{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_338","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, 26-27","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":["2000/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, 26-27"],"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/338"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n Si:s=''3sv'p\u0026lt;irt Services - 3rcl Monday, April 23,2001 I 1  -1 ! S .-3:^ w Marian Lacey SecondaryTable of Contents Pre-AP and/or AP Course Enrollment John Ruffins Pre-AP and/or AP Grades - C or better John Ruffins Pre-AP and/or AP Course Drops John Ruffins Absent Teachers without Subs Richard Hurley Teacher Absences Richard Hurley Drop-Out Data Everett Hawks John Ruffins Disciplinary Data Linda Watson John Ruffins Assessment Data Kathy Lease Grade Distribution John Ruffins Academic High Risk Everett Hawks John Ruffins Average Daily Attendance (ADA) John Ruffins Volunteer Hours Debbie Milam Annual K-8 Retention Rate John RuffinsStuders Enrolled in at Least One AP, PrI^AP Course for 2000-2001 by Scho(^3rd Quarter Thursday, April 12, 2001 __________________School CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL CLOVERDALE MIDDLE SCHOOL Graded Total 1 Gender^ Black _ 09 562 f \" To T 513 I. iCX.419 M FL M F M nLzrz495Z\\...nF T 06 I 298 f 07 I 239 Q 08 ZIZ217 DUNBAR INTL STUDIES MAGNET MIDDLE SC T 06 I 268 I 07 ~ I 234 I 08 I 228 FAIR HIGH SCHOOI____ T 09 I 275 r 10 I 222 r~\" 11 I 198 r 12 J 188 FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL _ 06ZZIZ25JB- [ 07 I 247 L 08_Z_242 HALL HIGH SCHOOL____ LRSD Information Service Dept. n 09 T 431 ___M___ F M F M F _ _M___ ___F____ M F __M F M F M F M___ F M F M F M F M F__ ___M_ _ F 48 36 49 J1_ 43 JQ_ 44_ 19 63 42 58 36 49 40 33_ 28 40_ 4Q_ 44 31 33 22_ 36 21 33 20 16 31 29 30 %Black 9% 6% 10% White 71 96 4%_____7O.,,_ 10% 5%._____66_. 9% 4% 21% 14% 24% 15% 23% 18%__ 12% 10%__ 17%_ 17%__ 19% 16%___ 12% _8%___ 16%__ %White 15% 13% 19% _ 14% 20% 16% ._10_4_..21%... 67 4 2 4 2 4 __0_ 30 _ 38 28 14% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% _ 0% _11%_ _14% 12% 40_____17% 34 41 1 Jl 9 12% ___10 17% 15% 11% 9% 12% IIS^L 12% 22_______9%. 32 32 55 3_ io 6 9 40 21 29 15% 18% 3% 2% _ ^0 _ _5% 2% _ _ 5% 3% 3% 16% 10% 12% Other 10 6 5 14 6 4 _3 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 13 11 i 6 8 10 0 13%_____2r__ __26.____1.1 %_ 13% -13%_ _33_ _ 11% ._33_1.. 8%_ 4 1_ 0 3 1 ___2_ ___0_ ___2_ ___1_ __2_ 4 1 4 6 %Other 2% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 5% 4% 3% 3% 4% 4% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 0% 2% 1% Page 1 of 3__________________School HALL HIGH SCHOOI______ Grade Total __09  .10 431 378 I 11 T 306 L.J2LIJ254, HENDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL i 06 HL 2o r .07 717183 I 08 77 _178 MABELVALE middle SCHOOL. I' ~067n 182 77Q7-_r__1Z4 r 08 T 143 MANN ARTS/SCIENCES_MAGNET Z JL6_L_29i r ~ O7~T 273 I 08 I 282 MC CLELLAN high SCHOOL 7 09 r 334 r 10 I 269 L7.L 7 266 I 12 T 198 PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET 7 09 I 29? I 10 I 29? 7 11 Z 281 LRSD Informalioi 7.712Z 270 'ice Dept. Gender M F M F M __F__ _M__ ___F __ M __L _ M F M _F___ _M___ _F__ M F M F M F M __E__ M___ F M F M F M F__ M __F___ M F M F M Black 41 71 37 49 20 ___23_ _ js 41 _ 33 __52_ 42 34 31 ___31_ 34 %Black 10% 19% 10% 16% 7% _9%__ 5% _ 14 19 13 28 24 17 _ 11_ 20% 16 __16%_ _ 28% 23% 19% 17% 17% 19% 12 _9 _ 8 21 11 _6 7 ____36______21%.__ 14 32 21 54 32 44 35 46 8% 15% _18% 11% 16% 13% 16% %Whlte 5% 3% 9% 8% __ 7% __J.6. 4% 8% _ 5% 4% 12% 6% 3% 4% 9% 9 5% _11_ 9 65 33 41 44 68 _ ____34._____J2%_____.35_ _8% 6% 22% 11% 15% 16% 24% 12% 44 30 44 24 43 25 41 21 54 53 68 40 52 43 53 __13% 9% 16% 9% 16% 9% _ 21% __0_______Q% 3 2 5 6 1 9 .11%--._ 0 _..18%_____71__ 1%___ 1%___ 2%___ 2%___ 0%___ 5% 0%_ Other Z 5 5 7 10 4 6 5 4 5 3 6 1 _0 2 3 2 __0 _ 3 1 5 11 6 _ 5 7 2 0 0 1 3 2 2 2 4. 4. 18% 23% 14% 19% 15%. 20% 34 _ 50 55 34 56 24%_ . _-14 12% '17% 19% 22% 12% 21% 6 _9 5 12 5 . 7.\u0026lt; %Other 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 4% 0% 1% 2% 1% 0% 2% 2% 3% 4% 2% 2% 2% 1% 0%___ 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 5% 2% 3% 2%:_ 4% 2% 3% Page 2 of 3School_________ PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL Grad\u0026amp;__Tjitid. 12 . 06 270 224 L . Q7_L__258 L 08 _I 243_ SOUTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL r 06 r 181 LI'60 168 I 08 r 169 [Grand Totals: M F M F M F _ M __ _F ___ __F____ M F M Black 3Q 17 19 28 23 29 22 24 17 36 18 36 25 3096 11% 8% 8% 11% 9% fThite. 31 30 56 52 50 J2%____48 9%_____38 13% _9%. 21% 11% 21% 15% 0 0 __i _ 2 _ 1 3 4 2394 %fVhite ^1% 13% 25% 20% 19% 20% 16% _ 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2^0 0 5 0 1 0 6 2 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 365 LRSD Information Service Dept. %Other 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0 Page 3 of 3Stu^nfs that passed AP or Pre-AP Cou^s for 2000-2001 by School, 3rd Qat^er Thursday, April 12, 200! __________________SdiiiaL CENTRAL HIGH-SCHOOL JGrade__loltiL 09___562 l~ 10 I 513 I 11 [ 419 r 12 I 495 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE SCHOOL__ _2Z_L _- Q6_Z 298 [ 07 X 239 f OSXI 217 DUNBAR INTL STUDIES MAGNET MIDDLE\"Sc7 06 X 268 f 07 X 234' CX08 I 228 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL __ T ~09 I 275 I 10 I 222 L ii X Xj Ol [ ' ~12 T 188 FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL_ T 06 X 258 I 07 T 247 I Xo_8 X_24_2 HALL HIGH SCHOOL_ _ LRSD Information Service Dept. I 09 1 431 Gender F M F _ M___ F M___ F M___ F M F M F __M___ __F____ _M___ _ F___ M F M F __M__ _F__ __M __ F _ -M - __ F M F M F M __F___ _M___ F Black 67 55 69 27 68 45 57 _ 26 _ 261 126 200 118 181 _ _95__ _92_ __59 _ 94 82 81 75 47 __30_ %Black 12% 10% 13% 5% White 22Q 201 314 226 16%_284 11% 12% ___5% 88% 42% 84% 49% 83% -44%  _ 34% _ _22% _46%_ _44_ _76 41 26 20 108 79 92 _63 79' 73_ 7Z 36% 33% 17% 1-1%__ 31% _ 20%_ __38%_ _ 21% 14% 11% 42% ^.1% - _-_J26Yo__. L 33% _ _ J6% _ _ J7%- 231 %White Other %Other 40% 36% 61% _44% _68% _ 55^_ 31 17 19 57 _25_ _18 133____Q7%_____12 _ 175__..__35%, 11 7 13 5 13 __0_ _ 96 _139 _ 89 4% 2% 5% 2% 6% 0% _ _ _36% 52% 22 _ 5 12 3 2 7 0 _ 38 39 ..J_20___51% 38%_____25 95 117 13 ___3__ 15 7 _ _21 i'6 19 178 98 124 105 113_ Xik_ 42% 51% 5%  ___1% ._ .. 13% 7% 4% 11% 9% 10% 69% 38% 50% 43% 47% 49% 22 19 23 0 8 2 0 4 __Z.0__L_16% _1 6 0 10 4 9 15 3 16 7_ 6% 3% 4% 11% 6% 4% 2% 4% 2% 4% 1% 1% 3% 0% 14% 15% 11% 9% 8% 10% 0% 3% 1% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% 4% 2% 4% 6% 1% 7% 2% i Page I of 3 I I__________________School HALL HIGH SCHOOL_____ Giade.__Total 09 .J0__ 431 378 I 11.LL 3Q6 i'L 254 HENDERSON MJPPLE SCHOOL LZoe'^LI 205 [ZotJJ 183 I_08 T 178 MABELVALE MIOOLE SCHOOL_ .-.ZJZq6l_I 182 I 07 Z174 r 08 Zl43 MANN ARTS/SCJENCES magnet _ Zoe J 292 Z97 Z273 i 08 r 282 MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL I 09 'r 334 I r 10 1 269 I.ll L 265 [ 12 r 198 PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET___ r 09 r 295 r 10 I 296 1 ll T 281 [ 12 ] 270 LRSD Informalioi \\\u0026lt;ice Dept. Gender M F M F M _ F _ M F M ___E M F M F m' __ E M F M F M F M _E _ M _ E. M F M F M __F 'm _E ___M ___E M ___E. M Black. 53 93 56 61 11 _27_ 26 Z39_ 122 165 107 106 95 %Black 15% 25% 15% 20% 4% 28 31 44 59 33 _11% __27 _ 8% 19 68% M 60% 49 %White 5% 10% 12% 19% 11% 11% 1% _ 31% 24% _ 107 100 J_2Z_ 41 _133 _ Ari 180 106 127 93 134 _108 Zq_ _ 51 99 48 96 52 78 90% 58% 53% 59% 18 20 53 21 2\\ 55%_____22 _73%_ _ 24% 93% 33% 62% 36% 47% 34% _48% 38% __2_1%__ 15% 31% 18% 36% 20% _39% _ 35_ 18% 89 30% 102____35% 169 88 78 68 123 51% 5Q% 28% 24% 10% 11% 30% 15% .12% 12% .68_____39% _ 34_ 46_ 36 243 119 138 157 20% 32% 25% 83% 41% 51% 58% -24_3____86%. 118 _0_ 2 3 12 11 1 19 _ 42% .... 0% _0___ 178 1% 1% 4% 4% 0% _10% 0% _66% 78_____2_6% 151 154 129 51 46%__L144 _51% 52% 46% 24% __53% Other 7 10 9 8 13 5 11 _ 20 9 _13 10 15 25 0 _ 6 7 1 _ 0 5 31 31 34 21 24 30 3 0 0 3 5 2 3 6 __ 45 24 31 9 42 11 , 19 fl I + %Other 2% 3% 2% 3% 4% 2% 4% 10% 4% 7% 5% 8% 14% 0% 3% 4% 1% 0% 3% 11% 11% 12% 8% 9% 11% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% 15% 8% 10% 3% 15% 4% 1% Page 2 of 3______School___________________ PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS middle SCHOOL _ Grade] Total ]^nder 12 06 270 224 I 07 r 258 r 08 I 243~ SOUTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL T 06 T 181 M F M F M F M E M BlalL 60 50 48 74 54 _78_ _51_ _83_ 51_ %lak_ 22% 21% 29% 21% ^2% 21% Wbit^. 67 128 214 199 162 191 _ 14r __46%_____0__. LRSD Information Service Dept. r 08 r 169 M F. M 57 83 67 _ 28% ____63% .. 34% 49% 40% 4 _2_ 4 6 %White 25% 57% 96% 77% 63% 7Q% 58% _ 0% 2% 1% 2% 4% 13 __3_J__2% 0 4 0 18 8 3 7 4 0 5 0 0 %Other 5% 0% 2^/o 0% 7% 3% _1% 4% 2% 0% 3% 0% 0% Page 3 of 3January, 2001 LOCATION/DATE BOOKER BALE BRADY BADGETT MCDERMOTT CARVER BASELINE FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN GIBBS CHICOT W. HILLS JEFFERSON CLOVERDALE DODD MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL KING ROCKEFELLER G. SPRINGS PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROMINE STEPHENS WASHINGTON WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF MABELVALE TERRY FULBRIGHT OTTER CREEK WAKEFIELD WATSON MANN DUNBAR FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST HENDERSON A.L.C. CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. CENTRAL HALL METRO PARKVIEW J. A. FAIR McClellan CHARTER 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 1 1 1 1 1 1 25 1 1 2 26 2 29 1 30 3 31 2. 2 TOTALS 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2. 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 4 T 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 2 1 2 6 2 5 3 1 6 9 1 1 1 3 1 1 T 1 1 1 2 3 5 5 2 3 2 3 2 2 6 2 2 6 5 2  2. 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 3 4 1 2 3 3 1 1 5 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2. 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 3 1 1 8 1 2 2 2 6 3 6 3 3 8 6 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 5 3 2 4 2 4 1 2 2 4 2 2 2 2. 2 6 6 3 3 5 4 2 2 5 2 2 4 3 2 4 5 2 5 3 11 2 6 1 2 3 2 2 4 2 1 1 2 3 Page 1 5 2 4 2 2 5 2 2 1 3 2 2 4 4 2 4 1 4 2 1 2 3 2 9 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 9 4 1 2 2 1 6 5 2 2 2 2 2 8 2 2 4 4 7 2 2 3 8 1 __ __8 __9 __0 __3 __7 __9 __9 __6 18 __1_ 16 __0 3 5 6 1 11 22 31 22 8 12 13 14 22 5 6 4 3 1 1 3 3 6 40 44 44 24 25 34 4 59 28 52 28 14 21 47 71 10FEBRUARY 2001 LOCATION/DATE BOOKER BALE BRADY BADGETT MCDERMOTT CARVER BASELINE FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN GIBBS CHICOT W. HILLS JEFFERSON CLOVERDALE DODD MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL KING ROCKEFELLER G. SPRINGS PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROMINE STEPHENS WASHINGTON WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF MABELVALE TERRY FULBRIGHT OTTER CREEK WAKEFIELD WATSON MANN DUNBAR FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST HENDERSON A.L.C. CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. CENTRAL HALL METRO PARKVIEW J. A. FAIR McClellan CHARTER 1 1 2 2 11 2 1 2 1 1 12 11 5 4 16 5 3 -4 4 22 7 2 5 61 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 1 1 1 41 2 11 1 3261 1 2 12 2 1 13 22 44 13 41 10 4 15 69 1 2 2 4 1 2 1 1 16 2 12 19 20 21 22 23 26 27 11 1 1 2 1 12 2 2 2 1 1 11 2 2 1 T 1 3 3 3 2 2 5 5 4 4 'a 1 T 5 2 6 1 1 11 1 1 3 21 111 11 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 T 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 28 133 1 TOTALS 1 1 11 1 213 2 1 1 4 33 4 23 5 55 6 523 4 1 i 2 1 2 3 12 1 1 22 12 2 3 2 1 13 21 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 14 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 41 2 5 1 44 6 4 5 11 1 1 4 1 3 11 3 1111 1 1 12 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 12 122 1 11 1 3 21 2 42 62 21 1 71 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 11 11 11 4 13 I 2 4 1 5 3 2 15 2 1 11 3 21 5 22 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 111 1 2 1 T 1 1 1 1 Jj 2 1 1 55 1 1 1 2 41 1 2 1 1 141 1 1 23 1 21 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 2163 22 3 13 14 1 8 2 5 3 62 331 3 4 3 2 2^ 6 4153 4 382 1 13 10 128 1 4 4 1 12 1 12 27 31 42 11 16 6 5 3 51144 12 6463 11 2 13 4 4 2 1 6 55 1 Page 1 1 11 1 2 2 1 2 2 11 1 3 4 42 2 4 2^ 2 5 2 2 12 12 3 5 21 3 3 21 55 4 15 2 \u0026amp;5 35 2 585 2 12 13 '2 5 3 41 43 48 82 1 6 1143 115 26 213 12 31 1122 1 1 41 5 2 13 4 3 13 513 23 2 3 3 7 222 132 4 10 25 4 7 12 3 10 5 18 1 40 12 12 12 12 10 27 18 42 22 6 24 16 26 4 17 13 15 __ 5 11 6 13 21 60 56 69 41 66 57 4 64 50 88 58 29 57 77 113 MARCH 2001 LOCATION/DATE BOOKER BALE BRADY BADGETT MCDERMOTT CARVER BASELINE FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN GIBBS CHICOT W. HILLS JEFFERSON CLOVERDALE DODD MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL KING ROCKEFELLER G. SPRINGS PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROMINE STEPHENS WASHINGTON WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF MABELVALE TERRY' FULBRIGHT OTTER CREEK WAKEFIELD WATSON MANN 13 21 1 21 11 5 6 7 8 2 91 12 13 14 2 2 1 1 3 2 11 11 2 1 11 2 111 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 15 212 16 19 20 21 22 1 7 3 2 11 23 2 12 1111 3 22 1 2 33 3 1 2 31 3 6313 313 133 1 2 2 3 5 2 23 1 4 41 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 11 1 1 3 2 1 6 1 3 41 31 1 2 34 41 5 2 11 11 2 11 111 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 11 2 2 111 1 212 1 1 1 1 3 12 22 T 1 4 1 1 1111 1 41 1 1 1 21 131 21 1 T 21 3 12 2 4 1 1 2 11 1 1 2 1 32 1 6 4 11 2122 1 1 1 6 115 1 2 3 444 1 2 2 3 T 1 1 2 2 1 22 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 DUNBAR FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST HENDERSON A.L.C. CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. CENTRAL HALL METRO PARKVIEW J. A. FAIR McClellan CHARTER 1 31 2 51 442 4 317 4 1 15 7j 3 5 3 4 57 17 6 78 10 1 4 2 4 15 2 1 2 4 4 3 3 6 2 1 1 1 12 14 1 4 1 1 15 4 4 211 3 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 13 2 51 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 2 S 4 5 4 3 4 2 4 1 2 'i 9 1 55 5 3 42 5563 66 10 3 2 13 2 5 2 3 34 2 12 15 1 13 4613 2 2 1 7 5 1 2 22 41 5 42 12 3 3 31 1 2 12 3 2 13 3 2115 3 2 5 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 13 4 31 2 21 21 3123 6 10 1 4 43 1 3 2 4 3 2 2 25 2 2 33 3 9 4 2 11 Page 1 11 31 15 74143137 5 513 4 6 TOTALS _____11_ _____12 _____19 ______2 ______4 _____14 _____13 ______ T_ ______ 7 _____ ______ 9 _____ 36 ______ 5 ______ 9 _____ 11 _____ 11 ______5 _____ 19 _____18 _____38 _____rr_ ______5 18 _____ _____13 36 1 10 10 9 16 16 4 89 43 46 56 28 57 36 18 52 59 53 35 12 35 52 85 15 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JANUARY 1, 2001 THRU MARCH 23, 2001 MONTH TOTAL SCHOOL: AUGUST 2.00 OCTOBER 1.00 NOVEMBER 7.00 DECEMBER 6.00 J?\u0026gt;lNUARY 483.50 FEBRUARY 0.50 MARCH 3.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 503.50 SCHOOL: ACCELERATED LEARNING PROGRAMS FEBRUARY 3.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 3.00 SCHOOL: ADULT EDUCATION NOVEMBER 10.00 DECEMBER 2.50 JANUARY 4.50 FEBRUARY 7.00 MARCH 4.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 28.50 SCHOOL: ALTERNATIVE AGENCIES NOVEMBER 1.00 JANUARY 3.00 MARCH 1.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 5.00 SCHOOL: ALTERNATIVE LEARNING CENTER NOVEMBER 4.50 DECEMBER 11.00 JANUARY 50.50 FEBRUARY 45.50 MARCH 24.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 136.00 Tuesday, April 17, 2001 Page I of 15TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JANUARY 1,2001 THRU MARCH 23,2001 MONTH SCHOOL: ATHLETICS/QUIGLEY/SCOTT FIELD JANUARY TOTAL 3.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 3.00 SCHOOL: BADGETT NOVEMBER 0.50 DECEMBER 7.50 JANUARY 16.00 FEBRUARY 22.00 MARCH 19.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 65.00 SCHOOL: BALE NOVEMBER 10.50 DECEMBER 20.50 JANUARY 22.50 FEBRUARY 29.50 MARCH 30.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 113.00 SCHOOL: BASELINE NOVEMBER 26.00 DECEMBER 29.00 JANUARY 59.00 FEBRUARY 51.00 MARCH 36.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 201.50 SCHOOL: BOOKER OCTOBER 1.00 NOVEMBER 14.00 DECEMBER 29.50 JANUARY 59.50 FEBRUARY 70.50 MARCH 56.00 MAY 1.00 Tuesday, April 17, 2001 Page 2 of 15 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JANUARY 1, 2001 THRU MARCH 23,2001 MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 231.50 SCHOOL: BRADY NOVEMBER 10.00 DECEMBER 16.00 JANUARY 39.50 FEBRUARY 57.50 MARCH 46.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 169.00 SCHOOL: CARVER NOVEMBER 20.50 DECEMBER 36.50 JANUARY 53.00 FEBRUARY 99.50 MARCH 68.00 MAY 1.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 278.50 SCHOOL: CENTRAL AUGUST 0.00 OCTOBER -1.00 NOVEMBER 27.50 DECEMBER 73.00 JANUARY 135.50 FEBRUARY 221.50 MARCH 166.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 622.50 SCHOOL: CHARTER SCHOOLS NOVEMBER 4.00 JANUARY 7.50 FEBRUARY 5.50 MARCH 5.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 22.00 SCHOOL: CHICOT Tuesday, April 17, 2001 Page 3 of 15TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JANUARY I, 2001 THRU MARCH 23, 2001 MONTH TOTAL OCTOBER 0.00 NOVEMBER 27.50 DECEMBER 29.50 JANUARY 58.50 FEBRUARY 107.50 MARCH 86.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES\n309.00 SCHOOL: CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY NOVEMBER 26.00 DECEMBER 17.50 JANUARY 27.00 FEBRUARY 36.00 MARCH 33.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 139.50 SCHOOL: CLOVERDALE JR HIGH OCTOBER 1.00 NOVEMBER 27.00 DECEMBER 20.50 JANUARY 67.00 FEBRUARY 102.50 MARCH 95.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 313.50 SCHOOL: DODD NOVEMBER 5.50 DECEMBER 4.50 JANUARY 1650 FEBRUARY 50.00 MARCH 43.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 120.00 SCHOOL: DUNBAR NOVEMBER 42.00 DECEMBER 6850 JANUARY 109.50 FEBRUARY 186.00 Tuesday, April 17,2001 Page 4 of 15TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JANUARY 1, 2001 THRU MARCH 23, 2001 MONTH MARCH TOTAL 133.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 539.00 SCHOOL: ENGLISH JANUARY FEBRUARY 1.00 2.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 3.00 SCHOOL: FAIR NOVEMBER 31.50 DECEMBER 58.50 JANUARY 87.00 FEBRUARY 132.50 MARCH 132.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 442:00 SCHOOL: FAIR PARK NOVEMBER 18.00 DECEMBER 18.50 JANUARY 17.00 FEBRUARY 50.50 MARCH 22.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 126.50 SCHOOL: FOREST HEIGHTS SEPTEMBER 0.00 OCTOBER -0.50 NOVEMBER 56.00 DECEMBER 64.00 JANUARY 109.00 FEBRUARY 131.00 MARCH 111.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 470.50 SCHOOL: FOREST PARK NOVEMBER 11.00 DECEMBER 13.00 Tuesday, April 17,2001 Page 5 of 15TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JANUARY 1, 2001 THRU MARCH 23,2001 MONTH TOTAL JANUARY 42.50 FEBRUARY 52.50 MARCH 49.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 168.50 SCHOOL\nFRANKLIN NOVEMBER 11.50 DECEMBER 21.00 JANUARY 50.00 FEBRUARY 93.50 MARCH 47.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 223.00 SCHOOL: FULBRIGHT OCTOBER 1.00 NOVEMBER 5.00 DECEMBER 8.50 JANUARY 32.00 FEBRUARY 43.50 MARCH 52.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 142.00 SCHOOL: GEYER SPRINGS OCTOBER -5.00 NOVEMBER 6.50 DECEMBER 25.00 JANUARY 51.50 FEBRUARY 43.00 MARCH 43.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 164.00 SCHOOL: GIBBS NOVEMBER 12.00 DECEMBER 15.00 JANUARY 25.50 FEBRUARY 38.00 MARCH 60.00 Tuesday, April 17, 2001 Page 6 of 15 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JANUARY 1, 2001 THRU MARCH 23, 2001 MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 150.50 SCHOOL: HALL JULY -2.00 NOVEMBER 34.00 DECEMBER 45.00 JANUARY 120.50 FEBRUARY 149.50 MARCH 118.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 465.00 SCHOOL: HENDERSON NOVEMBER 36.00 DECEMBER 55.00 JANUARY 113.50 FEBRUARY 130.00 MARCH 97.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 432.00 SCHOOL: INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS CENTER NOVEMBER FEBRUARY 2.00 2.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 4.00 SCHOOL: IRC DECEMBER 1.00 JANUARY 2.50 FEBRUARY 2.00 MARCH 4.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 10.00 SCHOOL: JEFFERSON NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH Tuesday, April 17,2001 17.50 13.50 15.50 28.50 39.00 Page 7 of 15 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JANUARY 1, 2001 THRU MARCH 23, 2001 MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 114.00 SCHOOL: M.L. KING NOVEMBER 9.50 DECEMBER 9.50 JANUARY 31.50 FEBRUARY 66.50 MARCH 61.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 178.00 SCHOOL: MABELVALE ELEMENTARY NOVEMBER 9.50 DECEMBER 12.00 JANUARY 40.00 FEBRUARY 68.00 MARCH 60.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 189.50 SCHOOL: MABELVALE JR HIGH SEPTEMBER 0.50 NOVEMBER 35.00 DECEMBER 42.00 JANUARY 72.50 FEBRUARY 111.50 MARCH 83.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 344.50 SCHOOL: MANN NOVEMBER 30.50 DECEMBER 68.50 JANUARY 152.00 FEBRUARY 186.00 MARCH 143.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 580.50 SCHOOL: MATH DECEMBER Tuesday, April 17,2001 2.00 Page 8 of 15 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JANUARY 1, 2001 THRU MARCH 23, 2001 MONTH TOTAL JANUARY 3.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 5.00 SCHOOL: MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY HIGH SCH OCTOBER -2.00 NOVEMBER 50.50 DECEMBER 82.50 JANUARY 103.00 FEBRUARY 174.00 MARCH 159.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 567.00 SCHOOL: MCDERMOTT NOVEMBER 7.50 DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY 20.50 29.50 48.50 MARCH 45.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 151.50 SCHOOL: MEADOWCLIFF NOVEMBER 2.00 DECEMBER 9.00 JANUARY 16.00 FEBRUARY 32.00 MARCH . 17.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 76.00 SCHOOL: METROPOLITAN NOVEMBER 4.50 DECEMBER 17.00 JANUARY 31.00 FEBRUARY 30.00 MARCH 13.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 96.00 SCHOOL: MITCHELL Tuesday. April 17, 2001 Page 9 of 15 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JANUARY 1, 2001 THRU MARCH 23, 2001 MONTH TOTAL NOVEMBER 26.50 DECEMBER 4.50 JANUARY 8.00 FEBRUARY 33.00 MARCH 15.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 87.50 SCHOOL: OTTER CREEK NOVEMBER 9.00 DECEMBER 11.00 JANUARY 34.50 FEBRUARY 29.50 MARCH 16.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 100.50 SCHOOL: PARKVIEW NOVEMBER 37.00 DECEMBER 45.50 JANUARY 69.50 FEBRUARY 150.50 MARCH 131.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 434.00 SCHOOL: PULASKI HEIGHTS INT NOVEMBER 7.00 DECEMBER 10.50 JANUARY 37.00 FEBRUARY 36.00 MARCH 40.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 131.00 SCHOOL: PULASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLE OCTOBER 0.00 NOVEMBER 28.00 DECEMBER 30.00 JANUARY 72.00 FEBRUARY 89.00 MARCH 16.00 Tuesday. April 17, 2001 Page 10 of 15 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JANUARY 1, 2001 THRU MARCH 23, 2001 MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 295.00 SCHOOL: PUPIL PERSONNEL NOVEMBER 2,00 DECEMBER 4.50 JANUARY 10.00 FEBRUARY 13.00 MARCH 5.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 35.00 SCHOOL: READING NOVEMBER 3.00 DECEMBER 3.00 JANUARY 6.00 FEBRUARY 17.00 MARCH 6.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 35.00 SCHOOL: RIGHTSELL NOVEMBER 10.00 DECEMBER 18.50 JANUARY 35.00 FEBRUARY 60.00 MARCH 48.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 171.50 SCHOOL: ROCKEFELLER NOVEMBER 17.00 DECEMBER 26.00 JANUARY 84.50 FEBRUARY 77.00 MARCH 76.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 280.50 SCHOOL: ROMINE NOVEMBER 8.00 DECEMBER 8.00 Tuesday, April 17. 2001 Page 11 of 15 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JANUARY 1, 2001 THRU MARCH 23, 2001 MONTH TOTAL JANUARY 38.00 FEBRUARY 45.50 MARCH 52.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 152.00 SCHOOL: SCIENCE/ENV ED JANUARY 2.00 FEBRUARY 5.00 MARCH 1.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 8.00 SCHOOL: SOCIAL STUDIES JANUARY MARCH 1.00 2.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 3.00 SCHOOL: SOUTHWEST OCTOBER 0.00 NOVEMBER 28.00 DECEMBER 33.50 JANUARY 71.00 FEBRUARY 83.00 MARCH 75.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 291.00 SCHOOL: SPECIAL EDUCATION NOVEMBER 3.50 DECEMBER 7.00 JANUARY 26.50 FEBRUARY 19.00 MARCH 24.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 80.50 SCHOOL: STEPHENS NOVEMBER 11.00 DECEMBER 27.50 JANUARY 17.00 Tuesday, April 17,2001 Page 12 of 15 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JANUARY 1, 2001 THRU MARCH 23,2001 MONTH TOTAL FEBRUARY 59.00 MARCH 49.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 164.00 SCHOOL: TERRY NOVEMBER 14.00 DECEMBER 20.00 JANUARY 15.00 FEBRUARY 53.00 MARCH 29.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 131.00 SCHOOL: VOCATIONAL EDUCATION NOVEMBER 11.50 DECEMBER 13.00 JANUARY 37.00 FEBRUARY 25.00 MARCH 8.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 95.00 SCHOOL: WAKEFIELD NOVEMBER 12.00 DECEMBER 9.50 JANUARY 22.50 FEBRUARY 30.00 MARCH 33.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 107.50 SCHOOL: WASHINGTON NOVEMBER 17.50 DECEMBER 31.00 JANUARY 48.50 FEBRUARY 111.50 MARCH 87.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 295.50 SCHOOL: WATSON Tuesday. April 17, 2001 Page 13 of 15 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JANUARY 1, 2001 THRU MARCH 23, 2001 MONTH TOTAL SEPTEMBER 5.00 OCTOBER 10.00 NOVEMBER 11.00 DECEMBER 10.00 JANUARY 33.00 FEBRUARY 48.00 MARCH 40.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 157.00 SCHOOL: WESTERN HILLS NOVEMBER 9.50 DECEMBER 9.50 JANUARY 14.00 FEBRUARY 27.00 MARCH 32.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 92.00 SCHOOL: WILLIAMS NOVEMBER 5.00 DECEMBER 27.50 JANUARY 37.00 FEBRUARY 41.00 MARCH 44.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 154.50 SCHOOL: WILSON NOVEMBER 11.00 DECEMBER 18.50 JANUARY 20.00 FEBRUARY 23.00 MARCH 21.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 94.00 SCHOOL: WOODRUFF NOVEMBER 7.00 DECEMBER 6.50 JANUARY 23.00 FEBRUARY 26.50 Tuesday, April 17. 2001 Page 14 of 15 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JANUARY 1, 2001 THRU MARCH 23, 2001 MONTH MARCH TOTAL 20.00 Tuesday, April 17, 2001 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: GRAND TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 83.00 12,384.00 Page 15 of 15LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 3RD QUARTER DROPOUT REPORT 2000 - 2001 SCHOOLS ENROLLMENT I BM | BF I WM | WF  HM I HF I OM I OF TOTAL DROPOUTS: ACC LEARN 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % 29 59 82 104 0 00 00 CENTRAL'^ 3, 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % FAIR\u0026lt;\u0026lt;\n?^, 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % HALL \u0026lt;:h Grade :h Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % MCCLELLAN 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % PARKVIEW 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % TOTALS\" 600 537 426 509 1110 0.14% 276 215 224 185 0 00 0 0 0 0__ 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 00 4. 0 0 0 00 I 0 0 0 00 0 00 00 0 00 00 I 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 ! % i 0 i 0 0 0 I 0 10 0 0.05% 0 02 0 0.10% 0 00 1 0.05% 0 0 00 0% 0 00 0 0% 0 0 00 0% 0 0 00 0% 0 00 00 0 00 00 0 00 00 0 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 00 00 442 417 321 278 0 0 00 0% 366 296 282 205 1162 305 294 287 276 1 1 0 0 0 iOf 0 0 0 0 0 0001 0.07% 0 100 0.07% 1 0 0 0 0.07% 0 03 0 0.21% 0100 0.07% 0 0 0 0 0% 71 2 3 1 I 0.34% 0.17% i 0.37% 0.70% 0.20% ? Vx\u0026gt;0,s 0 00 100 0 0.07% 2 23 1 0 00 0 0\nSg% 0.45% 0.48% 0.93% 0.36% 00010 70-^g 00000 0 00 00 0 00 00 0 00 00 0 00 00 0 00 00 0 00 00 0 00 00 z 3^ V ' 1 1______ 01 \n26% 0.27% 0.34% 0% 0.49% 0 00 00 0 00 00 0 00 00 0 00 00 0 0 0 00 2 0 0 0 , 0 __ 0^ __ 0^ __ 0^ 0 ggjoii^s ggg 0.3% j,^. O4\u0026gt;7%^ iOiO^fei 0X\u0026gt;4% ^03%\n0,04% Compiled by the Office of Dropout Prevention 4/03/01 0.01% y x*, Schools Enrollment BM BF WM WF HM HF OM OF Total Dropouts % ALC 6th Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade 9th Grade l Oth Grade 11t h ^a d e 12th Gjade -/o 03 1 8 12 20 13 6' 3 J 0 0 0 1 Y o b 0 0 0 0  1 1 0 3.17% 3.17% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b% \"\"o 0 0 __1__ 0 b 0 1.59% sOc? 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 b% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0 'o 0 0 0% CLOVERDAUEi^Wj760? iO \u0026lt; 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0% 5 0 0 0 2 '2 _1 0 6% 0% i6b6% 15.38% 16.67% '6%' 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % 300 238 222 DUNBAR 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade 74T 279 228 240 % ,{Oss-' 0 0 0 0 o^\u0026lt; 0 0 0 0\n\u0026lt;S'\n0\" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '' 0 ^0- '0.'?'^:K\u0026lt;'0 sS WSOi'S\u0026gt; 0 * '\u0026gt;-* * ' iO \n? -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \"oT^ 0 0__ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o' 0 0 Q.\n0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0____ 0 0____ b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?\u0026lt; V 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade 274 249 236 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 ,i O 0 \"o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6th Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade 202 186 178 % 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MABELVALE 6th Grade 7th Grade Sth Grade % MANN-. Sth Grade 7th ^ade Sth Grade  % 198 173 146 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oi- 0 J J 0 0 294 276 284 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 PULASKI NTS 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % SOUTHWEST 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % TOTAL . ZT % : 749\n227 269 253 Hi.v.i-O'Wp- \"'O 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  \" -- O ' '? 0.' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 0\n0 \"o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'r 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 DISTRICT TOTALS ' /, '-\\529.\u0026lt;-*^S!:\u0026gt;A*^. i8i 182 166 . .^,\n544,i t^-. 0 0 0 0 004% r 0 0 b 6\n2fSe 0.04% 0 0 0 0 WWtjy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02% t-rr' .42668^5^^ ^l 0.06% 0J)4% 0% w0% :0% 0.01% ro%? 0 0 0 0 \u0026gt;\u0026lt;W50 0 0 0 .0:\u0026lt;. 0 ___0 0 0% D.01%District Goal Summary Date\n4/11/01 Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm\nSOI School\nBadgett Elementary Grade\n2 School Number\n19 Subject\nElementary Math Black Male Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Overall 168.96 10.64 Goal 1 166.98 10.14 Goal 2 167.37 11.92 Goal 3 178.60 14.59 Goal 4 178.66 8.68 Goal 5 171.05 4.61 Goal 6 173.65 9.05 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 178.31 13.29 175.79 13.32 179.20 14.51 187.71 15.66 179.03 11.51 180.60 14.49 185.06 16.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Subject\nLanguage Usage Average Standard Deviation  District - Average Standard Deviation Overall 173.88 12.79 Goal 1 172.76 13.05 Goal 2 177.10 12.65 Goal 3 176.53 12.15 Goal 4 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 Goal 7 180.36 14.16 179.10 14.59 181.50 14.85 181.15 15.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject\nReading Average Standard Deviation ~ District - Average Standard Deviation Overall 167.17 18.38 Goal 1 166.91 21.58 Goal 2 165.34 14.72 Goal 3 170.11 16.37 Goal 4 175.40 19.76 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 174.49 16.07 173.71 16.34 175.47 16.44 176.39 15.85 179.28 16.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE\nSummary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. tng and Reporting System by:: Page\n1 District Goal Summary Date: 4/11/01 Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 2 School: Bale Elementary Sch Grade: 2 School Number: 17 Subject: Elementary Math Black Male Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District - Average Standard Deviation 179.93 15.00 178.76 15.07 181.08 17.50 190.95 17.36 179.06 12.52 181.83 15.28 186.64 16.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 178.31 13.29 175.79 13.32 179.20 14.51 187.71 15.66 179.03 11.51 180.60 14.49 185.06 16.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Language Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Average Standard Deviation - District -- Average Standard Deviation 187.03 14.22 185.34 15.50 188.63 16.69 187.51 12.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 180.36 14.16 179.10 14.59 181.50 14.85 181.15 15.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Reading Overall Average Standard Deviation -- District - Average Standard Deviation 179.62 15.93 Goal 1 176.96 14.92 Goal 2 179.89 15.76 Goal 3 183.95 17.10 Goal 4 184.12 14.72 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 174.49 16.07 173.71 16.34 175.47 16.44 176.39 15.85 179.28 16.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. nd Reporting System by\n: Page: 2 Date\n4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District School\nBaseline Elementary Grade: 2 Subject\nElementary Math Average Standard Deviation -- District - Average Standard Deviation Black Male Overall 170.66 11.48 178.31 13.29 Subject: Language Usage Average Standard Deviation -- District  Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation ~ District - Average Standard Deviation Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Overall 172.80 10.80 180.36 14.16 Overall 168.37 13.90 174.49 16.07 172.06 11.26 175.79 13.32 Goal 1 171.48 14.31 179.10 14.59 Goal 1 169.58 14.60 173.71 16.34 172.89 12.80 179.20 14.51 Goal 2 175.01 9.45 181.50 14.85 Goal 2 168.48 11.87 175.47 16.44 179.77 15.61 187.71 15.66 Goal 3 171.01 13.81 181.15 15.18 Goal 3 171.87 16.69 176.39 15.85 180.06 12.86 179.03 11.51 Goal 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 169.44 14.20 179.28 16.53 Page Number: Term\nSOI School Number: Goal 5 170.83 7.93 180.60 14.49 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 22 Goal 6 173.54 13.65 185.06 16.78 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. iSconng and Reporting System byI:: Page: 3 Date: 4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 4 School: Booker Arts Magnet Grade: 2 School Number: 6 Black Male Subject: Elementary Math Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District -- Average Standard Deviation 175.52 11.51 168.60 12.49 177.03 16.25 187.94 13.12 177.31 9.71 176.90 14.44 176.37 14.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 178.31 13.29 175.79 13.32 179.20 14.51 187.71 15.66 179.03 11.51 180.60 14.49 185.06 16.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Language Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 175.29 13.44 180.36 14.16 Overall 168.11 16.09 174.49 16.07 173.63 13.23 176.60 14.25 174.83 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 179.10 14.59 181.50 14.85 181.15 15.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 167.95 16.77 168.64 15.66 168.72 IS. 56 174.33 17.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 173.71 16.34 175.47 16.44 176.39 15.85 179.28 16.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ^Scodnq Syslefn by:\nPage: 4 Date: 4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 5 School: Brady Elementary Sch Grade: 2 Subject: Elementary Math Average Standard Deviation - District -- Average Standard Deviation Overall 178.83 9.77 178.31 13.29 Subject: Language Usage Average Standard Deviation -- District -- Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Overall 178.15 13.41 180.36 14.16 Overall 173.25 14.90 174.49 16.07 Black Male Goal 1 174.81 10.95 175.79 13.32 Goal 1 176.99 14.37 179.10 14.59 Goal 1 173.39 16.05 173.71 16.34 Goal 2 182.38 11.13 179.20 14.51 Goal 2 179.13 12.87 181.50 14.85 Goal 2 172.77 16.18 175.47 16.44 Goal 3 184.30 11.99 187.71 15.66 Goal 3 177.95 14.86 181.15 15.18 Goal 3 175.23 15.56 176.39 15.85 Goal 4 181.64 8.30 179.03 11.51 Goal 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 178.70 14.99 179.28 16.53 School Number: Goal 5 179.69 11.60 180.60 14.49 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18 Goal 6 184.98 12.96 185.06 16.78 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. and Reporting System by\nPage: 5 Date\n4/11/01 School\nCarver Grade\n2 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm\nSOI School Number\n6 21 Subject\nElementary Math Black Male Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District - Average Standard Deviation 181.11 8.60 1?5.99 10.26 1?9.83 12.34 194.0? 12.23 1?8.49 10.39 183.33 10.34 186.03 12.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1?8.31 13.29 1?5.?9 13.32 1?9.20 14.51 18?.?1 15.66 1?9.03 11.51 180.60 14.49 185.06 16.?8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject\nLanguage Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District -- Average Standard Deviation Subject\nReading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 183.89 10.9? 180.36 14.16 Overall 1??.25 15.03 1?4.49 16.0? 183.20 12.05 1?9.10 14.59 Goal 1 1??.3O 15.66 1?3.?1 16.34 183.88 11.86 181.50 14.85 Goal 2 1?6.95 14.00 1?5.4? 16.44 184.48 12.05 181.15 15.18 Goal 3 18O.?5 14.25 1?6.39 15.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 182.33 13.42 1?9.28 16.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE\nSummary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Sconng and Reporting System by:\nPage\n6Date\n4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm: SOI 7 School: Chicot Elementary Grade: 2 School Number: 28 Subject: Elementary Math Black Male Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District - Average Standard Deviation 175.51 11.47 169.98 11.53 174.47 13.90 183.76 14.41 175.99 11.71 176.12 11.14 181.87 14.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 178.31 13.29 175.79 13.32 179.20 14.51 187.71 15.66 179.03 11.51 180.60 14.49 185.06 16.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject\nLanguage Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation ~ District  Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 179.03 13.07 180.36 14.16 Overall 169.97 17.02 174.49 16.07 176.49 14.24 179.10 14.59 Goal 1 169.13 19.07 173.71 16.34 180.29 15.26 181.50 14.85 Goal 2 169.58 17.43 175.47 16.44 180.69 14.61 181.15 15.18 Goal 3 170.46 17.30 176.39 15.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 175.23 17.03 179.28 16.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. :Scoring and Reporting System by\nPage\n7Date: 4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 8 School: Cloverdale Elem Grade: 2 School Number: 31 Subject: Elementary Math Black Male Overall Goat 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 176.91 15.49 178.31 13.29 Subject: Language Usage Overall 177.00 12.63 175.79 13.32 Goal 1 180.71 15.10 179.20 14.51 Goal 2 185.48 16.47 187.71 15.66 Goal 3 180.28 14.92 179.03 11.51 Goal 4 180.06 16.22 180.60 14.49 Goal 5 184.87 16.54 185.06 16.78 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 182.17 12.69 181.28 14.32 183.10 11.87 181.24 15.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.36 14.16 179.10 14.59 181.50 14.85 181.15 15.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Overall 174.96 15.39 174.49 16.07 Goal 1 172.45 15.30 173.71 16.34 Goal 2 175.69 16.86 175.4? 16.44 Goal 3 176.51 16.41 176.39 15.85 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 179.22 15.25 179.28 16.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations.\nSconng and Reporting System by:\nPage: 8 Dale: 4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 9 School: David ODodd Elem Grade: 2 School Number: 32 Subject: Elementary Math Black Male Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District -- Average Standard Deviation 181.24 11.83 178.30 9.98 180.48 12.33 188.44 14.18 178.01 10.94 182.59 14.71 185.24 19.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 178.31 13.29 175.79 13.32 179.20 14.51 187.71 15.66 179.03 11.51 180.60 14.49 185.06 16.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Language Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 180.21 12.50 180.36 14.16 Overall 177.55 12.24 174.49 16.07 179.19 12.54 179.10 14.59 Goal 1 175.10 15.20 173.71 16.34 180.75 14.07 181.50 14.85 Goal 2 178.99 12.04 175.47 16.44 179.72 14.14 181.15 15.18 Goal 3 179.92 12.49 176.39 15.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 180.53 13.31 179.28 16.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. :Sconng and Reporting System by.: Page: 9Date\n4/11/01 School\nFairpark Grade\n2 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm\nSOI School Number\n10 23 Subject\nElementary Math Black Male Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District - Average Standard Deviation 174.97 15.19 171.32 15.99 174.76 11.73 183.88 18.99 177.25 11.32 180.04 15.22 185.61 18.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 178.31 13.29 175.79 13.32 179.20 14.51 187.71 15.66 179.03 11.51 180.60 14.49 185.06 16.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject\nLanguage Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District -- Average Standard Deviation 177.74 14.50 177.09 14.93 178.42 17.87 180.35 13.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject\nReading Average Standard Deviation ~ District - Average Standard Deviation 180.36 14.16 179.10 14.59 181.50 14.85 181.15 15.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Overall 170.39 14.73 174.49 16.07 Goal 1 169.62 14.43 173.71 16.34 Goal 2 171.03 13.98 175.47 16.44 Goal 3 171.76 16.24 176.39 15.85 Goal 4 175.53 12.51 179.28 16.53 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE\nSummary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ^Scoring Repo^ng^System Page\n10 Date: 4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 11 School: Forest Park Elem Grade: 2 School Number: 24 Subject: Elementary Math Black Male Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District -- Average Standard Deviation 1?6.69 9.94 1?8.31 13.29 Subject: Language Usage Overall 1?4.20 10.28 1?8.09 12.4? 188.05 11.50 1?8.33 9.?1 1?6.35 8.03 1?8.88 12.