fourth tests administered are the Achievement Level Tests in reading and language usage that are given in spring of grade 2. Those scores, combined with the results of the Observation Survey and the DevelopmenUl Reading Assessment, enable the District to assess the effectiveness of the early literacy program in LRSD, including its impact on the improvement of the academic achievement of Afiican American children. 2 39 3 1 fl dX V. fl *I pzl pr c 0 ep 0 8 r* 1 Research Questions Using the obligations set forth in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP), the Boards Strategic Plan, and the Boards Policy IL, the following research questions were estabhshed to guide this study: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Are the new curriculum standards/benchmarks, instructional strategies, and materials effective in teaching primary grade students how to read independently and understand words on a page? (See Section 5.2.1a of RDEP and Strategy 2 of the Strategic Plan.) Is the new program effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? (See Section 2.7 of RDEP.) Is there a relationship between teacher participation in professional development and student achievement? (See Policy IL expectation to examine cost effectiveness and Strategy 7 of the Strategic Plan.) Is there evidence of success in each of the four Uteracy models in useEarly Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) only\nELLA and Reading Recovery\nSuccess for All\nand Direct Instruction? (See Section 2.7 of RDEP.) What are the programs strengths and weaknesses? (See Policy IL.) Is the program cost effective? (See Policy IL and Strategy 3 of the Strategic Plan.) Methodology An interdisciplinary team was assembled to prepare the program evaluation for the PreK- 2 literacy program for Year 2. Several staff members provided assistance and support in the construction of 27 separate tables of district-level data to display not only the mean scores for each sub-test, by race and for all students, on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, but also to display the percent who scored at or above the readiness level on the Developmental Reading Assessment and the median RIT score on the sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests. Calculations were verified three times by separate staff members to ensure the highest possible degree of accuracy. Among the calculations that were made to assist in the analysis of data were numbers of points of growth from fall to spring for each of the two years, spring to spring, and fall of one grade to spring of the following grade (for a two-year growth). Black to non-black ratios were calculated to determine the degree to which black students were attaining essential knowledge and skill at the same level as non-black students. Growth ratios were also determined^the degree to which growth in a given year by black students was at the same level or higher than that of non-black students. The percent of growth for one year of instruction and then two years of instruction in the program was calculated for each level and each sub-test, although these calculations were not used in the section on findings or in the recommendations made for improvement. And, finally, the mean 3 40i I  score on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment was divided by the maximum possible score to determine the average percent for each score. An additional table was constructed to display the achievement gap between/among schools for each sub-test at each grade level. i The Districts statistician conducted three statistical studies that informed the study: one of the average number of days of teacher participation in professional development on the implementation of ELLA, by program model, and another of descriptive statistics between teacher participation in professional development on ELLA implementation and student achievement. A third study was conducted to determine the validity of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment in relationship to the Achievement Level Tests. fI 5 Finally, 87 tables of school-level data were constructed to add to the study and to provide the critical information for school-level staff members to conduct their own analyses at the school level.   Throughout the writing of this report individual staff members, both program staff and assessment specialists, were interviewed and queried in order to clarify issues of program implementation, testing administration, instructional procedures, and data interpretation. Their assistance was invaluable. The research studies which guided the initial design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan were again reviewedespecially the research on the identification of prerequisite knowledge and skills that children must acquire on their pathway to learning to read. These findings were once again mapped with the implementation plan for LRSD, as well as the assessment instruments to ensure ongoing alignment. Serendipitously, the National Center for Education Statistics published a report in July 2001 entitled Educational Achievement and Black-White Ineoualitv. which proved to be very helpful in interpreting Little Rock results in a national context, and which is cited in this program evaluation, along with other external studies. Multiple strategies to analyze the data were employed so as to establish as thoroughly and comprehensively as possible a basis for determining the programs quality. The detailed analysis is found in Section VI. No attempt was made in this study to analyze the results for limited-English proficient children since that program is evaluated separately. It is important to note, however, that the scores of limited-English proficient students are included in each schools results. The District requires them to take the tests so their progress in learning English, as well as in learning to read, may be monitored. And, finally, credible research studies were consulted, as were informed staff, in the determination of recommendations for improvement or determining next steps in becoming even more effective. 4 41 J I fl 4 CZ! fl 2 s 2 ?5 Z e P 0 0 \u0026lt; Before the program evaluation was published, it was reviewed by many individuals, including Dr. Steve Ross of the University of Memphis, and groups, including the Early Literacy program staff, PRE staff representatives, and School Services staff. The District is grateful to all who offered feedback and suggestions for the improvement of this report. To the best of the writers ability, the suggestions for improvement were incorporated into the draft. Others were added to recommendations for the Year 3 study. Outline of Program Evaluation Sections This report is organized into ten sections: 1. Section I includes the Introduction, as well as a delineation of the Research Questions for the study and a description of the methodologies employed. 2. Section n provides background information on the program design and its relationship to the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation Plan. 3. Section HI describes the selection of appropriate assessments for grades K-2 and the processes by which readiness standards were established for each grade level for the Developmental Reading Assessment. It also includes information on national and local validation studies of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, as compared to the Achievement Level Test. 4. The literacy plans design in relationship to the findings in national research studies on early literacy is described in Section IV. This section also includes an alignment of the research with the assessments selected by the District. 5. Three major sections on data analysis follow. Section V is a description of each of the tables that was constructed from the data reports to assist the writers of this report and its readers in analyzing the results on the eight measurements: the five sub-tests on the Observation Survey (OS)\nthe Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA)\nand the reading and language usage sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs). 6. Section VI is a detailed analysis of the data in each table and a comparison of 1999-2000 and 2000-01 data, by race. 7. Additional data are provided in Section VII on the achievement gap among schools and on some statistical studies that were conducted relating to program effectiveness and the relationship between teacher participation in professional development and the achievement of their students. 8. Following the data analysis is Section VIH that summarizes the program strengths and weaknesses and specifies the implications for instruction, with specific recommendations for improvements in 2001-2002. 5 414 1 9. Section IX is the Bibliography for the study. 10. Section X includes 87 tables of school-level data. Those interested in individual school performance or comparisons are encouraged to use the model in this report for data analysis at the District level to conduct similar analyses at the school level. Behind Section X are appendices A-E for more background and further reference: A. PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan e B. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plans March 2000 Interim Compliance Report I C. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plans March 2001 Compliance Report D. Presentation to the Board of Education, January 2000 (update on program implementation and early results) E. Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, Highlights of Grades K-2 Results: Developmental Reading Assessment, 1999-2000 and 2000-01, and a copy of the slides for June 2001 presentation to the Board of Education 6 z 0 5 ?! *5 43 4 I \u0026gt; J r C e p o e 4II. Background on Program Design Background on Program Requirements: Design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program During early fall 1998 a committee was formed in the Division of Instruction of the Little Rock School District to design a new elementary literacy program, with an emphasis on the primary grades of PreK-3. The processes and ultimate design of that plan are described in the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan in Appendix A. All elementary schools in the Little Rock School District are expected to teach the same curriculum standards and grade-level benchmarks, regardless of the instructional strategies and/or materials that are selected according to the various implementation models. Twenty-seven of the Districts 35 schools are implementing the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) instructional strategies that are the content of the professional development program for PreK-2 teachers. This model was developed through a collaborative effort that included the Reading Recovery Training Center at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, the Arkansas Reading Recovery teacher leaders, and the Arkansas Department of Education. Nine schools are implementing the Reading Recovery program, a first-grade intervention, developed by Marie Clay. Seven schools are implementing the Success for All model that was developed at Johns Hopkins University. Little Rock schools receive their training for this program from the University of Memphis. Both ELLA and Success for All training are designed fixjm the same research base on early literacy\nthey differ in implementation strategies and materials. One school is implementing Direct Instruction through an approved waiver from the District program. Both the Success for All schools and the Direct Instruction school are supplementing their programs, in some cases, with ELLA strategies for greater effectiveness. According to Busbea (2000), In ELLA the importance of helping students feel like readers and writers on the first day of school is stressed. In order to achieve such a goal, teachers must provide students with the needed materials and opportunities for literacy activities. A balanced literacy approach is used to give students these opportunities. The children are engaged in whole text, but they are given formal instruction based on their strengths and needs (30-31). The literacy components taught in the ELLA professional development program, again according to Busbea, are as follows:  Read aloud.  Shared reading.  Guided reading.  Familiar reading.  Modeled writing or shared writing.  Interactive writing. I 7 441 Writing aloud. Revising and editing. Independent writing and conferencing. Phonetic skills. Classroom management. r Each school is required to dedicate a two and one-half hour block of uninterrupted time daily for literacy instruction. :9 3 ' Background on Program Requirements: LRSD Strategic Plan The District adopted its Strategic Plan in 1996, and it was updated in fall 1998. Three of the eleven strategies were important in the development of the PreK-2 Literacy Program Plan:  Strategy 2: In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. Strategy 3: We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the Sd'' percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving District standards in the core curriculum. I z 0 .*) z3 Strategy 7: We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan. Background on Program Requirements: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan The charge to the design committee of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan included three major sections of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan that was approved by the federal court in February 1998: Section 2.7, Section 2.7.1, and Section 5.2.1. The first of these sections (2.7) establishes the obligation to improve the achievement of students, especially those who are African American. I\u0026gt; 2 Section 2.7: LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African- American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. zr ec 0P 9 0 On January 21,1998, Mr. John Walker, on behalf of the Joshua Intervenors, signed an agreement with the Little Rock School District that was filed with the federal court, which included the following statement: \u0026lt; With regard to the achievement disparity, the January 16 Revised Plan recognizes that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement is by improving African-American achievement (2). 9 8 45 To that end and to address the obligation in Section 2.7, the staff made a conscious decision to emphasize designed to improve... the academic achievement of African- American students, rather than to remediate that achievement, given the failure of most remediation efforts not only in Little Rock, but across the country. This is not to say that the District abandoned its remediation efforts. It did not. Re-teaching, tutoring, Title I programs, computer-assisted instruction, inter-sessions in the Extended Year schools, after-school programs, summer school, and Reading Recovery (first-grade intervention in some schools) continued as much as ever, but as supplemental to the efforts going on in every classroom to prevent as much failure as possible, rather than try to correct failure after it had occurred. These remediation efforts are documented in the schools School Improvement Plans and their Title I Plans. And, of course, the Success for All program implemented in seven LRSD elementary schools and Direct Instruction at Washington Magnet can be described as both preventative and remedial in nature. This decision to emphasize prevention of failure vs. remediation is supported in the published work of the National Research Council, Preventing Reading Difficulties Among Young Children (1998)\nthe research in scores of studies sponsored by the International Reading Association\nand from Marie Clay, who developed the Reading Recovery program. The National Research Council concluded in their massive study the following: The majority of reading problems faced by todays adolescents and adults are the results of problems that might have been avoided or resolved in their early childhood years. It is imperative that steps be taken to ensure that children overcome these obstacles during the primary grades (5). Marie Clay writes the following\nTeachers and parents of 11- to 16-year olds often believe that schools have done nothing for the reading difficulties of the young people they are concerned about. Yet the older child has probably been the focus of a whole sequence of well-intentioned efforts to help, each of which has done little for the child. This does not mean that children do not sometimes succeed with a brilliant teacher, a fantastic teacher-child relationship, a hard-working parent-child team. What it does mean is that the efforts often fail (15). Dorothy Strickland makes a similar finding: Historically, educators focused their attention on remediation, allowing children to fail before help was given. The importance of intervening early and effectively is well established among educators and social service providers (325). I t She explains that  the cycle of failure often starts early in a childs school career and that there is a near 90% chance that a child who is a poor reader at the end of grade 1 will remain a poor reader at the end of grade 4. Therefore, as the child continues to experience failure and defeat, he/she becomes likely to drop out of school (326). Also, 9 - 46 I' r she states that supplementary remedial programs such as Title I and replacement programs that substitute for regular, in-class instruction have had mixed results over the years (326). She concludes: sr* Those who have turned their attention to early intervention state that it is ultimately less costly than years of remediation, less costly than retention, and less costly to students self-esteem. This final point may be the most compelling of all because the savings in human suffering and humiliation is incalculable. Teachers in remedial programs often observe that students who feel they are failures firequently give up and stop trying to learn despite adequate instructional opportunities (326). Linda Dom (1998), Reading Recovery Teacher Leader Trainer and developer of the Arkansas Early Literacy and Literacy Coach model, and her colleagues French and Jones explain this shift in understanding about teaching as follows: i I7 Recently, Linda asked a group of teachers in a college course how they taught reading to their lowest achieving children. From their responses, it was clear that their theory was a deficit one guided by their concern about how much the children did not know. Traditionally, we have tested children to identify their weak areas and then designed instruction based on what they do not know. This theory of learning is in direct opposition to what research tells us about how the brain acquires information and then organizes related information into larger networks. 0 I ... instruction that is based on inadequate background is grounded in a deficit model, which may force young learners to rely on low-level processes (24-25). 9 I 3 In their summary of Chapter 1, they wrote: Prevention of reading problems must begin in the early grades. If children are not reading on grade level by the end of third grade, their chance of success in later years is minimal. One significant characteristic of problem readers is their lack of literacy experiences during their preschool years. Schools must compensate by providing the children with rich literacy classroom programs and supplemental literacy services that focus on early intervention (15). z p c c c p 0 0 In other words, those who persist in insisting on remediation of learning as the primary emphasis for the lowest-achieving children doom those children to lessons that never get beyond the rote memorization of basic information, and those children will never have an opportunity to understand anything well, much less apply higher-order thinking skills. Dom, si si (1998) urge teachers, therefore, to identify the strengths of young children and use this information as the basis for designing rich learning experiences that emphasize problem-solving (p. 25). In these ways, schools can prevent failure. I 10 47 It should be noted that the District sees its HIPPY and expansive pre-kindergarten program as a part of its overall prevention-of-failure efforts. (See Compliance Report of March 2001, pp. 72-73, for a break-down of the 1312 youngsters involved in early childhood education during 2000-01.) The second section fiom the Revised Plan (2.7.1) requires the District to conduct annual assessments of English language arts and mathematics in order to determine their effectiveness in improving the achievement of Afiican American studentsand then to take appropriate action if the program is not effective by either modifying the programs implementation or replacing it. Section 2.7A: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African- American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. ! Prior to fall 1999 there was not in place a reading assessment (except the eight-week assessments in the Success for All schools) that measured student progress in their acquisition of leaming-to-read skills in the early grades. For a time the SAT9 was administered in grades 2-3, but it was not used to drive instructional practice as much as it was used to identify students for the gifted/talented program. The Literacy Benchmark examination required by the State of Arkansas in grade 4 was the first formal assessment of whether students could read independently. The design committee believed strongly that to comply with the Revised Plan and also, importantly, to be able to diagnose potential reading difficulties, as well as to identify progress and growth of individual students, classrooms, schools, and the District, an annual assessment would be required. The District could not afford to wait until grade 4 to find out whether every student had learned to read independently, a goal established in the Revised Plan. After a review of the available literacy assessments for young children and after consulting with the experts involved in the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) professional development program and with specialists at the Arkansas Department of Education, District staff decided to adopt two sets of measurements-the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement developed by Marie M. Clay and the Developmental Reading Assessment developed by Joetta Beaver. Subsequently, because of a need to have a measurement for the identification of students for the grade 3 gifted/talented program, the Achievement Level Test developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association in collaboration with LRSD teacher teams was added to the assessment plan for grade 2. The results of these data would be the primary basis for evaluating program effectiveness. 11 48 i The third section (5.2.1) of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan establishes several curriculum, instruction, professional development, assessment, and parental involvement obligations\n[ I 1 IIf Readim/Lansuaee Arts Section 5.2.1: Primary Grades. LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through third grade: a. b. c, d. e. g-h. i. j-k. I. Establish as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a page\nFocus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences\nPromote thematic instruction\nIdentify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills\nMonitor the appropriateness of teaching/leaming materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms\nEstablish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction\nMonitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\nProvideparents/guardians with better information about their childs academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students\nProvide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, andfirst grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences\nTrain teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms\nUse the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day\nand Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. Rather than repeat in this program evaluation the information provided in a number of earlier reports, the relevant pages from those earlier reports are included in the appendices. The document in Appendix E entitled Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan includes the following list of initiatives that have been implemented from the PreK-3 plan and which require emphasis (pp. 2-3): 12 49 7 0 3 fl 3 CZ! fl 2 2 z r p c a c p 9 9 9 Title I programming was restructured and aligned with the Districts program. A moratorium was placed on adding any new supplemental reading/ language arts programs. Some programs in previous use were abandoned. A waiver was granted to Washington Magnet to keep its Direct Instruction program. Cumculum standards, instructional strategies, instructional materials, assessments, and professional development were tightly aligned. Each school established a sacred, uninterrupted, two and one-half hour daily block for the teaching of reading/language arts. A new English-as-a-Second Language program was implemented that is also tightly aligned with the Districts general education program. New assessments that are developmentally appropriate and aligned with the curriculum and instructional program were implemented. Animated Literacy, a phonemic awareness program, was implemented in kindergarten. Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) was implemented in grades K-2, with Pre-ELLA added in fall 2000 for prekindergarten students. More than $35O,(XX) was expended in the purchase of reading and other cumculum support materials during the past two years. 9 A committee has almost completed work on a new elementary report card. Most primary teachers experienced a minimum of one week of ELLA training, with follow-ups as necessary and appropriate (See Compliance fiSgOU in Appendix C for lists of professional development sessions.) The Parent-School Compact was revised, and the Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) was developed and implemented. The Parent Program was restructured in May 2000. An ESL Parent Coordinator was employed in spring 2001. 13 50 f 3 in. The Assessments 1 ' - -Jg h H I I i Marie Clay makes the point repeatedly in her book, An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (1993), that no one observation task is satisfactory on its own when one needs to make important instructional decisions for children (p. 20). She would find strong support from Grant Wiggins, who is a national expert in assessment. In his book, Assessing Student Performance: Exploring the Purpose and Limits of Testing (1993), Wiggins wrote: One test signifies nothing, let us emphatically repeat, but five or six tests signify something. And that is so true that one might almost say, It matters very little what the tests are so long as they are numerous (13). In the Little Rock School District, the tests are numerous. The Assessments: Observation Survey Below is siunmary information about what the five sub-tests in the Observation Survey measure. Letter Identification This sub-test answers the following questions: What letters does the child know? Which letters can he/she identify? All letters, lower and upper case, are tested. The observation includes an analysis of the childs preferred mode of identifying letters\nthe letters a child confuses\nand the unknown letters. (Clay, p. 43) The maximum score is 54. This test is administered in grades K-1. 5 I ?! V. Word Test The student is tested over the most fi-equently occurring words in whatever basic reading texts are being used. Scores on this measure are useful in determining a childs readiness to read. (Clay, p. 53) The maximum score is 20. This test is administered in grades K-2. Concepts about Print This sub-test (5-10 minutes) includes testing whether the student knows the front of the book, that the print (not the picture) tells the story, that there are letters, that are clusters of letters called words, that there are first letters and last letters in words, that you can choose upper or lower case letters, that spaces are there for a reason, and that different punctuation marks have meanings. Scores on this measure have proven to be a sensitive indicator of behaviors that support reading acquisition. (Clay, p. 47) The maximum score is 24. This test is administered in grades K-1. Writing Vocabulary The student is asked to write down in ten minutes all the words he/she knows how to write, starting with his/her own name and making a personal list of words 14 51 9 I {fl z r p c p 0 9he/she has managed to learn. There is no maximum score. This test is administered in grades K-2. Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words The teacher asks the child to record a dictated sentence. The childs performance is scored by counting the childs representation of the sounds (phonemes) by letters (graphemes). The maximum score is 37 at grades K-1 and is 64 at grade 2. This test is administered in grades K-2. The Assessments: Developmental Reading Assessment The Developmental Reading Assessment is a one-on-one assessment of reading skills primarily accuracy of oral reading and comprehension through reading and re-telling of narrative stories. The assessment consists of stories that increase in difficulty. Factors which contribute to the gradient of difficulty of the stories include the number of words on a page, complexity of vocabulary, length of the stories, degree of support from the pictures, as well as complexity of sentence and story structure. The assessment formats are as follows: Levels A-2 (Kindergarten Grade Level), 7-8 minutes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Teacher selects book Teacher introduces text Teacher reads one or two pages Child points and reads rest of story\nteacher takes running record Teacher asks print questions Teacher asks preference questions Levels 3-16 (First Grade Level), 10-15 minutes 1. Teacher selects book 2. Teacher introduces text 3. Child looks at pictures\ntells what is happening 4. 5. 6. 7. Child reads story aloud\nteacher takes running record Child retells story Teacher asks response questions Teacher asks preference questions Levels 18-44 (Second Grade Level), 15-20 minutes 1. Teacher selects range of three texts 2. Child previews and chooses one 3. Teacher introduces text 4, 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Child reads first 2-4 paragraphs aloud Child predicts what will happen in story Child reads complete story silently in another location Child retells story Teacher asks response questions Child reads selected portion of text\nteacher takes ruruiing record 15 52r 10. Teacher asks preference questions 11. Teachers asks one or two inference questions (Levels 28-44). 3 3 Readiness levels for the Little Rock School District have been established as follows:  KindergartenLevel 2  Grade 1Level 16\nand  Grade 2Level 24. 4e 5 The explanation below (developed in summer 2000) on Definition of Readiness vs. Proficiency is a delineation of the Districts efforts to define appropriate cut scores for each grade level so that a determination could be made of the percent of students who are achieving a standard of readiness for success at the next grade level. I' I Definition of Readiness vs. Proficiency The Arkansas Department of Education has defined performance at four levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced for the Benchmark examinations that are administered at grades 4, 6, and 8 and the end-of-level examinations for designated high school courses. Proficient is the performance standard that all students should achieve. The ADE definition follows: Proficient students demonstrate solid academic performance for the grade tested and are well-prepared for the next level of schooling. They can use Arkansas established reading, writing, and mathematics skills and knowledge to solve problems and complete tasks on their own. Students can tie ideas together and explain the ways their ideas are coimected. The Developmental Reading Assessment allows teachers to assess reading levels of students through a one-on-one test reading conference between teacher and student. Teachers observe student performance during the test, make notes on reading behaviors, and score the performance as they go along. V! 2J 5 fl fl I\u0026gt; 2 r I The desire was to establish appropriate cut points that would define proficient performance. To gauge which level is equivalent to how Arkansas defines proficiency, the staff used national reading standards for each grade level as defined in Reading and Writing Grade bv Grade: Primary Literacy Standards from Kindergarten through Third Grade (New Standards Primary Literacy Committee, National Center on Education and the Economy and the University of Pittsburgh, 1999). The staff then identified the DRA level that corresponds to that specific performance. Standards and DRA equivalents by grade level follow: fl z r p c e p 9 0 f I 16 53 Grade Level Kindergarten Grade I I I Grade 2 Reading Standards Children at the end of kindergarten should understand that every word in a text says something specific. They can demonstrate this competence by reading Level B books that they have not seen before, but that have been previewed for them, attending to each word in sequence and gening most of them correct. By the end of the year, we expect first-grade students to be able to\nread Level 16 books that they have not seen before, but that have been previewed for them, with 90 percent or bener accuracy of word recognition (self-correction allowed). When they read aloud, we expect first graders to sound like they know what they are reading. Fluent readers may pause occasionally to wo^ out difficult passages. By the end of the year, we expect first-grade students to be able to independently read aloud from Level I books that have been previewed for them, using intonation, pauses and emphasis that signal the structure of the sentence and the meaning of the text. By the end of the year, we expect second-grade students to be able to independently read aloud unfamiliar Level 24 books with 90 percent or bener accuracy of word recognition (selfcorrection allowed). DRA Level_______________________________________ Assessment texts A through 2 consist of a repeated word or sentence panem with natural language structures. The simple illustrations include animals and objects familiar to primary children and highly support the text. One or two lines of text appear on the left page and are large and well spaced so that children can point as they read. The number of words in the texts ranges fiom ten to thirty-six._______________________ Assessment texts 16 through 28 are stories with beginnings, middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content begins to move beyond children's personal experiences and builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with natural language. Some description of characters and setting is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of difficulty. Assessment texts 16 through 28 are stones with beginnings, middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content begins to move beyond children's personal experiences and builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with natural language. Some description of characters and sening is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of difficulty.___________________________________________ The staff also considered the work of others who use the DRA in their determination of appropriate cut points to define proficiency at each grade level. Several sUtes and many school districts have adopted the DRA for early literacy assessment. One example is the chart establishing proficiency levels developed by the East Baton Rouge Parish School System in Louisiana. They have determined that On Grade Level is defined by a kindergarten students performance at levels 1,2 on the DRA\ngrade 1 is levels 16,18\nand grade 2 is levels 24,28. Above Grade Level is defined as levels 3-14 at kindergarten\nlevels 20-28 at grade 1\nand levels 30-38 at grade 2. In Lindsay, California, the Approaching Proficiency levels are defined similarly: level 2 at kindergarten\nlevels 10-12 at gr^e 1\nand level 24 at grade 2. 17 54 3 5^^ IS fl 1 I 4 A program evaluation conducted by the Austin, Texas, Independent School District indicates that the Grade Level performance on the DRA was defined level 2 at kindergarten\nlevel 16 at grade 1\nand levels 24-28 at grade 2. as The State of Ohio defined Success Indicators for reading for each grade level. These can be compared to the national standards developed by the National Center for Education and the Economy: At the end of kindergarten, children should be able to write in a left to right/top to bottom manner, have a firm grasp of letters and their sounds, and recognize a few simple words. By the end of first grade, students should be using and integrating phonics and reading strategies as they read, writing simple stories, reading independently, and demonstrating comprehension of stories through drawing, writing, discussion, and dramatization. By the end of second grade, students should be reading silently for extended periods and reading orally with appropriate use of punctuation. They should demonstrate that they can gather information by reading, predict how stories will end, compare and contrast story elements, sequence evens from a story, retell a story, and relate what they read to their lives. The State of Connecticut uses the Developmental Reading Assessment as a part of their state accountability system in grades 1-3. Grade 1 students who perform at or below level 10 and grade 2 students who perform at or below level 16 at the end of the year are identified as substantially deficient. Such students then receive a personal or individual reading plan that outlines additional instructional support and monitors student progresssimilar to the Districts Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP). Although Connecticut does not identify grade-level proficiency levels, they have established the literacy standard for LEP students to exist the bilingual program: at kindergarten the student must perform at level 2\nat grade 1 level 16\nand at grade 2 level 28. Vermont, likewise, uses the DRA in their state assessment program and has established similar levels of proficiency. 7- 9 5 I Vi 9 I \u0026gt; i Joetta Beaver, the developer of the Developmental Reading Assessment (published by Celebration Press in 1997), suggests that districts should define proficiency levels so that students performing below those levels receive necessary interventions and remediation. Her recommended proficiency levels are levels 1-2 for kindergarten\nlevels 16-18 at grade 1\nand levels 24-28 at grade 2. All these efforts to define proficiency are either exactly aligned with the decisions made by LRSD sUff or are very close. 18 55 pi y\nr 9 C P 9 9 \u0026lt;Given, however, the difficulty of establishing with confidence an equivalent defimtion of proficiency that would predict achievement on the grade 4 Benchmark examination. District staff members have made the decision to use what in their best judgment are the appropriate cut scores (based on all the research cited), but to use the term Readiness to define the desired perfonnance. VA/MAM T\\a\u0026gt;A_^A 1_____1x* Ma When the District has multiple years of data and when the 1999-2000 kindergarten students take the Grade 4 Benchmark examination in spring 2004 then the staff can do some stotistical calculations that will enable the District set cut scores that reliably predict Proficient performance on the grade 4 Benchmark. to I 1 I I Reliability and Validity: National Study The development of the Developmental Reading Assessment began in 1988 by a team of teacher-researchers. According to the national validation study, the purpose of the assessment was to guide teachers ongoing observations of student progress over time withm a hterature-based reading program (p. 2). Over the next six years ere were numerous revisions in response to teacher feedback. In spnng 1996 the first formal validation study was conducted. Seventy-eight teachers fi-om various parts of the United States and Canada participated, (p. 3) The results of the study were very positive, and where the correlations were not as strong as they possibly could be, revisions to the instrument were made to strengthen validity. In summary, the I Iz A W M TAI Am. t* M M  . _ 1 - J ..._________ * M - * DRA was found to be a valid assessment. Teachers found it very helpful in  deterluirung individual students instructional text reading level\n describing his/her performance as a reader\nselecting appropriate interventions and/or focus for instruction\nand identifying students who may be reading below proficiency (11). A reliability study of the Developmental Reading Assessment was conducted in spring 1999 by Dr. E. Jane Williams. In this study eighty-seven teachers from ten states participated. All had prior experience in administering the DRA. The findings were at both the inter-rater reliability and the internal consistency of the test were strong to very strong (6). The construct validity of the DRA was also established through an additional study. Construct vahdity ensures that the test measures what was intended that it measure. The statistics for this study were done using DRA individual student scores compared to individual scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. They correlated positively, and for the ITBS Total Readmg subscale, very positively. The conclusion, then, was that the DRA validly measures a childs ability to decode and understand/comprehend what he/she has read (6). Of importance to the LRSD was another conclusion to this study: It should be noted that a major purpose of the DRA is to help guide instruction. Ninety-eight percent of the teachers and raters agreed or strongly agreed to the 4 s a 19 56I-I I .\u0026lt; I statement that the information gained about the reader during the DRA conference helped them better identify things that the child needed to do or learn next ( 9). 5 3 \u0026lt; d It was the intent of the design committee and is the intent of the curriculum staff that the multiple assessments selected for grades K-2 be used to drive instructionfor the data gathered from those assessments to be used to assist teachers in deciding what to do next for each individual child. LRSD embraces the joint position statement of the International Reading Association and the National Association for the Education of Yoimg Children that was adopted in 1998: [ Throughout these critical years accurate assessment of childrens knowledge, skills, and dispositions in reading and writing will help teachers better match instruction with how and what children are learning. However, early reading and writing cannot be measured as a set of narrowly defined skills on standardized tests. These measures often are not rehable or valid indicators of what children can do in typical practice, nor are they sensitive to language variation, culture, or the experience of young children. Rather, a sound assessment should be anchored in real-life writing and reading tasks... and should support individualized diagnosis needed to help young children continue to progress in reading and writing (20). i Reliability and Validity: LRSD Study The following correlational matrix constructed by the Districts statistician in spring 2001 displays the relationships between the scores on the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs) and the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment scores. 9 3 I ?! ?! CorrelatioBal Matrix* Spring 2001 ALT Reading RTF, ALT Reading Goal RTTi, Olmrvation Survey, and DRA Scores e I\u0026gt; Goal 1: Word Meaniog Goal 2: Literal Comprebeu SMB Goal 3: Goal 4: Interpretive Evaluative Compreheo Coapreben Observation Survey: Word Test SIM sion Observation Survey: Writing Vocabulary Observation Survey: Dictation DRA Reading RTF Skore Goal 1: Word Meaning Goal 2: Literal Comprehension 0.937 0.940 0.839 0.922 0.805 0.823 0.917 0.815 0.822 0.280 0.255 0.223 0.467 0.438 0.418 0.638 0.602 0.577 0.788 0.733 0.12A Goal 3: Interpretive Comprehension Goal 4: Evaluative Comprehension Observation Survey: Word Test Observation Survey: Writing Vocabulary ObMrvatiM Survey: Dictation__________ 0.795 0.199 0.207 0.410 0.413 0.276 0.535 0.574 0.351 0.442 0.696 0.719 0.360 0.478 0.683 P c p 9 9 AU conclahons arc significant at the .05 level \u0026lt; N's range from 1577 to 1684 While all the relationships are significant at the .05 level, some relationships are stronger than others. All of the ALT scores relate strongly to the DRA, with values of .696 to 20 57 .788. Only Hearing and Recording Sounds (Dictation) on the Observation Survey has value above .50-.683. Also, within the Observation Survey correlational values are a lower. The staff anticipated this result since the Observation Survey measures leaming- how-to-read skills, and the Developmental Reading Assessment measures more difficult comprehension skills. The large sample size gives power to this matrix and contributes to significance at apparent low correlational values. 1 The statistician subsequently ran a statistical test called Cronbachs Alpha, which is a reliability test for internal consistency of an assessment. Reliability is a measure of a tests stability\nthat is, if one gives the same test more than once, a reliable test would produce a similar or same result. A test with an acceptable Alpha indicates that the variability in scores is a result of the test taker, while a low Alpha indicates that the variability in scores is a result of a poorly designed or inconsistent test. A test with an Alpha of .60 and greater is usually considered to be internally consistent. The Alpha coefficients for the Observation Survey and the DevelopmenUl Reading Assessment for both fall and spring administrations are as follows: 1 Fall K Grade 1 Grade 2 .63 .66 .74 Spring .85 .62 .65 Therefore, both the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment appear to have stability and are internally consistent. The Alpha for the spring grade 2 Achievement Level Test is .97. What these data are indicating is that the Developmental Reading Assessment is a valid and reliable test The lower correlation values of the Observation Survey are more likely a product of these tests measuring pre-reading knowledge and skills, as opposed to the reading comprehension skills measured on the grade 2 Achievement Level Test Developmental Appropriateness of Testing Instruments Both the sub-tests on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment are admimstered one-on-one by the classroom teacher to the student. The teacher scores the students performance, based upon rubrics and scoring instructions provided to the teacher in a mandated training session and in writing. The teacher then bubbles in on each childs answer sheet his/her level of performance and sends those answer sheets to the Director of Early Literacy for processing and the compilation of scoring reports. One caution, therefore, in interpreting the data is that the teacher has scored his/her own students performance, and bias may be possible. The District has conducted a procedure to verify the accuracy of the spring scoresthose most likely to be influenced by bias. Students spring scores are matched with their fall scores the following year, and then if there is a wide discrepancy, that score can be flagged. When there is a pattern of significantly higher spring scores from one teacher than the next years fall scores, then an investigation must be conducted. One school with suspiciously high spring scores was flagged for review in fall 2000. However, when 21 58* 5 the match of scores was run, the staff found absolutely no evidence of cheating. The fall 2000 scores were closely in line with those of the previous spring, even though the children in the fall were in several different schools, and there were more than seven teachers administering the fall tests. The steff also has collected some anecdotal evidence that a few teachers may, in fact, be under-reporting student achievement rather than overreporting, due to their own low expectations. I a 3  To avoid even the appearance of bias, some would recommend that the District use a standardized examination with individual students writing their own answers and then the answer sheets scored by machine. The problem with this approach is that the results would likely be even more questionable than the ones produced through one-on-one testing. Experts in early literacy and in early education have developed strongly stated positions against the use of standardized tests for young children, ages 3 through 8. For example, a position statement, Learning to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children, was issued in 1998 by the International Reading Association (IRA) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). The section on assessment follows: 1  Group-administered, multiple-choice standardized achievement tests in reading and wnting skills should not be used before third grade or preferably even before fourth grade. The younger the child, the more difhcult it is to obtain valid and reliable indices of his or her development and learning using one-time test administrations. Standardized testing has a legitimate function, but on its own it tends to lead to standardized teachingone approach fits allthe opposite of the kind of individualized diagnosis and teaching that is needed to help young children continue to progress in reading and writing (11). A 1987 position paper by NAEYC, Standardized Testing of Young Children 3 Through 8 Years of Age, is even more explicit: Young children are not good test takers. The younger the child, the more inappropriate paper-and-pencil, large group test administrations become. Standards for administration of tests require that reasonable comfort be provided to the test taker (AERA, APA, \u0026amp; NCME, 1985). Such a standard must be broadly interpreted when applied to young children. Too often, standardized tests are administered to children in large groups, in unfamiliar environments, by strange people, perhaps during the first few days of school or under other stressful conditions. During such test administrations, children are asked to perform unfamiliar tasks, for no reason that they can understand. For test results to be valid, tests are best administered to children individually in familiar, comfortable circumstances by adults whom the child has come to know and trust and who are also qualified to administer the tests (5). In conclusion, therefore, the staff made the determination that the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment met all the criteria for selecting good assessment instruments for the children in K-2 classrooms. They were closely aligned 22 59 c 3 I fl 3 cz: fl flI\u0026gt; Z j* C c p e 0 4 }| with the curriculum and teaching strategies that were to be used by teachers\nthey measured the leaming-to-read skills that were essential for children becoming independent readers\nthey provided teachers with necessary diagnostic and sununative dau\nthey were developmentally appropriate\ntheir administration procedures met test administration standards for young children\nand their results were much likely to be valid and reliable than if a standardized test was used. The Assessments: Achievement Level Tests in Readmg and Language Usage The Achievement Level Test (ALT) at grade 2 in reading and language usage was first administered in spring 2000. The ALTs are a series of tests that are aligned with the Little Rock School District curriculum and the Arkansas state standards. Because the scores are along one continuum over the grade levels, they allow staff and others who are interested to calculate the amount of growth for individual students, classrooms, schools, and the District as a whole fi-om year to year. With the ALTs, students take tests at a level that matches their current achievement level. The test should be challenging, but neither too difficult nor too easy. Because the tests match the achievement level of the student, teachers receive accurate information that helps them to monitor each students academic growth. ALTs are not timed, and they take about one hour per subject for most students. The District scores the ALTs, and the results are returned to the schools as quickly as possible, sometimes within 48 hours. Any retesting that is necessary is completed, so school reports carmot be printed until all testing is finished, and district reports cannot be completed until all schools finish their testing. Reports are also produced for parents, teachers, and administrators. Once a student has been through two administrations of the ALTs, a trend report is produced for parents that allows them to monitor the growth of their child compared to the growth of the District and the growth of the national group that takes the test. Student progress is reported in a scale score called the Rasch Unit (RTT). It is an equal interval measure. It can be compared to measuring a childs physical growth in inches and then comparing it to an expected growth chart. The test measures achievement growth with a RIT scale and compares the growth to an expected national growth chart. By monitoring the growth of students, staff can pinpoint areas where individual students might need extra help or attention. District staff and Campus Leadership Teams use the information to make data-driven decisions about school improvement plans, curriculum and instructional changes, and professional development needs. The scores are also used in program evaluations. There are four goals/standards that are measured on the reading sub-test: 1. Word Meaning A. Phonetic skills B. Context clues C. Synonyms, antonyms, homonyms D. Component structure (prefix, suffix, origin, roots) E. Multiple meanings 23 604 I 2. 3. I I 4. Literal Comprehension A. Recall/identify significant details B. Identify main idea C. Locate information D. Follow directions E. Sequence details Interpretive Comprehension A. Inference B. Identify cause and effect C. Authors purpose D. Prediction E. Summarize F. Identify literacy elements (character, plot, setting, theme, etc.) Evaluative Comprehension I A. B. C. D. E. Evaluate conclusions, validity (supporting context) Identify fact and opinion Identify literary techniques (figurative language, mood, tone, etc.) Distinguish text forms Identify bias, stereotypes. 1 Three goals/standards are tested on the Language Usage sub-test: 1. Writing Process A. B. C. D. E. F. Prewriting skills Drafting and revising- Editing/proofreading Choosing appropnate format Sentence choice appropriate to purpose Paragraph skills (topic and concluding sentences, indenting, etc.) z 93 fl W! fl 9 I \u0026gt;s 2 2. 3. Grammar and Usage A. Sentence patterns B. Phrases and clauses C. Noun forms D. Verb usage: tenses, irregular verbs, subject-verb agreement E. Adjective forms F. Adverb forms G. Pronoun forms H. Pronoun-antecedent agreement I. Negative forms Mechanics A. End punctuation B. Commas C. Apostrophes D. Enclosing punctuation E. Titles F. Beginning capitalization G. Proper nouns and adjectives pi r p c p 90 24 61 H. Capital I The staff made a deliberate decision to delay the use of this formal, group-administered test until the end of second grade. Even then, many teachers, principals, central office staff, and parents question its usefulness in measuring leaming-to-read skills and knowledge. The data are included in this program evaluation because they exist and because they provide another measurement of student achievement that may be used to inform decision-making about the program. I 25 62I IV. Alignment with National Research on Early Literacy Background on the Context: National Research on Early Literacy A publication of the National Research Council (1998), Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, is nationally recognized, and it was used to a high degree in the design of the LRSD PreK-2 literacy program. Below is a short summary of the reports recommendations for early learners: Prekindergarten: Preschool programs ... should be designed to provide optimal support for cognitive, language, and social development, within this broad focus. However, ample attention should be paid to skills that are known to predict future reading achievement, especially those for which a causal role has been demonstrated. 1 Kindergarten: Kindergarten instruction should be designed to stimulate verbal interaction\nto enrich childrens vocabularies\nto encourage talk about books\nto provide practice with the sound structure of words\nto develop knowledge about print, including the production and recognition of letters\nand to generate familiarity with the basic purposes and mechanisms of reading. Beginning readers need explicit instruction and practice that lead to an appreciation that spoken words are made up of smaller units of sounds, familiarity with spelling-sound correspondences and common spelling conventions and their use in identifying printed words, sight recognition of fi'equent words, and independent reading, including reading aloud. Fluency should be promoted through practice with a wide variety of well- written and engaging tests at the childs own comfortable reading level. ^5 2 I pl (/) pl \u0026gt; 2 Children who have started to read independently, typically second graders and above, should be encouraged to sound out and confirm the identities of visually unfamiliar words they encounter in the course of reading meaningful texts, recognizing words primarily through attention to their letter-sound relationships. Although context and pictures can be used as a tool to monitor word recognition, children should not be taught to use them to substitute for information provided by the letters in the word. z r p p e a  Because the ability to obtain meaning from print depends so strongly on the development of word recognition accuracy and reading fluency, both of the latter should be regularly assessed in the classroom, permitting timely and effective instructional response when difficulty or delay is apparent. Beginning in the earliest grades, instruction should promote comprehension by actively building linguistic and conceptual knowledge fl 26 63in a rich variety of domains, as well as through direct instruction about comprehension strategies such as summarizing the main idea, predicting events and outcomes of upcoming texts, drawing inferences, and monitoring for coherence and misunderstandings. This instruction can take place while adults read to students or when students read themselves. Once children learn some letters, they should be encouraged to write them, to use them to begin writing words or parts of words, and to use words to begin writing sentences. Instruction should be designed with the und\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_551","title":"Program evaluations, Volume II","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2003-03-14"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluations, Volume II"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/551"],"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\nB s n 5C \u0026gt; \u0026gt; 5 z m I VOLUME 2 II 2 p5 z RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINGfl fl Appendix G Academic Comparison Data by Area, Magnet, and Incentive Schools \u0026gt; n 5 s z m 2 fl I I I i I I 67 471 2 Z 9 s z wI d d Number of Students by Grade Level d d d d d d d d nn d d n PK Area Magnet Incentive Kindergarten Area Magnet Incentive 1 Grade Area Magnet Incentive 2* Grade Area Magnet Incentive 3'' Grade LEP 26 0 3 51 3 2 42 14 43 4 1 NAEP 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 10 0 FEP FEPE 6 0 3 0 0 0 14 4 5 19 2 1 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Area Magnet Incentive 4'* Grade Area Magnet Incentive 5*^ Grade Area Magnet Incentive 6'* Grade Area Magnet 7* Grade 8\"^ Grade Area Magnet Area Magnet 9 Grade Area Magnet 42 4 2 38 0 0 25 2 2 20 0 36 6 31 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 5 2 2 15 7 1 17 4 1 25 5 1 25 3 17 3 22 2 10 5 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 0 4 0 1 0 J 0 68 472 c \u0026gt; S S\u0026gt; Pl \u0026gt; 04o z nI 2 z UI \"I. n rr F d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 10*^ Grade Area Magnet 11^ Grade [Tep Area Magnet 12^ Grade Area Magnet DRA Scores LEP - Kindergarten FEP- Kindergarten FEPE - Kindergarten NAEP- Kindergarten LEP - 1 Grade FEP -1 Grade FEPE -1TT Grade NAEP - 1 Grade LEP - 2\"^ Grade FEP - 2\" Grade FEPE - 2^ Grade I NAEP- 2'* Grade NAEP FEP FEPE 20 0 18 0 12 0 Area W 1 3 3.5 7.4 1 15.5 34.5 19.5 2 3 6 9 0 6 17 0 12 0 9 0 Spring Growth 4 9.3 3.1 56.3 13.2 19.3 6 24.2 37.5 34 0 0 1 0 0 I Magnet Fall 9 8 Spring 13.3 10.5 Growth 7 2.5 '.as\n-' 11.2 11.9 5 13 8 14.5 6 21 34 42 28 21 17.5 35.3 33 42.6 15.5 7.3 69 Incentive Fall 0 5.8 2.5 3 Spring 1 9.6 14 14 XL -O' Growth i 3.8 11 11 N 1 ff 2 \u0026gt;99 C\u0026gt; \u0026lt;m 3 5 zn \u0026gt; 2 Z C F z n cr ^13 d d SAT-9 Complete Battery: National Curve Equivalent Scores Area 1 Magnet d d d d d d II II II n n n n \u0026lt; LEP-5^ Grade FEP - 5*^ Grade FEPE-5^ Grade NAEP - 5^ Grade 1 LEP - 7^ Grade FEP-7*^ Grade FEPE - 7^ Grade\" NAEP -1'^' LEP -10*^ Grade FEP-10*^ Grade FEPE - lO^* Grade NAEP -10'^ Grade 4\" 15.7 39 \\1 l^.'i Incentive 85 d \u0026gt; CO O X \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Q 5 z n I 26.3 74.3 33 30 54.8 21 49 11.5 11.5 52 if 'fSi  2 5 -2. C cz: s z ri w Grade State Benchmark Exam for current 5* Grade Students Math LEP-4*'Grade NAEP- 4* Grade FEP- 4*^ Grade Area \"IT 184 Magnet 266 Incentive TIT or FEPE-4^Grade j 180 Literacy LEP - 4*^ Grade NAEP- 4*^ Grade FEP- 4^ Grade I FEPE- 4*^ Grade Area 126 i 199 171 Magnet IST 228 -j: 200 Incentive 202 70 474d d ALT RIT Scores: Elementary Math dLEP - 2\"** Gride T?T?n -\u0026gt;ntl riJo FEP - 2 Grade 1 Area I 166 Magnet | Incentive d d d d d d d II n n n n  FEPE - 2\"^ Grade NAEP- 2\"'^ Gradl LEP - 3\"* Grade FEP - 3'^* Grade \" FEPE - 3'^Grade~~ NAEP-S'** Grade LEP - 4* Grade FEP - 4*^ Grade FEPE-4*^ Grade\" NAEP - 4th Grade LEP - 5* Grade FEP-5^ Grade FEPE - 5*^ Grade NAEP - 5* Grade 198 193 188 198 170 d M \u0026gt; s 5 \u0026gt;  5 z P5 \u0026gt; 2 185 206 211 207 195 213 211 209 189 220 221 206 212 183 210 2 \u0026gt; 229 198 224 3 220 210 222 *  ALT RIT Scores: Reading Elementary Level LEP - 2\"'* Grade FEP - 2' Grade FEPE-2'^ Grade I NAEP- 2\"^* Grid? LEP - 3 j Grade FEP - 3\"^ Grade FEPE - 3\"^Grade i NAEP - 3\"^ Grade I i LEP - 4*^ Grade I FEP - 4*^ Grade FEPE - 4* Grade~ NAEP - 4th Grade LEP-5*^ Grade FEP - 5*Grade ~ FEPE - 5*^ Grade\" NAEP - 5* Grade \u0026gt; z o {5 z n Area ~iS7~ 179 189 .ti' 171 198 205 201 184 210 203 191 Magnet Incentive 183 198 188 a 187 205 178 202 - 223 3* tn 208~ tri* 187 213 212 193 223 188 214 71 475d alt RTT Scores: Language Elementary Level Area Magnet Incentive d d d d d d d n n II n n n  n LEP - 2\"*' Grade  FEP-2\" Grade FEPE-2' Grade NAEP- 2\"** Grad^ LEP - 3^^ Grade ~ FEP - 3^Grade FEPE - 3'^Grade~ NAEP - 3'*' Grade LEP - 4* Grade FEP - 4'^ Grade FEPE -4*\" Grade NAEP - 4th Grade LEP - 5*^ Grade FEP - 5* Grade FEPE - 5^ Grade NAEP - 5*^ Grade 171 186 194 192 208 189 2 \u0026gt; S X \u0026gt;  5 2 n I 182 204 212 207 192 214 211 200 191 218 215 193 212 184 213 227 218 z O CZ5 ?5 z rj w 197 226 192 210 ALT RIT Scores: Middle Level Math LEP - 6* Grade FEP - 6* Grade FEPE - 6* Grade NAEP- 6* Grade LEP - 7*^ Grade FEP - 7*^ Grade FEPE - 7'*' Grade NAEP - 7*^ Grade LEP - S'* Grade rrn FEP - 8 Grade FEPE - 8* Grade NAEP - 8* Grade 1 Area I 199 221 223 Magnet 218 234 203 243 210 222 237 230 202 233 233 253 260 72 476d Id ALT RIT Scores: Middle Level Reading Area Magnet d d Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id II II II LEP - 6^^' Grade ~ FEP-6'^ Grade FEPE - 6\"^ Grade NAEP- 6*^ Grade LEP - 7*^ Grade FEP - 7**^ Grade FEPE - 7**' Grade NAEP - 7'*' Grade LEP-8*^ Grade FEP - 8*^ Grade FEPE - 8*^ Grade NAEP - 8*** Grade 192 215 216 217 228 204 223 205 202 226 221 210 221 227 225 236 ALT RIT Scores: Middle Level Language LEP - 6*^ Grade FEP - 6* Grade FEPE - 6* Grade NAEP- 6'* Grade LEP-7*^'Grade FEP - 7*^Grade I FEPE - 7** Grade I NAEP -Grade LEP - 8* Grade FEP - 8* Grade FEPE - 8'* Grade NAEP - 8^ Grade\" Area W 219 217 207 227 214 2Q1 230 226 Magnet 226 ^30~ 218 230 227 234 239 2 \u0026gt; s \u0026gt; P3 \u0026gt; 4 5 z m 2 2 \u0026gt; 2. O r S z Pl 13 ^11M [fl ALT RIT Scores: High School Level Reading [fl [fl n M [fl [fl n [fl II n II n n  n LEP - 9* Grade  FEP - 9*** Grade FEPE - 9* Grad? NAEP-9^ Grade' I Area Magnet LEP-10^ Grade \" FEP - 10*^ Grade FEPE -10^ Grade\" NAEP -10^^ Grad'e LEP- ll^' Grade ~ FEP - 11*'Grade ~ FEPE - 11'^ Grade NAEP -11*^ Grade 201 230 222 174 225 224 208 211 213 232 205 225 S w C z \u0026gt; d  s z \u0026gt; 2 1 229 218 ALT RIT Scores: High School Level Language LEP - 9* GradT\" FEP - 9* Grade FEPE - 9* Grade NAEP-9* Grade LEP -10*^ Grade FEP - lO\"^ Grade FEPE -10* Grade NAEP -10* Grade LEP - 11\"^ Grade FEP-11* Grade FEPE-ll*^ Grade NAEP -11'^ Grade 2 5 Z c t/i W 2. Area ~2i2' 236 231 210 208 214 214 220 233 213 Magnet 211 2T1 Ssi:\n' '240 K 217 74 478ri ri Appendix H ri Achievement Data by School ri  w s \u0026gt; 5 5 z n 2 ri 2 ri H 2. C uc F 2. P5 fl fl fl n n n n n  75 479i 2 M ri Badgett I I 1 ri ri ri ri ri ri H [fl n iri n n n Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General ISt-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 'i DRA Fall i DRA Spring? i SAT-9 j Benchmark ! ALT Reading j ALT Math i ALT Language } (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) j DRA Growth i (N/Missing) | (N/Missing)} (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) (N/Missing) J:'_________ _ .u~ -i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 I I i Benchmark i ALT Reading ALT Math i ALT Language \u0026gt; ee C ?: \u0026gt; \u0026lt; Pl \u0026gt; Q 5 z -J pj \u0026gt; 2 1 I I i 1st General 1 i I _i_7 1 I t I I 3!^ 2 1 I i Ei^ 5M? 1 1 J \"  .........ibas^ hi^B\u0026lt;M*r1rr* JJtM I i :2nd LEP I I I 480 Z P5 z P5 ! Bale ! o I Grades i DRA Fall i DRA Spring ) i I (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) I DRA Growth j i Benchmark I ALT Reading i ALT Math\nALT Language I SAT-9 1 BencnmarK . ali Keaumy nti i-.aui  ou. L^uyuoy. i (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) 1 ! I 1 I i \u0026gt; S 55 \u0026gt;  s z n I fl\nK-LEP K-NAEP [k-fep K-FEPE iK-General i .00 (2g) i 1.5 (2g) I I I I i I is^ vA-. H fl fl fl fl I Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE i 1st General ! 2nd LEP 12nd NAEP 12nd FEP , 2nd FEPE 2nd General , 3rd-LEP i3rd-NAEP prd-FEP |3rd-FEPE 3rd-General i4th-LEP |4th-NAEP |4th-FEP ~ |4th-FEPE 14th-General 5th-LEP jSth-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE 6.0 (3/1)\n26.0(3/1) i 20.0(3/1) 1 ! I I I J. T ^WSO Z C CZ) 2 2. ri ff xv5i-,P=::i- ss^l!saaa*s^\u0026lt;. lAk. Ai  .*\u0026gt; -I. 1 I t I i I 1 utjR5asEfr,Bsy7?S535*\" I 2it5i, T I 176.0 (2/0) 33ST5S55g^' 165.5 (2/0)\n170.5 {2JQ} ' B !fSiSS^--'-^V 55iS! F I (0/1) y=*^V ui^Jwv.w  -i.- 1 fe 207.0(1/0) j 208.0(1/0)  214.0 (1/0) I I i ISO a2s I T I (0/1)\nS 3^-3: (0/1) (Og) ?^4 -l\u0026gt;-. I 1 (0/1) 71.0 {2J0) 1 5th-General g ____________ *N=Number of students tested S\n207.0 (1/0) 219.0(1/0)- 218.0(1/0) (1/0) I I (1/0) T (1/0) 221.0 (2A)) 231.0(2/0)\n229.0(2/0) I I 1 481Grades Baseline I DRA Fall I DRA Spring i ! SAT-9 j Benchmark ! ALT Reading\nALT Math ? ALT Language j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) 7 7 i j ( i ! 2 \u0026gt; B3 o X \u0026gt; n \u0026gt; Oz -j Pl S ri ri K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I T7I i IX i ri ri Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General i (0/1) ' (0/1) i (0/1) I 1T i7 1 r SSTJ^S I ^171.0(1/0) '179.0(1/0) 1180.0 (1/0) 8^' 1. 