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1?5.?9 13.32 1?9.20 14.51 18?.?1 15.66 1?9.03 11.51 180.60 14.49 185.06 16.?8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District -- Average Standard Deviation 1?9.86 12.69 180.36 14.16 Overall 1?3.69 1?.O4 1?4.49 16.0? 181.84 11.81 1?9.10 14.59 Goal 1 1?4.30 1?.35 1?3.?1 16.34 180.81 12.?4 183.11 10.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 181.50 14.85 181.15 15.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 1?4.06 18.9? 1?5.4? 16.44 1?6.01 1?.45 184.81 12.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1?6.39 15.85 1?9.28 16.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Sconng and Reporting System by:: Page: 11Date\n4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm\nSOI 12 1 I I School\nFranklin Incentive Grade\n2 School Number: 25 Subject: Elementary Math Black Male Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 184.77 9.12 182.65 14.81 184.41 11.00 193.47 12.36 180.92 6.89 181.74 9.46 193.32 14.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 178.31 13.29 175.79 13.32 179.20 14.51 187.71 15.66 179.03 11.51 180.60 14.49 185.06 16.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject\nLanguage Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District -- Average Standard Deviation 185.93 11.45 180.36 14.16 Subject\nReading Overall 184.60 11.89 179.10 14.59 Goal 1 185.73 13.41 187.04 12.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 181.50 14.85 181.15 15.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation ~ District - Average Standard Deviation 181.98 9.99 174.49 16.07 179.05 10.92 173.71 16.34 183.47 11.80 182.48 12.67 184.76 9.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 175.47 16.44 176.39 15.85 179.28 16.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 [ NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculatiui u. Sconng and Reporting System by:\nI Page: 12Date\n4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm: SOI 13 School: Fulbright Elementary Grade\n2 School Number: 48 Subject\nElementary Math Black Male Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District -- Average Standard Deviation 186.13 12.41 1?8.31 13.29 Subject: Language usage Overall 183.09 10.93 1?5.?9 13.32 Goal 1 188.46 13.44 1?9.20 14.51 Goal 2 192.09 14.?2 184.59 15.21 18?.81 9.?9 193.63 15.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18?.?1 15.66 1?9.03 11.51 180.60 14.49 185.06 16.?8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 lOal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District - Average Standard Deviation 181.81 15.24 180.36 14.16 Subject: Middle Grade Math Overall 180.2? 14.68 1?9.10 14.59 Goal 1 183.50 16.?1 183.4? 16.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 181.50 14.85 181.15 15.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Subject\nReading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 154.8? 0.00 154.8? 0.00 Overall 1?4.65 1?.9O 1?4.49 16.0? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 163.49 0.00 159.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 162.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 163.49 0.00 159.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 162.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 1?3.?3 18.3? 1?3.?1 16.34 1?8.13 20.52 1?5.4? 16.44 1?3.85 16.95 1?6.39 15.85 1?9.59 1?.23 1?9.28 16.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 croo 0.00 Goal? Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations.\nSconng and Reporting System by:: Page\n13Date\n4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District School\nGeyer Springs Elem Grade\n2 Subject\nElementary Math Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Overall 171.69 10.78 178.31 13.29 Subject\nLanguage Usage Average Standard Deviation - District -- Average Standard Deviation Subject\nReading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Overall 175.77 11.40 180.36 14.16 Overall 167.03 12.24 174.49 16.07 Black Male Goal 1 169.31 9.39 175.79 13.32 Goal 1 175.56 12.29 179.10 14.59 Goal 1 166.62 11.75 173.71 16.34 Goal 2 172.66 11.35 179.20 14.51 Goal 2 174.50 11.88 181.50 14.85 Goal 2 169.96 10.05 175.47 16.44 Goal 3 178.49 14.42 187.71 15.66 Goal 3 176.33 12.70 181.15 15.18 Goal 3 171.26 9.62 176.39 15.85 Goal 4 175.11 9.34 179.03 11.51 Goal 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 168.93 12.78 179.28 16.53 Page Number: Term: SOI School Number\nGoal 5 175.95 9.52 180.60 14.49 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14 37 Goal 6 172.58 13.03 185.06 16.78 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE\nSummary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations.\nScoring and Reporting System by:: Page: 14Date: 4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number: Term\nSOI 15 School: Gibbs Magnet Elem Grade\n2 School Number: 27 Subject: Elementary Math Black Male Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 176.50 14.68 170.11 15.40 177.70 13.82 189.44 17.51 175.82 11.18 180.91 16.58 182.91 19.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 178.31 13.29 175.79 13.32 179.20 14.51 187.71 15.66 179.03 11.51 180.60 14.49 185.06 16.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Language Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 185.99 9.64 180.36 14.16 Overall 177.87 15.55 174.49 16.07 183.34 8.75 179.10 14.59 Goal 1 175.92 16.83 173.71 16.34 189.35 12.30 185.94 10.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 181.50 14.85 181.15 15.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 2 178.22 15.20 175.47 16.44 Goal 3 175.96 16.45 176.39 15.85 Goal 4 183.31 19.31 179.28 16.53 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ^Sconnq Page\n15Date\n4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm: SOI 16 School: Jefferson Elementary Grade: 2 School Number\n30 Subject\nElementary Math Black Male Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 1?9.88 5.88 1?8.31 13.29 Subject\nLanguage Usage Overall 1?6.49 9.26 1?5.?9 13.32 Goal 1 1?8.?2 9.49 190.59 11.92 184.38 8.68 1?8.81 12.98 183.30 10.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1?9.20 14.51 18?.?1 15.66 1?9.03 11.51 180.60 14.49 185.06 16.?8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District -- Average Standard Deviation Subject\nReading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 183.93 11.01 180.36 14.16 Overall 1?8.06 18.53 1?4.49 16.0? 182.69 9.28 1?9.10 14.59 Goal 1 182.2? 13.24 1?3.?1 16.34 186.?9 13.21 181.50 14.85 Goal 2 183.?2 13.23 1?5.4? 16.44 181.32 12.?8 181.15 15.18 Goal 3 181.?? 10.16 1?6.39 15.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 184.65 15.62 1?9.28 16.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. : Scoring and Reporting System by: Page: 16Date: 4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 17 School: M L King Magnet Elem Grade: 2 School Number: 35 Subject: Elementary Math Black Male Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District - Average Standard Deviation 175.00 12.02 173.74 12.55 175.70 13.71 181.40 15.68 173.62 10.32 176.70 13.07 184.15 16.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 178.31 13.29 175.79 13.32 179.20 14.51 187.71 15.66 179.03 11.51 180.60 14.49 185.06 16.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Language Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 180.96 13.40 180.36 14.16 Overall 173.69 13.77 174.49 16.07 180.68 13.50 179.45 14.56 182.39 15.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 179.10 14.59 181.50 14.85 181.15 15.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 172.08 13.02 176.27 14.33 175.41 11.69 176.23 17.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 173.71 16.34 175.47 16.44 176.39 15.85 179.28 16.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ^Scerinfl Raportng^Syslem Page: 17District Goal Summary Date\n4/11/01 Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 18 School: Mabelvale Elementary Grade: 2 School Number\n46 Subject\nElementary Math Black Male Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 1?6.63 9.26 1?8.31 13.29 1?0.90 9.60 1?5.?9 13.32 1?4.49 11.29 1?9.20 14.51 185.40 13.58 18?.?1 15.66 1?6.?1 9.8? 1?9.03 11.51 1?6.15 10.21 180.60 14.49 186.49 14.51 185.06 16.?8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject\nLanguage Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District - Average Standard Deviation 1?8.35 10.96 180.36 14.16 1?8.34 11.?2 1?9.10 14.59 1?8.?1 13.?2 1?6.98 11.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 181.50 14.85 181.15 15.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject\nReading Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 1?5.36 13.28 1?4.49 16.0? 1?6.52 12.96 1?3.?1 16.34 1?5.43 13.89 1?5.4? 16.44 1?4.19 13.08 1?6.39 15.85 1?9.69 14.30 1?9.28 16.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid score? are excluded from summary calculations.  Scoring by?^ Page: 18 Date\n4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm: SOI 19 School\nMcDermott Elementary Grade: 2 School Number: 20 Subject\nElementary Math Black Male Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District - Average Standard Deviation 185.01 11.41 181.59 11.04 184.04 14.39 194.07 11.67 183.97 12.23 188.00 13.49 186.97 16.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 178.31 13.29 175.79 13.32 179.20 14.51 187.71 15.66 179.03 11.51 180.60 14.49 185.06 16.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Language Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District ~ Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District -- Average Standard Deviation 184.72 11.33 180.36 14.16 Overall 182.28 14.10 174.49 16.07 183.25 11.74 179.10 14.59 Goal 1 181.93 13.20 173.71 16.34 184.33 11.83 181.50 14.85 Goal 2 181.98 15.88 175.47 16.44 186.21 12.83 181.15 15.18 Goal 3 182.79 18.25 176.39 15.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 185.43 12.94 179.28 16.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE\nSummary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ^Scoring ^^^p^ng^System Page: 19Date: 4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm\nSOI 20 School\nMeadowcliff Elem Grade: 2 School Number: 33 Subject: Elementary Math Black Male Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 183.71 12.64 178.31 13.29 Subject: Language Usage Overall 176.24 13.27 175.79 13.32 Goal 1 182.93 13.63 179.20 14.51 Goal 2 192.93 16.63 187.71 15.66 Goal 3 176.60 10.25 193.87 18.62 189.90 11.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 179.03 11.51 180.60 14.49 185.06 16.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation  District - Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation ~ District - Average Standard Deviation 182.83 14.45 180.36 14.16 Overall 185.43 9.76 174.49 16.07 182.91 12.51 179.10 14.59 Goal 1 184.3? 12.08 173.71 16.34 181.84 15.91 181.50 14.85 Goal 2 184.65 6.22 175.47 16.44 183.21 16.48 181.15 15.18 Goal 3 186.34 14.99 176.39 15.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 194.27 13.11 179.28 16.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Scoring and Reporting System by: Page: 20 Date\n4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District School: Mitchell Incentive Grade: 2 Subject: Elementary Math Average Standard Deviation  District -- Average Standard Deviation Overall 1?6.39 16.92 1?8.31 13.29 Subject\nLanguage Usage Average Standard Deviation - District -- Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Overall 1?4.55 14.49 180.36 14.16 Overall 1?1.62 15.19 1?4.49 16.0? Black Male Goal 1 1??.59 18.55 1?5.?9 13.32 Goal 1 1?4.30 13.56 1?9.10 14.59 Goal 1 1?0.95 14.?3 1?3.?1 16.34 Goal 2 1?6.?4 15.5? 1?9.20 14.51 Goal 2 1?5.2? 15.44 181.50 14.85 Goal 2 1?2.54 16.40 1?5.4? 16.44 Goal 3 183.02 19.?0 18?.?1 15.66 Goal 3 1?4.?2 15.?4 181.15 15.18 Goal 3 1?1.81 13.?6 1?6.39 15.85 Goal 4 1??.32 12.52 1?9.03 11.51 Goal 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 1?5.83 19.45 1?9.28 16.53 Page Number: Term: SOI School Number: Goal 5 1?9.69 19.56 180.60 14.49 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21 34 Goal 6 18?.23 19.06 185.06 16.?8 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. 'Scoringaf^^epc^nq^System Page: 21Date\n4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 22 School: Otter Creek Elem Grade: 2 School Number: 50 Subject: Elementary Math Black Male Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 173.11 8.68 168.79 11.34 170.60 10.28 181.18 11.99 172.00 9.48 174.00 9.52 178.51 17.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 178.31 13.29 175.79 13.32 179.20 14.51 187.71 15.66 179.03 11.51 180.60 14.49 185.06 16.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject\nLanguage Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation ~ District - Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 170.62 11.02 170.69 10.20 171.53 13.10 168.02 12.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.36 14.16 179.10 14.59 181.50 14.85 181.15 15.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Overall 164.44 16.52 174.49 16.07 Goal 1 163.26 15.03 173.71 16.34 Goal 2 168.77 14.56 175.47 16.44 Goal 3 173.34 18.52 176.39 15.85 Goal 4 167.84 15.20 179.28 16.53 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE\nSummary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. : Sconng and Reporting System by: Page: 22 Date\n4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm: SOI 23 School: Pulaski Heights Elem Grade: 2 School Number: 38 Subject: Elementary Math Black Male Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation  District -- Average Standard Deviation 177.30 14.83 178.33 12.29 183.98 8.76 189.47 16.93 180.14 7.29 184.29 12.67 180.22 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 178.31 13.29 175.79 13.32 179.20 14.51 187.71 15.66 179.03 11.51 180.60 14.49 185.06 16.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject\nLanguage Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District ~ Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 187.44 10.78 180.36 14.16 Overall 175.38 20.80 174.49 16.07 186.99 13.12 179.10 14.59 Goal 1 183.62 13.45 173.71 16.34 187.35 9.77 188.27 12.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 181.50 14.85 181.15 15.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 2 175.10 16.18 175.47 16.44 Goal 3 182.57 10.74 176.39 15.85 Goal 4 189.87 19.83 179.28 16.53 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores, invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ScorinQ and Reporting System by: Page: 23Date\n4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm: SOI 24 School: Rightsell Incentive Grade: 2 School Number\n39 Subject\nElementary Math Black Male Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation ~ District -- Average Standard Deviation 177.16 9.28 178.31 13.29 Subject\nLanguage Usage Overall 171.44 9.90 175.79 13.32 Goal 1 177.43 10.68 179.20 14.51 Goal 2 185.22 14.36 187.71 15.66 Goal 3 180.63 10.68 179.03 11.51 Goal 4 178.03 12.14 180.60 14.49 Goal 5 182.61 10.78 185.06 16.78 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation ~ District - Average Standard Deviation Subject\nReading Average Standard Deviation ~ District - Average Standard Deviation 178.29 14.61 180.36 14.16 Overall 176.04 10.07 174.49 16.07 177.06 14.50 181.12 13.39 178.65 15.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 179.10 14.59 181.50 14.85 181.15 15.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 173.34 10.41 173.71 16.34 176.94 10.38 175.47 16.44 177.33 10.41 176.39 15.85 179.37 13.19 179.28 16.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE\nSummary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Sconng and Reporting System by. Page: 24 Date: 4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District School: Rockefeller Incentiv Grade: 2 Subject: Elementary Math Average Standard Deviation  District - Average Standard Deviation Overall 177.63 10.76 178.31 13.29 Subject: Language Usage Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation -- District - Average Standard Deviation Overall 180.14 13.82 180.36 14.16 Overall 177.09 14.51 174.49 16.07 Black Male Goal 1 175.02 10.80 175.79 13.32 Goal 1 178.18 14.06 179.10 14.59 Goal 1 177.10 13.53 173.71 16.34 Goal 2 176.10 8.46 179.20 14.51 Goal 2 183.25 15.36 181.50 14.85 Goal 2 181.23 13.23 175.47 16.44 Goal 3 190.44 14.76 187.71 15.66 Goal 3 178.29 14.75 181.15 15.18 Goal 3 175.41 13.82 176.39 15.85 Goal 4 177.12 7.19 179.03 11.51 Goal 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 181.99 14.90 179.28 16.53 Page Number: Term: SOI School Number: Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? 25 36 Goal 8 178.41 11.25 180.60 14.49 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 182.14 15.17 185.06 16.78 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Sconng and Reporting System by: Page: 25 Date\n4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District School: Romine Interdistrict Grade: 2 Subject\nElementary Math Average Standard Deviation -- District -- Average Standard Deviation Overall 1?5.83 8.83 1?8.31 13.29 Subject\nLanguage Usage Average Standard Deviation -- District -- Average Standard Deviation Subject\nReading Average Standard Deviation ~ District ~ Average Standard Deviation Overall 1?9.21 12.1? 180.36 14.16 Overall 1?1.35 9.05 1?4.49 16.0? Black Male Goal 1 1?6.18 ?.83 1?5.?9 13.32 Goal 1 1??.36 11.69 1?9.10 14.59 Goal 1 168.13 ?.9O 1?3.?1 16.34 Goal 2 1?2.99 11.02 1?9.20 14.51 Goal 2 183.29 10.82 181.50 14.85 Goal 2 1?4.19 ?.3? 1?5.4? 16.44 Goal 3 184.01 11.5? 18?.?1 15.66 Goal 3 1?9.90 16.10 181.15 15.18 Goal 3 1?1.6? 9.5? 1?6.39 15.85 Goal 4 1?9.4? 10.53 1?9.03 11.51 Goal 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 1?5.6? 9.91 1?9.28 16.53 Page Number: Term: SOI School Number\nGoal 5 1?9.91 5.49 180.60 14.49 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26 40 Goal 6 1?6.28 10.?2 185.06 16.?8 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE\nSummary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Scoring and Reporting System by: Page: 26 District Goal Summary Date: 4/11/01 Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 28 School: Terry Grade: 2 School Number: 47 Subject: Elementary Math Average Standard Deviation  District  Average Standard Deviation Overall 182.13 10.71 178.31 13.29 Subject: Language Usage Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Overall 182.29 12.49 180.36 14.16 Overall 175.84 14.52 174.49 16.07 Black Male Goal 1 178.71 10.15 175.79 13.32 Goal 1 182.61 11.76 179.10 14.59 Goal 1 175.52 14.50 173.71 16.34 Goal 2 183.25 10.60 179.20 14.51 Goal 2 184.95 11.43 181.50 14.85 Goal 2 175.51 16.15 175.47 16.44 Goal 3 186.37 14.18 187.71 15.66 Goal 3 181.63 14.13 181.15 15.18 Goal 3 177.30 13.79 176.39 15.85 Goal 4 181.14 10.04 179.03 11.51 Goal 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 180.71 14.93 179.28 16.53 Goal 5 183.99 11.62 180.60 14.49 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 194.15 14.41 185.06 16.78 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Sconng ^^Rep\u0026lt;^nfl^System Page: 28 Date: 4/11/01 School: Terry Grade: 2 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI School Number: 28 47 Subject: Elementary Math Black Male Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 182.13 10.71 178.31 13.29 Subject: Language Usage Overall 178.71 10.15 175.79 13.32 Goal 1 183.25 10.60 179.20 14.51 Goal 2 186.37 14.18 187.71 15.66 Goal 3 181.14 10.04 179.03 11.51 Goal 4 183.99 11.62 180.60 14.49 Goal 5 194.15 14.41 185.06 16.78 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation  District - Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation -- District - Average Standard Deviation 182.29 12.49 180.36 14.16 Overall 175.84 14.52 174.49 16.07 182.61 11.76 179.10 14.59 Goal 1 175.52 14.50 173.71 16.34 184.95 11.43 181.50 14.85 Goal 2 175.51 16.15 175.47 16.44 181.63 14.13 181.15 15.18 Goal 3 177.30 13.79 176.39 15.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 180.71 14.93 179.28 16.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Scoring ^^Rep^ng^System by^ Page: 28 District Goal Summary Date: 4/11/01 Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 30 School: Washington Grade: 2 School Number: 42 Black Male Subject: Elementary Math Average Standard Deviation - District -- Average Standard Deviation Overall 179.41 10.63 Goal 1 177.06 11.74 Goal 2 178.37 11.92 Goal 3 187.22 10.29 Goal 4 180.96 12.46 Goal 5 181.22 14.33 Goal 6 188.14 10.32 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 178.31 13.29 175.79 13.32 179.20 14.51 187.71 15.66 179.03 11.51 180.60 14.49 185.06 16.78 0.00 0\n00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Language Usage Average Standard Deviation  District  Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Overall 176.65 13.02 Goal 1 172.83 14.61 Goal 2 177.01 14.82 Goal 3 179.46 12.39 Goal 4 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 180.36 14.16 179.10 14.59 181.50 14.85 181.15 15.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Overall 169.17 13.03 Goal 1 166.38 12.58 Goal 2 172.28 12.63 Goal 3 170.79 14.01 Goal 4 174.52 13.14 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 174.49 16.07 173.71 16.34 175.47 16.44 176.39 15.85 179.28 16.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Sconng and Reporting System by: Page: 30 Date: 4/11/01 School: Washington Grade: 2 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI School Number: Black Male 30 42 Subject: Elementary Math Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District -- Average Standard Deviation 179.41 10.63 178.31 13.29 Subject: Language Usage Overall 177.06 11.74 175.79 13.32 Goal 1 178.37 11.92 179.20 14.51 Goal 2 187.22 10.29 187.71 15.66 Goal 3 180.96 12.46 179.03 11.51 Goal 4 181.22 14.33 180.60 14.49 Goal 5 188.14 10.32 185.06 16.78 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation ~ District  Average Standard Deviation 176.65 13.02 180.36 14.16 Overall 169.17 13.03 174.49 16.07 172.83 14.61 179.10 14.59 Goal 1 166.38 12.58 173.71 16.34 177.01 14.82 179.46 12.39 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 181.50 14.85 181.15 15.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 172.28 12.63 175.47 16.44 170.79 14.01 176.39 15.85 174.52 13.14 179.28 16.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Sconng and Reporting System by: Page: 30 District Goal Summary Date: 4/11/01 Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 31 School: Watson Elementary Grade: 2 School Number: 52 Subject: Elementary Math Black Male Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Overall 178.15 13.73 Goal 1 177.04 14.20 Goal 2 179.97 16.22 Goal 3 187.99 15.39 Goal 4 176.39 10.88 Goal 5 180.74 14.70 Goal 6 185.40 18.22 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 178.31 13.29 175.79 13.32 179.20 14.51 187.71 15.66 179.03 11.51 180.60 14.49 185.06 16.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Language Usage Average Standard Deviation  District -- Average Standard Deviation Overall 178.72 14.26 180.36 14.16 Goal 1 176.00 15.47 179.10 14.59 Goal 2 180.03 14.58 Goal 3 181.37 14.27 Goal 4 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0^ 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 181.50 14.85 181.15 15.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation ~ District - Average Standard Deviation Overall 170.78 17.64 Goal 1 170.98 17.82 Goal 2 172.56 18.07 Goal 3 174.76 13.85 Goal 4 177.55 19.30 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 174.49 16.07 173.71 16.34 175.47 16.44 176.39 15.85 179.28 16.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ^Scoring and Reporting System Page: 31 Date\n4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 32 School: Western Hills Elem Grade: 2 School Number: 29 Subject: Elementary Math Black Male Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District -- Average Standard Deviation 180.50 16.36 181.64 9.36 190.07 16.47 192.64 17.07 183.51 11.56 187.79 19.04 188.59 17.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 178.31 13.29 175.79 13.32 179.20 14.51 187.71 15.66 179.03 11.51 180.60 14.49 185.06 16.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Language Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation  District - Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation -- Disitrict - Average Standard Deviation 183.05 11.75 180.36 14.16 Overall 178.14 13.97 174.49 16.07 181.01 11.73 179.10 14.59 Goal 1 177.62 14.65 173.71 16.34 183.28 13.91 181.50 14.85 Goal 2 178.17 14.35 175.47 16.44 184.43 13.41 181.15 15.18 Goal 3 182.66 15.70 176.39 15.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 183.22 11.31 179.28 16.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Scoring and Reporting System by Page: 32 I I Date: 4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District School: Williams Magnet Elem Grade: 2 Subject: Elementary Math Average Standard Deviation  District  Average Standard Deviation Overall 190.81 13.04 178.31 13.29 Subject: Language Usage Average Standard Deviation  District -- Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Overall 194.57 16.78 180.36 14.16 Overall 187.53 15.64 174.49 16.07 Black Male Goal 1 183.61 13.16 175.79 13.32 Goal 1 192.88 18.83 179.10 14.59 Goal 1 186.59 19.02 173.71 16.34 Goal 2 193.06 15.74 179.20 14.51 Goal 2 197.11 15.27 181.50 14.85 Goal 2 187.97 15.69 175.47 16.44 Goal 3 201.51 14.39 187.71 15.66 Goal 3 193.94 19.10 181.15 15.18 Goal 3 186.89 16.77 176.39 15.85 Goal 4 187.20 12.86 179.03 11.51 Goal 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 191.49 16.89 179.28 16.53 Page Number: Term: SOI School Number: Goal 5 192.70 16.85 180.60 14.49 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33 43 Goal 6 197.80 17.38 185.06 16.78 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Sconng System by: Page: 33 Date\n4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm: SOI 34 School: Wilson Elementary Grade: 2 School Number: 44 Subject\nElementary Math Black Male Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District -- Average Standard Deviation 181.07 17.58 179.21 15.94 181.86 15.56 189.77 17.97 181.64 12.75 185.84 16.57 195.80 17.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ! 178.31 13.29 175.79 13.32 179.20 14.51 187.71 15.66 179.03 11.51 180.60 14.49 185.06 16.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ( Subject: Language Usage I Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District  Average Standard Deviation Subject\nReading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 184.08 16.99 183.99 17.88 184.46 15.89 187.12 15.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.36 14.16 179.10 14.59 181.50 14.85 181.15 15.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Overall 178.71 17.82 174.49 16.07 Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 177.90 17.38 176.91 21.03 180.20 19.05 182.23 16.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 173.71 16.34 175.47 16.44 176.39 15.85 179.28 16.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE\nSummary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Scoring and Reporting System by: Page: 34 Date: 4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number: Term\nSOI 33 School: Williams Magnet Elem Grade: 2 School Number\n43 Subject: Elementary Math Black Male Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 190.81 13.04 183.61 13.16 193.06 15.?4 201.51 14.39 18?.2O 12.86 192.?0 16.85 19?.80 1?.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1?8.31 13.29 Subject: Language Usage Overall 1?5.?9 13.32 1?9.20 14.51 18?.?1 15.66 1?9.03 11.51 180.60 14.49 185.06 16.?8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation  District -- Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation -- District  Average Standard Deviation 194.5? 16.?8 180.36 14.16 Overall 18?.53 15.64 1?4.49 16.0? 192.88 18.83 19?.11 15.2? 193.94 19.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1?9.10 14.59 181.50 14.85 181.15 15.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 1 186.59 19.02 1?3.?1 16.34 Goal 2 18?.9? 15.69 1?5.4? 16.44 Goal 3 186.89 16.?? 1?6.39 15.85 Goal 4 191.49 16.89 1?9.28 16.53 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE\nSummary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Sconng and Reporting System by\nPage: 33Date: 4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 34 School: Wilson Elementary Grade: 2 School Number\n44 I. Subject: Elementary Math Black Male Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 I Average Standard Deviation  District -- Average Standard Deviation 181.07 17.58 178.31 13.29 Subject: Language Usage Overall 179.21 15.94 175.79 13.32 Goal 1 181.86 15.56 189.77 17.97 181.64 12.75 185.84 16.57 195.80 17.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 179.20 14.51 187.71 15.66 179.03 11.51 180.60 14.49 185.06 16.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Subject\nReading Average Standard Deviation - District ~ Average Standard Deviation 184.08 16.99 183.99 17.88 184.46 15.89 187.12 15.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.36 14.16 179.10 14.59 181.50 14.85 181.15 15.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Overall 178.71 17.82 174.49 16.07 Goal 1 177.90 17.38 173.71 16.34 Goal 2 176.91 21.03 175.47 16.44 Goal 3 180.20 19.05 176.39 15.85 Goal 4 182.23 16.49 179.28 16.53 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 [ NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Sconng and Reporting System by: Page: 34 District Goal Summary ! Date: 4/11/01 Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 35 School: Woodruff Elementary Grade: 2 Subject: Elementary Math School Number: 45 Black Male Average Standard Deviation -- District - Average Standard Deviation Overall 178.94 8.82 Goal 1 173.04 9.16 Goal 2 176.96 9.40 Goal 3 191.40 10.82 Goal 4 183.42 9.78 Goal 5 179.62 10.81 Goal 6 180.37 16.36 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 178.31 13.29 175.79 13.32 179.20 14.51 187.71 15.66 179.03 11.51 180.60 14.49 185.06 16.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Language Usage Average Standard Deviation -- District - Average Standard Deviation Overall 186.96 11.76 Goal 1 184.30 9.69 Goal 2 187.29 11.63 Goal 3 189.72 17.41 Goal 4 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 OW 0.00 Goal 6 OW 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 180.36 14.16 179.10 14.59 181.50 14.85 181.15 15.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District ~ Average Standard Deviation Overall 183.26 9.52 Goal 1 183.04 10.72 Goal 2 183.78 10.75 Goal 3 181.59 12.49 Goal 4 184.84 12.48 Goal 5 0^ 0.00 Goal 6 0^ 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 174.49 16.07 173.71 16.34 175.47 16.44 176.39 15.85 179.28 16.53 0.00 o.ool 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from' summary calculations. Sconng and Reporting System by: Page: 35 District Goal Summary Date: 4/11/01 Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 36 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Scoring and Reporting System by: Page: 36Date: 4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm: SOI 1 School\nBale Elementary Sch Grade: 2 School Number\n17 White Students Subject\nElementary Math Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District - Average Standard Deviation 185.38 15.56 186.63 15.92 192.79 23.75 189.97 9.51 180.91 10.56 188.85 9.35 198.16 13.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 191.15 13.13 185.71 12.59 192.53 15.82 199.62 14.46 190.09 13.71 195.26 15.28 195.78 16.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject\nLanguage Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District - Average Standard Deviation Subject\nReading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 194.59 18.21 195.71 14.48 Overall 182.95 19.47 190.47 15.26 184.11 11.42 193.57 14.46 Goal 1 175.59 22.36 189.00 16.25 195.85 23.04 199.73 21.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 196.80 15.41 197.07 16.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 2 180.62 21.94 190.83 15.47 Goal 3 187.20 17.86 192.30 17.59 Goal 4 188.93 15.79 194.35 15.60 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. System Page: 1Date\n4/11/01 District Goal Summary Utile Rock School District Page Number\nTerm: SOI 2 School: Baseline Elementary Grade\n2 School Number: 22 Subject: Elementary Math White Students Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goat 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District  Average Standard Deviation 175.62 12.55 177.61 11.60 179.31 4.65 191.77 9.65 175.11 7.27 179.90 12.59 178.14 14.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 191.15 13.13 185.71 12.59 192.53 15.82 199.62 14.46 190.09 13.71 195.26 15.28 195.78 16.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Language Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 186.32 9.97 195.71 14.48 Overall 179.92 12.60 190.47 15.26 186.76 10.84 193.57 14.46 Goal 1 175.64 14.04 189.00 16.25 187.51 9.08 196.80 15.41 Goal 2 178.43 17.40 190.83 15.47 184.14 11.49 197.07 16.39 Goal 3 177.94 12.82 192.30 17.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 188.98 9.85 194.35 15.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Page: 2District Goal Summary Date: 4/11/01 Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm: SOI 3 School: Booker Arts Magnet Grade: 2 School Number\n6 Subject: Elementary Math White Students Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District -- Average Standard Deviation 186.72 11.06 191.15 13.13 Subject: Language Usage Overall 180.70 11.37 185.71 12.59 Goal 1 189.38 15.13 192.53 15.82 Goal 2 196.72 13.46 199.62 14.46 Goal 3 187.86 8.16 190.09 13.71 Goal 4 190.20 13.21 195.26 15.28 Goal 5 186.38 13.19 195.78 16.28 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 193.24 13.98 191.99 13.58 193.75 13.99 194.96 15.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 195.71 14.48 193.5? 14.46 196.80 15.41 197.07 16.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Overall 188.05 14.43 190.47 15.26 Goal 1 185.71 14.56 189.00 16.25 Goal 2 188.59 14.53 190.83 15.47 Goal 3 190.01 15.64 192.30 17.59 Goal 4 190.74 16.86 194.35 15.60 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE\nSummary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Ing and Reporting System by:^ Page: 3 District Goal Summary Date\n4/11/01 Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 4 School\nBrady Elementary Sch Grade: 2 School Number\n18 Subject\nElementary Math White Students Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District ~ Average Standard Deviation 190.38 8.62 192.22 13.94 191.58 6.41 19?.95 10.56 18?.12 9.66 198.8? 13.32 192.81 11.?2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 191.15 13.13 185.?1 12.59 192.53 15.82 199.62 14.46 190.09 13.?1 195.26 15.28 195.?8 16.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject\nLanguage Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation  District - Average Standard Deviation 192.13 4.52 192.38 4.51 193.02 4.64 191.93 ?.?? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 195.?1 14.48 193.5? 14.46 196.80 15.41 19?.O? 16.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject\nReading Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Average Standard Deviation -- District - Average Standard Deviation 188.82 9.81 185.99 12.39 18?.O9 10.0? Goal 3 189.60 14.96 Goal 4 193.39 8.6? Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 190.4? 15.26 189.00 16.25 190.83 15.4? 192.30 1?.59 194.35 15.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. iScortng and Reporting System by\" Page: 4 District Goal Summary ate\n4/11/01 Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm\nSOI 5 School\nCarver Grade\n2 School Number\n21 Subject\nElementary Math White Students Overall Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 193.86 12.12 Goal 1 187.48 11.45 Goal 2 194.41 14.79 Goal 3 204.31 12.57 Goal 4 191.68 14.16 Goal 5 200.27 15.51 Goal 6 196.70 15.03 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 191.15 13.13 185.71 12.59 192.53 15.82 199.62 14.46 190.09 13.71 195.26 15.28 195.78 16.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject\nLanguage Usage Overall Average Standard Deviation -- District -- Average Standard Deviation 199.97 15.28 195.71 14.48 Goal 1 199.23 13.47 193.57 14.46 Goal 2 202.09 15.32 196.80 15.41 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 200.51 17.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 OW 0.00 Goal 7 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 197.07 16.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject\nReading Overall Average Standard Deviation -- District - Average Standard Deviation 194.99 12.89 190.47 15.26 Goal 1 194.07 13.79 Goal 2 196.84 14.04 Goal 3 194.73 15.65 Goal 4 197.64 15.27 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 Goal 8 189.00 16.25 190.83 15.47 192.30 17.59 194.35 15.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 [ NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Scoring and Reporting System by: Page: 5District Goal Summary Date: 4/11/01 Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 6 School: Chicot Elementary Grade\n2 School Number: 28 Subject: Elementary Math White Students Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Average Standard Deviation  District  Average Standard Deviation 1??.26 9.13 1?3.54 9.6? 1?6.05 12.63 Goal 3 184.?1 13.43 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 191.15 13.13 185.?1 12.59 192.53 15.82 199.62 14.46 1?1.83 10.3? 181.83 11.34 1?9.5? 16.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 190.09 13.?1 195.26 15.28 195.?8 16.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Language Usage Overall Goal 1 Average Standard Deviation  District - Average Standard Deviation 1?8.64 13.5? 1?6.0? 14.80 Goal 2 183.54 16.34 Goal 3 1?8.01 15.39 Goal 4 Goal 5 Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 195.?1 14.48 193.5? 14.46 196.80 15.41 19?.O? 16.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Overall 1?1.29 9.96 Goal 1 1?1.33 1O.?2 Goal 2 1?0.4? 12.44 Goal 3 16? .44 8.23 Goal 4 1?8.58 13.10 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 OjOO 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 OW 0.00 190.4? 15.26 189.00 16.25 190.83 15.4? 192.30 1?.59 194.35 15.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. :Scortng and Reporting System by:* Page\n6 District Goal Summary Date\n4/11/01 Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm: SOI 7 School: Cloverdale Elem Grade: 2 School Number: 31 Subject\nElementary Math White Students Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District -- Average Standard Deviation 172.62 0.00 166.11 0.00 171.16 0.00 175.37 0.00 189.77 0.00 163.25 0.00 173.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 191.15 13.13 185.71 12.59 192.53 15.82 199.62 14.46 190.09 13.71 195.26 15.28 195.78 16.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Language Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District -- Average Standard Deviation 171.66 0.00 195.71 14.48 169.19 0.00 193.57 14.46 172.13 0.00 196.80 15.41 173.57 0.00 197.07 16.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Reading Overall Goal 1 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 172.87 0.00 190.47 15.26 162.03 0.00 189.00 16.25 Goal 2 172.54 0.00 190.83 15.47 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 185.02 0.00 192.30 17.59 176.09 0.00 194.35 15.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ^Scoring and Reporting System by\nPage: 7Date\n4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm: SOI 8 School\nDavid ODodd Elem Grade\n2 School Number: 32 Subject\nElementary Math White Students Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation  District -- Average Standard Deviation 182.94 10.41 1?8.08 10.41 184.28 15.53 18? .49 15.60 1?9.02 11.64 184.5? 13.13 190.56 11.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 191.15 13.13 185.?1 12.59 192.53 15.82 199.62 14.46 190.09 13.?1 195.26 15.28 195.?8 16.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject\nLanguage Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation ~ District  Average Standard Deviation 188.33 18.43 195.?1 14.48 Subject\nReading Overall 188.24 19.48 193.5? 14.46 Goal 1 189.69 2O.?9 196.80 15.41 Goal 2 18?.O8 19.?9 19?.O? 16.39 Goal 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 I I Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 18?.66 12.8? 190.4? 15.26 184.59 14.80 189.00 16.25 183.15 11.93 190.83 15.4? 195.10 1?.91 192.30 1?.59 189.?0 11.39 194.35 15.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations.\nScoring and Reporting System by\" Page: 8 District Goal Summary Ite\n4/11/01 Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm\nSOI 9 School: Fairpark Grade: 2 School Number: 23 Subject\nElementary Math White Students Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District -- Average Standard Deviation 195.26 11.35 191.15 13.13 Subject: Language Usage Average Standard Deviation ~ District -- Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 184.85 17.97 185.71 12.59 199.17 4.25 192.53 15.82 205.04 13.11 199.62 14.46 185.46 10.86 190.09 13.71 199.20 12.54 195.26 15.28 201.77 10.45 195.78 16.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Overall 203.68 6.11 Goal 1 201.48 3.59 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 195.71 14.48 Overall 189.82 8.44 190.47 15.26 205.66 5.78 203.54 8.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 193.57 14.46 196.80 15.41 197.07 16.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 1 183.79 9.08 189.00 16.25 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 186.15 4.47 199.91 13.04 191.88 11.71 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 OW 0.00 Goal 7 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 190.83 15.47 192.30 17.59 194.35 15.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. :Sconng and Reporting System by:\nPage\n9Date: 4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 10 School: Forest Park Elem Grade: 2 School Number: 24 Subject: Elementary Math White Students Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation ~ District ~ Average Standard Deviation 194.61 11.?9 188.33 10.89 192.?1 15.60 202.64 13.49 193.45 14.38 19?.55 16.15 198.4? 14.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 191.15 13.13 185.?1 12.59 192.53 15.82 199.62 14.46 190.09 13.?1 195.26 15.28 195.?8 16.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Language Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District -- Average Standard Deviation 200.4? 11.69 196.30 11.?6 201.53 12.28 204.06 13.?2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation -- District - Average Standard Deviation 195.?1 14.48 193.5? 14.46 196.80 15.41 19?.O? 16.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Overall 195.9? 11.82 190.4? 15.26 Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 194.?9 14.18 196.25 13.?4 19?.?4 13.64 198.91 13.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 189.00 16.25 190.83 15.4? 192.30 1?.59 194.35 15.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ^Scoring and Reporting System by:\nPage: 10 Date: 4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District School: Fulbright Elementary Grade: 2 Subject: Elementary Math Average Standard Deviation -- District -- Average Standard Deviation Overall 191.29 11.66 191.15 13.13 Subject: Language Usage Average Standard Deviation - District ~ Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Goal 1 184.66 1O.?3 185.?1 12.59 Overall 193.52 12.25 195.?1 14.48 Overall 186.35 14.59 190.4? 15.26 Goal 1 191.18 11.54 193.5? 14.46 Goal 1 183.64 15.51 189.00 16.25 White Students Goal 2 193.43 11.21 192.53 15.82 Goal 2 194.14 14.35 196.80 15.41 Goal 2 189.10 11.?2 190.83 15.4? Goal 3 201.31 12.86 199.62 14.46 Goal 3 195.36 14.02 19?.O? 16.39 Goal 3 189.86 15.8? 192.30 1?.59 Goal 4 18?.30 12.10 190.09 13.?1 Goal 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 188.26 14,?2 194.35 15.60 Page Number: Term\nSOI School Number: Goal 5 194.05 14.56 195.26 15.28 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11 48 Goal 6 199.56 15.01 195.?8 16.28 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE\nSummary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. ^Scoring ^R^^nq^System Page: 11Date: 4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 12 School: Geyer Springs Elem Grade: 2 School Number: 37 Subject: Elementary Math White Students Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District -- Average Standard Deviation 182.93 17.12 182.43 14.26 187.70 15.66 194.57 17.76 182.76 16.00 184.80 17.05 187.21 18.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 191.15 13.13 185.71 12.59 192.53 15.82 199.62 14.46 190.09 13.71 195.26 15.28 195.78 16.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Language Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation  District -- Average Standard Deviation 186.65 18.62 195.71 14.48 Overall 179.85 18.68 190.47 15.26 183.13 21.26 193.57 14.46 Goal 1 179.74 17.99 189.00 16.25 186.27 18.74 189.73 18.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 196.80 15.41 197.07 16.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 2 178.79 18.03 190.83 15.47 Goal 3 182.44 21.70 192.30 17.59 Goal 4 189.47 9.39 194.35 15.60 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. :Scoring and Reporting System by:: Page: 12District Goal Summary ^1 late\n4/11/01 Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm\nSOI 13 School\nGibbs Magnet Elem Grade: 2 School Number: 27 Subject\nElementary Math White Students Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 193.34 13.56 191.15 13.13 Subject: Language Usage Overall 190.17 8.35 198.57 14.40 200.58 13.42 190.42 13.33 200.47 13.67 198.12 16.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 185.71 12.59 192.53 15.82 199.62 14.46 190.09 13.71 195.26 15.28 195.78 16.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District - Average Standard Deviation Subject\nReading Average Standard Deviation - District -- Average Standard Deviation 200.76 13.09 199.05 11.50 200.11 14.38 203.42 16.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 195.71 14.48 193.57 14.46 196.80 15.41 197.07 16.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Overall 196.93 12.93 190.47 15.26 Goal 1 196.65 15.30 189.00 16.25 Goal 2 194.82 14.81 190.83 15.47 Goal 3 205.35 12.57 192.30 17.59 Goal 4 196.25 13.80 194.35 15.60 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE\nSummary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. :Se(Xlng an) Reporting System by: Page: 13Date: 4/11/01 \u0026lt; District Goal Summary Little Rock School District School: Jefferson Elementary Grade: 2 Subject: Elementary Math Average Standard Deviation -- District - Average Standard Deviation Overall 195.9? 12.83 191.15 13.13 Subject: Language Usage Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District ~ Average Standard Deviation Goal 1 188.30 12.96 185.?1 12.59 White Students Goal 2 19?.O? 16.19 192.53 15.82 Goat 3 205.56 11.62 199.62 14.46 Goal 4 195.38 13.89 190.09 13.?1 Overall 19?.?9 16.?0 195.?1 14.48 Overall 194.16 1?.66 190.4? 15.26 Goal 1 19?.19 16.32 193.5? 14.46 Goal 1 191.35 18.26 189.00 16.25 Goal 2 19? .41 18.35 196.80 15.41 Goal 2 195.09 1?.86 190.83 15.4? Goal 3 198.85 18.48 19?.O? 16.39 Goal 3 19? .45 20.?0 192.30 1?.59 Goal 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 199.25 15.99 194.35 15.60 Page Number: Term: SOI School Number: Goal 5 200.50 14.96 195.26 15.28 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14 30 Goal 6 200.69 15.0? 195.?8 16.28 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. :Sconnfl System Page: II I I 14 District Goal Summary : 4/11/01 Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 15 School: M L King Magnet Elem Grade: 2 School Number: 35 Subject: Elementary Math White Students Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation  District - Average Standard Deviation 191.43 11.55 184.97 11.32 194.77 14.42 198.93 13.75 189.49 11.94 193.93 14.70 198.74 16.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 191.15 13.13 185.71 12.59 192.53 15.82 199.62 14.46 190.09 13.71 195.26 15.28 195.78 16.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Language Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District ~ Average Standard Deviation 196.20 11.46 194.83 13.72 196.68 12.60 197.10 11.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 195.71 14.48 193.57 14.46 196.80 15.41 197.07 16.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Reading Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Average Standard Deviation -- District ~ Average Standard Deviation 192.51 14.15 191.29 15.29 192.01 14.54 Goal 3 194.02 16.89 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 190.4? 15.26 189.00 16.25 190.83 15.47 192.30 17.59 195.63 16,16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 194.35 15.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations.\nSconng and Repofting System by:: Page: 15 Date\n4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 16 School\nMabelvale Elementary Grade\n2 School Number\n46 Subject\nElementary Math White Students Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation  District  Average Standard Deviation 1?8.96 15.59 1?4.00 13.?1 1?6.26 13.6? 184.99 15.34 185.43 12.92 186.?1 19.46 1?9.?3 16.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 191.15 13.13 185.?1 12.59 192.53 15.82 199.62 14.46 190.09 13.?1 195.26 15.28 195.?8 16.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject\nLanguage Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation  District  Average Standard Deviation Subject\nReading Average Standard Deviation  District - Average Standard Deviation 184.45 16.6? 183.01 15.54 182.23 16.83 18? .48 18.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 195.?1 14.48 193.5? 14.46 196.80 15.41 19?.O? 16.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Overall 1??.85 15.64 190.4? 15.26 Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goat 8 1?4.85 16.30 189.00 16.25 1?6.0? 15.18 1?5.?5 15.40 186.6? 20.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 190.83 15.4? 192.30 1?.59 194.35 15.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 f  NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. :Scoring and Reporting System by:: Page: 16 District Goal Summary\n4/11/01 Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm: SOI 17 School: McDermott Elementary Grade: 2 School Number: 20 Subject\nElementary Math White Students Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation ~ District - Average Standard Deviation 196.34 12.58 191.15 13.13 Subject: Language Usage Overall 191.87 11.75 185.71 12.59 Goal 1 197.16 14.68 192.53 15.82 Goal 2 201.48 14.97 199.62 14.46 Goal 3 196.62 13.58 190.09 13.71 Goal 4 200.92 13.12 200.94 13.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 195.26 15.28 Goal 5 195.78 16.28 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation ~ District - Average Standard Deviation 197.83 14.52 195.71 14.48 Overall 193.08 14.76 190.47 15.26 193.70 13.01 193.57 14.46 Goal 1 191.79 17.09 189.00 16.25 199.78 16.14 196.80 15.41 Goal 2 191.43 15.81 190.83 15.47 200.21 17.12 197.07 16.39 Goal 3 193.36 19.10 192.30 17.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 198.55 13.78 194.35 15.60 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. : Scoring and Reporting System by: Page: 1? Date\n4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm\nS01 18 School\nMeadowcliff Elem Grade\n2 School Number\n33 Subject\nElementary Math White Students Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District ~ Average Standard Deviation 186.03 11.36 1?9.8? 13.66 183.30 13.36 193.09 19.18 1?8.9? 18.45 188.2? 8.60 195.56 9.0? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 191.15 13.13 185.?1 12.59 192.53 15.82 199.62 14.46 190.09 13.?1 195.26 15.28 195.?8 16.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject\nLanguage Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District  Average Standard Deviation Subject\nReading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 183.28 1?.?6 195.?1 14.48 Overall 180.92 18.24 190.4? 15.26 180.64 19.10 193.5? 14.46 Goal 1 1?4.65 12.25 189.00 16.25 183.60 20.38 185.03 14.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 196.80 15.41 19?.O? 16.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 2 180.39 23.08 190.83 15.4? Goal 3 186.10 23.65 192.30 1?.59 Goal 4 184.29 18.45 194.35 15.60 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE\nSummary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Scoring and Reporting System by: Page\nI 18 District Goal Summary Dale: 4/11/01 Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm: SOI 19 School: Mitchell Incentive Grade: 2 School Number: 34 Subject: Elementary Math White Students Average Standard Deviation -- District  Average Standard Deviation Overall 164.32 16.45 Goal 1 177.32 0.00 Goal 2 Goal 3 191.15 13.13 185.71 12.59 Subject\nLanguage Usage Average Standard Deviation - District -- Average Standard Deviation Subject\nReading Average Standard Deviation - District -- Average Standard Deviation 199.48 0.00 192.53 15.82 177.41 13.24 199.62 14.46 Overall 170.67 9.92 Goal 1 168.99 12.31 Goal 2 Goal 3 195.71 14.48 193.57 14.46 173.86 9.92 196.80 15.41 168.86 7.78 197.07 16.39 Overall 160.30 19.74 Goal 1 173.21 0.00 Goal 2 168.81 13.99 Goal 3 179.38 0.00 190.47 15.26 189.00 16.25 190.83 15.47 192.30 17.59 Goal 4 189.77 0.00 Goal 5 175.52 0.00 Goal 6 158.49 3.44 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 190.09 13.71 195.26 15.28 195.78 16.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 0^ 0.00 Goal 6 OW 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 191.52 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 194.35 15.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Scoring and Reporting System by: Page: 19 Date: 4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 20 School: Otter Creek Elem Grade: 2 School Number: 50 Subject: Elementary Math White Students Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District - Average Standard Deviation 18? .69 12.99 1?9.?0 14.2? 186.34 15.61 195.09 15.?? 18?.82 14.29 193.49 15.?? 194.8? 16.?9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 191.15 13.13 185.?1 12.59 192.53 15.82 199.62 14.46 190.09 13.?1 195.26 15.28 195.?8 16.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Language Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 190.3? 12.59 195.?1 14.48 Overall 184.24 14.08 190.4? 15.26 18?.?8 12.68 193.5? 14.46 Goal 1 182.99 15.03 189.00 16.25 193.3? 13.?6 196.80 15.41 Goal 2 186.01 13.49 190.83 15.4? 189.5? 13.81 19?.O? 16.39 Goal 3 184.94 18.35 192.30 1?.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 4 18? .09 15.11 194.35 15.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. :Scoring and Reporting System by:: Page: Goal 8 20 Date\n4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm: SOI 21 School: Pulaski Heights Elem Grade\n2 School Number: 38 Subject\nElementary Math White Students Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation  District -- Average Standard Deviation 194.53 11.03 191.15 13.13 Subject\nLanguage Usage Overall 190.87 9.71 185.71 12.59 Goal 1 195.54 16.02 192.53 15.82 Goal 2 200.49 14.92 194.52 12.92 200.55 11.10 200.65 13.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 199.62 14.46 190.09 13.71 195.26 15.28 195.78 16.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 196.90 12.48 194.20 13.52 199.25 13.92 196.97 12.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 195.71 14.48 193.57 14.46 196.80 15.41 197.07 16.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Overall 192.38 17.65 190.47 15.26 Goal 1 191.93 18.33 189.00 16.25 Goal 2 196.69 13.77 190.83 15.47 Goal 3 192.24 17.93 192.30 17.59 Goal 4 197.97 20.41 194.35 15.60 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. : Scoring and Reporting System by: Page: 21District Goal Summary Date: 4/11/01 Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 22 School: Rockefeller Incentiv Grade: 2 School Number: 36 Subject: Elementary Math White Students Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Average Standard Deviation  District -- Average Standard Deviation 191.95 15.21 187.39 16.42 189.68 19.57 Goal 3 198.79 16.36 Goal 4 192.12 15.97 Goal 5 Goal 6 191.15 13.13 185.71 12.59 192.53 15.82 199.62 14.46 190.09 13.71 195.65 16.13 195.73 17.97 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 195.26 15.28 195.78 16.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Language Usage Overall Goal 1 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 199.55 11.38 196.80 11.63 Goal 2 200.52 10.91 Goal 3 201.05 14.23 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 Eoo 0.00 195.71 14.48 193.57 14.46 196.80 15.41 197.07 16.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Reading Overall Average Standard Deviation  District - Average Standard Deviation 195.20 12.67 Goal 1 195.53 14.12 Goal 2 195.81 15.68 Goal 3 194.56 13.11 Goal 4 197.58 14.02 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 190.47 15.26 189.00 16.25 190.83 15.47 192.30 17.59 194.35 15.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 i\u0026lt;- NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Page: 22 Dale: 4/11/01 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 23 School: Romine Interdistrict Grade: 2 School Number: 40 Subject: Elementary Math White Students Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District -- Average Standard Deviation 169.43 11.89 191.15 13.13 Subject: Language Usage Overall 1?1.30 11.31 1?6.34 2.56 182.86 2.?6 182.89 2.?6 1?4.66 13.29 165.60 2.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 185.?1 12.59 192.53 15.82 199.62 14.46 190.09 13.?1 195.26 15.28 195.?8 16.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District -- Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation  District - Average Standard Deviation 183.08 1?.6? 195.?1 14.48 Overall 1??.2O 21.03 190.4? 15.26 185.9? 18.69 193.5? 14.46 Goal 1 1?4.20 20.82 189.00 16.25 181.12 20.90 182.12 14.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 196.80 15.41 19?.O? 16.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 2 1?5.?4 11.85 190.83 15.4? Goal 3 2O4.?1 0.00 192.30 1?.59 Goal 4 191.90 0.00 194.35 15.60 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. : Scoring and Reporting System by: Page: 23 District Goal Summary Date\n4/11/01 Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 24 School: Terry Grade: 2 School Number: 47 Subject: Elementary Math White Students Average Standard Deviation -- District - Average Standard Deviation Overall 197.29 7.30 Goal 1 190.35 8.82 Goal 2 200.02 12.68 Goal 3 203.48 11.99 Goal 4 192.01 9.64 Goal 5 201.70 10.25 Goal 6 202.59 7.79 Goal? Goal 8 191.15 13.13 185.71 12.59 192.53 15.82 199.62 14.46 190.09 13.71 195.26 15.28 195.78 16.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Language Usage Overall Average Standard Deviation - District -- Average Standard Deviation Subject: Reading Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 199.32 10.07 195.71 14.48 Overall 190.66 12.24 190.47 15.26 Goal 1 197.60 11.53 Goal 2 200.57 9.35 Goal 3 200.38 12.24 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goat 8 6w 0.00 193.57 14.46 196.80 15.41 197.07 16.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 1 189.70 14.45 Goal 2 193.33 8.88 Goal 3 189.22 15.60 Goal 4 194.25 13.27 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 189.00 16.25 190.83 15.47 192.30 17.59 194.35 15.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. : Scoring and Reporting System by: Page: 24 District Goal Summary Date: 4/11/01 Little Rock School District Page Number: Term: SOI 25 School: Wakefield Elementary Grade: 2 School Number: 51 Subject: Elementary Math White Students Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District - Average Standard Deviation 190.30 4.40 191.15 13.13 184.31 2.53 185.?1 12.59 182.89 0.00 192.53 15.82 209.85 8.30 199.62 14.46 19O.?4 5.58 2O2.?6 0.00 19?.16 6.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 190.09 13.?1 195.26 15.28 195.?8 16.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Language Usage Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation 194.2? 5.25 195.?1 14.48 193.92 3.9? 193.5? 14.46 195.13 ?.38 196.80 15.41 193.46 4.1? 19?.O? 16.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subject: Reading Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation ~ District - Average Standard Deviation 18? .66 0.00 190.4? 15.26 18?.?8 0.00 189.00 16.25 18?.83 0.00 190.83 15.4? 1?5.53 0.00 204.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 192.30 1?.59 194.35 15.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Scoring and Reporting System by: Page: 25Date: 4/11/01 School\nWashington Grade\n2 District Goal Summary Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm: SOI School Number\n26 42 Subject\nElementary Math White Students Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal 7 Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation -- District  Average Standard Deviation 195.02 8.44 191.15 13.13 Subject: Language Usage Overall 190.22 10.81 185.71 12.59 Goat 1 197.15 12.98 192.53 15.82 Goal 2 201.81 11.52 199.62 14.46 Goal 3 198.09 11.34 193.08 10.47 200.03 10.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 190.09 13.71 Goal 4 195.26 15.28 195.78 16.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 5 Goal 6 Goal? Goal 8 Average Standard Deviation  District - Average Standard Deviation Subject\nReading Average Standard Deviation - District -- Average Standard Deviation 197.04 8.36 195.71 14.48 Overall 191.91 8.04 190.47 15.26 195.43 10.27 193.57 14.46 Goal 1 188.47 9.13 189.00 16.25 198.69 9.74 197.05 9.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 196.80 15.41 197.07 16.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 2 190.23 12.20 190.83 15.47 Goal 3 190.99 10.37 192.30 17.59 Goal 4 199.57 8.63 194.35 15.60 Goal 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ! NOTE: Summary reports contain only valid scores. Invalid scores are excluded from summary calculations. Scoring and Reporting System by: Page: 26 District Goal Summary 4/11/01 Little Rock School District Page Number\nTerm\nSOI 27 School\nWatson Elementary Grade\n2 School Number\n52 Subject\nElementary Math White Students Overall Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Average Standard Deviation - District -- Average Standard Deviation 162.17 0.00 191.15 13.13 Subject\nLanguage Usage Average Standard Deviation - District - Average Standard Deviation Overall 161.92 0.00 195.71 14.48 171.70 0.00 160.76 0.00 169.77 0.00 Goal 4 156.50 0.00 Goal 5 163.25 0.00 Goal 6 0.00 0.00 Goal 7 0.00 0.00 Goal 8 0.00 0.00 185.71 12.59 192.53 15.82 199.62 14.\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_317","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, 47","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":["2000/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, 47"],"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/317"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nSchool Improvement Plans Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent-.x ii\u0026gt; 7 'f if if ip (f t f  p J MIDDLE SCHOOLS j 0  't t '( / David Patterson, Principal Cloverdale Middle Level Academy if if e 'f 'f- f I I p f r i II ? f f I* * t '4 I t (P \u0026lt; p: t 4 Debbie Berry, Principal Dunbar Magnet Middle School Elouise Hudson, Principal Forest Heights Middle School Larry Buck, Principal Henderson Middle School Ann Blaylock, Principal Mabelvale Middle School Jim Fullerton, Principal Horace Mann Magnet Middle School Nancy Rousseau, Principal Pulaski Heights Middle School Jim Mosby, Principal Southwest Middle School if 'i f- r t 'if I f 'f t tf if t a 'i 'i i\u0026lt; ji n if ir if 'if 'f J 't f 4 t t f 't fCLOVERDALE MIDDLE LEVEL ACADEMY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2000-2001MISSION STATEMENl The mission of Cloverdale Middle Level Academy is to prepare all of its students not only for the upcoming experiences of suture education, but to instill a love of learning which will follow them throughout their adult lives. The task will be accomplished through a partnership of dedicated administrators, teachers, staff, and parents. Every effort will be made to create a safe atmosphere for success in life's future travels. OUR CREED ON MY HONOR I WILL DO MY BEST TO OBEY THE SCHOOL RULES, TO HELP OTHER PEOPLE AT ALL TIMES, AND KEEP MYSELF PHYSICALLY STRONG MENTALLY AWAKE AND MORALLY STRAIGHT. J VISION STATEMENT The Cloverdale Middle Level Academy family makes a positive difference in the lives of its members by providing opportunities for success. OUR PLEDGE I WILL BE. . . COURTEOUS LOYAL OBEDIENT VITAL EFFICIENT RESPECTFUL DEPENDABLE ATTENTIVE LAWFUL ENTHUSIASTIC CMLA Population 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 :?a: 'it'. 06 07 08 T T Black Count Other Count TotalCMLA Percentage Chart 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% *4 I . I --iiv- '( T Wi '\"i t T 06 07 08 ?iW ! W fesi Sv I\u0026amp; Total  Black Percent  Other PercentAction Plan: Community Involvement Problem Statement: (summarize the problem indicated by data and background analysis\nstate the desired goals) Condition\n300 hours of community involvement during 1999-2000 school year. Goal: 3500 hours of community involvement within 2 years. Stretch Goal\n5000 hours of community involvement within 2 years. Strategy Mentor Program Kev Actions 1) Faculty meets with local chinch groups and neighborhood associations. 2) Compile lists of volunteers and hours/times available. Classroom Helpers 1) Volunteer enters classroom to assist classroom teacher 2) Teacher has specific guidelines to give to volunteer (resource box) PTSA 1) One team member at every PTSA meeting. 2) Develop strategies to encourage students to bring parents. Professional Dev, Mentoring Guidelines inservice l)Develop guidelines to give to volunteers. 2) Develop resource box with skill deficiencies and students' names. Introduce reward ideas for both teachers and teams to attend PTSA meetings. Timeline Meetings: Sept. Begin: Nov. 5,2000 Begin: Nov. 5, 2000 Begin: Sept. 1,2000 Person Responsible Ms. Brooks Team Leaders PTSA President Individual teachers Team Leaders Mr. Patterson PTSA President Resources Mentoring Guidelines and list of \"high-risk\" students Test scores Resource modifications Incentives (monetary as well as other types) Assessment Track academic improvements/discipline referral s/absenteeism Track academic improvements Increased numbers of teachers/parents/commun- ity members and students at meetings. Adult Spanish classes Recruit a community member to give adult Spanish lessons in the After School Program and provide stipend for teacher. Survey on interest of faculty in attending such a class. Survey: Sept. 1, 2(XM) Begin classes: Nov. 5, 2000 PTSA President Ms. Brooks Texts (?) Copier availability Increased number of faculty/community members speaking Spanish 1Strategy P.A.R.K. Fall Festival Open Mike at Night Form interdisciplinary units with all core classes Curriculum Mapping Analyze last year's scores Action Plan: Community Involvement Kev Actions Professional Dev. In-service on curriculum mapping Timeline (cont'd) Person Responsible P.A.R.K. staff Teachers Ms. Seabrook Ms. Brooks Staff Social Studies committee Parents Teachers Students Communitv Teachers Resources Assessment P.A.R.K. facilities PTSA 2 Action Plan: Science Problem Statement: (summarize the problem indicated by data and background analysis\nstate the desired goals) Condition: Goal: 75% of Sth grade students at or above the basic level on the Benchmark exam. Stretch Goal: 95% of Sth grade students at or above the basic level on the Benchmark exam. Strategy Kev Actions Professional Dev. Timeline Person Responsible Resources Assessment Increase use of act to enhance interpreting info from charts/ diagrams/illustra- tinnc Specified vocabulary list Reading/writing science articles Alternative innterpretation of science concents Science Olympiad Create vocabulary list of terms used to formulate questions_______________ Assign science articles to students who then read them and summarize them for the class.____________ Present opportunities for students to create skits/ commercials/raps________ Student demonstrates skill taught to parents/ business leaders and teachers None None None Science teachers Science teachers Science teachers Texts Magazines Newspapers Library books Science Fair Mentor Program Increase act of collecting/calcu- latinedata S.W. design/inter- pret charts/ graphs from data collected from exnerimento____ Increase use of word problems Science teachers Science teachers Science teachers Modules Modules ModulesAction Plan: Mathematics Problem Statement: (summarize the problem indicated by data and background analysis\nstate the desired goals) Condition: 11% of Sth grade students are at the basic and proficient level on the Benchmark Examination. Goal: 50% of Sth grade students reach the basic and above levels on the Benchmark Exam. Stretch Goal: 75% of Sth grade students reach the basic and above levels on the Benchmark Exam._________ Strategy Quiz Bowl practice Standardize Test Program________ Incentive Assemblies (small)__________ Tutoring Program Stronger Math Club____________ \"Math Counts\" Competition Kev Actions Create questions and distribute them to the math teachers_________________ Professional Dev. Mini-inservice during team meetings to go over Quiz SqvyI rulgs________ Timeline Begin: Oct. 2000 Person Responsible Ms. Nesmith Individual math tWfth.gI5_______ Dept. Chairs Team Leaders Teachers Math Teachers Math Teachers Resources Texts Teams Assessment Classroom testsAction Plan: Literacy Problem Statement: (summarize the problem indicated by data and background analysis\nstate the desired goals) Condition: 42% of Sth grade students are performing at basic and above on the Benchmark Literacy Test. Goal\n60% of Sth grade students performing at basic and above on the Benchmark Literacy Test within 2 years. Stretch Goal: 90% of Sth grade students performing at basic and above on the Benchmark Literacy Test within 2 years. Strategy Accelerated Reader Program Vocabulary banks Drop Everything And Read Mentor Program (Adopt-a-student) Literary Magazine (one/nine weeks) Book Club Story Time Kev Actions Installation of program in computers 1) Compile lists of 50 words from each discipline. 2) Three new words will be presented per day, schoolwide. 3) All faculty/staff will develop strategies to reinforce words. 10 mins of reading on Wednesday a.m. instead of Chaimel One. 1) Teams identify \"high- risk\" students to be assigned a mentor. 2) Teacher \u0026amp; community mentor volunteers are matched with students. Collect stories, poetry and essays from students Create a list of books and a schedule Professional Dev. Workshop on using A.R. (Aug. 15) Mini-inservice to brainstorm strategies. Miru-inservice at faculty meeting Mini-inservice at faculty meeting with Guidelines for Mentoring None None Contact elementary schools to partner with None Timeline Begin: Sept 1, 2000 Begin: Sept. 1, 2000 Begin: Sept. 1,2000 1) Identification 1^ end of Sept. 2) Matched to mentor by Nov. 5, 2000 Oct. 2000 Oct 2000 Oct. 2000 Person Responsible Ms. Firestone Ms. McMurray Team Leaders Ms. Schutte Mr. Patterson Ms. Lamb Ms. Grecnley Mr. Bennett Tnd Teachers Team Leaders Ms. Seabrook Ms. Stewart Ms. Brooks Ms. Wickliffe Ms. Poore Ms. McMurray Ms. Schutte____ Ms. Hudson Ms. Wickliffe Ms. B. Williams Resources A.R. Software Books Incentives Text books Personal book Guidelines for Mentoring Magazine software \u0026amp; paper Book-of-the- month Books appropriate to rsad-tg.skm. Assessment Printouts from software In-class tests Quiz bowls Spot checks on classrooms by APs and Principal Track academic improvements/discipline referral s/absenteeism Sale of magazines Attendance at club meetings Attendance at story time days. 1Strategy Computers in all English Classes Make novels more accessible to teachers/students School-wide Incentives______ Test Preparation (for standardized tests)__________ Action Plan: Literacy Kev Actions 1) Improve communication between teachers and IRC 2) Improve ability for teachers to get books inhouse Professional Dev, None (cont'd) timeline Aug. 2000 Person Responsible District personnel Mr. Patterson Dept, chairs______ Ms. Schutte Ms. Brandon (IRC) IRC Secretary Teachers Administrators Teachers Resources Millage Partners in Ed. Class sets of novels Counselors Assessment 2A6TaP Arkinsu CimprcheaHTt TeaiDR A AssemcM FfOATun GRADE 8 BENCHMARK EXAMINATION MATHEMATICS SCHOOL SUMMARY REPORT Page: 1 A11 Students Gender Female Male District Name\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT District Number: 60-01 Schoo) Name\nCLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Schoo) Number\n061 Gracie\n08 Total Number of Students Tested: Date of Test: February 1999 Number ft Percentage of Students School Below Basic (BEL) 148 and below District Region State 138 Number of Students who did not attempt the Mathematics session\nNumber ft Percentage of Students Basic (BAS) 149-199 School District Region State 4 Ethnicity Asian/Pacific Islander African American Hispanic Native American White Gender/Ethnicity Feme 1e Asian/Pacif1c Islander African American Hispanic Native American White Gender/Ethnicity Male Asian/Pacif1c Islander African American Hispanic Native American White 122 sax 989 85X 2,388 45X 11.562 47X 13 gx 364 24Z 2,126 4OX 9,871 40X Nuaber 8 Percentage of Students Proficient (PRO) 200-249 Number ft Percentage of Students School 3 2Z District Region State School Advanced (ADV) 250 and above District Region State 133 9X 690 13% 2,822 1IX 0 OX 33 2X 121 2X 409 2t 67 93X 55 83X 0 ox 111 sox 3 loox 3 lOOX 1 SOX 0 OX 61 94X 2 10OX 2 lOOX 0 OX 0 OX 50 B5X 1 100X 1 100X 1 50X 516 6SX 473 64X 10 30X 814 81X 27 m 14 82X 106 26X 6 46X 429 BIX 15 75X 9 82X 51 26X 4 20X 385 SOX 12 SOX 5 83X 55 27X 1,245 45X 1,142 44X 4 13X 969 81X 33 49X 31 55X 1,323 34X 3 18X 482 82X 19 53X 18 BOX 709 35X 1 11 486 BOX 14 45X 13 BOX 614 33X 5,968 48X 5,587 46X 26 I7X 3,766 82X 214 57X 199 63X 7,247 38X 15 19X 1,937 B3X 110 BIX 86 BIX 3,776 39X 11 I6X 1,828 82X 103 54X 113 63X 3,471 37X 5 7X 8 12X 0 OX 11 9X 0 OX 0 ox 0 ox 0 OX 4 BX 0 OX 0 ox 0 ox 0 OX 7 12X 0 OX 0 ox 0 ox 184 24X 180 24X 11 33X 172 17X 6 I7X 3 I8X 168 42X 6 46X 88 17X 3 15X 2 18X 83 43X 5 25X 84 I7X 3 20X 1 I7X 85 4IX 1,079 39X 1,044 4OX 19 BIX 196 16X 32 48X 20 36X 1,848 47X 9 53X 90 15X 15 42X 9 30X 951 46X 10 71X 106 18X 17 55X 11 42X 895 47X 4,969 40X 4,889 4OX 73 48X 723 16X 134 36X 100 31X 8,797 46X 38 47X 351 I5X 54 30X 48 34X 4.458 46X 35 SOX 312 Ml 78 4IX 52 29X 4,333 46X 0 ox 3 5X 60 BX 13 10X 349 13X 341 13X 1.406 11X 1.415 12X 0 ox 0 ox 16 2X 17 21 64 2Z 57 2Z 181 IX 228 2X 0 OX 2 2X 0 OX 0 ox 1 BOX 9 27X 19 2X 2 6X 0 OX 103 26X 5 16X 23 2X 2 3X 5 9X 652 17X 39 26X 74 2X 23 6X 16 6X 2.661 14X 0 OX 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 3 9X 6 IX 0 ox 0 ox 24 BX 3 10X 5 OX 0 ox 0 ox 113 3X 14 9X 5 OX 2 IX 1 ox 385 21 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 OX 2 3X 0 OX 0 ox 1 5OX 1 BX 9 21 2 1OX 0 ox 48 25X 8 40X 10 2X 0 OX 0 ox 55 27X 3 I8X 11 21 2 BX 3 1OX 328 16X 2 14X 12 2X 0 OX 2 8X 324 17X 22 27X 42 2X 14 8X 6 4X 1.319 14X 0 OX 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 OX 4 IX 0 ox 0 ox 12 SX 2 12X 4 IX 0 OX 0 ox 58 3X 6 11 4 OX 1 IX 0 ox 169 21 16 23X 32 IX 9 5X 12 7X 1.342 14X 0 OX 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 3 15X 2 OX 0 OX 0 ox 12 BX 1 11 1 OX 0 ox 0 ox 55 31 8 IIX 1 ox 1 IX 1 IX 216 21a^Tap Afkaimi ConprdiCRsnt TtainR 4 Aunneni Frounni GRADE 8 BENCHMARK EXAMINATION LITERACY SCHOOL SUMMARY REPORT Page: 2 A!! Students Gender Fema!e Male District Name: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT District Number: 60-01 School Name\nCLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Schoo) Number\n061 Grade: 08 Total Number of Students Tested: Date of Test\nFebruary 1999 Nunbar \u0026amp; Parcentage of Students School Below Basic (BEL) 163 and below District Region State 128 Number of Students who did not attempt the Literacy session\nNumber t Percentage of Students Basic (BAS) 164-199 Schoo! District Region State Number 8 Percentage of Students Proficient (PRO) 200-249 Schoo! District Region State 14 Number ft Percentage of Students Advanced (ADV) 250 and above Schoo! District Region State Ethnicity Asian/Pacific Islander African Anerican Hispanic Native American White Gender/Ethnicity Female Asian/Pacif1c Islander African American Hispanic Native American White Gender/Ethnicity Male Asian/Pacif1c Islander African American Hispanic Native American White 75 59X 31 47X 43 70X 0 OX 68 59X 1 33X 1 100X 1 sox 0 ox 31 SIX 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 37 69X 1 100X 1 100X 1 SOX 658 46X 285 38Z 372 5X 7 2IX 533 56X 19 sex 11 131 It 19X 3 23X 240 46X 7 311 1 78X 27 14X 4 20X 293 esx 12 sex 4 tit 49 24X 1.609 31X 593 22X 1,015 40X 2 ex 655 58X 19 29X 24 44X 890 23X 2 12X 281 49X 7 20X 8 29X 288 14X 0 ox 374 e7X 12 39X 16 62X 601 32X 7.962 33X 2.822 23X 5.133 43X 22 14X 2,592 58X 146 40X 142 46X 4,977 26X 5 ex 1, 121 49X 51 29X 34X 1,569 16X 17 24X 1,471 S9X 94 51X 95 56X 3,406 37X 42 33X 28 42X 14 23X 0 OX 39 34X 1 33X 0 OX 0 ox 0 ox 25 4IX 1 SOX 0 ox 0 ox 0 OX 14 26X 0 OX 0 ox 0 ox 497 34% 291 38X 206 30X 14 42X 319 34X 9 27X 3 2OX 145 37X 5 38X 208 4OX 7 311 1 11X 64 34X 9 45X 111 2 ex 2 14X 2 33X 81 40X 2.367 45X 1.260 46X 1.105 44X 16 52X 388 34X 34 52X 25 46X 1.888 48X 7 41X 228 40X 18 SIX 15 54X 983 48X 9 64X 159 28X 16 52X 10 38X 905 49X 10.881 45X 5,749 46X 5,122 43X 63 41X 1.489 . 3 160 44X 133 43X 8.974 47X 32 40X 902 39X 84 til 68 SOX 4.637 48X 31 44X 586 211 74 4OX 65 38X 4.336 tn 11 9X 7 11X 4 n 0 OX 8 11 1 331 0 OX 1 sox 0 ox 5 8X 1 SOX 0 ox 0 ox 0 OX 3 6X 0 OX 0 ox 1 sox 269 19X 166 22X 103 15X 12 36X 92 1OX 5 15X 1 11 157 4OX 5 38X 67 13X 5 26X 1 11X Bl 46X 7 35X 25 ex 0 ox 0 ox 70 35X 1, 164 221 5,196 2IX 0 OX 18 1X 82 2Z 314 1X 794 29X 369 15X 13 42X 85 8X 12 18% 5 9X 1.044 27X 8 47X 59 10X 9 26X 5 18X 708 35X 5 36X 26 5X 3 1OX 0 ox 335 18X 3.627 29X 1.565 13X 61 40X 349 8X 59 lex 31 1OX 4,682 25X 38 47X 269 12X 41 23X 22 lex 3.245 34X 22 3IX 80 4X 18 1OX 9 5X 1,434 16X 0 ox 0 ox 0 OX 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 16 2X 2 OX 0 OX 6 IX 0 OX 0 ox 12 3X 0 OX 5 1X 0 ox 0 ex 11 6X 0 OX 1 OX 0 ox 0 ox 1 ox 63 2X 19 IX 0 OX 2 OX 1 2X 0 OX 79 21 0 OX 2 OX 1 31 0 OX 60 3X 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 19 IX 244 2X 70 1X 6 4X 10 OX 2 1X 0 OX 295 2X 6 7X 8 OX 2 1X 0 OX 227 2X 0 ox 2 OX 0 ox 0 ox 68 IX90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 81% 65% \" \u0026gt;4% 2% 17%.,.., Grade 8 Benchmark (2/99): Mathematics . .77%........ 82% 26' 42% 6%-- 30% 33% 17%-- H6\u0026lt;%--------- 0% I 18% 9% I0% 0%  Below Basic  Basic  Proficient Advanced  z is* z ^6 z z z 80% 70% 60% 56% - 50% -46% - 40% 30% - 20/,, - 10/o O/o M% M% 1/o Grade 8 Benchmark (2/99): Literacy 379! 40% 19/ 3% 58% 42% 16%...... 73%  Below Basic  Basic  Proficient S7%--------- \u0026gt; fl fc O/o  Advanced z ^3 '7 S' z xO'- z z z \u0026lt;4100% 90% 88% 80% 70% 63% 60% 50% 40% 30% :3% 20% 10% 0% )% 0% Cloverdale Dunbar Grade 8 Benchmark (2Z99): Math, All Students -....87% 73% 72% 65% :3% :3% 2 2% 52% 48%  Below Basic  Basic  Proficient Advanced\n3% :2% 7%-- 2% 2% }% Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 70% 60% 59% 50%  40%  :3% 30% - 20% 10% - l% )% 0% Cloverdale 49% 5 3% 7% )% Dunbar Gracie 8 Benchmark (2Z99): Literacy, All Students 58% 51% 59% 40% 17% 1% % T : 4% 7%------- 1% Forest Heights Henderson 42% \u0026lt;7%-------------37J 35% 31^o2'*\u0026lt;il :3% 0% 1% Mabelvale 0% 2% 2% )% Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest  Below Basic  Basic  Proficient Advanced Dunbar Magnet Middle School a 2-a' i Im l^\\ jFtSS\u0026gt;3 M- 455 !V pfij s f- -li I- o / Tuning Up For Success On The Global Highway Gifted \u0026amp; Talented - International StudiesLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MIDDLE SCHOOL PROGRAM MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Little Rock School District Middle School Program is to meet the unique needs of all young adolescents, equipping them with the knowledge and the intellectual, physical, emotional, and social skills to successfully accomplish the transition to high school. This is achieved through: a developmentally appropriate curriculum that is challenging, integrated, relevant and exploratory\nspecially trained, nurturing educators using varied teaching and learning approaches within a flexible organizational structure\nstrong family and community partnerships\nprograms and policies that foster health, wellness, and safety\nand a faculty advocate for every student. -Adopted by LRSD Board of Directors March 26, 1998DUNBAR MAGNET MIDDLE SCHOOL MISSION STATEMENT The Dunbar Magnet staff acknowledges that the nations of the world becoming increasingly interdependent. To prepare for this are becoming increasingly uiiciucpcnwin- xv interdependence, we seek to develop thoughtful, creative individuals able to participate effectively as citizens of an international society. We plan to meet the needs of a diverse student body by offering a challenging curriculum, emphasizing creativity and higher order thinking skills. Dunbar Magnet students will develop awareness and understanding of various global issues. cultures and languages as a passport to the future.Administration Deborah Berry, Principal John Bacon, Assistant Principal Ryan Burgess, Assistant Principal Rhonda Dunn, Assistant Principal Campus Leadership Team Steering Committee Deborah Berry, Principal Linda Austin, Central Office Louise Gutierrez, Parent Charles Stewart, Business Lucious Powell, Community Gerald Talley, Community Beverly Harris, Non-Certified Staff Vickie Finney, Non-Certified Staff Edith Ax, Faculty Darrell Carr, Faculty Tyri Flynn, Faculty Arthur Olds, Faculty Dawn Terry, Faculty Francine Skotko, Faculty Oscar Dean, Designers Tyri Flynn, Corvette (8) Sara Gaines, Prowlers (7) Tina Jones, Infiniti (6) Karisa Nichols, Pathfinder (7) Arthur Olds, Renaissance Racers Susan Sloan, Explorer (6) Judy Warren, Navigator (8)School Improvement Plan School: Dunbar Magnet Middle School Year: 2000-2001 Priority: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Supporting Data: The Stanford 9 exam showed that 2 disaggregated groups of students were 64% and 35% above the lowest quartile but only 9% and 3%, respectfully, in the highest quartile. These same groups were at 21 and12 /o ** / __ ' ___________. ____nn and Miimhpr SVStemS Problem Solving - Estimation, and Number Systems above the 50th percentile. The lowest scores were in and Number Theory as well as in Procedures - Computation in Context and Rounding. Only 14% of the students were at or above the \"proficient\" level on the State Criterion-Referenced Mathematics Exam. Goal(s): 100% of a school's students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level on the mathematics exam (grade 8 on the State criterion-referenced test). 65% of a school's students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50th percentile in mathematics (SAT9 - 7th grade). At least 30% of a school's students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics (SAT9 - 7th grade). At least 90% of a school's students will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics (SAT9 - 7th grade). 90% of a school's students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in mathematics each semester (grades 6-8 on the LRSD criterion-referenced mathematics test). o    E  c w 0.  E o \u0026gt; o Q. E o o O (0 o o CM I O o o CM (0 (l\u0026gt; CM 0) O) . \u0026lt;0 u \u0026lt;0 E 0)  (Q  o \"S o Q C C  E c TO C  D C  \u0026lt;D  2\u0026gt;  4!\u0026gt; * 2J c c o .2 *0 0  .TZ o o    c tn o   j= o *- 4= C  o f-S co  E c o\u0026gt; m  a, \u0026gt;  c \u0026gt;1 .c o n   o IS. 'E \u0026lt;0 9 o O o c CJ (Z) 0)  c 0 E \u0026lt;D Q. O)  c   \u0026gt; \u0026gt; o P Ji m o Q. E 2-^ (0 c  0) O} s (0 Q  Q c o O 3 55 S p g 3^ (0 E 2 E o c m k. o o  o (Z) O Q. (0 \u0026gt; d\u0026gt; o O  j  c  X D 3 \u0026lt;D \u0026lt;/) o o c    E o =  w  0) \u0026gt; 2 Q. E i E (0 c Q\u0026gt; o 3 To o CM q)  o k_  Q. o m  tZ (0 UJ 2 m  S  UJ (0 h- \u0026lt;11 C7 V E 0. UJ OT CO x: _i I- C i z UJ CM J CM m 23 2 \u0026lt;  TO O O \u0026lt;D \u0026lt; * Is  \u0026gt;* IS (0 0 TO 2 o = \u0026gt; ? I (0 (0 b. c o  . Q ? c O 0) g  P o\u0026gt; = O. O\u0026gt; a\u0026gt; V c o o .2 TO  o o TO 5 TO .2 V  w i= CM TO ^ \u0026lt;\" Q SM  r 'S  e. o   to xP  2 Z E 0   o X  o .