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP i5th-NAEP 5th-FEP 5th-FEPE 5th-General 10.0(1/0) , 20.0(1/0) 10.0 (1/0) I V52: ! +I SSs^ T I ^5 (0/1) I I I7 T TIT (0/1) (0/1) (0/1) IT T I 1 T (0/1) !l7.0 (1/0) ,  196.0 (1/0) ' 207.0 (1/0) i 208.0 (1/0) 4------------------------------------------- 1--------------------- J I N=Number of students tested 482 ri c ri ri ri Grades 1 1 j DRA Fall ! DRA Spring j Booker SAT-9 ' (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) i DRA Growth |(N/Missing) (N/Missing i ------------ i S J ____ _ I Benchmark I ALT Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language ............ i ! .(..N.../.M.. iss in g ) 1 j (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) ri ri ri ri fl fl fl fl fl K-1LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K:--FEPE !T K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I I I .50(S/3) ! I I T T1 1.0 (1/4) i I 1 iI i7 1 I SS\nT I \u0026gt; :b C\u0026gt; m  z5 n I i 44.0(2/0) i 44.0(2/0) .00 (2/0) I 1 JI I i7 (0/1) ''-T'^T-T- ~\n..eTA'.-':^2WBflx\u0026gt;.7.14\u0026lt;.5-^ fSSSEil sass 1 ^205.0 (2/0) 198.0(2/0) 211.5(2/0) I I i 191.0 (1/0) ! 186.0 (1/0) ! 196.0 (1/6) i i I T 1 25 \u0026gt; \"I. O CZ) n 2. n [fl TT I {om 17.0 (1/0) wr~- =7r.-*  J iriT'jr-itiiA'-ajiV.x-' I 1 Lai  '3^535S^  187.0 (1/0) ' 205.0 (1/0) ' ----------------------------1 T 189.0 (1/0) N=Number of students testeo *iM**i. T I I 483 Iri c Iri S Iri r- Brady I I 1 I Iri ! DRA Fall i DRA Spring ( i Benchmark i ALT Reading ! ALT Math j ALT Language Grades ' SAj.g i s ALi Keaaing { mui  lau- , r^u. I MMisig) 1 WMi^i drag#. I Iri 1 i ri K-LEP Ic?iAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I .50 (2/3) i 1.0 (V4) I. 1 I T ri i  i T _L i T ri Ist-LEP ist-N^ Ist-FEP lstFEPE~~ 1st General i 4.0 (3/1) I 9.7 (3/1) i I i i A.OjMQ) I 8.0 (1/0) ! 1 I X i T I ri ri i2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2ndFEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General i 16.0(1/0)  28.0(1/0)\ni t I _L I ri 01 3rd-LEP ^-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3i^^FEPr~ 3rd-Genera? ri ri 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP WvFEP 4t)vFEPr~ 4th-General H Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sfr^^FEP 5th-FEPl~ 5th-General I Q 5 z H n \u0026gt; i I I i\n5.7 (3/1) 4.0 (1/0) r.--. -t:\n ^iaS^ Ss I- J I_______-----------__ ______J_______-------------. .. .Z: I z ni- z\u0026gt; in\\ AQA O /A ICW -------------------''^-^rS7^SiS#?1sri?53LtT7^ i185.0(1/0) 184.0(1/0) 12.0 (I/O) !-------------------1------------------------ (0/4) I ! 167.3 (4/0) i 189.3(4/0)\n179.3(4/0) T 2 5 \u0026gt; z (Zi n z n n  wV r^=' (0/5) (0/1) I A\"-* i i r ^^1951W) ' 205.8 (4/1) 2^0 (4/1) i 219.0 (1/0) 209.0 (1/0) I 212.0 (1/0) I^SWBO oA qpu i*/? (0/5) I i I 36.0 (1/4) .ll C'St (0/1) (0/2) '5.0 (1/0)\n39.0 (210) Trt4^'iaR^ '*N=Number of students tested ^3.6 (5/0) 206.0(5/0)' 191.0(5/0) I V84.0 (1/0)~ 'l92-0 W 181.0 (1/0) 2^A.5 C^Q) 223.0 (2/0) 219.0 (210) 484iri ri \u0026gt; SX \u0026gt; -i ri Carver I I 1 I ri i DRA Fall i DRA Spring | 1 SAT-9 Grades I u/1'/' I o 11 I I     I i i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)\nDRA Growth j (N/Missing) Benchmark j ALT Reading | ALT Math\nALT Language (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ! I 1 I PI 5 52 n I ri ri M ri ri ri ri ri  K- :-LEP K-NAEP K-lFEP (-FEPE (-General K-K-ist- LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 12nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP Sth-NAEP 5th-FEP 5th-FEPE Sth-General I 2.0 (1/0) I 4.0 (1/0) i 2.0 (1/0) I I 10.7(3/0) i 14.0(3/0) 1 3.3 (3/0) !T I I I 6.0 (1/0) I 34.0(1/0) 1 28.0 (1/0) I i i 8.0 (1/0) ! 40.0(1/0) I 32.0 (1/0) a I i i 1 i 16.0(2/0) i 32.0(2/0) T T i 18.0(1/0) ' 40.0(1/0)\ni g ! iSSl 1 193.5(2/0) '193.0(2/0) I ^\"\"  16-0 (2/0) jgagSffw 22.0 (1/0) E 184.0(1/0) !197.O(1/O) 1202.0(1/0) T i 1 2 \u0026gt; 1. ff {012) (0/2) I 1 I S'- I 1 (0/2) Ah. *- w I (0/1) 187.0(2/0) 205.5(2/0) i 193.5(2/0) 202.5 (2/0) i 213.0(2/0) I 213.5(2/0) 1 T I I 223.5 (2/0) 226.0(2/0) 228.5(2/0) T 1 79.0(1/0) - - - \u0026gt; i 227.0(1/0) 226.0(1/0) 225.0 (1/0) I 1 !N=Number of students tested 485 ri 2 ri ri Chicot 1 I I ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri I ri ri ri Grades iK-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General ! DRA Fall I DRA Spring j SAT-9 I Benchmark ALT Reading ' ALT Math ! UKA rail opuuy\n: \u0026lt; /M/kj-  \\ i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth ! (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)\n----------------------- -- ------------------------------ : \" i ' T I ! ALT Language (N/Missing) I I I 1 9.1 (11/0) i .91(11/0) ! .82(11/0) 1 I 1 i .00(1/0) 2.0 (1/0) I 2.0 (1/0) I \u0026gt; co C \u0026gt; 5 sz P5 \u0026gt; 2: 1 1 1 I 1 i .33 (3/8) 4.33 (6/5)\n.50 (2/9)  I fS. I 2.5 {2JQ} I 13.0(2/0) i 10.5 (2/0) r*\nI (K ----------------------  WP*^H '^?3!W i 18 0(1/13) 12.5(11/3) i 26.0(1/13) 1 i I T W-S 25 --af^ j*.j i o *4 * ! 1 113.1(10/4)' 141.2(10/4) i 136.2.(10/4) T .00(1/1) I 182.0(1/1) i .00 (1/1) z o zn n M Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General (012) (012) I I I I :yy2 i I 1 - ..^^4eiiSSiia3^SSfis i 10.0(2/0) I (0/13) 172.5(10/3) '5^ (0/1) r\u0026gt;s\" v.'-c' I 144.4 (8/2) _____________ _ 193.0(1^ 178.6 (8/2) ! 166.6 (8/2) 204.0 (1/0) ' 203.0 (1/0) 1t\n185.3(10/3) , 184.0(10/3) I 210.0(1/0)\n211.0 (1/6r~[^ 214.0 (1/0) T I I ^2?\n^3^ (015) i (0/6) 176.2(5/1)  148.0(5/1)7 180.2 (5/1) (0/2) i 18.5(2/0) 1 Q9.5(2/0) i 207.0(2/0) ' 210.5(2/0) '*N=Number of students tested i I 486 c a5 \u0026gt; I Cloverdale 1 Grades ! DRA Fall ! DRA Spring ' 1 SAT-9 I Benchmark ALT Reading\nALT Math i ALT Language I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) | DRA Growth j (N/Missing) { (NZk/i Missing) /M(N/M/Micisesininng\\ ) i i (N/Missing) fN(N/M/Miciscsininng^) Q5 z n 2 fl :-LEP (-NAEP K-K- 00(2/0) I 2.0 {210} ! 2.0 (2/0) K:--FEP K:--FEPE I I K-:-General I I 1 I I I I I I jtjj a?? T TS-pTt- SRlth,\n?\n,T 2S\n\u0026gt;3 - i-~ 2 \u0026gt; I I I 2. S Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP ist FEPE 1st General 2.0 (2/0) i 2.5 (.210} I j 2.5(210} i 23.0(2/0) j 1 I 1.5 (2/0) !7 19-5(2/0) i ft ______ ..... 0^- w-2. ri 2nd LEP |2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP 5th-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General 44.0(1/0) i 44.0(1/0) i .00 (1/0) Jaisg^s?^ i 1 r (01^} Si: 185.0(1/0) : 183.0 (1/0) i 190.0(1/0) T I 182.8(4/0) 1 187.3(4/0) ' 192.3(4/0) - ----------- --------*------------------'I--------------------- *.9^' T 1 (0/1) ga^S^ ilW sis *llM'V^'yS\u0026lt;.3K^75.2,T n-r i 196.0(1/0) : 201.0 (1/0) : 198.0(1/0) I I T (0/1) 113.0(1/0) r^- '.*i (0/1) i71.0(1/0) i*N=Number of students tested T I ! t 197.0(1/0) i 205.0 (1/0) ! T I 206.0 (1/0) 215.0(1/0) i 215.0(1/0)\n213.0(1/0) T I I 487 fl c fl ec \u0026gt;S fl Dodd I 1 1 I I 1 fl Grades i Benchmark 1 ALT Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language i ---- \\ 1 Zkl/u\n,.-\n.,.,! ! rW/Miccinnl j (N/MISSing) ! DRA Fall i DRA Spring! I SAT-9 j | al i matn , ' (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing)! (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing)\nf ___! ____ I ____ n 5 5 z -i Pl 2 1 fl fl fl fl fl fl fl n fl fl H K-:-LEP K-NAEP K-lFEP K-:-FEPE K-^-General Ist-LEP ISt-NAEP ISt-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-l-EP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General i I I IT I I i I 8S I T 1 1\n18.0(1/0)\n30.0(1/0) ! 12.0 (1/0) 1 I I !  I i 1 I I I (0/1) 1 T I I '*N=Number of students tested I ml. I ri-riK-Trt i I I 2 z 5/5 -z rr r i I I t I TI I _____________ ____________ 170.0(1/0) 1 172.0(1/0)! 172.0(1/0) ------------ ------------------------------ ---------------------- isfeTSF': 1 1 I I T I t i T ! T I 1 I I I 488 Il  rt s s IM - Fair Park I 1 I I ! i Grades i DRA Fall i DRA Spring j i (N/Misstng) 1 (N/Missing) j DRA Growth Benchmark j ALT Reading , ALT Math j ALT Language i fN/Missina^! (N/Missinq) m  z5 m I Ifl 1 Ifl K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General 1 i n II ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ilst-FEP [IFfe^ 1st Genera? ! i I Ifl Ifl 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE ^nd General Ifl Ifl |3rd-LEP ^-NAEP~ [^-FEP~ ,3rd-FEPE 3rd-General ------- n Ifl l4th-LEP |4th-NAEP |4th-FEP |4th-FEPE MtivGen^ H Sth-LEP IStMiAEP 5th-FEP \" Sth-FEPE Sth-General i (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) I j 20.0 (1/0) i 40.0 (1/0) ! 20.0 (1/0) I I I 1 I i T i I i SAT-9 I 199.0 (1/0) T 1. T I 'N=Number of students tested T i I 1 25 z CZ5 z trri 183.0(1/0) 183.0(1/0) ! 489 o d \u0026gt; \u0026gt; d I Forest Park i I ! I n d Grades DRA Fall DRA Spring i DRA Growth  SAT-9 Benchmark\nALT Reading j AALLTT MMaathth , (N/Missing)  (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing) j ALT Language (N/Missing) d d K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-reP^ _ K-General I I .1 i I I 1 I i ) I i t I T 1.,.___ X.. -,4 zO m 2 d d J.st-LEP Ist-NAEP Tst-FEP \" ]^f^pe2 1st General I 1 I i 1 I d d 2ndLP _ 2nd NAEP _ M F^P \" ZndFE^E _ 2nd General 20.0(1/0) i 40.0(1/0) 120.0(1/0) I I 20.0 (1/0) I 44.0 (1/0) 124.0 (1/0) I I I II II 3r^LEP ^d-NAEP 3rd-FEP ^rd-FE^ 3rd-General  i II Il 4th\u0026lt;EP 4th-NAEP ^-FEP 4th-FEE 4th-General 5, .K. 4 -9^ e II II Sm-LEP Sth-NAEP ^-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General II fr fejCL? - , J=- r^t-.rf - . - I -r^ - JT  Si* * e '* \u0026gt; H 1 L -J 1 5 \u0026gt;*3 aft \" 4 - I ' te-sX'- '\"7 ~ - 7\"- z  i 'CTAtT 4^A7i 1. CZ) zn n 1 \u0026gt; -'* tt.1^ 1 sT\n7 198.0(1/0) ' 199.0 (1/0)7 205.0 (1/0) i -fi, ler I I 214.0(1/0)\n203.0 (1/0) 223.0 (1/0) I i is\"- BOI I I I I (0/1) (0/1) (0/2) I 1 I S^5VT 1 89.5 (2/0) !*N=Number of students tested '*6. A-it I 177.0 Q/O) i 209 0 (1^0) 179.0 (1/0) 224.0 (1/0) 722Z0(1/0)  223.0 (VQ) 224.U(1 ' : 227.5(210} ' 238.5 (210} 227.5 (2/0) !T I I 490 d d \u0026gt; CB d Franklin m T 1 I d Grades HR A Fall j DDRRAA SSoprriinnqg j 1 bSAATi-y9 DBeennccnhimiidainrk. i ! nAuLiT Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) i DRA Growth i (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing)  (N/Missing) 5z w d d K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I .00(1/0) .00 (1/0) i .00 (1/0) Ij 3.0 (1/0) 7.0 (1/0) i 4.0 (1/0) I i I 1 i I 1 d d Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP Ist FEPE 1st General f~3.0(1/0)\n26.0(1/0) j 23.0(1/0) T I 1. I I aWwSK, 5^- z d d 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General d d 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General d d 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General d d 5th-LEP i5th-NAEr~ StivFEP Sth-FEPE 5th-General i _t_ I i !7 I T 1 I i }T I i (0/1) i\u0026gt;r' I I I I I ! i I 1 .^ I ! I Bs 202.0 (1/0) I 210.0(1/0) I 213.0(1/0) 1 1T I I I 5? 1 1 i 'i-. N=Number of students tested 204.0 (1/0) 220.0(1/0) i 214.0(1/0) I t I t I I d 491 d c d B9 Cse \u0026gt; -i d d d d d d d d d d d d d t Fulbright I ____ I n Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General ' DRA Fall i DRA Spring 1 i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth I TI (0/1) ! (0/1) 1 I ! 3.0 (1/0) I 12.0(1/0) I ! I (0/1) 9.0 (1/0) I 1 i : 5.0 (1/0) 38.0(1/0) ! 33.0 (1/0) i !  IT i 1 Benchmark j ALT Reading i ALT Math I ALT Language (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) SAT9 I I I I 44.0(2/0)\n44.0(2/0) I .00 [210) I i I T I (0/1) zO -i m\u0026gt; 2 Sth-LEP Sth-NAE^ 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General (0/3) .  * i 190.0(2/0) : 194.5(2/0) 197.5(2/0) II (0/1) (0/1) I.-wsix': i 2 \u0026gt; 2. 9 (/: n n [012} ' 70.0(1/0) (0/1) N=Nuinber of students tested I I T g 223.0(1/0) 224.0(1/0) i I i i ! i 228.0 (1/0) 221.0 (1/0) ' 221.0(1/0)  223.0 (1/0) i I t it' I ,r_ 196.0(1/2) . 214.0(1/2) I 197.0(1/2) I I 222.0(1/0) ' 215.0(1/0) i 229.0(1/0) 207.0(1/0) : 218.0(1/0) : 208.0 (1/0) 1 492 d 2 ri 05 ri Geyer Springs 1 I ri Grades I DRA Fall i DRA Spring i i SAT-9 j Benchmark ALT Reading j ALT Math i ALT Language I (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) (N/Missing) I 1 d d K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I I 1 ! T i t ri 11 ri ri ri ri ri ri ri M I I Q 5 z m 2 Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP i5th-NAEF^ Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General\n1.5(270) i 8.5(270) , 7.0 (270) I I i T I i T 1 I KS? 2 ii TltT- 20.0 (1/1) i 40.0 (1/1)\n20.0 (1/1) g ! ! fi .3\nX I T S-iSss I 184.0 (2/0) 185.5(270) ] 189.0 (2/0) ! i /\n175.0(1/0) i 183.0(1/0) ! 188.0 (1/0) HUr.iu\n*'\"-!-.-  ' -'w^T-v.- ' ' SiiTS3S\u0026amp;seK-^^-\u0026amp;Sss=iis5s\nEiffi\u0026amp;?Ss5K3rXj=?^2S^^ -------- i3. I I 3^ 'Sii\n3K Ki'.t \" ______ * \u0026lt; \u0026gt; r ..... . -. t... -\n5p~ i 4. i T I 4- J___ I I -A** M' ,rT.f P *N=Number of students tested I } I I 493 z c V3 zd c ri a C ? ri Gibbs P3 1 j I ri Grades\nDRA Fall I DRA Spring  SAT-9 Benchmark j ALT Reading j ALT Math\nALT Language DRA Fall I DRAbpnng i i Dcmjuuaiis  .xs,...3 ,    == =\u0026gt; i fN/Missing)i (N/Missing) i DRA Growth ! (N/Missing) (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing) S (N/Missing) I I I ri K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General (0/1) j 8.0 (1/0) I (0/1) T ! J. I I Q 5 z -J pl 2 .. ri ri Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General i I ri n 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General\n19.0(2/0) M DI |3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General ri ri 4th-LEP ?th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General ri 5th-LEP 5th-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE 5th-General I i i I I 1 I I I T I fia 5 T 1 z 9 If. I Pl Z Pl I 34.0(2/0) i 184.5(2/0) 183.0(2/0) i 191.0(2/0) 1-------------------i I i T I I K'. I T rX-  I I -r I (0/1) a. 203 0 (VO) ! 213.0(1/0) ! 217.0(1/0) ^ -.2Trt*,\ni\u0026lt;SSfe\u0026lt;5ii 1 1 i I T 'i'jS-i\u0026amp;i -3^. *T-5r^)55W7=^*T?.jrsr __________ aWTA iiv C.' .H?5*''!9'  ' (0/1) .-sr t T 3^ i 17.0(1/0) SSfe! I Z' 199.0(1/0) ' 190.0(1/0) i 205.0(1/0) '.y BV.' I 1 *N=Number of students tested I i I 494d d d  Jefferson ! 1 \u0026gt; S X H \u0026lt;w d d d d d d d d d d d ( Grades K-LEP [K-NAEP K-FEP |k-fepe K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ,lSt-FEP list FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP [2nd NAEP 12nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP [srd-NAEP [srd-FEP |3rd-FEPE 3rd-General [4th-LEP [ahi-naep [Ath-FEP ~ lAth-FEPE I4th-General Sth-LEP [ Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP I Sth-FEPE Sth-GeneraT J___________ i-----------------------i-------------------------------------------------------------- r i DRA Fall 1 DRA Spring i i SAT-9 Benchmark ALT Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language I (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) j DRA Growth | (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) i (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) I i i I I IT i 1 nH Sz \u0026gt;m 2 III 1 T i t T t i7 I I 5.^ ? w\\* *5, Sf\" S'-? 2 \u0026gt; -} ITT I I i 1 I 1 1 -I. Sr ^5 S5W cSg^^'A * S' 75 ^^^1=2\n! i i T i*4'S S^ \"^1 TI 5^ irtK ffriiwlfyiri I + 1 !T nz w 'iij g^j\u0026amp;fis I ! i I I i^- i I I W* ! I U^J i*N=Number of students tested I I I I 1 495 d d \u0026gt; S  d M. L, King ! I i ri d Grades ! DRA Fall i DRA Spring j ! SAT-9 j Benchmark , ALT Reading i ALT Math\nALT Language I (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing)! DRA Growth ! (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) 1 d d d d d nd d d d d K-K- :-LEP :-NAEP . 1 I 1 K- :-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ISt-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I I 1 1.0 (2/0) ! 10.0(2/0) i 9.0 (2/0) I ! I ^5.5(2J0) \\ 28.0(2/0) i 12.5(2/0) I I I I I (0/1) I t I 55.0(1/0) IT I 1 (0/1) I'KWW! ^^5 i I I 5 zB \u0026gt; 2 \"r-., A xi'^  2 \u0026gt; H M 1 I 1 I .1 6iC^j'E*:2xt'r^  I g iSz^ ^s?5s .^AoiX-fct'n* \"A., e it:i WuT. 175.0(1/0) j 176.0(1/0) 182.0(1/0) T 1 *j\u0026gt; la I g \u0026lt;fraqtq^By4. I I (0/1 ^3t5fLruftSt I 205.0 (1/0)  212.0 (1/0) }N=Numbe^ of students tested -^2fS' SSfe T7 T I T 1 i I I t ! I 217.0 (1/0) 496 7!. C cz: 2 t*5 2 n CT A 2 4 d I I Mabelvale I I i i a Grades I DRA Fall i DRA Spring j i SAT-9 j Benchmark ' ALT Reading [ ALT Math [ ALT Language 1 (N/Missing) i (N/Missing)' DRA Growth ! (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) [ (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) SAT9 a n K-LEP [K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I 1T I I I 1 I I I i I ! I aa Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP I Ist-FEP 11st FEPE 1st General 1i i +I IT I i\" aaci*i*S8Sti nn 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP i2nd FEP 12nd FEPE 2nd General I n n 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP |3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General nn |4th-LEP [4th-NAEP |4th-FEP |4th-FEPE ~ 4tti-General Sth-LEP I Sth-NAEP } Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE I Sth-General I L 'N=Number of students tested I T T i 7 } 201.0(1/0)\n207.0(1/0)' 207.0 (1/0) X i i I I I I I TI 1 I 497 \u0026gt; S 5 \u0026lt;m 3 sz P-Ji \u0026gt; 2 \u0026gt;2 2. a cz: 2 pj 2 d d 2 w S d d d d d d d d d d d n K-Grades :-LEP K-:-NAEP :-FEP :-FEPE K-K-K-:- General Ist-LEP ISt-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General I McDermott I i 1 r^^^T^^DRASDringl 1 SAT-9 Benchmark i ALT Reading ALT Math i Language '\n(N/Missing)  (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing) (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) (N/Missing) , (N/Missing)\n: ' ________!_______ _ . ..I |,JI-.IIII I DRA Fall j 1.0 (4/0) ,4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General i DRA Spring j I 9.8 (4/0) 1 8.8 (4/0) I I .00(1/0) i 4.0 {MO) i 4.0 (1/0) I SAT-9 mu 1 1 I i I t 9.0 {210) 33.0 (2/0) i 24.0(2/0) I I I I I IT i 7 T I '*^SS'iS?S^fr'  i : 7.5 (2/0) j 24.0 (2/0) i 16.5 (2/0) | I 73 : 24.0(1/0) ! 44.0(1/0) 1 20.0(1/0) | I 10.0(2/0) 26.0(2/0) ! 16.0(2/0) | I 1 1 I 5555*?^^ I L '*1 g 175.5(2/0), 179.5(2/0)1 181.0(2/0) T ! 204.0 {MO) I 213.0 {VO) j 213.0 (1/0) g 185.5 (2A))i 187.0(2/0) ! 190.5(2/0) 5\n! i 1 t (0/2) ( 171.0 {210)  177.5 {2J0) i 172.5 (2/0) (0/3)  (0/2) (0/2) ^iF- 198.5 (2/1) i 204.0(2/1) 1 204.5(2/1) I i-7ah.TLi, 188.5(2/0)1 191.0(2/0) * 194.5(2/0? 1 205.0(2/0)'' 216.0(2/0) 216.0(2/0) Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I 1 1 (0/1) 1 '\n16.0 (1/0) '*N=Nuniber of students tested  ^4' i'-ir t t 202.0 (1/0) 1 203.0 (1/0) i 195.0 (1/0) I T I I T I I7 498 m \u0026gt; 3 5 z H Pl \u0026gt; 2 2 2 sz ri iri d Meadowcliff d Grades d d K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General d d Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General d d 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General d d 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General d d 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General d ce S\u0026gt; n 5z n ! i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ !- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i- - - - - - - - - - - - - -1----------------\n-------------------------------- ! DRA Fall\nDRA Spring i I SAT-9 i Benchmark ! ALT Reading J ALT Math i ALT Language ! (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ii 1 1 I I 1 1 SAT-9 .J.. K.g.\u0026gt;yy?gi=tnEr*j^^gEgx?*gy\n-v-.f3\n^^-\u0026gt;.- te i .i' I i I IT te?s ! I 1 i i e^^.SX-''T -A\" a Jt****^^.^*^'*^^ . \u0026gt; -H I I i T T  V ?*\u0026gt;. - 2.0 (1/0)\n10.0(1/0)\n8.0 (1/0) Sg 4B^ss. eS3^::-vA^t-\niBiA.er*^ss I I I 170.0(1/0) i 174.0(1/0)1 162.0(1/0) I I I w (0/1) 3^ I 1 L (0/1) (0/1) a-' ' i I g 177.0(1/0) 173.0(1/0) T i T I 187.0 (1/0) I T T i 7^. C C2Z5 n 7 !P*I^ ,5th-LEP 5th-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General 1 .kvCsCV\n' 188.0 (1/0) 197.0(1/0) 198.0(1/0) I i*N=Number of students tested I I 499 d d \u0026gt; X \u0026gt; -i d d d d d d d d d d d d d I Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General ! DRA Fall DRA Spring ! 1 (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) | DRA Growth I 7 i 1 I i I T i i T Mitchell B \u0026gt; I I SAT-9 i Benchmark ALT Reading J ALT Math ' ALT Language (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) i M I I 7 TI J_ I I 7 i 4. T T I i ! I I I 1 I I ?gS T O z n \u0026gt; 2 Z 9 (Z5 B Z n B 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I 1 '*N=Number of students tested i I T + i I I I I I T i! I + I T I IT I 500 II c n II Otter Creek i I Grades i DRA Fall i DRA Spring I .1 .......... . X SAT-9 Benchmark ALT Reading 1 ALT Math : ALT Language j (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing) DRA Growth (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) \"i i 1 !___ 1 n n II II n I I n n n n  K- :-LEP K-NAEP 1 I 1 ?2 - K- :-FEP K-FEPE K-General ISt-LEP Ist-NAEP , Ist-FEP 15t FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FP 4th-FEPE 4th-General |5th-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I 1.5 (2/0) ! ^.5(2J0) I .00(2/0) I I T I T \u0026gt;5 I T ! I I I I I ! T i I i 1 I (0/1) (0/1) (0/2) I I g I I I I (0/1) I I t ^4^ (0/1)  32.0 {-ilO) I X I t N=Number of students test^ T a m \u0026gt; q 5 2 n I * \u0026gt; z 8 Vi (St z I 1 I t 195.0(1/0) M95^(1/0)\n203.0(1/0) I 207.0 (1/0) i 215.0 (1/0) i 205.0 (1/0) I I T 186.5(2/0) ! 191.0 (2^r 190.5 (2/0) i 214.0 (1/0) I 203.0 (1/0) i 207.0 (1/0) I ! T T t I T I 206.0(1/0) 212.0(1/0)\n208.0(1/0) I I 501o IM IM Pulaski Heights I I ( IM Grades DRA Fall i DRA Spring j I (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) j I SAT-9 Benchmark i ALT Reading j ALT Math  ALT Language DRA Growth 1 (N/Missing) (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) a c\u0026gt; \u0026gt; Q sz I I IM IM IM IM n I [M IM n I n Ml K-\n-LEP K-K- :-NAEP :-FEP :-FEPE :-General K-K- ! i i 1 I -W I P5 I i I 1 i Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General ,3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General i I 1 I 193.5(2/0) I 204.5(2/0) : 201.0(2/0) 19.0(2/0) j 30.0(1/1) 10.0(1/1) T I I 7 \u0026amp; i i i 1I , 1 fl . xr, I I (0/1) 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt;2. J!. Pl 3 I 221.0(1/0) '220.0(1/0)' 215.0(1/0) 7^^_______________________:----------------------------------- --------------------- ---------------- ! I 1 (0/1)\n77.0(1/0) - 'N=Number of students tested T T I TT T I i + 224.0 (1/0) I 223.0 (1/0) 221.Q (VQ) I r 502 d 2 d d [ Rightsell I I t d Grades I DRA Fall ! DRA Spring i ' /MZMiccina'i (N/Missing)  DRA Growth I DRA rSil UKMOpnny ' (N/Missing)} (N/Missing) SAT-9 Benchmark i ALT Reading , ALT Math ALT language i (N/Missing) (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) d d K-LEP I K-NAEP I K-FEP ~ K-FEPE K-Generai I 17 I I T I I 1 I i i SSt?ov)^n I I I I 9\u0026gt;3 S n n Sz n2 \u0026gt;*v zSSs^ !nSM\u0026gt;5u\u0026gt;5\u0026lt;-'?r--^*55! vT d Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FE^ 1st General iT 1 3\n* 2. O CZ5 I 1 t d fl  _l_ I I t KW ?!r^ P5 i't. z 1 t 1 I )) |4th-LEP [4th-NAEP 4ttvFEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP 5th.-NAEP ~ SttvFEP 5tivFEPr~ Sth-General 3rd-LEP [^-NAEP ,3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE l3rd-General ,2nd LEP Iznd NAEP' jindFEP ,2nd FEPE 2nd General 'i 1 i 2^*\" 'Wi N=Number of students tested .L Is\n/\u0026gt;- 1 j i1 T i I 1 T I 1 I T i i T T ! 503  ri (J  ri \u0026gt; CD c 3S ri Rockefeller n \u0026gt; I i ri\nDRA Fall ! DRA Spring i I 7 SAT-9 4 Grades I UtSrt rail\nII ly j j -. .. -\nI (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) i. DRA Growth\n(N/Missing)\n! Benchmark ! ALT Reading i ALT Math ALT Language i (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) I 1 I I ri ri ri fl K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General I ,00(1/0) I 2.0 (1/0) I I 8.3 (3/0) ! 13.7(3/0) I I i 1 I 1 2.0 (1/0) 5.3 (3/0) I Oz n \u0026gt; 2 , 3.0 (1/0) i 14.0(1/0) ! 11.0(1/0) I i7 X i I i I (0/1) i T i I t I + I I I g 188.0(1/0) 1170.0(1/0)\n189.0(1/0) fS 2^4 fife (0/1) 1 (0/1) T I I T ________I i i T 2 \u0026gt; z CZ5 z i I I 1 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 504 Iri {J Iri 5 S\u0026gt; Iri Romine I Iri Iri Iri Iri iri Iri iri Iri 01 M Mn Grades i DRA Fall i DRA Spring j j SAT-9 ' (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing)' DRA Growth j (N/Missing) T-------------------1 K:--LEP K-NAEP K-:-FEP I .00(5/1) ! 1.80(5/1) 1 1.8 (5/1) I 1 K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP ~ 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4tivFEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I I t IT I , 23.0(210} I 15.0(2/0)  1.0 (1/0) : 6.0 (1/0) i 5.0 (1/0) I 22.3 (6/0) } T 1 I 1 DdlUHIIiail^ 1 nui 5 , (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) go Benchmark i ALT Reading i ALT Math\nALT Language I 179.5(6/0) i 179.5(6/0)\n187.7(6/0) 34.0 (6/0) i 11.7(6/0) T 44.0(1/0) 44.0(1/0) ! .00 (1/0) I I I 1 I T B 175.0(1/0) ! 190 0 (VO) i 183.0(1/0) i i ! I 181.0 (4/Oy ' 189.5 (AIO) ' ---------- i r 190.5(4/0) T I I I 1 50/^5 I I I I 190.0(4/0) i 203.8 (4/0) 193.8 (4/0) 13.0 (3/1) g75.0 (MQ} _______ ____ i*N=Number of students tested t T ! T X i 'tnj 197.0 (4/0) 198.0(4/0)^ 224.0 (1/0) 224.0(1/0) i I T i 199.5(4/0) 223.0 (1/0) 505 \u0026gt; sz m S \u0026gt; z 9 (/! tzn nw ri ri ri Stephens i 1 I i I I I 1 I 7 ri Grades Benchmark 1 ALT Reading i ALT Math ! Language /II \\ I { /Kl/Miccinn\\ ' rN/Miccinn i DRA Fall I DRA Spring i SAT-9 Benchmark ALT Reading 1 ALT Math i Language I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) i DRA Growth (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ! ! _____1_____________1________ 9 s d n \u0026gt; q 5 z W 2 ri ri |K-LEP I K-NAEP |k-fep iK-FEPE I 1 I T ri ri ri ri ri fl fl fl fl ! 1.0 (1/0) I .00(1/0) [(-1.0) (VO) 1 ! K-General\nIst-LEP Ist-NAEP Ilst-FEP 1st FEPE I I i 2.33(3/0)\n10.0(3/0) ! I i:j (3/0) 1 1 1st General * I T i2nd LEP 1 -U I 2^^ 2 \u0026gt; z F5 z n ,2nd NAEP |2nd FEP I 2nd FEPE 2nd Generali i3rd-LEP Isrd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE i I I I I 1 I + i i 7 3rd-Gener3l 4th-LEP 1 1 (0/2) 177.5 (2/0) I 183.0 (2/0) j 183.5 (2/0) I i i i T i ^-NAEP ------------------------- |4th-FEP fe-FEPE + t T feh-General^^^ i stL + 1 -k 1 1 I + ,5th-LEP [sth-NAEP' 5th-FEP  I I kL {om I 8.5 (2/0) \u0026gt; ,5th-FEPE (0/1) I (0/1) ^E^^^n87.5 (2/0) i 209.5 (2/0) 192.0 (2/0) '^^SB'^4.0 (1/0)\n222.0 (1/0)1 210.0(1/0) 'few |N=Number of students tested I 506ri ri \u0026gt; CD o X ri Terry PJ I I 1 I ri ri ri ri ri  fl fl fl fl fl H Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-Generai Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ISt-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General\nDRA Fall '\nDRA Spring j (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th^P ~ 4th-FEPE 4th-General 1 i ! 3.2 (6/0) I 7-8 (6/0) I 1 SAT-9 ii BBeenncchhmmaarrkk iS AALLTT RReeaaddiinngg Ii AaLlTi nMaamth ,\nAaLlTi LLaanngguuaaggee DRA Growth (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) i (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) I I 4.5 (610) I fJ i 9.0(270)\n24.0(270) j 15.0(2/0) 85?^ I I i 2.0 (2/2) 14.0 (2Z2) i ^2.Q (212) I 1 i 20.0(170)\n40.0(1/0) I 20.0(1/0) g I I I  19.2(5/3) ' 33.0(8/0) i 18.8(5/3) 1 1 I I ..........\"  K! ir:^-'.a!X-^3QR2s\u0026lt; ss .au^.**'SW 1 I I K 148.1 (8/0) i 139.3(8/0) j 180.3 (8/0) I 207.0(1/0) 222.0(1/0)\n209.0 (1/0) o H 5 2 P5 2 2 z o pi z ri 5th-LEP 5th-NAEP ^FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General 38.0(1/0) ! 44.0(1/0) ! I I i i 6.0 (1/0) T fl I* ie' 54.3 (31^) 1^___________ ! i 167.5(2/1) i 177.0(2/1) j 175.0(2/1) T 204.5 (2/0) i 208.0 (2/0) ! 209.5 (2/0) ^^g^bi^(2/0) ' T 206.0(2/0) 210.5(2/0) 191.0(2/0) 209.0(2/0)\n200.0(2/0) 2i7?7(3/0) 221.0(3/0)- 223.0(3/0) 199.0(1/0) 202.0(1/0)1 201.0(1/0) 216.3 (410) ' 219.5(4/0) f 217.8 (4/0) ! I !*N=Number of students tested 507 ri  .c ri c ri Wakefield ! i ri Grades I i DRA Fall i DRA Spring i SAT-9 j (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) i DRA Growth (N/Missing) i Benchmark ALT Reading j ALT Math\nALT Language (N/Missing) (N/Missin_g)/ j M(N/Missin' g) ^1 N/M(Ni/cMciinsnsiing) 5 5 zn ri K-LEP K-NAEP I TI I .00(4/1) ! 1.0 (4/1) I 1.0 (4/1) 1 I I i  K-FEP K-FEPE K-:-General I i I I 1 I I 1 I I ri ri ISt-LEP I Ist-NAEP ~ Ist-FEP TstFEPT^\" 1st General I .00 (1/1) i 6.0 (2/0) ' i .50 (2/0) ' 3.5 (2/0) i 1 I I I 4.0 (1/1) 3.0 (2/0) T Bilifesill ri ri 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP IndVEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP ri 3rd-FEPE 3 rd-General ri 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP i4th-FEP I \u0026gt;2 -J M 4th-Fi i44tthh--FFEi PE 4th-General ri Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-GeneraT z9 75 T T It 4.8 (4/0) ! 18.0(4/0) i 13.3(4/0)  182.2(5/0) 202.0 (1/0) 1 ? 71.0 (1/0) 1^ z ri PI 167.8 (4/0) I 179.5 (4/0) I }75.3(^IQ) T I I 1 I t I 188.4 (5/0) i 189.6(5/0) I + 176.7 (3/0) ! 185.3(3/0) + I T 182.3 (3/0) 206.0 (1/0)1 205.0(1/0) T I i T 222.0 (1/0) 234.0 (VO) j 226.0 (1/0) '*N=Number of students tested I I 508 ri ri (.  S 3\u0026gt;5 ri r I Washington 1 1 I 1 n ri I Benchmark i ALT Reading 1 ALT Math j ALT Language Grades I I I K-LEP i 2.8 (4/1) ' ^2.22 {212) \\ 10.7(3/2) ri K-NAEP _ K-FEP K-FEPE iGGen^ I I I 8.2 (s/oTT^s^o^ I I H ri ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ISt-FEP ,15t FEPE 1st General i .00(2/5) 1 6.9 (7/1) I 6.0 (2/5 i 6.0 (2/5) i 19.4(7/1) i 12.6(7/1) i 171.1 (8/0) I ^rw?(8rarnzii(?^ -------- ---------------- .w I I ri ri 2nd LEP 12nd NAEP ijnd?^ 2nd FEPE 12nd General I 19.4(8/0) j 8.4 (8/0) 1 195.0 (6/0) I 200.3(6/0) ! 201.0(6/0) ri ri ri ri ri 32.8(5/1) 40.8 (5/1) ! 8.0 (5/1) i3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 13rd-General |4th-LEP 4th-NAEP |4th-FEP i_4th-FEPE i4th-General Sth-LEP [Sth-NAEP SUvFEP Sth^FEPE^ Isth-Gen^ I 180.0 {21^) I 77RT(4^r? 190.5 ('^^0) T 186.5 (4/0) 190.0 (6/0) i 205.5(6/0) I 200.5 (6/0) 212.0 (2/0) ! 217.0(2/0) ' 220.0 (2/0) I 1\n192.3(3/0) 2Q7.Q{3IO)\n204.0(6/0) \"tiP --- I 197.7 (3/0) 208.8 (6/0) 1 207.5 (6/0) 1\ni98.o(2/1) 1183.5(2/1) 0(6/0)  2^7.2(610) 1 i 509 zo -Pi) \u0026gt; 2 2 \u0026gt; 2 S (/) z n Pl ri (\nC ri ri Watson I I ri Grades 1 Benchmark j ALT Reading j ALT Math 'i ALT Language , nRA Fall ! DRA Spring I SAT-9 Benchmark j ALT Reading | ALT Math\nALl Languag I fN/Missing) i (N/Missing) j DRA Growth (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing)  (N/Missing^ 1 1 ri K-LEP 1 K-NAEP K-FEP |k-fepe K-General i I 1 1 I 4. ri ri ri ri  ri I ! i i T T 1 T I I siiWM'ws? \u0026gt; co O J5 \u0026gt; m Q 5 z Pl 2 Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ilst-FEP list FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP i2nd NAEP 2nd FEP |2ndFEPE 2nd General ,3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP [3rd-F~EP~ |3rd-FEPE 3rd-General (4th-LEP [4ttvN^ |4th-FEP [4th-FEPE |4th-General Sth-LEP ^h-NAEP ~ feth-FEP ' I Sth-FEPE^ Sth-GeneraT 1 I 1 I I I T I I 1 I i I I I i I I I feifc i:RS5RWiT!AaM. IS \u0026gt; e4\n^Ssssiis5S: z 9 z ri I I t t 1 ^^E\n2S3iBS\u0026gt;a\u0026amp;2^Sdise\u0026lt;M^J 1 I I T i i I -t- I 1 I I T T I ry3: I t\n197.0(1/0) 204.0 (1/0) i 200.0 (1/0) I I ! T I j 's___________________t. 181.0(1/0) 195.0(1/0) 195.0 (1/0) .asi, V I L s' A t- I T I + I N=Nuniber of students tested I i 510ri o ri a C ?3 \u0026gt; -j ri Western Hills I I ri ri ri ri ri fl fl fl fl fl n fl Grades , K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP ilSt-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General i DRA Fall I DRA Spring SAT-9 (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) DRA Growth (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) 1 Benchmark ! AU Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language ....... . X i __ ' \u0026lt;KI/KXlee\nnn^ ' \u0026lt;M/Mieeirtn\\ I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) m \u0026gt; 9 5z \u0026gt; I Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I 1 1 I I X i I I 1 ! r I f u 9KS-I t T L l*N=Number of students tested 1  25 .???* iI I I 1 T t T T I i T -r T I -z m z ri Pl 1 1. i T T! I i T 1 1 1 i I ! 511 [ o ri a C 3C \u0026gt; ri Williams I 4. I I I ri ri ri ri ri fl fl fl fl fl n fl Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP I Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General |4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP 5th-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General i nRA Fall 1 DRA Spring 1 i SAT-9 i Benchmark j ALT Reading j ALT Math i ALT Language  (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) i DRA Growth ! (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) | (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) i (N/Missing) I I I I  I ___ I... ....... .Jin*........................ ................. 3 z5 \u0026gt; 2 1 16.0(1/0) ! 28.0(1/0) I i .00(1/0) I .00(1/0) I I i 1 I 34.0(1/0) i 44.0(1/0) I I i I I 1 I i 12.0 (1/0) .00 [VO} 10.0 (1/0) !W I WJ I T j I7 i $ 'N=Nuniber of students tested i 73.8(4/0) g T I I i \u0026gt;2 -I I z 75 2 S 2. ri I 4- I i 211.7 (3/0) ! 218.7(3/0) I 214.3(3/0) IT 221.5 (2/0) i 232.0 (2/0) I I IT ll 227.0 (2/0) t 222.0 (4/0) i 223.8 (4/0) I 225.8 (4/0) I I 512 ri (\ns ri ri r Wilson ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri n ri ri Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEPE K- (-General ist-LEP I Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP Ind FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General i i3rd-LEP 3rd- NAEP i DRA Fall '1 DRA Spring I SAT-9 I Benchmark I ALT Reading j ALT Math i ALT Language 'i (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) DRA Growth I (N/Missing), j fN/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) I ' ^.5(210) 1 .50(270) 1 I i i 7 i 1 1 u'a I T I 1 i T 1 I I T T i 24.0(1/1) ! 19.0(2/0) ! 10.0(1/1) y ! 40.0(1/0) i AA.QjMO) S 4.0 (1/0) 3 i 1 3rd-FEP 3?d^FEPr~ 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4fr^FEP 4th-FEPE~ 4th-General Sth-LEP SttvNAEP Sth'^FEP 5th-FEPE~ Sth-General rz- 2i 1 5 9 o \u0026gt; \u0026lt; PI q 5 z -i pn 2 Tir I t^fs\"..... 2 5 % \"V C ij\u0026gt;w.rr-: \"3 * i*- \u0026gt; z e (fi T. n fl Si\nii*** 1 1 2^5Scs^^, 157.0 (2/0) ! 177.0 (2/0) 167.0(2/0) I 1 R5.0 (1/0) i 189.0(1/0) 192.0 (1/0) I i 196.0(1/0) I 201.0 (1/0) 1 198.0(1/0) 1 I i sseS ' K- ^' i 39-0(1^0) *O. '. l*N=Number of students tested I X i T 219.0 (1/0) 202.0 (1/0)  223.0 {^10) ' Mk/} I I 513ri g ri 93 CX \u0026gt; ri Woodruff 1 I ri Grades 55 z P3 2 ri ri K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE iGGenei^ ri ri Ist-LEP ist-NAEP IsfFEP l^EPE ~ 1st General ri ri 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2ndFEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General ri fl 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3i5^FEPr~ 3rd-General 4th-LEP fl 4th-NAEP fl 4tti-FEP 4th^FEPE~~ 4th-General fl 5th-LEP '5th-N\"AEr~ Sttv^EP 5th^FEPE~~ ^-GeneraT ! I I t t i I Benchmark ' ALT Reading  ALT Math 'j ALT Language (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) i DRA Fall 1 DRA Spring ! j SAT-9 i (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing)  DRA Growth i (N/Missing) 1 I T I ! 'I 514 \u0026gt; z 9 5Z5 z fl ri 2 ri ri ec 5 \u0026gt; \u0026lt; ffi n ri O z H n 2 ri Central I I t[5RKTall i DRA Spring  Grades 1 DRAI-aii uiv^opHiia I (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) | Growth I Benchmark ! 1 ! i . _____ rSCTRiSaingALT Math i ALT Language 1 1 ri ri ri fl fl |9-LEP i9~-NAEP ~ 9-FEP 19-FEPE ~ Ig-General 25 (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) \u0026gt; -2. 9 JZ52 w 2 r5 |g 32.9 {\u0026amp;I0) I JaSSiSSsii: iJBL* -1 ---------------- ^'WrjV\" I (0/1) (0/4) (0/1) I ! 10-LEP lO-NAEP ~ llO-FEP [lO^FEPE 110- General 11-LEP 11-NAEP ~ 111- FE~P fe-FEPE~ fll-Gen^ 12-LEP ^iTna^ T^FEP I ^j7:5~(i/o7T256.O (2/0) ' 229.5 (2/0) !2IQ) I 256^2/0) i 230.5 (2/0) 238.6 (5/0) 1 269.4 (5/0)\n246.4 (5/0) r I I I [414} i 258.3 (4/4)\n235.5 (4/4) ? i ' (0/1) t 1 (0/1) (0/4) 1 (0/4) 12-FEPE 112-G^ral N=Number of students tested I T 7 1 T-+ T I (0/1) (0/1) IT iT I 515 ri ri Grades I DRASpnng\n3. A. Fair ! Benchmark : ALT Reading ' ALT Math I i ' (N/Missing)! (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) ALT Language (N/Missing) 2 I I ri 9-LEP 9-NAEP 9-FEP 9-FEPE 9-General I i 1 1 CSljc-Xstft'\n150.0(1/0) , 182.0(1/0) 162.0 (1/0) 09 o X \u0026gt; ri ri ri ri ri I -'-*''7.'A'sw\n'r ''^ '5\u0026lt;t\nV\u0026lt;''''- 't\nw \u0026gt; r! 5 z n 2 4.C 228.5 (2/0) 222Q(2JO) 1 125.0(2/0) | ri C-\n''TS*T 'P-iX 20.0 (4/0) i-ir 1 I I I WWW\u0026lt; \".--T:'A s'?:  iT-rsfe* JST^ 31 -s, -\u0026gt;fc, owwe.\n?' s_3 10-LEP 10-NAEP 10-FEP 10-FEPE___  10-General ^^)^Z2^^Yt2Si5^i2.'a.iJif/2etBS 11-LEP 11-NAEP 11-FEP 11-FEPE Il-General .4\n. 12-LEP |12-NAEP 12-FEP 12-FEPE 12-General ? *\u0026gt;\u0026lt;u: JSa:* '.'Ml' 214.3(3/1) I 162.0(3/1) ' 143.3 {Zm 1 ''J.-.. ' .-r .'..\u0026lt; ys ? I rykttitsirf- I - rW vrxxYj 1 ,a3r\u0026lt;^ A..? (0/2) (0/2) 1 (0/2) 't i .oiSV- -w'5?_'\u0026lt;7li, .\"i rTS\n*r\u0026lt; '._ S?!***^* 2 5 \u0026gt; T. 9 2 n z ri P5 1 t -JT^ S ~-rrj (0/1) -.ti- ?4%a r '5,\u0026lt;5 (0/1) (0/1) _\u0026gt; 1 j~~~~' *N=Number of students tested I 516ri Hall DRA Spring , SST-S\" Benchmark ALT Reading  ALT Math ALT Language ri Grades  1 (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missingj  ri ^\u0026lt;45* 30.0 (2/17) I 226.3 (3/0) Il-General , 11-LEP 11-NAEP Ill-FEP 11-FEPE 19-LEP |9-NAEP I9-FEP 9-FEPE l9-General 10-LEP 10-NAEP 110-FEP 110-FEPE lO-General 12-LEP 1I2-NAEP 12-FEP 112-FEPE 12-General I I I (0/1) (0/12) ?. (0/6) lox I EC M ' 163.2(9/12) H85.9 (9/12) i 213 6 (9^^^^^^ \u0026gt; s OB\u0026gt;i\n?5Ea.-i.r-______ _ .,. *N=Number of students tested 22^1 ^^12) \\ 2.^2.7(212) 174.2(6/13)\n241.6(5/14)1 210.2(6/13) 252.0 (3/0) 1 227.2 {3IQ) \"f- I 9nR.4(5/11) i 198.6(5/11)1 216.4(5/11) (0/1) (0/1) 107.5 (212) I 253.5 (2/2) i 222.2 {2J2) 213.0 (1/0) ! 257.0 (1/0) j 233.3 (1/0) I I (0/12) I (01^2) i (0/6) (0/6) ri ri ! 517 P5 o z5 Pl \u0026gt; 2 'S. 2 O r P3 2. Grades\nDRA Fall i DRA Spring i i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth I i McClellan i . ^,.. , 'i Benchmark i ALT Reading! ALT Math ALT Language I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing) : (N/Missing) SAT-9 ALT Math I t  \u0026gt; co C  19-LEP I9-NAEP 9-FEP 19-FEPE 9-General AXeTzV^' 0-1 A /o/n\\ SsS? I 21.0(2/0) 208.0(1/0) i 250.0(1/0) , P*: I I 33.0 (2/0) !WjgrSTOSSS^5^^T^ 207.0(1/0) 'jW-P3 o 5z I IQ-LEP 10-NAEP llQ-FEP ~ 10-FEPE~\" tws^ lO-General 11-LEP 11-NAEP jll-FEP 11-FEPE w**** w \u0026gt;2 O o7l) I 253.6(1/1) I 214.0(1/1) T I I S 217.5(2/0) I 246.0(2/0) i 222.5(2/0) S^-x Xj J____ g 206.0(1/0) 231.7(3/2) I i 246.0(1/0) i 250.3 (3/2) , 201.0 (1/0) 212.7 (3/2) 208.0 (Vi) 256:0(1/1) j 215.0(1/1) Il-General I J I 12-FEPE 12-General i 12-LEP 12-NAEP il2-FEP  raw L _ _ *N=Number of students tested ! giA (0/1) I (0/1) 4^,^.Ki i.JTT (0/1) i*44jvqr-. 518 \u0026gt;2 -1 s z 9 CZ5 2 w z r5 75 Grades i-LEP l-NAEP 9- 9- 9-l-FEP (-FEPE 9-(-General 10-LEP 10-NAEP 10-FEP 10- FEPE 10- General 11- LEP 11- NAEP 11- FEP 11-FEPE Il-General 12-_LE^^____ 12-NAEP 12-FEP 12-FEPE 12-General Parkview I DRA Fall  DRA Spnng , DRA  SAT-9 ] Benchmark . ALT Reading j  (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) i Growth 1 (N/Missing) (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) I ! I -f I -r^,--... ...._____ . --It T ft k-tXAM* 52^ (3/0) B?'.*- iv, I I 7ji  205.0(1/0) ^.*aS!-=\nSpW n o \u0026lt;3Sii4j 1 ALT Math (N/Missing) 239.0 (1/0) ALT Language (N/Missing) 211.0 (1/0) ? 225.0(2/0)  246.5 {210) . 225.5 {2/0) A M. ' *\u0026gt; * I ,L I i :\nX\u0026lt; \u0026lt; \u0026lt; 229.5 (2/1) i 257.0(2/1) 1 240.0(1/2) '^j.-1^\n.^\n^:^\"/'\" hL j- \u0026lt;?.\u0026gt;. I i X I c^ s'ii 'ii. iSI'' .Aj' i jTT *#W^5Tr, K\", 218.0(1/8) I .00 (1/8) I 217.0(1/8) I \u0026gt;03 o?e \u0026gt; q 5z fHf \u0026gt; 2 1 I i 2 \u0026gt; -1 \u0026gt; 1. O 73 n 2 n M (0/6) (0/6) 1 (0/6) ^Sag^i^ 8\nwLA*\nN=Number of students tested 1 1 I.M^. I 519 Grades rLEP i-NAEP \u0026amp; 0- ,6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General  DRA'F^\nDRA Spring WAT ' (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j Growth inj I 1 Cloverdale M.S. 5AT^ , ' Be-nc hm a r--k , A-LT Reading ALT Math\n(N/Missing) \u0026lt; (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing)  (N/Missing) ALT Language (N/Missing) ).\u0026lt;r I I 27 183.6 (5/8) i 195.2 (5/8) i S55  7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7- General 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General 5-R=-r-T SkSiT J 190.4 (5/8) 201.0(1/0) ! 204.0(1/0) i 207.0 {^10} 2 \u0026gt; 03 c X H m I *.kd5zZi\nL :vsisB^.5BSSP3^x^y=fr i\"* *Sri''s,' arKSii^fsajS\n1 I 34.8(5/11) I **^ r.k2^Z2kx:\n.i )/11 202.9 (10/6) i 215.6 (10/6) i 205.9 (10/6) -X ^^1 ft 17.0 (1/1) -------- I'll 5r \"1= *N=Number of students tested 200.0(2/0) I 212.0(2/0) j 205.5(2/0) i 199.1 (14/4) I 208.1 (14/4) j 201.5 (14/4) Sifj 'Sctd 238.0 (1/0) -Tsj'ife*.\" 'V -i :n 22?-'* I i I 520 oz PHl 2 2 \u0026gt; -2 O pz5 p Ei DRA Fall I DRA Spring | DRA Grades Dunbar SAT-9 Benchmark . ALT Reading  ALT Math ! (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j Growth j (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) : (N/Missing) . i-i. A,k a \u0026gt;\u0026gt; ri, ALT Language  (N/Missing) 0 Ifl d d d d d d d d (\u0026gt;rLEP 6-NAEP 6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General '-13s. ---------i?ii!EaS3^ Hill3 190.8(4/1) I 195.0 (4/1) 200.3(4/1) t 220.5(6/0)\n232.2 {6IQ) 222.2 (\u0026amp;IQ} 216.0(1/0) I 223.0(1/0) I 1 1 217.0 (1/0) 7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 1- FEPE 7-General ?\nf* 5a * 12 3 (3/2) 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General ... 27.0 (1/1 i ...1______I. , zi 32.7 (71Q) s^i* 201.7(3/2) I 207.3 (3/2) M 223.3 (JIQ] i 201.0 (3/2) ce X\u0026gt; m s 5z n S . X' -a. 0*-\u0026lt;T z. '2ss'.ie.uisi.Esr 27.0(1/0) \u0026gt;'.*1  Ml m o~i I  \"rc it/\"'. Jt T I 256.4(7/0)\n230.4(7/0) 209.3 (3IQ) tJ.-.T-\" 222266..66 ((1100//00))1 i 225522..22 ((1100//00\n) I 230.0 (10/0) 210 0(1/0) ! 211.0(1/0) I 210.0(1/0) 2 \"4 X \u0026gt; 2 9 75 2 S 2 D n MI- -raw. . , .. .. - - . *N=Number of students tested I i T 521 Dl Forest Heights M.S. Iri I 2 s Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Hi Iri Bl Grades rLEP i-NAEP 6- 6- 6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General 7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7-General (J 2  DRA Fall ' DRA Spnng CRA\" . _S.A..T -9. -B--e--n--c-h--m---a--r-k- , ALT Re- ading, , ALT Math ALT Lang- uag- e ' (N/Missing)  (N/Missing) ! Growth 1 (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) - (N/Missing) DRA Spnng I 1 1 I ! t T--j,5b3 SJ' if S^S. T-T-y t /Af - .iJ'-! 'a\u0026amp;SLi'* t T' .-ai-. i1^kC~-.i'-'\u0026lt;^'-T-4t.:\nka/^,-^-jj(i~'ifn}ai ~ltT^ - niT*-r--^- I 216.0(2/0) i 215.5(2/0) i 212.0 (2/0) 212.8(5/0) , 218.2(5/0) ! 215.8(5/0) Ai.*\u0026gt;r! I \u0026gt; ' t4Ls:**c^ t'ii r^'Lil S\n(/( 75.5 (2!^) I 39.0(1/0) n O 5S \u0026gt; II g 209.3(3/0) i 216.7(3/0) | 212.0 (3/0) P3 \u0026gt; Q z5 n 2 rt 'gi 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General :-KSAh- r V- 1 724.^ (21Q} i 226.0(2/0) i 231.5(2/0) 205.0(1/0) I 210.0(1/0) i 214.0 (1/0) iS \u0026gt;.1 i-.ai . \" 5SsS\u0026gt;rJSgT.^^\u0026amp;f^/^a5^4?fe\u0026lt;-2LKT-\u0026gt; 217-0(1/1) ! 214.0(1/1) 1 215.0(1/1)  ------\" yiJJ ^^ 228 3(3/0) i 225.0(3/0)  231.3(3/0) \u0026gt;z 2 Sz (-5 221.5(2/0) I 236.0(2/0) i 228.5(2/0) ff ____ .!.. MI.M eMBSS?:a*-?Yr.'WI^MWXnmJWW('JLJW *N=Number of students tested I I I 522 I ii Ifl Ifl Ifl I Itf iri Ifl Ifl Ifl Ifl Ifl Efl HI  DRA Pair DRA Spring j Grades i (N/Missing) . (N/Missing) j I ! 1 Henderson 6-LEP 6-NAEP rFEP i-FEPE 6- 6- (-General 6- '-LEP 7- 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7-General I Ar 22^ '4= * DRA Growth s\n- .'Si'SSi ------- Benchmark , ALT Reaaing ALTMaUT j (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) i 1 Benchmark  ALl Reading ALT Language (N/Missing) 2114(5/0) i 217.0(5/0) j 222.4 (5/0) :i ^Ts  ''is 1 I JSSaStSfr\"' -\n!^ I t c * * y:S:t^-ii7i*.?xi5uaxsc^ 199 0(6/0) 1 167.8(6/0)  205.5 ^6/02^ 7\"' e?. ..r^sa^ 65.0(410) t' ^T*fc\n,V V* iS: t .u*-^ 1.^ I ! 1 __ 22) 5(410) 1 229.5 4/0) 226.5 (410) X4e\u0026gt;*.i= ***r 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General 2 \u0026gt; n O \u0026gt; \u0026lt; P5 5 5 z m \u0026gt; 2 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; 2 O 7) l 200.0(2/0) ! 204.0^(2/0) *N=Number of students tested T 219 8 (610) i 224.7 (6/0) I 226.7 (610) 230.0(1/0) i 250.0(1/0) 240.0 (1/0) '2. P5 I I I 523Bri d I u d iri m iri ni iri d d d d 6- Grades i rLEP i-NAEP 6- 6- i-FEP i-FEPE (\u0026gt; 6-General 7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7-General Mabelvale M.S. 2 DRA Fall j DRA Spring i DRA SAT-9 i Benchmark i ALT Reading j ALT Math , ALT Language i (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j Growth (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)  (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)  '-^'rS^* -.'^ir.-. -,r*^- \u0026lt; * i-'r- 3 J '4^ 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General \u0026gt; 5 \u0026gt; i I I - *2*/^'^ Vs.v.^ * 1  T5 I i 19.0 (1/0) J I 212.3(3/0) j 206.3(3/0)  .ihBBiChi. r 4 *- I 1 213.0 (3/0) P5 \u0026gt; s z -j n \u0026gt; 2 211.0(1/0) I 212.0(1/0) I 210.0(1/0) iy'-i 221.0(1/0)1251.0(1/0)1 224.0(1/0) --r .r -s-t.fiP' ----------------------------------bm 85.0(1/0) i 4 wi * *N=Number of students tested ^S'j 1 1 I r sf - - i.2urM\u0026gt;?lu. w\nI 212-2(5/0) I 20S.6(5rt)) 1 219.0(5/0) S? feafe 1 524  \u0026gt; -J \u0026gt; 2. v\u0026gt; 2 n 2 O WMann Magnet II Grades PftA Fall------DRA S^ng , DRA 5AT^5 Benchmark ALT Reading ALT Matii ATT Language 1 (N/MissIng): (N/Missing)\nGrowth , (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing)' (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ! I o id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id 6-LEP 6-NAEP 6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General SS V I s? jB-1 \u0026gt; 09 c X \u0026gt; H n 229.5 {2/0} 225.7 {310} wirs.5i t (210) 234.0 {210} f irA5^c-\n,f'^x KK*t .t 11^.5 '^pO-S''- 5?. 217.3(3/0) ^218.0(3/0) n -j z5 PJ \u0026gt;2\n4.-i:v-?\u0026gt;a*'vv4y i 1 7-LEP 7-NAEP ___ , . _ _ 7-FEP J____J 7-FEPE____ 7-General ^asc:'?. \u0026lt;'..' I I I ./'** Vi \\^L- Vt. 49.0(1/0) j^a'^ 4 f^T*^-S74SSSLA \u0026gt;\u0026gt;_. n.o {2J0} f/-i y 77.3(3/0) iS ssassss ' ' e 1 \\ 210.0 (1/0) i 222.0 (1/0)  - 226.5 (2/0)\n230.0 {210} 218.0 (1/0) 227.0 (2J0} 221.3(3/0) i 236.7 (3/0)\n229.7 (3/0) ffi T- 8-LEP____ 8-NAEP__ 8-FEP 8-FEPE__ 8-General i I I 1 :b!^: I r? th' 235.8 (5/0) i 259.6 (5/0) : 239.4 (5/0) N=Number of students tested 225.0(2/0) ' 252.5 {2IQ) I 234.0 (2/0) \u0026gt;2 SH \u0026gt;z 793 Q pz5 n .'5.\ni\nI I 525 I Pulaski Heights M.S. \u0026lt;1\ni I HI M l ni nl ni M d d d d DRA Fall I I i DRA Spring i 1 DRA Grades 1 (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ! Growth i i i ! SAT-9 1 Benchmark , ALT Reading i ALT Math , ALT Language ! (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)  (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) . (N/Missing) 1 I T 2 6-LEP 6-NAEP 6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General 7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7-General 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General\n\u0026gt;T**  ~ \"i\n' r?L^ T,5J.V^.^Sf^Tai '-is I t.- i\u0026gt; *  3.^ * . - 41 0 f2/oi jr O 98.0(1/0) i s\u0026lt; \u0026gt; SB \u0026gt; H ! Hi Wsi^' 2210(4/0) I 227.0(4/0) I 221.8(4/0) ! I_______ !_______\n220.5(270) 1 215.5(2/0) I 218.0(2/0) I n n\u0026gt; z5 PHJ \u0026gt; 2 SI I **V- 240.0(1/0) I 295.0(1/0) [ 249.0(1/0) 1 2\u0026gt;'. =i I I I iliBSS cz !/l hS5? L?fr -4X^ ^idPJh-ftj^ac:X^\u0026gt;4\u0026lt;\u0026amp;a^bi r^W.- 4 250.5 (2/0) j 230.0 (2/0) PJ z PJ i2^itA.d!SJ.aur-5^ j: *N=Number of students tested II 526 irii Southwest WSp^g iri Dri [ri iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri d 01 d grades ' (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing) i6-LEP 6-NAEP 6^fEP 6-FEPE 6-General '-LEP 1'--NAEP 7--FEP 7-FEPE 7-General 8-LEP S^NAE^ mp 8^FEPr~ 8-General 3K' h* t ik ------ DRASAT-9  Benchmark~ArrReading Growth , (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) t ( --------  ALT MatFi ALT Language (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) (N/Missing) 2 i I ( TJ aX \u0026gt; I v I I 16 0(2/1) A (J  218'0(1/0) i 223.0(1/0) .. ___  kT: 221.0 (1/0) 7 1 \u0026gt;R7SfI-IeWeo  *O, *w\u0026gt; H I r 199.3 (3/0) : aoi 3 (3/01 1 210.7 (3/0) 1 I I________ !-------------------- - .w.wi5tT^\u0026lt;Fnre5saiS((i^!^ 218 0 n/O) i 220.0 (1/0)_i 222.0(1/0) - If \u0026lt; \u0026gt;f6(\u0026gt; i. 'N=Number of students tested *_ ^i_e!47 \\-^ 1! ! 1 I 1 527 n \u0026gt; Q 25 n \u0026gt; 2\nS \u0026gt;S \u0026gt;2 0 (/I 2 S 2. fnt COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM MATH AND SCIENCE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: PREPARED BY: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ^^onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: November 21,2002 SUBJECT: Approval of SEDLs Program Evaluation for the Collaborative Action Team Project \u0026gt; \u0026gt;Z c Vi 2 Sz fnt Background The Southwest Education Development Lab (SEDL) in Austin began their Collaborative Action Team Project in 1996 by selecting schools or districts for participation within their five-state region. The focus was on districts with concentrations of students as follows: rural, urban, the Delta, the Border, and the American Indian Nations. The Little Rock School District was selected for inclusion, representing urban children, as a part of Cohort 3 in fall 1999, the last year of the project. We participated only that one year (1999-2000) in the project, but the Collaborative Action Team that was established continues to meet and most recently fulfilled the charge we gave them to provide leadership in the development of the Districts Strategic Plan for Parent Involvement. Dr. Ed Williams, the PRE statistician, and Debbie Milam, Director of the ViPS program and the person assigned as liaison to SEDL for this project, both provided data to SEDL for their project evaluation. Members of the Collaborative Action Team responded to surveys as requested. Although the 249-page study produced by SEDL that evaluated the project included student achievement data, those data were not disaggregated by race, and LRSDs short-term (one year) participation in the project would not predict that the involvement of this relatively small group of parents and community volunteers would result in improved student performance. The purpose of the SEDL project is described on pp. 2- 3 of the report. On pp. 25-33 can be found a description of the \"Research Design and Methodology.\" 528 I*. I wL Board of Education - Memo November 21, 2002 Page Three Section 10 of the evaluation, Implications and Recommendations, discusses the research findings. Specific recommendations are given on page 147. Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve SEDLs Collaborative Action Team Process: Final Research Report as the program evaluation of the LRSD Collaborative Action Team project of 1999-2000. BAL/adg Attachment 529 ir il t t I 2 \u0026gt;z o c/) 2 S z D w g S1'1 - J? Collaborative Action Team Process: Bringing home, school, community, and students together to improve results for children and famihes I Final Research Report ] I I I a 11 Ti T  .U.'. J M iniaiaiiinil IIII Ml IIII Ml \u0026gt;2 \u0026gt; 1. o pz5 rwi Co-Authors: Zena H. Rudo Michelle Achacoso Delia Perez Contributors: Catherine Jordan Jerry Elder Amy Averett Evangelina Orozco Program for Refining Educational Partnerships Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 211 East Seventh Street Austin, TX 78701-3281 (512) 476-6861 November 2000 530 I I I i\"* r a List of Tables List of Figures Section 1: Section 2: Section 3: Section 4: Section 5: Section 6: Section 7: Section 8: Table of Contents Collaborative Action Team Project Background Participants in the Collaborative Action Team Project Characteristics of the Collaborative Action Team Process Implementation of the Collaborative Action Team Process Research Design and Methodology Site Characteristics Collaborative Action Team Sustainability Student Outcomes iii-iv v-vii 1 4 12 16 25 34 46 80 s. \u0026gt; 2 C V) 2 S z r) Section 9: Results in the Rural Collaborative Action Team Sites I I I 111 Section 10\nImplications and Conclusions 143 References 150-152 Appendices Appendix A. Collaborative Action Team Application Forms Memorandum of Understanding 153 154-172 173-175 i 531 IAppendix B. Start-Up Training Agenda Collaborative Action Team Training Institute Agenda Facilitator Training Agenda 176 177-178 179-182 183-185 Appendix C. CAT Meeting Checklist Collaborative Action Team Meeting Evaluation Form #1 Collaborative Action Team Meeting Evaluation Form #2 CAT Self-Assessment Instrument and Handbook Collaborative Action Team Research Exit Survey Resource Guide Feedback Form 186 187-188 189 190 191-223 224-225 226-227 Appendix D. Significance and Probability Values for CAT Sustainability CAT Self-Assessment Questions Across Time Significance and Probability Values for CAT Sustainability CAT Self-Assessment Questions Across Cohorts Significance and Probability Values for CAT Sustainability CAT Self-Assessment Questions Across Representative Groups Significance and Probability Values for RD-CAT Sustainability CAT Self-Assessment Questions Across Time 228 229-234 235-240 241-246 247-250 Appendix E. Percent Student Attendance for Individual CAT Sites Percent Student Dropout for Individual CAT Sites Percent Student Graduation for Individual CAT Sites 251 252-253 254-255 256-257 i ii 532LIST OF TABLES I Table 1. Table 2. aa I Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Collaborative Action Team Site Demographics Timeline I: Assessing the Implementation and Sustainability of the CAT Process Timeline 11\nAssessing the Impact of the CAT Process on Student Outcomes Total Population and Poverty in CAT Surrounding Area CAT Members Completing the CAT Self-Assessment and the Collaborative Action Team Research Exit Survey Percent Student Attendance for Cohort 1 CAT Sites Percent Student Attendance for Cohort 2 CAT Sites 7- 9 31 32 35 47 - 50 81 I 82 Table 8. Percent Student Attendance for Cohort 3 CAT Sites 82 ,1 a aI I Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Table 12. Table 13. Table 14. Table 15. Table 16. Table 17. Percent Student Attendance for CAT Sites Across Cohorts Percent Student Dropout for Cohort 1 CAT Sites Percent Student Dropout for Cohort 2 CAT Sites Percent Student Dropout for Cohort 3 CAT Sites Percent Student Dropout for CAT Sites Across Cohorts Percent Student Graduation for Cohort 1 CAT Sites Percent Student Graduation for Cohort 2 CAT Sites Percent Student Graduation for Cohort 3 CAT Sites Percent Student Graduation for CAT Sites Across Cohorts iii 83 88 89 89 90 95 96 96 97 533 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z 55 t/i 2 S z n P5 Table 18. SAT-9 Scores Below the 25\" Percentile for Arkansas CAT Sites 101 Table 19. Percentile Rankings on CAT/5 and ITBS for Louisiana CAT Sites 102 Table 20. Percent Passing CTBS5/Terra Nova Plus for New Mexico CAT Sites 103 Table 21. Percent Scoring Satisfactory on OCCT for Oklahoma CAT Sites 105 Table 22. Percent Passing the TAAS in Texas CAT Sites 108 Table 23. Free/Reduced Lunch for RD-CAT Sites 112 Table 24. RD-CAT Members Completing the CAT Self-Assessment and the Collaborative Action Team Research Exit Survey 117 Table 25. Comparison of RD-CAT Site and State Student Dropout 136 Table 26. Comparison of RD-CAT Site and State Student Graduation 137 Table 27. CTBS5/Terra Nova Test Scores for Mora ISD and State 138 Table 28. Percent Passing New Mexico High School Competency Exam for Mora ISD and State 139 Table 29. SAT-9 Percent Passing for Marshall School District and State 139 Table 30. SAT-9 Percentile Scores for Marshall School District and State 140 Table 31. Percent Passing OCCT for Clayton School District and State 140 iv 534 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. CAT Site Start-Up and CAT Self-Assessment Data Collection 29 Figure 2. Type of School(s) Collaborative Action Teams Serve 36 Bl Figure 3. Special School Programs in CAT Sites 37 Figure 4a \u0026amp; b Team Confidence Level for Activity Accomplishment 39 rl Figure 5. Type of School Community Challenges in CAT Sites 40 Figure 6a \u0026amp; b Existence of Community Factors in CAT Sites 42 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z 9 X 2 S z rt pj Figure 7a. PI Days Between Start-Up Training and First CAT Meeting for Cohort 1 Sites 43 Figure 7b. Days Between Start-Up Training and First CAT Meeting for Cohort 2 Sites 44 Figure 7c. Days Between Start-Up Training and First CAT Meeting for Cohort 3 Sites 44 Figure 8. Level of Support form School Administration for Future CAT Sustainability 58 El Figure 9. Level of Support from Campus Staff for Future CAT Sustainability 58 p 4! 1 Figure 10. Level of Support from Community-at-Large for Future CAT Sustainability 59 Figure 11. II Level of Support from Parents/Other Family Members for Future CAT Sustainability 59 Figure 12. Level of Support from Students for Future CAT Sustainability 60 . Figure 13. Future Goal Accomplishment Across Cohorts 66 V 535I tv Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure 16. Figure 17. Figure 18. Figure 19. Figure 20. Figure 21. Figure 22. Figure 23. Figure 24. Figure 25. Figure 26. Figure 27. Figure 28. Figure 29. Figure 30. Figure 31. Perceived Changes in CAT Recognition/Importance in the Community by Representative Groups Importance of Taking Action on Planned Goals for CAT Sustainability Annual Percent Student Attendance Across Cohorts Site, District, and State Student Attendance Comparisons Across Cohorts Arkansas CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance Louisiana CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance New Mexico CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance Oklahoma CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance Texas CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance Site, District, and State Student Dropout Comparisons Across Cohorts Arkansas CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout Louisiana CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout New Mexico CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout Oklahoma CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout Texas CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout Site, District, and State Student Graduation Comparisons Across Cohorts Arkansas CAT Site vs. State Student Graduation New Mexico CAT Site vs. State Student Graduation vi 70 72 83 84 85 85 86 86 87 90 91 92 92 93 94 97 98 98 3 i K B B B 536Section 1: Collaborative Action Team Project Background Recognizing that childrens problems are increasingly horizontal, but government is organized vertically (Kirst, 1991, p. 617), those concerned with the well-being of children and families have sought ways to overcome the compartmentalization and fragmentation characterizing traditional delivery systems. Efforts to integrate and coordinate services for children and families across multiple agencies have been promulgated since the mid-1970s, however often than not at the behest of local social service agencies (Kagan \u0026amp; I I more Pritchard, 1996). It has only been in the past decade that federal support has influenced and hastened the development of collaborative partnerships. The result has been a broad variety of approaches to collaborative work. Models, strategies, and pilot programs accompanied by an abundant literature of opinion, guidelines, theory, survey and case study research, and anecdotal experience have p' erated. The role of public education in these collaborative efforts has also varied and, in some circles, schools are deliberately avoided. For example. Heath and McLaughlin (1996) note that partnership with community organizations seldom extends to education (p. 70), because many individuals working in youth organizations find schools the most difficult partner among the many social agencies with which they have contact (p. 85). Schools, on the other hand, have attributed the lack of collaboration with community organizations to the inflexible schedules and frequent turnover of agency staff, as well as to what schools perceive as competitive attitudes (Kagel \u0026amp; Routh, 1993). ( \u0026gt;  t I ) 2 \u0026gt; S \u0026gt; z o p5 z PI In addition to the difficulties schools encounter developing successful collaborative partnerships with community agencies, their relationship with the families of students is also a source of conflict. The development and perpetuation of a stereotypical view that many families are uncaring of their children and their childrens success in school has been seen in educational practice (Corbett, Wilson, \u0026amp; Webb, 1996). As families experience this attitude, a self-fulfilling prophecy is set into motion in which families feel uncomfortable coming to the school and as a result, professionals continue to see parents as the problem. Additional reasons for why collaborative partnerships have not necessarily been successful, or even initiated, may include:  Family and school schedules are often difficult to mesh  Security issues sometimes take precedence over visitors on school grounds  Parents past experiences as students themselves may have been negative and they lack trust in the educational system. 1 537Figure 32. Oklahoma CAT Site vs. State Student Graduation 99 Figure 33. Texas CAT Site vs. State Student Graduation 99 Figure 34. Level of Support form School Administration for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 121 Figure 35. Level of Support from Campus Staff for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 121 Figure 36. Level of Support from Community at Large for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 122 Figure 37. Level of Support from Parents/Other Family Members for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 122 Figure 38. Level of Support from Students for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 123 Figure 39. RD-CAT Site Student Attendance Comparisons Across Time 134 Figure 40. RD-CAT Site Student Dropout Comparisons Across Time 135 Figure 41. RD-CAT Site Student Graduation Comparisons Across Time 137 vii 538. iW, ii!* Although these barriers exist, it is believed that strengthening the involvement of families and communities in education is critical for enablinq schools to function more effectively and respond to the complex needs of students and their families. Fulfilling the needs that affect a students development takes a system of interrelated, interdependent parts, of which the school is just one. The students home and family life, and the community and society in which the student lives, are other necessary parts of the system. Yet, it is understood that schools play a particularly crucial role for several  Students spend many hours of their day at school reasons: 1 a  School s explicit mission is to guide student development  Important relationships develop between students, their peers, their teachers, and other adults in the school environment. As a result of this systemic shift in thinking, connections between schools, families, and communities are more prevalent today than ever. Increasingly, schools have taken the lead in establishing collaborative links (Kritek, 1996\nPayzant, 1992). Often these efforts are part of an overall plan for systemic school reform in an attempt to improve educational outcomes for children (Fox \u0026amp; Williams, 1991\nLourie, 1994). For example, increased academic achievement, motivaUon and interest in school, and behavioral and adaptive functioning are only just beginning to be assessed in relation to the impact of these collaborative partnerships (Eber \u0026amp; Rolf, 1998). Although on the increase, the establishment of collaborative partnerships among the school, home, and community has been slow in achieving wide spread adoption in the field. This is due, in part, to the existing limited and largely non-empirical knowledge base on school-based collaboration and the absence of a clear specification of the needed skills that promote such an intervention model (Pryor \u0026amp; Church, 1995\nU.S. Department of Education, 1996). Purpose of Current Project to 2 S \u0026gt; 2. 3 (fi 2 S 2 rj P5 As part of a federal grant initiated in December 1995, the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) developed and implemented a school-based Collaborative Action Team (CAT) process to address the need t enhance family and community involvement in education. The intervention was designed to be self-sustaining over time and improve results for students and their families. This research project, based in communities across a five state Southwestern region of the United States, tested the sustainability of the collaborative partnerships developed among families, community members, 2 539h I  I school personnel, and students and the efficacy of this intervention to improve student success. Training for Collaborative Action Team participants was developed and implemented. The training consisted of activities to improve their knowledge of, skills in, and attitudes toward collaboration and shared leadership. These activities were used to enhance the partners abilities to collaborate on plans and take action to address issues and concerns facing their school community. Quantitative and qualitative measures were used to evaluate and continually refine the Collaborative Action Team process and capture a holistic picture of student success. Data collected in each site provided information on site characteristics, the implementation and sustainability of the process, and student outcomes. The research also provided CAT sites with descriptive and empirical data on their successes and areas of continued need while increasing their general knowledge base on the use of collaborative efforts within school settings and their impact on student success. Purpose of this Report This report serves two functions: first, as a technical manual detailing the methods and procedures of the study\nsecond, as a final, summative report, describing the activities accomplished and the research results obtained from this project. The Collaborative Action Team project was first implemented in the Fall of 1996 in five sites (Cohort 1), then expanded to another ten sites in the Fall of 1998 (Cohort 2), and to another eight sites in the Fall of 1999 (Cohort 3). Of these 23 sites, four were designated as Rural Development Collaborative Action Team (RD-CAT) sites to connect school improvement with community development through the implementation of the collaborative process linked to service learning and school entrepreneurship activities. This report will discuss individual and across site results from the research conducted in all 23 CAT sites as well as results specific to the RD-CAT sites.  