*2 TO O  TO CM O \u0026amp;\u0026gt; 0) o O o  cq co o 5 2 o  o. tn (0   E CM *0 o o  \u0026gt; O X}  o  o  k. O) 7 O t  Ui Q.^  o c   \u0026gt;1 S) y  CD Q) c ra J2  o n  o o\u0026gt; M- C o  Q. E 3  O \u0026gt; O) I Ji o Q. 2: -p 0) c c p tn 0) c  *- O -O p  (/\u0026gt; o  U X  E o \u0026lt;0 =  s I (Q O p o TO c o c 8 o\nTO CD 1 c c  u o     E  _ H $ TO E \u0026gt;  VO 3 t \u0026gt; e p w o. Q. = E CL t Q. . o 5 tn o  E  j: ra E c Q.  E o . O 2 - o ?\u0026gt; ill c Q. tn TO - I I 2 I O   TO - 2  TO  C C5 TO E  0) C S LL O)  X u TO m c Q- E \u0026lt;D 5 (0 3 O  2 S \u0026lt;u E  (0 \u0026lt;D r\u0026gt;  2 c n n 5 8 E g CD TO TO .. -   TO S Z - 8-  S  2 $ p g w s  ? 5 E g '  I c t/i 91 O V   .1= a\u0026gt;  ra  o O 7. COTO 5 2 -c- 1   p V \u0026gt; o 95 \u0026gt; 2 8 = 8 TO E I V 2 ? \u0026gt; O- TO 9 2 I Q-  liiE 1  5 O) re o (0 c E O) .c h c TO I Q. TO sz m co c TO c 2 -6 3 = 9 K -j i5 2 JO O C c _ a\u0026gt; 3  -o Q -5 (0 o O o O) 95  c c: TO  TO o -o c  = E i o  5 3  c S _ 2 ts ? \" O) o  M- to * c o  M- _ 2 TO CM  O 2 C I   C O o   5 -R \u0026gt; O 53- O  o o   a 2 \u0026amp;    2 2 - c TO TO S\n! tc f- \"5  o (0 \u0026lt; (0  tfi c o 2 c Ui O 1- 3  M  \u0026gt;1 O 5^ o  u  tn  o O  E  o  E   \u0026gt; Q- O  Q. E m i  c o w 8 *5 0) 11 c Ogo 3  .c 0) S o  2! 2 E 50?^ I c TO G C C _ TO 3 TO -D Q 'S =  -85 p 2  a -2 I tfi \u0026lt;=^  o Ci- CM 2 E TO  5  c co TO 9- .2*D c 0 Cw Q. C 0) E 0) \u0026gt; ko Q. E OO (Zo) o o \u0026lt;M Io o o CM (0 \u0026gt; o o o \u0026lt;Z) Q\u0026gt; $ Q\u0026gt; O\u0026gt; TO s TO -Q C a Q OO O (O qs -o CD CD O X CD o CD CD E O \"eg 5 eg o \u0026gt;p (0 \u0026lt;/)  o' D c ns D c 0 0) 0) o CD CD O X CD \u0026lt;*\u0026gt; TO TOO) TOO TO 5TO TO 5 C cTO e TO c o '\u0026lt;\u0026gt; c a\u0026gt; ^3 s co Q\u0026gt; P 2* 5 (0 E o \u0026lt;D m o D. (0 \u0026gt; 6o $ tn o ns E CD m E c CD ns o O tn CD 5 o CD CD CD \u0026gt; \"O o ns -Q E-ns O o\u0026gt; E '  O) 2. \u0026lt;2, (Z\u0026gt; t-c CD o 3 (/\u0026gt; ns CD \u0026gt; a ns CO CD o ns x: o  s o E o 5 8 P Q. .E CD -D x: c I ns co 0) \u0026gt; o \u0026amp; E o  2 i I 1 o co o CD O X CD CO i_ 0) o (0^0 eg o o O (0  o n c 0) o co 1C G) o  vO  (0 2 a\u0026gt; a. Q. S' 8 -i  eg jie o \u0026gt; CD P p  SP E- .i .i o o O tn m 15 ssn 11 - c  S n  TO \" C S  ? i c  E UCD- \u0026lt;0 tc uTO. co c S LL (0 s 91 CD c* \"o TO TO .0 5  2   -TO  1 m TO  O g 52 . 'to \u0026amp; $ - i 2! g s C S' p- -2   g a .i eq \u0026gt;2 Q. -i o _ g P 2 o TO c  E 1 3  11 I 1S1 I5l Il UH S 1i21O) c  CD e Q. CD CD qi Q. J 5 E o o O1 I 1 is  to TO 3 o 0) o 3 c eg TO \"S -  15 -  g I I 2 S  -2^ 2  0 -5  8 \"S O  -(6 eg  TO E 7 TO - 5  5  TO \"5 TO I - '52 TO  .2 O TO '2  C S  TO .2 i. E c C (Q CQ 5 .c  o eg eg 2 5 .2 = CD 5  .2 c  \"S E 0) u CD C  2 C \u0026lt;2 c CD -E \u0026gt;CD CD o  O o w  tx: 2 Q. CD = CD C \u0026gt; o oo O (O ra O tn V D ns ns OS i_ -E \u0026lt;D E w E CD Q. CO o Ui .c a c ns CD CD D U) co o O 2* c s CD c O o \u0026gt;- 0 CD \u0026gt; Q- O CD f E vi tn I Q. W i LU o CD CD E E a: $ (A \u0026lt;  .T2O  iiuns\n2 CD 10 c  0 or CD - O 1 ^ - \"L 'A D o  = ,rC S i  *- - z CM C01D n in IC-S \u0026gt; rs o c o US a: x: \u0026lt; tn CO IS^'S V) w  z CD O cE l3o {53 OO S 5 2 s o c Z Z TO t \u0026lt; 2 0\u0026gt;1 TO nj (/)  O- a: TO  Z O o fn c CD TO 0 2 (0 c Q_ Q LU 52 I ? CD 5^10 !s o CK 2 0) C r\u0026gt; W 8 s S -D CQ UI ? TO T2O II co 'xOs S \u0026lt;0 E CD CD o ns E tn -o CD CD T o CD c Q. CD co J) o  ? E o CD C .C CD ns o E |8 E 5 o 0) C E (0 o OS op 0X0 c: ns tn tn CD \"D ns c O) o E CD \"O CO ns CD \u0026gt;1 C o -(SD ns g o  CD o CD E   Q2. O\u0026gt; CD Q_ f S o c co 3 4C E n tfi (0 o O)  1 O) *c E T\u0026gt; (D I S) \u0026gt; c \u0026lt;i\u0026gt; \u0026gt; (0 tn 0)  E (0  0) .n \u0026amp;! o li c (I 11 0 C x:\nI f to o P 5* o  __ (0 C w 0. c 0) Ea\u0026gt; \u0026gt;o Q. E oo u W o o CM IO o o (0 \u0026gt; 0 (0 c '*iX Q. OQ ! s to p o 3 OQ to 5 a\u0026gt; .i2 g o 3 Q OQ \u0026lt;0 to 2 3 O (0 to a: to c \u0026lt;/\u0026gt; (0 c I O E 85io^  Q-  ~ S -\u0026gt;c w E 8w- 2  F  S  -5p E0 Qo . \u0026lt;to E E c 5 \u0026gt; E 5 to :c E S 5 2 2 -F d) ? c c u 0) to 5 Tj H Q  O \u0026lt; E E 3 C 0) \u0026gt; E (0 !S co o 2 9 M38 to g - c ? -S 9 to 2 2 E 2m to to 2 2 s  5 o un \"Oo WO CQ (Z) to (0 EE to to O o\u0026gt; (0 (0 0) X  O)  E P o i= 5 1 S E o ~ 5  (0 0) S 'Z. Vi (0 o c \u0026lt;1\u0026gt; O) \u0026lt; 0) Q. O I O. t/i Q, O I 0\u0026lt;. qI o o c o CZ) O is 0) c: o\u0026gt; TO (0 c 3 Q oo o (O C O o o j: 0 Vi p O Vi o TO E TO TO S c .2 *3 C CD V c C o to s to 5e co  Q. OL ) to o: to c p o O. to Vi Q. to CO Q-to Ui Q. to CO g o o\u0026gt; c O Q. to Vi to co to CO !2 to D (0 5 .2- S o O) . 3 _ CO a (0 M o . ji: c Q -Dc \u0026lt;/\u0026gt; 5 v) *2 0) =3 (0 ID Eif o  1- Q. 4S S I* E y E  S  -c  Q - I-tn o O) * c c s IS o g to C eIe E c   E E x: m  .f5f2t '0w)  o W 75 C UJ 0) Ci t. a\u0026gt; E 2 to to to c H P Ito 8 K to F \"S E -2 \"D CD \u0026lt; O OT C to T3 3 Io c o ? -C I 2 s o c C o3 S(02 E A (0 to c o 1  ro m \u0026lt;uD. O) O C C 0) co (0  to D (0 to E (0 to o c (0 (/) fl V \u0026amp; Z o o (0 c 0) 0)  CT) (0 c o S5 = 3 UJ . to 3 Tt -D O 2  S to -c 9 5 O E -c c  \u0026lt;0 O to Q. to  5 . 0) O Q 2  to E E 0) 3 s . E O 3 E S S I to 8s t fi 0 S I E o to c . toE lO TJ to  to to .C 2 O II $ a d S ao \u0026amp; ph to  Q. to  Xi p\u0026gt; 5^ 0 \u0026lt; CD 0.   9 5* o 3 0) c (0 QL C o E 0) \u0026gt; o Q. E o o u Vi o o CM I O o o CM (0 V \u0026gt; CM Q\u0026gt; O\u0026gt; (0 (Q Q. OQ 0) o a o 3 CQ .0 a\u0026gt; 5=  .fl 3 Q C\u0026amp; 10  3 o 0 w q: Qi E O Qi 8ST \nr w \u0026lt;1\u0026gt; 0 1 TO :3 - \"8 2 2 m Sa o 2   Q. o TO g 8 TO  Q. TO E 3 3 8 \"S E 0) (0 h O c 2 3 x\u0026gt; O JJ D. ti \u0026lt; (0 E I- .9 0. O o o c a TO D 5 -6 ) D X] 1 8 TO \u0026lt;!\u0026gt;  TO  i O) 8 \u0026lt; . (0 TO c 8 c TO c o (0 s C O 8. S s 0) o o o c u to 0) ) (ts 1 o o a\u0026gt; 4= Vi s o \u0026lt;0 o (0 Q (0 e Q\u0026gt;  (0 S Q o o u Vi c o \".z c V 0) *- c o .c E o o) 3 \u0026lt; 8*2 CD '8*2 CD iz CD V- 3. TO Oi o  I e o Q- 0.   q: , e m o m TO o g) u y \u0026gt;- \u0026lt; TO c 15 5 Ui 8 5  S I si 'to TO (0 E C o TO X X  TO 8 E  o TO /9 *0 O (0 8 TO E 0) 8 c o\u0026gt; c 0) 8 \" S TO Ui I- \"5 x: (/) 2 TO TO  3 TO V! = ? \u0026lt;0 TO C I 1$   2 c . B 8  E 0) C TOO Q 0. 0. O TO TO ip C c E  \u0026lt;3s o\u0026gt; c 0) 11 Ui I- TO 3 o .!= .   TO TO O sole\nX c - c c 8 3 8 E  J 15 c o \u0026gt;- 5 \u0026lt;  TO -:  O Q 5 tZ5 C .0 o  TO T5 TO TO t  E \"o c o \u0026lt;  z S E p \"   5 c  TO \" n TO 55 C ~ 5-  D O CT \"O C P TO  t is o O = C5\u0026gt; \"S t c  3 \u0026gt; o  fl S  5 -c  I S -8\nc c TO 0) \u0026gt;. W t5 15 35 8 8 8 8 I o  (0 06 E to 8.  E 588 0'^8 I\" 2 TO  f If S = TO 16 TO 8  TO m - c \u0026gt; E C   o c  C c C . 3\u0026gt;  i TO TO c si c TO o 3 55 -j E \u0026lt; s. 2 ? Qi O. (0 E Z 8 p tn TO 8-2 c c 5 O 8 TO D. i= P i O) C  Q TO S S  8^ oi  S.'B  8 iR c s\n\u0026lt;-\u0026gt; \u0026lt;0  \u0026gt; CL 8 o .TO *- 6 10 3 o TO  C O o I n D TO   15 .  S  TO .ti 5* P \u0026lt; 3 (/) TO w c 3 TO c 1 o  m V) 5 \u0026gt; C TO g Q TO c 'S. 8 CD o c TO   c: TO E  cf \"m - C Hl $ s.^.   d S 5  6 c TO E c B a m TO = \"O 3 TO x: - E p  -c : a 18- sl n C O o 8 c TO '8 D. 8  2 r c\\i c T-  TO o Q * O 3 (g Q. C (U E Q\u0026gt; O Q. E O o u (/) O O M O O o \u0026lt;M (0 \u0026lt;*\u0026gt; Q\u0026gt; D) to Q. 1 (0 (0 p 0. *c tn   o 3 tn o  5  .52 3 Q OQ   3 O   ft: Q\u0026gt; C O\u0026gt; C c ?o I  i 0. re o c P *3k \u0026lt; re o\u0026gt; A Is 2 6 3 /Il  a o re u. 0. ifi re D c 0) D\u0026gt; \u0026lt; a\u0026gt; I E re a\u0026gt; E (0  tn re O 0 D) m \u0026lt; l-i co S o o x: o \u0026lt;/) I c o o p .W to to p c o i2  E 2^  C o (S Q. Q.  c \"S. Si \u0026lt;D Sw CD in  5 re 'C $ 5 O E - t- -c a O) 5 12  C C J 5 co o\u0026gt; c o a\u0026gt; c O a 3 a\u0026gt; c o\u0026gt; tn (0 Xi c 3 Q o Vi o p E p  p c o  q: c o o O O u (Z\u0026gt; c a\u0026gt; \u0026lt;i\u0026gt; c c F  o 2 o- 2 E   5 S-i . G) 0 0 5 8 \"S E  11 x: 'C Vi 5 3-^ lU o I? C -F m S o 2 5 \u0026lt;s TO . 38  m e  o TO Q. 0) o re 0) P c 0) 2  o. E \u0026gt; 8 a\u0026gt; s c O -- (n 8 I = fS 8 i ^ i5  i ? E E o\u0026gt; 2  S o E -S-, =  S.2 0) re E s re E o c  \"O Ml c p  I re I..  2  c \u0026lt; 0) ^(0 0) S    lo ? w/ -si \u0026lt;6 3 El c 2 =3 ?2 -O c o m re 1 \u0026lt;l\u0026gt; 5 S E Q. TO - P X c .E  Vi 3 F E I s O H 0) JZ o  c O g * *X w S 2 E re . -  o u\n5S S 2 c \u0026gt;. TO  t: EES E  c E 2 y w 2 5S| c  \u0026lt;\u0026gt;  ^ Q. re3 :2  o u to 3 12 re I  reeS 3J5: 5 t3o \u0026gt; \u0026gt; q: o lWu Hq: III I m o 8 Q Z uj re re O re c U. 2 o co o O)  (0 c o f0c) = CO 2 P . \"o E *3) u c o Vi re m (0 O O   C :  1c f- f(f0l 0) R S X ra 2c =Q . X C 28 ? TO \u0026lt;Eu TO V \u0026gt; 0) E 2 Q. H \u0026lt;0 Mf 2 a (0 o 5 Q to te O  Q\u0026gt; re -J Q\u0026gt; C U -S (Q a\u0026gt; \u0026lt;0 \u0026gt; TO m ? c .\u0026amp;s S \u0026lt;2 (t to On  S 8 C (0 O E o v Di x:  oo 6 o o CM O m \u0026lt;-\u0026gt; \u0026lt;\nUJ _) \u0026lt; UJ \u0026gt; I \u0026lt; t~  UJ LU 0^  56 S X S H Q Q Hl Z O Q ui Z D Q H  z y I- \u0026lt; ? O UJ 5S _J UI t- UJ m z \u0026gt; I UJ UI f? 5 Sus 0^ \u0026gt; B 3 \"O 5 O B \u0026amp; -O e -b     \u0026gt; *- o -o .o o V v n s u Vi u 43 X U  es cn V H .w 'C n S X a s o 0S 01) O V) =  .S 0^ S E R O OD s S S on U S \u0026lt; -p *  e 2 S  V o \u0026amp;. OS5 cA I s o fi. (A u \u0026lt; \"i A \u0026gt; o fi. V e s .2 -S s tn e X GA t A .CS A J3  -S 2 s  Qi 5 3 X (O 4*- o u O Bi so fi o I K 5 s u o o Q IO N CM O CM CM o CM CM O o o CM O) c Q. CO  a I c' c I 3 M IO o JM CM IO o CM o o CM _ v\u0026gt; te c 5 Q S M o  tn It O _I  \u0026lt; \u0026lt; C UI (B $  O z S e .! V u u V O. V X eIT C c\\ fS bX c c c\\ IT C c\\ I CM 0^ 0^ \u0026gt; a\u0026gt; C \u0026lt;u s a\u0026gt; \u0026gt; 0^ cn V o u CZ) V \u0026amp; A a\u0026gt; \u0026gt; CD (1) o 2 O I D N 6^ ro (U O 2 O (D D g cc c\\ CT C c\\ o N \u0026lt;y x\u0026gt; D N Q c c\\ ^5 TtCMOOOCD'^CNOCOO^ ^^^00000050)0) CMCMCNCMCNCNCMCMv-'^'^\u0026gt; V s . 3 \"O o w u a. s v   V  \u0026gt; ** o -o a\u0026gt; H CA W CO V s X V Q a. Vw X i! w    a J-  O co .s a\u0026gt; s s  a o OD s eV o. I co  O  2S s   5 5 -a o. o A S .Ms V o u V aV X H E -ew s o a S V  o CM V OlC u s q a 05 CA I s _o 'u V u oCZ3 u fi Vi U e u ca es s 6A oX GA A U3 V GA IS o o o CM O\u0026gt; c *c a (0  35 5 s u fi e u Q O s M M o co CM IO CM CM o CM CM CM \u0026lt; I  C I IO T Ol O V CM IO o CM t- w n c (0 \u0026lt;3  Q s ton E .S Q \"D J S \u0026lt; C Ui (0  z s Oi o CM iD o CM OX c CM CZ5 I GA % 0^ 0^ \u0026gt; 0^ C 0^ s \u0026gt; \u0026lt;u u tf3 u o u iZ3 V \u0026amp; a \u0026gt; \u0026lt; o o (0 k. O JO  S o D (0 k. O q\u0026gt; o o a o o \u0026lt;M \u0026lt;M \u0026lt;M (O CM CM O) o CM ^9 cy xZ C*' CM r=F=i O CO CM in CM CM O CM CM m CM CM m o CM O O CM m Oi Q\u0026gt; c . *3 \"O c s o Q. -o e 0) 5    \u0026gt; ** o a o V cn V E v in V H u Of) -w V x: X \u0026lt;w es u  O R s V X 'W R o o o V o 5 \u0026lt;M S V .S E o Of) S c u s  S s E  ex V} u W5 ts \u0026gt; O V a. a (Z) I s .2 V QA u 9 \u0026gt; tn S .S 3 o J3 on c A J3 u .^ z 00 U Q U I = 3 *n E 4) 5 3 X fi. U Q S \u0026lt; s bJ Q O U ..j Q O a^ in in IM m *S c s .= 0^ u La 0^ ex. V 4= H o o o CM O) c Q. (0  \u0026lt;9 i M \u0026lt;\u0026gt; CM OMOIOOIOOMOM ^P\u0026gt;CMCMT-^pOO\u0026gt; CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMt- i_ w ra c ra Q S (0 o  w .S a: \"5 -I JJ s \u0026lt; c UJ ra 5  o z sCM CM C CM CZ5 I V) vs \u0026lt;u \u0026gt; C s (U \u0026gt; 0^  4 u o u czs u 61 R u V \u0026gt; oo 0 \"D 5 O I co 0 O (0 o 0 O g CM 00 o CM 6^ CO CM O CM CM o CM o co CM % o in CM T CD O CM I I o m o o T o in o\u0026gt; V e *3 *0 e o n A o e V 5  \u0026gt; *- O *0 JS a V V VD a\u0026gt;  0^ t/D co V H (0 C es s V X -M ,o o X X w   u  o exi O s  .S O s  VD o ex) V y B y ec U B . -p d2 S S  a. S5 I 4\u0026gt; Q. 4\u0026gt; B ,2 \"p o a 5 \u0026gt;n ^  w 4\u0026gt; 5 5 x ta\u0026lt; Q C c .: a\u0026gt; u O) \u0026amp; V X H c y X a 'S  J. a C W -M o y = s y o u y  a co s O .2 S -o V B X y y e M 5 \u0026lt; u B y B a g  S t V A U 49  y e o .S  X u  s s Q -C =  M fi 4\u0026gt; X c e M C Q V JS H o y w .SP E \u0026lt;  27 * \u0026gt; c MD 00 S MD 'O'S. c 00 R *0 sin CM in CM \u0026lt;\u0026gt; 42 e bX e I 0^ cu \u0026gt; 0^ c E o \u0026gt; Q cn u O u z/:i V \u0026amp; a 0^ \u0026gt; \u0026lt; V o CO o I ro X2 (U CJ) Q O CM co c\\ in CM O CM u\u0026gt; CJ o CD CM R omomomo^ oor-h-cDcomin'M CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM \u0026lt;p Q % Q \u0026lt;s \u0026lt;y '5 Q1 CM CM OX e CZ) I \u0026gt; 0^ C3 0^ s \u0026gt; \u0026lt;3^ V) V o u V b a \u0026gt; oo 0 D (0 i_ O I 03 X3 0 D) CZ3 lO CM co CM co in CM co in CM in CM CM in CM o X o o co o in CM o o CM o in o o o in o \u0026lt;?o o W) cs *C (S' I co 0^ \u0026gt; S 0^ E 0^ \u0026gt; a\u0026gt; Ou a6\u0026gt;1 tn. V\u0026gt; GO 0) D CLO_ oI o E o (D O S CM o o o o o Q s CM o o co o lO CM o o CM O to o o o lO o X. h 5 3 O u \u0026lt;0 -1 gj   E CQ 0 Q (0  \u0026gt; Ui CD o' V! co o\u0026gt; ro TO Q c a\u0026gt; (0 (0 m oe a 3 3 Vi \u0026gt;\u0026gt; a\u0026gt; o: (B O O e a (B u 5 a a CZ) \u0026lt; c co 0) II -O 8 I o co \u0026lt;o\u0026gt;\u0026lt; o J? 3  Q\u0026gt; O -J o C u S (B  \u0026lt;l\u0026gt; \u0026lt;0 \u0026gt;-  CO II \u0026lt;r2- E c 0 D 3 \u0026lt;: Io \u0026lt; co o u S' U. 0 E-^3  o cd 'oP H J2 2  3 1 rc U. 0) S = \u0026gt;p o 1? s 2 3 fs o o Stni II w - c II  ^ IQs. 18 \"rSe 8 = 18 2 \"9) eo \u0026lt; 'P O V S' U. c0 0. X5 3 '3) 0) \u0026gt; s (0 $ Ui \u0026gt;p \u0026lt;0 * **5 \u0026gt;P Jk JL H ? o 5 C Q \"e E ''   |\u0026lt;\u0026lt;jj w55$5xx\u0026lt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt;p jT 5 5 0? o II s. O) c  0)  S Vi  S S 3 O b iIl 8 0) 15 fi  Sl SEE (Q 00  6 8 -. (0 5 A E  c U) o V c 6 c V co 8is5?l Eto 2 = S -a  re   a 2 X I-t S co oo d) o\u0026gt; 0) \u0026gt; E m 8 U) 8 - b 16 8 Oil g 'E I b. 8. ? E -i J2 c c S =-i 2  I  -2 ? 16 ? 2 MZ^- VO c V JS Q. o 2 o 0) (D P- c j: \u0026gt; 5 0) -e -D o  8 8 S-SE S \u0026lt;2 qg Q\u0026gt; 5 I  Co .o_ 6O) 8 ii\u0026gt; re S A E Ui 8  c 6 SV 16 c (D si z -s c E re re  c    \"B  0. 2 tt I-co oo d) O) I I a\u0026gt; j= \u0026gt; joa o SI u a S s -s2 as u aV. 00 JS cn -O a u 0 S C 0^ o o \u0026gt;  Ji  -  'S S O .2 o U s C o -o u OS ^o. *o ' V ^ o o a a\u0026gt; m \"O V u s u V 0^ I s o La V  u V c u  S V \"S s V V H 5 \u0026lt;i0 55.2   es  U  Cl J!  -00 S I Qu \u0026lt; H U \u0026lt; a V w a V .\u0026lt;u v OSI a o a\u0026gt; q\u0026gt; OJD ew a o a aw u w s O\u0026lt; a a a 69 tn E -w a eac rMj u  ec ~ ec M 69 tn O JS cn t A US AT) o a IO  % o c a 5 o Q. o \u0026gt; o a O n o CM o  O) n c I *A o o o o o 00 o (O o a o CM o '\u0026lt;y e \u0026gt; 9 ^O. V  \u0026gt;K o V Q \u0026gt;\u0026lt;! The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. ACTAP - 8* Grade State Mandated Criterion-Referenced Mathematics Test (1999 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. Hispanic Maies (n = 4) 120 100 80 60  Actuai  Goai 40 20 0 T 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. ACTAP - 8*'' Grade State Mandated Criterion-Referenced Mathematics Test (1999 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. Asian/Pacific Islander Females (n  4) 120 100 80 60  Actual  Goal 40 20 0 T 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. ACTAP - 8* Grade State Mandated Criterion-Referenced Mathematics Test (1999 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. Asian/Pacific Islander Males (n = 7) 120 100 80 60 40 -- 20 -- 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009  Actual  GoalBaseline Data Baseline Grade Year Levels LRSD Indicators Goal Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 98-99 7 Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test 65% of a school's students in every subgroup of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50th percentile in mathematics. Af-Am(F)=12% Af-Am(M)=21% WF=60% WM=53% Hisp=86% As/Pac=100% 0ther=100% Af-Am(F)=5% (4 students) Af-Am(M)=5% (4 students) WF=1% (1 Student) WM=1% (1 student) 23% 20% 77% 86% 6 -6 16 32 98-99 7 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test The percent of students in every subgroup of race and gender performing at or above the 50th percentile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. See above See above65% of a schools students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50 percentile in mathematics. Stanford 9 Exams - 7* Grade (1998 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated data on Stanford 9 mathematics exams as percentages. % at or above 50th percentile 120% 100% 100100% 100% 86% 86% 80% 77% 10% 65*\u0026gt;5% 60/ 60%  -  1998  1999 337 40% - - 23% 217feo% 20% - - 0% a.i I GOAL Af-Am(F) Af-Am(M) WF (n = (n = 67) (n s 86) 42) WIVI(ns 36) Hisp. As/Pac (n Other (n = = 5) 2) T T T T LThe percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50* percentile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Stanford 9 Exam - Grade (1998 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. African-American Females (n = 67) 70 60 50 40 30  Actual  Goal 20 10 -- 0 T 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50* percentile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Stanford 9 Exam - 7* Grade (1998 baseline year) 60 50 40 30 0 20 10 This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. 70 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Goal The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50* percentile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Stanford 9 Exam - Grade (1998 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. White Females (n = 42) 90 80 70 60 50 -- 40 --  Actual  Goal 30 -- 20 -- 10 -- 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 LThe percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50**' percentile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Stanford 9 Exam - Grade (1998 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. White Males (n = 36) 100 90 80 70 60 50 --  Actual  Goal 40 -- 30 -- 20 -- 10 -- 0 T T T 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Baseline Data Baseline Grade Year Levels LRSD Indicators Goal Your Results Grotvth Goa/ Your Growth Your Score 98-99 7 Performance on SAT9. a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test At least 30% of a school's students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics. Af-Am(F)=3% Af-Am(M)=9% WF=43% WM=33% Other=100% Af-Am(F)=3% (2 students) Af-Am(M)=2% {2 students) 98-99 7 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test The percent of a school's students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. See above See above 4% 5% -2 -6At least 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics. Stanford 9 Exam - 7* Grade (1998 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated data on Stanford 9 mathematics exams as percentages. % in the highest quartile 120% 100% 100% 80% 80% 67% 60% 40% 30580% 20% - - 0% 3% 4% 9% i. Goal 61% 43/ 30% I T 0% Af-Am(F) Af-Am(M) WF (n = WM (n = Hisp. (n = As/Pac (n Other (n = (n = 67) (n = 86) 42) 36) 7) = 5) 6)  1998  1999The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Stanford 9 Exam - f** Grade (1998 baseline year) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. 35 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Goal The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Stanford 9 Exam - 7* Grade (1998 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. 35 30 25 20 15 10 0 5 African-American Males (n = 86) Goal 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Baseline Data Baseline Grade Year Levels LRSD Indicators Goal Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 98-99 7 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test At least 90% of a school's students will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics. Af-Am(F)=35% Af-Am(M)=44% WF=81% WM=81% Others=75% Af-Ann(F)=6% (4 students) Af-Am(M)=3% (2 students) WF=1% (1 student) WM=1% (1 student) 0=2% (1 student) 42% 44% 87% 95% 100% 98-99 7 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test The percent of a school's students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. See above See above -1 -3 5 13 23At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics. Stanford 9 Exams - V* Grade (1998 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated data on Stanford 9 mathematics exams as percentages. % above the lowest quartile 120% 100% 100% 100% 9O/O% 87% 86% 81/ 81V 80%  - 60%  -  1998  1999 42% 44*/4% 40% - - 20%  - 0% T 1 T T T T T Goal Af-Am(F) Af-Am(M) WF (n = WM(n= Hisp. (n= As/Pac (n Others (n (n = 67) (n = 86) 42) 36) 7) = 5) = 6)The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Stanford 9 Exam -1^'' Grade (1998 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. African-American Females (n = 67) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Goal The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Stanford 9 Exam - 7* Grade (1998 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. African-American Maies (n  86) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 -- 30 -- 20 -- 10 -- 0 T T 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008  Actual  GoalThe percent of a school's students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Stanford 9 Exam - 7* Grade (1998 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. White Females (n = 42) 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 -- 78 -- 76 T T 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008  Actual  GoalThe percent of a schools students performing above the lov^est quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Stanford 9 Exam - 7\" Grade (1998 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. White Males (n = 36) 100 95 90 85 80 -- 75 -- 70 ml 111111 !! Illi  Actual  Goal 11 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 LThe percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Stanford 9 Exam - 7* Grade (1998 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. Others (n = 6) 120 100 80 60 -- 40 -- 20 -- 0 T T  Actual  Goal 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 School Improvement Plan School: Dunbar Magnet Middle School Year: 2000 - 2001 Priority: Improve Student Achievement in Reading Supporting Data: The Stanford 9 exam showed that 2 disaggregated groups of students were 46% and 32% above the lowest quartile but only 1% and 0% respectfully, in the highest quartHe^ These above the 50th percentile. The lowest scores were in Reading Comprehension, notably Recreational, Textual, Punctuation and Sentence Structure continue to be weak points. Initial Understanding and Interpretation. Only 18% of the students were at or above the \"proficient\" level on the State Criterion-Referenced Literacy Exam. Goal(s): 100% of a school's students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level on the reading and writing literacy exam (grade 8 on the State criterion-referenced test). 65% of a school's students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50th percentile in reading (SAT9 - 7th grade). At least 30% of a school's students will perform at the highest quartile in reading (SAT9 - 7th grade). At least 90% of a school's students will perform above the lowest quartile in reading (SAT9 - 7th grade). 90% of a school's students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in reading each semester (grades 6-8 on the LRSD criterion-referenced reading test).School Improvement Plan School: Dunbar Magnet Middle School Year: 2000 - 2001 Priority: Improve Student Achievement in Reading, page 2 One-Year Benchmark(s): The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient- ievei in reading and writing iiteracs, on the criterion-referenced (grades 6-8 tests wiii meet or exceed the trend and improvement goais each year (grade 8 on the State criterion-referenced test). In 2000 - 2001 Dunbar students shall improve 8.2% to a total of 26.2%. This means that 17.5 students must improve to the \"proficient\" or above level this year. DATA NOT AVAILABLE UNTIL SEPTEMBER. The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50th percentile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year (SAT9 - 7th grade). In 2000 - 2001 Dunbar students shall improve at the following rates: Black Males need to improve 4%, to a total of 32% (this is a total of 4 students who need to improve)\nBlack Females need to improve 6%, to a total of 22% (this is a total of 6 students who need to improve). These are the rates of improvement needed to match the improvement goals\nmore growth, of course, is sought. The percent of a school's students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year (SAT9 - 7th grade). Dunbar students shall improve at the following rates: Black Males need to improve 3%. to a total of In 2000 - 2001 --------------------- 7% (this is a total of 3 students who need to improve)\nBlack Females need to improve 3%, to a total of 6% (this is a total of 2 students who need to improve). These are the rates of improvement needed to match the improvement goals\nmore growth, of course, is sought.School Improvement Plan School: Dunbar Magnet Middle School Year: 2000 - 2001 Priority: Improve Student Achievement in Reading, page 3 One-Year Benchmark(s): The percent of a school's students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year (SAT9 - 7th grade). In 2000 - 2001 Dunbar students shall improve at the following rates: Black Males need to improve 4%, to a total of 54% (this is a total of 4 students who need to improve)\nBlack Females need to improve 6%, to a total of 44% (this is a total of 4 students who need to improve)\nWhite Males need to improve 1%, to a total of 85% (this is a total of less than 1 student who needs to improve): White Females need to improve 1 %, to a total of 80% (this is a total of less than 1 student who needs to improve). These are the rates of improvement needed to match the improvement goals\nmore growth, of course, is sought. The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester (grades 6-8 on the LRSD criterion-referenced reading test). \"Proficient\" levels have not yet been determined. Charts show NWEA Medians, District Medians, and Dunbar Medians by grade level and subject for the Spring 2000 test. District-wide school comparisons are also included. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the reading pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year (grades 6-8 on the LRSD criterion-referenced reading test). The second series of tests have not yet been administered: growth goals are thus not available at this time. LSchool Improvement Plan School: Dunbar Magnet Middle School Year: 2000 - 2001 Intervention: Reading Across the Content Areas Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget 1. Establish block class scheduling to promote hands-on instructional techniques. Deborah Berry, Principal 1 Sept. Team study/block research. Development of a professional Library in the Media Center, Staff development in block scheduling/team teaching. $1,000 2. Establish common planning periods for each team in order to facilitate across the curriculum reading. Deborah Berry, Principal Team Leaders 1 Sept. See above, number 1. 3. Increase the amount of time students are engaged in on-task instruction. Administrative Team Calendar Coordinator 1 Sept. Bobcat Babble (Used to schedule announcements.) School calendar done monthly. 4. Establish the use of learning logs and daily use of agendas across the curriculum. Team Leaders 1 Sept. Agendas, Notebooks Money spent on the agendas will be reimbursed through agenda sales. 5. Increase the circulation of books, etc., in the Media Center. Martha James, Media Specialist Team Leaders Reading Teachers 15 Sept. Media Center, Media resources. Library Use instruction by Media Specialist. District Media BudgetSchool Improvement Plan School: Dunbar Magnet Middle School Year: 2000 - 2001 Intervention: Reading Across the Content Areas, page 2 Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget 6. Identify and plan remediation for those incoming 6th grade students who score in the bottom quartile in reading on last year's Sth grade Stanford 9 exams. Mr. Acre and Ms. Slater, Counselors Aug. 10 Individuals and their scores provided by Dr. Lesley's office. 7. Use curriculum mapping to ensure that reading will be stressed in all areas. Steering Committee Team Leaders Begin 1 Nov. Curriculum Maps, Professional Library 8. Design, in collaboration with representative parents, a plan that involves parents in the reading component of the content areas. Deborah Berry, Principal Parent Mathematics Committee Begin 1 Nov. PTSA, Parent Reading Committee 9. Design school, as well as individual team, incentives for improvement. Steering Committee Team Leaders Begin 1 Nov. Depends on the incentives developed. Again, the budget will depend on the incentives selected. 10. Discuss School Improvement (re: reading) in every faculty meeting. Deborah Berry, Principal Begin with Nov. Fac. Meeting Faculty Meeting Agendas, Professional Library 11. Monitor the entire plan and make needed adjustments to ensure Deborah Berry, Principal Ongoing Team Meeting Agendas improvement before the April Benchmark Team Leaders examinations.School Improvement Plan School: Dunbar Magnet Middle School Year: 2000-2001 Intervention: Reading Across the Content Areas, page 3 Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources District Title I Budget Budget APIG/Other Budget 12. Conduct summative evaluations of the Campus Leadership June plan and its implementation\nmake adjustments for next year. Team Synthesis from Team Meeting AgendasBaseline Data Baseline Year Grade Levels LRSD Indicators Goal Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 2000-2001 all LRSD Criterion-Referenced The percent of students performing at or Reading and Language Usage above the \"proficient\" level in Reading and Tests Language Usage will meet or exceed the trends and improvement goals each semester. \"PROFICIENT' LEVELS HAVE NOT BEEN DETERMINED. THE SECOND SERIES OF TESTS HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN, AND NO TREND DATA IS AVAILABLE. CHARTS SHOWING CURRENT DATA ARE INCLUDED, HOWEVER.The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in Reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. LRSD Criterion-Referenced Mathematics Test Spring, 2000 This chart shows Median Scores. READING - GRADE 6 218 212 216----- 214  212----- 210----- 208 ----- 2fla 211  Spring 2000 206 ----- 204 T NWEA LRSD Dunbar Medians Medians MediansLRSD Achievement Level Tests - Spring 2000 (Average Scores) Reading - Grade 6 220 215 215 210 209 211 210 203 205 -- 204 200  195 195 -- 190 -- 185 (0 c  Q c c ra CL in g  T T T T I 213 202 T T I T T oThe percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in Language Usage will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. LRSD Criterion-Referenced Mathematics Test Spring, 2000 This chart shows Median Scores. LANGUAGE USAGE - GRADE 6 217 216 216 215----- 214----- 213----- 212----- 212 213  Spring 2000 211----- 210 T NWEA LRSD Dunbar Medians Medians Medians LLRSD Achievement Level Tests - Spring 2000 (Average Scores) Language Usage - Grade 6 250 212 200 1  213 219 215 212 210 204 209 150 -- 100  50  0 T T T T T T T T 6^'The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in Reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. LRSD Criterion-Referenced Mathematics Test Spring, 2000 This chart shows Median Scores. READING - GRADE 7 222 221 2ia 220 -  218----- 216----- 214----- 212----- 210----- 208 212  Spring 2000 T T NWEA LRSD Dunbar Medians Medians MediansLRSD Achievement Level Tests - Spring 2000 (Average Scores) Reading - Grade 7 220 219 216 215 210  205 -- 200 -- 195 211 210 210 209 206 T T T T T T T T xOThe percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in Language Usage will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. LRSD Criterion-Referenced Mathematics Test Spring, 2000 This chart shows Median Scores. LANGUAGE USAGE - GRADE 7 223 222 221 220 1222 22e 219----- 218----- 217----- 216----- 215 -   Spring 2000 24^ 214----- 213 T T NWEA LRSD Dunbar Medians Medians MediansLRSD Achievement Level Tests - Spring 2000 (Average Scores) Language Usage - Grade 7 225 222 221 220 216 215T\"  210  205  200 T\" \u0026lt;\u0026lt; 217 209 212 O' XV / T T T T T T T oThe percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient level in Reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. LRSD Criterion-Referenced Mathematics Test Spring, 2000 This chart shows Median Scores. READING - GRADE 8 226 22^ 224 ----- 222 -  220 ----- 218----- 216----- 214------ 212----- 210 211  Spring 2000 T 7TC T NWEA LRSD Dunbar Medians Medians Medians LLRSD Achievement Level Tests - Spring 2000 (Average Scores) Reading - Grade 8 250 216 217 222 218 212 214 208 211 200  150  100  50  0 T T T T T T T TThe percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in Language Usage will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. LRSD Criterion-Referenced Mathematics Test Spring, 2000 This chart shows Median Scores. LANGUAGE USAGE - GRADE 8 224 223 222 -  221  220 ----- 219----- 218----- 217 -  216 -   Spring 2000 215 T T NWEA LRSD Dunbar Medians Medians MediansLRSD Achievement Level Tests - Spring 2000 (Average Scores) Language Usage - Grade 8 250 218 218 225 219 215 215 210 214 200  150  100  50 -- 0 T T T T T T T T 4^Baseline Data Baseline Grade Year Levels LRSD Indicators Goal Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 98-99 7 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test 65% of a school's students in every subgroup of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50th percentile in reading. Af-Am(F)=10% Af-Am(F)=6% Af-Am(M)=24% (6 students) 21% 5 98-99 7 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test WF=71% VVM=67% Others=80% Af-Am(M)=4% (4 students) 24% The percent of students in every subgroup of race and gender performing at or above the 50th percentile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. See above See above65% of a schools students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50 percentile in reading. Stanford 9 Exam - 7* Grade (1998 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated data on Stanford 9 reading exams as percentages. % at or above 50th percentile 120% 100% 100% 90% 81% 80% 80% 71^ 65/5% 67/ 71% 60%  -  1998  1999 40%  - [3%r 20% - - 0% Goal 21% 24%M% II T T 1 Af-Am(F) Af-Am(M) (n = 2) WM (n  Hisp. (n = As/Pac (n Others (n (n = 67) (n = 86) 36) 7) = 5) = 6)The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50* percentile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Stanford 9 Exam - 7* Grade (1998 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. African-American Females (n = 67) 70 50 40 30 20 10 0 60 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008  Actual  Goal The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50* percentile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Stanford 9 Exam - 7*'' Grade (1998 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. African-American Males (n = 86) 70 60 50 40 30  Actual  Goal 20 -- 10 -- 0 T 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Baseline Data Baseline Grade Year Levels LRSD Indicators Goal Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 98-99 7 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test At least 30% of a school's students will perfonn at the highest quartile in reading. Af-Am(F)=0% Af-Am(M)=1% WF=40% WM=39% Others=50% Af-Am(F)=3% (2 students) Af-Am(M)=3% (3 students) 7% 6% 4 2 98-99 7 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test The percent of a school's students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. See above See aboveAt least 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in reading. Stanford 9 Exam -1*'' Grade (1998 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated data on Stanford 9 reading exams as percentages. /. in the highest quartile 80% 74% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40/. 30/. 30/30% 40/ 39/  1998  1999 20/. 10/. 0/. 3% 0/. 04 T T T T Goal Af-Am(F) Af-Am{M) WF (n = WM (n = Hisp. (n = As/Pac (n Others (n (n = 67) (n = 86) 42) 36) 7) = 5) = 2)The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Stanford 9 Exam - 7* Grade (1998 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. African-American Females (n = 67) 35 30 25 20 15  Actual  Goal 10 5 0 T 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 LThe percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Stanford 9 Exam - 7* Grade (1998 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. African-American Males (n = 86) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 35 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Goal L Baseline Data Baseline Grade Year Levels LRSD Indicators Goal Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 98-99 7 Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test At least 90% of a school's students w/ill perform above the lowest quartile in reading. Af-Ani(F)=6% Af-Am(M)=46% (4 students) WF=78% 39% 1 WM=83% Af-Am(M)=4% 46% 98-99 7 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test The percent of a school's students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 0thers=100% (4 students) See above WF=1% (1 student) WM=1% (1 student) See above 84% 98% 5 14 LAt least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in reading. Stanford 9 Exam - 7* Grade (1998 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated data on Stanford 9 reading exams as percentages. % above the lowest quartile 120% 100% 98% 100% 100% 90\u0026lt;y0% 80%  - 84% 78*/^ 83/ 86% 17% 60%  -  1998  1999 46\u0026lt;S6% 40% - - 39% 20% - - 0% T T T Goal Af-Am(F) Af-Am(M) WF (n = WM(n= Hisp. (n= As/Pac (n Others (n (n = 67) (n = 86) 42) 36) 7) = 5) = 2)The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Stanford 9 Exam - Grade (1998 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. African-American Females (n = 67) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Goal The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Stanford 9 Exam - 1**' Grade (1998 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. African-American Males (n = 86) 100 90 80 70 60 50  Actual  Goal 40 - 30 -- 20 -- 10 -- 0 T T 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Stanford 9 Exam - T*** Grade (1998 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. White Females (n = 42) 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Goal The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Stanford 9 Exam - 7* Grade (1998 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. White Males (n = 36) 100 95 90  Actual  Goal 85 80 -- 75 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Baseline Data Baseline Grade Year Levels State Indicators Goal Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 99-00 8 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test 100% of a school's students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in grade 8 reading and writing literacy. School=18% Af-Am(F)=4% Af-Am(M)=2% White(F)=53% School=8.2% (17.5 students) Af-Am(F)=9.6% White(M)=32.5% (6.8 students) Hisp(F)33% Hisp(M)=0% Af-Am(M)=9.8% As/Pac(F)=25% (5 students) As/Pac(M)=43% White(F)=4.7% (2.5 students) VVhite(M)=6.75% {2.7 students) Hisp(F)=6.7% (.2 students) Hisp(M)=10% (.4 students) As/Pac(F)=7.5% {.3 students) 99-00 8 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. See above Data not available until September. As/Pac(M)=5.7% (.4 students) See aboveM 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grade 8 reading and writing literacy. ACTAP - S* Grade State Mandated Criterion-Referenced Literacy Test (1999 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated data on State Criterion-Referenced Literacy Exams as percentages. % at or above \"proficient\" 120 100 100 80  60 -- 51 43  1999 40  11 20 -- 0 T 18 4 T 25 2 0 T T T T cP' n\u0026gt; A^^ V** / z Z ^3^ .s\u0026lt; The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. ACTAP - 8* Grade State Mandated Criterion-Referenced Literacy Test (1999 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. School (n = 214) 120 100 80 60  Actual  Goal 40 20 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. ACTAP - 8* Grade State Mandated Criterion-Referenced Literacy Test (1999 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. African-American Females (n = 71) 120 100 60 40 20 0 80 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009  Actual  Goal The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. ACTAP - S* Grade State Mandated Criterion-Referenced Literacy Test (1999 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. African-American Males (n = 51) 120 100 80 60  Actual  Goal 40 20  0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. ACTAP - 8* Grade State Mandated Criterion-Referenced Literacy Test (1999 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. White Females (n = 30) 120 100 80 60  Actual  Goal 40 -- 20 -- 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. ACTAP - 8* Grade State Mandated Criterion-Referenced Literacy Test (1999 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. White Males (n = 40) 120 100 80 60  Actual  Goal 40 20 -- 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. ACTAP - 8* Grade State Mandated Criterion-Referenced Literacy Test (1999 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. Hispanic Females (n = 3) 120 100 80 60  Actual  Goal 40 20 -- 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. ACTAP - 8* Grade State Mandated Criterion-Referenced Literacy Test (1999 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. Hispanic Males (n = 4) 120 100 80 60  Actual  Goal 40 20 0 T 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. ACTAP - 8' Grade State Mandated Criterion-Referenced Literacy Test (1999 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. Asian/Pacific isiander Femaies (n = 4) 120 100 80 60  Actual  Goal 40 20 -- 0 -l-LJ 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. ACTAP - S* Grade State Mandated Criterion-Referenced Literacy Test (1999 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated trend and improvement goals as percentages. Asian/Pacific Islander Males (n = 7) 120 100 80 60  Actual  Goal 40 20 -- 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009School Improvement Plan School: Dunbar Magnet Middle School Year\n2000-2001 Priority: Improve Student Success In Academic and Non-Academic Areas Supporting Data: In 1998 - 99 discipline reports were down to 48 from the previous year's total of 401. Further reduction is needed for male students (41 of the 48 reports). The Stanford 9 exams show below average scores .H in Thinking Skills and Listening Comprehension, with improvement needed in Total Study Skills. 18 students were reported as drop-outs last year. Only 18% of the students were at or above proficient on the State criterion-referenced Literacy Exam. Only 14% of the students were at or above \"proficient on the State criterion-referenced Mathematics Exam. Goal(s): At least 99% of secondary students will remain in school to complete the 8th grade. Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%. 100% of a school's classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. 100% of a school's certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development. Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. 65% of a middle school's students will be enrolled in at least one Pre-AP course each year. 90% of a middle school's students will be enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8. LSchool Improvement Plan School: Dunbar Magnet Middle School Year: 2000 - 2001 Priority: Improve Student Success In Academic and Non-Academic Areas, page 2 One-Year Benchmark(s): Secondary schools will improve the percentage of students who stay in school to complete the 8th grade (the State Indicator is 12th grade). Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate. Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually. The percent of students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP course each year will meet or exceed the trend goal. The percent of students enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8 will meet or exceed the trend goal each year.Baseline Data Baseline Grade Year Levels State Indicators Goal Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 2000-2001 all School Dropout At least 99% of secondary students will remain in school to complete the 12th grade. 100% 0% 2000-2001 all Average Daily Attendance Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%. 98% 0% 2000-2001 all Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher 100% of a school's classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. 97% 0.30% 2000-2001 all Professional Development 100% of a school's certified staff- will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development. 100% 0% 2000-2001 all School Safety Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. 1 incident avoid 1 incidentBaseline Data Baseline Year Grade Levels LRSD Indicators Goal Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 2000-2001 all Enrollment in Pre-AP Courses 65% of a middle school's students will be enrolled in at least one Pre-AP course each year. 63% 0.20% (1.4 students) 2000-2001 8 Enrollment in Algebra I by grade 8 90% of a middle school's students will be enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8. 12% 7.80% (56 students) LSchool Improvement Plan School: Dunbar Magnet Middle School Year: 2000 - 2001 Intervention: Students Shall Develop Positive Success Patterns Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget 1. Design, in collaboration with representative parents, a plan to increase student attendance. Campus Leadership Team, Parent Team 1 Dec. ERIC, Professional Library, Internet, NCA materials 2. Increase parent involvement in team counseling sessions. Team Leaders 15 Sept. 3. Increase the amount of time the counselors are directly involved with students. Mr. Acre and Ms. Slater, Counselors 1 Nov. 4. Establish incentives and rewards for positive behavior. Team Leaders Administrative Team 1 Dec. ERIC, NCA materials Depends on the incentives and rewards established. 5. Begin instruction in test-taking/study skills in each team and/or homeroom. Team Leaders, Home Room Teachers, Mr. Acre and Ms. Slater, Counselors 15 Sept. Videos, Internet, ERIC, NCA materials 6. Broaden the scope of the peer mediation program. 1 Dec. Peer Mediation Coordinator, Administrative Team Peer mediation materials and training for both students and faculty.School Improvement Plan School: Dunbar Magnet Middle School Year: 2000-2001 Intervention: Students Shall Develop Positive Success Patterns, page 2 Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources District Title I Budget Budget APIG/Other Budget 7. Include special groups of students (ESL and Special Education) in established teams. Administrative Team Ms. Carr, ESL Coordinator, Ms. Davis and Mr. Shavers, Special Education 15 Sept 8. Discuss School Improvement (re: student success) in every faculty meeting. Deborah Berry. Principal Begin with Nov. Fac. Meeting Faculty Meeting Agendas, Professional Library 9. Monitor the entire plan and make needed adjustments to ensure continued growth and improvement toward positive success patterns. Deborah Berry, Principal Team Leaders Ongoing Team Meeting Agendas 10. Conduct summative evaluations of the plan and its implementation\nmake adjustments for next year. Campus Leadership Team June Synthesis from Team Meeting Agendas. L 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grade 8 mathematics. ACTAP - 8* Grade State Mandated Criterion-Referenced Mathematics Test (1999 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated data on State Criterion-Referenced Math Exams as percentages. % at or above \"proficient\" 120 100 100 80  60 -- 57.1  1999 39 40  20  14 1.6 1.4 eP' I  0 0 0 0 T T T T T 5$*  L . zACTAP - 8* Grade State-Mandated Criterion-Referenced Mathematics Test 1999 This chart presents the percentages disaggregated by race and gender as well as the total for Dunbar Magnet. The State goal for ff this test is 100% at or above \"proficient. Percentages 100 90 80 70 60 -n 50 - 40 - 30 - 20 - 10 - 0 BE I  Below Basic  Basic  Proficient  Advanced z z  55^ vS\" ' / ** V (S'- z rIt 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grade 8 reading and writing literacy. ACTAP - 8*'' Grade State Mandated Criterion-Referenced Literacy Test (1999 baseline year) This chart shows disaggregated data on State Criterion-Referenced Literacy Exams as percentages. % at or above \"proficient\" 120 100 100 80  60 -- 52L 43  1999 40 -- 20 -- 0 T 18 2 4 T T 32A 31 25 T 0 T T T z  z z A'V IP z  z.ACTAP - 8* Grade State-Mandated Criterion-Referenced Reading and Writing Literacy Test 1999 This chart presents the percentages disaggregated by race and gender as well as the total for Dunbar Magnet. The State goal for this  test is 100% at or above \"proficient. Percentages 120 100 80 60 40 - 20 - lllll T\u0026gt; o* 'S'* 'S'* rr 4- SC'  Below Basic  Basic  Proficient  Advanced 0 T A T T Lv\"\" GRADE STUDENTS Stanford 9 Exams - Content Clusters (Total School) These charts show NCE percentages. 1998-99 N = 236 1999-00 N = 198 Reading Vocabulary (30 items) 60 50 40 as. 30-- 20 -- 10-- Below Average 56 56 Average 25 Above Average  1998/99 44  1999/00 0 Reading Vocabulary - Synonyms (16 items) 50 46 \u0026lt;5 44 40-- 30-- 20-- 10 -- 25 Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average 44 0 Reading Vocabulary - Context (7 items) 80 64-6fr 60 40 20 0 T Below Average Average JSL TT  1998/99  1999/00 Above Average Reading Vocabulary - Multiple Meanings (7 items) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 46-21 Below Average 60.IT Average Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 ?\" GRADE STUDENTS Stanford 9 Exams - Content Clusters (Total School) These charts show NCE percentages. 1998-99 N = 236 1999-00 N = 198 Reading Comprehension (54 items) 50 40 35 30-- 20-- 10-- Below Average 47 47 Average TF Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 21 0 Reading Comprehension - Recreationai (18 items) 60 50 40 ee 30-- 20- - 10- Below Average 4-60. Average TT21 Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 0 Reading Comprehension - Textual (18 items) 50 40 30 20 10 0 47 jU. Average  1998/99  1999/00 Above Average Below Average Reading Comprehension - Functional (18 items) 50 40 30 20 10 0 46 Average  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Above Average t\"\" grade students Stanford 9 Exams - Content Clusters (Total School) These charts show NCE percentages. 1998-99 N = 236 1999-00 N = 198 Reading Comprehension - Initial Understanding (12 items) SO 40 30 20 10 0 45 TT 36  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average Reading Comprehension - Interpretation (24 items) SO -42. 44^ 40-- 30-- 20-- 10-  1998/99  1999/00 0 Below Average Average Above Average Reading Comprehension - Critical Analysis (9 items) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 tr 22. Below Average 56 57 Average Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 Reading Comprehension * Process Strategies (9 items) 60 50 40 sr 30- 20-- 10 -- Below Average 4 53 TT a  1998/99  1999/00 Average Above Average 0t\"\" grade students Stanford 9 Exams - Content Clusters (Total School) These charts show NCE percentages. 1998-99 N = 236 1999-00 N = 198 Math: Problem Solving (48 items) 50 40 37 46 137 30  20  - 10   1998/99  1999/00 17 0 Below Average Average Above Average Math: Problem Solving - Measurement (6 items) SO 40 3g-4e 36 30-- 20-- 10--  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average 1? 0 Math: Problem Solving - Estimation (6 items) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ee Below Average AS 33]  1998/99  1999/00 Average Above Average 40. Math: Problem Solving - Problem- Solving Strategies (5 items) 60 so 40 30 20 10 0 ST IT  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average M * 7\" GRADE STUDENTS Stanford 9 Exams - Content Clusters (Total Sehool) These charts show NCE percentages. 1998-99 N = 236 1999-00 N = 198 Math: Problem Solving - Number and No. Relationships (6 items) 50 40 30 20 10 0 Below Average Average Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 Math: Problem Solving - Number Systems and No. Theory (5 items) 60 50  51 40- - 30-- 20-- 10 -  1998/99  1999/00 0 Below Average Average Above Average Math: Problem Solving - Patterns and Functions (3 items) 100 80 60 40 20 0 *-|T I  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average Math: Problem Solving - Algebra (3 items) 80 60 40 20 0 Average  1998/99  1999/00 Above Average Below Average 7 GRADE STUDENTS Stanford 9 Exams - Content Clusters (Total School) These charts show NCE percentages. 1998-99 N = 236 1999-00 N = 198 Math: Problem Solving - Statistics (6 items) 60 SO 40 30-- 20-- 10 -- Below Average 2. 181  1998/99  1999/00 Average Above Average 0 Math: Problem Solving - Probability (3 items) 50 40 30 a- 25 47 381 20- - 10 --  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average SZ 0 Math: Problem Solving - Geometry (7 items) 80 60 40 20 0 66 16 46-  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average Math: Procedures (30 items) 50 47 46 40  - 30- 20-- 10-- 381  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average 0f GRADE STUDENTS Stanford 9 Exams - Content Clusters (Total Sehool) These charts show NCE percentages. 1998-99 N = 236 1999-00 N = 198 Math: Procedures - Computation/Symbolic Notation (10 items) 60 40 20 0 47 46 Average  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Above Average Math: Procedures - Computation in Context (16 items) 50 40 44 M. 30-- 20  10  0 3-4\u0026amp;  1998/99  1999/00 T Below Average Average ' Above Average Math: Procedures - Rounding (4 items) 50 44 40  M 30  20 - - 10  4e-9  1998/99  1999/00 2? 0 Below Average Average Above Average Language (48 items) 60 w 50 40 30-- 20-- 10- 45 a* Below Average Average tb\nAbove Average  1998/99  1999/00 H. 0 7 GRADE STUDENTS Stanford 9 Exams - Content Clusters (Total School) These charts show NCE percentages. 1998-99 N = 236 1999-00 N = 198 Language - Capitalization (8 items) 80 60 40 20 0 55 2aJ2 XJ2  1998/99  1999/00 T Below Average Average Above Average Language - Punctuation (8 items) 60 50 40 30-- 20-- 42.  1998/99  1999/00 10 0 Below Average Average Above Average mT Language - Usage (8 items) 60 50 40 30 20-- 10-- Below Average 56 52 ---- 32 16,  1998/99  1999/00 Average Above Average 0 Language - Sentence Structure (12 items) 46 44 50 40 -3 I** 30- 20-- 10- 25 15i  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average 0 T*\" GRADE STUDENTS Stanford 9 Exams - Content Clusters (Total School) These charts show NCE percentages. 1998-99 N = 236 1999-00 N = 198 Language - Content and Organization (12 items) 50 40 30 20 10 0 46 3S -34-M  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average T Spelling (30 items) 60 50 40 30 20  - 10 -- w\n25  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average 0 Spelling - Homophones (5 items) 60 50 \"48----- r** 40- - 30-- 20-- 10-- 36 3jr TT a*  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average 0 Spelling - Phonetic Principles (10 items) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 4e-tT Below Average -SC 31 Al  1998^9  1999/00 Average Above Average 42.7*'' GRADE STUDENTS Stanford 9 Exams - Content Clusters (Total School) These charts show NCE percentages. 1998-99 N = 236 1999-00 N = 198 Spelling - Structural Principles (10 items) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 40-ee- Below Average 57 54 Average Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 Spelling  No Mistake (5 items) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 56 Average  1998^9  1999/00 Above Average Below Average Study Skills (30 items) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 aa 23 Below Average -64 .44 Average Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 Study Skills - Library/Reference Skills (17 items) 50 40 30 20 10 0 34 33. Below Average 45 -34 sr  1998/99  1999/00 Average Above Average 7* GRADE STUDENTS Stanford 9 Exams - Content Clusters (Total School) These charts show NCE percentages. 1998-99 N = 236 1999-00 N = 198 Study Skills - Information Skills (13 items) 80 60 40 20 0 57 I?  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average Science (40 items) 50 40 4 30- - 20-- 10 -- nr 45 4  1998/99  1999/00 137 0 Below Average Average Above Average Science - Earth \u0026amp; Space Science (12 items) eo 50 40 30 20 10 0 xr 22. Below Average -e-wr Average 2S' Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 JX Science - Physical Science (14 items) 50 40 sr 42. 35 30- - 20- - 10 - -  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average 0v\"\" GRADE STUDENTS Stanford 9 Exams - Content Clusters (Total School) These charts show NCE percentages. 1998-99 N = 236 1999-00 N = 198 Science - Life Science (14 items) 50 40 30  20  10  rstr -at- 27  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average M 0 Science - Science Process Skills (30 items) SO 46 45 44 40-- 30-- 20- - 10-- T 25  19989  1999/00 50 40 Below Average Average Above Average Social Science (40 items) 38 36 30-- 20-- 10   1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average 0 0 r Social Science - History (10 items) 50 40 38 3ff Mfr JI 30  20   1998/99  1999/00 10 -- 0 Below Average Average Above Average 7\"* GRADE STUDENTS Stanford 9 Exams - Content Clusters (Total School) These charts show NCE percentages. 1998-99 N = 236 1999-00 N = 198 Social Science - Geography (9 items) 50 40 30-- 20-- -40 47 a* 16  1998/99  1999/00 10 -- 0 Below Average Average Above Average Social Science - Civics \u0026amp; Government (8 items) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Average  1998/99  1999/00 Above Average Below Average Social Science  Economics (8 items) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 53 46-^  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average 14 75^ Social Science - Culture (5 items) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 62.6* Average Above Average  1998^9  1999/00 Below Average 7 GRADE STUDENTS Stanford 9 Exams - Content Clusters (Total School) These charts show NCE percentages. 1998-99 N = 236 1999-00 N = 198 Listening (40 items) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average Listening: Vocabulary (10 items) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 25   1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average ' Above Average ^8^ Listening: Comprehension (30 items) 80 60 40 20 0 34 Below Average 54 to Average 12 TV  1998/99  1999/00 Above Average Listening: Comprehension - Recreational (10 items) 80 60 40 20 0 32 ----- Below Average -es JL. 14  1998/99  1999/00 Average Above Average I7\"* GRADE STUDENTS Stanford 9 Exams - Content Clusters (Total School) These charts show NCE percentages. 1998-99 N = 236 1999-00 N = 198 Listening: Comprehension - Informational (10 items) 50 40 35 44 43 30-- 20-- 10-  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average 44 4i 0 T Listening: Comprehension - Functional (10 items) 80 60 40 20 0 r aj\u0026gt; 11 12  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average ,3iL. Listening: Comprehension - Initial Understanding (10 items) 80 60 40 20 0 32 Below Average srT Average 17 Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 Listening: Comprehension - Interpretation (14 items) 50 40 30-- 20- - 10 -- Below Average 44*5 Average Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 1? 0?\" GRADE STUDENTS Stanford 9 Exams - Content Clusters (Total School) These charts show NCE percentages. 1998-99 N = 236 1999-00 N = 198 Listening: Comprehension - Critical Analysis/Strategies (6 items) 80 60 40 20 0 3T 3Z. Below Average 9- 68 Average Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 Using Information (69 items) 60 50 40 30 29 29 20-- 10 -- Below Average Average se- Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 4? 1^ 0 Thinking Skills (229 items) 50 40 38 45 4T 1? 30-- 20- 10 -- \u0026gt;7  1998^9  1999/00 0 Below Average Average Above Average7* GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. READING VOCABULARY (30 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 60 50 45 ----- 55 55 40  30  20   1998/99  1999/00 10 - 0  7 Below Average Average Above Average African-American Males 80 60 551 SB 40T 20  Below Average Average Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 0 White Females 80 Vt- 60 40 20 -10- Below Average PIS' 55  1998/99  1999/00 Average Above Average 0 0 White Males 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ee 45 55  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average  GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. READING VOCABULARY - Synonyms (16 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36), 1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 80 -6fr 60- - IfiL 40- -  1998/99  1999/00 20- - 0 T 0 T Below Average Average Above Average African-American Males 60 56 50-- 40- - 30- - MM 20-- 10 --  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average  T 0 White Females 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -IS J. Below Average S2. Average  1998/99  1999/00 Above Average White Males SX 0 20- 10-- 60 50 40 30 55 Below Average Average Above Average  1998^9  1999/00 7* GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. READING VOCABULARY - Context (7 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 80 60 40 37 81 11  1998/99  1999/00 20.- 1 T 0 Below Average Average Above Average African-American Males 80 76 60 40 20 35 120 Below Average 62l Z~T Average Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 0 White Females 80 6^ 60 40 20 17 e Below Average 55 Average 39 Above Average  1998/99  1999ffm 0 White Males 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -14- a2. Below Average 64 48-  19989  1999/00 Average Above Average 7*** GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. READING VOCABULARY - Multiple Meanings (7 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3r 241  1998/99 21  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average African-American Males 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Below Average Average  1998/99  1999/00 Above Average White Females 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 45 55 55  19989  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average T  White Males 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Average 01998/99  1999/00 Below Average Above Average 7^** GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. READING COMPREHENSION (54 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36), 1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 60 50 -61 I*\" 56 40- - 30-- 20-- 10 --  1998/99  1999/00 0 Below Average Average Above Average African-American Males 60 50 42 40-- 30-- 20-- 10 -- 0 -fT  19989  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average White Females 70 60 SO 40 30 20 10 0 41  1998^9  1999/00 21 Below Average Average Above Average White Males 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2. Below Average ee 45 Average 42 Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 JA7*** GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. [1998/99 n READE^G COMPREHENSION - Recreational (18 items) = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42) Wte Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 60 50 jnr 46 -as 40-- 30- - 20- - 10- 6^  1998/99  1999/00 0 Below Average Average Above Average African-American Males 60 50-- 40._ 30- 20- -Wf 45  19989  1999/00 10-- 0 Below Average Average Mioye Kyorago White Females 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 57 Average Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average White Males 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 IT Below Average 53 6a A3. Above Average  1998^9  1999/00 AMoraga GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. READING COMPREHENSION - Textual (18 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 60 50 40-- 30-- 20 -- 10- 135 Below Average 56 r  1998/99  1999/00 Average Above Average 0 African-American Males 60 50 40 47 30- 20- 10 -- 0  1998^9  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average White Females 80 40 20 0 60 Average  1998^9  1999/00 Below Average Above Average White Males 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Al jbz  19989  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average i. 7^** GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. READING COMPREHENSION - Functional (18 items) [1998/99 n - African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 60 50 tr 40- - 30- - 20- -   1998/99  1999/00 10- 0 Below Average Average Above Average African-American Males I 60 50 40 30- - 20-- 10 - Below Average JS i* 43. 16  1998/99  1999/00 Average Above Average 0 White Females n 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -4 res  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average ss ^4 13 White Males 60 50 40 30 20 w 55 44 AS 36^  1998^9  1999/00 4. 10-- 0 Below Average Kyenge Above Average7* GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. READB^G COMPREHENSION - Initial Understanding (12 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 se  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average African-American Males 60 50 40 MeTe- 30-- 20--  1998/99  1999/00 10-- 0 Below Average Average Above Average White Females 80 60 40 33 |1  1998/99  1999n\u0026gt;0 20 Below Average Average Above Average 2L11 0 White Males 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 64  1998ra9  1999/00 41 T r21 Below Average Average Above Average7* GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. READE^G COMPREHENSION - Interpretation (24 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 70 60 se 50-- 40-- 30-- 20  - 144 AS  1998/99  1999/00 10- zz Below Average Average Above Average 0 T African-American Males 60 54 55 50-- 40-- 30- 42. 20-- 10 -  1998^9  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average T 0 White Females 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ini Below Average Average se Above Average White Males  1998/99  1999nX) 60 50 40 30 20-- 10- SO-JB- 32 Average  1998/99  1999/00 Above Average Below Average 0 7* GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. READESG COMPREHENSION - Critical Analysis (9 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 70 60 50 40 30- - 20-- 10- - Below Average 54 -e 1S Average Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 0 African-American Males 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 st se T-r  1998ra9  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average . I-M t White Females 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 45 ee 45  1998/99  1999/00 Below /kyarage Average Above Average 6 White Males 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -8- D 3. Below Average se IT  1998/99  1999/00 Average Above Average7** GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. READING COMPREHENSION - Process Strategies (9 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 70 60 se 54 50- - 40- - 30- - 20- - 10- -  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average  0 African-American Males 60 50 40 30-- 20-- 10 -- Below Average 55 -64- a Average Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 vr 5 0 White Females 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 60 50 40 30 20 57 26 Ji Below Average Average 10- sr Above Average White Males IT Average  1998/99  1999/00 Above Average Below Average  1998/99  1999/00 0 TF 7^ GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. MATH: PROBLEMSOLVING (48 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 60 56 4^ SO- AO 30  20- - 10 --  1998/99  1999/00 0 Below Average Average Above Average African-American Males 60 SO 46 i*- 40  30  20  10   1998/99  1999/00 0 Below Average Average Above Average White Females 80 21 60 40 20 14 1 Below Average 40 51  1998/99  1999/00 Average Above Average 41 0 White Males 70 60 SO 40 30 20 10 0 -U- 2. Below Average Average 64 31 Above Average  19989  1999/007^ GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. MATH: PROBLEM SOLVING - Measurement (6 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 70 60 se-w 50-- 40- - 30  20  10  TB-sr  1998/99  1999/00 0 Below Average Average Above Average African-American Males 70 60 50 40- 30- 20  10  Below Average 4 14  1998/99  1999/00 Average Above Average [31 T 0 T White Females 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 J3. 55  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average H 13 White Males 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 w 3i  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average T? 7* GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. MATH: PROBLEM SOLVING - Estimation (4 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 60 sx 50- - 40- - 30- 20- 44  19989  1999/00 T 10- 0 Below Average Average Above Average African-American Males 60 50 40 30-- 20 -- 10 - Below Average 55 145 16  1998/99  1999/00 Average Above Average 5 0 White Females 50 40 30 20 10 0 Average  1998/99  1999/00 Above Average Below Average White Males 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Average  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Above Average 7^^ GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. MATH: PROBLEM SOLVING - Problem Solving Strategies (5 items) 11998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 60 50 ^8^ 40- - 30-- 20-- 10- 0  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average African-American Males 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -S9-  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average W7 41 T 2. White Females 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 57 Average  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Above Average White Males 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 64 Average  1998/99  1999/00 Above Average Below Average 7** GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. MATH: PROBLEM SOLVK4G - Number \u0026amp; No. Relationships (6 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36), 1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females so 48 40- - 30- 20- - 36 18 18  1998ra9  1999/00 10 -- 0 Below Average Average Above Average African-American Males 50 40 30- 20-- 10- - 46 47  1998/99  1999/00 0 Below Average Average Above Average White Females 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 .14 11 Below Average 44. IT Average Above Average  1998^9  1999/00 44 White Males 80 60 40 20 0 74 Average  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Above Average 7**' GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. MATH: PROBLEM SOLVING - Number Systems \u0026amp; No. Theory (5 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 70 60 61 SB 50-- 40-- 30-- 20-- 10--  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average 3r3T 0 African-American Males 60 S4 53 SO-AO- - 40-62. 30- - 20 -- 10-- White Females  1998/99  1999/00 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 55 24 IT OX Average  1998/99  1999/00 Above Average 80 60 40 20 Below Average White Males 76 58 22 19 19  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average 0 0 I 5 s \u0026gt; a 5e 5 \u0026amp; S a A  T 7*^ GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. MATH: PROBLEM SOLVING - Patterns \u0026amp; Functions (3 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 80 71 70 60 40 20 asaa.  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average 0 0 0 T African-American Males 100 80 60 40 20 0 76 78 TT Below Average Average Above Average  1998/99 e* 22  1999/00 T White Females 100 80 60 40 20 0 9-fr Below Average 95 94 DO Average Above Average  1998/99 a  1999/00 White Males 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 T7 Below Average -BA toe Average Above Average  1998/99  1999/00  1 7^** GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. MATH: PROBLEM SOLVING - Algebra (3 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 80 zo. 60 40 20 Below Average Average Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 0 W African-American Males 60 40 20 0 80 Average  1998/99  1999/00 Above Average Below Average White Females 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 22 4W sr  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average ZZi White Males 70 60 SO 40 30 20 10 0 S8- IS 22.  1998^9  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average U-T 7* GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. MATH: PROBLEM SOLVING - Statistics (6 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 70 60 50  40  30  20  10  0 4* 44.  1998/99  1999/00 T Below Average Average Above Average African-American Males 60 50 17 40  30  20-- 10  0 4S  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average White Females 60 50 40 30 20- -T\" 55 46l a* 4a  1998/99  1999/00 21 A 10- - 0 Below Average Average Above Average White Males 60 50 40 30 43. 55 a* 20  10   19989  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average 0 77*^ GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. MATH: PROBLEM SOLVING - Probability (3 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 50 40  30  20  10  0 38  1998/99  1999/00 SO 40 Below Average Average Above Average African-American Males 36 W 34. 30  20  10  Below Average Average Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 1^ 0 White Females 100 80 60 40 20 0 ----- .13 62] 77  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average White Males 80 60 40 20 0 74 Average  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Above Average 7*^ GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. MATH: PROBLEM SOLVING - Geometry (7 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 80 73 60 40 20 -s  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average Tra T 0 African-American Males 70 JB2. 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Below Average  1998Z99  1999/00 Average Above Average w White Females 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 57 Average  1998/99  1999rao Above Average Below Average White Males 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 I**' 01998/99  1999/00 9S Below Average Average Above Average 7**' GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. MATH: PROCEDURES (30 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 70 64 60-- 50-- 40-- 30-- 20-- 10 - Al  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average 1x0 I_5 0 African-American Males 60 56 50- - 40-- 30-- 20-- IT 45 10 -- LT  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average 0 White Females 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 IO' Below Average 45 Average Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 21 42. White Males 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 55 Below Average Average  1998/99  1999/00 Above Average 7*** GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. MATH: PROCEDURES - Computation/Symbolic Notation (10 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 60 50 4S44 40-- 30-- 20-- 2a.  1998/99  1999/00 10-- 0 60 50 Below Average Average Above Average African-American Males 45 45 40-- 30- 20- 10- 16  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average White Females 70 60 50 40 30 20 10- Below Average A2. T Average  1998/99  1999/00 Above Average White Males 70 60 SO 40 30-4 20 - 10  - Below Average 64 IF Average Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 sa  0 0 0 JX 7 31 7*** GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. MATH: PROCEDURES - Computation in Context (16 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 60 57 64 50-- 40-- 30-- 20-- IO - - J.  1998/99  1999/00 T 0 Below Average Average Above Average African-American Males 60 50 M 49 40- 30-- 20 -- 10  - 0  16  1998/99  1999/00 T Below Average Average Above Average White Females 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 40- AZ.  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average 4* White Males 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 64 Average Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average 7*** GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. MATH: PROCEDURES - Rounding (4 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 70 60 50  40  30  20  10   1998/99  1999/00 0 Below Average Average Above Average African-American Males 60 ex 50  40  30  20  10   1998/99  1999/00 0 Below Average Average Above Average White Females 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 65  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average White Males 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 KT Below Average Average 55 Above Average  19989  1999/00 m7* GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. LANGUAGE (48 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 60 50 40  - 30-- 20  10  ee ,48  1998/99  1999/00 , r-M-j Below Average Average Above Average 8 8 0 African-American Males 60 50 4^ 40  30  20  10  0 T  1998/99  1999/00 T 4 Below Average Average Above Average White Females 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 J2_U. Below Average Average 65 Above Average  19989  1999/00 White Males 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Below Average Average Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. LANGUAGE - Capitalization (8 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2. 2. Below Average Average Above Average  1998/99 I  1999/00 i  African-American Males 60 50 40 W se sar 30  20  10  0  1998/99  1999/00 T a Below Average Average Above Average White Females 80 21sr 60 40 20 12. 17| 80 60 40 20 J2.  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average White Males 17 la  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average 0 0 7* GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. LANGUAGE - Punctuation (8 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 60 50 45 45 90 90 40-- 30-- 20-- 10 --  1998/99  1999/00 5 5 0 Below Average Average Above Average African-American Males 70 60 SO 40 30 20 10 0 61 69  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average * ? White Females 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 64 65 TT 23.  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average White Males 60 40 20 0 80 Average  1998/99  1999/00 Above Average Below Average 7*** GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. LANGUAGE - Usage (8 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 60 50 ee- 56 |46 AO- SO 20  10  4  1998/99  1999/00 0 Below Average Average Above Average African-American Males 70 60 50 40 30  20  10  Below Average SI *-4  1998/99  1999/00 Average Above Average 0 White Females 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 \"W 45 361  1998/99  1999/00 80 60 40 20 Below Average Average Above Average White Males 74 20  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average TT 6 2 0 \"W 4fr7* GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. LANGUAGE - Sentence Structure (12 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 60 50 so-w 40  30  20  - 10  0 T 4+  1998/99  1999/00 S Below Average Average Above Average African-American Males 60 50-- 40-- 30-- 20  10  0 T-r  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average White Females 60 SO 40 30 20 10 0 Si 38 Si  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average 14 \u0026lt;3 White Males 60 50 40 30 20 1 10  Below Average 57 46  1998/99  1999/00 Average Above Average 0 57\"* GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. LANGUAGE - Content \u0026amp; Organization (12 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 as Below Average se-5T Average TT 11 Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 African-American Males 60 50 \"WAl \u0026lt;e  40  30  20  10  43.IT  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average 0 White Females 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 64 Average  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Above Average White Males 60 50 40 30 20  10  Ml 46  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average 0 A 7* GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. SPELLING (30 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), WWte Male 06), 1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)J African-American Females 70 60 50 40 30 -M- 20-- 10 - -S Below Average st r** Average Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 4-41 0 T African-American Males 60 50 4f 451 56 41 40  30  20  10   1998/99  1999/00 T 4 0 Below Average Average Above Average White Females 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TT Below Average Average 61 Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 W White Males 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 56 Average  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Above Average 7* GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. SPELLING - Homophones (5 items) r 1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 70 60 50  40  30  20  10  -41  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average 3F 0 African-American Males ! 70 65 SI 60  50  40  30  20  10  Is 9-  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average 0 I White Females 50 40 30 ST so  1998/99  1999/00 lo-- 0 Below Average Average Above Average White Males 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 56   1998/99  1999/00 42. S \u0026amp; o SI 1 S7^** GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. SPELLING - Phonetic Principles (10 items) 11998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-A\u0026lt; me_r.ic_a__n__ MKa-Kle (/5f 4), AWizhui:t*e-. Female (Z3'1 11 \\) , WWVhksitfeA Male f(42)] African-American Females 70 60 SO 40 30 20 10 0 Average  1998/99  1999/00 Above Average Below Average African-American Males 60 SO 40 30  20  10  26 Below Average 46 Average Above Average  1998/99 86   1999/00 0 White Females 100 80 60 40 20 0 62 TO 77  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average I White Males 70 60 SO 40 30 20 10 0 ,2. Below Average e-sfr Average Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 41 7*** GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. SPELLING - Structural Principles (10 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 \u0026lt; Below Average se-Sf Average e Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 4 African-American Males I 70 60 50 40 .52. St li rl J   30  20  - 10  Below Average Average Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 0 White Females 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 55 Average  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Above Average White Males 80 -es 60 40 20 14 14 Below Average Average 36 Above Average  1998/99  1999/00 0 7* GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. SPELLING - No Mistake (5 items) [1998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), White Male (42)] African-American Females 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Average  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Above Average African-American Males 50 40 nF 30- 20- 28 ar  1998/99  1999/00 TT 10  - 0 Below Average Average Above Average White Females 100 80 60 40 20 0 2a. |13 80 60 40 20 77 55  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average White Males 74 21 48-  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average 2Lia 19 0 T 7* GRADE STUDENTS STANFORD 9 EXAMS - CONTENT CLUSTERS These charts show disaggregated data as NCE percentages. STUDY SKILLS (30 items) 11998/99 n = African-American Female (67), African-American Male (84), White Female (42), White Male (36)\n1999/2000 n = African-American Female (56), African-American Male (54), White Female (31), 'White Male (42)] African-American Females M 63 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 9  1998/99  1999/00 Below Average Average Above Average African-American Males 60 50 40 3\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_307","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, 47","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":["2000/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, 47"],"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/307"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nSchool Improvement Plans Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent Cluster Baseline Elementary Eleanor Cox, Principal Booker Arts Magnet Cheryl Carson. Principal Brady Elementary Ada Keown, Principal Carver Magnet Diane Barksdale. Principal Cloverdale Elementary Eredcrick Reids, Principal Fair Park Elementary Samuel Branch. Principal Geyer Spring Elementary [Sonna Hall, Principal Gibbs Magnet Felicia Hobbs, Principal Jefferson Elementary Roberta Mannon, Principal Ring Interdistrict Tyrong Manis. Principal Meadowefiff Elementary Jerry Worm. Principal Romine Interdstrict Lillie Scull, Principal Terry Elementary Nancy Acre, Principal Washington Magnet Gwen Zeigler. Principal Watson Elementary Mike Oliver. Principal Williams Magnet Mary Menking. Principal Wilson Elementary Beverly Jones. Principal i.' t-t  * t-i *V I J 'Cva % 00 fi\u0026gt; (0  3  BASELINE FAX PARENT NEWSLETTER September 15, 2000 Dear Parents, Listed below are some examples of questions from the Baseline Report Card that you will receive in your mail from the State Department of Education very soon. Below are the most updated facts about our school and a great time to brag about the progress we are making: BASELINE REPORT CARD card From the Principals Desk Eleanor V.L. Cox Nia*' EngVis)' Art Sc(a'^ [school Name: Teachers: 26 Baseline Elemencary I# Support Staff: l ? 