This report contains sections describing the characteristics of the Collaborative Action Team process and the CAT sites, the implementation of the partnership process at the sites, the project research methodology, the sustainability of team collaboration, and student outcomes over time. Implications from the research results and what lies ahead for collaboration among schools, families, communities, and students are also discussed in this report. I 3 540J I Section 2: Participants in the Collaborative Action I Team Project The Southwest Educational Development Laboratory's emphasis is on ensuring educational equality for children and youth in the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas who live in poverty\nwho are Hispanic, African-American, or other minorities\nor who have mental or physical exceptionalities. Within these states, SEDL identified the following five critical concentrations on which to focus its research and development projects\nrural, urban, the Delta, the Border, and the American Indian Nations. Site Selection I I Recognizing the need for the research demonstration sites to be representative of the five state Southwestern region SEDL serves and the critical concentration areas established by the Board of Directors, SEDL project staff solicited applications in 1996 (Year 1), 1998 (Year 3), and 1999 (Year 4). Each Collaborative Action Team (CAT) site is independent and serves one or more schools or an entire school district. 2 \u0026gt;X \u0026gt; z o s z n PI Five sites, one in each state in SEDLs region, were selected in 1996 to comprise Cohort 1. These sites are:  L. R. Jackson Elementary School (West Memphis, Arkansas)  P.G.T. Beauregard Middle School (St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana)  Rio Grande High School Cluster (Albuquerque, New Mexico)  Jackson Middle School (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)  Fabens Independent School District (Fabens, Texas). I In 1998, ten sites throughout the region were selected for Cohort 2. These sites are:  Dollarway School District (Pine Bluff, Arkansas)  Barbara Jordan Elementary School (New Orleans, Louisiana)  Albuquerque High School Cluster (Albuquerque, New Mexico)  Highland High School Cluster (Albuquerque, New Mexico)  Ann Parish Elementary School (Los Lunas, New Mexico)  Mora Independent Schools (Mora, New Mexico)  Ponca City East Middle School (Ponca City, Oklahoma)  Balmorhea Independent School District (Balmorhea, Texas)  Del Valle High School (Del Valle, Texas)  Rio Hondo Independent School District (Rio Hondo, Texas). 4 \u0026gt; 541 I In 1999, eight sites were selected from four of the five states in SEDLs region for Cohort 3. These sites are:  Little Rock School District (Little Rock, Arkansas)  Lee County School District (Marianna, Arkansas)  Marshall School District (Marshall, Arkansas)  Polk Elementary School (Baton Rouge, Louisiana)  Clayton Independent School District (Clayton, Oklahoma)  Clinton Independent School District (Clinton, Oklahoma)  Geraldine Palmer Elementary (Pharr, Texas)  Terrell Independent School District (Terrell, Texas). Four of the 23 sites selected were designated Rural Development CAT (RD-CAT) sites. These sites were required to have a community population below 3,000 persons and be geographically isolated from larger cities or towns in the surrounding region. Additionally, these sites had to be committed to connecting school improvement with economic and community development. Although a number of Collaborative Action Team sites are geographically rural, they did not meet the qualifications to be designated as RD-CAT sites. All sites, including the Rural Development sites, were selected to be Collaborative Action Team sites based on the following criteria:  Fits within SEDLs critical concentration areas  Evidence of low academic performance in student population  High percentage of low-income students (i.e.. Title 1 programs: free/reduced lunch)  History of ongoing and under-served needs in school community  Willingness to engage home, school, and community partners in collaboration  Willingness to commit to long-term project efforts.  SEDL project staff developed and implemented a process to finalize Collaborative Action Team site selections. First, all potential sites were required to submit a Collaborative Action Team Application Form (see Appendix A for a copy of the CAT applications used). Once the application was received, project staff reviewed it for completeness and, if incomplete, provided one opportunity for the site to resubmit. Project staff then reviewed all of the applications to determine if the potential site met the criteria established to become a CAT. To further determine site appropriateness, project staff conducted discussions, onsite and/or by phone, with members of each school community applying. All information obtained about the potential sites was then discussed among the 5 I  542 project staff and, as a final step, all sites were notified as to whether they had or had not been selected as a CAT site. In Year 1, sites that received SEDL services from 1990-1995 through the Home, School, and Community Partnerships (HSCP) project were first contacted to see if they were interested in continuing with SEDL to implement the Collaborative Action Team process. Four of the HSCP sites (West Memphis, AR\nAlbuquerque, NM\nOklahoma City, OK\nand Fabens, TX) submitted applications to become CAT sites. The fifth Cohort 1 site in St. Bernard, LA learned about the project through a community member previously involved with another of SEDLs projects. The five Cohort 1 Collaborative Action Team sites represent three individual schools, one cluster of feeder schools, and one school district, i.e., serving a total of 20 schools (see Table 1). None of the Cohort 1 sites were designated as Rural Development CAT sites.  2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z 0 75 2 55 z n PI In Year 3, SEDL project staff used several mechanisms to solicit Collaborative Action Team site applications. These included conference presentations, phone contacts, third-person referrals, and visits to SEDLs website. Cohort 1 CAT sites were also asked to recommend potential sites. Additionally, applicants who were not selected for Cohort 1, but met the eligibility requirements were also encouraged to reapply. The second cohort of 10 sites represents four individual schools, two clusters of feeder schools, and four school districts, i.e., serving a total of 42 schools (see Table 1). Two of these 10 sites were designated Rural Development CAT sites: Mora, NM, and Balmorhea, TX. r In Year 4, the Collaborative Action Team site solicitation methods used were similar to those used in the year prior\nhowever, one particular venue was the primary source for applications. This was a presentation by SEDL project staff at a federal Department of Education 21  Century Community Learning Center Bidders Conference held in the Southwestern region. For Cohort 3, project staff selected eight sites in four of the five SEDL region states (no new site was established in New Mexico). The Cohort 3 Collaborative Action Team sites represent two individual schools and six school districts, i.e., serving a total of 70 schools (see Table 1). Two of these eight sites were designated Rural Development CAT sites: Marshall, AR, and Clayton, OK. I 6 543I Table 1 Collaborative Action Team Site Demographics CAT site Cohort 1 West Memphis, AR St. Bernard Parish, LA Rio Grande Cluster, NM Oklahoma City, OK Fabens, TX Cohort 2 Pine Bluff, AR New Orleans, LA Albuquerque Cluster, NM Established Region 08/14/96 10/19/96 09/05/96 10/04/96 09/11/96 09/16/98 08/17/98 10/29/98 Schools served by CAT Free/reduced lunch Student ethnicity UI lU Delta/ Rural Rural Urban Urban Border/ Rural Rural Urban Urban 1 elementary school 1 middle school 1 high\n4 middle and 7 elementary schools 1 middle school 1 high\n1 junior high\n1 elementary\n1 primary school\nand 1 early childhood center 1 high\n1 junior high and 3 elementary schools 1 elementary school 1 high\n2 middle and 10 elementary schools 7 100% 88% 76% 100% 95% 66% 100% 69% 99% African-American\n1% other 63% White\n33% African-American\n4% other 83% Hispanic\n11% White\n6% other 65% Hispanic\n18% White\n10% African-American\n7% Native American 97% Hispanic\n3% other 80% African-American\n20% White 100% African-American 66% Hispanic\n22% White\n12% other_____ (continued on next page)fit li. KA Tabic 1 (continued) CAT site Established Region Schools served by CAT Free/reduced lunch Student ethnic ity Highland Cluster, NM 10/29/98 Urban 1 high\n2 middle and 8 elementary schools 62% 40% Hispanic\n36% White\n10% Native American\n14% other Los Lunas, NM 10/21/98 Rural 1 elementary school 100% 63% Hispanic\n31% White\n6% other I Mora, NM 11/14/98 Rural 1 high\n1 middle and 2 elementary schools 89% 78% Hispanic\n21% White\n1% other Ponca City, OK 09/12/98 Rural 1 mid-high school 44% 82% White\n12% Native American\n6% other Balmorhea, TX 06/30/98 Border/ Rural 1 school all grades (K - 12) 71% 80% Hispanic\n19% White\n1 % other Del Valle, TX 10/03/98 Urban I high school 48% 53% Hispanic\n32% White\n14% African-American\n1% other i Rio Hondo, TX 10/24/98 Border/ Rural I high\n1 middle and 2 elementary schools 81% 94% Hispanic\n6% White (continued on next page) 8 cn \u0026gt;i UI aoNaios ONV iiiviv I I I UI 4k 9) Table 1 (continued) CAT site Cohort 3 Little Rock, AR Marianna, AR Marshall, AR East Baton Rouge, LA Clayton, OK Clinton, OK Pharr, TX Terrell, TX Established Region 09/23/99 09/01/99 08/17/99 08/18/99 08/30/99 09/09/99 10/14/99 08/26/99 Urban Delta/ Rural Rural Urban Rural Rural Border/ Rural Rural Schools served by CAT 5 high\n8 junior high and 35 elementary schools 1 high\n1 middle and 2 elementary schools 1 junior/senior high and 1 elementary school 1 elementary school 1 high and 1 elementary school 1 high\n1 middle and 3 elementary schools 1 elementary school 1 high\n1 middle and 4 elementary schools\nand 1 pre- K to K center 9 Free/reduced lunch Student ethnicity 50% 89% 60% 98% 73% 73% 88% 51% 68% African-American\n28% White\n4% other 91% African-American\n8% White\n1% other 98% White\n2% other 99% African-American\n1% White 75% White\n25% Native American 55% White\n23% Hispanic\n11% Native American\n10% African-American\n1% other 2% White\n98% Hispanic 49% White\n34% African-American\n16% Hispanic\n1% other Team Composition The entire school community, consisting of all the people and organizations that either affect or are affected by the school, are the pool from which Collaborative Action Team members were initially identified in site applications. A school community goes beyond those who work and study inside the school. School communities include families, businesses, agencies, organizations, and individuals in the immediate neighborhood. A school community might include residents who have no children attending the school but whose property values are affected by the quality of education the school provides. A human service, health, or mental health agency that serves students families may be part of a school community even if it is not located in direct proximity to the school. The school board and district or state administrators that affect a schools work are also a part of the school community. 2 \u0026gt; X \u0026gt; 2. 9 V) 2 w z ri P3 I jA The initial composition of the Collaborative Action Teams in Cohort 1 included school, home, and community representatives. As the PGT Beauregard CAT in St. Bernard, LA developed, they were the first team to include students as equal members on their team. The SEDL project staff and the other Cohort 1 CAT sites recognized the benefit of including students. As a result, students were incorporated into the CAT process as a fourth representative group needed to comprise team membership and many sites include students on their teams. School representatives include superintendents, assistant superintendents, and other district/central office staff, principals, assistant principals, teachers, teacher aides, librarians, support staff, maintenance personnel, and other school campus staff. Family members such as parents, grandparents, foster parents, other caretakers, and siblings comprise the home representative group. Neighborhood associations, businesses, government offices, human service agencies, religious institutions, and volunteers represent the community. Students, generally from secondary schools, also serve on the CAT\nhowever, student representation is open to all age groups. Collaborative Action Teams range in size from smaller groups of 8-10 members to much larger groups of 40-50 members, with an average of approximately 15 active members per team. Additionally, although representative membership is a core principle of the Collaborative Action Team process, it should be noted that membership on the team is not static. The teams have an open door policy\", often resulting in variation in team 10 547 I i I membership at any given time. However, each team has established a group of core members that, at the least, represent the home, school, and community. Summary SEDL project staff used a variety of mechanisms to solicit potential Collaborative Action Team sites and a formal selection process was implemented. Twenty-three sites were selected to participate in the project, of which four were designated as Rural Development CAT sites. All of the sitesmet established selection criteria related to geographic location, student demographics, school and community needs, an ability and willingness to commit to implementing collaborative partnerships. Participants varied in the Collaborative Action Teams but generally consisted of home, school, community, and student representatives. t   11 548I Section 3: Characteristics of the Collaborative Action Team Process IS \u0026gt; ( I The Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) designed the school-based Collaborative Action Team (CAT) process to be developed, tested, and refined over a five-year period ending in December 2000. After reviewing the literature on collaboration with an emphasis on its links to educational settings, SEDL project staff identified current collaborative practices, dimensions of successful team partnership development and maintenance, and barriers to effective collaboration upon which the CAT process was initially based. The process was continually developed over the five years to bring together local partners representing the communitys diverse points of view to increase the productive involvement of families and communities in the educational achievement and well-being of students. I 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z 9 75 2 5 z ft Defining Collaboration I I Collaboration brings separate individuals or organizations into a new relationship with a joint commitment to a common purpose. As described by Mattesich and Monsey (1992), the relationship includes a commitment to: a definition of mutual relationships and goals, mutual authority and accountability for success, and sharing of resources and rewards (p. 7). Such a relationship requires comprehensive planning and well-defined communication. Risk is greater because team members reputations are at stake. Participants pool their resources and share the products of their work. Collaboration is a more formal and long-term arrangement than networking, cooperation and coordination. It differs in the extent to which people share resources and use power and authority to achieve goals they cannot achieve independently (Kagan, 1991). fc- People in collaborative relationships view each other as partners, enhancing each others capacity to define excellence, set mutual goals, and use their own personal and institutional power to achieve them (Himmelman, 1992). Collaboration is a style of work and a sense of community in which members knowingly make decisions as a whole. They see themselves as complementary and mutually supportive contributors to the entire community. In other words, collaboration involves the following:  Developing win-win situations  Creating a total greater than the sum of its parts  Sharing responsibility  Sharing success. 12 549Core Principles The Collaborative Action Team process is a set of concepts, activities, and resources that individuals, school districts, and other organizations can use to develop a partnership between school, home, community, and students at the local level. It was initially based on a set of core principles and included four stages of team development. The core principles identified were representative membership, shared leadership, consensus decision-making, and networking. As the Collaborative Action Teams developed, it was seen that networking was a natural consequence of collaboration\nhowever, teams having an action focus was integral to team development. Action focus was incorporated into the CAT process as a core principle to embody the characteristics of collaboration. Based on these core principles, the Collaborative Action Team moves through a series of activities within the four stages of team development intended to support effective team partnerships that can be self-sustaining over time.  I Representative membership is when a team consists of participants from a cross-section of the school community that consistently attend meetings and are actively involved in making decisions. This includes family members, community representatives, school personnel, and students and should mirror the diversity of the community. Representative membership can help the team develop a more comprehensive response to school community needs and reinforce local control and self-reliance. Shared leadership exists when leadership roles and responsibilities are equally distributed among all team members. Team members see themselves as partners working to benefit students and their families and are equally included in representing the team, making decisions, carrying responsibilities, and sharing success. Shared leadership can enhance a teams commitment and willingness to work together and help to sustain individual energy, minimize burnouf, and expand the school communitys leadership pool. Consensus decision-making occurs when decisions are made that best reflect the viewpoints of all involved and that all members agree to support. This requires that team members develop the ability to discuss issues, listen to one another, address their differences, work to resolve them, and reach decisions based on general agreement. Consensus decisions can help to minimize conflict and maximize commitment and willingness in order for the team to take action as a whole. 13 55041 Action focus serves as the underlying purpose of a Collaborative Action Team, i.e., to improve results for students and the school community. Establishing a team vision and mission, and setting goals and forming strategies can help to prepare a team for action. As members take on roles and responsibilities and follow through on mutual decisions, they can generate momentum for further action. Stages of Team Development The four stages of team development are: Team Identification, Team Mobilization, Project Development, and Project Implementation. These stages are intended to lead the team to maturity and success in their overall goal to improve results for children and families. Team Identification includes determining who will be on the team and how members will work together to represent the whole community, including developing a vision and mission. Team Mobilization encompasses identifying and utilizing shared leadership, broadening communication and networking opportunities, and structuring the CAT meeting. Project Development is based on creating action plans and Project Implementation on carrying out those plans and maintaining the teams focus while accomplishing its goals. Each of the four stages of team development is comprised of team building and team planning elements created to generate momentum and develop team strength relative to the core Collaborative Action Team principles. 2 \u0026gt; z 0 7) 2 n -2. W Elements of the CAT Process JI Team building elements show team members how to work together as equal partners, respect individual diversity, and build trust to help the team solve problems and create new opportunities. Getting to know one another, talking constructively from differing vantage points, and undertaking projects together help build relationships among team members. The team building activities enable mutual respect and trust to grow as personal relationships and shared experiences evolve. I Team planning elements address tools and techniques for developing a vision, mission, goals and objectives, priorities, and action steps. Finding common ground, participating in dialogues about school community issues, and reaching consensus on what needs to be accomplished are all part of planning 14 551 for collaborative action. Team planning helps to keep everyone focused and provides the structure for moving the team forward. Generating momentum produces visible results quickly by taking easily accomplished steps toward change. Teams can generate momentum by working on manageable size projects often resulting in early success. This success generates the energy and enthusiasm needed for long-term development and increasingly more complicated efforts. Momentum is the product of the effort it takes to improve schools and communities. Summary SEDL developed and implemented a collaborative, school-based process partnering family members, school personnel, community representatives, and students to improve results for students and their families. The Collaborative Action Team process is based on a set a core principles and is organized into stages of team development. The core principles of the Collaborative Action Team process are: Representative Membership, Shared Leadership, Consensus Decision-Making, and Action Focus. Based on these core principles, the CAT process moves teams through four stages of development: Team identification. Team Mobiiization, Project Deveiopment, and Project Impiementation. Within each of these stages, teams go through a series of elements and activities that support a balance between team building and team planning, based on the core principles. Mechanisms are incorporated throughout the process to maintain the momentum of the team as it moves through the stages. 15 552Section 4: Implementation of the Collaborative Action Team Process I I The Collaborative Action Team (CAT) process implemented across the 23 sites included several essential components. First, it was important to have the support and participation of home, school, community, and student members at each site. Second, the team members were trained in the skills, concepts, and principles of the CAT process. Third, CAT meetings were held so that a plan of action could be developed. And last, the on-going needs of the Collaborative Action Team process were assessed and technical assistance was provided. The implementation of the CAT process was continually refined over the five years of the project, reflecting Collaborative Action Team member ideas and suggestions, SEDL project staff observations, and new data that emerged. I 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z 9 2 5 2. O P3 Initiating the Collaborative Action Team Process I I I 'iJ I I I SEDL project staff contacted school administrators from each site, at the local and/or district level, to discuss the mission, methodology, and goals of the project and to obtain administrative support. Although not standard practice with all Cohort 1 sites, as it was for the Cohort 2 and 3 sites, SEDL project staff met on-site with school administrators. The Cohort 1 CAT sites were not required to give SEDL written approval from their school administrators, but verbal support was attained. Over time, however, the administrative support wavered and resulted in a variety of barriers to the continuation of the Collaborative Action Team in at least one of the Cohort 1 sites. SEDL project staff recognized the need for a more formal system to obtain approval and support from school administrators in potential CAT sites. As a result, they developed a Memorandum of Understanding outlining the required commitments to become a CAT site and the joint responsibilities of the site and SEDL (see Appendix A for a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding). The Collaborative Action Team process was not initiated in the Cohort 2 and 3 sites until project staff received this Memorandum of Understanding with the signature of a school administrator, i.e., the school principal or assistant principal, the district superintendent, assistant superintendent, or director of curriculum, or another designated district administrator. Local school and district administration in each of the Cohort 2 and Cohort 3 CAT sites endorsed the project both verbally and by completing the Memorandum of Understanding. * In addition to school administrative support, other members of the school community spoke with SEDL project staff to discuss the implementation of the 16 I 553CAT process in their site. Many of these conversations took place at an initial on-site visit conducted by SEDL project staff during the application process. At this time, the participants representing the four core groups (home, school, community, and students) talked with project staff as a whole and separately, by representative group. This provided the participants an opportunity to experience initial collaborative dialogue and to discuss any past partnering difficulties among the groups. They were also provided brochures about the CAT project and other resource materials. Those in attendance indicated their support for the development of a CAT in their school community and their interest in participating: however, the number and diversity of representatives present at the initial visit was often greater than the core group that comprised the on-going Collaborative Action Team. General CAT Member Training Once support from the school administration and school community members in each site was evident and initial information was exchanged, the next step in implementing the Collaborative Action Team process was to train site members. A one and one-half day intensive Start-Up Training was scheduled with each site to occur shortly after they were selected. For the Cohort 1 and 2 sites, the training was conducted for home, school, and community representatives. Students from secondary schools were included as participants in the training for Cohort 3 sites. The Collaborative Action Team Start-Up Training was designed to foster shared leadership and collaboration skills to enable team members with diverse backgrounds and a wide range of skill levels and experience to participate as full partners with school leaders.  During the Start-Up Training, SEDL project staff introduced the team development activities comprising the CAT process. Project staff developed a structured agenda and provided a written copy to all participants (see Appendix B for an example of a Start-Up Training agenda). The training included an orientation session focused on a variety of factors that impact partnership development. Participants developed a site facilitation plan, designated local facilitators, and established a plan for the first full CAT meeting during the training. The experiential, interactive activities used in the training focused on increasing team members awareness and understanding of their differences and similarities while helping them become more comfortable with one another and learn the strengths and contributions each could bring to the team. For example, one activity asked each person to list things at which they are good and then posted the responses on flip charts for everyone to see. These skills 17  554 and strengths of team members were then matched with tasks needing to be completed during an action planning activity later in the training. The planning activity encouraged members to share their knowledge and skills to accomplish identified goals which demonstrated to them the value of shared responsibility and leadership. r s ) 3 I I SEDL project staff also provided training for team members through annual Collaborative Action Team Training Institutes held each fall of the five- year project (see Appendix B for an example of an Institute agenda). A representative group of team members from each CAT site were brought together for three days to share ideas, network with one another, and gain new knowledge and skills to assist them in their collaborative efforts. The specific agenda varied at each Institute\nhowever, a number of topics were pervasive throughout ali five. These included, but were not limited to:  Shared leadership  Action planning  Resource development  Assessment and evaluation  Use of technology in collaboration. The Training Institutes provided participants with information, skills, and materials for the team members at their sites who were not able to attend the training. This new knowledge was used to further the collaborative efforts of each team. 2 \u0026gt; S \u0026gt; 2 (/) 2 S 2. n P5 CAT Facilitator Training r j In relation to school change, Hord (1992) described the importance of facilitative leaders who are not necessarily positional leaders, such as superintendents or principals, but rather people who demonstrate functional leadership, help create an atmosphere and culture for change, and nurture both the vision and tangible supports necessary for effective follow through. This was the type of leadership sought to facilitate the Collaborative Action Teams. During the first few years of the project, SEDL project staff functioned in this role for the Cohort 1 sites, while informally encouraging team members to assume this role. As the CAT project developed, project staff spent less time with the Collaborative Action Teams and, as a result, team members recognized the need for local facilitation. Training local team members to act in the facilitator role and maintain their neutrality while serving in this role was seen as essential to the sustainability and expansion of the CAT process. 18 555In 1998, SEDL project staff developed a two-day curriculum to train members from each site to become facilitators and equip them to train others on their team to assume facilitation responsibilities (see Appendix B for an example of a Facilitator Training agenda). The first Facilitator Training was conducted in January 1999 at the SEDL offices at which at least two members from each Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 site attended. These trained facilitators also attended a refresher workshop in October 1999 to help them improve their skills and assess their progress. A second Facilitator Training was held in September 1999 for another 2-3 members in the Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 sites who had not been previously trained and an equal amount of members from the Cohort 3 sites. The trained CAT facilitators from all three of the cohorts participated in follow-up trainings in March 2000 and September 2000. SEDLs training for CAT facilitators had several goals. First, to thoroughly familiarize the participants taking on the facilitator role with the Collaborative Action Team process. For example, participants were asked to identify major elements of the process for a case study activity that required them to determine the most appropriate CAT process element to address typical issues and situations teams face. Second, to teach various group process techniques such as brainstorming, consensus building, force field analysis, use of affinity diagrams, and the use of T-charts. Each participant had an opportunity to facilitate either a group process technique or one of the training exercises under the observation and guidance of SEDL project staff. And last, to provide facilitators with the knowledge and skills necessary to train fellow team members in the use of the techniques taught in the training. Participants were provided a knowledge base and basic tools at the training to help them share the facilitation and team development responsibilities seen as necessary to effect change in their school community.  CAT Meetings An integral part of the project was the implementation of the Collaborative Action Team meetings at which home, school, community, and student representatives focused on issues important to their school community and action for improving results for students and their families. Collaborative Action Team members at the individual sites, especially the trained facilitators, were responsible for assuring meetings occurred. The steps needed to implement the team meetings included: 1) arranging the logistics for the meeting, 2) contacting team members and attending the meetings, 3) conducting the meeting, 4) following through on tasks and responsibilities, and 19 5565) evaluating the meetings. SEDL project staff provided CAT sites with assistance to help them implement team meetings, i.e., through on-site and telephone consultation, by providing written materials and other resources, and by encouraging networking among the CAT sites. Most of the Collaborative Action Teams met regularly, i.e., once a month. One or two of the 23 teams met more frequently, while a few met irregularly and less frequently. Some of the teams maintained a formal structure, i.e., met at the same time and place, provided an agenda, and kept within timeframes designated on the agenda. Other teams used their meetings as an open forum to discuss their needs and exchange information. Yet others focused directly on activities, events, and actions specific to a written plan they developed. A variety of techniques were used at the meetings to enhance team dialogue, some of which were modeled in the myriad of training SEDL project staff provided. The trained facilitators played a key role in ensuring diverse viewpoints were heard at the meeting and that all members participated. They also, along with other members of the team, were responsible for following through on assigned tasks and monitoring that others did as well. The team meetings were the primary setting in which collaboration took place. I I I I I I  2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z o Vi 2 S z Pl The Collaborative Action Team meetings were primarily evaluated in four ways\n Feedback provided by team members during team meetings  Informal discussions with team members outside of the team meetings  Contacts between the SEDL project staff and CAT members  Responses on evaluation tools developed by the SEDL project staff to assess the process. Several tools developed specifically to evaluate individual meetings were the CAT Meeting Checklist and the Collaborative Action Team Meeting Evaluation Form ^1 and Collaborative Action Team Meeting Evaluation Form #2 (see Appendix C for copies of these instruments). These evaluation tools helped teams self-evaluate after each meeting regarding how the meeting progressed and how they did, or did not, use the Collaborative Action Team process. Other evaluation tools developed for the project included the CAT Self-Assessment and the Collaborative Action Team Research Exit Survey (see Appendix C for copies of these instruments). These tools, although created to collect data regarding overall CAT process implementation and sustainability, also provided information on meeting progress. A detailed description of the evaluation process for which these tools were used and the results are provided in a later section of this report. 20 557Collaborative Action Team Materials Crowson and Boyd (1996), noting the proliferation of guides to collaboration and service coordination conclude, what the handbooks and guidelines and experiential evidence to date do not adequately provide are insights into deep structure issues in cooperating institutions (p. 139). Such issues include institutional inertia, a lack of sufficient knowledge and skills, and perceived differences in power, perspective, and belief. These issues serve as barriers to collaborative work and can lead to tensions, miscommunication, and competing agendas among members of a collaborative group as well as between the group and the community it seeks to serve (Delpit, 1995\nSchorr, 1997). SEDL project staff recognized the need for team members to have written materials to guide them in their implementation of the CAT process. T In 1998, SEDL project staff developed A Guide to Building Collaborative Action Teams in Schools and Communities, detailing the CAT process to assist sites in the development of their teams. The guide included multiple small group activities mirroring the elements of the Collaborative Action Team process. Background information on each of the elements, timelines for accomplishing the activities, and audio-visual aides were also provided. This design was used to help members build their team, plan action, and generate momentum, as well as to deal with many of the barriers known to impact collaboration. Team members at the Facilitator Training in January 1999 and those at the September 1999 training were given a copy of the guide. SEDL project staff found the use of the guide was spurious\nhowever, team members acknowledged a need for guidance materials. Some of the difficulties team members described with the material included\n Terminology that was not fully understood  An academic textbook content  Too lengthy and not user friendly. Project staff sought feedback from teams to make the materials more practical and user friendly. As a result, many changes were made and a new set of resource materials was developed and provided to teams at the 2000 CAT Institute. The new materials include the Creating Collaborative Action Teams Guide (Guide), Toolkit, and Toolkit Masters. All of these materials are, or will soon be, available on CD-ROM and in Spanish. The Guide provides information specifically on how to start-up, facilitate, and coordinate the Collaborative 21 558r I hr I Action Team and explains the CAT process, core concepts, and terms used in the process. Much of the Guide is organized around the stages of the process and provides background information and a general overview of the different steps of the process. The Toolkit serves as a companion to the Guide and contains a variety of activities and additional resources that can be used at team meetings to help members progress through the stages and steps of the process as well as additional resources. The activities each include:  Preparation and room set-up instructions  Goals and key introductory points for the session  Step-by-step instructions and estimated time  Wrap-up points  Follow-up reminders. The Toolkit Masters contains forms, handouts, transparencies, worksheets, and ideas for presentations. 2 5 X \u0026gt;z c g S 2 P5 A companion to the Creating Collaborative Action Teams Guide was also developed for rural communities, and even more specifically for the Rural Development CAT sites. Entitled, Thriving Together: Connecting Rural School Improvement and Community Development, this guide provides practical information about how to connect school and community development through such strategies as service and work-based learning. The material describes characteristics and resources important to these and other joint efforts and incorporates activities of the Collaborative Action Team process that can be used to sustain them. 1 Consultation and Technical Assistance I In addition to the initial CAT training, SEDL project staff provided ongoing consultation and technical assistance to each site with an emphasis on basic and advanced skill development to enhance the teams use of the collaborative process. Project staff observed team meetings and provided feedback, particularly to team facilitators. They visited each site at least quarterly and had additional contact more frequently with team members (most often the trained CAT facilitators) via the telephone, postal mailings, electronic mail, and videoconferences. ) \u0026gt; Several sites specifically requested SEDL project staff assist them with additional training regarding shared leadership. A one to two hour booster training was provided individually to those sites. The training focused on the strengths, needs, and barriers of the particular team and included specific 12 559 activities they could accomplish to help them fulfill their needs. A few other sites received a recharge training after they lost much of their membership and momentum and feared they might cease to exist. This training included a four to eight hour saturation on the CAT process, use of CAT materials and resources, and discussions of strategies to sustain their team and move toward accomplishing goals. As initial research findings were obtained, SEDL project staff provided each team with verbal and written data reports on their progress and areas of need in relation to their implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process. These reports included an analysis of the data, specific suggestions for team building and action planning activities, and recommendations for areas upon which their team could focus in the future. Sites in Cohorts 1 and 2 received three of these reports while Cohort 3 sites received two. A detailed description of the findings is provided later in this report. r Project-Related Activities The implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process also involved additional activities to provide information to team participants, other members of school community in which the teams are located, professionals in education and other fields of practice, and to a broader audience of persons interested in school reform. The activities included:  Presentations - given by SEDL project staff as well as by CAT members about the Collaborative Action Team process to professionals, paraprofessionals, and family and community members  Videoconferences - three events sponsored by SEDL project staff on facilitator leadership skills, resources and training topics for 21 Century Community Learning Centers, and a resource guide for rural communities  Newsletters and articles - the CAT Connections Newsletter \\Nt\\\\ch was provided to CAT sites during the first several years of the project\nthe FaCilitATor News monthly update provided to CAT facilitators on upcoming CAT events and resources available: articles in newspapers, magazines, and professional journals written by and/or about the Collaborative Action Teams  Web-based networking and information - CAT project web pages on SEDLs website\na bulletin-board and listserves for CAT members and SEDL project staff to converse: regular e-mails to CAT members including the monthly FaCilitATor News updates\nand individual CAT site web pages available to the general public 23  560. liSi : -a**  Community involvement - attendance at school board meetings and local events and provision of training for educators in the communities in which a CAT site exists  Grant writing assistance - reading potential grants being submitted by CAT sites and providing guidance\nalerting CAT sites to grant opportunities. Summary I I I I 1 Members of the school community, including family, school personnel at the local and district level, community representatives, and students, showed broad support for the implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process, verbally, in documentation, and through their participation. As has been seen in the literature, part of the empowerment of collaborative group members takes place during training (Kagan, 1991). SEDL project staff provided intensive training to team members on the CAT process and team facilitation. CAT meetings were conducted in 23 sites across the Southwestern region in which home, school, community, and student partners collaborated on issues and actions to improve results for students and their families in their school communities. CAT sites were provided on-going technical assistance and other resource assistance. SEDL project staff furnished printed and electronic materials about the Collaborative Action Team project and team development process, as well as about community development and school improvement in rural areas. Additionally, other informational activities were provided to a broader audience of persons interested in bringing about school change through the involvement of the entire school community. r I 1 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z 0 oi 2 S z pi 24 561I I I I Section 5: Research Design and Methodology SEDL conducted an applied research project using descriptive and empirical approaches to assess the implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process to improve outcomes for students. Purpose I The purpose of the research was twofold: 1) to determine if collaborative partnerships between the home, school, community, and students can be sustained in the demonstration sites as a result of the implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process and 2) to assess the impact of the process on student success. Sustainability of the CAT process was defined as Collaborative Action Teams meeting and working as a team throughout the CAT project and reporting they will continue to operate in the future for at least one year. The study gathered data about each team's activities in developing and sustaining their team as well as measures of student success, including standardized assessment scores and attendance, graduation, and dropout rates. Comparisons across CAT sites were explored. I I I I I I I I  \u0026gt; I t t ) The research also assisted the Collaborative Action Team (CAT) sites in identifying effective practices, training, and resources useful in goal attainment as well as those in need of refinement. Further, the study served to build on the limited empirical knowledge base pertaining to the use of collaborative efforts within school settings and the impact of this partnering on student success. Research Questions The objective of the CAT process was to develop and sustain meaningful partnerships between diverse participants from a school community who would take action to improve results for students and families. In order to assess the achievement of this objective, the research answered the following questions\n1) Are collaborative partnerships between the school, home and community developed and sustained as a result of the implementation of the CAT process, i.e., as measured by team progress through elements of the four stages of the CAT process and use of shared leadership and facilitator skills taught in the CAT trainings? 25 I 1 562 t) 0 d 2} Did the Collaborative Action Team process have an impact on student success, i.e., goal accomplishment, changes in student outcomes including standardized assessment scores and attendance, graduation, and dropout rates? I'J C] Cl ft 11 Instruments SEDL project staff developed a Collaborative Action Team Application Form with questions on the demographics of the site (see Appendix A). The application sought information on the: 1) critical concentration area\n2) percentage of students in the school district according to ethnicity, socioeconomic status, head of household\n3) location within an Enterprise Zone or Empowerment Community\n4) school, district, and state standardized test score averages and designation as low performing by the State Education Agency: and 5) existence of special programs and school improvement and/or previous partnership/collaborative efforts in the school/district. Further, the application asked for a response to how confident the site was that a Collaborative Action Team in their community would accomplish eight team development activities and the extent to which nine cultural climate factors exist within their community. The responses to\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_647","title":"Program evaluations, Volume III","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":["2003-03-14"],"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","School improvement programs","Educational statistics","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluations, Volume III"],"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/647"],"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\nB VOLUME III Bl received 1 4 2003 office of desegregation monitoringt. .i4 ii l.iii.i: 'U --IH' -H\n I ii i.'i ! J r 1 11 iiii Uli ii \"!: It! -:!!! ..\"Illi UI ...\"ii .....^i pii SI la 5 r fe'V  . \\ H .V ,rt' ?,?A : li* A' ,.K  1S=V * !? V 111 ill IJ-j iri ii H I'! I diii iii i lil I ' I ii I 'll' fl II I 'ilii DI ill Til II\" IN\n1 ix I I 71 J t J. * 1 i\u0026lt; PS 1 i o  I if .1  .!l i\u0026lt; P J II 'fL. E Li., P F_ - i'Ll iiiiilff E  ! o W X o w w 2 !LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: December 19, 2002 SUBJECT: Third Annual Evaluation of the Alternative Language Program (ALP), 2001-2002 Background The Board of Education reviewed in fall 2000 and in fall 2001 the evaluations of the Alternative Language Program (ALP) for limited-English proficient (LEP) students for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. These were brought back to the Board for formal approval, in compliance with Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy \" in November 2002. s Officials at the Office for Civil Rights in Dallas had high praise for the 2000-2001 program evaluation and requested our permission to share it with other districts in the five-state region. They also requested that the LRSD team be available to conduct workshops for other districts in how to develop a qualitv program evaluation. The 2001-2002 program evaluation was developed, for the most part, according to the procedural guidelines outlined in Administrative Regulations IL-R adopted by the Board of Education in October 2002. The background information required by Judge Wilson in his Compliance Remedy can be found as follows\n1. Steps that have been taken to implement the recommendations for improvement from prior program evaluationssee pp. 49-53. 2. Names of administrators involved in the program evaluationsee cover page for the names of team members\nalso see p. 19. I 1006 I J Third Annual Evaluation of the Alternative Language Program - Board Memo December 19, 2002 Page Two h IT 3. Name and qualifications of the external expert who served on the evaluation teamsee pp. 18-19. 4. Grade-level descriptions of teaphers who were involved in the assessment processsee p. 19. The ALP is not, of course, relevant to Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan since it does not address the academic achievement of African American students. It is required annually, nevertheless, as a part of the District's voluntary Commitment to Resolve with the Office for Civil Rights (signed in September 1999). An outline of the eight sections of the report follows: Section I: Introduction The first section includes the introduction, an outline of the Districts program goals and objectives, a delineation of the research questions for the study, a description of methodologies, the evaluation focus, a list of assessments used to gather academic data, and an outline of the sections in the study. It also includes demographic data for PHLOTEs, LEPs, and FEPEs, including languages spoken, enrollment by grade level, and enrollment by school. Section II\nPolicies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance, Equity, and Effectiveness Section II includes evidence of the Districts implementation of numerous new policies, procedures, and programs to ensure compliance and quality, including cost data, all aligned with the twelve program objectives. Section III\nStudents English Language Acquisition Performance of LEP and FEPE This section includes an evaluation of the effectiveness of programs that develop students English language arts skills. Section IV: Content Area Knowledge and Skills of LEP and FEPE Students This section evaluates LEP and FEPE students progress in attaining content area knowledge and skills. 1007 1 z o z i 9 O X SThird Annual Evaluation of the Alternative Language Program - Board Memo December 19, 2002 Page Three ri Section V\nPerformance of LEP and FEPE Students in Advanced Courses This section evaluates LEP and FEPE student performance in high school Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and University Studies courses. Section VI: Monitoring the Progress of Fluent English Proficient Exited Students (FEPEs) This section is a cohort study of the academic achievement of students who exited the ALP in 1999-2000 with an analysis of all the available assessment data on those specific students through 2001-2002. Section VII: Behavioral Performance Indicators of LEP and PEPE Students This section evaluates LEP and FEPE students performance in relation to attendance, retention, discipline and suspension, dropout, and graduation rates. Section VIII: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations This section summarizes the key findings for each of the research questions, draws general conclusions on the academic and behavioral performance of LEP and FEPE students, and makes recommendations for program improvement in 2002-2003. s S 5- I This evaluation includes two important new sections. Section V provides data on those LEP students and students exited from the Alternative Language Program (FEPEs) enrolled in advanced high school courses (Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and University Studies). Section VI provides a three-year analysis of the academic progress of students who exited the Alternative Language Program in 1999-2000. In order to meet the requirements of federal, state, and local expectations, the evaluation addresses seven research questions, as follows: Program Implementation 1. Has the District implemented appropriate policies, procedures, and programs to comply with federal law, the Commitment to Resolve with OCR, the Arkansas Department of Education, and local LRSD policy? What has been the cost of implementing this program? (See Section 11.) o z oo WX I 1008 .w I Third Annual Evaluation of the Alternative Language Program - Board Memo December 19, 2002 Page Four 2. What is the evidence that LEP students have appropriate access to the range of special opportunity programs in the District, including special education, gifted/talented programs, and 504 programs? (See Section II.) 3. Has the District been successful in improving the quality of instruction through either ensuring an adequate number of ESL-endorsed teachers to serve the identified LEP students or in providing adequate training to ensure competent performance? (See Section II.) Academic Progress 4. 5. 6. 7. rs Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program making progress in acquiring reading and English language arts skills? How does their performance compare with that of the general population and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? (See Section III.) Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program making progress in learning content knowledge and skills? How does their performance compare with the general population and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? (See Section IV.) Are there LEP and FEPE students participating in the Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and University Studies courses at the secondary level? Are they being successful in those courses? (See Section V.) Are FEPE students successful in the mainstream curriculum? (See Section VI.) Behavioral Indicators 8. What are the attendance rates, retention rates, discipline/suspension rates, dropout rates, and graduation rates of identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program? How does their performance compare with the general population and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? (See Section VII.) zO o -J o pn X z X 1009 {] Third Annual Evaluation of the Alternative Language Program - Board Memo December 19, 2002 Page Five Section I includes several sets of demographic data so that the reader can understand who the children are who are served in the ALP and which schools they attend. The final chapter. Section VIII, is a summary of all previous sections, including key findings, conclusions, and recommendations for program improvement. Intermediate chapters include descriptions of the available data that address the various research questions. Upon the Boards approval of this study, it will be forwarded to the Office for Civil Rights in Dallas for their review, and it will be submitted to Judge Wilson as a part of the District's compliance report for Section 2.7.1. Fiscal Impact None. Recommendation That the Board of Education review and formally approve the 2001-2002 evaluation of the Alternative Language Program. z BAL/adg .K oz o O X z 1010 ft r The Third Annual Program Evaluation Alternative Language Program (ALP) Little Rock School District 2001-2002 December 2002 rjL. i X Prepared by Dr. Eddie Williams-McCoy Dr. Ed Williams Karen Broadnax Ken Sa /age Anita Gilliam Dr. Bonnie Lesley Mark Vasquez, Consultant Division of Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/447-3320 www.lrsd.orq oz 5e o Pl X If n z w I 1011 Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction and Background Background 1 Alternative Language Program (ALP) Goals and Objectives 1-2 Demographic Data 3 Background Information on the PHLOTE Students in the District 3 Top Ten Languages of PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE Students PHLOTE Students by Language Table 1\nTop Ten Languages, PHLOTE Comparison LEP Students by Language Table 2: Top Ten Languages, LEP Comparison FEPE Students by Language Table 3: Top Four Languages, FEPE Comparison 3 3-4 4 4-6 6 6-7 7 Grade Level Distribution of PHLOTE Students Table 4: Grade Level Distribution of PHLOTE Students Comparison 7-8 8 z Grade Level Distribution by LEP and FEPE Students Table 5: Grade Level Distribution by LEP and FEPE Students Comparison 8-9 9 Elementary School Enrollments by PHLOTE. LEP. and FEPE Changes in Former Newcomer Center Enrollments Magnet School Enrollments Highest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Elementary School Lowest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Elementary School Lowest LEP Student Enrollments by Elementary School Table 6: Elementary Schools Enrollment by PHLOTE. LEP, and FEPE Comparison 9-10 9-10 10 10 11 11 11-12 Secondary School Enrollments by PHLOTE, LEP. and FEPE Changes in Secondary Newcomer Center Enrollments Magnet School Enrollment Highest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Secondary School Lowest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Secondary School Lowest LEP Student Enrollments by Secondary School Table 7: Secondary Enrollment by PHLOTE, LEP. and FEPE Comparison 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 zO S8 o o Xm nz 1 1012 Highest Enrollment by LEP and FEPE Table 8: School Enrollment by LEP and FEPE Schools Identified for Improvement under No Child Left Behind\" Exiting the School Improvement Designation Table 9\nSchools Identified for Improvement Methodology Interpretation of Assessment Results Evaluation Design and Focus Assessments Research Questions Program Evaluation Outline 14-15 15 15-17 16-17 17 17-18 18 18-19 20 n 20-21 21-22 Section II: Policies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance, Equity, and Effectiveness Policy, Procedural, and Program Changes ESL Program Administrative Handbook Program Objective 1: To implement and maintain consistent procedures for student identification processes. Program Objective 2: To assess all students who have a primary home language other than English (PHLOTE), regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. Assessment Timelines Program Objective 3: To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for entry and placement into an ESL program. Student Assignment Program Objective 4: To diagnose student needs and provide appropriate ESL standards/benchmarks, instruction, and assessments to meet identified students individual needs for English-language instruction, for understandable instruction in other content areas, and for positive self-concept and identification with personal/family cultural heritages. Definition of the LRSD ALP Curriculum Standards and Benchmarks 23 24 n 24-25 25-26 26 26-29 27 29-35 29 30-31 ii nr K K 101Assessments ESL InstructionElementary Schools ESL InstructionMiddle Schools Middle School Newcomer Centers ESL InstructionHigh Schools High School Newcomer Center No Child Left Behind Requirements Program Objective 5: To hire, train, and continually develop highly motivated, sensitive, and caring ESL teachers and other staff to provide effective ESL instruction, interact one-to-one with the identified students and their families, and serve as liaisons between school and relevant community. Program Objective 6\nTo provide appropriately aligned instructional materials. Program Objective 7: To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for exit from an ESL program. Program Objective 8: To provide for parental/family involvement in the school setting to support improved student learning. Program Objective 9\nTo provide equitable access to other district programs and services, including special education and gifted/ talented education and all procedural safeguards. Special Education Special Education (LEP and FEPE) by Grade Levels Table 1: Special Education (LEP and FEPE) by Grade Level Comparison 504 LEP and FEPE Students Table 2\nLEP and FEPE Students Receiving 504 Services Gifted and Talented (LEP and FEPE) Students Gifted and Talented (LEP and FEPE) by Grade Levels Table 3: Gifted and Talented (LEP and FEPE) Comparison Program Objective 10: To monitor the progress of all identified students during program participation and after program exit and to reclassify students as needed. Students Who Exited the ALP Prior to the 2001-2002 School Year 31 31-32 32-33 33 33-34 34 34 35-37 38 38-39 39-40 40-46 40 40-41 41-42 42-43 42 43-44 44-45 45 46-48 47 III z 1014 t Table 4: All Students Exited Prior to the 2001-2002 School Year Comparison k 48 Program Objective 11: To evaluate the ESL program and make program modifications as needed. 49-53 Program Objective 12: To maintain accurate and useful student records, including procedural safeguards. 53-54 Program Costs 55 Section III: English Acquisition by LEP and FEPE Students k Developmental Reading Assessment, Grades K-2 56-57 Performance of Kindergarten LEP Students Overall Performance of Kindergarten LEP Students Table 1: Overall Performance of Kindergarten LEP Students Kindergarten LEP Students, Spring 2001 and Spring 2002 Comparison Table 2: Kindergarten LEP Students 57-59 57-58 58 58-59 59 Performance of First Grade LEP Students Overall Performance of First Grade LEP Students Table 3: Overall Performance of First Grade LEP Students First Grade LEP Students, Spring 2001 and Spring 2002 Comparison Table 4: First Grade LEP Students 59-60 59-60 60 60 60 Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students Overall Performance of Second Grade LEP Students Performance of Second Grade LEP Students Performance of Second Grade FEPE Students Table 5: Overall Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students 61-62 61 61 61 62 Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students, Spring 2001 and Spring 2002 Comparison Performance of LEP Students Performance of FEPE Students Table 6: Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students 62 62 62 63 k iv 101Achievement Level Test 63 Achievement Level Test Data Interpretation for LEP and FEPE Students 63 Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Second Grade LEP Students Performance of Second Grade FEPE Students Table 7: Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 64 64 64 64 Performance of Third Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Third Grade LEP Students Performance of Third Grade FEPE Students Table 8: Performance of Third Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 65-66 65 65 66 Performance of Fourth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Fourth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fourth Grade FEPE Students Table 9: Performance of Fourth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 66-67 66 67 67 Performance of Fifth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Fifth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fifth Grade FEPE Students Table 10: Performance of Fifth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 67-69 68 68-69 69 Performance of Sixth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Sixth Grade LEP Students Performance of Sixth Grade FEPE Students Table 11: Performance of Sixth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 69-70 69 70 70 Performance of Seventh Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Seventh Grade LEP Students Performance of Seventh Grade FEPE Students fable 12: Performance of Seventh Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 70-72 71 71 72 V z 1016 Performance of Eighth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Eighth Grade LEP Students 72-73 72 k Performance of Eighth Grade FEPE Students Table 13: Performance of Eighth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 72-73 73 Performance of Ninth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Ninth Grade LEP Students Performance of Ninth Grade FEPE Students Table 14: Performance of Ninth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 73-74 73 74 74 Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Second Grade LEP Students Performance of Second Grade FEPE Students Table 15: Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 74-75 75 75 75 Performance of Third Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Third Grade LEP Students Performance of Third Grade FEPE Students Table 16\nPerformance of Third Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 75-76 75-76 76 76 Performance of Fourth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Fourth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fourth Grade FEPE Students Table 17\nPerformance of Fourth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 76-78 77 77-78 78 Performance of Fifth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Fifth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fifth Grade FEPE Students Table 18\nPerformance of Fifth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 78-79 78-79 79 79 k Performance of Sixth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language 79-81 R vi R 101Performance of Sixth Grade LEP Students Performance of Sixth Grade FEPE Students Table 19: Performance of Sixth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 80 80 81 Performance of Seventh Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Seventh Grade LEP Students Performance of Seventh Grade FEPE Students Table 20: Performance of Seventh Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 81-82 81 81-82 82 Performance of Eighth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Eighth Grade LEP Students Performance of Eighth Grade FEPE Students Table 21: Performance of Eighth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 82-83 82-83 83 83 Performance of Ninth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Ninth Grade LEP Students Performance of Ninth Grade FEPE Students Table 22: Performance of Ninth Grade LEP and FEPE Students. ALT Language 83-85 84 84 85 Stanford Achievement Test SeriesNinth Edition (SAT9) Report by Scaled and NCE Scores 85-86 SAT9Total ReadingGrade 5 Performance of Fifth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fifth Grade FEPE Students Table 23: SAT9 Total Reading, Grade 5 86-87 86-87 87 87 SATOTotal ReadingGrade 7 Performance of Seventh Grade LEP Students Performance of Seventh Grade FEPE Students Table 24\nSAT9 Total Reading, Grade 7 88-89 88 88-89 89 SAT9Total ReadingGrade 10 Performance of Tenth Grade LEP Students Performance of Tenth Grade FEPE Students Table 25: SAT9 Total Reading, Grade 10 89-90 89-90 90 90 SAT9Total LanguageGrade 5 Performance of Fifth Grade LEP Students 90-91 90-91 vii 1018 zo OO pr X 5 X Performance of Fifth Grade FEPE Students Table 26: SAT9 Total Language, Grade 5 91 91 k k SAT9Total LanguageGrade 7 Performance of Seventh Grade LEP Students Performance of Seventh Grade FEPE Students Table 27: SAT9 Total Language, Grade 7 92-93 92 92 93 k SAT9Total LanguageGrade 10 Performance of Tenth Grade LEP Students Performance of Tenth Grade FEPE Students Table 28: SAT9 Total Language, Grade 10 93-94 93 93 94 k Arkansas Benchmark Examinations 94-95 k Performance Level Definitions 95 Primary (Grade 4) Benchmark ExaminationLiteracy Performance of LEP and FEPE Students Table 29\nPrimary (Grade 4) Benchmark ExaminationLiteracy 96 96 96 k Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark ExaminationLiteracy Performance of LEP and FEPE Students Table 30\nIntermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark ExaminationLiteracy 97 97 97 Middle Level (Grade 8) Benchmark ExaminationLiteracy Performance of LEP and FEPE Students Table 31: Middle Level (Grade 8) Benchmark ExaminationLiteracy 97-98 98 98 End-of-Level ExaminationLiteracy (Grade 11) Performance of 11 Grade LEP and FEPE Students Table 32\nEnd-of-Level ExaminationLiteracy (Grade 11) 98-99 98 99 Section IV: Content Area Knowledge and Skills of LEP and FEPE Students  Achievement Level Tests\nElementary Mathematics (Grades 2-5) 100 R viii 103 i|'i i Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Second Grade LEP Students Performance of Second Grade FEPE Students Table 1\nPerformance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics Performance of Third Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Third Grade LEP Students Performance of Third Grade FEPE Students Table 2: Performance of Third Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics Performance of Fourth Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Fourth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fourth Grade FEPE Students Table 3: Performance of Fourth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics Performance of Fifth Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Fifth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fifth Grade FEPE Students Table 4: Performance of Fifth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics Achievement Level Test: Middle School Mathematics (Grades 6-8) Performance of Sixth Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Sixth Grade LEP Students Performance of Sixth Grade FEPE Students Table 5: Performance of Sixth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics Performance of Seventh Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Seventh Grade LEP Students Performance of Seventh Grade FEPE Students Table 6\nPerformance of Seventh Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics Performance of Eighth Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Eighth Grade LEP Students Performance of Eighth Grade FEPE Students Table 7: Performance of Eighth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics 100-101 100 100-101 101 101-102 101 102 102 102-104 103 103 104 104-105 104 105 105 105 105-106 105-106 106 106 107-108 107 107-108 108 108-109 108 108-109 109 IX s 1020 Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition, Mathematics 109 SATOTotal MathematicsGrade 5 Performance of Fifth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fifth Grade FEPE Students Table 8: SATO Total Mathematics, Grade 5 109-110 109-110 110 110-111 SAT9Total MathematicsGrade 7 Performance of Seventh Grade LEP Students Performance of Seventh Grade FEPE Students Table 9\nSAT9 Total Mathematics, Grade 7 111-112 111 111-112 112 SAT9Total MathematicsGrade 10 Performance of Tenth Grade LEP Students Performance of Tenth Grade FEPE Students Table 10\nSAT9 Total Mathematics, Grade 10 112-113 112-113 113 113 Primary (Grade 4) Benchmark ExaminationMathematics Performance of LEP and FEPE Students Table 11\nPrimary (Grade 4) Benchmark ExaminationMathematics 113-114 113-114 114 Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark ExaminationMathematics Performance of LEP and FEPE Students Table 12: Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark ExaminationMathematics 114-115 114-115 115 Middle Level (Grade 8) Benchmark ExaminationMathematics Performance of LEP and FEPE Students Table 13\nMiddle Level (Grade 8) Benchmark ExaminationMathematics 115-116 115 116 Arkansas End-of-Course Examinations\nAlgebra I and Geometry Performance of LEP and FEPE StudentsAlgebra I Performance of LEP and FEPE StudentsGeometry Table 14: End-of-Course Examinations (Algebra I and Geometry) 116-117 116 116 117 X - 102(i Section V: Performance of LEP and FEPE Students in Advanced Courses Pre-Advanced Placement Courses, Grades 9-12 English I Pre-AP Performance of Ninth Grade LEP Students Performance of Ninth Grade FEPE Students Table 1: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in English I Pre-AP English I Workshop Pre-AP Table 2: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in English I Workshop Pre-AP English II Pre-AP Table 3: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in English II Pre-AP English III Pre-AP Performance of Eleventh Grade FEPE Student Table 4\nGrade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in English III Pre-AP Algebra I Pre-AP Table 5: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in Algebra I Pre-AP Algebra II Pre-AP Table 6\nGrade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in Algebra II Pre-AP Geometry Pre-AP Trigonometry/Advanced Algebra Pre-AP Physics I Pre-AP Table 7: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in Physics I Pre-AP Biology I Pre-AP Table 8: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in Biology I Pre-AP Chemistry I Pre-AP 118-127 118-119 119 119 119 119-120 120 121 121 121-122 122 122 122-123 123 123-124 124 124 124 124-125 125 125-126 126 126 XI 1022 X I zO 5 o o w X P5 z r e*5 Civics Pre-AP Table 9: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in Civics Pre-AP 126-127 127 H Advanced Placement Courses English IV AP Performance of LEP Student Table 10: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in English IV AP 128-134 128 128 128 Statistics AP 128-129 Calculus BC AP 129 Physics III AP 129  Biology II AP 129 Environmental Science AP 129-130 Economics AP 130 United States History AP 130-131 World History AP 131 Spanish IV AP Table 11: Spanish IV AP 131-132 132 Spanish V AP Table 12: Spanish V AP 132-133 133  Spanish VI AP Table 13: Spanish VI AP 133-134 134 University Studies Courses (Hall High School) English IV U Physics I Pre-AP U 134-135 134 134-135 Section VI: Monitoring the Academic Progress of FEPE Students f Longitudinal Study: Monitoring FEPE Students 136 XU 104 Students Exited from the Table T. Students ALP During 1999-2000 Exited from the ALr 136-137 137 137-138 Cohort 1 Table 2\nsecond Grade FEPE Students' 138 ?fW3  A^ Scores for Second Grade (Spring 2001) and Third Grade (Spring 2002) 138 '^*'\"Table 4\nALT\nThree-Year Analysis 138-139 139 Cohort 3 Table 5\nGrade 4 Benchmark Examination 139-140 140 Cohort 4 Table 6\nGrade 4 Benchmark Examination Table 7- SAT9 Scores Table 8\nALT\nThree-Year Analysis 140-141 140 141 141 ^\\^ble9\nALT: Three-Year Analysis 141-142 142 ^^\\^ble10\nSAT9 Scores jSSn: Z?T: Three-Year Anatysts 142 143 143 '^'''rable 12: ALT\nThree-Year Analysis 143-144 144 Cohort 8 a--Analysis 8 Benchmark Examination 144 144 145 '^Tabl.lS: AET: Three-Year Analysis 145-146 146 Cohort 10 Table 16\nALT\nThree-Year Analysis 146 147 147 Summary xiii z 1024 -I V Section VII: Behavioral Performance Indicators of LEP and FEPE Students Attendance for LEP and FEPE Students for the 2001-2002 School Year LEP Attendance FEPE Attendance Table 1: Attendance for LEP and FEPE Students 148-149 148-149 149 149 I I Discipline and Suspension for LEP and FEPE Students LEP Students FEPE Students Table 2: Discipline and Suspension for LEP and FEPE Students, 2000-2001 Table 3\nDiscipline and Suspension for LEP and FEPE Students, 2001-2002 Retention of LEP and FEPE Students Table 4: Retention for LEP and FEPE Students Dropout Data for LEP and FEPE Students Graduation Rates for LEP and FEPE Students Table 5: Graduation Rates for LEP and FEPE Section VIII: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations Section I Summary: Introduction and Background Enrollment Languages Spoken Grade-Level Distribution Former Newcomer Center School Enrollments Elementary Magnet School Enrollment Elementary School Enrollments Secondary Newcomer Center School Enrollments Secondary Magnet School Enrollments Secondary School Enrollments Schools Identified for School Improvement under No Child Left Behind 150-151 150 150 150 151 151-152 152 152 152-153 153 154-156 154 154 154-155 155 155 155 155 155 155 156 XIV 102 II Section II Summary: Policies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance, Equity, and Effectiveness Policies, Procedures, and Programs Compliance Access to Special Opportunity Programs Qualified Teachers for LEP Students 156-158 156-157 157-158 158 o r Section III Summary: English Acquisition by LEP and FEPE Students 158-169 Key Findings and ConclusionsLEPs Grades K-2 LEPs Grades K-2 ConclusionsLEPs Grade 3 LEPs Grade 4 LEPs Grade 5 LEPs Grades 3-5 ConclusionsLEPs Grade 6 LEPs Grade 7 LEPs Grade 8 LEPs Grades 6-8 Conclusions-LEPs Grade 9 LEPs Grade 10 LEPs Grade 11 LEPs Grades 9-12 Conclusions-LEPs 158 158-159 159-160 160-161 161 161 162 162 162-163 163 163-164 164 164 164 164-165 s Key Findings and ConclusionsFEPEs Grades K-2 FEPEs Grade 3 FEPEs Grade 4 FEPEs Grade 5 FEPEs Grades K-5 ConclusionsFEPEs Grade 6 FEPEs Grade 7 FEPEs Grade 8 FEPEs Grades 6-8 ConclusionsFEPEs Grade 9 FEPEs Grade 10 FEPEs Grade 11 FEPEs Grades 9-12 ConclusionsFEPEs 165 165 165 165-166 166 166 167 167 167-168 168 168 168 169 169 Section IV Summary: Content Area Knowledge and Skills of LEP and FEPE Students 169-173 o z 90 O O X z XV 1026 JKey Findings and ConclusionsLEPs Grade 2 LEPs Grade 3 LEPs Grade 4 LEPs Grade 5 LEPs Grades 2-5 ConclusionsMathematicsLEPs Grade 6 LEPs Grade 7 LEPs Grade 8 LEPs Grade 6-8 ConclusionsMathematicsLEPs Grade 10 LEPs High School LEPs High School ConclusionsMathematicsLEPs 169 169 169 169-170 170 170 170 170-171 171 171 171 171 172 Key Findings and ConclusionsFEPEs Grade 2 FEPEs Grade 3 FEPEs Grade 4 FEPEs Grade 5 FEPEs Grades 2-5 ConclusionsMathematics-FEPEs Grade 6 FEPEs Grade 7 FEPEs Grade 8 FEPEs Grades 6-8 ConclusionsMathematicsFEPEs Grade 10 FEPEs High School FEPEs High School ConclusionsMathematicsFEPEs 172 172 172 172 172 172-173 173 173 173 173 173 174 174 Section V Summary: Performance of LEP and FEPE Students in Advanced Courses 174-175 Pre-Advanced Placement Courses Advanced Placement Courses University Studies Courses Conclusions 174 174-175 175 175 Section Vl Summary: Monitoring the Academic Progress of FEPE Students 175-177 Key Findings and Conclusions by Cohort 176  Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3 176 176 176 XVI 102'Cohort 4 Cohort 5 Cohort 6 Cohort 7 Cohort 8 Cohort 9 Cohort 10 Conclusions Section VMSumma^ Behavioral Performance Indicators of LEP and FEPE Students Key Findings and Conclusions trp\u0026amp;n^ Suspension LEP Retentions LEP Dropouts LEP Graduation Rates ConclusionsLEi^s Key Findings and Conclusion FEPE Attendance jon FEPE Discipline and t\u0026gt;u p FEPE Retentions FEPE Dropouts FEPE Graduation Rates Conclusions-FEPEs Recommendations for Program Improvement 176 176 176 177 177 177 177 177 178-181 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 179 179 179 179 179 179-181 xvii 1028 n r o \"Z. o O n XS rr z. X Third Annual Evaluation of the Little Rock School Districts Alternative Language Program, 2001-2002 Section 1\nIntroduction and Background Backqround This third annual evaluation of the Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) Alternative Language Program (ALP) builds on the information provided in the two earlier reports that were submitted to the Board of Education in August of 2000 and November 2001 and then to the Dallas office of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). This 2001-2002 study is a part of the LRSDs continuing efforts to meet the requirements outlined in the LRSDs Commitment to Resolve (CTR) agreement with OCR of September 1999, to comply with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and to meet both the expectations of the Arkansas Department of Education and the LRSD Board of Education. As a follow-up to the CTR, the LRSD Board of Education adopted in November 1999 Policy IHBEA: English as a Second Language. Among its requirements was an annual program evaluation. Specific procedures were delineated in the administrative regulations (IHBEA-R) also adopted in 1999 and amended in November 2001. r K This report is also in compliance with Board Policy IL: Evaluation of Instructional Programs, adopted in March 2001, that requires program evaluations to include \"valuable insights into how programs are operating, the extent to which they are serving the intended purpose of increasing student achievement, the strengths and weaknesses, the cost effectiveness, and directions for the future. Alternative Lanquaqe Program (ALP) Goals and Objectives ALP goals and objectives were established in administrative regulations IHBEA-R in 1999 and have not been revised. The two goals are as follows: 1. To enable identified students to master English language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and comprehension/understanding) and content area concepts and skills so that the students are able to participate effectively in the regular program as quickly as possible. 2. To provide identified students with the cultural literacy necessary for them to feel comfortable in participating in the school, community, and greater community. R To reach those goals, the District also established twelve program objectives in IHBEA-R in 1999-2000. Each one addressed a policy, procedure, or program requirement mandated by federal, state, and/or local governance bodies. They are as follows: R R I 1 102 1, 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. To implement and maintain consistent procedures for student identification processes. To assess all students who have a primary home language other than English (PHLOTE), regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for entry and placement into an ESL program. To diagnose student needs and provide appropriate ESL standards/ benchmarks, instruction, and assessments to meet identified students individual needs for English-language instruction, for understandable instruction in other content areas, and for positive self-concept and identification with personal/family cultural heritages. To hire, train, and continually develop highly motivated, sensitive, and caring ESL teachers and other staff to provide effective ESL instruction, interact one-to-one with the identified students and their families, and serve as liaisons between school and relevant community. To provide appropriately aligned instructional materials. To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for exit from an ESL program. To provide for parental/family involvement in the school setting to support improved learning. 9. To provide equitable access to other district programs and services, including special education and gifted/talented education and all procedural safeguards. 10. To monitor the progress of all identified students during program participation and after program exit and to reclassify students as needed. 11 .To evaluate the ESL program and make program modifications as needed. 12.To maintain accurate and useful student records, including procedural safeguards. 9 z 1030 o Demographic Data Important to an understanding of this program evaluation is an understanding of who the students are whose performance is being analyzedtheir language communities, their enrollment by grade level, and their enrollment by school. The following tables display the demographic data of the umbrella group of students examined in this program evaluation, as well as the two most critical sub-groups. k PHLOTE students are the umbrella group of all students, regardless of English- language fluency, whose primary home language is other than English. (In Arkansas those students are referred to as LMS or Language Minority Students.) Demographic data include the numbers of students classified as PHLOTE, in addition to those in each of two sub-groups, limited-English proficient (LEP) and fluent-English proficientexited (FEPE), as well as the language communities which they represent. Background Information on the PHLOTE Students in the District There were 985 PHLOTE students in the District during the 2001-2002 school year. In 1999-2000 there were 805 PHLOTE students in LRSD. The 2001-2002 enrollment represents a two-year increase of 180 students (or 22 percent).  Of that number, 632 (or 64 percent) were Limited English Proficient (LEP). In 1999-2000 there were 467 LEP students. The 2001-02 enrollment represents an increase of 165 LEP students (or 35 percent) in two years.  Of that number, 94 (or 9.5 percent) were Fluent English Proficient Exited (FEPE). The 1999-2000 FEPE enrollment was 25. The 2001-2002 enrollment represents an increase of 69 FEPE students (or 276 percent) over two years. (The 1999-2000 data are found on page 11 of the Program Evaluation for English as a Second Language, 1999-2000.) Top Ten Languages of PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE Students PHLOTE Students by Language The total number of PHLOTE students in the Little Rock School District remained approximately the same from 2000-2001 to 2001-2002from 989 to 985, a decrease of four students. The 985 PHLOTE students in the Little Rock School District during 2001-2002 represented 45 different languages. Table I displays a comparison of the top ten largest non-English languages in the District for the 2000 -2001 and 2001-2002 school years among PHLOTE students. The N for each school year is the total enrollment of PHLOTE students in each language group. The %\" column is the calculation of N divided by the total PHLOTE enrollment in the District for that school year. 3  103:The next-to-last row in the table shows the number of students represented in the most common language groups and the percent of the total PHLOTE population that they represent. The last row provides the total PHLOTE enrollment for each year. n According to the table, 631 (or 64 percent) of the PHLOTE students in 2001- 2002 spoke Spanish, the largest non-English speaking group in the District. Chinese-speaking students (6.5 percent) represented the next largest group. The top ten language groups represented 88 percent of the total PHLOTE population. The Spanish-speaking population increased by 37 students from 2000-2001 to 2001-2002. The number of Chinese-speaking students decreased by nine, and the number of Urdu-speaking students increased by six, moving from sixth place to third place in the Top Ten Languages. Table 1 Top Ten Languages, PHLOTE Comparison 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 1 ( PHLOTE Student 2000-2001 School Year 2001-2002 School Year I N N % % 1. Spanish 2. Chinese I 594 60.1 3. Korean 4. Vietnamese 5. Arabic 6. Urdu 7. Telugu 8. Russian 9. Assyrian 10. Hindi Persian ' Total of Top Ten ' t otal PHLOTE Enroll 73 I Ti r 7.4 3.1 29 25 22 20 15 13 12 12 I 846 989 2.9 2.5 2.2 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 86% 100% 1. Spanish 1. Chinese 2. Urdu 3. Vietnamese 4. Telugu 5. Korean 6. Hindi 7. Arabic Russian 8. Persian 9. Assyrian Tagalog Total of Top Ten j 631 64 28 27 18 17 16 14 14 12 11 11 863 64.1 6.5 1 2.8 I 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.1 88% Total PHLOTE Enroll | 985 100% I I r L I I z + I I I I I I I I I I + I I 1 J LEP Students by Language The total number of LEP students in the Little Rock School District increased by 12 in 2001-2002 over the 2000-2001 school year. There were 632 LEP 4 1032 o z J8 o o X w z n Jstudents in the Little Rock School District during 2001-2002, representing 34 different languages. k Table 2 displays the most commonly spoken languages by LEP students in the Little Rock School District. The N\" for each school year is the total enrollment of LEP students in each language group. The \"% column is the calculation of N divided by the total LEP enrollment in the District forthat school year. The next-to-last row in the table shows the number of students represented in the most common language groups and the percent of the total LEP population that they represent. The last row provides the total LEP enrollment for each year. In this case the percent column is the calculation of what percentage the LEP population is of the total PHLOTE population (see Table 1). k k According to Table 2, approximately 75 percent of the LEP students spoke Spanish, the largest non-English speaking group in the District. Chinesespeaking students (4 percent) represented the next largest LEP group. Twelve (or 1.9 percent) of the LEP population spoke Urdu. The top ten language groups of LEP students represented approximately 95 percent of the total LEP population.  The number of LEP students in the District increased by 12.  The number of Spanish-speaking LEP students increased by 30  The number of Chinese-speaking LEP students declined by eight.  The number of Urdu speaking LEP students increased by four. k  The LEP enrollment has constituted about 64 percent of the PHLOTE enrollment over the past two years.  Approximately 95 percent of all LEP students in the LRSD speak 16 languages. 5 R 1032000-2001 School Year LEP Students r I! Table 2 Top Ten Languages, LEP Comparison 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 N _______i 2001-2002 School Year j % I LEP Students N i % 1. Spanish 2. Chinese 3. Arabic Korean 4. Telugu 5. Assyrian Urdu 6. Vietnamese 7. Persian 8. Igbo 9. Russian 10. Greek Gujarati Hindi Laotian Swahili Total of Top Ten LEP Total LEP Enrollment i 441 I i - I 36 17 17 13 8 8 7 6 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 582 620 71.1 5.8 2.7 2.7 2.1 1.3 1.3 I i 0.8 j 0?6 0.6 0.6 0.6 I 0.6 i ! 0-6 1 1. Spanish 2. Chinese 3. Urdu 4. Korean Telugu 5. Vietnamese 6. Hindi Russian 7. Arabic Persian 8. Assyrian Igbo 9. Japanese 10. Gujarati Laotian Swahili 471  I 74.5 4.4 I iI 12 , 1.9 I 10 I 1.6 I 10 ! 1.6 I 9 1.4 8 j 1.3 i 8 i 1.3 i 1 I 1.1 ! ! 7 i 1.1 6 i 0.9 ! 6 i 5 I I 4 4 4 94% j Total of Top Ten LEP 599 I 63% Ii Total LEP Enrollment , 632 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.7 95% 64% FEPE Students by Language There were 94 FEPE students in the Little Rock School District during 2001-2002 school year, representing 17 different languages. Sixty-two (or 66 percent) of the FEPE student population spoke Spanish, the largest non-English speaking group in the District. Chinese-speaking students (11.7 percent) represented the next largest FEPE group.  The number of FEPE students increased by 47.  The number of Spanish-speaking FEPE students increased by 48. 6 rj z 1034  The number of Chinese-speaking FEPE students increased by eight.  FEPEs made up 10 percent of the PHLOTE population in 2001-2002.  Approximately 90 percent of the FEPE students came from seven language communities. Table 3 Top Four Languages, FEPE Comparison 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 2000-2001 School Year 2001-2002 School Year FEPE Students FEPE Students 1. Spanish 2. Chinese 3. Slovak Portuguese Pakistani Arabic Mandarin 14 29.7 6.4 2.1 2.1 2.1 i 2-1 ! 1 2.1 1. Spanish 2. Chinese 3. Arabic Indonesian 4. Assyrian Portuguese Telugu % j 66.0 i i 3.2 j 31 2.1 2.4 2.4 N 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 % N i j I  I 11-7 ! 3 I 3 2 2 2 I Laotian 2.1 FEPE Top Four Total FEPEs 23 49% FEPE Top Four 85 90% I 47 J__ 5% Total FEPEs 94 10% Grade Level Distribution of PHLOTE Students Table 4 provides the PHLOTE enrollment by grade level and the percentage of the total PHLOTE enrollment by grade level.  Second-grade and kindergarten had the highest enrollment of PHLOTE students during the 2001-2002 school year, with percentages of 11.1 and 10.2, respectively.  The most one-year growth was in grade 2 (+21) and grade 5 (+21).  The eleventh and twelfth grade had the lowest enrollment of PHLOTE students with percentages of 2.9 and 3.0, respectively.  Overall, the PHLOTE enrollment for the 2001-2002 school year was less than the PHLOTE enrollment for the 2000-2001 school year by four students. 7 103 Table 4 Grade Level Distribution of PHLOTE Students Comparison 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 j Grade Ppk j Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 j Grade 3 i Grade 4 ' Grade 5 i Grade 6 ! Grade 7 ! Grade 8 ' Grade 9 ! Grade 10 I Grade 11 I Grade 12 Total PHLOTE 2000-2001 2001-2002 DIF N 47 4.8 [ 38 3.9 -9 106 100 88 96 85 68 66 59 66 72 49 39 48 989 10.7 10.1 8.8 9.7 8.6 6.9 6.7 6.0 6.7 7.3 5.0 3.9 4.9 100% 100 10.2 -6 98 9.9 -2 j 109 j 11.1 I +21 ! 89 85 89 67 63 61 68 1 59 i 30 9.0 8.6 I 9.0 I 6.4 6.2 6.9 6.0 2.9 3.0 -7 i +21 +1 ! +4 -5 [ +10 j j -10 1 985 j 100% i -4 i 1 I I I L I I I I I N I tI I i I i T % N I I I I % I i I I I I I i I 0 I 1 I I I I I I ! I X I Grade Level Distribution by LEP and FEPE Students According to Table 5, the primary grade levels, kindergarten through the third grade, had the highest enrollment of LEP students, with kindergarten having the highest enrollment (15.5 percent) in 2001-2002. The eleventh and twelfth grades had the lowest enrollment of LEP students with percentages of 1.7 and 1.9, respectively. The fourth and fifth grades had the highest enrollment of FEPE students, both with percentages of 14.9. 8 1036 oz so s -i ow X zn nr Table 5 Grade Level Distribution by LEP and FEPE Students Comparison 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 School Years LEP 2000-2001 ! FEPE 2001-2002 2000-2001 I 2001-2002 N % N % N % N % Grades I' 3 Year-Old 0.02 0 0 1 0 0 i 0 I 0 i 1 PK 44 7.1 38 6.0 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 I Total I______ 94 78 62 66 49 45 29 21 37 39 25 14 17 620 15.2 12.6 10.0 10.6 7.9 7.3 4.7 3.4 6.0 6.3 4.0 2.3 2.7 100% 98 92 86 59 53 46 33 24 20 36 23 11 12 632 15.5 14.6 13.6 9.3 8.4 7.3 5.2 3.8 3.2 5.7 3.6 1.7 1.9 100% 8.3 16.7 16.7 4.2 I 10.4 6.3 10.4 10.4 4.2 6.3 6.3 14 14 10 11 11 NA I NA NA 2.1 8.5 I 14.9 14.9 5.3 9.6 10.6 11.7 11.7 7.4 3.2 47 i 100% j 94 I 100% 0 0 0 4 8 8 2 5 3 5 5 0 0 0 j 0 i 0 2 8 I I J I 2 3 2 I 1 5 9 k I I 7 3 Elementary School Enrollments by PHLOTE. LEP, and FEPE Table 6 provides the enrollment (and percentages of the total) for PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students, by school, at the elementary level. Changes in Former Newcomer Center Enrollments In fall 2000 the District began to phase out the formerly designated elementary Newcomer Centers. The impact on enrollment in those five schools is as follows:  Bradys PHLOTE enrollment was down 6 in 2001-2002, the LEPs were down 9, and the FEPEs increased by 2.  Chicots PHLOTE enrollment was down 32 in 2001-2002, the LEPs down by 33, and the FEPEs increased by 7. 9\n-103i(I  Romines PHLOTE enrollment was down by 10 and the LEPs down by 6. Romine had no FEPE students in 2000-2001 or 2001-2002.  Terrys PHLOTE enrollment was down by 13, the LEPs down by 8, and the FEPEs up by 2.  Washingtons PHLOTE enrollment was down by 12, the LEPs down by 2, and the FEPEs up by 3. All five of the former Newcomer Centers lost some PHLOTE and LEP enrollment, Chicot the most. In general, the FEPE enrollment was up. Magnet School Enrollment The District has encouraged LEP students to exercise their option to attend one of the four stipulation elementary magnet schools in LRSD. Three of the four schools increased their enrollment during 2001-2002\n Bookers PHLOTE enrollment was up 5 and the LEPs were up 5. There are no FEPEs at this school.  Carvers PHLOTE enrollment was down 5, and the LEP enrollment was down 1. There are no FEPEs at this school.  Gibbss PHLOTE enrollment was up 3, the LEPs up 1. and the FEPEs were up 2.  Williams PHLOTE enrollment was up 7, LEPs up 5, and FEPEs up 2. Highest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Elementary School Elementary schools with the highest enrollment of PHLOTE students are follows\nas Elementary Schools  Chicot Elementary  Washington Elementary  Wakefield Elementary  Terry Elementary  Cloverdale Elementary  McDermott Elementary  Romine Elementary  Williams Elementary 83 63 55 54 43 42 36 25 10 1038 i z zo 5O8 O Xn r z Lowest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Elementary School The following elementary schools had no PHLOTEs in 2001-2002: Badgett, Fair Park, Mitchell, Rightsell, and Woodruff. Badgett was closed at the end of the 2001-2002 school year. 3 Lowest LEP Student Enrollments by Elementary School Six elementary schools had no LEP students in 2001-2002: Badgett, Fair Park, Jefferson, Mitchell, Rightsell, and Woodruff. Table 6 Elementary Schools Enrollment by PHLOTE, LEP and FEPE Comparison for the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 School Years Schools Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot I Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King (M) Mabelvale McDermott j Meadowcliff ! Mitchell 2000-2001 School Year PHLOTE N I % I 0 I NA N 0 LEP % NA FEPE 2001-2002 School Year PHLOTE 12 5 4 I 14 1.2 0.5 10 4 I .0.4 j 0 1.4 14 1.6 0.6 NA 2.3 I 21 j 2.1 I I 13 2.1 115 11.6 19 1 1. 4 8 I 100 16.1 1.9 j 14 j 2.3 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.8 I I 1-1 5 4 2 21 1 41 7 i 0 0.5 0.2 2?T i 0-1 5 3 3 0.8 0.5 0.5 3 0.5 8 N 0 2 0 % NA 4.2 NA 0 i NA 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 I I NA NA 4.2 NA NA N 0 16 6 9 8 16 83 43 14 % NA 1.6 0.6 I 0.9 0.8 1.6 I 8.3 4.4 1.4 ) NA 0 i NA NA NA 1.3 I 1 i 2.1 I I ' 8 5 13 I I I 0.5 pry] 3 I 0.5 i 2\n4.2 I 13  1.3 | 3 1 10 T 4.1 i 27 ' I 0.5 t 0 : NA I 7 LEP N I % 0 15 6 NA 2.4 0.9 5 I 0.8 I 5 12 67 39 12 0 7 3 11 11 : 0.7 I 4 0.2 ! 0 i NA I 2 : 0.2 I 0 I 1.6 I 0 , NA 1 19 i 1.9 j 13 NA T 0.8 1.9 10.6 6.2 1.9 NA 1.1 0.5 1.7 I 1-7 j 0.6 i NA FEPE I N 0 1 I % NA 1.1 0 j NA 0 2 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 I 2.1 I 1 i 0 , NA I 7 j 0.7 I 5 i 0.8 4.4 I 0\nNA i 42 4.3 ! 31 i 4.9 0.7 I 7 j 1.1 ' 0 i NA i 6 I 0.6 I 5 j NA 0 ! NA I 0 I NA I 0 , NA . ! I J 1 I 4 NA 2.1 NA 9.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.1 2.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 4?3 0.8 0 NA  0 ! NA 0 11 103?I i 2000-2001 School Year 2001-2002 School Year n ( I I Schools PHLOTE i LEP I FEPE PHLOTE LEP FEPE f otter Creek Pulaski H. Rightsell I 6 i % i 0.6 3 % I N 1^ 0.5 0 N I I NA I 10 I % 1,0 I N7 % , 1.1 N % 0 NA I 12 I 1.2 0 NA Rockefeller | 5 0.5 Romine 46 4.6 5 0 2 40 i 0.8 NA 0.3 2 4.2 0 0 NA NA 12 1.2 1 7 I 1-1 i 3 3.2 0 5 NA I I 0 3 j NA i 0 I 0.5 ! NA I 1 M.1 Stephens | Terry i Wakefield 1 7 jO.7 6 ! 6-5 I 1 1.0 ' 0 0 NA NA I j 67 I 6.8 I 46 I Washington j 75 j 7.6 | i Watson I I 7 51 I 8.2 j 4,6 ) 44 I 6.6 46 7.4 1 I 2.1 3 j 6.3 1 2.1 I 0.7 5 0.8 0 I NA 36 i Z.l I 34 , 5.4 I 0 , NA 11 1.1 I 8 i 1.3 0 i NA\nj Western H. i Williams ' Wilson : Woodruff Totals I 1 0 18 8 0 ! NA 0 i NA ! ^-8 ! 1 1 0.8 t NA 601 I1 61 1 0 4 0 0.3 0.6 I 3 54 I 5.5 j 55 1 5.6 63 10 6.4 43 i 6.8 I 3 i 3.2 i 51 44 i s-i I 3 i 3-2 i I 7.0 j 4 I 4.3 NA I 61' 0 NA I NA I 0 436 I 70 17 5 25 8 NA 35 I 0 611 1.0 0.5 i 10 4 2.5 i 1 0.8 NA 1.6 i 0 I NA i 0.6 i J 0 i NA i 1.1 i 5 ] 5.3 , 4 0 0.6 j 0 j NA z j NA j 0 I NA 62% i 474 ! 75 39 I 42 Enrollment: June 2001: PHLOTE Enrollment (990)\nLEP Enrollment (620)\nFEPE Enrollment (48)\nJune 2002: PHLOTE Enrollment (985)\nLEP Enrollment (632)\nFEPE Enrollment (94) Secondary School Enrollments by PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE Table 7 proyides the enrollment (and percentages of the total) for PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students by school at the secondary leyel. Changes in Secondary Newcomer Center Enrollments  Cloverdale Middle Schools PHLOTE enrollment went down one student, the number of LEPs remained the same, and the FEPEs increased by four.  Dunbar Middle Schools PHLOTE enrollment increased by one, the LEPs were down by 12, and the FEPEs increased by eight.  Hall High Schools PHLOTE enrollment went down by 15, the LEP enrollment was down by 23, and the FEPEs increased by 11. zo oo X 12 z c\u0026gt; 1040 J Magnet School Enrollment The District has encouraged LEP students to exercise their option to attend one of the two stipulation magnet schools at the secondary level (Mann Middle and Parkview High) or one of the magnet programs in other schools. k  Manns PHLOTE enrollment is down by one, the LEPs are up by one, and the FEPE enrollment stayed the same.  Parkviews PHLOTE enrollment is up by five, the LEPs up by three, and the FEPEs up by two. Highest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Secondary School Middle and high schools with the highest enrollment of PHLOTE students are as follows: Secondary Schools  Hall High  Cloverdale Middle  Dunbar Middle  Central High  Parkview High  Henderson Middle  Mann Middle 93 56 52 36 31 25 21 M Lowest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Secondary School Every secondary school had PHLOTE enrollments in 2001-2002. The two lowest were Southwest Middle School (6) and Pulaski Heights Middle School (8).  Lowest LEP Student Enrollments by Secondary School Forest Heights Middle School and Southwest Middle School each had only one LEP student in 2001-2002.  13 104,! Table 7 Secondary (Middle and High School) Enrollment by PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE Comparison for the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 School Years 2000-2001 School Year 2001-2002 School Year Schools______ Middle Schools Cloverdale PHLOTE LEP FEPE PHLOTE LEP FEPE Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Totals Schools High Schools Central J.A Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Totals N 57 51 14 26 8 22 9 3 191 % 5.8 5.2 14 2.6 0.8 2.2 0.9 0.3 19.4 N 44 27 3 9 2 1 3 0 89 % 7.1 4.4 0.5 1.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 NA 14.4 N2 2 3 3 0 1 0 1 12 2000-2001 School Year PHLOTE N % N LEP % N 36 12 108 15 26 197 3.6 1.2 10.9 1.5 2.6 19.9 2 3 84 4 2 95 0.3 0.5 13.5 0.6 0.3 15.3 0 0 % 4.3 4.3 6.4 6.4 NA 2.1 NA 2.1 25.5 FEPE % NA NA 12 0 1 13 25.5 NA 2.1 27.7 N 56 52 12 25 10 21 8 6 190 % 5.7 5.3 1.2 2.5 1.0 2.1 0.8 0.6 19.3 N 44 15 1 10 2 2 2 1 77 % 7.0 2.4 0.2 1.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 12.2 N6 10 2 2 1 1 0 2 24 2001-2002 School Year PHLOTE N % N LEP % 36 12 93 12 31 184 3.7 1.2 9.4 1.2 3.1 18.7 7 2 61 5 5 81 1.1 0.3 9.7 0.8 0.8 12.8 Enrollment: June 2001: PHLOTE Enrollment (990): LEP Enrollment (620)\nFEPE Enrollment (48)\nJune 2002: PHLOTE Enrollment (985)\nLEP Enrollment (632)\nFEPE Enrollment (94) % 6.4 10.6 2.1 2.1 1.1 1.1 NA 2.1 25.5 FEPE N 0 3 23 2 3 31 Highest Enrollment by LEP and FEPE According to Table 8, of the 632 LEP-identified students in the District, Chicot Elementary School and Hall High School had the highest enrollment of LEP students, with percentages of 11 and 10, respectively. Hall is a Newcomer Center school and Chicot is a former Newcomer Center school. 14 % NA 3.2 24.5 2.1 3.2 33.0 z 1042 o Of the 94 FEPE students in the District, Hall High School and Dunbar Magnet School had the highest enrollment of FEPE students, with percentages of 24.5 and 10.6, respectively. Hall High and Dunbar Magnet are both Newcomer Center Schools. Chicot, a former Newcomer Center school, had the next highest enrollment of FEPE students (9.6 percent).  Four hundred forty-four (or 70 percent) of the LEP students were distributed among eleven schools, and 73 (or 78 percent) of the FEPE students were distributed among eleven schools. Table 8 School Enrollment by LEP and FEPE, 2001-2002 Schools Chicot ES Hall HS Wakefield ES Cloverdale MS Washington ES Terry ES Cloverdale ES Romine ES McDermott ES Dunbar MS Bale ES Total11 schs. Total LEP FEPE 67 61 51 44 44 43 39 34 31 15 15 444 632 10.6 10.0 8.1 7.0 7.0 6.8 6.2 5.4 4.9 2.4 2.4 70% 100% Hall HS Dunbar MS Chicot ES Cloverdale MS Williams ES McDermott ES Washington ES J.A. Fair HS Pulaski Heights ES Terry ES Parkview HS Total11 schs. Total 23 10 73 94 24.5 10.6 9.6 6.4 5.3 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 78% 100% N % N 9 6 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 % Schools Identified for Improvement under No Child Left Behind\" The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) identified ten LRSD schools for School Improvement in 2002-2003. The list of schools and their PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE enrollment follow in Table 9. This information is important to the ALP evaluation since two of the ten schools (Chicot Elementary and Wakefield Elementary) have substantial numbers of PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students in their school population.  15 104Identification of Arkansas schools in compliance with No Child Left Behind was based on SAT9 scores for 1998-1999,1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002. Schools with fewer than 25 percent of their students performing at/above the 50' .th n r percentile were, first, designated as High Priority schools. Using 1998-1999 as the baseline year, then, the state made decisions for identification. In order to avoid being identified for School Improvement, the High Priority schools had to demonstrate growth on the Basic Battery in the percent at/above the 50*' percentile. The also had.to demonstrate improvement in moving students out of the bottom quartile. Ironically, the Arkansas Department of Education had told districts since 1999 in the accountability plan-Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP)that the SAT9 was no longer important. Rather, the only tests mentioned were the state Benchmark examinations at grades 4, 6, and 8 and the end-of-course/level examinations at high school. LRSD relied upon that document in providing guidance to its principals and teachers and had been emphasizing improved performance on the Benchmarks since 1999, not the SAT9. Identification based on the SAT9 scores surprised everyone. The impact of these decisions on PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students in the ten identified schools is as follows: X  Of the 985 PHLOTE students in LRSD in 2001-2002, 198 students (or 20 percent) were enrolled the identified schools.  Of the 632 LEP students in 2001-2002,165 (or 26 percent) were enrolled in the identified schools.  Of the 94 FEPE students in 2001-2002,16 (or 17 percent) were enrolled in the identified schools.  Eight percent of the Districts PHLOTE students, 11 percent of the LEP students, and 10 percent of the FEPE students attend Chicot Elementary.  Six percent of the Districts PHLOTE students, eight percent of the LEP students, and three percent of the FEPE students attend Wakefield Elementary. Exiting the School Improvement Desiqnation ADE has determined that the identified schools can exit the designation based upon performance on the Benchmark examinations (not the SAT9), using 2000- 2001 as the baseline year. Five of the ten schools (Bale, Chicot, Dodd, Mitchell, and Stephens) made substantial improvements in both mathematics and literacy in 2001-2002 over their 2000-2001 performances, and if they continue to improve 16 1044 o z \u0026gt; o O 71 X z r Jin 2002-2003, they will exit the School Improvement designation when 2002- 2003 Benchmark scores arrive in the state. Another three schools made substantial improvements in mathematics in 2001- 2002 in comparison to their 2000-2001 performances. Those schools were Baseline, Fair Park, and Wakefield. These schools, then, may be able to exit the designation in 2003-2004. Table 9 Schools Identified for Improvement (NCLB) 2001-2002 Schools PHLOTEs LEPs FEPEs Bale ES 16 15 N % 2 N % 2 N 1 % 1 Baseline ES 0 0 1 6 1 6 Chicot ES Dodd ES 83 14 67 12 11 10 8 1 2 9 0 0 Fair Park ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mabelvale ES 1 1 1 5 1 7 Mitchell ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 Stephens ES Wakefield ES 11 55 51 6 1 0 0 8 3 3 Southwest MS \u0026lt;1 6 1 1 2 2 Total Total District 198 985 20% 100% 165 632 26% 100% 16 94 17% 100% Methodology A team composed of staff from the Division of Instruction, from the department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, and from the department of Computer Information Services was selected early in the year to work with a designated external consultant in the design, research, writing, and production of the evaluation of the Alternative Language Program for 2001-2002. Mr. Mark Vasquez, an expert on the requirements for compliance with OCR relating to LEP issues, including program evaluation, served as the team consultant and attended every team meeting. Other team members included Karen Broadnax, the ESL Supervisor, Dr. 17 I - 10Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction\nKen Savage, programmer and data retriever from Computer Information Systems\nDr. Ed Williams, statistician and research specialist\nand Dr. Eddie McCoy, lead writer for the study. This team met initially to review the 2000-2001 study, to discuss changes made or to be made in the 2001-2002 program, to establish the research questions, and to ensure the collection or availability of appropriate data upon which to base findings and conclusions. During all stages of the process, this team relied on findings from best practices in the development and effective implementation of ALPs and effective techniques for monitoring and assessing the performance of LEP students. The evaluation team met monthly to determine the status of the work, to review assignments, and to assign next steps. As the work progressed and drafts were available for review, those were discussed in detail, and all members of the team participated in checking data for accuracy and in proofreading the text. The original plan was to have the study completed for final review no later than September 1 so that final editing and proofing could be done and copies made in time for the October agenda of the Board of Education. The LRSD did not, however, receive the hard copies of the states Benchmark examinations until late September, and the states electronic database was not availabl until mid-October. The final draft was not submitted for review and editing, therefore, until late October 2002. Other participants in this evaluation include all the principals, LPAC members, testing coordinators, and other staff in schools with PHLOTE, LEP, and/or FEPE enrollment. All K-12 teachers of these students also participated, not only in providing instruction, but in assisting with the administration of assessments. This third-year study differs from the two previous ones in that data are compared, to the extent possible, over three years to measure the growth of specific students those exiting the ALP in 1999-2000, rather than just comparing the mean performance of LEP and FEPE students with that of the general population. These cohort studies are useful to staff in determining program effectiveness over time. Interpretation of Assessment Results LRSD now has sufficient numbers of PHLOTE and LEP students at any one grade level for the assessment results to be statistically valid. There are, however, small numbers of FEPEs at any one grade level, and these results, grade level by grade level, should not be generalizedexcept that the study will show that the FEPE students at almost every grade level out-perform the general population. This preponderance of evidence, therefore, may be generalized. Evaluation Design and Focus The general population for this report will consist of all students in the LRSD, including the PHLOTE (Primary Home Language Other Than English) students who took the various assessments. PHLOTE students include the following sub-o \u0026gt; 30 O O X 18 1046 populations: LEP, FEP, FEPE, NALMS, REFUSE, LEPREC, and LEPREF that are designated in the Districts database and in this report by the following acronyms.  LEP (Limited-English Proficient): Students administered the Language Assessment Scale (LAS) upon admission to the LRSD and determined not to be proficient in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and/or speaking English.  NALMS (Not Assessed Language Minority Students): PHLOTE students whose English language proficiency has not been assessed.  FEP (Fluent-English Proficient): PHLOTE students administered the LAS upon admission to the LRSD and determined to be proficient in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English.  FEPE (Fluent-English Proficient and Exited from the program): PHLOTE students initially identified as LEP\nreceived LRSD ESL program services\nand then exited the program after the LAS indicated a proficiency in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English.  REFUSE (Parent Refused Initial Assessment): PHLOTE students whose parents refused permission to assess the student's English proficiency.  LEPREC (Limited English Proficient Reclassified): FEPE students whose performance after exiting the ESL program required that the student again be identified as LEP.  LEPREF (Limited English Proficient Refused Services): PHLOTE students who were identified through language assessment to be LEP\nhowever, the parents refused permission to place the student in the ESL program. Although the evaluation includes data for PHLOTE students as a group, the primary focus of the evaluation is the performance (academic and behavioral) of LEP and FEPE students. LEP students are the students receiving Alternative Language Program (ALP) services, and FEPE students are former LEP students who have been exited from the ALP and are no longer receiving direct services. The academic performance of FEPE students must be monitored for two years after exiting the ALP in case reclassification is necessary. Reclassification is the process by which a FEPE student re-enters the ALP because he/she was not successful in the regular school program and is, thus, reclassified as LEP.  19 104Assessments The descriptions of academic performance in the English language arts are based upon student performance on the following national, state, and local assessments:  Developmental Reading Assessment (grades K-2)\n LRSD Achievement Level Tests: Reading and Language Usage (grades 2 through 9).  Stanford Achievement Test Series - Ninth Edition (grades 5, 7, and 10), Total Reading and Total Language  Arkansas Benchmark Literacy Examinations (grades 4, 6, and 8)  Arkansas End-of-Level Literacy Examination (grade 11) The descriptions of academic performance in specific content knowledge and skills are based upon student performance on the following assessments:  Achievement Level Tests: Elementary Mathematics (grades 2-5) and Middle School Mathematics (Grades 6-8)  Stanford Achievement Test SeriesNinth Edition (grades 5, 7, and 10) Total Mathematics  Arkansas Benchmark Mathematics Examinations (grades 4, 6, and 8) z  Arkansas End-of-Course Examinations in Algebra I and Geometry ^^g^2rch Questions To address the requirements of federal, state, and local governance, the following research questions were established to guide the evaluation of the effectiveness o the Districts Alternative Language Program. I Program Implementation 1. Has the District implemented appropriate policies, procedures, an programs to comply with federal law, the Commitment to Resolve with ^iv^iaiiio iw kzMiiipij wiui ivuviui \u0026gt;    r O OCR, the Arkansas Department of Education, and local What has been the cost of implementing this program? (See Sec ion and see Program Objectives 1-4, 6-8,11-12.) 2. What is the evidence that LEP students have appropriate access to the range of special opportunity programs in the District, including special oz \u0026gt; 9O0 o X wz o 20 1048 education, gifted/talented programs, and 504 programs? (See Section II and see Program Objective 9.) 3. Has the District been successful in improving the quality of instruction through either ensuring an adequate number of ESL-endorsed teachers to serve the identified LEP students or in providing adequate training to ensure competent performance? (See Section II and see Program Objective 5.) Academic Progress 4. 5. 6. Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program making progress in acquiring reading and English language arts skills? How does their performance compare with that of the general population and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? (See Section III and see Goals 1-2.) Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program making progress in learning content knowledge and skills? How does their performance compare with the general population and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? (See Section IV and see Goals 1-2.) R Are there LEP and FEPE students participating in the Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and University Studies courses at the secondary level? Are they being successful in those courses? (See Section V and see Program Objective 9.) 7. Are FEPE students successful in the mainstream curriculum? (See Section VI and see Program Objective 10.) Behavioral Indicators 8. What are the attendance rates, retention rates, discipline/suspension rates, dropout rates, and graduation rates of identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program? How does their performance compare with the general population and with fluent English- proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? (See Section VII and see Goal 1.)  Program Evaluation Outline This document is divided into eight sections. Each of sections ll-VII addresses specific research questions.   21 104SSection 1: Introduction The first section includes the introduction, an outline of the District's program goals and objectives, a delineation of the research questions for the study, a description of methodologies, the evaluation focus, a list of assessments used to gather academic data, and an outline of the sections in the study. It also includes demographic data for PHLOTEs, LEPs, and FEPEs, including languages spoken, enrollment by grade level, and enrollment by school. Section II: Policies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance, Equity, and Effectiveness Section II includes evidence of the Districts implementation of numerous new policies, procedures, and programs to ensure compliance and quality, including cost data, all aligned with the twelve program objectives. Section III: English Language Acquisition Performance of LEP and FEPE Students This section includes an evaluation of the effectiveness of programs that develop students English language arts skills. Section IV: Content Area Knowledge and Skills of LEP and FEPE Students This section evaluates LEP and FEPE students progress in attaining content area knowledge and skills. Section V: Performance of LEP and FEPE Students in Advanced Courses This section evaluates LEP and FEPE student performance in high school Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and University Studies courses. Section VI: Monitoring the Progress of Fluent English Proficient Exited Students (FEPEs) This section is a cohort study of the academic achievement of students who exited the ALP in 1999-2000 with an analysis of all the available assessment data on those specific students through 2001-2002. Section VII: Behavioral Performance Indicators of LEP and FEPE Students This section evaluates LEP and FEPE students performance in relation to attendance, retention, discipline and suspension, dropout, and graduation rates. Section VIII: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations X This section summarizes the key findings for each of the research questions, draws general conclusions on the academic and behavioral performance of LEP and FEPE students, and makes recommendations for program improvement in 2002-2003. 22 1050 Section II: Policies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance, Equity, and Effectiveness Section II describes the Districts educational program for limited-English proficient students, including the policies, procedures, and programs that have been implemented to ensure compliance, equity, and effectiveness. The research questions answered in this section are as follows: 1. Has the District implemented appropriate policies, procedures, and programs to comply with federal law, the Commitment to Resolve with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), and local LRSD policy? What has been the cost of implementing this program? 2. What is the evidence that LEP students have appropriate access to the range of special opportunity programs in the District, including special education, gifted/talented programs, and 504 programs? 3. Has the District been successful in improving the quality of instruction through either ensuring an adequate number of ESL- endorsed teachers to serve the identified LEP students or in providing adequate training to ensure competent performance? k k k k Policy, Procedural, and Program Changes To illustrate the changes that have been implemented during the past three years under the Commitment to Resolve, the ESL Supervisor constructed and has maintained a matrix. The matrix (see relevant components under the discussion of each program objective in this section) includes a list of program features that correspond with the established program objectives and the status of each in 1998- 99, the year of the Compliance Review site visit by the Office of Civil Rights. Subsequent columns for 1999-2001, and 2001-2002 detail the changes in policies, procedures and programs that have been necessary to ensure compliance, equity, and effectiveness in the Little Rock School Districts Alternative Language Program. Matrix components have been broken out to illustrate the progress made toward achievement of each of the twelve program objectives. The first two rows pertain to the adoption of appropriate policies and administrative regulations (procedures), as well as the publication of a procedural handbook for principals and other school-level staff (developed in 2001-2002, but not disseminated until fall 2002). All staff have been provided the policy and regulations annually. The policy, administrative regulations, the administrative directive, and the administrative handbook have all been developed since fall 1999.  23 k 10ESL Program Administrative Handbook The Districts first Administrative Handbook for the ALP was drafted in 2001-2002 and then published and disseminated in fall 2002. Its contents include the following: I. II. Introduction (with copies of Policy IHBEA, Administrative Regulations IHBEA-R, and Administrative Directive IHBEA-AD) ESL Curriculum and Instruction tel III. ESL Procedures and Practices IV. Language Proficiency Assessment Committee V. Professional Development VI. Division of Exceptional Children (with sections on Special Education, 504, and Gifted/Talented Education) VII. Appendix (Glossary of Terms, ESL Parent Coordinator, and Translators and Telephone Numbers) VIII. Forms/Letters s IX. Language Minority Student Reports (Instructions for Generating Reports\nLanguage Codes\nand LAS Scoring, Administration and Interpretation) X. Office for Civil Rights (Commitment to Resolve) Program Feature Policies and Regulations Procedural Handbook 1998-99 None None\noccasional memoranda to explain procedures. 1999-01____________________ Policy and Regulations adopted by the LRSD Board of Directors November 1999 - IHBEA and IHBEA-R. Legal Reference - Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964______________________ This is a work in progress and will be ready for the 2001-2002 school year. Currently in draft form.______________________ 2001-2002_____________ _ Continuation of implementation of policy and regulations. Minor revisions to the regulations were adopted by the Board of Education in November 2001. Administrators' Handbook was written and reviewed and rescheduled for fall 2002 publication. Program Objective 1: To implement and maintain consistent procedures for student identification processes. A crucial step in meeting the needs of students from language backgrounds other than English is the identification of students who need language-assistance services. This process presumes an operational definition of English-language proficiency. o z\u0026gt; 3o0 o Xn 24 zn M 1052 Prior to the 1978 Education Amendments, the term Limited English Speaking Ability (LESA) vi/as used to define the population served through Title VI funding. This term was broadened in the 1978 Amendments to include not only those students who were limited in their speaking ability but also those who had sufficient difficulty in reading, writing, or understanding the English language\nhence the term limited-English proficient (Anstrom (1996), citing Stewner-Manzanaries (1988). Limited-English proficient students in the Little Rock School District are identified according to a specific process that is established in the Administrative Regulations IHBEA-R: English as a Second Language. The first step is the administration of the Home Language Survey form to every student enrolled in the school, regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. If the student and/or his/her parent/guardian indicate in answers to one or more questions that there is a need for language proficiency assessment, then the student is referred. Other indicators, according to the regulations, that may lead to the administration of the Language Assessment Scale (LAS) include interviews with student/family/guardian, review of previous school records, lack of previous school records, and counselor/teacher concern regarding English language cognitive processes.\" k Program Feature LEP Identification Procedures 1998-99 1999-01 2001-2002 Students identified through Home Language Survey (HLS) and verified through testing\nno LPAC review or placements Students identified through the HLS administered upon initial registration at the school site or Student Registration Office. Level of English proficiency verified through the administration of the LAS by qualified ESL tester. District or school-based LPAC review and recommendations for ESL program services and/or school placement. Continuation of LEP identification procedures from 1999-2001. Also, continuation of the bi-annual training of school office staff in the registration procedures for language minority students (or PHLOTEs). IHBEA-ADwas developed to guide scheduling of LEP students. k Program Objective 2: To assess all students who have a primary home language other than English (PHLOTE), regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. LRSD primarily utilizes the Language Assessment Scale (LAS) for placement of students into, exit from, and re-entry to the Alternative Language Program (ALP). Specific cut-off scores for placement of students in the ALP program have been established and provide procedures for the Language Proficiency Assessment Committees (LPACs). Students are classified as Level I (monolingual in home language). Level II (some level of English-language proficiency), or Level III (advanced level of English-language proficiency, but not yet at exit level):  Level I: N (Pre-LAS) LAS 1 (oral proficiency only) LEPa (oral and reading/writing) k 25 R - 105i\nLevel II Level III L (Pre-LAS) LEPb, c (oral and reading/writing) o LEPd, e (oral and reading/writing) Based on the results of the assessment, a program placement recommendation is made by the LPAC for each student to meet language needs and to provide him/her equal access to the curriculum. Assessment Timelines Students enrolled at or near the beginning of the school year must be tested no later than September 20 of each school year. Students enrolled after that date are tested upon referral. Within 20 school days of their initial enrollment in the district, students are identified, assessed, and classified for ESL programs according to the criteria and procedures established by state and local rules. According to the document. Alternative Language Programs for English Language Learners, Little Rock School District, LEP students are initially identified for assessment through the Home Language Survey (HLS), administered upon initial registration at the school site or Student Registration Office, and the level of English proficiency is verified through the administration of the Language Assessment Scale (LAS) by a qualified ESL tester. Program Objective 3: To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for entry and placement into an ESL program. z Orqanization and Role of LPACs The District has established Language Proficiency Assessment Committees (LPACs), according to need. Almost every school has established its own LPAC. Membership on each LPAC includes, as a minimum, the following: one or more appropriate ESL teachers, including one special education teacher as  a counselor, and  a campus administrator. The District LPAC or a school-based LPAC reviews and makes decisions for ALP services and/or program placement (Broadnax, 2000). This procedure was established during the 1999-2000 school year. The most recent revision of the regulations requires Newcomer Centers and other schools to establish their own LPAC if they have five or more identified LEP students. According to LRSD Administrative Regulation IHBEA-R (1999 and amended in 2001), 26 o z 5 o o pl X pl Pl z o pl 1054.. .all members of LPACs must receive at least one-half day of training in LPAC duties\nOCR, state, and LRSD laws, policies, and regulations governing LEP programs and services\ninterpretation of language proficiency assessments\nlaws and rules governing confidentiality of student records\nand identification, placement, and exit procedures for the Districts ESL program. As of February 2000, all counselors in the District were trained, along with identified building administrators and ESL teachers to serve as LPAC members. Two training sessions were held during the 2000-2001 school year. Training was provided for new LPAC members at identified school sites during the 2001-2002 school year (Broadnax, 2001). LPAC training is provided bi-annually. Student Assignment During the 2000-2001 school year, elementary LEP students were assigned to attendance zone schools except where they had been previously assigned to Newcomer Center elementary schools. Newcomer Center LEP students were grandfathered into those schools as long as they remained in the ESL program. This decision to phase out the elementary Newcomer Centers was data-based. First, the Districts enrollment data indicated that LEP students were enrolled in almost every elementary school in the District in 1999-2000, and some neighborhood schools had more LEP students than some of the Newcomer Centers. These data, plus anecdotal data, indicated that parents of LEP students much preferred their children to attend neighborhood schools than to be bused some distance to a Newcomer Center. Second, data from the Districts 1999-2000 ALP evaluation revealed that, in general, elementary LEP students in the neighborhood schools performed as well as or better than those clustered in the Newcomer Centers. Chicot Elementary School, a former Newcomer Center, still has large numbers of LEP students, but most live in that attendance zone. f I Middle and high school LEP students were still encouraged in 2001-2002 to attend Newcomer Center Schools - Cloverdale Middle, Dunbar Middle, and Hall High School. This policy is still in place\nhowever. District staff members are closely examining the demographic trends of where students' parents choose to live\nthe enrollment of LEP students in neighborhood middle and high schools, and the achievement and behavior data for LEP students. All possible information will be used to determine whether the middle and high school Newcomer Centers should also be phased out. Tables 1-8 in Section 1 provide demographic data for PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students by language community, grade level, and school. R R 27 1 1051 a u - Program Feature Entry criteria and guidelines Organization and Role of LPACs Student Assignment Scheduling of students 1998-99 1999-01 2001-2002 None fonnally documented or articulated None LMS students strongly encouraged or required to enroll in Newcomer Centers Randomly assigned in all schools, except for LEPs assigned to designated ESL courses at Hall High Entry into ESL Programs Students who are identified as LEP, through the standardized assessment (LAS) are recommended for ESL program services either in the attendance zone elementary schools, which include the Newcomer Center Schools or recommended to attend the NC middle or high school, as is age/grade appropriate.___________ Training began in February 2000, all counselors in district trained along with identified building administrators and ESL teachers. Two training sessions held during the 2000-2001 school year, three held during the previous year. Elementary LEP students are assigned to attendance zone schools except where they were previously assigned outside of their attendance zones to Newcomer Center elementary schools. Those students are grand fathered into those schools as long as they remain in the ESL program. Middle and High School aged LEP students are recommended to attend Newcomer Center Schools - Cloverdale Middle, Dunbar Middle, and Hall High School. LEP students clustered at grade level or in courses/classrooms with endorsed or trained teachers in all schools Continuation of implementation of the Entry criteria and guidelines established during 1999-2001. Monitoring of these processes to ensure compliance with CTR requirements. Continuation of organization and role of LPAC and monitoring committees to ensure compliance with CTR specifications. Schools with at least five LEP students must have a site-based LPAC. New training is provided for new LPAC members at identified school sites bi-annually. Effective fall 2002, elementary LEP students were no longer referred to Newcomer Centers. Out-of-zone LEP students currently attending Newcomer Centers are allowed to remain in those schools until they complete grade 5 or until they exit the ESL program. Middle and high school LEP students are recommended to attend Newcomer Center schoolsCloverdale Middle, Dunbar Middle, and Hall High School. __________ Continuation of the scheduling of LEP students based on an identified need for ESL program services. Scheduling of students aligned with ESL endorsed or trained teachers. During March 2002 the administrative directive on the scheduling of LEP students was distributed to all principals, counselors, and registrars (IHBEA-AD)._________________________ 28 1056 z Program Feature Class-Sizes 1998-99 1999-01 The Class-Size Reduction Grant allowed use of this money to provide additional teachers to 5 elementary NC schools (previously indicated). Funding became available for one teacher at an elementary site with a sizeable LEP population - Wakefield Elementary. The additional teachers have been used between grades K-3 and have allowed those schools to configure their ESL classes in smaller groups, some split-grade groupings, or with a team-teaching model.___________ 2001-2002 Continuation of the implementation of instructional support using the Class-Size Reduction grant. Program Objective 4: To diagnose student needs and provide appropriate ESL standards/benchmarks, instruction, and assessments to meet identified students individual needs for English-language instruction, for understandable Instruction in other content areas, and for positive selfconcept and identification with personal/family cultural heritages. To be credible, the Districts educational approach for the education of limited- English proficient students must be recognized as sound by experts in the field or recognized professionally as a legitimate educational strategy to ensure that LEP students acquire English-language proficiency and are provided meaningful access to the regular educational program. This approach must address each aspect of the Districts program for LEPs, at all grade levels, and at all schools in the district.  