2 Attendance: . (% of average daily attendance\nmaximum = 100%) 92.sex lEnroUment: 296 ] Developmental Reading Readiness Assessment - % of students in grades K-2 who have developed appropriate reading readiness skills for their grade level: ] Kindergarten: 51.1 x First Grade: 29.6 x Second Grade: 47.11 of PT A Members Last Year: 296 1% of Teachers with Masters Degree: 38 X ] IVolunteer Hours Last Year: 5012 I ] 1% of Teachers with 9 + Years ofTeaching Experience: 477\n| DiscipUne \u0026amp; Safety - % of students NOT receiving a reportable discipline sanction: (By stale law discipline sanctions must be reported and include acts involving drugs, assaults, alcohol, weapons or gangs\ndistrictwide, fewer than 2% of i ) our students were involved in these types of offenses.) .022 priorities for our school and are included in our school in4)roveinent School Improvement Plans - the following are m improvement plan\nthe complete school improvement plan is available in the office and includes specific actions and resources needed for implementation: i . Students at Baseline Elementary School will perform at an acceptable level In :.2. ma thematics. Students at Baseline Elementary School will perform at an acceptable level in 3. reading and writing. All students at Baseline Elementary School will come to school daily and on time (7:50 a.n.), as well as leave on time (2:35 p.m.).Listed below are the scores children made on the Success for All pre and post assessments for last Spring\nSUCCESS FOR ALL r Basdire a^AAnd/^ssssnHt 100 80 GO a iSeriesI \n:? ay r- 8 aSaies2 I ) I i I 40 1st Qade \u0026gt;^19' Qads ad Qazfe iSaiesI Re 40 50 1 58 iBSaTes2j Rst 81 69 68 i. 11 4th Qacb 40 86 1966-200) Oacte 37 69 0 5* i  s a I J These scores above are two of several instruments (tests) that we use to find out how much progress our students have made, and help identify areas of weakness your child needs to improve upon regarding skills. Membership Dues As you can see from our report card we had a 100% paid memberships last year with an increase in membership of 10%. We want to do just as well, if not better, this year. Please send your $3.00 membership by September 20,2000. We are Proud of: Our new staff members who are doing a great job with your children. They are Ms. R. Dukes (PK), Ms. C. Ross and Ms. A. Outlaw (K), Ms. E. McSpadden (2'* grade), Ms. J. Lester (3* grade), and Ms. C. Rich (4* grade). Ms. S. King, Ms. C. Young, Mr. William Blake, Ms. B. Donald, and Ms. M. Humbert are our new paraprofessionals. Mr. Stubblefield who will be moving to Atlanta, Georgia, to continue his studies in advanced biology at Clark University at the end of the month. We wish him well. Ms. Kelsey Tucker who teaches our students art each day. We look forward to our art fair and displaying the beautiful pictures in our hallways each month. Our New PTA Officers\nRev. R. Bowman, Pres., Ms. Griffin, 1 Vice Pres., Mrs. R. Bowman, 2** Vice Pres., Ms. B. Walton, Rec. Secretary, Mrs. R. Martin, Ms. C. Koehler, Parliamentarian, Ms. D. Jordan, Council RepSchool Baseline Elementary School School Improvement Plan Year 2000-2001 Priority 1 Reading and Writing Literacy Supporting Data\n* SAT9 - Grade 5 Total Reading: 10% at or above the 50th percentile\n20% of African-American females at or above the 50th percentile\n0% of African-American males and Caucasian females at or above the 50th percentile\nno Caucasian males tested. * State Benchmark Exam - Grade 4 Literacy: 22% performing at or above the proficient level\n23% of Afican-Americans at or above proficient\n8% of males at or above proficient. * Achievement Level Test - Grade 2 Reading: 11.1 % at or above the proficient level. * Achievement Level Test - Grade 3 Reading: 19% at or above the proficient level. * Achievement Level Test - Grade 4 Reading: 15% at or above the proficient level. * Achievement Level Test - Grade 5 Reading: 10.8 % at or above the proficient level. * Developmental Reading Assessment - Kindergarten\n51.1% at or above the proficient level. * Developmental Reading Assessment - Grade 1\n29.6% at or above the proficient level. * Developmental Reading Assessment - Grade 2: 47.1% at or above the proficient level. Goal(s)\n* 65% of Baseline Elementary School students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50th percentile in reading on the SAT9. * 100% of Baseline Elementary School students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grade 4 literacy on the State Benchmark Exam. * 90% of Baseline Elementary School students in grades 2 through 5 in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the proficient level in Reading of the Achievement Level Test. * 90% of Baseline Elementary School students in grades Kindergarten through 2 in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the proficient level on the Developmental Reading Assessment.One-Year Benchmark(s): * In 2000-2001, Baseline Elementary School students shall improve 14% points the percentage of students performing at or above the 50th percentile on the grade 5 SAT9 Total Reading test.  In 1999-2000, Baseline Elementary School students shall improve 8 points so that 30% will perform at or above the proficient level on the State Benchmark Exam in grade 4 literacy.  In 2000-2001, Baseline Elementary School grade 2 students shall improve 8.9% so that 20% will be at or above proficient level on the Achievement Level Test.  In 2000-2001, Baseline Elementary School grade 3 students shall improve 8.1% so that 27.1% will be at or above proficient level on the Achievement Level Test.  In 2000-2001, Baseline Elementary School grade 4 students shall improve 7.5% so that 22.5% will be at or above proficient level on the Achievement Level Test. * In 2000-2001, Baseline Elementary School grade 5 students shall improve 8.9% so that 19.7% will be at or above proficient level on the Achievement Level Test. * In 2000-2001, Baseline Elementary School Kindergarten students shall improve 5% so that 56.1% will be at or above the proficient level on the Developmental Reading Assessment. * In 2000-2001, Baseline Elementary School grade 1 students shall improve 7% so that 36.6% will be at or above the proficient level on the Developmental Reading Assessment. * In 2000-2001, Baseline Elementary School grade 2 students shall improve 5.3% so that 52.4% will be at or above the proficient level on the Developmental Reading Assessment.School Baseline Elementary School School Improvement Plan Year 2000-2001 Intervention Reading - Success for All Actions Person(s) Responsible Timeline Resources District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget Provide additional Success for All training for staff. Continue implementation of Success for All reading program Pre-K - Sth. Align ELLA/ DRA with SFA for instruction. Provide ELLA training for staff. Eleanor Cox Eleanor Cox Mary Jane McDonald Leon Adams Eleanor Cox August 9, 2000 - May 31, 2001 $11,000 for SFA training SFA provided training staff $11,000 August 21, 2000 -May 31,2001 August 21, 2000 -May 31, 2001 August 21, 2000 -May 31,2001 $3,000 for SFA materials 16 classroom teachers ISFA Facilitator. Pat Price Pat Busbea Pat Busbea Ann Freeman $3,000 $3000Intervention Success for All Actions Person(s) Responsible Timeline Resources District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget Conduct SFA Family Support meetings. Sharra Hampton Mary Jane McDonald August 21, 2000 -May 21.2001 SFA Family Support Manual Family Support In-Service November 30, 2000 Provide Open Parent Forum Meetings. Cathy Koehler Eleanor Cox Aug. 15,2000 Nov. 14-17, 2000 Feb. 20-22, 2001 April 23-26, 2001 Eddie McCoy $100 Provide Homework Without Tears Workshop for parents. Host Parent to Parent meetings. Cathy Koehler Eleanor Cox September 28, 2000 Eddie McCoy $25 Kelli McPhearson Cathy Koehler Oct. 24-26, 2000 Jan. 22-25, 2001 Parent Center Professional Collection $50School Baseline Elementary School School Improvement Plan Year 2000-2001 Priority 1 Mathematics Supporting Data\n* SAT9 - Grade 5 Total Mathematics: 13% at or above the 50th percentile\n20% of African-American females at or above the 50th percentile\n33% of Caucasian females at or above the 50th percentile\n0% of African-American males at or above the 50th percentile\nno Caucasian males tested. * State Benchmark Exam - Grade 4 Mathematics: 11% performing at or above the proficient level\n87% of those not performing at the proficient level are African-Americans\n100% of the males. * Achievement Level Test - Grade 2 Mathematics: 0% at or above the proficient level. * Achievement Level Test - Grade 3 Mathematics: 31.9% at or above the proficient level. * Achievement Level Test - Grade 4 Mathematics\n15% at or above the proficient level. * Achievement Level Test - Grade 5 Mathematics: 5.5% at or above the proficient level. Goal(s): 65% of Baseline Elementary School students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50% percentile in mathematics on the SAT9. 100% of Baseline Elementary School students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grade 4 mathematics on the State Benchmark Exam. 90% of Baseline Elementary School students at grades 2 though 5 shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the Achievement Level Test.One-Year Benchmark(s): * In 1999-2000, Baseline Elementary School students exceeded the 12.5% growth points set for students performing at or above the 50th percentile on the grade 5 SAT9 Total Mathematics test. 23% of total females tested at or above the 50th percentile. 0% of total males tested at or above the 50th percentile. In 2000-2001, Baseline Elementary students shall improve 9% points the percent of students performing at or above the 50th percentile on the grade 5 SAT9 Total Mathematics test. 16% of total males shall perform at or above the 50th percentile on the grade 5 SAT9 Total Mathematics test. * In 1999-2000, Baseline Elementary School students shall improve 9% points so that at least 20% of the students will perform at or above the proficient level on the State Benchmark Examination in grade 4 mathematics. * In 2000-2001, Baseline Elementary School grade 2 students shall improve 10% so that 10% wilt be at or above proficient level on the Achievement Level Test. * In 2000-2001, Baseline Elementary School grade 3 students shall improve 6.9% so that 37.9% will be at or above proficient level on the Achievement Level Test. * In 2000-2001, Baseline Elementary School grade 4 students shall improve 8.5% so that 23.5% will be at or above proficient level on the Achievement Level Test. * In 2000-2001, Baseline Elementary School grade 5 students shall improve 9.5% so that 15% will be at or above proficient level on the Achievement Level Test.School Baseline Elementary School School Improvement Plan Year 2000-2001 Intervention Mathematics Actions Person(s) Responsible Timeline Resources District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget Provide staff development on using literature to teach mathematics. Continue implementation of math manipulative strategies grades K-2. Continue implementation of Arithmetic Developed Daily in grades 1-3. Conduct SFA Family Support Meetings. Brenda Thomas Eleanor Cox Brenda Thomas Darryl Sharp Mary Jane McDonald Shana Hampton Mary Jane McDonald August 21, 2000 -May 31,2001 October, 2000 - May 31,2001 August 21,2000 -May 31,2001 August 21, 2000 -May 31,2001 Eddie McCoy Trade Books 10 classroom teachers $500 for manipulatives K-4 Crusade Materials 7 classroom teachers ADD booklets Darryl Sharp Mary Jane McDonald SFA Family Support Manual Family Support In-Service Novemeber 30, 2000 $250 $500Actions Person(s) Responsible Timeline Resources District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget Provide Open Parent Forum Meetings. Cathy Koehler Eleanor Cox Aug. 15, 2000 Nov. 14-17, 2000 Feb. 20-22, 2001 April 23-26, 2001 Eddie McCoy PTA $100 Provide Homework Without Tears Workshop for parents. Host Parent to Parent Meetings. Cathy Koehler Eleanor Cox Kelli McPhearson Cathy Koehler September 28, 2000 Eddie McCoy PTA $25 Oct. 24-26, 2000 Jan. 22-25,2001 Parent Center Professional Collection $50School Baseline Elementary School School Improvement Plan Year 2000-2001 Priority 1 Attendance Supporting Data\n* In the 1999-2000 school year the average daily attendance was 92.56%. * In the 1999-2000 school year the tardies were approximately 1,790. * In the 1999-2000 school year the early check-outs were approximately 1,074. Goal(s)\n* The average daily attendance for Baseline Elementary School students will be 98%. * The tardy and early check-out rates will decrease by 50%. One-Year Benchmark(s)\n* In the 2000-2001 school year the average daily attendance will increase to 93.64%. * In the 2000-2001 school year the tardy rate will decrease by 179.  In the 2000-2001 school year the early check-out rate will decrease by 107.School Baseline Elementary School School Improvement Plan Year 2000-2001 Intervention Attendance Actions Person(s) Responsible Timeline Resources District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget Attendance secretary will identify students who are habitually absent, tardy or early check-outs and notify parents and Family Support Team. SFA Family Support Team will meet with parents of students who are identified by attendance secretary. Identified students will be placed in the SFA Sunshine Club. Kelli McPhearson August 21,2000 -May 31,2001 AS400 Student Check- In/Check-Out Log Sharra Hampton Mary Jane McDonald Sharra Hampton Cathy Koehler August 21,2000 -May 31, 2001 SFA Family Support Manual Family Support In-Service November 30, 2000 October 24, 2000-May 31, 2001 SFA Sunshine Club GuidelinesObjectives 1. Establish LPAC Committee. 2. Encourage Spanish speaking students in acquiring English language skills. Intervention: Improved Achievement of LEP Students Activities 1.1 Principal, counselor, and designated teachers will be trained to establish an LPAC Committee. 1.2 LPAC Committee will be formed with at least one teacher, the counselor, and the principal. 2.1 Purchase Spanish to English software. Person(s) Responsible Karen Broadnax, ESL Office Eleanor Cox, Principal Eleanor Cox, Principal Timeline August, 2000 - May, 2001 August, 2000 - May, 2001 August, 2000 - May, 2001 Budget $2003. Identify allLEP students. 3.1 Ensure that every student in the school has on file a Home Language Survey, signed and dated by parent. Eleanor Cox, Principal Classroom Teachers August, 2000 - May, 2001 3.2 Refer all students who indicate a language other than English is spoken in the home to the ESL Supervisor for testing. 3.3 Convene LPAC to analyze data and determine placement. 3.4 Obtain documentation of LPAC decision and file in student folder. 3.5 Obtain copy of parent permission or parent denial of ESL program and/or services and file in student folder. Gloria DeLoney, Secretary LPAC Chairperson Classroom Teachers LPAC Chairperson Classroom Teachers August, 2000 - May, 2001 August, 2000 - May, 2001 August, 2000 - May, 2001 August, 2000 - May, 20014. Schedule LEP students into appropriate courses or classes. 4.1 Place LEP students clustered with one teacher at each grade level to facilitate communication, professional development, and other compliance issues. Gloria DeLoney, Secretary August, 2000 - May, 2001 4.2 Ensure that all teachers (also counselors, librarians, and other support staff) who are assigned LEP students are informed of their level of English- language proficiency and their identification, as well as the schools responsibilities to provide certain services and to document. 4.3 Inform all staff who are assigned former LEP students and the schools responsibility to monitor and document academic success. LPAC Committee LPAC Committee August, 2000 - May, 2001 August, 2000 - May, 20015. Make sure that all teachers and counselors who serve LEP students are appropriately endorsed or trained. 5.1 Inventory staff to determine who has earned ESL endorsement and what training other staff have had and how much. Eleanor Cox, Principal August, 2000 5.2 Place students, whenever possible, in classrooms where teachers have earned the ESL endorsement to their certificate. 5.3 Alternately, contact the ESL office to ensure that all assigned teachers receive appropriate levels of training. Gloria DeLoney, Secretary LPAC Committee August, 2000 - May, 2001 August, 2000 - May, 2001 5.4 Make sure that all staff understand the OCR requirments, the District policy IHBEA and regulations IHBEA- R, and other information relating to OCR monitoring. Eleanor Cox, Principal Sharra Hampton, Counselor LPAC Committee August, 2000 - May, 20016. Monitor the acadmic achievement of all identified LEP students. 6.1 Monitor (and document that you have done so in the students permanent record folder) each LEP students interim progress reports each quarter. Classroom Teachers August, 2000 - May, 2001 6.2 Monitor (and document that you did so in the students permanent folder) each LEP students grades each quarter. 6.3 Monitor (and document that you did so) each LEP students scores on District Academic Level Tests, State Benchmark or end-of-course, and the SAT9. Classroom Teachers LPAC Committee Sharra Hampton, Counselor August, 2000 - May, 2001 August, 2000 - May, 2001 6.4 Monitor (and document) LEP students attendance and drop-out rates. Gloria DeLoney, Secretary August, 2000 - May, 20016.5 Monitor (and document) LEP students participation in co- and extracurricular activities. 6.6 Monitor (and document) LEP students participation in G/T, Pre-AP, AP, University Studies, academic competitions, etc. Sponsors Classroom Teachers August, 2000 - May, 2001 August, 2000 - May, 20017. Design specfic strategies that may be necessary to improve achievement of LEP students. 7.1 Ensure that all LEP students who are not earning at least Cs' and/or who are not performing at the proficient level on tests has a well-constructed personalized education plan (same as other students, but with attention to language needs.) Eleanor Cox, Principal Classroom Teachers LPAC Committee August, 2000 - May, 2001 7.2 Provide (and document) the necessary support or compensatory services for students who are not earning at least Cs in their course work, such as re-teaching, tutoring, special classes (PLATO lab courses), mentoring, summer school, enrollment in a Newcomer Center (even though previously rejected), etc. Classroom Teachers LPAC Committee August, 2000 - May, 2001 7.3 Be sure that LEP students needs are reflected in the schools Mary Jane McDonald, Title I Facilitator August, 2000 - May, 20018. Ensure that teachers of LEP students are appropriately evaluated. 8.1 Train principal in ESL methods (what to look for in evaluating teachers of LEP students.) ESL Office August, 2000 - May, 2001 8.2 Ensure that teachers of LEP students are informed of and trained in the use of strategies that promote academic achievement of LEP students. 8.3 Provide appropriate levels of support and professional development for teachers of LEP students who do not meet expectations. ESL Office ESL Office Eleanor Cox, Principal LPAC Committee August, 2000 - May, 2001 August, 2000 - May, 20019. Communicate frequently with parents of all LEP students. 9.1 Provide in a language that the parent can understand information about the schools programs that are provided to all students (i.e., handbooks, invitations to participate in PT A, information about GT programs, Pre-AP, and AP courses, registration, discipline notices, open houses, etc.) LRSD Eleanor Cox, Principal August, 2000 - May, 2001 9.2 Document all communication with LEP students parents in the students permanent record. 9.3 Hire, whenever possible, people who speak other languages, especially the predominant languages of the schools LEP students, so that they can assist with translations. Classroom Teachers Eleanor Cox, Principal August, 2000 - May, 2001 August, 2000 - May, 20019.4 Maintain a list of translators to assist in both oral and written communication. 9.5 Encourage and document LEP parent participation in the school. VIPS Classroom Teachers August, 2000 - May, 2001 August, 2000 - May, 2001 10. Ensure at least one review each year of LEP students performance to determine program exit and next years placement. 10.1 Establish procedures and timeline for annual reviews (in collaboration with ESL supervisor). 10.2 Once reviews are complete, convene LPAC to consider necessary interventions, placement in next years classes, and/or program exit. LPAC Committee LPAC Committee August, 2000 - May, 2001 August, 2000 - May, 2001Booker Joseph R. Booker Arts Magnet School 2000 - 2001 School Improvement Plan School Name: Booker Arts Magnet School # Teachers: 51 # Support Staff: 22 Attendance: 96.57% (% of average daily attendance\nmaximum = 100%) Enrollment: 550 Developmental Reading Readiness Assessment - % of students in grades K  2 who have developed appropriate reading readiness skills for their grade level: Kindergarten: 81.0% First Grade: 69,3% Second Grade: 79.8% # of PTA Members Last Year: 622 Volunteer Hours Last Year: 7,710 % of Teachers with Masters Degree: 49% % of Teachers with 9 + Years ofTeaching Experience: 71% Discipline \u0026amp; Safety - % of students NOT receiving a reportable discipline sanction: 99.5% (By state law discipline sanctions must be reported and include acts involving drugs, assaults, alcohol, weapons or gangs\ndistrictwide, fewer than 2% of our students were involved in these types of offenses.) School Improvement Plans - the following are priorities for our school and are included in our school improvement plan\nthe complete school improvement plan is available in the office and includes specific actions and resources needed for implementation: 1. 2. 3. 4. Improve reading achievement by using the Reading Recovery, Accelerated Reader, and Effective Literacy Programs. Improve math achievement by providing real-life math experiences, additional support to teachers, and instruction targeting math procedures. Improve student behavior by using Character-Centered Teaching and an intervention program for students with office or bus referrals. Improve student attendance by using an incentive program and parental involvement to encourage perfect attendance, as well as an intervention program for frequently absent students.TABLE OF CONTENTS Board of birectors 1 Administration 2 Statement of Commitment 3 ACSIP Steering Committee 4 ACSIP Committee Rosters 5 Introduction 7 Review of Data 10 bescription of School ond Community 12 School Population 14 Services 15 Speciol Events/Extracurricular Activities 15 Belief Statements 18 Mission Statement 19 Reoding and Writing Literacy 20 Mothematics 33 Charocter Education 43 Student Attendance 51 Map of School 59 Bibliography 60 Tables 63Little Rock School District Board of Directors Sue H. Strickland, President Or. Katherine Mitchell, Vice-President H. Baker Kurruss, Secretary Larry Berkley Mike Daugherty Mike Kumpuris Judy Magness 1ADMINISTRATION br. Les Carnine, Superintendent Mrs. Sodie Mitchell, Associote Superintendent for School Services br. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction br. Victor Anderson, Associate Superintendent for Operations Mr. Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services br. Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent of Planning, Research, and Evaluation A^rs. Frances Jones, Assistant Superintendent for Elementary Schools br. Cheryl A, Carson, Principal Mrs. Joyce J. Willingham, Assistant Principal 2STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT The staff of Booker Arts Magnet School believes that all students will learn. Throughout the ACSIP self-evaluation process, our belief in our students and our commitment to help them achieve their fullest academic, social, and emotional potential was evident. The carefully selected target areas, interventions, and actions further reflected the mission of our schoolhigh academic standards, the development of creativity, and the fostering of social/emotlonal growth through integration of the elementary curriculum and the fine arts. The staff of Booker Arts Magnet School willingly accepts responsibility for the educational growth of its students. As instructional leader, I am committed to the full implementation of our school improvement plan. Cheryl A. Carson Principal 3BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL ACSIP STEERING COMMITTEE 2000 - 2001 Amy Hallum, Chair Tina Brown Math, Co-Chair Merilyn Burruss Math, Co-Chair Vivian Dooley Character Education, Chair Dixie Fair Data Collection and Disaggregation Darrell Hayden Data Collection and Disaggregation Debbie Hipps Reading, Co-Chair Carolyn Huie Attendance, Chair Vearlon Jeffries Math, Co-Chair Mayrean Johnson Reading, Chair Deborah Ramsey Attendance, Co-Chair Mico Rhines Jan Wolfe Data Collection and Disaggregation Character Education, Co-Chair 4BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL ACSIP TARGET COMAMTTEES 2000 - 2001 Amy Hallum, Steering Committee Chair READING Mayrean Johnson, Chair Debbie Hipps, Co-Chair Erma Armstrong Debra Beene, Parent Rita Bledsoe Sadie Burks, Parent Trish Burns Holly Burrough Bob Dorer Amy Friedman, Parent Omar Hayes Brenda Hipp Brian Kinder Susan Mahnken Michelle McGill Patsy Middleton Carolyn Milton Lisa Roderick, Parent Tammy Sexton Sharon Shelton, Parent Brenda Woods MATHEMATICS Tina Brown, Co-Chair Merilyn Burruss, Co-Chair Vearlon Jeffries, Co- Chair Frances Ash,Parent Carol Ballard, Parent Lawrence Brown Jimmy Calhoun Tina Conley, Parent Virginia Curry Yolanda Davis Susan bay. Parent Dixie Fair Patty Jackson Denna Lehnhoff Mary Lofton Steve McGuire Mary McMorran Ken Milton Julie Post Tom Sarlo 5CHARACTER EDUCATION Vivian Dooley, Chair Jan Wolfe, Co-Chair Lou Alley Carol Ballard, Parent Kimberly Bierbaum Santonio Charleston Santi Farmer, Parent Tammy Gingerich Darrell Hayden Tammy Higdon Alicia Jones Kimberly Lang James Marshall Uvita Scott Rebecca Selsor, Parent Lynne Stansbery Cathy Strong Pam Tank, Parent Tracy Tucker Cindy Weaver, Parent Marcia Williams, Parent ATTENDANCE Carolyn Huie, Chair Deborah Ramsey, Co-Chair Martha Armstrong Susan Blue Denise Clark Joe Cripps Carolyn Croswell Loretta Ellington Denecia House, Parent Margaret Howard, Parent Tisa Manley Louise Mayweather Mi co Rhines Margaret Smith, Parent Lynda Spencer Julia Taylor Bobbie Walls Macheryl Washington Jodi Pullen Larry Quattlebaum Joni Thomas 6INTRODUCTION On January 22,1999, the staff of Booker Arts Magnet School began the ACSIP process by selecting Steering Committee members. Representatives from each grade level, fine arts specialists, and instructional specialists were nominated by their peers and agreed to serve as Steering Committee members during the five-year school improvement planning process. The first Steering Committee meeting was held on March 23,1999 for the purpose of identifying the Steering Committee chairperson, target area chairs and co-chairs, and the persons who would assist in data collection and disaggregation. The Steering Committee also developed a draft of Belief Statements. The second Steering Committee meeting was held on April 6,1999 for purpose of refining the Belief Statements draft and to develop a Mission Statement draft. Both the Belief Statements draft and Mission Statement draft were presented to the Booker Arts Magnet School faculty for their consideration on April 12,1999. The staff approved the proposed Belief Statements and Mission Statement. 7On April 20,1999, the third Steering Committee meeting was held for the purpose of reviewing disaggregated data on student achievement\", attendance, suspensions, and the CCOE survey results from the 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99 school years. Tentative target areas were identified. but the selection of target areas was postponed until after a May 17,1999 technical assistance meeting with Mr. David Watts. On May 17,1999, Mr. David Watts, Field Specialist for the Arkansas Department of Education, met with Steering Committee members during their fourth meeting to provide technical assistance. Mr. Watts suggested that the Steering Committee collect additional data on attendance and ! discipline before finalizing the selection of target areas. The first Steering Committee meeting of the 1999-2000 school year was held on September 21,1999. Additional data on attendance and discipline were examined as suggested by Mr. Watts. The areas of improving reading achievement, improving math achievement, implementing a character education program, and improving student attendance were selected as the four target areas for the ACSIP plan. Target area committees were structured to best address the selected areas. New school improvement 8plan forms were presented to the Steering Committee. The second Steering Committee meeting for the 1999-2000 school year was held on September 29,1999. This meeting was a joint meeting of the CCOE Steering Committee and the ACSIP Steering Committee. Specific instructions about conducting target area committee meetings and completion of the school improvement plan forms were given. The dates of October 4.1999 and October 11,1999 were selected as planning meetings for target area committees. Target area committees consisting of faculty members and parents developed goals, interventions, and strategies to address the four target areas. Preliminary plans were presented to the Campus Leadership Team on October 19,1999 for review and revision. A second technical review by Mr. bavid Watts and other AbE staff members was held on November 3,1999. Suggestions for changes identified during the technical review were shared with target area committees. Revisions were made, resulting in the completion of the ACSIP School Improvement Plan. 9REVIEW OF DATA An analysis of the data collected in the AC SIP process assisted faculty members in the selection of target areas for the school improvement plan at Booker Arts Magnet School. The data included archival, achievement. and perceptual information. The archival data were collected through surveys, school records, and district records. This data Included information on faculty members. students, and parents. Additional archival data on attendance and discipline were examined. Achievement data were gathered from the Stanford 9 test. Grade 4 Benchmark Exam, and Little Rock School District Criterion- Referenced Test. Perceptual data were gathered by surveys. Input from parents, teachers, and students was obtained through these surveys. A review of the data indicated several areas of concern. A review of the achievement data indicated concerns about the disparity between the achievement rates of minority and non-minority students. Further analysis indicated areas of need in Reading Vocabulary and Comprehension, as well as Mathematics Problem Solving and Procedures. An analysis of archival data indicated an increase in the suspension rate of students over the last three-year period. The Third Quarter 10Average Attendance had been variable over the same period. An analysi s of the achievement of chronically absent students indicated that a high percentage of these students were below grade level in achievement. This finding confirmed the faculty's belief that attendance greatly impacts student achievement. An examination of the perceptual data indicated concerns about students treating others with respect and students obeying school rules. This perceptual data was gathered from parents, students, and teachers over the last three years. This review of data caused four target areas to be readily apparent. The following four target areas were selected by the Steering Committee and approved by the faculty for the ACSIP School Improvement Plan\nImprove Student Achievement in Reading and Writing Literacy Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Implement Character Education Increase Student Attendance 11DESCRIPTION OF SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY Booker Arts Magnet School is located in Little Rock, Arkansas. In 1983, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors approved a plan for an arts magnet elementary school. Booker Arts Magnet School operated as a school within a school for two years. In 1986, the Board approved a plan to make Booker Arts Magnet School a full magnet school with grades four through six. In 1987, Booker Arts Magnet School became an elementary school offering its program to kindergarten through sixth grade students in Pulaski County. In 1999, Booker Arts Magnet School was reorganized to serve kindergarten through fifth grade students. Booker Arts Magnet School's location enhances its unique arts magnet theme because of the close proximity,to the Arkansas Arts Center, Museum of Science and Natural History, Decorative Arts Museum, and the surrounding historic Quapaw Quarter of Little Rock. The campus of Booker Arts Magnet School includes one main building. a cafeteria, gymnasium, track, playground, and parking areas. Classrooms are. located in the main building, along with the school office, media center. nurse's office, teachers' lounge, and student restrooms. Fine arts classes, 12gifted class, counselors' offices, and Technology Center are located In the gymnasium area. The building Is a brick structure. All classrooms have central heat/air and are carpeted. Booker Arts Magnet School is handicapped accessible with romps on both exits at the south end of the building. There is also a handicopped lift in the gymnasium area. 13SCHOOL POPULATION There are 552 students currently enrolled at Booker Arts Magnet School with a staff of 27 classroom teachers. The staff also includes a principal, assistant principal, a nurse, two counselors, two technology specialists, a media specialist, a gifted and talented specialist, two art specialists, two music specialists, a music and orchestra specialist, a drama specialist, and two creative movement specialists. The instructional specialists include four Reading Recovery teachers, two math specialists, one resource specialist, one part-time speech therapist, and two curriculum specialists. Support personnel include two secretaries, a library clerk, five supervision aides, four custodians, and six cafeteria workers. The student population has a 50/50 racial composition. It also reflects an equitable sexual, geographic, academic, economic, and cultural composition. The student selections are made by each district's accepted plan. The slots are filled by accepting applications from students in grades kindergarten through five who reside in the Little Rock School District, the North Little Rock School District, and the Pulaski County Special School District. 50% of the student population at Booker Arts Magnet School Is African-American, 44% is European-American, and the remaining percentage is reflective of other ethnic groups such as American Indian, Asian, and Hispanic. 14SERVICES In addition to regular instructional classes\nspeciol services such os speech therapy, special education/resource, Reading Recovery, math support, Technology Center classes, and gifted and talented services are available for students in grades kindergarten through five. Two full time counselors provide classroom and individual guidance services on a regular basis. SPECIAL EVENTS/EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES A variety of special events are held at Booker Arts Magnet School to enhance the learning process. Field trips are made to the Arkansas Arts Center, Decorative Arts Museum, Little Rock Zoo, Toltec Mounds, University of Arkansas at Little Rock's Art Gallery, and Arkansas State Capitol, the Old State House, Little Rock Library, and various community attractions. Many cultural events at Robinson Auditorium and the UALR Theatre are scheduled throughout the year. Booker Arts Magnet students also attend Little Rock School District fine arts performances. A spelling bee for third through fifth grades is held yearly. Many Booker Arts Magnet School students enter \"Reflections\", a creative expression competition sponsored by the National PTA, each year. Students 15are encouroged to enter various visuol art competitions yearly. Students are also encouraged to enter other contests throughout the year. Each nine-week grading period ends with a special activity for students achieving the Honor Roll, BUS Roll (Bring Up a Grade), and Good Citizenship. Magic shows, game day, talent shows, and other activities ore provided. An awards assembly is held at the end of each school year. Students receive certificates for their accomplishments. Counselors organize a birthday table each month honoring students. Winter and spring performances are held by the fine arts classes. . These performances reflect activities mastered by students. Each grade level performs at the monthly PTA meetings. Arts Fairs are held in the Fall fall and spring. In the spring, students participate in an \"Arts Fest\" activity. Various sports events are organized for student involvement. Other clubs and activities at Booker Arts Magnet School include Just Say No, Peer Helpers, BAMBI-Safety Club, Ambassadors, flag monitors, and fire marshals. Booker Arts Magnet School's Parent Teacher Association is very active and provides a good representation of the parent body. The 16membership is 622. The PT A sponsors fine arts performances such as the Tcll-A-Tale Troupe and provides scholarships to students who are unable to attend cultural activities for financial reasons. The PTA also funds student awards for the Honor Roll, BUG Roll, and Good Citizenship. Teachers receive funds from the PTA to purchase indoor recess activities and teaching aids. Parents are also active participants in committees such as the ACSIP Target Area Committees and School Spirit Committee. Parents frequently volunteer their services as tutors, chaperones for field trips, to make teaching materials, to organize class parties, and to assist with the Arts Fest in May. Booker Arts Magnet School's Partners-in-Education are the Arkansas Department of Education's Communications Department, EMOB A, and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock's College of Fine Arts. 171. 2. 3. BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL BELIEF STATEMENTS Every individual can learn. The arts inspire learning and enhance the quality of life. Self-worth allows each Individual to strive for excellence and to develop his/her unique capabilities. 4. Higher expectations coupled with effort stimulate higher levels of performance. 5. Acceptance and utilization of cultural and racial diversity enrich and strengthen the community. 6. Every individual is free to make choices and is responsible for accepting the consequences that follow. 7. The family is the primary influence on most children's lives. Therefore\nIt is necessary that parents, staff, students, and the community share responsibility for a quality education. 18BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL MISSION STATEMENT The staff of Booker Arts Magnet School believes that every individual can learn. Our mission is to educate all students to higher levels of academic performance, while developing divergent thinking and creativity, and fostering positive growth in social behaviors through an integration of the curriculum and the fine arts. In partnership with parents and the community, we accept the responsibility to teach all students with the goal of enabling them to achieve their ultimate educational potential. 