Definition of the LRSD ALP Although District staff commonly refer to the District s ALP as ESL, its delivery is not the same as a traditional ESL program. Rather, the LRSD ALP is characterized by the following:  LEPs scheduled with ESL-endorsed/trained teachers in core subject areas:  LEPs clustered in heterogeneous classes with a majority of English speakers (with some exceptions at Hall High School where there are sufficient numbers of LEP students to have separate classes in some subject areas)\n Instruction delivered through English immersionwith scaffolding, or differentiated strategies and appropriate materials informed by ESL and Total Physical Response training.  Full access to the Districts standards-based curriculum and assessments.  R 29 R 105:M Curriculuni ^XtSKds and grade-lev decision to estab^h^^-^^^ English-language learners *,udents. It is LRSD's same for all students. Ma)orinitiati learning) benchmarks curriculum for all other students and local expectations separate curriculum for for student learning shouU be the I i r BS~-rnem^ successful\nI I 1 The District has standards-based\n.3 consciously selected ^PP'^^Pgsrooms, including for the diversity of learners in a ------ SSSSSSS  504 students, and the new 2001. Standards Km for social languages development for the fine arts an is in progress. 2 The District has established-instmchonalsfo^^^^^^^^ 2 during 2001-2002 that 'also guide the profes.^onal Waisal System during, summer 2002 th j a de development program and s jhe models that were .2002 and the adoption of a new^^^^ Professional T eacher sssKasgsssasKS  Learning goes from whole to part. z  Lessons should be learner-centered of knowledge. because learning is the active construction  Lessons should have meaning and purpose for students now.  Learning occurs in in social interaction. . Reading, writing, speaking , and listening all develop together. o 2 90 O o n X 30 P5 2 PI 1058 Lessons should support students first languages and cultures.  Faith in the learner expands learning potential, (pp. 25-26) 3. The TESOL instructional standards have been adopted as the framework for teachers of English-language learners to use in designing not only their daily instructional plans, but also in designing small group work and other interventions that may be necessary for individual LEP students to learn English. Copies of these standards were purchased in 1999-2000 for all schools and for most individual teachers. Subsequently, the Arkansas Department of Education developed for fall 2002 publication a set of learning standards, the English Language Acquisition Framework, which the LRSD will also adopt. Assessments All LEP students took the Districts Achievement Level Tests in grades 2-9 in reading, language usage, mathematics, and science in school years 1999- 2000 through 2001-2002. (The Board of Education has eliminated those assessments, effective fall 2002, in anticipation of the new/ criteriori- referenced tests in grades 3-8 and high school that are mandated in No Child Left Behind.) Grades K-2 students all took the Developmental Reading Assessment and the sub-tests that compose the Observation Surveys. LEP students took the grade 9 Civics assessment, given for the first time in spring 2002. LEP students who have been in the United States for at least three years also take the Arkansas Benchmark Examination, including the End-of- Course Examinations (Literacy, Mathematics, Algebra, GeometryL Some LEP students are exempt from the Stanford Achievement Test (9 edition) and the State Benchmark tests, but those exempt from the Benchmarks must instead complete a portfolio assessment. These data enable District staff and parents to measure student growth not only in English-language learning, but also in the content areas. ESL InstructionElementary Schools The theoretical base for the Little Rock School Districts English-as-a Second Language (ESL) instructional strategies is the same as that for the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) and Effective Literacy instructional strategies (LRSD Administrative Regulations IHBEA-R, 1999 and revised in 2001). All teachers assigned to serve LEP students in core subject areas must be ESL-endorsed, be working on that endorsement, or have received at least 30 hours of ESL training. Elementary students may be served in classrooms in one of the following models:  R 31 105 Clustered in heterogeneous classrooms with provisions to group LEP students within class for special instruction. n  Multi-aged classrooms that are composed only of LEP students or that are heterogeneous. Care must be taken not to isolate LEP students from their English-speaking peers.  Assigned to a classroom composed solely of LEP students, but with provisions during the school day for integration with English-speaking students.  Clustered in a heterogeneous classroom in a co-teacher model (two teachers in the same classroom sharing the instructional duties.  A combination of any of the above. The instructional expectations are as follows:  The instructional strategies and the amount of time devoted to ESL instruction for Level I students must be differentiated from the strategies and time commitments that are appropriate for Levels Il-Ill students, even though all three levels may be in the same classroom.  Elementary level 1 students must be scheduled for at least two and one-half hours daily of English-language instruction. Level II and III students must have at least two hours daily of English-language instruction.  Prek-5 teachers are expected to modify instruction, pacing, materials, assessments, and grouping, as appropriate, for the proficiency levels of limited-English proficient students assigned to their classrooms.  Grading of student progress in English language arts will be based on students progress toward meeting the ESL standard for the grade level.  Grading in other subject areas allow LEP students to demonstrate their skill and knowledge in their primary language or in oral English rather than in writing, if appropriate. z ESL Instruction-Middle Schools The theoretical base that guides the ESL English instructional strategies in the Little Rock School District is the same as that behind the Reading/Writing Workshop provided for students in grades 6-8. The theoretical base for the instructional strategies in the grades 6-8 mathematics, science, and social studies programs are likewise compatible with the strategies that are effective Oz SO8 o Xn 32 1060 z n with ESL students as they learn the content areas. ESL students must be scheduled with ESL and content-area teachers who are ESL-endorsed, who are working on their endorsements, or have participated in at least 30 hours of training.  Teachers of middle school limited-English proficient students are expected to modify instruction, pacing, materials, assessment, and grading practices to reflect the developmental needs of the middle school LEP students.  When appropriate, teachers allow students to demonstrate the content knowledge and skill in their primary language or in oral, rather than written English. Pages 66-68 of the 2001-2002 Middle School Curriculum Catalog provide a list of approved ESL middle school courses and guidance in scheduling LEP students at each grade level. Middle School Newcomer Centers The following middle schools serve as Newcomer Centers\nCloverdale Middle and Dunbar Middle Schools.  The middle school Newcomer Centers provide core courses (Reading/Writing Workshop, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies) for LEP students at all three grade levels. k ESL Instruction-High Schools The theoretical base that guides the ESL English instructional strategies in the Little Rock School district is the same as that behind the English I Workshop, provided for students in grade 9 for two periods and for English ll-IV. Likewise, teachers of mathematics, science, and social studies teach standards-based curricula, using similar strategies to teach for meaning and understanding in highly engaged classrooms. High school teachers of limited-English proficient students are expected to modify instruction, pacing, materials, assessment, and grading practices to reflect the developmental needs of the LEP high school students. High schools must schedule LEP students with ESL content-area teachers who are ESL endorsed, who are working on their endorsements, or who have participated in at least 30 hours of training.  Teachers of ESL English courses are to grade student progress according to the ESL Standards for the course.   33 106\n1  Teachers of other subject areas shall allow LEP students to demonstrate their knowledge and skill in their primary language or in oral, rather than written English. n Pages 93-97 of the 2001-2002 High School Curriculum Catalog provide a list of all approved ESL courses, along with guidance in scheduling students at each level. High School Newcomer Center (Hall High School)  ESL-adapted courses are provided in all the following core subject areas: English language arts, communications, mathematics, science, and social studies.  Level I students must be scheduled into ESL English I Workshop daily. Level II and III students must be scheduled into ESL English daily.  LEP students are scheduled with ESL and content-area teachers who are ESL-endorsed, who are working on their endorsements, or who have participated in at least 30 hours of training. No Child Left Behind Reguirements LRSD staff members have followed the development, passage, and roll-out of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, referred to as No Child Left Behind by the Bush administration. During 2001-2002 the staff examined the portions of the law that involve requirements for LEP students and concluded that the work done to fully implement the letter and spirit of the Commitment to Resolve had enabled the District to be ahead of the game, so to speak, regarding LEP student performance. z I Program Feature Curriculum Instruction 1998-99__________ Same as regular students: no adaptations_______ Students in Newcomer Centers received 30 minutes one-on-one tutoring each week 1999-01___________________ Same as regular students with adaptations and modifications 2001-2002 ____________ Same as regular students with adaptations and modifications Students at Newcomer Centers and Non-Newcomer Center Schools (elementary) benefit from in-class instruction from teachers who are either ESL endorsed or in the process of completing the endorsement requirement or teachers who are participating in the ESL training program_______ Review of the instructional model previously used with LEP students to assess the effectiveness of such approaches for success or failure. o z 38 o o x 34 n z tn 1062Program Feature Assessments 1998-99_________ LEP students generally exempted 1999-01______________________ LEP students included in the criterion referenced district-level assessments (ALTs) as much as possible, exempt from standardized assessments if deemed appropriate by LPAC (up to two years after initial enrollment), implementation of the Alternate Portfolio Assessments in place of the State Benchmarks assessments for LEP students' grades 4,6, and 8. End of level State assessments for grades 10 and 11 to be added during the 2001-2002 school year_________ 2001-2002 Continuation of inclusion of LEP students in district CRT's: alternative portfolio assessments extended to include LEP students in grades 4,6, 8, and 11. 1 Program Objective 5: To hire, train, and continually develop highly motivated, sensitive, and caring ESL teachers and other staff to provide effective ESL instruction, interact one-to-one with the identified students and their families, and serve as liaisons between school and relevant community.  Teachers learn through their endorsement courses and through the training provided by the Little Rock School District how to adapt, not the curriculum, for LEP students, but the instructional strategies, materials, pacing, and assessments. This area is perhaps the one in which the District has made its most dramatic improvements since fall 1999. LRSD has moved from having only a part-time Director for the Alternative Language Program at the central office level in 1998-99 to the employment of a full-time ESL Supervisor, a half-time secretary, a full-time program evaluator, a full-time ESL parent coordinator, and a half-time secretary for her. At the school level, the District had only seven ESL-endorsed teachers in 1998-99. When school started in fall 2002, there were 172 teachers fully endorsed, with another 18 near completion. Both the District and the Arkansas Department of Education have fully supported the tuition-reimbursement program that was necessary to make this kind of progress. Administrators are much more knowledgeable now as well, and, consequently, much more supportive of the Alternative Language Program. Program Feature District-Level staffing 1998-99_________ 1/10 of Curriculum Director 1/10 of department secretary 1999-2001 ESL Supervisor % secretary ESL Parent Coordinator reports to VIPs director, /a secretary for parent involvement ESL Program Evaluator 2001-2002___________________ Continuation of same level of staffing. II 35 106I Program Feature I School-Level Staffing 1998-99 7 uncertified, unendorsed part-time tutors assigned to elementary and middle school Newcomer Centers 1999-2001 Elementary staffing - The five (5) Newcomer Center Schools and another AZ school (recently added) have received instructional support in the area of class size reduction as follows: Brady Elementary 1 additional teacher Chicot Elementary 3 additional teachers Romine Interdistrict 2 additional teachers Terry Elementary 2 additional teachers Washington Magnet 2 additional teachers Wakefield 1 additional teacher (new position) 2001-2002___________________ Elementary staffing -Continuation of the use of instructional support (i.e. class size reduction) at the Elementary Newcomer Center Schools, with the exception of Brady, and the addition of two other elementary sites as participants in this grant - Cloverdale Elementary, King Elementary, and Wakefield Elementary. Brady Elementary was dropped due to low LEP enrollment. r Middle School staffing - Continuation of the assignment of ESL endorsed teachers to teach LEP students in ESL adapted courses or mainstreamed inclusion model ESL adapted courses. k Middle School Staffing - At Dunbar Middle School the LEP students were taught by ESL endorsed teachers or teachers in the process of completing the ESL endorsement in mainstreamed classes. At Cloverdale Middle Level Academy, LEP students were clustered in discrete ESL classes and taught by ESL endorsed teachers or teachers working on their ESL endorsement. High School Staffing - At Hall High School the Newcomer Center Program is staffed with a half-time ESL-endorsed teacher/Coordinator, who is responsible to oversee the sight-based operation of the ESL program. ESL endorsed teachers teach LEP students in ESL classes. High School staffing - Continuation of the position of ESL Coordinator/ teacher at Hall High School as well as ESL endorsed teachers to teach the ESL courses required by LEP students. z 36 1064 Id Program Feature Number of Endorsed Teachers Teacher Professional Development Administrator Professional Development 1998-99 There were 5 teachers who were either ESL- endorsed at the start of the 1998-99 school year or had competed the ESL endorsement during that school year (4 at Hall High School and 1 at Terry Elementary). Vi-time UALR instructor provided on-site coaching and professional development Infrequent meetings of Newcomer principals only I 1999-2001 Currently there are 50 ESL endorsed teachers and another 10 expected to complete the course requirement May 2001(9 teachers and 1 administrator). Specific details provided on ESL Teacher Endorsement Table. Summer 2001 projections for the ESL Graduate Academy include up to 50 participants to complete the ESL endorsement requirement. Another 8 candidates may continue to complete their ESL endorsement course requirements through UALR. Implementation of a Professional Development Program developed by the Center for Applied Linguistics. This program was launched during summer 2000 with continuing sessions into the fall of 2000 and spring 2001. Elementary, middle, and high school teachers were provided with an initial 2 to 2'/2 day comprehensive training sessions which addressed the following areas: Culture, Second Language Acquisition, Assessment, and ESL Instructional Methodology. The final sessions will be delivered during the spring and early summer 2001._____________ Professional development sessions delivered through Leadership Team Meetings during the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 school years. Topics included- Compliance with the terms of the CTR\nEvaluation of teachers of LEP students. ESL instructional methodologies and strategies. 2001-2002 Approximately 172 teachers completed the ESL endorsement course requirements. Another 18 completed at least one course and are in the process of completing the others. Another ESL Graduate Academy is planned for summer 2003. Review the assignment of ESL endorsed teachers to LEP students or ESL courses to determine areas of future need. Reduction of the numbers of teachers who are approved to receive tuition support for completing the ESL endorsement courses. Monitoring the number of ESL endorsed teachers who actually remain in-district will also help to define the need. Continuation of the professional development program for elementary, middle, and high school teachers. Implementation of targeted assistance workshops for middle and high school teachers of LEP students on 'Sheltered Instruction' and TPR (Total Physical Response). These workshops will begin in 2002-03. Extension of ESL training to include all specialty area teachers, specialists, special education etc... 1 Continuation of professional development for administrators. As new administrators are hired, they will be scheduled to receive training in all applicable areas for compliance with the CTR. 37 II to  R 106!V Program Objective 6: To provide appropriately aligned instructional materials. The District has invested considerable sums of money in the past three years to equip teachers with appropriate standards-based materials to use in instruction with diverse studentsscience kits, mathematics manipulatives, classroom sets of trade books at all reading levels and with cultural sensitivity, and dictionaries, in addition to especially designed materials for LEP students who are learning not only content and skills, but the English language and American culture. Or Program Feature Teaching Materials 1998-99_________ Totally teacher selected: available only in Newcomer Centers 1999-01 Much of the teaching materials used in our programs have been selected wflth teacher input as well as guidance from the ESL Supervisor. This year the district adopted a new reading series for Grade K-5 and this was a collaborative process with the Early Childhood/Literacy Department and the ESL Department. The program selected had specific modifications, materials and references provided for LEP students and their teachers. Our Science and Mathematics materials are likewise inclusive of strategies and modifications for our LEP students. Currently the Social Studies curriculum is under revision.____________ 2001-2002____________________ Provision of supplementary funds to all elementary schools to provide for minimum expenditures on supplementary materials based on a per student allotment. Review materials currently used in all levels of programs to ensure appropriateness and effectiveness in a students language development i z Program Objective 7: To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for exit from an ESL program. In 1998-99 the District had no evidence that students had been formally exited from the Alternative Language Program. At the end of 2001-2002 the District had documentation of at least 94 exited students as a result of improved instruction, monitoring, assessment, and procedures. Tables 1-8 in Section 1 provide demographic data for PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students by language community, grade level, and school. 38 1066 oz o o PJ X 2 k Program Feature Exit criteria and guidelines 1998-99 None formally documented or articulated 1999-01 Exit from ESL Programs LEP students currently receiving ESL Program services are reviewed annually to determine current English proficiency status, progress in attaining the goals of the program, and the need to either remain in the program or exit the ESL Program. Students who demonstrate fluency in the four areas of reading, writing, speaking, and listening comprehension, who have been acculturated to US schools, are 'exited' from the program. These recommendations are made by the LPAC at each school site. Parents are usually notified of these changes in the services provided to their students. 2001*2002 1 Continuation of implementation of the Entry/Exit criteria and guidelines established during 1999-2001. Monitoring of these processes to ensure compliance with CTR requirements. II k Program Objective 8: To provide for parental/family involvement in the school setting to support improved student learning. Major culture changes in the District have occurred relating to this area. In 1998-99 almost no one ever thought about the need for translated documents in communicating with parents or the need to provide oral translators for any level of parent meetings. This sensitivity is now evident in all departments of the District. For instance, the letter to send to parents relating to No Child Left Behind requirements for public school choice was immediately translated into Spanish once it was initially drafted. The addition of the ESL parent coordinator, who is a Spanish speaker, has also made a major difference in the Districts ability to work with Hispanic, as well as other LEP students parents. Her outreach efforts resulted in many LEP students parents participating in the Districts study circles for high school reform, in the Parent Institutes (Saturday workshops for parents twice each year), and in other activities. Page 39 of the ESL Administrator Handbook provides information about the ESL Parent Coordinator, and pages 40-41 include a list of available translators. Program Feature Parent Communication 1998-99 1999-01 Full-time ESL Parent Coordinator joined the Parent Team. This position is funded through Title I and local funds (approximately $35.000.00). 2001-2002 Continuation and review of duties of the full-time position of ESL Parent Coordinator. k R 39 106 RIn i. Program Feature Translated Documents 1998-99 Home Language Survey form 1999-01  Home Language Survey form Refrigerator Curriculum Course Selection Sheets SAIP LPAC documents for distribution to parents Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbooks will be available in Spanish for the 2001-2002 school year_______ 2001-2002 Increase in the awareness level of\navailable translated documents (ESL Handbook - Appendix). Increase the number of documents translated into Spanish. Allocation of resources to include translation of documents info one other minority language, if feasible. f I i Program Objective 9: To provide equitable access to other district programs and services, including special education and gifted/talented education and all procedural safeguards. This section examines equal access for PHLOTE students to the full range of district programs including special education, 504 services, and gifted/talented programs. Special Education According to LRSD Policy IHBA, the Board of Education believes in and is committed to the provision of educational programs through individualized instruction and related services for children who have special needs. s The District has established a process through the ESL Supervisor and the Director of the Department of Exceptional Children for monitoring and documentation of the services provided to LEP students who also require special education services. LEP students can receive services in both special education as well as the Alternative Language Program. This area was reviewed and reported to OCR twice annually. Special Education teachers are included in ESL training, as well as in the ESL endorsement process. This procedure was established during the 1999-2000 school year and continues. Special Education resource room teachers are receiving in fall 2002 updated and in-depth professional development in implementing the Districts standards-based curriculum. Section 9 of Administrative Regulations IHBEA-R establishes specific procedures for students who may require both LEP and Special Education services. (See pages 13-14 of the ESL Administrators Handbook.) Special Education (LEP and FEPE) by Grade Levels According to data from the LRSD Department of Exceptional Children, of the 48 Special Education PHLOTE students in the District, 42 (or 87.5 percent) were LEP 40 zo S\u0026gt;8 e o \u0026gt;n\u0026lt; w zn rw 1068 students, two (or 4.2 percent) were FEPE students, two (or 4.2 percent) were NALMS students, and three (or 6.3 percent) were FEP students. There were no REFUSE students identified as needing special education services. H Table 4 displays the LEP and FEPE students receiving special education services by grade level. According to the data, 42 (or 6.6 percent) of the LEP students and two (or 2.1 percent) of the FEPE students in the District received special education services during the 2001-2002 school year. The increase in the special education population from the 2000-2001 school year to the 2001-2002 school year raised a red flag among evaluation team members. Further investigation confirmed the accuracy of 2001-2002 numbers, but the count for 2000-2001 is below what it should have been due to a computer malfunction, and data could not be recovered. L I k Table 1 Special Education (LEP and FEPE) by Grade Levels Comparison 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 2000-2001 School Year 2001-2002 School Year Grade LEP Students FEPE Students LEP Students FEPE Students Enroll N 3-Yr. PreK W \"sT 1' 2 s 7 inB\" 79\" TF 0 y 78 y 49 45 0 Z y y 7 T 3 7 % NA yr yr Z6 ys Ts yr y2 Enroll 0 o o'  s' \"2 N 0 q q % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Enroll 1 86 53 N 0 o' I I 4 4 5 T % na NA yr TT yz Enroll 0 o\" y y T y 14 14 N 0 o q q q T \"o % NA NA NA NA y y TJ y  41 R 102000-2001 School Year 2001-2002 School Year Grade 7^ To 11th 1^ Totals LEP Students Enroll 29 21 37 39 25 14 17 620 N 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 23 FEPE Students LEP Students FEPE Students % 6.9 NA 8.1 2.6 0 0 0 4% Enroll 5 3 5 2 5 3 2 47 N 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 % 0 33.3 0 0 0 0 0 2% Enroll 33 24 20 36 23 11 12 632 N 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 42 % 5.9 8.3 10.0 5.6 13.0 9.1 8.3 7% Enroll 5 9 10 11 11 7 3 94 N % 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 504 LEP and FEPE Students Table 5 shows the number (N) of LEP and FEPE students receiving 504 services, as compared to the total population (Enroll) of LEP and FEPE students enrolled in LRSD during 2001-2002. There were five (less than one percent) PHLOTE students identified as receiving 504 services in 2001-2002. According to Table 5, four of the students receiving 504 services were LEPs, and one student was FEPE. Table 2 LEP and FEPE Students Receiving 504 Services 2001-2002_________________ Grade Kdg. S'\" 8' 157 9^ 10th LEP LEP Students FEPE Students 0 0 0 9.1 0 0 0 2% Enroll 98 59 20 36 23 632 N 1 1 1 0 1 4 % 0.2 0.2 0.2 NA 0.2 \u0026gt;1% Enroll 0 0 0 11 0 94 N 0 0 0 1 0 1 % 0 0 0 9.1 0 1.1 42 1070 I X o2 S\u0026gt;8 e o m X m2 r* 1 Bl Program Feature SPED/LEP Procedures 1998-99 Undocumented participation in terms of students receiving both types of services. 1999-01 Monitoring and documentation of the services provided to LEP students. Students can receive both services in Special Education as well as the Alternative Language Services Program. This area is reviewed and reported on to OCR twice annually. Special Education teachers are included in our ESL Training as well as the ESL endorsement process. 2001-2002 Continuation of monitonng SPED/LEP procedures implemented 1999-2001 fe Gifted and Talented (LEP and FEPE) Students According to LRSD Policy IHBB, Gifted students are those who have outstanding abilities and who are capable of high performance, as identified by professionals using appropriate, multidimensional identification instruments and procedures. In order to make their contribution to self and society and develop their talent, ability, and potential, these students require differentiated programs and/or services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program. The term B B \"gifted includes the following characteristics: high intellectual ability, task commitment and/or motivation, and creative ability. Second graders are assessed during the spring of the school year\nhowever, the gifted and talented program does not start until third grade. Identification procedures are outlined in District policy\nmore specific guidelines are found in the gifted/talented administrative handbook. The District monitors and tracks the participation rates among LEP students according to procedures created and implemented during the 1999-2000 school year. The GT Coordinator and GT Supervisor conduct documentation of evidence of LEPGT students and services provided to them. Training was provided to all GT Facilitators and GT Specialists on the characteristics of LEPGT students during the 1999-2000 school year. Three professional development sessions were held during the 2000-2001 school year on the LEPGT student and how to provide equitable access and services in the special opportunity programs.  Currently, there are five GT Specialists who have obtained the ESL endorsement. Other specialists have participated in ESL training either offered through the District's professional development program or through their cluster meetings. As new G/T specialists are assigned, they will also receive specialized training in this area. II  43 107I IM The District will continue the monitoring and tracking of LEPGT students and the access/availability of special opportunity programs for LEP students (Broadnax, 2001). Plans fortraining initiatives were developed and conducted for the 2001- 2002 school year. Section 9 of Administrative Regulations IHBEA-R establishes specific procedures for identification of students who are both LEP and gifted/talented. (See page 14 of the ESL Administrators Handbook.) I o  % % ! Gifted and Talented (LEP and FEPE) by Grade Levels According to available data, of the 161 PHLOTE students receiving gifted and talented services in the District in 2001-2002, 23 (or 14 percent) were LEP students, 24 (or approximately 15 percent) were FEPE students, 106 (or 66 percent) were FEP students, and seven (or approximately 4 percent) were REFUSE students. There were no Not Assessed Language Minority Students (NALMS) identified as receiving gifted and talented services. The LEP students participating in the gifted/talented program in 2001-2002 increased by 11, almost doubling those served in 2000-2001. FEPE participation also improvedby 10. Almost all the improvement was at the elementary level, perhaps as a result of the professional development provided to elementary GT specialists, but also probably a result of the secondary curriculum being more complex for LEP and FEPE students to master. Important to understanding these data is that secondary students are not identified for the gifted/talented program unless there is evidence that the courses they are currently taking are not meeting their needs. Both gifted/talented and other advanced students (who may also be gifted/talented, although not formally identified) are served academically in the Pre-AP and AP courses in the middle and high schools. Table 6 displays, by grade level, the data for LEP and FEPE students. Enroll designates the total number of LEP or FEPE students enrolled in LRSD for that school year. The number of LEP or FEPE students receiving gifted/talented services is given in the N column for each year. The percent (%) column is calculated by dividing N by Enroll. X 44 1 zo \u0026gt; o o g 5 5 1072 Grades 3-Yr. PreK K 2nd 3^ 7^ 8\"^ 11th 1^ Total 3-12 Totals Table 3 Gifted and Talented (LEP and FEPE) Comparison 2001 and 2002 2000-2001 School Year LEP Students FEPE Students 2001-2002 School Year LEP Students FEPE Students Enroll 0 44 94 7Q 62 66 49 45 29 21 37 39 25 14 17 342 620 N 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 % N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4% 2% Enroll 0 0 0 0 4 8 8 2 5 3 5 5 2 3 2 43 47 N 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 14 14 % N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 88 63 0 0 0 3 50 0 0 0 33% 30% Enroll 1 38 98 92 86 59 53 46 33 24 20 36 23 11 12 318 632 N 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 23 % N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 13.6 13.2 15.2 2.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 7% 4% Enroll 0 0 0 0 2 8 14 14 5 9 10 11 11 7 3 92 94 N 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 8 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 24 24 Section V\nPerformance of LEP and FEPE Students in Advanced Courses analyzes the performance of high school LEP and FEPE students in Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and University Studies courses. These courses serve the needs of high school students identified as gifted/talented. 45 % N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 63.5 50.0 57.1 20.0 0 9.1 9.1 0 0 22% 26% 10   ! 107 Ie Program Feature Access to GT, Pre-AP, AP, and other special opportunities 1998-99 Undocumented participation 1999-01_________________________ Training was conducted on the characteristics of the LEPGT student during the 1999-2000 school year. Three PD sessions were also held this year on the LEPGT students and how to provide equitable access and services in the special opportunity programs. There were 2 GT Specialists who had obtained the ESL endorsement. One of them was actively involved in ESL training and support for GT specialists/teachers across the district.________________ I 2001-2002 Continuation of monitonng and tracking of LEPGT students and the access/availability of special opportunity programs to LEP students. Continuation of training initiatives as described previously. Program Objective 10: To monitor the progress of all identified students during program participation and after program exit and to reclassify students as needed. I O r The District has assigned to the Language Proficiency Assessment Committees (LPACs) the responsibility of monitoring at least quarterly the performance of all enrolled LEP students and to track as well the progress of all exited (FEPE) students. When the LPAC determines that an LEP student should be exited from the program or when an FEPE student should be reclassified as LEP, appropriate notice is given to the ESL Supervisor, who changes the student tag in the data base. z This section evaluates the procedures and criteria for determining when students no longer need Alternative Language Program services as well as the methods that the District uses to monitor the success of students after AL program services have been discontinued and the students have exited the program. The determination of English-la\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_545","title":"Program evaluations, Volume IV","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":["2003-03-14"],"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","School improvement programs","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluations, Volume IV"],"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/545"],"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\nVOLUME IV RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINGiWTBNnrn vf.ar  \u0026gt;\u0026lt; , /i'tOtM inni.E sriKKJi. transition LYCCUM SCHOi^ARS PROGRAM 1 4 I. I 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO\nBoard of Education B 2 9 fl \u0026lt; S \u0026gt; \u0026gt; z FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools I PREPARED BY: 'fjfeonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction ! DATE\nFebruary 27, 2003 i SUBJECT: Lyceum Scholars Program Evaluation ( Background Information on the Lyceum Scholars Program Evaluation One in the group of programs required by the federal court to be evaluated with the participation of an external evaluator was the Lyceum Scholars program. Steps Taken as a Result of the Program Evaluation The Lyceum Scholars program was discontinued at the end of the 2000-2001 school year. The decision to abandon the program was made based on the programs high cost and the necessity of cutting budgets. Students who would have been served in the program in 2001-2002 and subsequently were either assigned to their home schools, to the Alternative Learning Center, or to the Accelerated Learning Center at Metropolitan.. Designation of External Consultant and His Qualifications On December 2, 2002, the District awarded the contract for the Lyceum Scholars program evaluation to the firm. Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc., Dr. Larry McNeal, president, A copy of his resume is attached, establishing his qualifications. Administrator Participation in Conducting the Program Evaluation In addition to Dr. McNeal and his associates, the following LRSD administrators participated in the evaluation: Jo Evelyn Elston, Director of Pupil Services Dr. Ed Williams, Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Everett Hawks, Department of Pupil Services Dr. Walter Marshaleck, Lyceum Scholars Program Director Dr. Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent (alternative programs) fl 12 1 n  5 2 CA cs SM IZs 1606 8il *H1'1 fl 2 f'-\nBoard Memo February 27, 2003 Page Two fl \u0026gt; s Teacher Participation in Conducting the Program Evaluation Lyceum Scholars teachers who participated in the surveys Lyceum Scholars teachers who administered in-class and District assessments Impact on African-American Student Achievement Approximately one-half of the students participating in this small program (8 to students total) were African American. Because the numbers were so small, neither performance data nor survey data were disaggregated by race. Neither the staff study nor that of the external evaluator could determine whether this program had any positive benefit on the academic performance of African American students. \u0026gt; c 2 5 -i 7\u0026gt;! 5 2 H   Recommendation _ That the Board of Education approve the Lyceum Scholars program evaluation tor submission to the federal court. BAL/adg w n2 n z2  CZ)C  2 J 2M C/) n X  1607 s DR. LARRY MCNEAL ! z 9 fl 3 fl \u0026gt; fl \u0026gt; BUSINESS ADDRESS_______________ University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 S. University Avenue Department of Educational Leadership Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Office 501-569-3552 Fax 501-569-3547 lxmcneal@ualr.edu HOME ADDRESS 15806 Patriot Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212-2606 501-221-1178 btmcneal@netscane.net lTncneal59@hotinail.com or PED. M.S. M. A. B.A. Licensure: PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION Ed-ucational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison. WI (1990) F.Tnphagi\u0026lt;!- Fiscal and Community Support for Public Education Concentrations\nEducational Finance, School-Community Relations, and Public School! Administration Educational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (1989) Emphasis\nAd-ministration and Organization of Public Education Concentration: Educational Administration (Public School) Public Affairs. University of Iowa, Iowa City (1976) Emphasis: Public Administration Concentration: Urban Administration Business Administration and Political Science, Dakota Wesleyan University, Mitchell, SD (1975) En^ihasis\nPolitical Economics Concentrations: Business Administration, Political Science and Economics Entrepreneurship: School Business Management (No longer active) Insurance Agent (No longer active) : Quality Education and Management Associates, President PROFESSIONAL WORK EXPERIENCE Professor, Department of Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1998 to the present Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Management \u0026amp; Development, Graduate School of Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 2000 Educational Administration and Supervision Program Coordinator, Department of Educational LeademMp. Graduate School of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, .Arkansas, 1998 to 2001 Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Management \u0026amp; Development, Graduate School of Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 1998 Associate Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995 to 1998 nr 2n X 2 Vi C 2 2m Vi X 8 1S14 2 2 c X i 5 s2 3 Visiting Professor, Bellver International College, Trenton State College (now College of New Jersey), Graduate School of Education, Palma de Mallorca, Baleaies, Spain, Summer 1996 Associate Director, Office of Educational Finance, Center For Higher Education and Educational Finance, Graduate School of.Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995-1997 \u0026gt; State Coordinator, Illinois Education Policy Fellow Program, Institute for Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois 1994-1996 2 3 Research Associate, Center for the Study of Educational Finance, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1993-1995 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1993-1995 X Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa, Summer 1993 Research Associate, Center for the Study of Small/Rural Schools, Graduate School of Education,  University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1992-1994 Adjunct Fellow, Center for Research on Multi-Ethnic Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1992 52 2 Danforth Principal Preparation Program Co-Facilitator, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Leadership andPohcy Studies, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Normal, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 Coordinator of Multicultural Affairs, Wisconsin Alumni Association, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1990-1991 I Budget Analyst Intent, University of Wisconsin System Administration, Madison, Wisconsin, 1989-90 Equal Rights Officer, Division of Care and Treatment Facilities, Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall/Spring, 1988/1989 fl Budget and Managf-mc-nt Analyst Intern, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Madison, Wisconsin, Summer, 1988 Marketing Manager, WarBuc Educultural Publications, Madison, Wisconsin, 1985-1987 Business Mathematics Instmctor, Business Department, Madison Area Techmeal College, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall 1985 and Spring 1987 Finance Marketing Representative, John Deere \u0026amp; Company, Moline, Illinois, based in Madison, Wisconsin, 1978-1984 Commercial Service Representative, Honeywell, Incorporated, Minneapolis, Minnesota, based in Des Moines, Iowa, 1977-1978 Public AriTninistratinn Tutem, Mayors Office, City of Davenport, Davenport, Iowa, 1976 wr 5n z 2 VI e 2 S M  1615 0 a: 31 JI 2 _________________________________________DISSERTATION_________________________________ McNeal, L. (1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment programs. University of Wisconsin-Madison. \u0026lt; S \u0026gt; \u0026gt; _____________________________________RESEARCH INTERESTS____________________ School Communitarianism (the fundamental relationship between schools and their commtmities) Organizational Change (change processes and organizational effectiveness) Educational Finance (adequacy and equity of funding for public education) Program Assessment and Evaluation 2 GRADUATE COURSES TAUGHT Administration and Organization of Schools Advanced Administrative Theory and Behavior Administrative Problem Solving Organizational Change Educational Politics and Policy Dissertation Proposal Development Educational Finance School Business A dmini strati nn Unman and Fiscal Resources Management Educational Public Relations Introduction to Doctoral Studies Organizational Development __________________________________ PUBLICATIONS: REFERRED____________________ McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (In Press, 2003). The locus of control issue in standard-based accountability. Educational Considerations. Christy, W.K. \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2002). Influence of school board members on state legislation in Arkansas. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EA 031517. McNeal, L. (2002). The school-community relations profile model\nCombining school district and community-based data. In J. Thomas Owens and Jan C. Simmons (Eds.), In creating quality reform: Program.^, communities, and governance (67-81). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Chesser, J.S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Educational community study circles: How superintendents can enhance school improvement through community dialogue. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 446 370. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2000). Ingilications of legislative policy development for public school districts. F. Kochan (Ed.). Southern Regional Council on Educational Admini.stration Yearbook Chesser, J.S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (1999). School improvement through community dialogue: The first community study circles on education in Arkansas and Oklahoma. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 436 694.. Mogilka, J, Ashby, D.E, \u0026amp; McNeal, L., (Eds.). (1996). Planning \u0026amp; Changing. 27(1\u0026amp;2). McNeal, L. (1995). Fulfilling promises in the land of Will Rogers: A look at performance indicators in selected school districts since the enactment of Oklahoma house bill 1017. School Finance Pohcv Issues in the States and Provinces: Annual Update I99S (135-138), C. Edlefson (Ed). The Ohio State University\nPolicy Research for Ohio-Based EducatioiL McNeal, L. \u0026amp;Reed, R. (1995). Building a school-community relations profile through sociological inventorying. People \u0026amp; Education: The Human Side of Schools. 3(3), 371-386. w P\" M s Tt 2 c\nS MS (A o  1616 McNeal L., et al. (1994). National Sallie Mae winners and their principals. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 11(3), 3-10. z 3 s 3 \u0026gt;  McNeal, L. (1994). Focusing on at-risk students\nCase study of John Wilkinson Elementary School. TUinnis School Research and Development Journal, 31(1), 7-10. McNeal L., \u0026amp; Ashby, D. (1993). Site-based management and changing relationships. Illinois School Research and Development Journal. 31(1), 7-10. \u0026gt; e 2 McNeal L., \u0026amp; T eb-man, B. J. (1993). A vision of the future\nThe full-service school Planning and Changing. 24(3/4), 140-154. BOOK PROPOSAL IN PROGRESS Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Working Title\nThe Sunerintendencv\nTheory to reflective practice. To be submitted to Wadsworth. Belmont, CA. __________________________________MANUSCRIPTS IN PROGRESS______________________________ McNeal, L. (2001). The contextual world of education for children and the school-community\nJames coleman and the effective schools movement. To be submitted to Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development McNeal, L., \u0026amp; Christy, WK. (2001). Rethinking the school district model of funding for individual schools\nComments about site-based management of resources. To be submitted to Planning and Change. Christy, WK., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Implications of charter schools and home schooling for the funding of public schools. To be submitted to Journal of School Leadership. a.p ________________________________PUBLICATIONS: MONOGRAPHS_________________________ McNeal, L., et al. (1993). Common sense: Plain talk to legislators about school finance. Center For tile Study of Educational Finance. Illinois State University. ________________________________PUBLICATIONS: NON-REFERRED_________ McNeal, L. (December, 1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment prngram.\u0026lt;\nDissertation. McNeal L. (1993). The education of African-American children in Oklahoma. State of Oklahorna\nAannal Report. Urban League of Greater Oklahoma City, Inc., 36-45. McNeal. L., First, P. F., \u0026amp; Knudson, D. P. (1993). Evaluating the University of Oklahoma Danforth Principal Preparation Program. Connections, 1 (2), 3. McNeal, L. (1992). University of Oklahoma report. Danforth Programs for the Preparation of School Principals Newsletter. 1 (2), 3. McNeal, L. (1987). From the desk of. National Multicultural Barner. 5 (6), 2. McNeal, L. (1986). From the desk of\nLiteracy, who's problem is it anyway? National Multicultural Banner. 5 (3), 2. w r n 5 n z je CZ) C 2 2 M ri a  1617eX, 2 r McNeal, L. (1986). The Black collegians guide to graduate fellowships for minority students. National Multicultural Banner. 5 (2), 9. ( \u0026gt; 1 s e __________________________________CITED IN EDUCATION WEEK____________________ In the area of educational finance. Education Week has quoted me on several occasions. I have been quoted in the following articles\n\u0026gt; 2 11/26/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Get One More Try To Pass School Funding Reforms 6/11/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Duck Vow To Revan^i Funding 3/26/97 in News ILL. Audit Questions Oversight of ELL. Education Agency 2/5/97 in New's ILL. Odds Seen Better for Funding Reform in ELL. _______________ ____________________________ REPORTS______________ ___________________ McNeal, L. Little Rock school district charter elementary school evaluation report for the 2001- 2002 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District November, 2002. McNeal, L., et al. The college of education assessment report\n2000-2001: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Prepared for the Provosts Advisory Group on Assessment, June, 2001. McNeal, L. Little Rock school district chatter elementary school evaluation report for the 2000- 2001 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District, June, 2001. McNeal, L. Projected student enrollment for the 2000-2001 school year: d* and 7* grade student racial make up report. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., April, 2001. McNeal, L. Enrollment trends in the Little Rock, North Little, and Pulaski County Special school districts: 1995-1996 to 1999-2000. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., November, 2000. I Coleen, B.C., Driskill, G., Leslie, S., McNeal, L., Mitchell, W., Taylor, C., \u0026amp; Webb, R. Provosts advisory group on assessment\nUniversity of Arkansas at Little Rock. Summer 2000 report, July, 2000. McNeal, L., et aL The college of education assessment report 1999-2000: University of Arkansas at Little Rock Prepared for the Provosts Advisory Group on Assessment June, 2000. McNeaL L. Student enrollment needs assessment study of the Illinois school for the visually irrqjaired, Illinois Center for Rehabilitation and Education and Illinois School for the Deaf. Prepared for the Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services, October, 1995. McNeaL L, First P., Walker, V,, \u0026amp; Hobson, B. An inquiry into alleged cultural insensitivity at Capitol Hill High School Prepared for Oklahoma City Public School District March, 1993. McNeaL L, et aL School choice\nOpen enrollment and post secondary options. Prepared for the Association of Wisconsin School AdministratoTs, March, 1990. I I McNeal, L. County veterans service officer training manual. Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, June, 1990. I McNeaL L. A Review of health care and medical services provided by the United States department of veterans affairs. Prepared for the Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans 2^ffairs, August 1989. McNeal, L. A review of health care grants and lie Wisconsin Veterans Home in King, Wisconsin. Prepared for the Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, August, 1989. ii M as 2 \u0026lt; c S 2 1618 Vi ra)  i ri ri H ri ri McNeal, L. Mendota mental health institute\nAn analysis of an organization in crisis. Prepared for the Division of Care and Treatment Facilities of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, December 1988. PRESENTATIONS: REFERRED McNeal, L., Christy, \u0026amp;. Lewis, R. (2002). New leaders and new implications for educational aHmiTii.HTatinn Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Kansas City, MO. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2001). Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Little Rock, AR. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (Noveniber, 2001). A discussion of change theory, systems theory, and state designed standards and accountability initiatives. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Jacksonville, FL. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (November, 2001). State designed standards and accountability initiatives in the southwestern regional educational development laboratory service area. Southern Regional Council on Educational Artrnmistratinn Annual Conference, Jacksonville, FL. McNeal, L. (2001, July). The institutionalization of the assessment process\nOne story in one college of education. The Consortium for Assessment \u0026amp; Planning Support San Juan, PR McNeal, L. (2001, July) . Faculty perceptions of their involvement in the assessment (evaluation) process. The Consortium for Assessment \u0026amp;. Planning Support San Juan, PR i Chesser, J., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2000). The use of the study circle in school reform: Bringing all the voices to the table. Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Bowling Green, KY. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (November, 2000), Charter schools under construction: An analysis of a charter school evaluation plan. Southern Regional Council on Educational Admimstration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (Noveniber, 2000). Implications of charter schools and home schooling. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. Christy, W.K. \u0026amp; McNeal. L. (November, 2000). The process of making sausage in the factory of program reform Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference. Nashville, TN. Michaelis, K, \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April, 2000). From indifference to injustice\nThe politics of teen violence. American Educational Research Association for the Spring 2000 Conference in New Orleans, LA. Caram, C. Christy, W. K, Altom, B, \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April 2000). The sausage factory: The process nf planning for accountability. Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Little Rock, AR. Caram, C. A_, Christy, W. K., Altom, B., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April, 2000). Responding to the call for accountability of a school leader preparation program. Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Little Rock, AR Chesser, J. S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (March, 2000). Educational community study circles in Arkansas\nHow superintendents can enhance school improvement through community dialogue. American Association of School Administrators 11* Annual Conference Within A Conference, San Francisco, CA. 1619 s X 2 3 9 fl \u0026gt; \u0026gt; 2 tn n SM a: \u0026gt; CZ3 c S S M X rj s: 5 s  Chesser, J\nS., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 1999). School improvement through community dialogue\nThe first community study circles on education in Akansas and Oklahoma. Mid-South Educational Research Asociation Annual Conference, Clear Point, AL. J S' 9 s 9 \u0026lt;\u0026gt; JO c McNeal, L., \u0026amp; Christy, W. K. (November, 1999). From preparation to practice in Akansas: The relationship between program preparation standards and entry-level administrators success. Soufliem Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC. \u0026gt;, e' 2 Christy, W. K., McNeal, L. (November, 1999). Implications of legislative policy development for public school districts. Southern Regional Council on Educational Ad-mjuistrafinn Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC. McNeal, L., Gonzalez, M. L., \u0026amp;Noley, Grayson. (October, 1999). The ethics of silencing in school accountability\nListening to the voices of Hispanic, Native American, and African-American Researchers. University Council for Educational Administration Convention, Minneapolis, MN. Christy, W. K, \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (March, 1999). Future policy impheations of an Akansas referendum initiative. American Education Finance Asociation, Seattle, WA. McNeal, L. (March, 1998). The link between quality and school communitarianism. Creating the Quality School\n7th Annual National Conference, Alington, VA McNeal, L., Place, A. W., Tillman, L.C., Beaumont, J. J. \u0026amp; Sanders, E. T. W. (October, 1997). A cross-cultural discussion of the 1997 UCEA conference theme. University Council for Educational Administration Convention, Orlando, FL. McNeal, L. (October, 1997). The contextual world of education for children and the schoolcommunity\nJames Coleman and the effective schools movement. MidWestem Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (March, 1997). Influencing instnictional strategics,to enhance learning by using the school-connnunity relations profile model. Creating the Quality School\n6th Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK_ McNeal, L. (1996, March). The implications of community based information for caring schools: SCKPING along. Creating the Quality School\nSth Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK.. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Chi, J. (1996, March). Performance indicators and curriculum offerings: Is there a cotmection in Oklahoma? American Education Finance Association Conference, Salt Lake City, UT. McNeal, L., Parks, J., Watson, L., Jackson, D., Midgette, T., \u0026amp; Glenn, E. (1996, March). Our pedagogy\nCulture as a major variable. Pedagogy of the Oppressed Conference, Omaha, NE. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Ashby, D. (1995, October). School-community relations profiling: Re eTamining leadership for community. University Council for Educational Admini.stration, Salt Lake City, UT. McNeal, L. (1995, April). Fulfilling promises in the land of Will Rogers\nA look at performance indicators in selected school districts since the enactment of Oklahoma house bill 1017. Sponsored by the Special Interest Group on Fiscal Issues, Pohcy, and Educational Finance (FIPEF). American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco, CA McNeal, L. (1995, March). Promoting quality in education through the SCRPING of schools. Creating the Quality School: 4th Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. I MM s2 2 \u0026lt; Vi C 2 2M 1620 3:  I Hl JI McNeal, L., Higham, R, \u0026amp; Boyd, M. A. (1994, October). Establishing community between higher education, public education, and self:. An effort of compromise in infusing multiculturalism. Midwestern Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (1994, April). The state of educational finance in Oklahoma. American Educational Research Association Conference, New Orleans, LA. \u0026lt; \u0026gt; n z McNeal, L. (1994, March). Governance structures in decentralized schools and school improvement Lessons from Chicago school reform. Creating the Quality School\n3rd Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNeal, L. (1994, March). Governance structures in decentralized schools and decision-making\nAnother way to promote quality. Creating the Quality School Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Lehman, B. I (1994, February). A vision of the future: The full-service school. American Association of School Administrators (Conference-Within-A-Conference), San Francisco, CA. t ! ( I McNeal, L. (1993, March). Quality schools and site-based management: An issue of fiscal management. Creating The Quality School\n2nd Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK McNeal, L. (1993, March). Site-based fiscal management and the preparation of building administrators. American Education Finance Association Conference, Albuquerque, NM. McNeal, L., Chance, E. W., Langenbach, M., Costa, E. W., \u0026amp; Carem, C. (1993, March). National Sallie mae ^nn^rg and their principals. American Association of School Administrators (Conference- Within-A-Conference), Orlando, 1^. McNeal, L. (1992, March). The university's role in the preparation of school site-based managers. Creating The Quality School\n1st Annual National Conference, Norman, OK. INVITED PRESENTATIONS ! McNeal, L. (October 8, 2001). Standards for school leaders: The next generation. EDAS 7380\n' Practicum and EDAS 83 80\nPracticum, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR. I McNeal, L. (Spring, 2001). Concerned base adoption model (CBAM). EDAS 8314\nContemporary Educational Administration Issues, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR. McNeal, L, (July, 2000). A conversation about charter schools in Arkansas. Crossing Boundaries: Teaching, Learning, Results. Southeast Comprehensive Assistance Center, Peachtree City, GA. McNeal, L, Broadnax, W., \u0026amp; McLean, L. (July, 2000). The charter schools APIEM process. Crossing Boundaries: Teaching, Learning, Results. Southeast Conprehensive Assistance Center, Peachtree City, GA. McNeal, L. (March, 2000). An alternative governance model for pubhc education. International Academy of Educational Leaders, Nashville, TN. McNeal, L. (October, 1999). The change process, communications and interpersonal relations. Ray fTTaHaTn Training Center, Chicago Public Schools. Chicago, IL. {q w 5 M 3\n2 \u0026lt; CZ) C s s M  X 8 1621 -X z for McNeal L. (September, 1999). Collegiality leadership for school improvement. Arkansas Institate IVlVlNCal) Xrf. vij f o j /- T '**1 T5 1 AT) School Improvement, sponsored by the Southeast Comprehensive Assistance Center, Little Rock, .AR. s \u0026gt; 1 McNeal L. (January, 1999). National standards and their unpact on educational administraticon programs: Lessons IX. learned from reflection. International Academy of Educational Leaders, San Antonio, \u0026gt; McNeal, L. (February, 1998). The change process and its intact on high school principals. z Davenport Public School District, Davenport, lA. McNeal, L. (February, 1998). The change process audits impact on junior and middle school principals. Davenport Public School District, Davenport, lA. McNeal, L. (February, 1998). The change process and its impact on elementary school principals. Davenport Public School District, Davenport, lA. anyway? McNeal, L. (September, 1997). Focusing ' Quad-Cities Alhance of Black Educators, Rock Island, IL. on 1he needs of children of color: Whose job is it (February, 1997). Revisiting the Coleman report: Parents, families, communities and McNeal, L. (--------.. , _ schools. Illinois State University Administrators Club, Normal, IL. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Parks, J. (October, 1996), Linking school-based data with community based data: The school-community relations profile model. Illinois School Board Association, nimois Associanon of School Administrators and Illinois Association of School Business Officials 64th Joint Annual Conference, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (1993, January). Site-based management Cooperative Council of Oklahoma School Administrators, New Principal Training Workshop, Norman, OK. McNeal, L, et al. (March, 1990). School choice\nOpen enrollment and post secondary options. Association of Wisconsin School Administrators, Madison, WI. McNeaL L Bread, J. and Willamson, M. (November, 1992). Financing the colorization of the canon. New Directions Norman, OK. for African American Scholarship and Research Conference\nColonzmg the Canon, funded GRANTS Preparing tomorrows teachers to use technology (PTS) grant. The University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR. July 1 throng August 15,2001. $4,375 Arkansas department of education grant award: Administrator licensure preparations. Reject Director\nAngela Sewall \u0026amp; Project Assistant Director Larry McNeal). Arkansas Department ofEducation. July 1,2001 through June 31,2002. $10,000 Proposal for the professional development of those who prepare school administrators in fre use enhance teaching and learning. (Co-Principal Investigators: L. McNeal \u0026amp; D. Ashby). of technology to tuuojiv... ~------------ \\-------- * - , ,nno n non University Council for Educational Administration. May 1 through September 30,1998. $1,000 Educational output in Illinois: Studying the disparity in academic test scores ^ong school districts. University Research Grant (Illinois State University). June 1.1996 through June 30,1997. $5,000 tn r n S w a: 2 ue cz\u0026gt; e S 2 M ri x  0 1622X z Student enrollment needs assessment study of the Illinois School for the Visually Impaired, Illinois center for rehabilitation and education and Illinois School for the Deaf. Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services. May 15, 1995 through October, 1995. $7,500 \u0026lt; s \u0026gt; I I \u0026gt; ________________________________________FELLOWSHIPS____________ Advanced Opportunity Program Fellowship, University of Wisconsin, 1987-1990 Education Policy Fellow Program, Institute for Educational Leadership, 1993-94 z  _________________________________EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARDS______________________ Editorial Review Board, Planning and Changing, 1993-1998 Editorial Review Board, Journal of School Leadership, 1997-1999 Editorial Review Board, Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Yearbook, 2000 to present \u0026lt; Bi REFERRED PROPOSALS AND MANUSCRIPTS FOR University Council for Educational Administration Amp-rican Educational Research Association, Division A MidWestem Educational Research Association, Division A Southern Regional Council of Educational Administration Planning and Changing Journal of School Leadership Midwestern Educational Researcher Center for the Study of Small and Rural Schools SRCEA Y eaibook I ________________________SELECTED SERVICE ACnyiTIES Citizenship Service (Program. Department College. University') Rrogram Level Program Coordinator, Educational AdTninistratinn and Supervision, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-2001 Chair, Educational Administration and Supervision Faculty Search Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-99,1999-2000,2000-2001 I Academic Advisor, Educational AdTninistration and Supervision, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1997 to present Academic Advisor, Department of Educational Admi-nistrarin-n \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1993-1998 Academic Advisor, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Dissertation Chair, Educational Administration and Supervision, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1997 to present Dissertation Chair, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1993-1998 ii n S M 2 2 CA c 2 2 M CA O s 8 1623I I 31 -I pi Dissertation Advisor, Educational A riministratinn and Supervision, Department of Educational Leadership and PoUcy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Department Level Faculty Recorder, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999- present Member, Peer Evaluation Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 2000-pTesent Member, Student Evaluation Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 2000 Member, Higher Education Program Faculty Search Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-99 Academic Advisor, Quad Cities K-12 Doctoral Cohort, Department of Educational Admipistratinn \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1997- 1998 Member, K-12 Doctoral Curriculum Review Committee, Department of Educational Administration \u0026lt;\u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1997-1998 Member, Faculty Status Committee, Department of Educational Administtation \u0026amp; Foundations [Ilhnois State University] 1996-1998 Member, Faculty Search Committee, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1995-1996,1997-98 Member, Research Committee, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Hhnois State University] 1995-1998 Member, Student Recruitment Committee, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1995-1997 Coordinator, K-12 Program Professional Practice, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1993-1998 Chair, Faculty Development Committee, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1992-1993 Chair, Graduate Tuition Fee Waivers Committee, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1992-1993 Member, Danforth Evaluation Team, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Education [University of Oklahoma] 1992-93 College Level Member, Graduate Faculty, College of Education [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998 to present Member, College of Education Retreat Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999 \u0026amp; 2001 Member, Associate Dean Search Committee College of Education [Illinois State University] 1997-1998 11 1624 z 9 S 9 \u0026lt;\u0026gt; 2 rw M 5n 2 C 2 2 M so 8 I 2 Member, College Council, College of Education [Illinois State University] 1994-1998 \u0026gt;\n? i President, College Council, College of Education [Illinois State University] 1996-1998 \u0026gt; I Member, Elections Committee, College of Education [Illinois State University] 1996-1998 2 Member, Technology Cn-mmittee, College of Education [Hhnois State University] 1996-1998 Member, Multicultural Task Force, College of Education [Illinois State University] 1994-95 Member, Graduate Faculty, College of Education [Illinois State University] 1993-1998 Member, Graduate Faculty, College of Education [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993  Member, Education Faculty Development Committee, College of Education [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Member, Equal Opportunity Committee, College of Education [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Member, Graduate Faculty Member [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993' Member, Faculty Search Committee, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, COE [Uitiversity of Oklahoma] 1991-1992] University Level Member, Commission to Cornbat Intolerance and Harassment [Illinois State University] 1995 1996 Member, Multicultural Task Force, Member, Commission to Combat Intolerance and Harassment [Illinois State Uitiversity] 1995 1996 Academic Calendar and Schedules Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 2001-present Program Development and Accreditation Service Member, Provosts Advisory Group on Assessment [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999-2001 Chair, College of Education Assessment Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999-2001 Co-Chair, College of Education Assessment Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-1999 Member, College of Education Assessment Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-2001 Member, Program Advisory Assessment Committee [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-2001 Chair, K-12 Program Curriculum Review Committee, Department of Educational Leadership [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-2001 Member, North Central Self Study Task Force (Governance and Administration Community) [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-1999 Chair, K-12 Program Curriculum Review Committee Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1997- 98 tq M 2 w 2! Vi C 2 2 M CA ri s:  1625f Merhber, K-12 Doctoral Curriculum Review Committee^ Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1997-1998 External Reviewer (Evaluation) of Department of Educational Administration Northern Illinois University [sponsored by University Council for Educational Administration] spring 1996 Member, K-12 Program Review Committee, Department of Educational Administration \u0026amp; Foundations [Illinois State University] 1993-1997 Member, Administration Certificate Program Committee, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Member, NCATE Category Evaluation Committee, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy- Studies [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1992 Professional and Community Service fPiogram, Department College, University') Professional Associations Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) 1999-to present American Educational Research Association (AERA) 1991 -to present American Education Finance Association (AEFA) 1991-1999 International Academy of Educational Leaders (lAEL) I998-to present University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) 1991-98 National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) 1996-2000 Mid-South Educational Research Association (MSERA) 1998 to present Mid'Westem Educational Research Association (MWERA) 1993-1998 Southern Regional Council of Professors of Educational Administration (SRCPEA) 1998-to present Illinois Council of Professors of Educational Administration (ICPEA) 1993-98 Illinois Association of School Administrators (lASA) 1995-98 Kappa Delta PI School Level (Service to Schools') Davenport Public School District, Davenport, lA Little Rock School District, Little Rock, AR Pulaski County School District, Pulaski County, AR Peoria Pubhc School District, Peoria, IL Kankakee public School District, Kankakee, IL Galesburg Public School District, Galesburg, IL Pulaski Charter School, Inc., Maumelle, AR East St. Louis Public School District, East St. Louis, MO Bloomington Pubhc School District, Bloomington, IL Oklahoma City Pubhc School District, Oklahoma City, OK Rock Island Pubhc Schools, Rock Island, IL Nicoma ParkPubhc Schools, Nicoma Park, OK Moore Pubhc School District, Moore, OK Metcalf School (Hhnois State University), Normal, IL University High School (minois State University), Normal, IL Savannah, Pubhc School District, Savannah, GA Chatham County School District, Chatham County, GA School District (Service to School Districts') Little Rock School District Little Rock, AR 1626 S W' z 9 9 \u0026lt; [fl \u0026gt; J! 11 \u0026gt; z 11 r m S M a\n2 JO Vi c 2 2 M Vi ri 2 8kit? 7 X H B 2 9 State Level \u0026gt; S Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 2000 Executive Committee Member, Oklahoma Commission for Educational Leadership [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 \u0026gt; 2 Chair, Administrative Procedure Committee Superintendent's Advisory Council for Accounting and Financial Reporting (sponsored Oklahoma Department ofEducation) [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1992 Executive Committee Member, Oklahoma Association of School Administrators [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1993 Chair, Ad-ministrative Procedure Cn-mmittee, Superintendent's Advisory Council for Accounting and [University of Oklahoma] 1991-1992 Executive Committee Member, Cooperative Council for Oklahoma School Administration Administrators [University of Oklahoma] 1991 1992 Regional/Natiorial/Intemational Level Regional Executive Board Member, Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999 to present Junior Chair, Division A (Administration) MidWestem Educational Research Association [Illinois State University] 1997-1998 Chair, Division A (Administration) MidWestem Educational Research Association [Illinois State University] 1995-1997 National School Leaders Licensure Assessment Test Examiner, School Leader Licensure Educational Testing Service {Princeton, NJ} [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] July 200 Executive Committee Member, Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1999 to present Advisory Board Member, Center for the Study of Small/Rural Schools [University of Oklahoma] 1998- 2000 Executive Committee, University Council for Educational Administration [Illinois State University] 1996- 1998 Plenary Representative, University Council for Educational Administration [Illinois State University] 1993- 1996 Faculty Speaker, National Graduate Student Research Seminar (sponsored by the University Council for Educational Administration for UCEA National Convention in Louisville, KY) [Illinois State Uinversity] 1996 1627 m n S x 2 \u0026lt; Vi c 22 M V) sO 8 n n Planning Committee Member, National Graduate Student Research Seminar in Educational Administration (sponsored by the University Council for Educational Education and the American Educational Research Association for AERA Conference in Francisco, CA) [Illinois State University] 1995-1996 \u0026gt;1 2 0 B 9 \u0026gt; n n Member, Ad Hoc Finance Committee University Council for Educational Administration [Illinois State University] 1994 1996 \u0026gt; J C 2 Member, Urban Education Consortium (based at Rutgers University in the Center for Government Services) [Illinois State University] 1994-1998 Planning Committee Member, Information Environment for School Leader Preparation Simulation Project [sponsored by UCEA sponsored] 1993-1997 Bl Steering Committee Member, National Research Conference on Afiican American Studies (sponsored by University of Oklahoma) [University of Oklahorna] 1992-1993 ! I I i ( I n Executive Committee MenibeT, Wisconsin Alumni Association National Alumni Council For Multicultural Diversity [University or Wisconsin-Madison] 1990-1992 n Internationa n International Academy of Educational Leaders (lAEL) [University of Arkansas at Little Rock] 1998-to present SELECTED CONSULTING ACHVITIES q Site Date School Leader Licensure Educational Testing Service Princeton, NJ July 2001 Charter School Evaluation q Student Enrollment Little Rock School District Little Rock, AR June 2001 q Pulaski Charter School, Inc. Maumelle, AR April 2001 Student Enrollment Trends Pulaski Charter School, Inc. MaumeUe, AR November 2000 q Flexible Block Scheduling Pulaski County School District Jacksonville, AR October 2000 q Change, Communications \u0026amp; Interpersonal Relations Chicago Pubhc School District Chicago, IL. October 1999 q Collegiality and Leadership Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR September 1999 School Board and Superintendent Relations East St Louis Pubhc School District East St Louis, MO July 1998 School In^rovement/Change Process Daverrport Pubhc School District Davenport, LA February 1998 tn n 2 n z 2 Vi C 2 2 M Vi ri x 8 15 1628H Ed After School Programs Evaluation d Galesburg Public School District Galesburg, Illinois December 1997 April 1998 \u0026lt; Title 1\nSummer School Evaluation Peoria Pubhc School District Peoria, IL November 1997 f\u0026gt;l 7i fl \u0026gt;  Annexation Bloomington Public School District Bloomington, IL Summer 1997 2 Curriculum Development/Computer Simulations University Council for Educational Administration St. Louis, MO July 1997 a Administrative Tcsting/Principalship Educational Testing Services Princeton, NJ June 1997 a Block Scheduling Rock Island Public School District Rock Island, IL Spring 1997 a School hnprovement/Commuitity Relations Galesburg Public School District Galesburg, IL February 1997 a School Improvement/Diversity Kankakee Pubhc School District Kankakee, IL November 1996  Site-Based Fiscal Management Georgia Southern Uitiversity Savannah, GA May 1996 \u0026amp; April 1995 Site-Based Management/Personnel issues Nicoma Park Public School District Nicoma Park, OK March 1993' Student Diversity Moore Public School District Moore, OK Spring 1993 Staff Relations \u0026amp; Diversity Oklahoma City Public School District February-March Oklahoma City, OK 1993 Educational Finance/Montana Grant Writing/At-Risk Children Student/Date D. Bangs (2001) Broadnax, W. (2001) Center For The Study Of Small/ Rural Schools Norman, OK Oklahoma Public School District Oklahoma City, OK Summer 1992 Summer 1992 THESIS AND DISSERTATION COMMITTEE SERVICE Topic A study of student drug-testing effects in selected Arkansas secondary schools [Chair] A study of Arkansas public school superintendents knowledge of and attitudes toward charter schools [Chair] Pl 5PI \u0026gt; 9e \u0026lt; Wl C S s Pl CB n s  1629 M 1^ Sain, L. (2001) A comparison of pre-post student outcomes after an intervention of a secondary alternative program for disruptive students [Chair] Austin, R. (2001) Role of the special education supervisor as perceived by Arkansas superintendents, principals, and special education supervisors [Member] r s II \u0026gt; fl   \u0026gt; V. Abernathy (2001) A Study of the Superintendency supply issue for public education [Chair] z W.Bitely(2001) English as a second language in the state of Arkansas [Chair] C. Claye (2001) An analysis of a case study of a secondary alternative education program in Brazil: Lessons for the United States [Chair] M. Dalia Rosa (2001) Principals and educational interpreters perceptions of the evaluation process of educational interpreters in ATkangas public schools [Member] A. Tucker (2001) An Investigation of student performance in Arkansas high schools using the traditional schedule, alternate day block schedule and intensive block schedule [Chair] J. Tackett (2000) Self-reported teacher job satisfaction and perception of administrative listening skills [Chair] M. Dickerson, (2000) Superintendent perceptions of effectiveness: A study of Arkansas school improvement [Chair] T. J. Chesser (2000) The first statewide study circles on education in America: Participant perceptions of study circles in two Arkansas communities [Chair] D. Williams (2000) A descriptive case study of a single innovations effect on multiple literacy initiatives in Arkansas [Member] Y. Meade-Williams (2000) A study of the effect of principal leadership style on teacher stress in six junior high schools in the Pulaski county special school district [Member] B. Wood (2000) A profile of female superintendents in Arkansas 1999-2000 [Member] L. J. Jackson (1999) Aftican-American and Caucasian American students satisfaction of perceived instructional strategies in third-and-sixth-gradc urban elementary classrooms [Member] Illinois State University E. Eddings (1999) Does the level of inqjlementation of total quality management affect student outcomes? [Co-Chair] University of Arkansas at Little Rock E. Goldstone (1998) Case study of the involvement of the business community in the Illinois partnership academy in eight Illinois school districts from 1993 to 1996 [Meniber] Hhnois State University tn Pl S Pl 2 2 V) c\n2 2 M X V) S  n 1630(. 2 S hI \u0026gt;2 R.L. Kilpatrick (1998) N. J, Anderson (1998) C. W. Dawson (1998) V.D. Steele (1998) B. Hinrichs (1998) E. J. Brown (1998) G. L. Harrison (1998) C. A. Stack (1997) T. M. Eddy (1997) J. D. White (1997) J. J. Pokomey (1997) D.P. Henry (1996) L. A. Obi (1995) J.R. Davis (1995) M. J. Moore (1994) Determining the costs of school year extensions [Member] Illinois State University The four block scheduling model as a change mechanism A study of three selected high schools [Chair] lUinois State University A. case study of desegregation in the rockford school system, rockford, Hlhiois, from 1989-1997 [Member] Illinois State University The relationship between leadership styles of elementary principals and school cultures [Member] Hhnois State University Understanding situational leadership and its relationship to student project groups [Chair] THinnis State University The instructional leadership role of elementary school principals and its Influence on instructional practices as perceived by elementary school teachers [Chair] Illinois State University An analysis of the dismissal of tenured teachers under article 24A. of Illinois public acts 84-126 and 84-972: evaluation of certified employers [Chair] minois State University A study of the organizational structure of middle level blue ribbon schools and factors that promote efficiency [Chair] Hhnois State University Teacher and student perceptions of school environment and student discipline [Chair] Illinois State University Reduced class size and teacher perceptions of its impact in kindergarten through third grade [Member] Hhnois State University Education\nrelationships with job satisfaction and organization commitment [Member] Illinois State University African American parents involvement in the elementary education of their children [Member] Illinois State University The efficacy of oral English language proficiency policies for international teaching assistants in institutions of higher education [Member] Illinois State University An investigation of the value congruence held by Illinois school board members regarding alternative schooling and the allocation of financial resources to support alternative education [Member] Illinois State University African American voter participation\nThe role of religion in the 1992 presidential election (Thesis) [Member] University of Oklahoma w t-n S M V) C 2 2 M ri s  1631 ?! fl ' \u0026gt; fl 3 \u0026gt; e 1 e I E. W. Costa n (1993) The principal as leader\nA study of the perceptions of entry-level teachers [Member] University of Oklahoma I. B. Seay (1993) P.T.B. Freeman (1993) Women in leadership roles\nPerspectives from female elementary administrators [Member] University of Oklahoma Presidential profiles in higher education: Perspectives \u0026amp;om Afacan American women [Meiriber] University of Oklahoma \u0026gt; fl  \u0026gt; 5 z G.W. Griffin (1992) Principals and superintendents perceptions of superintendent behaviors and activities which are linked to school effectiveness [Member] University of Oklahoma W, L, Anderson (1991) An analysis of the roles of.high school administrators as perceived by principals and assistant principals in selected Oklahoma public high schools [Member] Illinois State University REFERENCES Furnished Upon Request A tn r n 2 M Z \u0026gt; IZ G s s n :c CZ) ri s  1632i 21 5 Bl 9 \u0026gt; I 2 \u0026gt;51 I THIRD-PARTY EVALUATION OF THE LYCEUM SCHOLARS PROGRAM Prepared By Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc. Little Rock, Arkansas January 2003 0 1633 ) i ( i I w r* B s w z 2 vs C 2 S m X  C 1. 1 Foreword The Little Rock School District contracted with the Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc. (QEMA) to serve as a third-party evaluator for the LRSD Lyceum Scholars Program conducted at Philander Smith College. The impetus for the third-party evaluation was the federal court ruling in September 2002 releasing the District from court supervision, with the exception of one area relating to the evaluation of certain programs. The LRSD Lyceum Scholars Program was one of several educational programs identified in the Districts final Compliance Report (March 2001) that the court required to be completed, approved by the Board of Trustees, and submitted to the court by March 15,2003. p  J 2 0 PI' s fl 3 r \u0026gt; c 2 Evaluation Overview This third-party evaluation is a supplement to three evaluation reports prepared on the LRSD Lyceum Scholars High School (LSHS) program. Two of the reports focused on individual school years of operation of the LSHS program, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. The third report was a two-year comparison of the evaluation data from school years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. I The evaluation is divided into four parts. Part A is a description of the LSHS program. Part B describes the methodology and summarizes and interprets the key findings of the three previous evaluations. Part C describes the limitations of the three previous evaluations. Finally, Part D offers suggestions for improving future evaluations of any similar programs that the Little Rock School District may initiate. A. Program Description Mission The mission of the LSHS program, as stated in the previous evaluations, is as follows: To provide an opportunity for underachieving secondary students, who have academic potential but require a nontraditional approach to learning, to achieve academic^ly and to develop social competencies that will allow them to obtain a high school diploma and successfully transition into a post-secondary educational environment. Program Objectives The objectives of the LSHS program, as stated in the previous evaluations, are as follows: 1. The academic performance of each student enrolled in the Lyceum Scholars High School will increase during the period of participation in the program, as 1 1634 tn M sz 2w V) 2e 2w V) ri s   n 2. 3. 4. 5. measured by pre and post computerized student assessment data and grade point average. The attendance rate for each student enrolled in the Lyceum Scholars High School will be 95% or better. Each student will demonstrate maturity, self-control and appropriate social interaction skills as evidenced by teacher/staff assessment and then absence of disciphnary sanctions during the period of program participation. Each student will develop a plan for his/her own continuing education that will include high school graduation and enrollment in a post secondary educational institution. Each student will demonstrate an increased commitment to continued program participation, as evidenced by self-report on the annual program evaluation. The curriculum of the Lyceum Scholars High School will be delivered in a non- traditional way to include group work, project-based learning, interdisciplinary and applied units, and computer assisted instruction. 11 n V 6. H Program Design and Activities n The LSHS program was designed to provide the participants with the LRSD high school academic cumculum in a small class setting utilizing computer based PLATO software. The participants were also exposed to a social skills curriculum. The program began with 10 grade students and was supposed to add a grade level each year until grades 9-12 were in operation. At the end of their year of participation, students could reenroll or return to the regular classroom. n II n LSHS was staffed by two certified teachers, one instructional aide, a part-time security officer, and a program admimstrator. Case management services were provided through a grant-funded position from the Arkansas Department of Human Services. Unfortunately, there are no additional details in the three previous evaluations that desOTbe the precise treatment afforded students in the program. Missing is any indication of precisely how much of the curriculum was delivered by computer, how and when any of the methods described in Objective 6 above were implemented, the role of the certified teachers and aide, how and when the social skills curriculum was implemented (or even what the social skills curriculum actually consisted of), or any type of schedule of activities. m m 11 History The Lyceum High School Scholars program began as an alternative learning environment program for underachieving high school students in October of school year 1997-98. It was envisioned as a partnership venture with a Little Rock area college or university inn order to enhance the likelihood of successfully addressing the mission of the program as stated above. The initial partner was UALR, which housed the program for one year. Thereafter, the program was housed at Philander Smith College. The LSHS program was discontinued after the 2000-2001 school year. 2 m 1635B. Methodology t p 2 C5. \u0026lt; \u0026gt;5 11 The methodology and key findings of each of the three previous evaluations are addressed separately below. fl 3 \u0026gt; Z 1999-2000 Program Evaluation Although the evaluation report does not have a section that specifically describes the methodology in detail, there is enough narrative in the report to discern that the methodology consisted primarily of satisfaction surveys administered to students, parents, staff, and administrators. In addition, the report provides a statistical analysis of student achievement gains in mathematics, language arts, and reading as measured by a pre/post assessment utilizing the PLATO instructional program and a pre/post assessment of student attendance and suspensions. I Key results of the program evaluation included the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. 100% of the students were either satisfied or very satisfied with the application process, student services offered, stafTstudent interactions/communications, and the overall program. Students gave high ratings to their interactions with college personnel and the instructional program. 100% of the students were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with meals provided by the LRSD and 62.5% of the students were similarly dissatisfied with the meals in the student center. With the exception of the items on meals, parents were satisfied or very satisfied with all components of the program. The staff was completely satisfied with the program. The LRSD administrators were highly complimentary of the program. When compared to pre-LSHS levels, students exhibited an 85% reduction in school absences and a 30% reduction in suspensions at the end of the program. Average grade-level increases from the beginning to the end of the program for students were 3.71 for mathematics, 6.48 for language arts, and 5.00 for reading. 1 Based on the results of the program, it would appear that the LSHS program was successful. Program Objective #1 was achieved, results approached the level sought in Program Objective #2, and Program Objective #3 appeared to be met. However, because of the limitations of the evaluation outlined in the next section, the results and interpretation of the results should be viewed with caution. 2000-2001 Program Evaluation The same methodology that was described above also applies to this evaluation report with one exception. In this evaluation, LRSD administrators were not surveyed. 15 W 2M v\u0026gt; C2 2w ri a 8 3 1636 Key results of the program evaluation included the following\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The percentages of students who were satisfied or very satisfied with program components were as follows: 100%-application form and social studies instruction. 94.5%English instruction 94,4%science and communications instruction 88.9%faculty 77.8%-mathematics instruction 66.7%-case management, computer-aided instruction, and grading procedures 83.4% of the students were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with meals provided by LRSD and 55.5% were similarly dissatisfied with the media center. 94.4 % of the students thought that their teachers respected them as individuals. 72.2% of the students would not recommend the LSHS to a friend 61.1% of the students expressed satisfaction with the overall program 61.7% of the students indicated that they preferred to return to their assigned schools the next year. 80% of the parents were satisfied with the overall program 75% of the parents were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the meals provided by LRSD 60% of the parents stated that they would like their child to return to the LSHS next year and would recommend the program to others. 10.100% of the LSHS staff were satisfied or very satisfied with the service that the service center provided LSHS students. 11. 67.7% of the staff were very dissatisfied with the student selection process and 50% were very dissatisfied with the career center. 12. 67.7% of the staff were dissatisfied with preparation and planning time, expectations of student behavior, management of student behavior, and support for disciplinary actions. 13.40% of the staff were dissatisfied with support from the LRSD administrator. 14. When compared to pre-LSHS levels, students exhibited a 60% reduction in school absences and a 33% reduction in suspensions at the end of the program. 15. Average grade level increases from the beginning to the end of the program for students were 4.51 for mathematics, 6.57 for language arts, and 6.23 for reading. Results of the program evaluation for 2000-2001 are mixed. Students are still satisfied with many aspects of the program, but at lower levels than the previous year. Yet, a clear majority of the students would not recommend the program to a friend nor did they want to return the next year. However, the students did exhibit reductions in absences and suspensions, and average increases in grade levels were higher than the year before. With respect to the staff, levels of dissatisfaction with program elements related to student behavior and discipline were high, as was dissatisfaction with administrative support. Although student absences and suspensions decreased, it appeared that discipline was problematic for the staff. That certainly raises the question of whether or not there that disparity might be related to students' reluctance to recommend the program to others and their desire to return to their regular schools. 4 B II II II B II n n II 11 m v in in VI 1637r a Again, because of limitations addressed in the next section, results and interpretations need to be viewed with caution. 1998-1999 \u0026amp; 1999-2000 Two-Year Comparison fl fl fl fl fl The LRSD provided QEMA with a program evaluation report that combined data on the LSHS program for 1998-1999 \u0026amp; 1999-2000. However, the report is clearly labeled a Draft on all pages of the report, and theres no indication that the report was ever taken beyond the draft stage to become an official program evaluation of the LSHS program. Nevertheless, the report does have a description of the methodology, although the description tends to outline the data to be presented as opposed to how it was collected or analyzed. The methodology addresses participation, performance, and perception. Participation in LSHS is presented by race and gender. Performance is addressed through suspension and absentee data\ngrade level gains in language, mathematics, and reading, achievement test scores in language, mathematics, and reading\nand correlations between achievement tests and computer generated tests. Perception is addressed through a set of satisfaction surveys administered to students, parents, teachers, and admimstrators. fl fl fl Key results of the program evaluation included 1. Student absences increased, while the days in suspension decreased. 2. Students were performing at grade level as measured by the PLATO software. 3. Students scored higher in mathematics than the LRSD average e scores on the Achievement Level Test (ALT). 4. Students scored below the LRSD average in reading and language usage on the ALT. 5. Students in the 1999-2000 group reported higher levels of satisfaction than those in the 1998-1999 group. a 6. 7. 8. 9. Students and parents wanted more classroom time and less time on the computers. Both students and parents were dissatisfied with morning bus amval times. Staff wanted more support in instructional delivery. Principals of feeder schools wanted more information about the LSHS program. I ffS Results of this evaluation report are mixed also. However, when the results are compared to the other two program evaluation reports, it is interesting to note that the measures used to report the results are different. For example, in the previous two reports, absenteeism and suspension data were reported by a pre/post recording of actual incidences of absence and suspension. Then, an average gain or loss was calculated. In this 1998 through 2000 comparative study, an average number of days absent and days suspended was calculated, and the first year was compared to the second. Hence, there occurs an entirely different interpretation of the data and the relative success of the program. It is also interesting to note that absence and suspension calculations in the two other evaluations were consistent with the expectations of program outcomes as stated in the program objectives. {15 M 2 n \u0026gt; CZ5 C 2 2 M 5 -1(38 p p 2 C Wi \u0026lt; J' n 5 \u0026gt; c 2 CZ) n a   The same difficulty with interpretation occurs with the performance data. In the previous two reports, performance was measured by pre/post gains in grade levels, while in the instant case, that data were reported, but also included comparisons on a different test. The latter was not a test identified in the LSHS program objectives. II n An overall and general interpretation of the data from all three evaluation reports would indicate that the satisfaction levels of students, parents, staff, and administration increased from the first year of program operation to the second and diminished from the second year of operation to the third\nthat the LSHS program had a positive impact on reducing student absenteeism and suspensions\nand that students made gains in mathematics, language arts, and reading grade levels as measured by PLATO, but fell below grade level in language arts and reading when compared on a different test. B II II C. Limitations General II 1. There is an inadequate description of the program that hinders stakeholders from determining the exact \"treatment\" of the program and whether or not the data provide any useful information. II 2. Although neither the 1999-2000 nor the 2000-2001 evaluations have a clearly identified purpose for the evaluation, the Two-Year Comparison evaluation, does. However, the \"draft\" status of the latter limits the utility of the report. VI VI 3. The stakeholders for the 1999-2000 and the 2000-2001 evaluations are not clearly identified. The audience for the Two-Year Comparison evaluation is not identified either and is complicated by the fact that the report is clearly labeled a Draft on all pages of the report. Thus, the utility of that report is limited. m 4. There are no clearly identified research questions that address LSHSs effectiveness, impact, success, etc. in any of the three evaluation reports. However, while the 1999-2000 and the 2000-2001 evaluations do not identify what the evaluation is supposed to achieve, the Two-Year Comparison evaluation's purpose statements do provide direction for the data presentation and analysis. The data presentation and analysis in all three reports do appear to be directly related to at least some of the stated objectives of the program. m w RI Methodology Hl 1. There is no methodology stated in either the 1999-2000 or the 2000- 2001 evaluations. The Two-Year Comparison evaluation, on the other hand, does have a description of the methodology, although the description tends to outline the data be presented as opposed to how it was collected or analyzed. 6  1639I 2. The methodology utilized for 1999-2000 and the 2000-2001 evaluations is grounded primarily in student, parent, staff, and administrator satisfaction oriented reactions to all of the components of the LSHS program. While that data may be of interest, there is no meaningful connection between that data and program objectives nor the primary intent of the program, which was to help underachieving students reach their academic potential. Since similar surveys were utilized in the Two-Year Comparison evaluation, the same limitations apply. 3. The number of students, parents, staff, and administrators participating in the siuveys limits the interpretation of the data. 4. 'Data generated on achievement levels of the students are limited by small numbers and absence of control groups or any other controls against research bias. Data to Inform Practice El Because of the limitations stated above, there is very little in the way of meaningful data that could inform current practice in providing alternative learning environments in the LRSD. Achievement Effects I Although there was some encouraging data in terms of absenteeism, suspensions, and grade level gains, none of the data was broken out by ethnicity. Therefore, there was no way that stakeholders could ascertain the impact of the LSHS program on the academic achievement of African American students. D. Suggestions for Improved Practice in Program Evaluation QEMA recognizes that the Little Rock School District has adopted the evaluation guidelines outlined in the publication \"The Program Evaluation Standards: How To Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs (2\"'' Edition) by The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1994). The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation is a coalition of major professional associations concerned with the quality of evaluation and is housed at The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University. The guidelines are compatible with the Little Rock School District Revised Compliance Plan and standards for program evaluation. Continued implementation of the evaluation guidelines should address most issues related to program evaluation in the futme. r n 2 M 2 \u0026gt; \u0026lt; C S s w ri X  7 1640 p I p 2 6' W' 7 \u0026lt;1 \u0026gt; s 9 5 c 2PROGRAM EVALUATION PhUander Smith College/ LRSD Lyceum Scholars High School 1 .1 1999 - 2000 D II II n n p p p p p p p p p p p } 16411 I This evaluation report is divided into two sections. Section I presents the results of four surveys that were completed by the following individuals\nA. Students in the Lyceum Program B. Parents of Lyceum students C. Lyceum staff members D. LRSD administrators with' students enrolled in the Lyceum program Section n is a statistical analysis of student academic progress for \u0026amp;e year and a r^rt conqiaring student attendance and suspensions before entrance to the program and this year. key MNUIMPS 1. The number of individuals completing each of the evaluation surveys were\nStudent Survey - 8 Parent Survey -10 Staff Survey-3 Administrative Survey - 3 2. 100% of the students were either satisfied or very satisfied with the Application Process. 3. Only 50% of the students were either satisfied or very satisfied with the Restroom Facilities. 4. 5. 6. 100% of the students were satisfied or very satisfied with the Student Services offered. Students regarded their Interactions with College Personnel as very fevorable. The Instructional Program received high marks from the students. 7. 100% of the students were either satisfied or very satisfied with StafiZStudent 8. 9. Interactions/Commnnications. 100% of the students were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the Meals Provided by LRSD. 62.5% of the students were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied by the Meals in the Student Center. 10.100% of the students were satisfied or very satisfied with the Overall Program. tn n 2 '2. \u0026gt; Vi S S m n a: 8 1642 r Si S 5^ fl 0 \u0026gt; c 2 I 2 311. With the exception of the survey item dealing with Meals Provided by LRSD, all of  were either satisfied or very satisfied. the parent responses 12 Thp St Aff Survey reflected complete satisfaction with the program. 13. LRSD school administrators were also highly complimentary of the program. 14 Lyceum students showed an 85% redaction in school absences, and a 30% reduction in the number of suspensions, when compared to their pre-Lyceum assignments. 15. Lyceum students recorded the following average grade level increases over the course of this school year: Language Arts - 6.48 Math-3.71 Reading-5    n A n n n II n n in wi 1643program EVALUAHON - LRSD LYCEUM STUDENT SURVEY 1999- 2000 \u0026gt; Frequeni Valid GRADE z fl \u0026gt; fl 5 I Valid Valid Missing Total 9.00 10.00 Total Male Female Total 6 2 8 Frequeni 5 3 8 Percent 75.0 25.0 100.0 Gender Valid Percent TOO 25.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent TSX\" 100.0 z Percent 62.5 37.5 100.0 Valid Percent ezT 37.5 .100.0 Cumulative Percent 62.5 100.0 Race Frequeni African American Caucasian Other Total System Frequeni Valid 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 Total 1 3 2 2 8 Valid Missing Total 8.00 725.00 Total System 4 2 1 7 1 8 Percent 500 25.0 12.5 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent TtT 28.6 14.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent stT 85.7 100.0 Age Percent 12.5 37.5 25.0 25.0 100.0 Valid Percent \"715 37.5 25.0 25.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent TTT 50.0 75.0 100.0 Schcxl attended prior to the Lyceum Frequeni 1 5 6 2 8 Percent 12.5 62.5 75.0 25.0 100.0 Valid Percent 167 83.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent  100.0 w M 2 w \u0026gt; CZ) CS sM (Z s 1644  I I Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Missing System Total Valid Vary Satisfied Satisfied Total Missing System Total___________ Valid Written Application Forms Frequency 3 3 1 7 1 ______ 8 Percent 37.6 37.5 12.5 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 42.9 42.9 14.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 42.9 85.7 100.0  Personal Interview Frequency 3 4 7 1 ____8 Percent 37.6 50.0 87.5 12.6 100.0 Valid Percent 42.9 57.1 100.0 Cumulative Percent 42.9 100.0 n Notification of Acceptance Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Missing System Total___________ Frequency 3 4 7 1 _____ 8 Percent 37.5 50.0 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 42.9 57.1 100.0 Cumulative Percent 42.9 100.0 II II n Classrooms Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Frequency 3 5 ____ 8 Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 Restrooms Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total _______ _ Frequency 2 2 3 1 ________ 8 Percent 25.0 25.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 I Valid Percent 25.0 25.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 25.0 50.0 87.5 100.0 1645 student Center Frequem Valid Missing Total Valid H SI ! Very Satisfied Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Total System Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Missing System Total___________ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_ 3 . 3 1 7 1 8 Percent 37.5 37.5 12.5 87.5 12.5 100.0 Media Center Frequem 2 4 1 7 1 8 Percent 25.0 50.0 12.5 87.5 12.5 100.0 Computer Lab Access Frequency 1 7 ____ 8 Percent 12.5 87.5 100.0 Orientation Frequency 1 4 3 ____ 8 1 Valid Percent 42.S 42.0 14.3 100.0 Percent 12.5 50.0 37.5 100.0 Health Services Frequency 1 5 2 8 Valid Percent 28^ 57.1 14.3 100.0 Valid Percent 12.5 87.5 100.0 Percent 12.5 62.5 25.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 42.9 85.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 28.6 85.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 12.5 100.0 2 I) \u0026gt; n a r \u0026gt; 2 Valid Percent iTT 50.0 37.5 100.0 Valid Percent 12.5 62.5 25.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 12.5 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 12.5 75.0 100.0 w n 2 M a: \u0026lt; Vi i 2 m X CA ri x  1646 Career Center I ) Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Total__________ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total________ I Valid Valid Valid Frequency 2 4 2 _____8 Very Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Mery Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Mery Satisfied Satisfied Total_________ Percent 25.0 50.0 25.0 100.0 Valid Percent 25.0 50.0 25.0 100.0 Mentoring/Counsellng Frequency 2 5 1 _____6 Percent 25.0 62.5 12.5 100.0 Case Management Frequency 3 4 1 ______8 Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 Faculty Frequency 5 3 _____B Percent 62.5 37.5 100.0 Support Personnel Frequency 4 4 ___8 Percent 50.0 50.0 100.0 Security Frequency 3 5 ______8 Cumulative Percent 25.0 75.0 100.0 D II 11 Valid Percent 25.0 62.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 Percent 37.5 62.5 Cumulative Percent 25.0 87.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 87.5 100.0 II n RI RI RI RI Valid Percent 62.5 37.5 100.0 Valid Percent 50.0 50.0 100.0 100.0 I Valid Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 50.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 RI \\Administration ) ) I I } Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ _ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Valid Valid Valid Frequency 3 5 8 Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Valid Percent 62.5 100.0 Classroom Management Frequency 3 5 8 Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Valid Percent \"stT 62.5 100.0 Instructional Materials Frequency 3 5 ____8 Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Textboolcs Frequency 5 2 1 8 Percent 62.5 25.0 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 Valid Percent  62.5 100.0 Valid Percent 62ir 25.0 12.5 100.0 Computer-aided Instruction Cumulative Percent sTs 100.0 Cumulative Percent 62.5 87.5 100.0 Vary Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Frequency 3 4 1 8 Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37iP 50.0 12.5 100.0- Cumulative Percent stT 87.5 100.0 English Instruction Missing Total Very Satisfied Satisfied Total System Frequency 4 3 7 1 ____ 8 Percent 50.0 37.5 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 57.1 42.9 100.0 Cumulative Percent 57.1 100.0 tn n S \"i \u0026gt; la \u0026lt; CA e 22 w CoA s  1648 p'. c. P9 O' X 9 \u0026gt; z I 2 Vi X z Math Instruction Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Frequency 6 2 ___ 8 Percent 75.0 25.0 100.0 Science Instruction Valid Valid Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Valid Valid Valid Percent 75.0 25.0 100.0 T Cumulative Percent 75.0 100.0 n nn Frequency 4 2 2 ____ 8 Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Percent 50.0 25.0 25.0 100.0 Valid Percent 50.0 25.0 25.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 50.0 75.0 100.0 nn Social Studies Instruction Frequency 6 2 11 Percent 75.0 25.0 100.0 Valid Percent 75.0 25.0 100.0 I Cumulative Percent 75.0 100.0 Connnunications Instruction Frequency 5 2 1 _____ 8 Percent 62.5 25.0 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 62.5 25.0 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 62.5 87.5 100.0 Personal Academic Success Frequency 4 3 1 ______8 Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Individual Attention to Needs II H m m II m Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Frequency 4 3 1 8 Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 50.0 87.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent soio\" 87.5 100.0 ffl mn 1649 Number of Courses Available 1   .a 1 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Total_ _ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total____ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Frequency 4 3 1 ____ 8 Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Group Wort( Frequency 3 4 1 ____ 8 Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 Projects Frequency 3 3 1 1 ___ 8 Vaiid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied I Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied ' Total_______ Valid Percent \"soio' 37.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 50.0 1Z.S 100.0 Percent 37.5 37.5 12.5 12.5 100.0 Grading Procedures Frequency 1 4 3 1 _______Ll Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Field Trips Frequency 5 2 1 8 Percent 62.5 25.0 12.5 100.0 Homework Frequency 7 1 ___ 8 Cumulative Percent 50.0 87.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 375\" 87.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 37.5 12.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent stT 75X 100.0 r,  '5 ci K0?a Valid Percent ' 50ir 37.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent soio\" 87.5 100.0 Percent 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 625\" 25.0 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 625\" 87.5 100.0 Valid Percent btT 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 87.5 100.0 m n S n \u0026gt; 'JO \u0026lt; 7) c S S M x  1650 I \u0026gt;  I s3 \u0026gt; He 7. i 5 X -I X \u0026gt;X H 2 t 1 I staff Responds in a Caring and Helpful Manner vSid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Frequency 3 4 1 8 Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent StT 50.0 12.5 100.0 Staff Provides Nurturance and Support to Students Vaiid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Valid Valid Frequeni 3 4 1 8 Percent 37.6 50.0 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37T 50.0 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37y 87.5 100.0 Staff Has High Expectations for My Academic Success Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Frequency 4 3 1 ___ 8 Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent soy 37.5 12.5 100.0 Staff Has High Expectations for My Behavior Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Frequency 6 1 1 8 Percent 75.0 12.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent stT 87.5 100.0 Valid Percent 75.0 12.5 12.5 100.0 My Teacher Respect Me as an Individual VaHd Very Satsfied Satisfied Dissatslfied Total_______ Valid Cumulative Percent \"soy 87.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent Tsy 87.5 100.0 Frequency 4 3 . 1 ___ 8 Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 5oy 37.5 12.5 100.0 Support Staff Respect Me as an Individual Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied ' Total_______ Frequency 4 3 1 ___ 8 Percent 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 5oy 37.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent ' 5oy 87.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent soy 87.5 100.0 1651 Meals Provided by LRSD Frequem ) I ) Valid Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total__________ vSiid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total Valid Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total__________ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Valid 1 7 8 Percent 12.5 87.5 100.0 Meals in Student Center Frequeni 1 2 1 4 8 Percent 12.5 25.0 12.5 50.0 100.0 Bus Arrivals A.M. Frequeni 2 4 1 1 8 Valid Percent 115 87.5 100.0 Percent 25.0 50.0 12.5 12.5 100.0 Bus Arrivals P.M. Frequency 3 4 1 8 Valid Percent \"\"iis\" 25.0 12.5 50.0 100.0 Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 Bus Safety Cumulative Percent 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 25F 50.0 12.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Pexent 37T 50.0 12.5 100.0 Ti Si. n 9 . Very Satisfied Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Total__________ Would you Valid Yes Missing System Tolaf___________ Frequency 3 4 1 8 Percent 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 1 Cumulative Percent il5 37.5 50.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 2sy 75.0 87.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 87.5 100.0 Valid Percent stT 50.0 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent stT 87.5 100.0 recommend the Lyceum Program to a friend? Frequency 7 1 8 I Percent 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent iooio Cumulative Percent  100.0 w Pl 2 Pl 2 \u0026gt; czi C2 S M Vi O x  1652 5 ' c2 Overall Program Satisfaction i ) J Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ .Frequency 3 5 _________ 8 Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 I 9 If the Lyceum Program is available to you for the 2000-01 school year, what are your plans? 9 Valid Missing Total Valid Continued Enrollment Undecided Total System Frequency 6 1 7 1 8 Percent 75.0 12.5 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 85.7 14.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 85.7 100.0 9 II n What are your plans after graduation from high school? n Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Enroll in Four Year College Enroll in Two Year College. Undecided Total 4 1 50.0 12.5 57.1 14.3 57.1 71.4 Missing System Total___________ 2 7 1 8 25.0 87.5 12.5 100.0 28.6 100.0 100.0 ri II nn n II n n 1653 M [ri program evaluation - LRSD LYCEUM parent survey 1999 - 2000 iri iri Gender II II II fl il n II n nn pi Frei lueni Valid Valid Male Female Total 1 9 10 Percent ioT 90.0 100.0 Valid Percent  ioo 90.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Race Frequem African-America Caucasian Totel_________ Valid Missing Total 1.00 8.00 725.00 Total System Valid Parent 6 4 10 Percent 60.0 40.0 100.0 Valid Percent eoxr 40.0 100.0 School Last Attended Frequem 1 2 5 8 2 10 Percent iKo 20.0 50.0 80.0 20.0 100.0 Vaiid Percent 25.0 62.5 100.0 Relationship to Student Frequency 10 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent ioo.^ Cumulative Percent 600\" 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent  [fl 2n z\u0026gt; \u0026lt; Cw S s n s 8 1654 { e 0 c, \u0026gt; fl 9 \u0026gt; -i ze ! (I C I I Valid Valid Valid Valid My Child's Grade 9.00 10.00 Total Frequency 6 4 ____10 Very Satisfied satisfied Dissatisfied 22.00 Total_______ Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Percent 60.0  40.0 100.0 Valid Percent 60.0 40.0 100.0 student Referral Procedures Frequency 4 4 1 1 10 Percent 40.0 40.0 10.0, 10.0 100.0 Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Cumulative Percent 60.0 100.0 Vafid Percent 40.0 40.0 10.0 10.0 100.0 Written Application Forms Frequency 4 6 ________ 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Vafid Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Personal Interview Frequency 4 6 _____ 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 NoUfication of Acceptance Frequency 4 6 ______ 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 40.0 60.0 _______ 100.0 Orientation II n II Cumulative Percent 40.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40.0 100.0 II II n II II Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Totel_______ Frequency  3 7 ___ 10 Percent 30.0 70.0 100.0 Valid Percent 30.0 70.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30.0 100.0 1655 ri Health Services ri Freguenc\nValid ri I Missing 1 Total Very Satisfied Satisfied Total System 3 6 9 1 to Percent soT 60.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 33T 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent . 100.0 ( e r: e \u0026lt; B'l \u0026gt; fl 0 ri Case Management \u0026gt; 5z ri ri Valid Freqtiem II El El El 1 / Missing Total Valid 11 II nn Very Satisfied Satisfied Total System Missing Total Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total System Missing Total Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total System Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ 4 5 9 1 10 Percent 40?0 50.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Career Center Frequeni 2 7 9 1 10 Valid Percent 447 55.6 100.0 Cumulative Percent 447 100.0 C Percent I 20^ 70.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent -----------Si nA 100.0 Cumulative Percent 222 100.0 Mentoring/CounsellnB Frequent 5 4 9 1 10 Frequent Percent 50^ 40.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Faculty 4 6 10 Percent 405\" 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 1 ' 5^6 44.4 100.0 Valid Percent 40^ 60.0 100.0. Cumulative Percent 55.6 '' 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40^ 100.0 ww S n 2 \u0026lt; c S ffl X 8 1656 ) 1 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Missing System Total____________ Valid Missing Total Valid Support Personnel Frequency 5 4 9 1 _____ 10 i Percent 50.0 40.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Securtty Valid Percent 55.6 44.4 100.0 Cumulative Percent 55.6 100.0 nn II Very Satisfied Satisfied Total System Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Missing System Total_______ ____ Valid L Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Frequency 3 6 9 1 _____ 10 Percent 30.0 60.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100\n0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Administration Frequency 2 7 9 1 __10 Percent 20.0 70.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 222 77.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 222 100.0 Classroom Nlanagement Frequency 4 6 _ 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 40.0 60.0 Cumulative Percent 40.0 100.0 Instructional Materials 100.0 Missing System Total _________ Frequency 3 5 8 2 ______10 Percent 30.0 50.0 80.0 20.0 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 K 1657 Textbooks Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Frequency _ 3 6 1 10 Percent 30.0 60.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent soT 60.0 10.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30^ 90.0 100.0 f c R\nC'. \u0026lt; \u0026gt; fl 9 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total I Computer-aided Instruction Frequeni 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 English Instruction Frequeni 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Math Instruction Frequeni I 1 p 1 i Valid Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ 4 6 10 Valid Percent 40X 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40X 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40^ 100.0 5 5 5 ! S I Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent Zo^\" 60.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40^ 100.0 Science Instruction Frequeni 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent ZoF 60.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent  ZoT 100.0 J Social Studies Instruction Frequeni 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent ZoT\" 60.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40^ 100.0 r pj S n 2 \u0026gt; va C S CA a:  r 1658! Communications Instruction vSiid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 2 8 ___10 i Percent 20.0 80.0 100.0 Valid Percent 20.0 80.0 100.0 Your Child's Personal Academic Progress Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Vaiid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Cumulative Percent 20.0 100.0 n Bl n Frequency 4 5 1 10 Percent 40.0 50.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 40.0 50.0 10.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40.0 90.0 . 100.0 Individual Attention to Needs Frequency 3 7 10 Percent 30.0 70.0 100.0 Valid Percent ??? 70.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30.0 100.0 Number of Courses Available Frequency 4 6 ___10 I Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 40?\" 60.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40.0 100.0 Group Work Bl Bl Bl Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Frequency 2 8 10 Percent 20.0 80.0 100.0 Vafid Percent 2?? 80.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 20? 100.0 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Classroom Environment Frequency 6 4 10 Percent 60.0 40.0 100.0 I Valid Percent 6?? 40.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 60? 100.0 1659Valid Grading Procedures 4 Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Frequency 5 5 ___10 Percent 50.0 50.0 100.0 Reid Trips Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Homeworic Valid Percent 50.0 50.0 100.0 Cumulative 1 Percent 50.0 100.0 ( e R 9 \u0026lt; \u0026gt; 9 B 9 VaHd Percent 40^ 60.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent  40^ 100.0 \u0026gt; c 2 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Frequency 3 6 1 10 Percent 30.0 60.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 30^ 60.0 10.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30^ 90.0 100.0 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Valid ParenVTeacher Conferences Frequency 3 7 10 Percent 30.0 70.0 100.0 Valid Percent sox' 70.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30^ 100.0 Responsiveness of Teachore to Student Needs Very Satisfied Satisfied Tptel_______ Frequency 2 8 __ 10 T Percent 20.0 80.0 100.0 i Valid Percent 2oT 80.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent  20^ 100.0 Nurturance and Support Provided Students Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Frequency 3 6 1 __ 10 Percent 30.0 60.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 30^ 60.0 10.0 100.0 1 Cumulative Percent 30.0 90.0 100.0 P3 S n z \u0026gt; CA C S S M W  1660 1 Valid Valid Valid staff Respects Me as an Individual Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Frequeni 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent ^oT 60.0 100.0 staff Responds in a Caring and Helpful Manner Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 3 7 10 Percent 30.0 70.0 100.0 Valid Percent ' \"aoT 70.0 100.0 Meals Provided by LRSD Frequeni ! Valid 1 f ,! I i Cumulative Percent ZoT 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30^ 100.0 II Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total Meri Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total Valid Valid Vary Satisfied Satisfied Dissafisfied Total Very Satisfw Satisfied Dissatisfied ' Total_____ id 1 2 5 2 10 Percent 10.0 20.0 50.0 20.0 100.0 Valid Percent \"io^ 20.0 50.0 20.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent ioT 30.0 80.0 100.0 Ml Hl Meals in Student Center Frequeni 3 5 1 1 10 Percent 30.0 50.0 10.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 30^ 50.0 10.0 10.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent ' 3oT 80.0 90.0 100.0 Bus Arrival A.M. Frequency 3 5 2 10 Percent 30.0 50.0 20.0 100.0 Valid Percent 30^ 50.0 20.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 30^ 80.0 100.0 Bus Arrival P.M. Frequency 4 6 1 10 Percent 40.0 50.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent ToT\" 50.0 10.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent  40^ 90.0 100.0 ' 16611 Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Do you Valid I Bus Safety Frequem 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent 4oT 60.0 100.0 Have you volunteered at school this year? Yes No Total Frequency 4 6 10 Percent 40.0 60.0 100.0 Valid Percent * 40T 60.0 100.0 wish for your son/daughter to for the 2000-01 school year? Yes No Total Frequency 7 3 10 Would you Vaiid Yes No Total Valid Cumulative Percent 400 100.0 Cumulative Percent 4^ 100.0 return to the Lyceum ALE Program Percent 70.0 30.0 100.0 Valid Percent . 70.0 30.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent \"\" toT 100.0 recommend the Lyceum ALE Program to others? Frequency 9 1 10 Percent 90.0 10.0 100.0 Valid Percent 90^ 10.0 100.0 Overall Program Satisfaction Frequem p I? s'. \u0026gt; X n 0 \u0026gt; C z Very Satisfied Satisfied Totel________ 6 4 10 Percent 60.0 40.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 90^ 100.0 Valid Percent 60.0 40.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 60^ 100.0 1662 P5 2 M z \"J V) C 2 2 Q IPROGRAM EVALUATION - LRSD LYCEUM STAFF SURVEY 1999-2000 n ) student Selection Process Valid Valid Valid Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_____ Frequency 1 2 ____ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 n n Satisfied Curriculum Offered Frequency ____ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Expected Outcomes Very Satisfied Missing System Tote!___________ Frequency 1 2 _____ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Selection of Staff Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 1 2 ________3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Qualifications of Staff Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 1 2 _ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100 J Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 II Cumulative Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 1 leaching Performance Valid Very Satisfied , Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 1 2 ______3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 1663 p I :S Valid Satisfied Ir% g 1r1 II ri II nnn Valid Relationships with College Personnel Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Frequeni 3 Percent 100.0 Orientation Frequency 1 2 3 Valid Percent 100.0 Percent 33.3 100.0 Health Services Cumulative Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 33T 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 335\" 100.0 e?. \u0026lt;i\ng fl 3 5z Valid Virf Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Frequency 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Career Center Frequency  Percent Valid Valid Satisfied Satisfied Missing System Total___________ _ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Valid Satisfied 3 100.0 Valid Percent 33T 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent NIentoring/Counseling Frequency 2 1 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent Too? Case Management Frequency 1 2 ___ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 PreparationZPIanning Frequeni 3 Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 33T G\u0026amp;.7 100.0 Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 3^3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 t5 m 5 z \"i \u0026gt; fl \u0026lt; Cfl C S M sn 8 1664 ! Valid Satisfied Dissatisfied Total____ _ Valid Valid Valid Support In Instnictlonal Delivery Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Very Satisfied Satisfied Total ______ Frequency 1 2 ____ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Intructional Materials Frequency 1 2 ______3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Very Satisfied Satisfied Total______ Valid Satisfied Valid Satisfied Valid Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Program Evaluation Design Frequency 1 2 _____ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Profeasioml Evaluation Process Frequency 1 2 _____ 3 Percent 33.3 66,7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Expectatiorrs for Student Behavior Frequency 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Management of Student Behavior Frequency 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Support for Disciplinary Actions Very Satisfied Missing System Total __________ Frequency 2 1 ___ 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0- Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 1665 i Valid Administration of Food Sendee Program  r 1 h Satisfied Dissatsified Total_____ Frequency 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 P'\nRi O \u0026gt;5 I fl 9 1 Delivery of LRSD Prepared Meals Valid Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Total__________ Frequency 1 2 ____ 3 Valid Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Vafid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 5c z Distribution of LRSD Prepared Meals Satisfied Dissatisfied Total Frequency 1 2 _3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0\n-Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Service of Lyceum Students in the Student Center Satisfied Frequency _____3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Bus Arrival Times AM. Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Valid Very SattsBad Frequency 1 2 3_L Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Vafid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Bus Arrival Times P.M. Frequency 1 2 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33? 