19READING AND WRITING LITERACy NARRATIVE The Reading and Writing Literacy Committee met for the first time on October 4,1999. During this meeting, the committee disaggregated achievement data, identified achievement disparities between subgroups of students, and discussed areas of the reading curriculum in which students were not performing at the \"proficient\" level. The Reading and Writing Literacy Committee also met on October 11,1999 and November 15,1999. An analysis of the Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam data for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 school years indicated that a significantly lower number of minority students scored at or above the \"proficient\" level than did non-minority students. A significantly higher percentage of black females, white males, white females, and other females scored at or above the \"proficient\" level during the 1998-99 school year than did students in those subgroups during the 1997-98 school year. However, the percentage of black male students scoring at or above the \"proficient\" level in 1998-99 dropped from 1997-98. The percentage of other male students scoring at or above the \"proficient\" level remained the same. In 1997-98, 20% of all students scored at or above the \"proficient\" level on the Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam. In 1998-99, 397o of all students scored at or above the \"proficient\" level, an increase of 197o (See Table 1). The Reading and Writing Literacy Committee recognized that two different groups of students were given the Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam,, and the analysis of test scores did not indicate individual student achievement growth. However, the results did indicate trends in achievement and identify areas of need within the curriculum that should be oddressed. An analysis of the Grade 5 SAT 9 achievement data also indicated that minority students scored significantly lower than non-minority students. A significantly higher percentage of black females, white males, and other females scored at or above the 50^** percentile on the Total Reading score in 1999-2000 than did students in those subgroups during the 1998-99 school year. However, the percentage of black males, white females, and other males scoring at or above the 50^* percentile on the Total Reading score in 1999-2000 dropped from 1998- 99. A comparison of the Total Reading scores for fifth grade students in the 1997-98,1998-99, and 1999-2000 school years revealed a decrease in the percentage of black male and white female students who scored at or above the 2050*** percentile, an increase in the percentage of white male students who scored at or above the 50^* percentile, and no long-term Increases or decreases in the percentage of black female students who scored at or above the 50^*' percentile. The numbers of other male and other female students were so small that a comparison of the percentage of these students who scored at or above the 50 ,th percentile was not statistically significant. In 1997-98,40% of all students scored at or above the SO^** percentile on the Total Reading score. In 1998-99, 35% of all students scored at or above the 50^* percentile on the Total Reading score, a decrease of 5%. In 1999-2000, 37% of all students scored at or above the 50 ith percentile, an increase of 2% over the previous year (See Table 2). Seventy-two percent of all students scored average or above in Vocabulary in the 1997-98, 1998-99, and the 1999-2000 school years. In 1997-98, 65% of all students scored average or above average in Comprehension. In 1998-99, 76% of all students scored average or above in Comprehension, an increase of 11%. In 1999-2000, 667o of all students scored average or above in Comprehension, a decrease of 12% (See Table 3). Upon analyzing this data, the Reading and Writing Literacy Committee recognized that most of Booker's students were scoring in the second quartile on Vocabulary and Comprehension. Attention should be given to address the needs of the \"bubble group\" of students. Once again, the committee recognized that three different groups of students were tested these three years and utilized the data to identify curriculum needs. An analysis of the Fourth Quarter Criterion Reference Test administered in 1998-99 indicated the following percentages of curriculum mastery of all students: Second Grade 66%\nThird Grade 76%\nFourth Grade 727o\nFifth grade 86%\nand Sixth Grade 84% (See Table 4). An examination of Criterion Reference Test results for the second, third, and fourth quarters indicated areas of need in curriculum and instruction, as well as measuring growth in achievement for individual students. An analysis of the spring 2000 ALT Reading scores indicated that second, third, and fifth grade students at Booker Arts Magnet School scored an average of three points higher on their RIT score than did their peers across the Little Rock School District. Likewise, Booker Arts Magnet School's fourth grade students' average RIT score was two points higher than that of fourth graders across the district. It was the consensus of the Reading and Writing Literacy Committee that improving instruction and addressing areas of need within the curriculum would 21 cause student achievement to increase and disparity to decrease. The committee then began to closely examine the reading and writing programs in use at Booker Arts Magnet to determine whether they appropriately addressed the needs of students. Assessing the success of the reading and writing programs at Booker Arts Magnet School actually began during the 1997-98 school year as a part of an annual review in our school improvement process. At that time, the staff recognized the need to provide as much individualized instruction for our low achieving readers as possible while also challenging readers of all reading levels to read a better quality of literature and to develop a life-long love of reading. A team of staff members (primary teachers, intermediate teachers, reading teachers, a curriculum specialist, and the principal) reviewed professional journals and held discussions with colleagues across the Little Rock School District and the state of Arkansas in an effort to find a way to better meet the needs of the students at Booker Arts Magnet. After much discussion and consultation with Little Rock School District reading supervisors, the team agreed to closely examine three programs for possible implementation at Booker Arts Magnet. These programs were the Accelerated Reader program, the Reading Recovery program, and the Success for All program. Next, the team decided to visit schools to observe implementation of the programs. The principal scheduled visits at three schools identified by Little Rock School District reading specialists as successfully implementing the selected programs. Pulaski Heights Elementary (Accelerated Reader), Romine Interdistrict School (Success for All), and Williams Basic Skills Magnet (Reading Recovery) were visited in the winter and spring of 1997-98. After much discussion, the team came to the consensus that the Accelerated Reader program would challenge all students to enjoy reading better literature, and the Reading Recovery program would allow the staff to better meet the needs of low-achieving readers. The team shared its findings and recommendations with the staff during an April 10,1998 staff meeting. The staff endorsed the recommendations of the team, and planning began for full implementation of both programs during the 1998-99 school year. The two reading teachers began Reading Recovery training in August 1998, and the media specialist and a curriculum specialist attended an Accelerated Reader/Reading Renaissance conference in June 1998. Materials and supplies were purchased and received. Three first grade teachers also began Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) training in August 1998. The ELLA program seemed to work hand-in-hand with the Reading Recovery program to meet the needs of beginning first grade readers. By the end 22 of the 1998-99 school year, first grade teachers and Reading Recovery teachers observed significant progress in reading among first grade students. School-wide, staff members observed students experiencing a renewed interest in reading for recreation as result of the Accelerated Reader program. They observed students selecting more challenging literature and taking pride in passing tests designed to check their comprehension of trade books. Because of the success observed during the first year of implementing the Reading Recovery program, the decision was made to request two additional Reading Recovery teachers and to purchase additional materials for the Reading Recovery program and for the ELLA-trained teachers. All kindergarten through second grade teachers who had not received ELLA training were trained in July and August of 1999. The new Reading Recovery teachers began their three-year training in August 1999. The successes observed during the first year of implementing the Accelerated Reader program led to the purchase of additional books, tests, and computers. These computers were placed in fourth and fifth grade classrooms to facilitate comprehension testing. After the Reading and Writing Literacy Committee examined the reading achievement data and current research, they reached a consensus to continue implementation of the Accelerated Reader and Reading Recovery programs as two interventions for the annual School Improvement Plan and the ACSIP School Improvement Plan. In addition, the committee selected Effective Literacy as a third intervention to improve reading and writing achievement among students at Booker Arts Magnet School. Research indicated that children who do not experience success in reading early in their academic life are at a distinct disadvantage when compared to their peers who read successfully. Dorn, French, and Jones stated that children who do not read successfully by the end of their third grade year find it very difficult to catch up with their peers in later years (Dorn, et al. 1998). In fact, the probability that a poor reader in first grade will remain a poor reader by the end of fourth grade is 88 percent (Juel 1988). Barr and Parrett (1995) emphasized the importance of all children learning to read successfully by the end of third grade. Early intervention is crucial to the success of educationally disadvantaged children. The Reading Recovery program was developed by Marie M. Clay as an alternative to traditional reading programs for educationally disadvantaged and learning-disabled children (Lyons 1991). Reading Recovery is based on the belief that early intervention is critical to preventing reading failures (Dorn, et al. 1998). The Reading Recovery program was designed to accelerate learning so that low- 23 achieving readers could catch up with peers on reading achievement. The Reading Recovery program also helped students to develop reading strategies that facilitated further improvement in their reading abilities (Bracey 1996). A study of twelve widely implemented reading reform programs found that the Reading Recovery program provided student-directed learning experiences for low- achieving readers. Teachers developed individual learning plans for students that were tailored to the students' abilities and academic backgrounds. They utilized adaptive instructional strategies to diagnose learning difficulties. The tutoring sessions also allowed for frequent high quality academic and social interactions among teachers and students. Assessments were directly aligned with the curriculum. Teachers involved parents by having them reinforce skills with their children at home. High expectations were evident throughout the program (Pinnell 1995). Research indicated that reading practice has a direct correlation to reading achievement. Reading practice data and standardized achievement test scores were examined in a study of 4,498 students in grades one through nine. Study results indicated, \"Reading practice was found to cause more reading growth for poorer readers than for more advanced readersalthough reading practice improves reading test scores for all ability groups\" (Paul 1992). In addition, increases in reading achievement positively impact performance in other subject areas. In a 1993 study, Paul found that \"increases in reading ability transferred to increased math performance. The reading fallout ratethe improvement in math caused by reading was a very high 68%\" (Paul 1993). The results of recent studies indicated that implementation of the Accelerated Reader program positively impacted student achievement and increased library circulation. A 1998 study in the Cottonwood-Oak Creek School District found significant increases in reading and writing proficiency scores and doubling of the library circulation attributed to the implementation of Accelerated Reader in four elementary and middle schools (Osbourne and Adams 1998). A 1997 study at Grant Elementary School in Muscatine, Iowa indicated that the mean reading comprehension scores increased from the 40^ percentile to the 70^^ percentile, the library circulation increase by 500%, and attendance increased from 92% to 96% as a result of implementation of the Accelerated Reader program (Brooks). Marie M. Clay, the developer of the Reading Recovery program, stated, \"For children who learn to write at the same time they learn to read, writing plays a significant part in the early reading process\" (Clay 1975). Nationwide, educators 24 have recognized that writing instruction is an essential component of a successful language arts program, born, French, and Jones stated, \"Children's cognitive processes are validated and activated during meaningful collaborative writing H (born, et al. 1998). The Reading and Writing Literacy Committee recognized that the improvement of writing skills was essential to the improvement of reading skills. With that in mind, the committee searched for an Intervention that would compliment the other interventions, as well as ELLA and Animated Literacy. Effective Literacy was selected. The Arkansas bepartment of Education Homepage (10-26-98) described Effective Literacy as, \"instruction in the reading and writing processes that provides a balance between explicit instruction of skills and strategies and application of this instruction in reading and writing experiences\" (AbE 1998). Effective Literacy focused upon the instruction of phonetic skills and strategies, decoding high frequency words, word attack skills, word analysis skills, vocabulary development, and comprehension skills and strategics. The writing process was an essential component of Effective Literacy. Frequent assessments, classroom management and organizational skills, and parental involvement were also components of Effective Literacy (AbE 1998). The Reading and Writing Literacy Committee recognized the need for selecting interventions for improving reading and writing literacy that would match the unique needs of Booker Arts Magnet School's students and compliment existing components of the language arts program. The Accelerated Reader program would challenge readers of all ability levels and at all grade levels to select, comprehend, and enjoy quality literature. The Reading Recovery program would focus primarily on meeting the needs of low-achieving first grade readers on an individual and small group basis. Reading Recovery would also be available to low-achieving readers in kindergarten and second grade. Effective Literacy would focus on improving the reading and writing skills of third and fourth grade students. ELLA would be utilized with kindergarten, first, and second grade students. Animated Literacy would be utilized with kindergarten students. With the implementation of these interventions and the continuation of existing programs, the staff at Booker Arts Magnet School has great expectations for the improvement of reading and writing literacy for all students. 25School Joseph R. Booker Arts Magnet School Improvement Plan Year 2000-2001 Priority 1: Improve Student Achievement In Reading and Writing Literacy Supporting Data: In 1998-99, 397o of students scored at or above the \"proficient\" level on the Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam. In 1999-00, 377o of students scored at or above the 50^^ percentile on the Grade 5 SAT 9 Reading Total. 7%. of black males, 24% of black females, 75% of white males, 477o of white females, 07 of other males, and 100% of other females scored at or obove the 50^^ percentile on the grade 5 SAT 9 Reading Total. 72% of students scored at or above average on Vocabulary, and 667o of students scored at or above average on Comprehension on the Grade 5 SAT 9 Reading test. In 1998-99, fourth quarter Criterion-Referenced Test Reading results indicated the following percentages of mastery: grade 2, 66%\ngrade 3, 76%\ngrade 4,grade 5, 86%\nand grade 6, 844. In 1999-00, Spring ALT results indicated the following average RIT scores: grade 2,182\ngrade 3,194\ngrade 4, 201\nand grade 5, 208. Goal(s): 1007o of Booker Arts Magnet School students will perform at or above the \"proficient\" level on the Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam. 2665% of Booker Arts Magnet School students in every subgroup of race and gender will perform at or above the 50^^ percentile on the Grade 5 SAT 9 Reading test. One-Year Benchmarks: At least 45% of Booker Arts Magnet School students (an increase of 6 students) will perform at or above the M proficient\" level on the Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam. At least the following increases in the percentages and numbers of every subgroup of race and gender of students who perform at or above the 50^^ percentile on the Grade 5 SAT 9 Reading test: Black males Black females White males White females Other males Other females Increase to 12.8% (5.8% increase or 2 students) Increase to 28% (4.9% increase or 2 students) Increase to 77% (2% increase or 1 student) Increase to 48.8% (1.8% increase or 1 student) Increase to 7% (7%. increase or 1 student) Maintain 100% 27School Booker Arts Magnet School Improvement Plan Year 2000-2001 Priority 1: Improve Student Achievement in Reading and Writing Literacy Intervention: Implement Reading Recovery ^7' if- 8WW ^Donation/ Grant/PTA ReSdufees Tlihelind\nPersonas) 7. Identify second and third grade students with severe reading deficits for Reading Recovery follow-up. 8. Schedule and conduct conferences, as needed, with parents of Reading Recovery students._____ 9. Provide Reading Recovery and Literacy Groups instruction. 10. Conduct monthly planning meetings. 11. Monitor Reading Recovery students progress throughout the year by reviewing weekly Running Records._____________________ 12. Utilize Reading Recovery postassessments to assess progress of identified students. 13. Conduct summative evaluation of the plans implementation\nmake adjustments for 2001 -2002. 5? .ia -i Reading Recovery Teachers Second and Third Grade Teachers Erma Armstrong Brenda Hipp Susan Mahnken Michelle McGill Erma Armstrong Brenda Hipp Susan Mahnken Michelle McGill Reading Recovery Teachers First Grade Teachers Cheryl Carson Reading Recovery Teachers Erma Armstrong Brenda Hipp Susan Mahnken Michelle McGill Cheryl Carson Reading Committee 3* '.I-'' 8-21-00 to 10-1-00 9-7-00 to 6-1-01 9-7-00 to 6-1-01 9-7-00 to 6-1-01 9-7-00 to 6-1-01 5-1-01 to 5-31-01 6-1-01 to 6-15-01 29 #9? % Pat Busbea Pat Busbea A': ^1 -i*:School Improvement Plan School Booker Arts Magnet Year 2000- 2001 Priority 1: Improve Student Achievement In Reading and Writing Literacy Intervention: Implement Reading Recovery J  1^0 BMI A' -- S- 1. Provide Reading Recovery training for Reading Recovery teachers. 2. Purchase materials for Reading Recovery teachers. Cheryl Carson Cheryl Carson Lou Alley Reading Recovery Teachers si 8-12-00 to 6-1-01 7-1-00 to 10-1-00 3@! H  3. Purchase additional books for use with literacy groups. 4. Apply for a grant to purchase content area books for use with literacy groups. 6. Identify first grade students for Reading Recovery with preassessment. 6. Identify first grade students for literacy groups. Cheryl CarSon Lou Alley Reading Recover Teachers Michelle McGill Reading Recover Teachers First Grade Teachers Reading Recovery Teachers First Grade Teachers 7-1-00 to 10-1-00 10-15-00 to 3-01 8-21-00 to 10-1-00 8-21-00 to 10-1-00 $2,000 for materials Pat Busbea Gail Hester $4,000 for books Pat Busbea Gail Hester Linda Austin $4,000 28 $2,000School Improvement Plan School Booker Arts Magnet Year 2000-2001 Priority 1: Improve Student Achievement in Reading and Writing Literacy Intervention: Implement Accelerated Reader wiS\n-ri- SSS6 A Aimk O I iMa  _ .............-.............\n1. Purchase additional Accelerated Reader books, targeting K-2 students.________________ 2. Purchase additional test discs to accompany new Accelerated Reader books, targeting K-2 students._____ 3. Provide Accelerated Reading training for K-5 teachers. 4. Solicit volunteers to assist with STAR assessments. 5. Utilize STAR Assessment pre-test to place students on appropriate reading levels.__________________ 6. Increase circulation of books by having students set goals for reading. Cheryl Carson Lou Alley Patricia Bums Cheryl Carson Lou Alley Patricia Bums Cheryl Carson Patricia Burns Patricia Burns Patricia Bums First - Fifth Grade Teachers 2:^ 7-1-00 to 10-1-00 7-1-00 to 10-1-00 8-12-00 to 12-15-00 8-21-00 to 10-15-00 8-21-00 to 9-15-00 8-21-00 to 9-15-00 J $5,000 for books Gail Hester $1,500 for test discs Gail Hester Lloyd Harris Perma-Bound Books ViPS Lynne Stansbery $5,000 30 $1,500School Booker Arts Magnet School Improvement Plan Year 2000 - 2001 Priority 1: Improve Student Achievement in Reading and Writing Literacy Intervention: Implement Accelerated Reader Mil' 4^^ 1 .-aMj\n* : * ' i IB w 7. Reinforce student participation by maintaining Accelerated Reader bulletin boards._________________ 8. Provide Accelerated Reader awards on a quarterly basis. 9. Monitor students progress throughout the year by reviewing monthly Accelerated Reader reports. 10. Utilize STAR Assessment posttest to assess student progress towards completion of goal._______ 11. Conduct summative evaluation of the plans implementation: make adjustments for 2001 -2002._______ Reading Committee Cheryl Carson Lou Alley Reading Committee Cheryl Carson Reading Committee Cheryl Carson Patricia Bums Cheryl Carson Reading Committee 11-1-00 to 6-1-01 10-26-00 to 6-1-01 9-30-00 to 6-1-01 5-12-01 to 6-1-01 6-1-01 to 6-15-01 VIPS 31 $1,500 for awards Gail Hester Accelerated Reader Reports Lynne Stansbery $1,500School Booker Arts Magnet School Improvement Plan Year 2000 - 2001 Priority 1: Improve Student Achievement in Reading and Writing Literacy Intervention: Implement Effective Literacy M 1. Provide Effective Literacy Training for third and fourth grade teachers. 2. Purchase sets of levelized books for classroom use. 3. Provide instruction utilizing Effective Literacy. 4. Provide curriculum mapping inservice to K-Fifth grade teachers. 5. Monitor students progress throughout the year by reviewing LRSD criterion-referenced test results.________________________ 6. Utilize the fourth grade benchmark exam to assess student mastery of benchmarks.___________________ 7. Conduct summative evaluation of the plans implementation\nmake adjustments for 2001-2002.________ Per8on(8) Responsibly f Cheryl Carson Cheryl Carson Lou Alley Third and Fourth Grade Teachers Third and Fourth Grade Teachers Cheryl Carson Gail Hester Carolyn Huie Mico Rhines Cheryl Carson Third and Fourth Grade Teachers Cheryl Carson Third and Fourth Grade Teachers Cheryl Carson Reading Committee Timeline\n^ w 8-9-00 to 6-1-01 7-1-00 to 6-1-01 8-21-00 to 6-1-01 6-5-00 to 8-15-00 1-10-00 to 6-1-01 4-10-01 to 6-1-01 6-1-01 to 6-15-01 12 Resources -tiirii. TMir Staff Development $4,000 for books Pat Busbea Gail Hester PRE PRE PRE 5 j'V'' $4,000MATHEMATICS NARRATIVE The first Mathematics Committee meeting was held on October 4,1999. The committee examined disaggregated achievement data from several sources, identified achievement disparities between subgroups of students, and discussed areas of the mathematics curriculum in which students were not performing at the *1 proficient\" level. The Mathematics Committee also met on October 11,1999 and November 18,1999. An analysis of the Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Exam data for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 school years indicated that a significantly lower number of minority students scored at or above the \"proficient\" level than did non-minority students. A significantly higher percentage of white males, white females, and other females scored at or above the \"proficient\" level during the 1998-99 school year than did students in those subgroups during the 1997-98 school year. However, the percentage of black males, black females, and other males scoring at or above the \"proficient\" level in 1998-99 dropped from 1997-98. Thus, the achievement gap between minority and non-minority students increased in 1998-99. In 1997-98,17 % of all students scored at or above the \"proficient\" level on the Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Exam. In 1998-99, 24% of all students scored at or above the \"proficient\" level, an increase of 7% (See Table 5). As in the area of reading achievement, the Mathematics Committee recognized that the test data was gathered from two different groups of students and did not indicate individual student growth. However, the analysis of data indicated areas of need within the curriculum and instructional methodology. An analysis of the Grade 5 SAT 9 achievement data also indicated that a significantly higher percentage of black females, white males, and other females scored at or above the 50^** percentile on the Total Math score in 1999-2000 than did students in those subgroups during the 1998-99 school year. While not statistically significant, a higher percentage of white females scored at or above the 50^** percentile on the Total Math score in 1999-2000 than did the white females in 1998-99. The achievement rate of black male students remained the same for 1999-2000, and the percentage of other male students scoring at or above the 50^^ percentile on the Total Math score dropped. A comparison of the Total Math scores for fifth grade students in 1997-98,1998-99, and 1999-2000 school years revealed a decrease in the percentage of black male students who 33 scored at or above the 50^** percentile and an increase in the percentage of black female, white male, and white female students who scored at or above the 50^*' percentile. The numbers of other male and other female students were so small that a comparison of the percentage of these students who scored at or above the 50^^ percentile would not be statistically significant. In 1997-98, 20% of all students scored at or above the 50^ percentile on the Total Math score. In 1998- 99,18% of all students scored at or above the 50^*' percentile on the Total Math score. In 1999-2000, 31% of all students scored at or above the 50^^ percentile, an increase of 13% (See Table 6). In 1997-98,73% of all students scored average or above on Problem Solving. Sixty-three percent of all students scored average . or above on Problem Solving in 1998-99, a decrease of 10%. In 1999-2000, 667o of all students scored average or above on Problem Solving, an increase of 37o. In 1997-98, 36% of all students scored average or above on Procedures. In 1998-99, 38% of all students scored average or above on Procedures, an increase of 27o. An increase of 6% occurred in 1999-2000, with 447o of all students scoring average or above on Procedures (See Table 7). Further examination of this data indicated that most of Booker's students were scoring in the second quartile in Problem Solving. Once again, attention should be given to address the needs of this \"bubble\" group of students. While the SAT 9 data from the 1998-99 and 1999- 2000 school years measured the achievement of two different groups of students, it also provided valuable information needed to address curriculum and instructional needs. An analysis of the Fourth Quarter Criterion Reference Test administered in 1998-99 indicated the following percentages of curriculum mastery for all students: Second Grade 87%\nThird Grade 75%\nFourth Grade 18%\nFifth Grade 55%.\nand Sixth Grade 54% (See Table 8). An analysis of the Spring 2000 ALT Math scores indicated that second grade students at Booker Arts Magnet School scored an average of four points higher on their RIT scores than did their peers across the Little Rock School District. Likewise, Booker Arts Magnet School's third and fifth grade students' average RIT scores were two points higher than that of third and fifth graders across the district. Fourth grade students at Booker Arts Magnet School scored an average of one point higher on their RIT score than did fourth graders across the district. It was the consensus of the Mathematics Committee that improving instruction and addressing areas of need within the curriculum would cause student 34 achievement to increase and disparity to decrease. First, the Mathematics Committee examined the existing mathematics program at Booker Arts Magnet School to determine what could be done to increase its effectiveness. The committee members felt that the increase in enrollment of primary students and the Little Rock School District adoption of the TERC mathematics program during the 1999-2000 school year necessitated providing additional support to the classroom teachers. Next, they brainstormed strategies that would provide additional support to classroom teachers. The committee suggested that the part- time mathematics teacher's position be increased to a full-time position. The principal requested that the Magnet Review Committee increase the math teaching positions at Booker Arts Magnet School to two full-time positions. The Magnet Review Committee approved the increase in math teaching positions. The committee then reviewed current research to identify interventions that would positively impact student achievement in the area of mathematics. Zemelman, Daniels, and Hyde reviewed successful mathematics programs across the nation and reported their findings in \"Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in America's Schools\". They found that successful mathematics programs, \"frequently utilized manipulatives, concrete materials, and real-world situations for optimal learning. These are the contexts that make understanding of mathematical ideas possible and provide a bridge to the more abstract symbolism that has maximal power and usefulness\n(Zemelman, et al. 1998). They further observed, \"The need to make decisions based on numerical information permeates society and provides motivation for working with real data\", making a strong statement in favor of utilizing more meaningful, real-life problems in mathematics instruction (Zemelman, et al. 1998) The Mathematics Committee surveyed the research concerning the instruction of math procedures in an effort to develop an intervention to address this need. They found that current research in mathematics emphasized the need to focus primarily on problem solving and the development of problem-solving strategies rather than the memorization of facts when providing instruction to students. Issacs and Carroll cautioned educators, \"We must remember that successful education involves both basic skill and higher-order processes\" (Issacs and Carroll 1999). They further stated, \"Helping students make connections between school mathematics and the real world, helping students develop conceptual understanding as well as procedural skills, helping students learn to explain their thinking and to understand others' explanationscan be achieved 35through a program that also leads to fact mastery\" (Issacs and Carroll 1999). Rathmell agreed, \"...teaching children thinking strategies facilitates their learning and retention of basic facts\" (Rathmell 1978). Researchers offered several suggestions for implementing facts-based instruction. Issacs and Carroll recommended asking students to solve a problem without telling them how to solve it (Issacs and Carroll 1999). Carpenter recommended direct modeling (Carpenter, et al., 1993). Oral or mental counting strategies were recommended by several researchers (Resnick 1983, Carpenter and Moser 1984, Baroody and Ginsburg 1986, Siegler and Jenkins 1989). Thornton and Smith recommended asking children to share their problem-solving strategies with each other (Thornton and Smith 1988). Brownlee and Chazal found that delaying drills resulted in better understanding and less need for drill (Brownlee and Chazal 1935). The Mathematics Committee recognized that children enter kindergarten with varying degrees of proficiency in mathematics. This knowledge, coupled with the desire to provide the most relevant learning experiences in mathematics by using real-life experiences, prompted the committee to consider the various ways parents could reinforce mathematics instruction In the classroom by involving children in mathematical experiences at home. The committee then reviewed current research about utilizing parents as resources in mathematics instruction. Zemelman, Daniels, and Hyde suggested having a Parents' Night as a means of informing parents about changes in the mathematics curriculum or program. They also suggested the Parents' Night as a means of helping parents to create materials to work with their children at home and to help them recognize materials they have already have available in their home to work with their children (Zemelman, et al. 1998). They stated, \"Parents and the home environment of children of all ages can provide the richness of materials and opportunities for latent mathematical thinking to flourish\" (Zemelman, et al. 1998). While parents might first feel reluctant to assist their children in mathematical practices at home, Zemelman, Daniels, and Hyde recommend that educators encourage parents to serve as resources to the school. They stated, \"In general, parents need only the desire to involve their children in talking and thinking about the meaningful and relevant mathematics they encounter each day\" (Zemelman, et al. 1998). They further suggest, \"Perhaps the best way for parents to help their children with mathematics is to send the clear message through their words and actions that mathematics is all around us, it is a vital part of our lives, and it is understandable with some effort. Let's do it together\nit can be fun\" (Zemelman, et al. 1998). 36The Mathematics Committee selected providing real-life math experiences, providing additional support for classroom instruction, and providing more effective instruction in the area of math procedures as interventions for improving student achievement in mathematics. The committee recognized the important role that parents play in their child's education and planned to utilize them as resources in mathematics instruction. 37School Joseph R. Booker Arts Magnet School Improvement Plan Year 2000-2001 Priority 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Supporting Data: In 1998-99,17% of students scored at or above the \"proficient\" level on the Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Exam. In 1999-00, 317o of students scored at or above the 50*^ percentile of the Grade 5 SAT 9 Mathematics Total. 14% of black males, 207o of black females, 63% of white males, 31% of white females, 507o of other males, and 100% of other females scored at or above the 50^^ percentile on the grade 5 SAT 9 Mathematics Total. 66 4 of students scored at or above average on Problem Solving, and 44% of students scored at or above average on Procedures on the Grade 5 SAT 9 Mathematics test. In 1998-99, fourth quarter Criterion-Referenced Test Mathematics results indicated the following percentages of mastery, grade 2, 87%\ngrade 3, 75%\ngrade 4,187o\ngrade 5, 55%\nand grade 6, 54%. In 1999-00, Spring ALT results indicated the following average RIT scores: grade 2,185\ngrade 3,195\ngrade 4, 203\nand grade 5, 210. Gool(s): lOOYo of Booker Arts Magnet School students will perform at or above the \"proficient\" level on the Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Exam. 3865% of Booker Arts Magnet School students in every subgroup of race and gender will perform at or above the 50^ percentile on the Grade 5 SAT 9 Mathematics test. One-Year Benchmarks: At least 32% of Booker Arts Magnet School students (an increase of 8 students) will perform at or above the M proficient\" level on the Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Exam. At least the following increases in the percentages and numbers of every subgroup of race and gender of students who perform at or above the 50^ percentile on the Grade 5 SAT 9 Mathematics test\nBlack males Black females White males White females Other males Other females Increase to 19.1% (5.1% increase or 2 students) Increase to 24.5% (4.5% increase or 2 students) Increase to 63.2% (0.2% increase or 1 student) Increase to 34.4% (3.4% increase or 1 student) Increase to 51.5% (1.5% increase or 1 student) Maintain 100% 39School Booker Arts Magnet Priority 2: Improve Achievement in Mathematics School Improvement Plan Year 2000 - 2001 Intervention: Provide Real-Life Math Experiences 3: : Actions\nPersqn(s) 1. Utilize 100 Days of Math activities. 2. Utilize Math Learning Logs. 3. Integrate math benchmarks into fine arts activities\nexample-Business Unit in Visual Art. 4. Conduct various math-oriented community service projects\nexample-St. Judes Math-a-thon and Pennies for Pasta. 5. Involve students in running school bookstore and Accelerated Reader store. 6. Involve fifth grade GT students in holiday crafts business unit. 7. Conduct math-related field trips to businesses in the communityexample-banks, retail stores, factories. Reap^n^blev * E- K-First Grade Teachers K-Fifth Grade Teachers Fine Arts Specialists Merilyn Burruss Tina Brown Patsy Middleton Reading Committee Carolyn Huie Ken Milton K-Fifth Grade Teachers Timeline 8-24-00 to 6-1-01 8-24-01 to 6-1-02 8-24-00 to 6-1-01 8-24-00 to 6-1-01 8-24-00 to 6-1-01 8-24-00 to 6-1-01 8-24-2000 to 6-1-2001 40 Staff Development Donations VIPS $250 Materials for crafts $750 for Transportation Lee Ann Matson Dtetfict Business s ' Donation/. 6f\u0026amp;nVPTA  Budget : Donations $250 $750School Booker Arts Magnet School Improvement Plan Year 2000 - 2001 Priority 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Intervention: Provide Real-Life Math Experiences -'***. i*f Aft- s*\n'  '.AV . - ' 8. Monitor student progress throughout the year by utilizing LRSD criterion-referenced tests._________ 9. Conduct summative evaluation of the plans implementation\nmake adjustments for 2001-2002, f^rsoh(s) R^spPhsibie Cheryl Carson Second - Fifth Grade Teachers Cheryl Carson Math Committee nmelirie 1-10-01 to 6-1-01 6-1-01 to 6-15-01 41 ResPdrces  \"i fi' PRE w -\u0026gt;8: k-.vakg IBUBlnes^ Dotifttlon/ SrajigRrA\n?\nyj-.A-gy^^7j   ,5*\n\" lSchool Booker Arts Magnet School Improvement Plan Year 2000 - 2001 Priority 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics Intervention: Provide Additional Support for Classroom Instruction fl*'. * * AciUdhs :V SV fX 1. Purchase and utilize new math software. 2. Provide curriculum mapping inservice to K-Fifth Grade teachers. 3. Utilize Vertical Teaming to close curriculum gaps while planning daily lessons. 4. Utilize parents as tutors when needed. 5. Provide workshops for parents. 6. Monitor student progress throughout the year by utilizing LRSD criterion-referenced tests. 7. Conduct summative evaluation of the plans implementation\nmake adjustments for 2001-2002. ^MpiSnsIhla Lou Alley Cheryl Carson Lynda Spencer Patsy Middleton Cheryl Carson Gall Hester Carolyn Huie MIco Rhines Lou Alley Math Specialists K-Fifth Grade Teachers K-Fifth Grade Teachers Math Committee Cheryl Carson Second-Fifth Grade Teachers Cheryl Carson Math Committee llihdlne 7-1-00 to 6-1-01 6-5-00 to 8-15-00 8-9-00 to 6-1-01 8-21-00 to 6-1-01 September 20000 March 2001 9-15-00 to 6-1-01 6-1-01 to 6-15-01 42 : RewuixeB n $3,666 for software Gail Hester PRE staff Development PRE VIPS poo for materials Gail Hester PRE w 9 kJ ' $3,000 $100School Improvement Plan School Booker Arts Magnet Year 2000 - 2001 Priority 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics intervention: Provide More Effective Instruction in the Area of Math Procedures .-I Actions \u0026gt;1*.: A\n\nP6rsdh{s). Timeline SMI DlStrtct ^4^ Business DpnatiohZ 1. Form a committee to examine student achievement data in the area of math procedures.______________ 2. Disaggregate and analyze 1999-2000 SAT 9, CRT, ALT. and Grade 4 Benchmark Exam results to identify areas of need.___________ 3. Write a plan to improve instruction in the areas of computation, number facts, and rounding.______________ 4. Begin implementation of the plan to improve achievement in math procedures. Cheryl Carson Math Committee 4.\njiixXi 8-9-00 to 10-4-00 8-9-00 to 10-1-00 gg PRE :fiUd(}ei 5I-: GranVPTA budget 5. Utilize weekly Jostens lab reports to monitor student achievement in math procedures. 6. Monitor student progress throughout the year by utilizing LRSD criterion-referenced tests. 7. Conduct sum native evaluation of the plans implementation\nmake adjustments for 2001-2002, Cheryl Carson Math Committee K-Fifth Grade Teachers Math Specialists Cheryl Carson First - Fifth Grade Teachers Cheryl Carson Second-Fifth Grade Teachers Cheryl Carson Math Committee 8-9-00 to 10-1-00 10-1-00 to 6-1-01 8-21-00 to 6-1-01 1-10-01 to 6-1-01 6-1-01 to 6-15-01 43 Math Department Patsy Middleton PRECHARACTER EDUCATION NARRATIVE The Character Education Committee had its first meeting on October 4, 1999. During this meeting, the committee disaggregated suspension data, examined attendance and achievement data of suspended students, and discussed areas of concern identified by parents, students, and teachers on the School Climate Survey. The committee also identified the criteria for a student to be considered at-risk\" for developing behavior problems during a school year. \"At- risk\" was defined as having one or more office referrals during a school year. The Character Education Committee also met on December 13,1999, March 7, 2000, and April 13, 2000. An analysis of the suspension data for the 1996-97,1997-98, and 1998-99 school years indicated an increase in the number of students suspended and a decrease in the total number of suspensions over the three-year period. In 1996- 97, 23 students were suspended for a total of 70 suspensions. In 1997-98, 25 students were suspended for a total of 64 suspensions. In 1998-99, 33 students were suspended for a total of 51 suspensions. However, in 1999-2000, only 14 students were suspended for a total of 15 suspensions. (See Table 9). The data analysis also revealed a decrease in the average number of suspensions per suspended student over the four-year period. In 1996-97, the average number of suspensions per suspended student was 3.4. The number dropped to 2.5 in 1997- 98. In 1998-99, the average number of suspensions per suspended student dropped to 1.5. In 1999-2000, the average number of suspensions per student dropped to 1.1 (See Table 10). Additionally, the committee examined suspension rates for the 1996-97,1997-98,1998-99, and 1999-2000 school years. In 1996- 97, 3.8% of students received suspensions. The number increased to 4.3% in the 1997.98 school year. In 1998-99, 5.4% of students received at least one suspension. In 1999-2000, 2.6% of students received at least one suspension. (See Table 11). This comparison revealed a slight increase in the suspension rate over the first three years and a significant decrease in the fourth year. The Character Education Committee examined attendance and achievement data for each student suspended during the 1996-97,1997-98, and 1998-99 school years. This analysis indicated that 100% of students who had been suspended and who were excessively absent were below grade level. In addition, the Character Education Committee examined School Climate Survey results for the same three-year period\n1996-97,1997-98, and 1998-99. 