100.0 From Ale Administrator Frequency 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 100.0 w Pl S Pl \u0026gt; CZl c: 2 2 oX 8 1666 ) From LRSD Administrator Valid Very Satisfied Frequency ____3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 n n Valid I Very Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Valid Very Satisfied Valid Valid Lyceum Advisory Committee II Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Very Satisfied Valid Satisfied Missing System Total___________ Frequency 1 2 ___ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 _______ 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 II n ParentZStaff Interactions Frequency ______ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 II n Parent Involvement Frequency 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 n Parental Support Frequency ____ J. Percent 100.0 Vafid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Summer Teacher Training Frequency 2 1 _3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Behavior Management Training Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 1 2 _______ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 1667 Valid Very Satisfied Dissatisfied Total_______ Valid Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid I Satisfied Dissatisfied Total OngolnQ Staff Davalopnwnt Frequem 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Plato Training Frequency 1 2 ___ 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Classrooins Frequency 2 1 3_l Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Library Valid Percent 33T 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 3X3\" 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 3X3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 3X3\" 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 r oS s 9 \u0026gt; -1 C z I Valid Valid Frequei Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Merf Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33T 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Computer Lab Frequency 1 2 3 I Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 I Valid Percent 3X3 66.7 100.0 JanKorial Services Frequency 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 3X3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 3X3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33T 100.0 w r n S n zg. s ws ya Vi n s  1668 Comfortability I t I Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total________ Frequency 1 2 3 Percent 33.3 66.7 1 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 I I Do you recommend that the Lyceum Program continue for the 2000-01 school year? I Frequeni Valid Yes Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent  io^ 3 II recommend that theXyceum Program expand to another grade Do you level for the 2000-01 school year? [ Valid Yes Frequency 3 Percent Valid Percent 100.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 [ return to the Lyceum Program for the 2000-01 school yrar? Do you wish to I Valid Yes Frequency 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 I  I Overall Program Satisfaction I Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 1 2 ____3 i Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 I I III II I 1669 I\u0026lt; zi- Valid Valid 1 Valid 1 PROGRAM EVALUATION - LRSD LYCEUM ADMINISTRATIVE SURVEY 1999-2000 student Referral Process Frequeni Cl 51 fl 9 Very Satisfied Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Very Satisfied Valid 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0~ Cumulative Percent 10Q.0 \u0026gt; 2 2 Opportunities for Acceleration Very Satisfied Satisfied Total Valid Very Satisfied Valid Frequency 2 1 ___13 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66T 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 5 J 2 7 2 Student Parent Contact Frequeni 3 Percent 100.0 Selection of Students Frequency 2 1 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Curriculum Offered Frequeni 3 Percent 100.0 Expected Outcomes Frequeni Very Satisfied 3 \\ Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100^ Percent 100.0 Valid Percent eST 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Vafid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent eeT 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 r PJ 2 PJ 2 X VJ C2 2 C/5 n s  1670 Selection of Staff Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Frequency 2 1 _________ 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66.7 33.3 ________100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 Qualifications of Staff I Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_ Frequency 2 1 _____ 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 I Valid Relationships with Program Personnel n Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 2 1 ___3 Percent 66,7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 II n Expectations for Student Behavior Valid Very Satisfied Frequency _______ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 n n Management of Student Behavior Valid Very Satisfied Valid Very Satisfied Frequency ______3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 From ALE Administrator Frequency ________ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 From LRSD Administrator Cumulative Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 11 II II n Valid Very Satisfied Frequency _____ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent _______ 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 1671 Student/Parant Orientation Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_____ __ Frequency 2 1 ______ 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Health Services Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Frequency 2 1 _____ 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 Valid Very Satisfied Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ _ Valid Very Satisfied Satisfied Total_______ Valid Case Management Frequency ________ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Computer Assisted Instruction Frequency 1 2 _____3 Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Valid Percent 33.3 66.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 100.0 Instructional Methodology Frequency 2 1 _______ 3 Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 66.7 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 66.7 100.0 Overall Program Satisfaction Very Satisfied Frequency _______ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 Would you recommend the Lyceum Program to other students? Valid Yes Frequency _____ 3 Percent 100.0 Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 m n S B Z \"i \u0026gt; 50 \u0026lt; w e 2 2 CX) n a:  1672 l n 2| 0 s' \u0026lt; \u0026gt; 5 \u0026gt; c 1 3 9 'ZI -I X \u0026gt; 1u: 3 2 BBSSS. BBEEEEEEECSaiH: Philander Program Evaluation  Smith College/LRSD Lyceum Academic Report 1999-2000 Plato Fastrack Assessment Pre/post bl vH, John Mt, Lytfone cy. Anah na, Qulanla xJthart, Ray eyllehl, Bfanlaha cCoy, Hicota Mtaf, April Unpton, Patridt unpiofl. Shelly tfjay. Jawaa /I ere. 3/10X)0 n/1(V8B Bn4/B8 U24/Q0 B/24/W 3J22M) sa4/eo tt24ia9 ta4ia9 90199 ea4/M eA4/oe 0 10   0 10 0 10 4.33 ^2 2.2 3 2.4 7.1 2.8 2.8 2.2 2.2 2.4 2 0.68 10.67 068 0.11 7.67 11 7 06 11 0.44 044 0.11 8.70 6.22 8.37 7.36 8.11 6.17 3.0 6.38 8.4 734 7.24 8.71 8.70 MB 6-6 6.8 2.56 62 2.68 8.67 6 6 6-7 6 6.7 9 2.78 7.87 06 0.76 8.03 3.83 025 8.21 10.22 0.26 0.17 0 1.37 3.0 7.10 3.73 1.28 2.88 2.71 4.62 4.26 3.47 6.37 486 273 2.73 2 38 2.00 4.6 37 7.4 767 38 37 200 0.2 10 0.2 803 200 10 7.8 10.77 1041 10.82 1023 8.07 436 7.27 6.47 0 6.6 4.1 337 2.74 7.22 863 608 0 0 0 Compiled -^B/00L B-. II: B.\nc . L IL. 4 i mHHMX school transition k k' p ELEMENTARY SUMMER SCHOOL i ! ' J I 1^ *' .1 J II\n '3 j b \u0026lt;   * - ^?W-' J* i\u0026gt;'  - 3 vj': I I r- - -LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education \u0026gt;l 2nl 0 fl * t \u0026gt;-i C2 FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: S^bBonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction \u0026lt; DATE: February 27, 2003 SUBJECT: Elementary Summer School Program Evaluation Background Information on the Elementary Summer School Program Evaluation One in the group of programs required by the federal court to be evaluated with the participation of an external evaluator was the Elementary Summer School program. In 1998 the State discontinued funding for the elementary summer school program, which had been mandatory for identified students in grades K-3 during 1993-1997. During those years the District also offered a tuition-funded program for students in grades 4-6, providing approximately 25 days of extended instruction with an emphasis on reading and mathematics. Effective 1998, the District continued the funding for grades K-3, and grades 4-5 students had the option of attending a tuition program. (Grade 6 moved to middle school in fall 1999.) The K-3 program changed the emphasis from reading and mathematics to a focus on reading and writing, and instruction was patterned after the Districts comprehensive early literacy program in Prek-3. Steps Taken as a Result of the Program Evaluation The E lementary S ummer S chool p rogram was a bandoned a fter summer 2 001. This decision was made based on the analysis of data by District staff from the summer 2000 and summer 2001 programs and on the desire of elementary principals to provide their own school-based remedial programs throughout the year, instead of during the summer. They saw the summer intervention as being too late to impact achievement scores and too late to impact the initial retention decisions. The funds, approximately $250,000 annually, previously allocated for K-3 summer school are now divided among the elementary schools according to a formula based on the schools enrollment, achievement data, and the number of free/reduced lunch students. Each school submits a plan annually for the use of the funds, including goals. I 1674 I Board Memo February 27, 2003 Page Two strategies, assessments, and budget. Individual students at each school are identified for the program. \u0026gt;1 4 P5I1 91 \u0026lt;pj \u0026gt; f9l eft f\u0026gt;l 5z Desiqnation of External Consultant and His Qualifications On December 2, 2002, the District awarded the contract for the Elementary Summer School program evaluation to the firm. Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc., Dr. Larry McNeal, president. A copy of his resume is attached, establishing his 1 J i qualifications. Administrator Participation in Conducting the Proqram Evaluation /' In addition to Dr. McNeal and his associates, the following LRSD administrators participated in the evaluation: Ms. Frances Cawthon Jones, Assistant Superintendent for Elementary School Services Dr. Ed Williams, Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Mr. Ken Savage, Department of Computer Information Systems Ms. Lillie Carter, Summer School Coordinator Summer 2000 Summer School administrators-Joyce Willingham, Eleanor Cox, Ada Keown, and Donna Hall Summer 2001 Summer School administratorsJoyce Willingham, Eleanor Cox, Ada Keown, and Les Taylor  n Teacher Participation in Conductinq the Proqram Evaluation Elementary school-level test coordinators and teachers involved in administering the SAT-9 (grade 5), ALT (grades 2-5), DRA (grades K-2), Observation Surveys (grades K-2), and state Benchmark examinations (grade 4) a Impact on African-American Student Achievement The external evaluator was not able to determine definitively from existing data whether the elementary summer school program resulted in improved achievement among African American students. The conclusion was that the program had mixed results.\" There was some growth among second- and third-grade students, but kindergarten and grade one students performance maintained a similar level of achievement before and after the program.\" 1 These findings were virtually identical to those concluded by the staff participating in the original study. Recommendation That the Board of Education approve the Elementary Summer School program evaluation for submission to the federal court. BAL/adg 4 ' V 1675 DR. LARRY MCNEAL BUSINESS ADDRESS_______________ University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 S. University Avenue Department of Educational Leadership Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Office 501-569-3552 Fax 501-569-3547 buncnealtSualr.edu HOME ADDRESS 15806 Patriot Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212-2606 501-221-1178 l-xmcneal (ainetscape.net lmcneal59@HntmaiI.com or PkD. __________________PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION____________________ Educational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (1990) Emphasis\nFiscal and Community Support for Public Education Concentrations: Educational Finance, School-Community Relations, and Public School! Administration M.S. Educational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (1989) EmpHasiR- Administration and Orga-nization of Public Education Concentration\nEducational Administration (Public School) 21 5B1l 91 \u0026lt;M1I \u0026gt;1 n 1 cz M. A. B.A. Licensee: Public Affairs. University of Iowa, Iowa City (1976) Emphasis\nPublic Administration Concentration: Urban Admini-stration Business Administration and Political Science, Dakota Wesleyan University, Mitchell, SD (1975) Eirqihasis: Political Economics Concentrations\nBusiness AdTninistration, Political Science and Economics School Business Management (No longer active) Insurance Agent (No longer active) Entrepreneurship: Quality Education and Management Associates, President _________ PROFESSIONAL WORK EXPERIENCE _______________ Professor, Pppartment of Educational Leadership, Graduate School ofEducation, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1998 to the present I Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Management \u0026amp; Development, Graduate School of Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 2000 Educational Administration and Supervision Program Coordinator, Department of Educational Leadership, Graduate School ofEducation, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1998 to 2001 Visiting Professor. Department of Educational Management \u0026amp; Development, Graduate School of Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 1998 Associate Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995 to 1998 1 1681 19 Visiting Professor, BeUver International College. Trenton State College (now College of New Jersey), Graduate School of Education. Palma de Mallorca. Baleares. Spain, Surmner 1996 Associate Director, Office of Educational Finance, Center For Higher Education and Educational Finance, Graduate School of.Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995-1997 State Coordinator, Illinois Education Policy Fellow Program, Institute for Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois 1994-1996 2\nCi \u0026gt;s i1 fal \u0026gt; C \"2. Research Associate, Center for the Study of Educational Finance, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1993-1995 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Administratinn and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1993-1995 n Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa, Summer 1993 Research Associate, Center for the Study of SmaU/Rural Schools, Graduate School of Education,  University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1992-1994 Adjunct Fellow, Center for Research on Multi-Ethnic Education, University of Oklahoma Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1992 Danforth Principal Preparation Program Co-FaciHtator, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Normal, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 iM I Coordinator of Multicultural Affairs, Wisconsin Alumni Association, University of Wisconsin, Madicon Wisconsin, 1990-1991 Budget Analyst Intern, University of Wisconsin System Administrating, Madison, Wisconsin, 1989-90 Equal Rights Officer, Division of Care and Treatment Facilities, Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall/Spring, 1988/1989 Budget and Management Analyst Intern, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Madison, Wisconsin, Summer, 1988 Marketing Manager, Warfiuc Educultural Publications, Madison, Wisconsin, 1985-1987 Business Mathematics Instructor, Business Department, Madison Area Technical College, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall 1985 and Spring 1987 Finance Marketing Representative, John Deere \u0026amp; Company, Moline, Illinois, based in Madison, Wisconsin, 1978-1984 Commercial Service Representative, HoneyweU, Incorporated, Minneapolis, Minnesota, based in Des Moines, Iowa, 1977-1978 Public Administration Intern, Mayors Office. City of Davenport, Davenport, Iowa, 1976 1682 I _________________________________ DISSERTATION_________________________________ McNeal, L. (1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment programs. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Pl 0 rI 91 \u0026lt;R1\u0026lt; \u0026gt;1 g- RESEARCH INTERESTS \u0026gt; ' Cz School CnmrminitariaTii.'iTn (the fundamental relationship between schools and their communities) Organizational Change (change processes and organizational effectiveness) Educational Finance (adequacy and equity of funding for pubhc education) Program Assessment and Evaluation GRADUATE COURSES TAUGHT Administtation and Organization of Schools Advanced Administrative Theory and Behavior Administrative Problem Solving Organizational Change Educational Pohtics andPohcy Dissertation Proposal Development Educational Finance School Business AdTninistratinn Human and Fiscal Resources Management Educational Pubhc Relations Introduction to Doctoral Studies Organizational Development ____________________________ PUBLICATIONS: REFERRED____________________ McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (In Press, 2003). The locus of control issue in standard-based accountabihty. Educational Considerations. n la Christy, W.K. \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2002). Influence of school board members on state legislation in Arkansas. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EA 031517. McNeal, L. (2002). The school-community relations profile model: Combining school district and community-based data. In J. Thomas Owens and Jan C. Simmons (Eds.), In creating guahtv reform: Programs. comTmTnities. and governance (67-81). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. can Chesser, J.S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Educational community study circles: How superintendents enhance school improvement through community dialogue. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 446 370. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2000). Impheations of legislative pohey development for public school districts. F. Kochan (Ed ). Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Yearbook Chesser, J.S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (1999). School improvement through community dialogue: The first community study circles on education in Arkansas and Oklahoma. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 436 694. Mogilka, J, Ashby, D.E, \u0026amp; McNeal, L., (Eds.). (1996). Plaaning \u0026amp; Changing, 27(1 \u0026amp;2). McNeal, L. (1995). Fulfilling promises in the land of Will Rogers: A look at performance indicators in selected school districts since the enactment of Oklahoma house bill 1017. School Finance Pohev Issues in the States and Provinces: Annual Update 1995 (135-1381. C. Edlefson (Ed). The Ohio State University: Pohey Research for Ohio-Based Education. McNeal, L. \u0026amp;Reed, R. (1995). Building a school-community'relations profile through sociological inventorying. People \u0026amp; Education: The Human Side of Schools. 3(3), 371-386. 3 1683 1 McNeal L., et al. (1994). National Sallie Mae winners and their principals. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journ^, 11(3), 3-10. McNeal, L. (1994). Focusing on at-risk students\nCase study of John Wilkinson Elementary School. TUTHors School Research and Development Journal, 31(1), 7-10. McNeal L., \u0026amp; Ashby, D. (1993). Site-based management and changing relationships. Illinois School Research and Development Journal. 31(1), 7-10. McNeal L., \u0026amp; Lehman, B. J. (1993). k vision of the future: The fuU-service school Planning and Changing. 24(3/4), 140-154. BOOK PROPOSAL IN PROGRESS Chxiatj, V/.K., fc McNeal, T (?QO1) WnTlring Title\nThe Superintendencv. Theory to reflective practice. To be submitted to Wadsworth. Belmont, CA. manuscripts in progress --------------^2001). The contextual world of education for children and the school-commumiv: James coleman and the effective schools movement To be submitted to Humanistic Counseling, Educanon an Development. McNeal, L., \u0026amp; Christy, WX (2001). Rethinking the school district model of funding for individual schools: Comments about site-based management of resources. To be submitted to Planning and Change. Christy, WJC, McNeal, L. (2001). Inqilications of charter schools and home schooling for the funding of pubhc schools. To be submitted to Journal of School Leadership. PUBLICATIONS: MONOGRAPHS McNeal, L., et al. (1993). Common sense: Plain talk to legislators about school finance. Center For the Study of Educational Finance. Hhnois State University. PUBLICATIONS: NON-REFERRED McNeal, L. (December, 1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment programs. Dissertation, McNeal L. (1993). The education of African-American children in Oklahoma. State of Oklahoma: Annual Report. Urban League of Greater Oklahoma City, Inc., 36-45. First, P. F., \u0026amp; Knudson, D. P. (1993). Evaluating the University of Oklahoma McNeaL L.,----- Danforth Principal Preparation Program. Connections. 1 (2), 3. McNeal, L. (1992). University of Oklahoma report. Danforth Programs for the Preparation of School Principals Newsletter. 1 (2), 3. McNeal, L. (1987). From the desk of. National Multicultural Banner. 5 (6), 2. McNeal, L. (1986). From the desk of: Literacy, who's problem is it anyway? Nation^ Multicultural Banner, 5 (3), 2. 4 1684 r p R! 0 S'. \u0026gt; fl 3 \u0026gt; ZMcNeal, L. (1986). The Black collegians guide to graduate fellowships for minority students. National Multicultural Barmer. 5 (2), 9. 6 __________________________________CITED IN EDUCATION WEEK____________________ In the area of educational finance. Education Week has quoted me on several occasions. I have been quoted in the following articles: oRll s\u0026lt; 1I 1 9a ' 5 c 2 11/26/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Get One More Try To Pass School Funding Reforms 6/11/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Duck Vow To Revamp Funding 3/26/97 in News ILL. Audit Questions Oversight of ILL. Education Agency 2/5/97 in News ILL. Odds Seen Better for Funding Refonn in ILL. ____________________________ REPORTS______________ ___________________ McNeal, L. Little Rock school district charter elementary school evaluation report for the 2001- 2002 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District, November, 2002. McNeal, L., et. al. The college of education assessment report 2000-2001\nUniversity of Arkansas at Little Rock Prepared for the Provosts Advisory Group on Assessment, June, 2001. 'I McNeal, L. Little Rock school district charter elementary school evaluation report for the 2000- 2001 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District, June, 2001. McNeal, L. Projected student enrollment for the 2000-2001 school year\n6 and 7^ grade student racial make up report. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., April, 2001. McNeal, L. Enrollment trends in the Little Rock, North Little, and Pulaski County Special school districts\n1995-1996 to 1999-2000. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., November, 2000. 1g Coleen, B.C., Driskill, G., Leslie, S., McNeal, L., Mitchell, W., Taylor, C., \u0026amp; Webb, R. Provosts advisory group on assessment: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. SummeT 2000 report, July, 2000. McNeal, L., et. aL The college of education assessment report 1999-2000: University of Arkansas at Little Rock Prepared for the Provosts Advisory Group on Assessment, June, 2000. McNeal, L. Student enrollment needs assessment study of the Illinois school for the visually impaired, Illinois Center for Rehabilitation and Education and lUinois School for the Deaf. Prepared for the Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services, October, 1995. bri McNeal, L, First, P., Walker, V,, \u0026amp; Hobson, B. An inquiry into alleged cultural insensitivity at Capitol Hill High SchooL Prepared for Oklahoma City Public School District, March, 1993. M McNeal, L, et aL School choice: Open enrollment and post secondary options. Prepared for the Association of Wisconsin School AdministtatoTS, March, 1990. McNeal, L. County veterans service nfHr.Rr training manual. Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, June, 1990. McNeal, L. A Review of health care and medical services provided by the United States departmeni of veterans affairs. Prepared for die Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, August, 1989. McNeal, L. A review of health care grants and the Wisconsin Veterans Home in King, Wisconsin. Prepared for the Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, August, 1989. 5 1685 r E McNeal, L. Mendota mental health institute\nAn analysis of an organization in crisis. Prepared for the Division of Care and Treatment Facilities of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, December 1988. PRESENTATIONS\nREFERRED p e 0 \u0026lt;\u0026gt; 3 \u0026gt; Cz McNeal, L., Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; Lewis, R (2002). New leaders and new impheations for educational admini-gtratinn Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Kansas City, MO. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2001). Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference. Little Rock, AR. ri McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (November, 2001). A discussion of change theoTy, systems theory, and state designed standards and ac\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1039","title":"\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2003-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1039"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nRECEIVED MAR 18 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Agenda Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting March 2003 (\").,, \u0026gt;. :ImD r- rr-,-\ns-:: g~ ~~ m.., :ID C: -z\n,.c, (.\"...). I=\n(\")UI ~ I. 11. 111. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS REGULAR MEETING March 20, 2003 5:30 p.m. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests 8. Performance - Hall High Madrigals REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships Baseline Elementary School - Lena Goad Young's Catfish, Baseline - Gerald Ware, Carey G. Young Fulbright Elementary School - Deborah Mitchell Brent \u0026amp; Sam's Cookies - Brent Bumpers Central High School - Nancy Rousseau Heifer Project International - Ann Jacobs Metropolitan Career \u0026amp; Technical Central - Mike Peterson, Victor Eack/es, Allie Freeman North Point Nissan - Adam Guise Landers Toyota - Dennis Harris North Point Ford - David Lynch Landers Ford - Rick Wadsworth C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association E. Joshua lntervenors F. Update on the Implementation of TAP - - Rockefeller and Stephens Regular Board Meeting March 20, 2003 Page2 IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members 8 . Desegregation Update C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes - Regular Meeting, 02-27-03 - Special Meeting, 03-13-03 B. Personnel Changes C. Adoption of Standards for Arkansas School Boards VI. INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES DIVISION: A. Overview of State Test Items B. Approval of Revised Technology Plan Vil. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION: VIII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: IX. X. A. Donations of Property B. Financial Report SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION: CLOSING REMARKS: A. Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions XI. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XII. ADJOURNMENT :- =:- I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL UI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS STUDENT PERFORMANCE Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS A. CITATIONS B. PARTNERSHIPS C. CITIZENS/ D. CTA E. JOSHUA To: From: Through: Subject: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 March 20, 2003 Board of Directors Debbie Milam, Director, VIPS/Partners in Education~ T. Kenneth James, Superintendent Partners in Education Program: New partnerships The Little Rock School District Partners in Education program is designed to develop strong relationships between the community and our schools. The partnership process encourages businesses, community agencies and private organizations to join with individual schools to enhance and support educational programs. Each partnership utilizes the resources of both the school and the business for their mutual benefit. The following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. We recommend that the Board approve the following partnerships: Baseline Elementary School and Young's Catfish- Baseline Fulbright Elementary School and Brent and Sam's Cookies Central High School and Heifer Project International Metropolitan Career \u0026amp; Technical Center and North Point Nissan, Landers Toyota, North Point Ford, and Landers Ford .:.n. ?ii C: \"D ~ m Partners in Education Proposal Baseline Elementary and Young's Catfish-Baseline Baseline Elementary School and Young's Catfish-Baseline have formed a partnership designed to enhance the education of the students at Baseline. Baseline commits to the following activities: Provide holiday cards for employees Provide student art work for restaurant Provide students to sing during the holidays Acknowledge Young's Catfish-Baseline as a Partner in Education Encourage students to enter the coloring art contest Young's Catfish commits to the following activities: Sponsor a coloring art contest each year with the following awards: school winner will receive a fishing pole and tackle box\noverall winner will receive a $50 American Express Gift Cheque and a chicken tender/French fry classroom party Provide school staff discount cards Set up a school supply drive at the restaurant to collect school supplies for Baseline students Provide coupons for student recognition such as honor roll and perfect attendance Use student art work on company calendars Support other activities when possible CDn oo ~~ p n m=I ,::\n\u0026lt;-m Oz \":c'\"-' ~ !=' n\n! Partners in Education Proposal Fulbright Elementary School and Brent \u0026amp; Sam's Cookies Fulbright Elementary School and Brent \u0026amp; Sam's Cookies have formed a partnership designed to enhance the education of the students at Fulbright. Fulbright commits to the following partnership activities:  Provide art from 4th and 5th grade classes for display in Brent \u0026amp; Sam's offices  Submit student artwork for consideration for company holiday cards  Acknowledge Brent \u0026amp; Sam's Cookies as a Partner in Education on school publications Brent \u0026amp; Sam's Cookies commits to the following partnership activities: Donate product to be used in fundraising projects benefiting technology at Fulbright On-going support as needed LittCe 'Rock- Centra{ Jfi[Jli Sclioo{ 1500 Soutli 'Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, .Arkansas 72202 'Phone 501-447-1400 :fax 501-447-1401 Central High School and Heifer Project International propose forming a mutually beneficial partnership. Activities will be added as the partnership teams at Central and Heifer begin to meet. The following activities have been agreed upon to kick off the partnership:  Help Heifer with the development of high school curriculum  Encourage the EAST lab to adopt a Heifer project for class work  Encourage foreign language clubs to host fundraisers for Heifer  Encourage service clubs to consider Heifer volunteer opportunities such as WorldFest, Riverfest, Dunbar Gardens and Inner City FutureNet  Have Central students read Beatrice's Goat to elementary classes during the Little Rock School District's Reading Day in November  Form a group to participate in the Global Village overnight experience at the Ranch  Send student representative(s) to attend the Youth Forum Camp held at the Ranch during the month of August\nHeifer will make available/ offer a scholarship for one student  Have Central students make a bulletin board for Heifer promotion  Provide tours for Heifer's national and international visitors  Make Central's conference center available for Heifer meetings when practical  Recruit Heifer employees and visitors to serve as speakers for Career Day  Encourage environmental science classes and International Studies Magnet program to collaborate with Heifer on ways to enhance class work  Investigate the possibility of placing a student in a work-study position at Heifer r\u0026gt; !J:I CDC cm 81:l !!l C) C c~~c C\u0026gt; \u0026gt;--\u0026lt; m--\u0026lt; m r\u0026gt; n m =I\n_ ~ oz (J)U, ::ccc \u0026gt; n \u0026gt; Partnership Between North Point Nissan and Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will: 1. Recognize North Point Nissan as a Partner-in Education on the Schools website under the Metropolitan sub link and in the monthly newsletter distributed to parents and students throughout the district. 2. Recognize North Point Nissan as a Partner In Education at the next Little Rock School Board meeting. 3. Display the plaque received at the Little Rock School Board meeting recognizing the partnership with North Point Nissan in the Central office at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. 4. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will identify and schedule qualified students for employment possibilities as A YES student interns with North Point Nissan . 5. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will establish a business and education council which will have strong education, dealership and manufacturer support and function to advise and assist the automotive department on A YES activities. 6. Arrange field trips for automotive service technician students and/or parents to tour the dealership as a part of a group learning experience. North Point Nissan will: 1. Provide a representative to serve on Council in order to provide guidance regarding the enhancement of the school's automotive curriculum, and provide support where possible. 2. Provide job shadowing opportunities for high school students recommended by the school . 3. Sponsor one or more of the A YES students for a paid summer internship in their junior year to be continued at a minimum of part- time internship during their senior year which will provide a variable work experience with an emphasis on skill development . 4. Assign a mentor to each student and agree to allow for each mentor to receive training prior to the summer internship period.  5. Assist each selected intern with the acquisition of a set of Tools under the Tool Scholarship Program linked with the A YES curriculum offered at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center !=' n 0 z ~ :ID m ~ ~ Partnership Between Landers Tovota and Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will: 1. Recognize Landers Toyota of Little Rock as a Partner-in Education on the Schools website under the Metropolitan sub link and in the monthly newsletter distributed to parents and students throughout the district. 2. Recognize Landers Toyota of Little Rock as a Partner In Education at the next Little Rock School Board meeting. 3. Display the plaque received at the Little Rock School Board meeting recognizing the partnership with Landers Toyota of Little Rock in the Central office at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. 4. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will identify and schedule qualified students for employment possibilities as A YES student interns with Landers Toyota of Little Rock . 5. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will establish a business and education council which will have strong education, dealership and manufacturer support and function to advise and assist the automotive department on A YES activities. 6. Arrange field trips for automotive service technician students and/or parents to tour the dealership as a part of a group learning experience. Landers Toyota of Little Rock will: 1. Provide a representative to serve on Council in order to provide guidance regarding the enhancement of the school's automotive curriculum, and provide support where possible. 2. Provide job shadowing opportunities for high school students recommended by the school . 3. Sponsor one or more of the A YES students for a paid summer internship in their junior year to be continued at a minimum of part- time internship during their senior year which will provide a variable work experience with an emphasis on skill development . 4. Assign a mentor to each student and agree to allow for each mentor to receive training prior to the summer internship period. 5. Assist each selected intern with the acquisition of a set of Tools under the Tool Scholarship Program linked with the A YES curriculum offered at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center !=' n 0z ~\nJO m ~ fl n m=l\n_ 1\nj Oen ezn ::c- ~!=' n ~ Partnership Between North Point Ford and Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will: 1. Recognize North Point Ford as a Partner-in Education on the Schools website under the Metropolitan sub link and in the monthly newsletter distributed to parents and students throughout the district. 2. Recognize North Point Ford as a Partner In Education at the next Little Rock School Board meeting. 3. Display the plaque received at the Little Rock School Board meeting recognizing the partnership with North Point Ford in the Central office at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. 4. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will identify and schedule qualified students for employment possibilities as A YES student interns with North Point Ford  5. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will establish a business and education council which will have strong education, dealership and manufacturer support and function to advise and assist the automotive department on A YES activities. 6. Arrange field trips for automotive service technician students and/or parents to tour the dealership as a part of a group learning experience. North Point Ford will: 1. Provide a representative to serve on Council in order to provide guidance regarding the enhancement of the school's automotive curriculum, and provide support where possible. 2. Provide job shadowing opportunities for high school students recommended by the school  3. Sponsor one or more of the A YES students for a paid summer internship in their junior year to be continued at a minimum of part- time internship during their senior year which will provide a variable work experience with an emphasis on skill development  4. Assign a mentor to each student and agree to allow for each mentor to receive training prior to the summer internship period. 5. Assist each selected intern with the acquisition of a set of Tools under the Tool Scholarship Program linked with the A YES curriculum offered at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center :..n. t .C.,: ~ m Partnership Between Landers Ford and Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will: 1. Recognize Landers Ford of Little Rock as a Partner-in Education on the Schools website under the Metropolitan sub link and in the monthly newsletter distributed to parents and students throughout the district. 2. Recognize Landers Ford of Little Rock as a Partner In Education at the next Little Rock School Board meeting. 3. Display the plaque received at the Little Rock School Board meeting recognizing the partnership with Landers Ford of Little Rock in the Central office at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. 4. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will identify and schedule qualified students for employment possibilities as A YES student interns with Landers Ford of Little Rock . 5. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will establish a business and education council which will have strong education, dealership and manufacturer support and function to advise and assist the automotive department on A YES activities. 6. Arrange field trips for automotive service technician students and/or parents to tour the dealership as a part of a group learning experience. Landers Ford of Little Rock will: l. Provide a representative to serve on Council in order to provide guidance regarding the enhancement of the school's automotive curriculum, and provide support where possible. 2. Provide job shadowing opportunities for high school students recommended by the school . 3. Sponsor one or more of the A YES students for a paid summer internship in their junior year to be continued at a minimum of part- time internship during their senior year which will provide a variable work experience with an emphasis on skill development . 4. Assign a mentor to each student and agree to allow for each mentor to receive training prior to the summer internship period. 5. Assist each selected intern with the acquisition of a set of Tools under the Tool Scholarship Program linked with the A YES curriculum offered at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center r\u0026gt; (\") m =l - ~ ls z Ch Ch ::c- \n:!=' (\")\n: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS DATE: March 20, 2003 TO: Board of Education From: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Re: Informational Update on the Implementation of the Teacher Advancement Program at Rockefeller and Stephens Background Information: As you know, this is our initial year of implementation of the Teacher Advancement Program at Rockefeller and Stephens. The program is currently being implemented in two school districts in the state. We are very fortunate that the Walton Family Foundation has funded this program for three years. The TAP program is a multi-tiered teacher-staffing model that provides quality teachers with new career growth paths, increased salary flexibility and ongoing applied professional development opportunities. TAP's framework for systemic change is built on five key principles:  Multiple Career Paths  Market-Driven Compensation  Performance-Based Accountability  Ongoing, Applied Professional Development  Expanding the Supply of Quality Educators Anne Mangan and Sharon Brooks, along with staff members from Rockefeller and Stephens, will provide the board with an overview of our initial year of implementation. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board receive the report as submitted and commend the staff members and administration from Rockefeller and Stephens for their willingness to be a part of Teacher Advancement Program. f\u0026gt;!Jl ID C cm 8~ !!j Cl C c~~c ~:!:\n-\u0026lt;m m '54.n Individual Approach to a World if Knowledge\" March 20, 2003 TO: Board of Directors THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent FROM: Bill Goodman ~ SUBJECT: March Construction Report, Bond Projects Please note that my attached report shows the renovation of Franklin Elementary and the addition and renovation of Romine Elementary have recently been completed. This brings the total completed Bond projects to 125. All of the District's 60 school and administrative buildings have been affected. It has been almost three [3] years since the voters approved the mileage increase to support the capital improvements to our facilities. The District has spent approximately $57,000,000 since that time to make major improvements to our buildings. Those improvements will continue because several projects are either in the planning stage or construction phase. The Bond construction program should be completed in early 2006. The addition and renovation of Pulaski Heights Middle and Elementary will bid on March 20th . You will be given a report on that bid at the Board meeting. The architect has completed the drawings for the addition and renovation of Dunbar Middle. The drawings are going through the review process by both the District and governmental agencies. Bidding is scheduled for April. If you have questions, please feel free to call me at 44 7-1146. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 20, 2003 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION FacilitvName Project Descriotion Cost Administration Asbestos abatement $380,495 Central Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Mabelvale MS Renovation $6,851,621 Mann Partial Replacement $11,500,000 Wilson Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION SPRING 2002-2003 FacilitvName Project Descriotion Cost Administration 1Fire alarm $32,350 Administration Fresh air system $55,000 Baseline Renovation $953,520 Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Carver Parking lot $111,742 Central Parking Student parking $50,000 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $100,000 Dunbar Renovation/addition $6,161,950 Facility Services Fire alarm $12,000 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music J. A. Fair room addition $3,155,640 Forest Park Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 McClellan Classroom Addition $2,155,622 Otter Creek Repair surface water drain $25,000 Parkview Addition $2,121,226 Procurement Fire alarm $25,000 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1,193,259 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,041 Southwest Drainage I street widening $250,000 Southwest New roof $690,000 Southwest Addition $2,000,000 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Tech Ctr / Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $2,725,000 Williams Renovation $2,106,492 Williams Parking expansions $183,717 Wilson Parkina Exoansion $110,000 Est. \\,\nOlllpletion Date Mar-03 Dec-05 May-03 Dec-03 Dec-03 Aua-03 est. completion Date Aor-03 Jun-03 Dec-03 Dec-04 Jul-03 Aug-03 Jul-03 Aug-04 Jun-03 Mar-04 Aug-03 Dec-03 Jun-03 Mar-04 Jun-03 Aug-04 Auo-04 Aua-03 Aug-03 May-04 Jun-03 Feb-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jun-03 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED t:st. Gomp1et1on Facility Name Proiect Descriotion Cost Date J. A. Fair Roof repairs $391,871 Unknown Forest Park Diagonal parking $111,742 Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 Jun-04 Wilson Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Woodruff Parkino addition $193,777 Unknown CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 20, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Proiect Descriotion Cost Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation I Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 Alternative Leaming Ctr. Energy efficient lighting $82,000 Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Badgett Fire alarm $18,250 Bale Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Bale Energy monitoring system Bale Partial roof replacement $269,587 Bale HVAC $664,587 Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Booker Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Booker Asbestos abatement $10,900 Booker Fire alarm $34,501 Brady Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 Central Purchase land for school Unknown Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Central Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Central Front landing tile repair $22,470 Cloverdale Elem. Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 Dodd Energy efficient lighting $90,665 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Dodd Replace roof top HVAC $215,570 Facilities Service Interior renovation $84,672 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Fair Park Energy efficient lighting $90,162 Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting $277,594 J. A. Fair Press box $10,784 J. A. Fair Security cameras $12,500 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting $119,788 Fulbright Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation $11,950 Fulbright Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Fulbright Parking lot $140,000 Fulbright Roof repairs $200,000 Franklin Renovation $2,511,736 Gibbs Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation $11,770 Hall Asbestos abatement $168,222 Hall Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Hall Energv efficient lighting $296,707 Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Hall Intercom Hall Security cameras $10,600 Est l,OOlpletion Date May-02 Oct-01 Dec-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Mar-02 Dec-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Oct-01 Feb-02 Mar-02 Sep-02 Aug-02 May-01 Dec-02 Dec-02 Oct-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Nov-02 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Mar-01 J\\or-02 Aug-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Nov-00 Jun-01 May-01 Jun-01 Aua-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Mar-03 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aor-01 Aug-01 Feb-01 Jun-01 2 !II \"O m\no !S z z '.! Facility Name Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson IRC Jefferson Jefferson Laidlaw Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale MS Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McDennott McDennott Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Oakhurst Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Procurement Pulaski Hgts. Elem Rightsell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 20, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Proiect Description Cost Energy efficient lighting $193,679 ' Roof replacement gym $107,835 Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Asbestos abatement $43,639 Renovation \u0026amp; fire alann $1,630,000 Parking lot $269,588 Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Replace HVAC units $300,000 Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Energy efficient lighting $106,598 Renovate bleachers $134,793 Asphalt walks The total $1.8 Walkway canopies million is what has Boiler replacement been used so far Fencing on the projects Partial demolition/portable classrooms listed completed for Security cameras $36,300 Energy efficient lighting $303,614 Stadium stands repair $235,000 Intercom $46,000 Energy efficient lighting $79,411 Replace roof top HVAC units $476,000 Fire alann $16,175 Asbestos abatement $253,412 Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 Replace cooling tower $37,203 Replace shop vent system $20,000 Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 Energy efficient lighting $103,642 Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Asbestos abatement $13,000 HVAC renovation $237,237 Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 Energy efficient lighting $81,828 Asbestos abatement $10,000 Parking lot $138,029 6 classroom addition $888,778 HVAC controls $210,000 Roof replacement $273,877 Exterior lights $10,784 HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301,938 Locker replacement $120,000 Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Move playground $17,000 Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 Parking addition $111,742 l:St. \\JOC1..,.......,.1 Date  Jul-01 May-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Jul-02 Oct-01 Nov-02 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-02 Aug-01 Dec-01 Dec-01 Oct-01 Sep-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 May-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Dec-00 May-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 May-01 Apr-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Oct-02 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 Jun-02 Dec-02 Apr-01 Mar-01 Aug-01 Aua-02 3 !13 \"D i z z ,m- !'\" z.... m\na\na m~\ng\u0026gt; 1!:lc::: C a ~ CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 20, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Proiect Descriotion Cost Romine Asbestos abatement $10,000 Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 SecurityfTransportation Bus cameras $22,500 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Technology Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Terry Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Terry Media Center addition $704,932 Wakefield Security cameras $8,000 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting $74,776 Wakefield Demolition/ Asbestos Abatement $200,000 Washington Security cameras $7,900 Washington Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Watson Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Watson Asbestos abatement $182,241 Watson Energy efficient lighting $106,868 Watson Asbestos abatement $10,000 Watson Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000 Western Hills Asbestos abatement $191,946 Western Hills Intercom $7,100 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Williams Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Woodruff Renovation $246,419 ESL\\.,01,.,......,..., Date , Apr--02 Mar--03 Jun--01 Aug--00 Jan--02 Aug--02 Dec--01 Nov--02 Feb--01 Aug--02 Sep--02 Jun--01 Feb--01 Nov--02 Jun--01 Apr--01 Jul--01 Aug--01 Aug--01 Aug--02 Aug--02 Aug--02 Dec--01 Jul--01 Jun--01 Aug--02 4 !D I z z .m.... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: March 20, 2003 To: Board of Directors Fromsandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - March This is the forty-first communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with three high schools and two middle school to resolve financial issues in their activity funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial information for all schools and assisting in resolving balance issues. c) Training school staff at schools on financial processes by request. Activities Advisory Board (AAB) a) Working with the new Activities Advisory Board to develop plans for the new school year and beyond. b) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. c) Working with the Activities Advisory Board to provide ways to assist the different Booster groups in our schools. Board Policy and Regulation a) Coordinating development of payroll guidelines with Financial Services as part of Financial Services Section of the District Operations Manual. Technology a) Monitoring implementation of technology by participation in the technology committee( s). b) Monitoring technology plans to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. c) Participating with the Technology Committee. :..n.. c:: Pl o\"C z::c ?jO m -\u0026lt; !II \"C m\n,:, is zz m r- Audit Report - March 2003 Page 2 of2 Training a) Served as a trainer for financial portion of Nuts \u0026amp; Bolts, Bookkeeper \u0026amp; Secretaries Training, Security Guard Training, individual school in-service meetings, and others as needed. Working to facilitate best means to improve financial processes and increase accountability for resources. Training new bookkeepers on bookkeeping procedures as requested. b) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. c) Coordinated guidelines and aids to inform and assist new activity sponsors of specific tasks relating to each activity. Added new checklist for spirit sponsors and smart spreadsheet for fundraiser reconciliation. This information is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures Other a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and processing issues. b) c) d) e) f) g) a) b) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. Working with Information Services on streamlining of data processes regarding SIS reporting. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring payroll for compliance with internal controls. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Serving as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Problem Resolution a) I have made myself available to help resolve financial issues, assist in improving processes, and help find solutions to questions that arise. Please let me know if you need further information. My telephone number is 501-44 7-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org. :..n.. c:~ -.i::c cz \u0026gt;.m....o.g.. -\u0026lt; Little Rock School District Board of Directors Technology Update March 20, 2003 Current Projects:  New Network o Conversion to the new district network continues to be implemented site by site. Two to three sites per week are scheduled. o As each site comes on the network the benefits include:  Being able to share files and folders across the district,  Managing routine maintenance and management from the Tech Center,  Managing desktop troubleshooting from the Tech Center.  Computer Purchases o Computer purchases to bring every school up to a 5: 1 ratio are complete except for one school. Computers are being installed at Terry and McDermott this week.  Training Plan o Work continues on developing on-line training for district staff.  Technology Plan Update o Technology Planning Committee has submitted the revised technology plan for approval. !.J,I, i zz ,m... TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR.KANSAS March 20, 2003 11 .\\ Board of Education p Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of the following personnel changes at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with A.C.A. 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 19, 2002 are considered intern teachers. Personnel Changes Page 2 March 20, 2003 NAME Dixon, Elisha Reason: Health K.idda, Colleen Reason: Leaving City Holeman, Eleanor Reason: Leaving City Lesley, Bonnie Reason: Retired Vandiver, Jalisha Reason: Personal Jones, Elizabeth Morgan, Keisha POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsff erminations Certified Em(!IOl'.ees Vocational Tch 10-10-96 1-02 METRO 3-4-03 VOC925 Counselor 8-20-90 6-16 SOUTHWEST 2-14-03 CNLl0 Voe. Business 1-22-85 6-21 CENTRAL 4-25-03 VOC105 Assoc. Supt. 7-1-98 81-20 CURR \u0026amp; INSTR. 3-14-03 ADC12 English 8-19-02 1-01 HALL 2-27-03 TCH925 New Certified Em(!lovees Biology 2-4-03 1-02 FAIR TCH925 Special Ed. 2-3-03 2-05 DODD SPE925 ANNUAL SALARY 27056.00 47629.00 53213.00 100764.00 26546.00 27056.00 annual 10850.58 prorated 30936.00 annual 12567.75 prorated ~  C :I: ?' ~ fl\u0026gt; s  F 8~ z~ .... mZ 5en Zen en~ fl\u0026gt; f\u0026gt; en,X~ ~8 z,- Cl:II  o el~ en C ?- ~ .... z men ~:il m~ cn::: :1: .... 00 ~~\no ,- sen i~ Personnel Changes Page 3 March 20, 2003 NAME Williams, Frank POSITION SCHOOL Algebra I CENTRAL START DATE END DATE 2-10-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 TCH925 Resignationsff erminations on-Certified Employees Boyd, Marlo Child Nutrition 1-21-03 3-01 Reason: Abandonment GEYER SPRINGS 3-14-03 FSH4 Brown, Christine Child Nutrition 10-7-02 3-01 Reason: Returning to School WESTERN HILLS 2-15-03 FSH4 Hairston, Patricia Child Nutrition 9-6-02 1-01 Reason: Abandonment MCCLELLAN 3-13-03 FSH5 Hampton, Deidre Care Worker 1-24-03 4-01 Reason: Resigned Without CARE 3-14-03 CARE Notice Lewis, Jerry Instr. Aide 8-19-02 1-01 Reason: Abandonment WAKEFIELD 2-14-03 INA925 Moore, Edwin Custodian 8-9-02 1-01 Reason: Personal DUNBAR 2-28-03 CUS925 Scott, Tina Instr. Aide 8-7-02 1-06 Reason: Personal WOODRUFF 3-7-03 INA185 Townes, Stephanie Care Worker 12-5-03 3-01 Reason: None Given CARE 3-7-03 CARE ANNUAL SALARY 25546.00 annual 10093.01 prorated 5687.00 5687.00 7312.00 6.251hr 10577.00 10329.00 12798.00  6.861hr ~ \u0026gt; C ii: 1E ~ fl\u0026gt; s \u0026gt;\n:= 8~ ~~ .... m i5 Ch z\"' Ch Ch ~ fl\u0026gt; r\u0026gt; ~ u, ::c i!8 z,- ~~ jg~ Ch C\n,-\ns .... z m!!l ~::a =IC: m\u0026lt;\"\u0026gt; ii: .... 015 ~ ~ ::a,- s\"' ~~ Personnel Changes Page 4 March 20, 2003 NAME Woods, Robert Reason: Terminated Ridgel, Richard Wal ton, Coretta Bateman, Vadea Stephens, Ivan Tolbert, William Ghant, Natlyn POSITION SCHOOL Custodian CARVER START DATE END DATE 10-2-89 3-03-03 SALARY CLASS 1-11 CUS925 New Non-Certified Employees Custodian 2-24-03 1-01 WASHINGTON CUS925 Child Nutrition 2-14-03 1-01 FAIR FSH5 Child Nutrition 1-24-03 1-01 HALL FSH5 Instr. Aide 2-11-03 1-07 WAKEFIELD INA925 Care Worker 3-6-03 3-05 CARE CARE Care Worker 2-20-03 3-05 CARE CARE ANNUAL SALARY 14461.00 5164.50 annual 1740.21 prorated 7312.00 annual 2666.25 prorated 7312.00 annual 3272.22 prorated 13115.00 annual 4891.54 prorated 7.40/hr 7.40/hr ~ \u0026gt; C ~ ii! ~ !II s \u0026gt;\n= g!!! z!!!  Z -1m oen Zen en~ !II ~ ~ en ::c  8 Zr ~~ jg~ en C\n,,,\nS -tz men ~il =I~ m-1 ~ 0 0~ ~r ~~ ~!II Personnel Changes Page 5 March 20, 2003 NAME Corbin, Marquitta Carter, Noda POSITION SCHOOL Instr. Aide FAIR Instr. Aide MCCLELLAN START DATE END DATE 2-18-03 2-11-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 INA925 1-02 INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 10577.00 annual 3716.24 prorated 11106.00 annual 4142.24 prorated ~ \u0026gt; C E :z ~ ~ s \u0026gt;\n= 8~ z!!l  Z --.m Oen Zen en~ n ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS DATE: TO: March 20, 2003 Board of Education From: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Re: Adoption of Arkansas School Boards Standards Background Information: Standards have recently been developed for Arkansas School Boards. The standards focus on: Vision/Philosophy\nOrganization\nBoard Operations\nBoard Development\nPersonnel Operations\nand Board/Staff/Community Relations. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board officially approve and adopt the Standards as proposed. TKJ/bjg .!:,D, z \u0026gt;z 0 ~ Standards for Arkansas School Boards I. Vision/Philosophy A. The School Board creates a clear vision for the district that focuses on students, excellence in education, and academic achievement. B. The School Board adopts this vision that is created through collaborative processes that involve the staff, parents, community, and students. C. The School Board effectively communicates this vision to the staff, parents, community, and students. D. The School Board adopts long- and short-term goals to accomplish the vision of the district. E. The School Board believes that accountability for achieving the goals of the district rests with the School Board, the superintendent, the staff, the parents, the community, the students, and the state. II. Organization A. The School Board adopts and follows a \"Code of Ethics. 11 B. The School Board adopts policies that clearly define the roles and duties of its members. C. The School Board adopts policies delineating the procedures for electing its officers and defining their roles and duties. Ill. Board Operations A. The School Board governs through approved policies and maintains a current policy manual which is reviewed regularly. B. The School Board conducts professional meetings in accordance with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act by establishing and publishing the agenda prior to the meeting and by following the agenda during the meeting. C. The School Board conducts public forums periodically to receive input from citizens. D. The School Board acts with fiscal responsibility. IV. Board Development A. The School Board receives annual training as recommended and/or conducted by the Arkansas School Boards Association and is familiar with A Handbook for Arkansas School Board Members. B. New School Board members receive additional timely training regarding School Board member responsibilities. C. The School Board conducts annual self-assessments and avails itself of professional develop-ment opportunities based on the needs of its members. D. The School Board keeps abreast of state and federal laws that impact education. E. The School Board stays informed about current education issues. F. The School Board attends regional and state Arkansas School Boards Association meetings and remains informed of National School Boards Association meetings and issues. G. The School Board, at least annually, convenes for an extended work session to review goals, evaluate the progress of the district, and develop long-range plans.  H. The School Board is familiar with Key Work of School Boards and implements those concepts. V. Personnel Operations A. The School Board maintains a high standard of ethics in all personnel matters. B. The School Board remains neutral in all personnel matters until the superintendent brings a recommendation to them. C. The School Board adopts personnel policies with input from district personnel. D. The School Board empowers the administration to recruit and recommend highly qualified applicants to the Board. .!.l,l z ~ 0 ~ Ul E. The School Board expects the administration to maintain a highly qualified staff by offering timely and adequate opportunities for professional development F. The School Board hires the superintendent and is responsible for conducting a search to replace an exiting superintendent. G. The School Board evaluates the superintendent annually and determines the continued employment of the superintendent. VI. Board/Staff/Community Relations A. The School Board maintains a positive, supportive, and professional attitude toward all staff. B. The School Board and the superintendent work together as a leadership team. C. The School Board recognizes, protects, and encourages the chain of command at all times. D. The School Board and superintendent recognize that communication is a two-way process. E. The School Board and the superintendent work together to provide and follow a process that encourages and seeks input from the staff and community when appropriate on significant issues by: 1. providing leadership in the establishment of open dialogue through community discussion groups, school councils, and other means\n2. collaborating with local, state, and national agencies\n3. working with the media to provide information\n4. visiting schools\nand 5. including informative presentations from staff and students at school board meetings. F. The School Board models respect for the superintendent, staff, parents, community, and students. G. The School Board supports and adopts the use of Study Circles, or a similar process, as a method of communicating with the staff, the parents, the community, and the students. .!.J,' z \u0026gt; ~ i!: Ul LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS DATE: TO: March 20, 2003 Board of Education From: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Re: OVERVIEW OF STATE TEST ITEMS Background Information: In an attempt to provide Board members with a better understanding of what our students experience while taking state examinations, Dennis Glasgow will provide an overview of some of the test items at the various grade levels. This will be an experiential activity. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board receive the report as submitted. s \u0026gt;\n= g~ ,z-!!z! _,m 0 gi Zu, (II\u0026lt; n !\" .!.I,' z n~ ~ (II Date: To: From: Through: Subject: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 20, 2003 Board of Directors Lucy Neal, Technology and Media Services T. Kenneth James, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Revised LRSD Technology Plan The Little Rock School District's revised technology plan is due to the Arkansas Department of Education on or before April 15, 2003. A draft copy of the plan was provided for your review at the agenda meeting on March 13. The plan has undergone minor revisions and edits since that time, and a final document is being provided under separate cover. I am available to respond if there are questions or comments. It is recommended that the Board approve this document for submission to the Arkansas Department of Education. ~  0 iE ?! ~ !I' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: March 27, 2003 TO: Board of Education FROM: ~arral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Mgmt. THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property Attached are requests to donate property to the Little Rock School District as follows: School/Department Item Donor Brady Elementary $800.00 cash to be used Bank of Ozarks School to defray the cost of art teacher Central High School Golf cart, valued at David \u0026amp; Dawn Terry approximately $1,000.00, to be used by security personnel to assist in the surveillance of campus Central High School Refrigerator, valued at Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Mark Ramm approximately $400.00, Dr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Randall Hundley for the teachers' lounge McClellan Magnet $250.00 cash to be used in Ms. Melissa Kumpe High School baseball program It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. !..l,' z \u0026gt;z 0\ni: U\u0026gt; BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM February 10, 2003 Darrall Paradis Director of Procurement Ada Keown a,{ Principal Donation Bank of Ozarks, our Partner in Education, has donated $800.00 to Brady Elementary School. We sincerely appreciate this donation, which will be used to defray the cost of our art teacher. We recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Bank of Oz.arks P.O. Box 196 Oz.ark, Arkansas 72949 7915 West Markham Street  Phone (501) '147-3900  Fax (501) 447-3901  Little Rock. Arkansas 72205 ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 en z C) I .!J.,I z \u0026gt;z (\") j!: en LittCe 'Rock Centra{ J-fifJli Sclioo{ 1500 Soutfi 'Park Street Litt[e 'Rock, .'Arkansas 72202 'Phone 501-447-1400 ]'ax 501-447-1401 DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 2003 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: NA CY ROUSSEAU, PRI CIPAL Yf[.__- SUBJECT: DO ATIO Please accept the donation of a golf cart, estimated value of $1000 to Central High School. The golf cart will be utilized by Central security to assist in the surveilance of our campus. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. David and Dawn Terry of 15 Platte Drive Maumelle, AR 72113 have made this very gracious contribution to our school. ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 !z! l c\n, ill I fJ) .itt{e 'Roci. Centra{ J-ffafi Scfioo{ 1500 Soutfi 'Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, .Jlrkansas 72202 Tfione 501-447-1400 ]'ax 501-447-1401 DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 2003 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREME T FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL yfl) SUBJECT: DO ATIO -SEPTEMBER2002 Please accept the donation of a refrigerator for the teachers' lounge, estimated value of $400 to Central High School. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Mr. and Mrs. Mark Ramm and Dr. and Mrs. Randall Hundley made this very gracious contribution to our school. Cc: Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Ramm Dr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Hundley ' ,, 'l !..I,I z \u0026gt;z n ~ en McCLELLAN MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL DATE: TO: FROM: THE ACADEMIES: BUSINESS FINANCE, ENGINEERING, MULTIMEDIA February 10, 2003 Darral Paradis, Direct~F\n~\nfrocurement Lany Buck, Princip~ SUBJECT: Donation Please accept this generous donation given to McClellan High School. Ms. Melissa Kumpe, 1905 McWiliams Lane, Little Rock, AR 72206 has given a cash donation of $250.00 to be used for the McClellan Baseball Team. We recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Cc: Dr. Marion Lacey, Associate Superintendent FEB 1 0 2003 ! - ..:::- .. --:_:_- J 9417 Geyer Springs Road  Phone 447-2100  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 20, 2003 Board Of Directors ~Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services THROUGH:__ ~ _y-enneth James, Superintendent Of Schools ~onald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Financial Reports We recommend that the attached financial reports be approved as submitted. --- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 2002 AND 2003 ..-- APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2001 /02 02/28/02 COLLECTED 2002/03 02/28/03 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 57,850,000 57,086,336 98.68% 58,550,000 57,147,781 97.61% DELINQUENT TAXES 6,950,000 6,730,591 96.84% 8,000,000 8,432,483 105.41% 40% PULLBACK 28,450,000 29,400,000 -EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 190,000 186,429 98.12% 187,000 205,072 109.66% DEPOSITORY INTEREST 575,000 353,143 61 .42% 385,000 174,515 45.33% REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 125,000 126,034 100.83% 135,000 337,232 249.80% M ISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 600,000 147,159 24.53% 340,000 235,596 69.29% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 600,000 115,387 19.23% 275,000 119,016 43.28% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 155,000 144,376 93.15% 160,000 175,342 109.59% TOTAL 95,495,000 64,889,454 67.95% 97,432,000 66,827,036 68.59% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 25,000 17,024 68.10% 24,000 17,215 71.73% TOTAL 25,000 17,024 68.10% 24,000 17,215 71.73% REVENUE - STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,568,331 34,184,630 62.65% 54,867,630 35,239,580 64.23% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,455,741 5,478,756 73.48% 7,590,000 4,566,701 60.17% VOCATIONAL 1,325,000 857,796 64.74% 1,340,000 833,381 62.19% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,900,000 66,075 3.48% 1,700,000 757,851 44.58% EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 175,782 75.12% 273,358 205,407 75.14% TRANSPORTATION 3,468,291 1,161,445 33.49% 3,685,226 2,453,084 66.57% INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,865,000 1,894,530 49.02% 3,265,000 1,804,317 55.26% ADULT EDUCATION 987,869 547,481 55.42% 1,006,014 377,991 37.57% POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 1,195,000 1,097,074 91 .81% 658,607 658,607 100.00% EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 25,000 120,000 TAP PROGRAM 285,271 285,271 100.00% AT RISK FUNDING 605,000 158,878 26.26% 650,000 64,573 9.93% WORKER'S COMPENSATION 600,000 TOTAL 76,229,224 45,622,447 59.85% 75,441,106 47,246,763 62.63% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 600,000 620,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 700,000 15,540 2.22% 1,126,233 175,922 15.62% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,639,927 546,642 33.33% 1,664,438 554,813 33.33% TOTAL 2,939,927 562,182 19.12% 3,410,671 730,735 21.42% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 174,689,151 111,091,108 63.59% 176,307,777 114,821,750 65.13% REVENUE- OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 15,868,127 6,045,266 38.10% 22,230,023 10,731 ,261 48.27% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,921 ,766 2,091 ,348 53.33% 3,980,000 2,082,476 52.32% MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,802,743 8,721,449 35.16% 25,065,942 10,408,214 41 .52% TOTAL 44,592,636 16,858,062 37.80% 51,275,965 23,221,951 45.29% TOTAL REVENUE 219,281,787 127,949,170 58.35% 227,583,742 138,043,700 60.66% - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 2002 AND 2003 - APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED 2001/02 02/28/02 EXPENDED 2002/03 02/28/03 EXPENSES SALARIES 98,743,100 55,825,120 56.54% 100,865,586 59,903,522 -BENEFITS 25,603,621 14,188,170 55.41% 24,838,361 15,085,593 pURCHASED SERVICES 20,235,454 11,425,363 56.46% 19,795,774 11 ,960,581 -MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 9,252,512 5,077,623 54.88% 8,347,098 4,756,586 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,792,554 647,958 36.15% 1,616,991 860,152 OTHER OBJECTS 8,402,940 2,853,528 33.96% 8,508,680 2,918,811 -DEBT SERVICE 10,526,942 10,653,854 101.21% 12,217,048 12,213,572 TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 174,557,123 100,671 ,616 57.67% 176,189,538 107,698,817 EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 16,519,453 7,126,750 43.14% 22,995,210 10,208,019 -DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,921 ,766 2,213,186 56.43% 3,980,000 1,976,084 MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,802,743 12,196,030 49.17% 25,065,942 13,302,996 TOTAL 45,243,962 21,535,966 47.60% 52,041,152 25,487,100 - TOTAL EXPENSES 219,801,085 122,207,582 55.60% 228,230,690 133,185,917 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (519,298) 5,741 ,588 (646,948) 4,857,782 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 1,937,298 1,937,298 1,645,440 1,645,440 OPERATING 8,489,087 8,489,087 8,557,652 8,557,652 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; DED M\u0026amp; 0 1,285,972 (2,740,606) 880,253 (619,709) OPERATING 8,621,115 18,908,579 8,675,891 15,680,583 TOTAL 9,907,087 16,167,973 9,556,144 15,060,875 % EXPENDED 59.39% 60.74% 60.42% 56.98% 53.19% 34.30% 99.97% 61.13% 44.39% 49.65% 53.07% 48.97% 58.36%\n,\u0026lt; 0 5 en z C, Rl i en LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 2003 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE ?\u0026lt; (\") 07-01-02 2002-03 2002-03 2002-03 2002-03 02-28-03 5 \"z' C\u0026gt; $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE Rl FAIR 33,282.90 33,282.90 ~ MCCLELLAN 78,319.02 800.00 77,519.02 ~ \"' CONTINGENCY 1,052,354.15 1,052,354.15 SUBTOTAL 1,163,956.07 0.00 0.00 800.00 0.00 1,163,156.07 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ~~ ADMINISTRATION 0.00 182,400.00 102,096.04 80,303.96 \u0026gt;~ NEW WORK PROJECTS 22,028,270.87 8,302,568.00 7,788,543.80 9,490,272.24 13,052,022.83 Cr\n! ~\no SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 42,273.97 s! z LIGHTING PROJECTS 348,708.80 30,625.90 379,334.70 0.00 ~~ mz MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 5,749,803.26 344,842.00 2,908,041.59 241,894.71 2,944,708.96 .... RENOVATION PROJECTS 47,947,115.45 983,360.00 12,036,498.29 12,115,817.09 24,778,160.07 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 4,744,881 .05 90,303.80 3,778,535.57 267,238.75 789,410.53 SUBTOTAL 80,861 ,053.40 0.00 9,934,099.70 26,993,049.99 22,115,222.79 41,686,880.32 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 139,801.90 45,668.11 5,771 .03 179,698.98 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 FULBRIGHT PROJECT 0.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 31,569,505.02 {9,934,099.70) 21 ,635,405.32 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST STATE OF ARK 469,063.03 469,063.03 INTEREST 5,022,644.80 1,984,556.28 7,007,201.08 SUBTOTAL 38,500,102.43 2,080,224.39 {9,934,099.70) 5,771.03 0.00 30,640,456.09 GRAND TOTAL 1 jla :iil:i m 11a i a11a ii~ :111 l2J22 jl l!l!l! liill ail ijl ll:i 2~~ ZII za ~11a ~Iii ~11 - -- PROJECT - ALLOCATIONS PROJECT CATEGORIES THRU 02-28-03 - ADMINISTRATION 586,846.55 NEW WORK PROJECTS 35,363,912.16 SECURITY PROJECTS 265,814.17 LIGHTING PROJECTS 4,853,208.89 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 11,104,325.29 RENOVATION PROJECTS 53,447,136.00 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 9,735,402.78 - UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS 22,929,226.29 TOTAL - 138,285,872.13 - - - - - 'S:\u0026gt;AS lOOH:\u0026gt;S 'XI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 2003 EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE 2000-01 2001-02 THRU 02-28-03 889,772.32 (485,325.77) 102,096.04 443,467.00 4,589,606.29 7,788,543.80 113,930.47 109,609.73 2,641,482.13 1,832,392.06 379,334.70 791,385.63 4,218,294.40 2,908,041.59 397,615.34 4,119,045.21 12,036,498.29 575,016.53 4,325,201.40 3,778,535.57 5,852,669.42 18,708,823.32 26,993,049.99 - - -  - ENCUMBERED THRU 02-28-03 SUBTOTAL -t 506,542.59 9,490,272.24 1 22,311,889.33 223,540.20 4,853,208.89 241,894.71 8,159,616.33 12,115,817.09 28,668,975.93 267,238.75 8,945,992.25 22,115,222.79 73,669,765.52 1N3WNMnorov nx S9Nll:IV3H 'IX ENDING ALLOCATION 02-28-03 80,303.96 13,052,022.83 42,273.97 0.00 2,944,708.96 24,778,160.07 789,410.53 22,929,226.29 64,616,106.61 S\u0026gt;n!VW3l:I 9NIS01:\u0026gt; x - Fund Purchase Date Qperating 12-09-02 - Operating 01-19-03 Operating 08-10-02 Operating 02-28-03 Operating 12-27-02 Total Food Service 02-28-03 Total Activity Fund 11-14-02 Total - - Bond Account 09-09-02 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 Capital Proje~s Fund 02-14-03 Capital Projects fund 01-29-03 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 Capital Projects Fund 11-15-02 Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 Capital Projects Fund 01-22-03 Capital Projects Fund 07-17-02 Capital Projects Fund 11-15-02 Capital Projects Fund 09-17-02 Capital Projects Fund 09-17-02 Capital Projects _fund 02-24-03 - Total Deseg Plan Scholarship 01-10-03 Deseg Plan Scholarship 09-27-02 Total - Rockefeller Sc~olarship 01-30-03 Total s~AS lOOH~ \"XI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28,2003 Maturity Institution Interest Rate Date 06-09-03 Regions 1.190% 07-19-03 Regions 1.190% 04-08-02 Pulaski 2.330% TFN Bank of America 1.150% 03-03-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.360% TFN Bank of America 1.040% 04-02-03 Bank of America 1.120% 03-10-03 Regions 1.590% 01-16-04 Metropolitan 1.930% 01-16-04 Bank of the Ozarks ~ .250% 10-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.440% 01-29-04 Bancorp South 2.000% 01-16-04 Superior 2.250% 11-14-03 Superior 1.900% 05-15-03 USBANK 1.380% 07-15-03 USBANK 1.360% 01-16-04 Bank of America 1.240% 03-14-03 Merrill Lynch 1.770% 05-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.480% 04-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks 2.070% 09-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks 2.200% TFN Bank of America 1.070% 06-11-03 Bank of America 1.050% 06-10-03 Bank of America 1.430% 06-24-03 Bank of America 1.090% Type Money Market Money Market Money Market Repo CD Repo Treasury Bills CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD Treasury Bills Treasury Bills CD CD CD Repo Treasury Bills Treasury Bills Treasury Bills 1N3WNHnorav nx SONl'!IV3H \"IX Principal 20,000.00 20,000.00 10,000.00 13,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 23,050,000.00 540,000.00 540,000.00 800,523.15 800,523.15 400,000.00 1,000,934.31 5,116,598.09 10,000,000.00 2,058,896.90 2,500,000.00 11,000,000.00 11,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 5,299,646.43 4,940,754.17 9,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 9,890,000.00 95,206,829.90 124,445.83 534,508.80 658,954.63 249,898.04 249,898.04 S)l'!IVW3'!1 ONISOl~ x\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1755","title":"Records regarding motion for additional time to file brief and related materials, mandatory filing program evaluations, brief and appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., Joshua intervenors' motion for extension of time, and notice of filing for Office of Desegregation Management report and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) 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","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","Sylvan Hills Middle School (North Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Evaluation","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","African Americans--Education","Students","School boards"],"dcterms_title":["Records regarding motion for additional time to file brief and related materials, mandatory filing program evaluations, brief and appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., Joshua intervenors' motion for extension of time, and notice of filing for Office of Desegregation Management report and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) 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/1755"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["52 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt of Appeals, motion for additional time to file brief and related materials; District Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's notice of filing program evaluations required by Paragraph C of the court's compliance remedy; Court of Appeals, notice of filing, brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., and appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al.; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for extension of time; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''2002-03 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE'EIGHTH CIRCUIT RECEIVED MAR - 7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLEE VS. NOS. 02-3867 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. 03 -1147 MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE BRIEF AND RELATED MATERIALS DEFENDANTS APPELLANTS INTER VEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for an order extending the time for the filing of their consolidated brief, addendum and appendix for 14 days (with corresponding adj ustments to the other elemerts of the schedule). The basis for this motion is as fo llows: Joshua Intervenors' lead counsel John W. Walker began a trial, as defense counsel in Case No. CR 00:40, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, before the Honorable George Howard, Jr. on March 3, 2003. It appears that this trial will not conclude until March 14, 2003. Preparation for this trial and the trial have prevented lead counsel from working with co-counsel Robert Pressman, as well as Norman Chachkin, to complete the consolidated brief. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court grant the requested extension. 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 W. WALKE , .. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 3 74-3 758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rocle Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this~ day of ~' 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union Na.tivnal Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 415 North McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas RECEIVED MAR 12 2003 OFACEOF IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION A DESEGREGATION MONITORING W LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. f.fj\"  } : ,:J b~~-.. . t- -- --~ .. \"-- - ..... .. ...... iTORING ORDER Us oisTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 1 1 2003 JAMES W. McCOP.MACK, CLERK By: OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Now pending is PCSSD's Motion RE Portable Building at Sylvan Hills Middle School (doc. no. 3739). Joshua Intervenors have responded to the motion, indicating that they do not oppose the motion. The motion indicates that the band room at Sylvan Hills Middle School is plagued with standing water and requests permission to temporarily lease a portable building for use as a band room. This motion is GRANTED, and PCSSD may lease and use the portable building as requested through the end of the current school year. ~ IT IS SO ORDERED this/J!::aay of March, 2003. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANQ.(__OJ3. 79(a) FRCP. ON 3-l/-O 3 BY~ S?:,99d'. 74 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEIVED 1/ul\"Jd- ;Jz/rvue rl MAR 1 4 2003 DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF FILING PROGRAM EVALUATIONS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH C OF THE COURT'S COMPLIANCE REMEDY Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by the Court's Order of September 13, 2002 states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception Revised Plan 2.7.1. The Court's Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan  2. 7 .1. Paragraph C. of the Compliance Remedy stated: LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD Board of Directors adopted a Compliance Plan - designed to meet the requirements of the Court's Compliance Remedy. A copy of the Compliance Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. As to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD concluded that the following evaluations had already been completed as required by Paragraph C and only needed to be submitted to the Board for approval: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, English-as-a-Second Language, Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program and Collaborative Action Team. The Charter School and Early Literacy evaluations were approved by the Board on October 24, 2002. The Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program, 2000 and 2001 ESL and Collaborative Action Team evaluations were approved by the Board on November 21, 2002. The Math and Science and the 2002 ESL evaluations were approved by the Board on December 19, 2002. These evaluations are bound together in volumes I and II attached. 4. The LRSD concluded that the following evaluations needed to be completed by an outside expert before being submitted to the Board for approval: Extended Year Schools, - Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (\"CLT\"), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. The LRSD sought guidance from Dr. Steven Ross, a desegregation and education expert approved by Joshua. Dr. Ross prepared, \"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District,\" attached hereto as Exhibit B. The LRSD subsequently contracted with experts, including Dr. Ross, to complete the evaluations in accordance with Dr. Ross' guidelines. The Onward to Excellence, CLT, Vital Link and HIPPY evaluations were approved by the Board on February 13, 2003. The Lyceum Scholars Program, Elementary Summer School, Extended Year Education were approved by the Board on February 27, 2003. These evaluations are bound together in volumes III and IV attached. 2 WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits to the Court program evaluations on each of the - programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report as required by Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the Btrited Stat~s mail on March 14, 2003: - ~,,L cklQ Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Richard Roachell JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Roachell Law Firm 1723 Broadway Plaza West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 F:IHOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200 I \\dcs-uniwy-March 15-2003. wpd Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Collette D. Honorable Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201 {[-~i ~op hcer H.e~ller t\u0026lt;~ 3 Little Rock School District Compliance Plan Revised Plan  2. 7 .1 Approved by the Board on October 10, 2002 \"\"  EXHIBIT I A B. C. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year; (b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth grade math teachers; all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly2 or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. * * * F. On or before March 15, 2004, LRSD must file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1. Any party, including Joshua, who wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance with  2. 7 .1, as specified above, may file objections with the court on or before April 15, 2004. Thereafter, I will decide whether the LRSD has substantially complied with  2. 7 .1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy, and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. 2The Court is clearly referring to Dr. John Nunnery. 2 Board-Approved Compliance Plan On October 10, 2002, the Board adopted this Compliance Plan to meet the requirements of the District Court's Compliance Remedy. Pursuant to this Compliance Plan, the LRSD will: 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04; 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; 3. Maintain written records of ( a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process; 4. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program; and 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report. Each element of the Compliance Plan is discussed in more detail below. 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04. The LRSD will implement the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan. The 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan calls for the administration of the following student assessments in English language arts and mathematics: Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Observation Surveys ( 5) Developmental Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (5) Development Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (3) 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 7-10 Grades 9-11 Grade 10 Grade 11 Development Reading Assessment Norm-referenced test to be identified for gifted/talented screening Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination End-of Course Algebra I examination End-of Course Geometry examination SAT9 Total Battery End-of-Level Literacy examination All of these assessments are administered in the spring. Consequently, the final student assessment before March 15, 2004, will be administered in the spring of 2003. 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board approved IL-Rl in conjunction with approving this Compliance Plan. IL-Rl sets forth the written procedures for evaluating the  2. 7 programs. 3. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. IL-Rl mandates that the criteria used to formally evaluate a program be identified as the research questions to be answered, the first of which will be, \"Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of AfiicanAmerican students?\". Recommended program modifications and the members of the evaluation team are routinely included in formal evaluations. The Compliance Committee originally proposed IL-R2 to cover informal evaluations not 4 The District Court's Compliance Remedy On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter \"Opinion\") finding that the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception Revised Plan 2.7.1. Section 2.7.1 provided: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.71 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. The District Court's Opinion set forth a detailed \"Compliance Remedy\" to be implemented by the LRSD. The Opinion first stated: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2. 7 .1, it must remain under court supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it: (a) demonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under 2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (b) prepares the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and uses those evaluations as part of the program assessment procedure contemplated by 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. The Opinion then outlined the \"details\" of the Compliance Remedy as follows: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. 1Revised Plan 2.7 provided, \"LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan.\" 1 covered by IL-R2. However, the administration decided that IL-R2 was unnecessary and would be redundant of information to be included in the evaluations prepared pursuant to IL-Rl. Rather than a separate written record, the program description in evaluations prepared pursuant to IL-Rl will include a description of program modifications made during each year of implementation satisfying the requirements of Paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD will continue to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. 4. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The District will prepare the following new, comprehensive evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science. Each evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Rl and will incorporate all available student assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. These evaluations will be submitted to the District Court on or before March 15, 2004. 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report. The following evaluations will be submitted for Board approval without additional work: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, ESL, Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program and CAT. If approved by the Board, they will be submitted to the District Court on or before March 14, 2003. The following evaluations will be \"completed\" by an outside expert and then be submitted for Board approval: Extended Year Schools, Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (\"CLTs\"), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. These evaluations will be completed as follows: Extended Year Schools. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Middle School Implementation. An outside expert will be retained to rewrite the report 5 and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing data. - Elementary Summer School. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. HIPPY. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. CLTs. An outside expert will be retained to review the CLT survey data and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing survey data. Lyceum Scholars Program. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Onward to Excellence. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Vital Link. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. 6 Action Plan Timeline The Compliance Plan will be implemented in accordance with the following timeline. :- - -- ---- ,tl{trii-ite r\\n(:;fmi. 'T(:.l.'j ! l 0 fft~-; i 111:t1 ;:, 1 ---- ---  -c~--- - -- - - -------- - - - j 1. Place 2002-03 Program October 24, 2002 Ken James Evaluation Agenda on the Bonnie Lesley Board's agenda for review and approval. 2. Place on Board agenda October 24, 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval two previously Linda Watson presented program evaluations ( early literacy, and charter school). 3. Place on Board agenda November 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the evaluations of Southwest Middle School's SEDL program and the Collaborative Action Team (also conducted by SEDL). 4. Place on Board agenda November 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the previously Karen Broadnax presented ESL program evaluations for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, plus the new evaluation for 2001-02. 5. Place on Board agenda December 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the three Vanessa Cleaver previously presented Dennis Glasgow program evaluations for the NSF-funded CPMSA program, plus the new Year 4 report for 2001-2002. 6. Issue Request for Mid-October 2002 Bonnie Lesley Proposals (RFPs) from Darral Paradis available external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148. 7 r--- .. -- .,..c--r~;Jff~- -- ----- -  r  -i\"f~]:i:~1: -- ---- --:r . - - - m:-~f!}Ollt.'ili'i1f! r ~II 1, - - . --- --- --- .. - . - --- ________ J --- --- - - . - J 7. Form a screening team to Late October 2002 determine recommendations to the Superintendent for designating external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148. 8. Select and negotiate consulting contracts with designated external experts. 9. Assign appropriate staff to each external expert to provide needed information, data, access to program staff, etc. 10. Monitor the work to ensure timely completion. 11. As each paper is completed and ready for circulation, send copies to ODM and Joshua for their review and comments. 12. As each paper is completed, place on the Board's agenda the item to be reviewed and approved. 13. Write Interim Compliance Report relating to programs on page 148 to be completed. 14. Establish staff teams for each of the three programs on the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda to be completed for 2002-2003 (Elementary Literacy, Secondary Literacy, and K- 12 Mathematics/ Science). Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002-February 2003 December 2002-February 2003 December 2002- February 2003 March 15, 2003 March 1, 2003 8 Ken James Compliance Team Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Attorneys Compliance Committee Bonnie Lesley ~ - , ... - ~~~{ITif[ .,  - --- 7'fff.ii-.ffuy~ ~ 11)'111,.\u0026lt;11ii1fiT I ---- - -- --- -- ----~L...~_:_------~'-- - --- . - - - . . j 15. Publish RFPs to March 1, 2003 Bonnie Lesley identify external experts to Darral Paradis serve on each of the two staff teams for the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda (K-12 mathematics/ science external experts are provided by NSF). 16. Establish consulting Late March 2003 Bonnie Lesley contracts with the two external experts required for the Elementary Literacy and Secondary Literacy program evaluations. 17. Train each program May 2003 Bonnie Lesley evaluation team, including the external expert, on the requirements of the approved Compliance Plan and IL-R. 18. Monitor the completion May- October 2003 Bonnie Lesley of the work on all three program evaluations required in the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda. 19. Send copies of the With October 2003 Board Ken James completed Elementary agenda packet Bonnie Lesley Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 20. Complete the October board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the 2003 Pat Price Elementary Literacy program and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 9 - -~\\1ifftnt - I' '1tfurr_-gJt,~ -- 'f\u0026lt;[~f!(ofti:..'llhinE\u0026lt; i -- -- ---  , - --- ---- - _j --- --- ------ -- - ------- - - _,, ,_  -  j 21. Send copies of the With November 2003 Board Ken James Secondary Literacy program agenda packets Bonnie Lesley evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 22. Complete the November board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the Secondary 2003 Pat Price Literacy program and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 23 . Send copies of the With December 2003 Board Ken James completed CPMSA program agenda packet Bonnie Lesley evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 24. Complete the five-year December board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the CPMSA 2003 Vanessa Cleaver project (science and Dennis Glasgow mathematics) and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 25. Write Section 2.7.1 March 15, 2004 Ken James Final Compliance Report Attorneys for federal court and file Compliance Team with Court. 1 Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in Little Rock School District Prepared by Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. The present guidelines are based on my review of the Revised Compliance Plan, the LRSD standards for program evaluation, and evaluation report drafts and associated materials related to the eight programs identified as requiring \"final\" evaluation reports. My analysis of this material, combined with my experiences as an educational researcher and familiarity with the Joshua case as it affected LRSD, was influenced by the following assumptions:  Invalid or questionable evaluation results can be much more detrimental than helpful to efforts to improve educational practices, and should not be disseminated without strong cautions and qualifications. Accordingly, studies that lack proper controls against bias or contamination from extraneous factors (e.g., differential sampling, history, diffusion of treatments) have limited value for guiding policies.  Program evaluations that focus predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data have reduced value due to inability to determine the nature of the \"treatment.\" The study will also fail to inform policymakers about the practicality of the program, how it was used and reacted to by stakeholders, or whether and/or how it needs to be improved to impact atrisk learners.  Evaluations of programs that have been discontinued in the district are of much less interest relative to ones that are presently being implemented or informing ongoing practices.  To raise the achievement of African American students in LRSD, attempting to resuscitate existing studies that have insufficient data available, limited relevance to current practices, or require substantial time and resources with little promise of yielding useful information for policy decisions would be less productive than employing the \"lessons learned\" from the prior evaluation work to support high quality and informative future studies. One such lesson is that the LRSD research department (formerly PRE) was understaffed to perform evaluations of the quality and quantity needed. Based on the above assumptions, I will recommend below a basic strategy for the third-party evaluators to use in preparing the eight identified evaluations for approval by the school board. Four of the evaluations concern programs that are no longer in use by LRSD and have limited or no relevance to programmatic decisions (Lyceum Scholars, Elementary Level Summer Schools, Vital Link, and Onward to Excellence). Of the remaining four evaluations, two have limited available data (Middle School Transition and Campus Leadership Teams) that, even with supplementary analyses, would not permit confident (valid) decisions to be made about program effectiveness 1 ' EXHIBIT B 2 in general or about African American student achievement resulting from program participation. A seventh evaluation (Extended Year Education) could possibly yield informative evidence about an ongoing program, but to be sufficiently refined would require time and resources extending significantly beyond the current conditions for project completion. An eighth evaluation (HIPPY) also deals with an ongoing program, but unlike the others could possibly provide useful evidence through revisions completed within the available time frame. Accordingly, the HIPPY report is currently being rewritten by Dr. Ed Williams from LRSD. The suggested plan for the third-party evaluators is presented below followed by a brief review of each evaluation. A. Submit the current evaluation report as an attachment to a supplemental document as described in B-D. B. The supplement should begin with an expanded description of the program, its goals, and its history in LRSD. It should then describe the evaluation methodology and summarize and interpret the key findings. C. Most importantly, the supplement should discuss the limitations (and any strengths where indicated) of the evaluation with regard to: (a) informing current practices in LRSD; (b) using appropriate methodology; and (c) addressing student achievement effects, especially in reference to African American students. D. Finally, the supplement should present suggestions for conducting stronger studies of similar programs in future evaluation studies. 1. Middle School Transition (Moore) This evaluation is in near-completed form and needs mostly editing and expansion. Because the middle school program is current and continuing, this evaluation study can be useful (mostly for guiding professional development and implementation improvement) for informing district strategies. The achievement results are fairly minimal and uninformative, but at the time of the evaluation (1999-2000), only baseline data existed. Thus, aside from providing additional description of the results (the tables and the narrative are sparse) and a more meaningful interpretation of trends (especially with regard to African American vs. Caucasian students), there is probably little more that needs to be done for this essentially baseline time period. The survey data appear to be reasonably analyzed and reported, but the interpretation and discussion should be extended to provide more meaningful conclusions and recommendations. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 3 2. Lyceum Scholars (McNeal) The Lyceum Scholars' High School Program, which was evaluated in 1998-99 and 1999- 2000, is no longer being implemented in LRSD. The latter consideration, coupled with the obvious limitations of the evaluation design with regard to rigor, depth, and meaningfulness of the data, substantially reduce the value of the study and the need for devoting more than minimal resources to it, beyond perhaps a supplemental summary and explanation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 3. Elementary Level Summer School (McNeal) Similar to the Lyceum Scholars' High School Program (#2 above), the Elementary Level Summer School program is no longer being implemented in LRSD. In addition, the evaluation study conducted in the summer of 2001 is limited in its design and methodology. Among the major concerns are the lack of: (a) implementation data to describe the program strategies and the degree to which they were actually used by teachers, (b) an adequate control group or norms to which the achievement scores of summer school students could be compared, and ( c) qualitative data to describe the experiences of students and teachers in the program. Due to \"differential sampling\" the multiple tables provided are neither overly meaningful nor informative regarding the progress of summer school students in general and African American summer school students in particular. Seemingly, there is little useful information to be gained for informing future policies by investing substantive resources in revamping the study. While more suitable control samples might be established using archival data, the absence of implementation assessments would still make the \"treatment\" essentially unknown. Therefore, suggestions similar to those made for the Lyceum Scholars program are also offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 4. Vital Link (Ross) The Vital Link program, designed to provide students with on-the-job experiences, was offered to 394 middle school students in the summer of 1999. Because the program was of very limited duration ( only one week) and is not focused on either academic curriculum or learning strategies, it is highly unlikely to have affected students' academic achievement. Although such a program would still potentially serve a useful purpose for fostering student motivation to achieve and complete school, it is no longer being implemented in LRSD. Further, the evaluation study conducted was so limited (a brief post-test only, closed-ended survey) that the policy implications of the results are minimal and even potentially misleading if derived. Therefore, suggestions similar to 4 those made for the Lyceum Scholars Program and the Elementary Level Summer School Program (#'s 2 and 3 above) are again offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 5. Onward to Excellence CSRD Program (Ross) The OTE model was implemented at Watson Elementary School for several years, starting in 1999. It has since been discontinued and was never formally evaluated, except for achievement data reports sent by the principal to ADE. Thus, in essence, there is no longer any program in LRSD to evaluate and no evaluation report to revise, expand, or redraft. It would seem wasteful of resources to reexamine historical data from this program, especially since implementation data are lacking. That is, if positive or negative results were found, it would be impossible to determine whether OTE or numerous others factors were the main cause. Suggestions, therefore, are similar to those for #'s 2-4 above. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 6. HIPPY (Ross) Because HIPPY is a continuing program, this evaluation can be potentially useful to LRSD by providing initial program results on student achievement and benefits to African American children. A limitation of the study, which unfortunately cannot be remedied retroactively, is the lack of implementation data to describe the fidelity with which HIPPY program components were actually used. The quantitative achievement results must therefore be viewed cautiously, but should still be at least suggestive regarding program influences. Substantive expansion and revision, however, are needed to increase the readability and meaningfulness of the report. For example, there is inadequate description of the program, context, methodology, and analysis design. Tables and findings need to be presented in a more readable (\"user-friendly\") manner. Suggestions: A. Reorganize and expand the introduction and methodology to be in line with district evaluation standards (i.e., more context, more detailed methodology, clearer questions and organization). B. Ed Williams needs to run the revised analysis and write up results by January 31, 2003. A program description needs to be provided. Results need to be disaggregated, if possible, for African American and Caucasian students. Expand the Results sections to provide more informative reporting of outcomes, clearer tabular presentations, etc. C. Expand the Conclusions section to: (a) directly address whether there are implications for the achievement of African American and other disadvantaged groups (there probably are not at this stage), (b) more fully discuss implications and recommendations associated with the findings, and ( c) propose further evaluation research that will validly determine both implementation quality and influences of HIPPY on student achievement. D. The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy in expanding this report. 7. Extended Year Education (EYE) Report (Moore) 5 The EYE program is relevant to LRSD's current interests in improving academic achievement of its students. Unfortunately, the present evaluation design does not seem sufficiently sensitive to detect effects that might be attributable to EYE. Specifically, usage of whole-school data compared descriptively to district norms gives only a very surface examination of the schools' progress, with susceptibility to contamination by student mobility, differences in SES, etc. A more precise analysis would match students at the three schools to similar students at comparable schools not using EYE, and then examine progress using a multivariate-type (regression or MANOV A) analysis. It is questionable, however, that such analyses could be completed in the time remaining for the required submission of the final report. Also, the findings would be limited by having only two years of post-program data. Aside from the design limitations, the organization of the report is difficult to follow due to the many tables and brief but not very informative narrative descriptions. The survey data might be interpretable, but also need a much clearer and better organized presentation. Suggestions: The th1rd-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 8. Campus Leadership Teams (Ross) This initiative seems highly relevant to current and future goals ofLRSD. However, the \"evaluation data\" collected to date consist of only results from two district-wide surveys that assessed team members' reactions to various activities. No information exists to verify the representativeness of the samples, the validity of the data collection in general, or the implementation of the CLTs at the various schools. The aggregate survey results on the 24 combined items (14 in the team member survey; 10 in the certified/noncertified staff member survey) do not appear overly interesting or meaningful with regard to informing practice. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 12/3/02   II II II  II II -,II -.. -- VOLUME IV RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING II : VOLUME II II 1111 II  II II -- -- \\ - ~ III RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MDNITDRING I I : I VOLUME I I II I ,I I RECEIVED I MAR 1 4 2003 I OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING I I I la I ' - - - -     I I VOLUME I I I I 'II ' II II I I I  I I RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Mr. Michael E. Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse 111 S. 10th St., Room 24.329 St. Louis, MO 63102 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. A'ITORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Overnight Delivery March 20,. 2003 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net RECEIVED '-ktl'JJ r D,?,/, vu tJ MAR ;vZ,)003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: Little Rock School District, Appellee v. Pulaski County Specia.l School District No.l, Defendants, Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., Appellants, Katherine Knight, et al., Intervenors; Appeal Nos. 02-3867, 03-1147 Dear Mr. Gans: Enclosed you will find ten copies of Brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. and Addendum and three copies of the Appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. for filing in the above matter. Also enclosed you will find a diskette as required by the rules. JWW:lp cc: All Counsel of Record I I  I -I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITEffSTATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. R~S~'-Y0 MAR 2 o 2003 :l ; {fJ.-P PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS OFFICE Of DESEGREG~llOM MOK\\lORlMG MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. BRIEF OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200  Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 II II ---- II  I I I II II I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. RECEIVED 1-1i,11-'ld - \u0026amp;. f, -. eri--l PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MAR 2 O 2003  :Pfl--P OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. BRIEF OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 I le I I I I I I ,I , I I I I I I  I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE v. RECEIVED (-h,.,d- /Je/,.,-t ..-ci PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MAR 2 O 2003 JI, , z-r  \" OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. APPENDIX OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A.  1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955  (\u0026lt;- I I I I I I I I r I I I 'I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE v. RECEIVED /b1Jc tJ./, ,eo,/ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS . MAR 2 0 2003 J{ : f2f) OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. ADDENDUM OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCTNO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERJNE KNIGHT, ET AL. MAR 21 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME The Joshua Intervenors, by and through their counsel, John W. Walker, P.A., respectfully move the Court for an extension of time in which to respond to Little Rock School District's Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Requested by Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy, and for cause states: 1. On March 14, 2003, LRSD served a Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy on the Joshua Intervenors. 2. Due to undersigned counsel 's heavy trial schedule, including an extensive jury trial in federal district court over the past two weeks and the beginning of another jury trial on Monday, March 17, 2003 , in the matter of State v. Tyrone Gamble, Craighead County Circuit Court: CR-2000-0078 before the Honorable John Fogleman. It has become apparent that this matter will continue well into next week which precludes counsel from responding to the submission in a timely manner. .., .) . Therefore, undersigned counsel requests an extension of time to respond to LRSD's submission up to and including April 13, 2003. 4. There is no prejudice to any party by the granting of the delay. WHEREFORE, Joshua Intervenors respectfully request an extension of time of twenty _(20) days, up to and including April 13, 2003 , in which to respond to LRSD's Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy. 12~J,~ 6 Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respectfully submitted, J . J . , .A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing hm~s~nt by fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to all counsel of records, on this;;t' day of 00/4... , 2003: J~er ,.., .) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSIIDA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On March 14, 2003, LRSD_filed its Notice of Filing Program Evaluations as required by Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy in my September 13, 2002 Order. On March 20, 2003, Joshua Inte.rvenors filed a Motion for Extension of Time in which to r\u0026lt;:spond. Counsel for Joshua cites a heavy trial schedule which would preclude him :from responding in a timely mwmer. No parties object to the extension. Therefore, Joshua's Motion (doc. no. 3747) is GRANTED, and Joshua Intervenors have until 12:00 p.m. on Monday, April 14, 2003, in which to respond to LRSD's Notice of Filing Program Evaluations. ~ IT IS SO ORDERED this~ day of March, 2003. ~~nJDGE FILED EAS U.S. DISTRICT COURT TERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 2 5 2003 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~~:MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD filed its motion for approval of a middle school site in Maumelle on October 22, 2002. Joshua raised certain questions concerning the proposed new school in its response - filed December 6, 2003, and the Court wrote a letter on January 28, 2003, to all of the parties making certain inquiries, particularly concerning recruitment to the new school for the proposed 200 seats that would be reserved for transferring M-to-M students. The parties have now responded, via pleadings, to the Court's letter. By and large, the following enumerated points are drawn from the supplemental responses of the parties, particularly those of PCSSD. On March 19, 2003, the Court circulated these enumerated points as a proposed order. All parties were given until March 24, 2003, at 12:00p.m. in which to file objections to the contents of the proposed order. As of today, March 25, 2003, no objections have been received. Therefore, I conclude that none of the parties have any objections to the proposed order. PCSSD's motion is hereby granted and the parties are directed to do the following: 1. The M-to-M stipulation, adopted as an order of this Court, presumes that transferring children entering the receiving district at one organizational level will continue DEP CLERK - their education at the next available organizational level and will be encouraged to do so. Hence, pursuant to the M-to-M stipulation, it is presumed that LRSD transferring students who have elected to attend Crystal Hill, Pine Forrest and Oak Grove elementary schools will continue their education in PCSSD at the next organizational level. The PCSSD shall look first to the number of transferring LRSD students currently attending the three elementary schools in PCSSD which would feed the Maumelle middle school. Further, the Court is informed that Sylvan Hills Middle School no longer has the capacity to accommodate all 6th grade M-to-M students who attended Clinton Interdistrict School through the 5th grade. Those students should be informed of their opportunity to attend the new middle school in Maumelle. Also, the seats proposed for reservation at the new Maumelle school shall not be limited to Little Rock students but should include eligible students from North Little Rock as well. 2. The Court is informed that Little Rock currently takes the laboring oar in educating students in the LRSD about the opportunities at Crystal Hill. Most of the student body from Little Rock at Crystal Hill represents those students who were unable to gain entry to Gibbs , Booker, Williams or Rockefeller and who elected to come to Crystal Hill. Since the PCSSD hosts those students for several years, including some who currently enter as pre-K students and leave currently as sixth grade students, the PCSSD has a daily audience of 400 Little Rock M-to-M students and frequent contact with their parents and guardians sufficient to sustain \"on-going\" recruitment for the middle school from the time these children enter Crystal Hill. Thus, while the PCSSD will continue to rely upon the LRSD to initially - encourage children to attend Crystal Hill, the PCSSD will assume principal responsibility for 2 convincing those children to continue, consistent with the M-to-M stipulation, their education at the Maumelle middle school. 3. The Court is informed that efforts will be made to recruit M-to-M students attending Crystal Hill, Oak Grove, Pine Forest, Clinton elementary schools, and Oak Grove Junior High School (7th grade). Parents of 4th , 5th , and 6th grade LRSD M-to-M students attending Crystal Hill, Oak Grove, and Pine Forest, 4th and 5th grade Clinton M-to-M students, and Th grade M-to-M students attending Oak Grove Junior High School will be informed of the District's intent to build a middle school at the proposed Maumelle site. The District's website will provide information to parents from the three Districts about the plans and progress of the proposed middle school. Parents and teachers will be surveyed to identify needs, concerns, and expectations . Data from the parent and teacher surveys will allow input from the District's internal and external publics into the planning and implementation process at the Maumelle middle school. Parents of 4th and sch grade African American students in LRSD and NLRSD will also receive information about the new middle school in the Maumelle area. The Magnet Review Committee will also assist with recruitment. 4. The LRSD personnel primarily responsible for recruitment and assignment to stipulation magnet schools will continue to be those persons principally responsible for educating LRSD children regarding Crystal Hill. Once the children reach Crystal Hill (as well as Pine Forrest and Oak Grove elementary schools), the teachers and counselors who work in those buildings will have principal responsibility for discussing the middle school with children and their parents and guardians. The PCSSD Department of Equity and Pupil Services and the Student Assignment Office will work with LRSD, NLRSD, and Magnet 3 - Review Committee personnel to recruit African American students for the proposed middle school. 5. LRSD will give PCSSD recruiters full access to students and parents through the LRSD schools. 6. The LRSD will be responsible for making sure that transportation for transferring students is adequate. 7. A parent/teacher committee drawn from the existing Maumelle middle school facility committee has been formed to evaluate and recommend unique and attractive programs to attract M-to-M students. A representative from Joshua will be invited to participate. This Committee will evaluate and recommend unique and attractive programs with, as a starting point, determining whether the current program at Crystal Hill Elementary School should be extended to the middle school. This program emphasizes communications with an emphasis upon technology and basic skills. 8. The PCSSD will follow the middle school plan previously developed and presented to the Court with appropriate refinements and additions. The final middle school plan was approved by this Court on June 4, 2001. 9. Given the foregoing, the PCSSD's proposal to acquire a site at the intersection of Murphy and Carnahan Drive for a new middle school is hereby approved. IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of March, 2003. DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE ' ~ll~~~~L,,f1 ~8 AN~RCF  --='~0/~BY  ~D~ United States District Judge Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. 4 I ie i I i -i -I,_ I I I I I I ~ I E 2002-03 ENROLLMENT AND RACIAL BALANCE IN THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor March 26, 2003 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Polly Ramer Office Manager UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 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 AD E's Project Management Tool for March 2003 . Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General ~~ COLETTE D. H0NRABLE#96016 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-8123 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Colette D. Honorable, certify that on March 25, 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P .A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ ColetteD.Honora 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31 , 2003 Basedonthe .informatitinavafiab(e a.i F~bri}arY:-2a, :20O3,:the Ap ~-caicuiated 'the EqUaiizatiori Funding for:FX.02103):JiuB1ed fo per,adic.aei}ustments: 8. 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.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"hbcula_becu_38","title":"Voice of the Wildcats Newsletter, February 27, 2003","collection_id":"hbcula_becu","collection_title":"Bethune-Cookman University Digital Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, Volusia County, Panama Beach, 28.86832, -81.22778"],"dcterms_creator":["Bethune-Cookman University"],"dc_date":["2003-02-27"],"dcterms_description":["The student newsletter of Bethune-Cookman College, now Bethune-Cookman University, highlighting student voices, campus and community activities, and current events."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","African American students","Campus life","College student newspapers and periodicals","Civil rights movements"],"dcterms_title":["Voice of the Wildcats Newsletter, February 27, 2003"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/becu/id/38"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["All rights to images are held by the respective holding institution. This image is posted publicly for non-profit educational uses, excluding printed publication. For permission to reproduce images and/or for copyright information contact University Archives, Bethune-Cookman University, Daytona Beach, FL 32114 (386) 481-2186. https://www.cookman.edu/library/index.html"],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"ugabma_wwlaw_wwlaw-0030","title":"Interview with Tessie Rosanna Law, Part 1 of 2","collection_id":"ugabma_wwlaw","collection_title":"W. W. Law Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Chatham County, Savannah, 32.08354, -81.09983"],"dcterms_creator":["York, Lisa","Kuhn, Cliff","Law, Tessie Rosanna"],"dc_date":["2003-02-18"],"dcterms_description":["00:01:01 - Growing up | 00:03:39 - Living with Grandmother | 00:07:24 - What did you know about white people growing up? | 00:08:42 - A violent babysitter | 00:19:08 - Wesley's sense of respect | 00:26:25 - Run ins with the KKK"],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American grandmothers--Georgia--Savannah","African American families--Georgia--Savannah","Violence--Georgia--Savannah","White supremacy movements--Georgia--Savannah","Ku Klux Klan (1915- )","Race discrimination--Georgia--Savannah","Racism--Georgia--Savannah"],"dcterms_title":["Interview with Tessie Rosanna Law, Part 1 of 2"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Walter J. Brown Media Archives and Peabody Awards Collection"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://purl.libs.uga.edu/brown/wwlaw_0030/ohms"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/id:ugabma_wwlaw_wwlaw-0030"],"dcterms_temporal":["1950/2000"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["moving images","oral histories (literary works)","interviews"],"dcterms_extent":["1 video file (mp4) : 29 min., 53 sec., sd., col."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"ugabma_wwlaw_wwlaw-0031","title":"Interview with Tessie Rosanna Law, Part 2 of 2","collection_id":"ugabma_wwlaw","collection_title":"W. W. Law Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Chatham County, Savannah, 32.08354, -81.09983"],"dcterms_creator":["York, Lisa","Kuhn, Cliff","Law, Tessie Rosanna"],"dc_date":["2003-02-18"],"dcterms_description":["00:00:53 - Tessie's timidity | 00:05:03 - What was the thing you liked most about your brother Wesley? | 00:06:05 - Wesley's busy life | 00:10:25 - Remember when you decided to come north? | 00:11:29 - What quality do you most remember about your brother? | 00:16:03 - A surprise blanket | 00:19:29 - Being 'born with a veil over her face' | 00:22:26 - Wesley's abilities | 00:26:35 - Was Wesley able to tell you he loved you? | 00:28:24 - Did Wesley have any girlfriends?"],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Siblings--Georgia--Savannah","African American families--Georgia--Savannah","African Americans--Migrations","Timidity in children--Georgia--Savannah","Love"],"dcterms_title":["Interview with Tessie Rosanna Law, Part 2 of 2"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Walter J. Brown Media Archives and Peabody Awards Collection"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://purl.libs.uga.edu/brown/wwlaw_0031/ohms"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/id:ugabma_wwlaw_wwlaw-0031"],"dcterms_temporal":["1950/2000"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["moving images","oral histories (literary works)","interviews"],"dcterms_extent":["1 video file (mp4) : 30 min., 7 sec., sd., col."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"alm_u0008-0000152_519","title":"Interview with Tom Bevill, Charlie Watts and Gerald Colvin, February 18, 2003","collection_id":"alm_u0008-0000152","collection_title":"Tom Bevill Oral Histories","dcterms_contributor":["Bevill, Tom, 1921-2005","Watts, Charlie","Colvin, Gerald"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026"],"dcterms_creator":["Ray, Kevin"],"dc_date":["2003-02-18"],"dcterms_description":["Gift of Bevill family, Don Smith, and Todd Smith"],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg","image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["The University of Alabama Libraries Special Collections"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Tom Bevill oral histories"],"dcterms_subject":["Political science","United States. Congress. House","Alabama. Legislature"],"dcterms_title":["Interview with Tom Bevill, Charlie Watts and Gerald Colvin, February 18, 2003"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["William Stanley Hoole Special Collections Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.libraries.ua.edu/cdm/ref/collection/u0008_0000152/id/519"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Images are in the public domain or protected under U.S. copyright law (Title 17, U.S. Code), and both types may be used for research and private study. For publication, commercial use, or reproduction, in print or digital format, of all images and/or the accompanying data, users are required to secure prior written permission from the copyright holder and from archives@ua.edu. When permission is granted, please credit the images as Courtesy of The University of Alabama Libraries Special Collections."],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["00:57:30","29 p."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Bevill, Tom, 1921-2005"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1407","title":"Program Evaluations, correspondence, 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":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2003-02-13/2003-02-27"],"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","Education--Standards","Educational innovations","Educational planning","School administrators","School employees","School improvement programs","School management and organization","Student assistance programs","Teachers"],"dcterms_title":["Program Evaluations, correspondence, 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/1407"],"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":["77 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tws_oid16_34254","title":"Rob Bowman, 2003","collection_id":"tws_oid16","collection_title":"Crossroads interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898"],"dcterms_creator":["Bowman, Rob"],"dc_date":["2003-02-13"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/mp4","application/pdf","image/jpeg"],"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":["https://vimeo.com/291122938"],"dcterms_subject":["Oral history","Interviews","Memphis (Tenn.)","Stax Records","Music"],"dcterms_title":["Rob Bowman, 2003"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Rhodes College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/10267/34254"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":338,"next_page":339,"prev_page":337,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":4044,"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}}]}}