44The following common areas of concern for parents, students, and teachers were identified\n\"Students treat other students with respect\", \"Students treat teachers with respect\", \"Students take care of and respect their own property and that of other students\", and \"Most students obey the rules\". School Climate Survey results for the 1999-2000 school year indicated that \"Students show concern and respect for each other\" were among the top concerns of students and teachers. The Character Education Committee was pleased that school-wide interventions had resulted in a decrease in the total number of suspensions and a decrease in the average number of suspensions per suspended student over the three-year period. However, the increase in the number of students receiving suspensions (from 23 to 33) during the same time period was identified as an area of concern. The examination of attendance, achievement, and suspension data also indicated another major area of concern. School Climate Survey results from the 1996-97,1997-98,1998-99 and 1999-2000 school years also consistently identified the areas of mutual respect among students, respect for teachers, and compliance with school rules as common concerns among parents, students, and teachers. The committee examined the overall program at Booker Arts Magnet School to determine how to address areas of concern related to school climate and how to continue the trend of decreasing student suspensions. The Character Education Committee then began to examine current research on modifying student behavior and working with \"at-risk\" children. Research confirmed the impact of student behavior on the climate of a school. Langlois and Zales stated, \"...controlling behavior is the first requirement for creating an environment in which instruction could occur\" (Langlois and Zales 1991). Lipsitz described successful schools for young adolescents as being, \"environments that promote social development. They assume social development to include a multitude of characteristics\nself-discipline, industriousness, respect for authority, perserverance, patience, honesty\" (Lipsitz 1984). Societal changes over the last few decades have caused schools to have to reevaluate traditional methods for controlling student behavior. These societal changes have also greatly influenced children. Astin reported, \"over the last two decades, adolescents have become more concerned for their own personal well-being and less concerned for the well-being of others\" (Astin 1987). Lickona defined character education as, \"the deliberate effort to cultivate virtue\" (Lickona 1999). He further stated, \"To be effective, character education 45 must be comprehensive, intentionally making use of every phase of school life as an opportunity to develop good character\" (Lickona 1999). The Character Education committee concurred with Lickona and began looking at character education programs in use across the nation. They began with the premise that they would either select or create a character education program for Booker Arts Magnet. One committee member was enrolled in a graduate course on character education at University of Central Arkansas and shared information gathered from her coursework. The committee also received feedback from two staff members who had attended a Character-Centered Teaching workshop in December 1998. The committee also requested to make site visits at schools that were successfully implementing character education programs. The principal contacted Margaret Crank at the Arkansas Department of Education and asked her to recommend successful programs to visit. Site visits were made to Gardner Primary School in Hot Springs on February 28, 2000 and Lakewood Elementary in North Little Rock on March 1, 2000. The committee quickly reached consensus to implement Character-Centered Teaching beginning in the 2000-2001 school year. The Character Education Committee also felt that additional materials needed to be purchased to support the implementation of Character-Centered Teaching. As a result, increasing the amount of character education materials available to teachers was identified as another intervention. Additionally, the Character Education Committee felt that some direct intervention needed to take place with students identified as at-risk for developing behavior problems. Targeting at-risk students with an intervention program became another intervention for the reduction of suspensions and the improvement of school climate. The Character Education Committee identified tasks to be completed prior to the beginning of the 2000-2001 school year and worked to complete those tasks in July and August 2000. The committee has also requested to have the opportunity to visit Gardner Primary School again at the beginning of the 2000- 2001 school year. 46School Joseph R. Booker Arts Magnet School Improvement Plan Year 2000-2001 Priority 3: Implement Character Education Supporting Dota: In 1996-97, 23 students were suspended for a total of 79 suspensions. In 1997-98, 26 students were suspended for a total of 64 suspensions. In 1998-99, 33 students were suspended for a total of 51 suspensions. In 1999-2000,14 students were suspended for a total of 15 suspensions. In 1996-97, the average number of suspensions per suspended student was 3.4. In 1997-98, the average number decreased to 2.5 suspensions per suspended student. In 1998-99, the average number of suspensions per suspended student dropped to 1.5. In 1999-2000, the average number of suspensions per suspended student dropped to 1.1. In 1998-99, 65% of students who were suspended received more than one suspension. In 1999-2000,7% of students who were suspended received more than one suspension. In 1998-97, 3.8% of Booker Arts Magnet School students received suspensions. In 1997-98, the number increased to 4.3% of students receiving suspensions. In 1998-99, 5.4% of students received at least one suspension. In 1999-2000, 2.6% of students received at least one suspension. In the 1996-97,1997-98, and 1998-99 school years, 100% of students who were chronically absent and who had been suspended from school were below grade level in achievement. 47CCOE survey results for the 1996-97,1997-98, and 1998-99 school years indicated that Students treat other students with respect\", \"Students treat teachers with respect\", \"Students take care of and respect their own property and that of other students\", and Most students obey the rules\" were areas of concern for parents, students, and teachers. Goals: At least 987o of Booker Arts Magnet School's students will be suspension free. At least 95% of Booker Arts Magnet School's suspended students will receive only one suspension per year. One-Year Benchmarks: At least 97.5% of Booker Arts Magnet School students will be suspension-free (an increase of 1 student) during the 2000-2001 school year. At least 93.5% of Booker Arts Magnet School's suspended students (an increase of 1 student) will receive only one suspension during the 2000-2001 school year. 48School Booker Arts Magnet Priority 3: Implement Character Education School improvement Plan Year 2000 - 2001 Intervention: Target At-Risk Students with Intervention Program .f- 'S' 4 Rertori(si) jllmellhe Resources p'L a. 1. Identify at-risk students. ri'? i * 4 '\"S. 2. Involve at-risk students in a mentoring group/club. 3. Provide counselor intervention for at- risk students. 4. Maintain close communication with parents of at-risk students. 5. Develop individual behavior plans for at-risk students, if necessary. 6. Provide incentives for at-risk students exhibiting appropriate behavior. 7. Monitor at-risk students progress on a quarterly basis utilizing referral forms. 8. Conduct summative evaluation of the plans implementation: make adjustments for 2001-2002. Joyce Willingham Cheryl Carson Vivian Dooley Tammy Gingerich Vivian Dooley Tammy Gingerich Joyce Willingham Vivian Dooley Tammy Gingerich K-Fifth Grade Teachers Counselors Character Education Committee Joyce Willingham Cheryl Carson Cheryl Carson Character Education Committee 8-21-00 to 6-1-01 10-4-00 to 6-1-01 8-21-00 to 6-1-01 8-21-00 to 6-1-01 8-21-00 to 6-1-01 8-21-00 to 6-1-01 10-23-00 to 6-1-01 6-1-01 to 6-15-01 49 Parents Incentives Dr. Linda Watson ,ie^ . 2^ as ppnatlon/ ^rant/FIA .lU. DonationsSchool Booker Arts Magnet Priority 3\nImplement Character Education School Improvement Plan Year 2000 - 2001 Intervention: Implement Character-Centered Teaching I?\n.J_-k w \u0026lt; Adildjii t is-.. vM- s/- 1. Develop plan for implementing Character-Centered Teaching. 2. Present plan to staff. 3. Enlist parental support. 4. Enlist community support. 5. Implement plan. 6. Monitor implementation of plan. 7. Conduct summative evaluation of plans implementation\nmake adjustments for 2001-2002.. F^raph(si Character Education Committee Character Education Committee Character Education Committee Character Education Committee Cheryl Carson Character Education Committee Cheryl Carson Character Education Committee Cheryl Carson Character Education Committee .Onieilite/ BS Resources r=^- 1 6-15-00 to 8-9-00 8-9-00 to 8-15-00 8-15-00 to 6-1-01 8-15-00 to 6-1-01 8-21-00 to 6-1-01 8-21-00 to 6-1-01 6-1-01 to 6-15-01 50 SSi Business i Donation/ Orartt/hTA -\u0026lt;Wn' sA-vSchool Booker Arts Magnet Priority 3: Implement Character Education School Improvement Plan Year 2000 - 2001 Intervention: Increase Amount of Character Education Materials .. Acuphs % BySiridsS Resources fiWonW- IWJ!\".' AespBiwiBie. . 's'* 'cs* 1. Examine caxaiogs for Cnaracier  of ( Mi Education materials. 2. Implement Internet search for Character Education materials. 3. Select and purchase Character Education materials. 4. Inservice faculty on the use of Character Education materials. 5. Conduct summative evaluation of the plans implementation\nmake adjustments for 2001-2002. Character Education Committee Character Education Committee Character Education Committee Cheryl Carson Lou Alley Character Education Committee Cheryl Carson Character Education Committee t Jr 6-15-00 to 10-1-00 6-15-00 to 10-1-00 6-15-00 to 10-1-00 8-9-00 to 6-1-01 6-1-01 to 6-15-01 51 S' / .2S_5. J? Dr. Bonnie Lesley Dr. Bonnie Lesley $5,000 for materials Gail Hester ... Donation/ z^ratftfMtA ii $5,000STUOENT ATTENDANCE NARRATIVE The Student Attendance Committee held its first meeting on October 4,1999. During this meeting, the committee examined attendance data for all students, achievement data for excessively absent students, achievement and attendance data for suspended students, and attendance data for staff. The Student Attendance Committee also identified the criteria for a student to be considered excessively absent during a school year. \"Excessively absent\" was defined as being absent 16 or more days during a school year. These absences could be excused absences, uncxcused absences, or a combination of both kinds of absences. The Student Attendance Committee also met on October 11,1999 and November 29, 1999. An analysis of attendance data indicated that 13% of students were excessively absent in 1996-97,11 % of students were excessively absent in 1997-98, and 8% of students were excessively absent in 1998-99 (See Table 12). The Average Daily Attendance for 1996-97 was 578.5 students. The Average Daily Attendance in 1997-98 was 593.6 students. In 1998-99, the Average Daily Attendance was 606.4 students (See Table 13). The percentage of student attendance during the third quarter of 1996-97 was 96.29%. The Third Quarter Average Attendance for 1997-98 was 95.06%. In 1998-99, the Third Quarter Average Attendance was 96.18%. In 1999- 2000, the Third Quarter average attendance was 96.57%. The average Third Quarter average attendance for these years was 96.03. (See Table 12). An examination of the achievement levels of currently enrolled students that were excessively absent during the 1996-97,1997-98, and/or 1998-99 school years indicated that 28% of the students were at or above grade level in achievement. Seventy-two percent of currently enrolled students who were excessively absent one or more of these years were below grade level in achievement. Early Prevention of School Failure scores, SAT 9 Basic Battery scores. Little Rock School District Criterion- Referenced Test scores, and Grade 4 Benchmark Exam scores were utilized to assess achievement. Analysis of the attendance, achievement, and suspension data indicated that 100% of suspended students who were excessively absent were below grade level in achievement. The Student Attendance committee also analyzed data on staff attendance for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 school years. Data for the 1996- 97 school year was not available. The attendance rate was based on the number of sick leave and personal leave days taken per staff member compared to the number of contracted workdays. The analysis for the two- year period indicated a consistent rate of attendance among staff members95% for both the 1997-98 and 1998-99 school years. The data was disaggregated by grade level, subject area, and position to determine whether patterns of absenteeism existed. In summary, the Student Attendance Committee was concerned about the percentage of students who were excessively absent while also recognizing that this percentage had declined each year. The committee felt that improving the attendance of excessively absent students would positively impact their student achievement. The committee also decided to refer the matter of improving staff attendance to the building level and district level administrators for their consideration. The Student Attendance Committee next began to closely examine components of Booker Arts Magnet Schools attendance program to determine how the existing program might be improved to increase student attendance. In order to identify interventions that would most likely be successful in improving student attendance, research was reviewed. The survey of research confirmed the impact of student attendance on academic achievement. Hegner stated, \"The success of the educational process depends on the presence of pupils in the classroom, continuity of instruction, class participation, and well-planned instructional activities under the guidance of a competent insti^uctor\" (Hegner 1987). Ediger concurred, \"When students are tardy or absent.. .sequential learning cannot occur, subject matter and skills cannot be developed, and much student talent is wasted\" (Ediger 1987). Ratigan and Kube stated, \"Students who are absent from class miss out on significant educational opportunities.. .Absenteeism costs billions of dollars due to lost instructional time\" (Ratigan and Kube 1991). Research confirmed that a correlation does exist between student attendance and academic achievement. A study conducted at North Scott High School in Eldridge, Iowa revealed that classroom teachers recognized that their students' academic achievement improved due to increased daily attendance (Ratigan and Kube 1991). Research identified two elements that were common to programs successful in encouraging student attendance. Bolos and Lincoln agreed with 53Kubc and Ratigan that parental involvement was essential to the success of attendance programs (Bolos and Lincoln 1983, Kube and Ratigan 1991). The use of incentives to improve student attendance was determined to be successful according to Bolos, Lincoln, and Goldman (Bolos and Lincoln 1983, Goldman 1989). Goldman reported another significant result of implementing a program to increase student attendance, \"Aside from the obvious benefits of having the kids in school consistently, the notion of heightened awareness about attendance has spread into a more general attitude of improved scholastic achievement\" (Goldman 1989). The Student Attendance Committee selected targeting chronic absentees with an intervention program, providing incentives to students to encourage perfect attendance, and involving parents in encouraging perfect attendance as interventions for improving student attendance. It was the consensus of the committee that students have to be present to maximize learning. Kube and Ratigan summed up the observations of the Student Attendance Committee by saying, \"With absenteeism down, learning can only go up!\" (Kube and Ratigan 1991). 54School Joseph R, Booker Arts Magnet School Improvement Plan Year 2000-2001 Priority 4: Increase Student Attendance Supporting Data: In 1996-97,137o of students (78 of 603) were excessively absent (absent 16 or more days). In 1997-98,11% of students (66 of 597) were excessively absent. In 1998-99, 8% (46 of 606) students were excessively absent. 28% of currently enrolled students who were excessively absent during the 1996-97,1997-98, and/or 1998-99 school years are at or above grade level in achievement. 72% of currently enrolled students who were excessively absent one or more of the three previous years are below grade level in achievement. The daily average attendance for 1996-97 was 578.5, for 1997-98 was 593.57, and for 1998-99 was 606.37, The Third Quarter Average Attendance for 1996-97 was 96.29%, for 1997-98 was 95.06%, and for 1998-99 was 96.18%, and for 1999-00 was 96.57. The four-year average was 96.03%. 6oal(s): The average daily attendance rate of Booker Arts Magnet School students will be at least 984. At least 95% of Booker Arts Magnet School students will attend school regularly. 55One-Year Benchmarks: The average daily attendance rate of Booker Arts Magnet School students will increase by at least 0.16 percent (an increase to 96.73%) during the 2000-2001 school year as measured by Third Quarter Average Attendance. At least 92.3% of Booker Arts Magnet School students (an increase of 2 students) will attend school regularly by accumulating no more than 15 absences during the 2000-2001 school year. 56School Booker Arts Magnet Priority 4: Increase Student Attendance School Improvement Plan Year 2000 - 2001 Intervention: Target Students Who are Excessively Absent with Intervention Program TT-T * hRj \u0026lt; % * _ FjfteXiW)./, ? J V ^nmellrte 1. Identify students who are excessively absent. Cheryl Carson Tisa Manley 'fr.W\u0026gt; District\n2. Identify bubble students (those students who are in danger of being excessively absent.) _______ 3. Provide individual counseling sessions with identified students. Cheryl Carson Tisa Manley 4.Initiate parent contact each time identified student is absent. Vivian Dooley Tammy Gingerich Tisa Manley 5. Provide rewards on a frequent basis for identified students who improve attendance._____________ 6. Conduct summative evaluation of the plans implementation\nmake' adjustments for 2001 -2002. Attendance Committee Cheryl Carson Attendance Committee 8-21-00 to 6-1-01 8-21-00 to 6-1-01 8-21-00 to 6-1-01 8-21-00 to 6-1-01 8-21-00 to 6-1-01 6-1-01 to 6-15-01  Burliness IdUdgU' -I vt ?PuS'. ... Dbhationz,: ..Orantil.TA i 57 Donations DonationsSchool Improvement Plan School Booker Arts Magnet School Year 2000 - 2001 Priority 4: Increase Student Attendance Intervention: Provide Incentives to Encourage Perfect Attendance S?'T 'i i' 3 % tt.: Sr ti- 1. Recognize students and staff monthly with a perfect attendance bulletin board._________________ 2. Provide monthly perfect attendance incentives by grade levels._______________________ 3. Solicit student input in the selection of quarterly school-wide perfect attendance incentives. 4. Provide quarterly school-wide perfect attendance incentives. i /rtV rS: V H: n\u0026gt; Attendance Committee K-Fifth Grade Teachers Attendance Committee Attendance Committee 5. Conduct summative evaluations of the plans implementation\nmake adjustments for 2001-2002.________ Cheryl Carson Attendance Committee 10-2-00 to 6-1-01 10-2-00 to 6-1-01 10-20-00 to 6-1-01 10-20-00 to 6-1-01 6-1-01 to 6-15-01 *\u0026lt; T 1 Z . VIPS 58 Survey $500 for incentives $500 Business. DondtidhA OranVPTA DonationsSchool improvement Plan School Booker Arts Magnet Year 2000 - 2001 Priority 4: Increase Student Attendance Intervention: Involve Parents in Encouraging Perfect Attendance ^.t 11*!  s 1' B Pd^on(a| heapoiisibla Timeline it'y. ResOUrcies Business I*' 1. Inform parents of the impact of attendance on achievement via PTA meetings, newsletters, and memos. 2. Provide incentives to parents to attend student performances and parent conferences. 3. Design logo promoting good attendance to be placed on all communication to parents. 4. Provide information to parents about alternate means of transportation\nexample-bus and taxi. 5. Utilize school directory for carpool information. 6. Conduct summative evaluation of the plans implementation\nmake adjustments for 2001 -2002. Cheryl Carson Attendance Committee PTA Ken Milton Attendance Committee Cheryl Carson Attendance Committee Parents Cheryl Carson Attendance Committee 10-19-00 to 6-1-01 11-18-00 to 6-1-01 11-1-00 to 6-1-01 11-1-00 to 6-2-01 8-5-00 to 6-1-01 6-1-01 to 6-15-01 Donations PTA $50 - Cards  Directory- PTA Budget W iS'-'\n59 $50 Donatioh/ Grdht/PTA , Donations PTAN Hr\u0026gt;2\u0026gt; t w --5 ^0/ '-J -tk 1 1 1 Sx ff^ -h r e e 4D(, to S t mill . ^-Mlll ' tl 11\n'S\u0026gt;- St'dfcujalL /I2. UO 1 III Ifi8 lb'l J03 ID^I IDi\u0026gt; IDS IDZ IDI 1 r s PraLibrOJ \u0026lt;/// j w Hid p-\u0026gt; tint Main Hill bO 310 3/Z Libnjr^ ^o't 311 - \u0026gt; , bJ ffAilujay 1.0^ zdg f4alli^ay' J9\u0026lt;- 3dS y 7 z)s c 2)3\u0026gt; Sor Son s/aewxIR rou^d r-3o 2DS^ ZDI -------\u0026lt; 1J)Z. R C t 3C\u0026gt;% 3o^ 30/ 3d3 5I d e. u) a K 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 8, 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY Arkansas State Department of Education. 1998. Effective Literacy.\" Available: http: www.arkedu.state.ar.us. Astin, A., K. Green, and W. Zorn. 1987. The American Freshman: 20 Year Trends. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Higher Education Research Institute. Baroody, A. and H. Ginsburg. 1986. \"The Relationship between Initial Meaning and Mechanical Knowledge of Arithmetic.\" In J. Hievert, ed. Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: The Case of Mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Barr, R., and W. Parrett. 1995. Hope at Last for At-Risk Youth. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Bracey, G. 1995. Reading Recovery: Is it Effective? Is it Cost- Effective?\" Phi Delta Kappan 76: 493-494. Brooks, P. 1993. Research Summary: Accelerated Reader. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Advantage Learning Systems. Brownell. W. and C. Chazal. 1935. The Effects of Premature Drill in Third Grade Arithmetic.\" Journal of Educational Research 29:17-28. Carpenter, T, E. Ansell, M. Franke, E. Fennema, and L. Weisbeck. 1993. \"Models of Problem Solving: A Study of Kindergarten Children's Problem-Solving Processes.\" Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 24: 428-441. Carpenter, T. and J. Moser. 1984. The Acquisition of Addition and Subtraction Concepts in Grades One through Three.\" Journal For Research in Mathematics Education 15: 179-202. Clay, M. 1975. What Did I Write?. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann. 6110. Dorn, L, C. french, and T. Jones. 1998. Apprenticeship in Literacy: Transitions Across Reading and Writing. York, ME: Stenhouse. 11. Ediger, M. 1987. School Dropouts, Absenteeism, and Tardiness.\" Viewpoints 87\n13. 12. Goldman, J. 1989. \"Learn to Earn! Growing Number of Schools Offer Cash, Prizes to Spur Students.\" The School Administrator 46:12-14. M 13. Hegner, M. 1987. Absenteeism PreventionA Model for Intervention. NASSP Bulletin 71:125-126. 14. Issacs, A. and W. Carroll. 1999. Strategies for Basic-facts Instruction.\" Teaching Children Mathematics 5: 1-17. 15. Juel, C. 1988. Learning to Read and Write: A Longitudinal Study of fifty-four Children from first Through fourth Grade.\" Journal of Educational Psychology 80: 437-447. 16. Kube, B., and G. Ratigan. 1991. All Present and Accounted for.\" The American School Board Journal 178: 22-23. 17. Langlois, D. and C. Zales. 1991. Anatomy of a Top Teacher. The American School Board Journal 178: 44-46. 18. Lickona, T. 1999. Religion and Character.\" Phi Delta Kappan 81: 21-27. 19. Lipsitz, J. 1984. Successful Schools for Young Adolescents. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. w 20. Lyons, C. 1991. Reading Recovery. Questions Classroom Teachers Ask. The Reading Teacher 31: 384-408. 21. Osbourne, P. and E. Adams, 1998. Research Summary: Accelerated Reader. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Advantage Learning Systems. 22.Paul, T. 1992. National Research Study and Theory of Reading Practices. Madison, WI: The Institute for Academic Excellence. 6223. Paul, T. 1993. National Study of LiteratureBased Reading: How Literature-Based Reading Improves Both Reading and Math Ability. Madison, WI: The Institute for Academic Excellence. 24. Pinnell, G. 1995. Reading Recovery: A Review of Research: Educational Report #23, Special Topics Issue. Columbus, Ohio. Martha L. King Language and Literacy Center. 25. Rathmell, E. 1978. \"Using Thinking Strategies to Teach the Basic Facts.\" In Developing Computational Skills. 1978 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Reston, VA: Nation Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 26. Ratigan, \u0026amp;. and B. Kube. 1991. \"Developing a Student Attendance Policy that Works.\" ERS Spectrum 91: 37-41. 27. Resnick, L 1983. \"A Developmental Theory of Number Understanding.\" In H. Ginsburg, ed. The Development of Mathematical Thinking. New York, NY: Academic Press. 28. Siegler, R. and E. Jenkins. 1989. How Children Discover New Strategies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 29. Thornton, C. and P. Smith. 1988. Action Research: Strategies for Learning Subtraction Facts.\" Arithmetic Teacher 35: 8-12. 30. Zemelman, S., H. Daniels, and A. Hyde. 1998. Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in America's Schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 63BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL Percentage of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced on Fourth Grade Literacy Benchmark Exam 1997-1999 Table 1 1997-98 1998-99 BM BF WM WF OM OF 15% 4% 35% 30% 0% 33% 0% 35% 58% 63% 0% 100% Total 20% 39% BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL Percentage of Fifth Grade Students Scoring At or Above the 50^^ Percentile in SAT 9 Total Reading Scores 1997-2000 Table 2 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 BM BF WM WF OM OF 16% 27% 43% 61% 100% 67% 15% 15% 50% 62% 100% 33% 7% 24% 75% 47% 07o 100% Total 40% 35% 37% 64BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL Percentage of Fifth Grade Students Scoring At or Above Average in SAT 9 Reading Vocabulary and Comprehension Tabic 3 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 Vocabulary Comprehension 65% 72% 66%\u0026gt; BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL Percentage of Mastery on Fourth Quarter Criterion-Referenced Reading Test 1998 -1999 Table 4 Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth 66% 727o 867o 847o 65BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL Percentage of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced on Fourth Grade Mathematics Benchmark Exam 1997-1999 Tabic 5 1997-98 1998-99 BM BF WF OF 10% 5% 30% 20% 100% 33% 57a 0% 5Z7a 38% Q7a 100% Total 17% 39% BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL Percentage of Fifth Grade Students Scoring At or Above the 50^^ Percentile in SAT 9 Total Math Scores 1997-2000 Table 6 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 8M BF WM WF OM OF 14% 47., 337o 23% 100% Z57a 14% 4% 33% 237o 1007o Z57a 147o 207o 63% 317o 50% 1007o Total 18% 18% 31% 66BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL Percentage of Students Scoring At or Above Average In SAT 9 Math Problem Solving and Procedures 1997 - 2000 Table 7 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 Problem Solving Procedures 73% 36% 637o 38% 66%, 44% BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL Percentage of Mastery on Fourth Quarter Criterion-Referenced Math Test 1998 -1999 Table 8 Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth 87% 75% 187o 557o 547o 67BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL Number of Students Suspended and Number of Suspensions 1996 - 2000 Table 9 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 Number Of Students Suspended Number Of Suspensions 23 79 26 64 33 51 14 15 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL Average Number of Suspensions Per Suspended Students 1996 - 2000 Table 10 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 Average Number of Suspensions 3.4 2.5 1.5 1.1 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL Percentage of Students Receiving at Least One Suspension Table 11 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 Percentage of Students 3.8 4.3 5.4 2.6 68BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL Percentage of Students Absent 16 or More Days 1996 -1999 Tabic 12 1996 - 97 1997 - 98 1998 -99 137o 117o 8% BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL Average Daily Attendance 1996 - 1999 Table 13 1996 - 97 1997 - 98 1998 - 99 578.50 593.57 606.37 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL Third Quarter Average Attendance 1996 - 2000 Table 14 1996 - 97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 96.29% 95.06% 96.18% 96.57 69BradyL i I 4 II I te .- \u0026gt;1 ' I \"d i*i 4 Ir* !-*JE i^S w I Saaaia^MBjglMiMBMMaftMWMMMMII M IM jL'i^iyrc^ ^EPCQ\u0026lt;iscfKoo. (0X50:^00: I 27zs s-tiuknts, staff, aru I coTn/nz/Tiii^ of I Braxiy E^Cementary SofiooC(iave. I fi-i^fL. e?(pc.ctations. bc-Cicx^c^  tfiat ad students can Become. i successful Cife Cong Ceamers. fwj p Ek*' [iW? L\n-^ K| .9 \u0026gt;1 I  ft * ft ^i k IStudent Test Results Test Type: Stanford Achievement Grade 5 Testing Category: Math Average Scale Score: 650 Median National Percentile: 16 Average NCE Score: 33 Students Tested: 39 Students Not Tested 9 Percent of students scoring in each group 1-25 62 26-50 21 51-75 15 76-99 3LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2000-2001 PRIORITY 1\nTo improve student achievement in literacy. SUPPORTING DATA: State Grade 4 Benchmark ACTAAP Exam SAT 9 Grade 5 Total Reading LRSD Grades 2-5 ALT 19% proficient or above 29% above 50* percentile proficient or above GOAL\nGrade 4 Benchmark ACTAAP Exam SAT 9 Grade 5 Reading LRSD Grades 2-5 ALT 100% proficient or above 65% at or above 50* percentile 100% proficient or above BENCHMARK\nGrade 4 Benchmark ACTAAP 8 points 8.1% or 4 students from basic and below to proficient and advanced. SAT 9 Grade 5 Reading 7 points *27% or 11 students from lowest quartile to 2^ and 3*^ quartile. *9% or 4 students from 2* to 3\"* quartile. *13% or 5 students from 3\"* quartile to highest quartile. LRSD Grade 2-5 ALT INTERVENTION: Success for All Reading Program, Professional Development for teacher Pre-Kindergarten - 5* grades, tutors (peer, after school, volunteers), Family Math-Science-Literacy Nights, Parent Center. Math Investigation In Service for 4* and 5* Grade Parents. _______________________________________________________________BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ACTIONS PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLE TIMELINE (STARTING ENDING DATES) SOURCES OF FUNDING District Title 1 RESOURCES 1. Develop an individual education plan for students basic and below,__________ 2. Provide professional development for certified staff in SFA implementation and refresher classes.__________ 3. Provide three Family Math-Science-Literacy Night activities for parents and students._____________ 4. Recruit tutors (peer, volunteers) to assist students.________________ 5. Conduct weekly Family Support Meetings.________ 6. Monitor and adjust plans as needed to ensure increased student achievement. _______ Ada Keown\nClassroom teachers\nAimee Littrell Speech teacher_______ Veta Flanagan Judy Milam August - September 2000 August 2000 - January 2001 N/A N/A APIG OTHER N/A SAT-9 Test Scores ALT Test Scores $13,05 5.00 John Hopkins University Memphis Colette Bell Veta Flanagan Ada Keown Verna Scrubbs Susan Crosby Ada Keown________ Family Support Team Ada Keown Campus Leadership Team February 2001 - April 2001 September 2000 - Ongoing September 2000 - Ongoing September 2000 - Ongoing N/A N/A N/A $300.0 0 N/A N/A N/A i N/A N/A N/A IRC VIPs Office Special Education Department PRE Department\nALT teacher made test\nReport cards.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2000-2001 PRIORITY 2: To improve student achievement in mathematics SUPPORTING DATA: State Grade 4 Benchmark ACTAAP Exam SAT 9 Grade 5 Total Mathematics LRSD Grade 2-5 ALT Mathematics 6% proficient or above 20% above 50*** percentile proficient or above GOAL: Grade 4 Benchmark ACTAAP Exam SAT 9 Grade 5 Mathematics LRSD Grades 2-5 ALT Mathematics 100% proficient or above 65% at or above 50*** percentile 100% proficient or above BENCHMARK: Grade 4 Benchmark Mathematics SAT 9 Grade 5 Mathematics 9 points 8 points 9.4% or 5 students from basic and below to proficient or above *43% or 18 students form lowest quartile to 2* and 3* quartile. *3% or 1 student from 2* to 3*^ quartile. 25% or 10 students from 3*^ to highest quartile. LRSD Grades 2-5 ALT Mathematics INTERVENTION\nProfessional Development for teachers in Pre-Kindergarten, provide tutors (peer, after school, volunteers). Family Math-Science-Literacy Nights, Parent Center.____________________________________________ACTIONS 1. Select a committee of teacher to explore professional development that would meet the needs of Brady students._________ 2. Develop an individual education plan for students basic and below.__________ 3. Invite District math Specialist to in-service tutors for students basic and below.__________________ 4. Design take-home materials for the parent center in coordination with the District Math Curriculum. BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLE Ada Keown Campus Leadership Team Mary Wood Colette Bell Ann Harrod Eva Young Ada Keown Colette Bell  Becky Hight TIMELINE (STARTING ENDING DATES) October 2000 August 2000 August 2000 January 2001 - Ongoing SOURCES OF FUNDING RESOURCES District TMel $300.00 APIG OTHER LRSD Staff Developmen PRE Department Math Department IRC Math Department IRC PRE Department Math Department PRE DepartmentLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2000-2001 PRIORITY 3\nTo improve parental/community involvement. SUPPORTING DATA: 1999 - 2000 VIPS Hours Statistics shows Brady had 979 Vt volunteer hours from March 1,1999 - February 28, 2000. GOAL: Brady Elementary will show an increase in parental involvement by 20%. BENCHMARK: 100% of Brady parents will be actively involved in our school activities. Intervention increase parental contact time through expanded participation in academics and/or school activities. INTERVENTION: Family Math/Science Literacy Night, Parent Center - Volunteer tutors. Grandparents Day Fall carnival, PTA Open House, Field Day, PTA Program__________________________________________________________ACTIONS 1. Conduct a preschool parent meeting for PreKindergarten and Kindergarten.____________ 2. Provide PTA Programs with performances by students._________________ 3. Enlist parents and community volunteers as resources speakers._______ 4. Schedule special events:  Science Fair  Book Fair  Juice on the Curve  Open House  Chess club  PTA Program  Fall Carnival  Field Day  Career Day  SECME Club________ 5. Schedule parent inservices on the Benchmark Exam. BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLE Pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten\nMs. Daniel\nand Ms. Keown Ms. Crosby Classroom Teachers PTA Board_____________ PTA Board Campus Leadership Team Brady staff Daniel, Young, Scrubbs, and Clifford TIMELINE (STARTING ENDING DATES) August 2000 October 2000 - Ongoing August 2000 September 2000 - May 2000 February 2001 SOURCES OF FUNDING RESOURCES Diitrict $50.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A Title 1 APIG OTHER Parents/T eachers/Counse N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PTA Board VIPS Office Parents Resource PRECarver ACARVER MAGNET SCHOOL Fax:501-3242421 Sep 2b DU li:3b K. Ul/Ul School Name: Carver Monnet Elementary School Number of Teachers: 44 Number of Support Staff: 26 Attendance: (% of average daily attendance: maximum = 100%) 96 7 Enrollment: 514 Developmental Reading Readiness Assessment - Percent of students in grades K - 2 who have developed appropriate reoding readiness skills for their grade level: Kindergarten: 100% First 6rade: 79% Second Grade: 80% Percent of PTA members last year: 590 Volunteer hours last year: 10,344 Percent of teachers with Masters Degree: 50% Percent of teachers with 9* years of teaching experience: 61V Discipline and Safety - Percent of students NOT receiving o reportable discipline sanction: 100% (By state low, discipline sanctions must be reported and include acts involving drugs, ossoults, alcohol, weapons or gongs.) School Improvement Pions - The following ore priorities for our school and ore included in our School Improvement Plan. The complete School Improvement Plan is ovoiloble in the office and Includes specific actions and resources needed for implementation. MISSION Carver is a school where children come firSt! Caring Staff, parents and community work together to insure a quality academic ond social education for oil students. Our five priorities for school improvement ore: 1. To increase student achievement in reoding/writing literacy. 2. To increase student achievement in mathematics. 3. To improve student discipline. 4. To improve student and Stoff attendance. 5. To increase the number of personal professional development hours.I I. n. Purpose, Core Beliefs, Vision, Mission and Coals School and Community History ( m. Change at Carver IV. ACSIP Priority Team Structure V. /ACSIP Targets I Activities VI. The Plan A. Reading ! Writing Literacy B. Mathematics C. Discipline D. Attendance E. Professional Development it VC.I 4- La / a IVtUIIIZ ft A (V)U^IIC- I I 4. C-!...! Purpose for being here: All children should leave Carver with a sense of value. Core Beliefs 1. 2. 3. 4. All children are teachable and lovable, and it is our job as professionals to find and implement ways each child learns academically and behaviorally. All children learn better in a loving, nurturing, accepting and structured environment. All children and parents should take ownership and personal responsibility for becoming life-long learners. We believe that lead management is necessary and facilitates movement toward the development of a quality school. Shared Vision Carver Magnet Elementary School will be a school characterized by: (  Effective teams composed of staff, students, and parents  Enriched, diverse, spacious, functional, learning environment  Capable students of good character  Enriched, personalized, state-of-the-art educational program that meets both the cognitive and affective needs of all stakeholders  Producing results of high quality Mission Statement Carver is a school where children come first! Caring staff, parents and community work together to insure a quality academic and social education for oil students. Coals: / 1. High expectations: Teachers enthusiastically accept the challenge to teach all students believing that all will learn through active participation in a process-focused curriculum. 2. Monitoring and Assessment: The staff at Carver will strive to improve student performance and reduce achievement disparity through instructional programs, staff development, and multiple assessment techniques. 3. School Climate: Carver radiates a safe, healthy, orderly purposeful atmosphere, conducive to learning, and free from the threat of physical harm. It will have a full enrollment and cohesiveness among diverse groups. 4. Parent and Community Involvement: Parents and other members of the community are involved in significant roles that support the accomplishment of the Carver vision.I C.rl- H r.r. / In 1924, the block citizens of east Little Rock established a four-room school and named it to honor Dr. George Washington Carver, a world-famous inventor, educator, and scientist. Today's east Little Rock's George Washington Carver Magnet Elementary, built in 1988, has evolved into a beautiful facility with twenty - four classrooms and eleven specialty areas. The foresight of the founders and the relevance to our theme of mathematics and science education allowed us to keep the name in honor of Dr. Carver who dedicated his life to serving mankind. Carver Magnet Elementary is located in a lower socioeconomic, predominately black community in the industrial section of east Little Rock. The process of restructuring the original Carver Elementary to the present Carver Magnet Elementary has been a challenging yet rewarding experience for all of those involved. The \"old\" Carver Elementary located on Apperson gained a reputation as the most difficult school to desegregate in Little Rock School Disdrict. An old neglected school building, high susp\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_331","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, 47","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":["2000/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, 47"],"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/331"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nSchool Improvement Plans Frances Jones, Assistant SuperintendentCLUSTER \"A\" SCHOOLS Frances Cawthon Jones, Assistant Superintendent Badgett-Mary Golston Mitchell-Darian Smith Bale - Barbara Anderson Otter Creek-Janis Tucker Chicot- Jane Harkey Pulaski Heights- Lillie Carter I Dodd- Faith McLaughlin Rightsell-Mary A. Smith Forest Park-Theresa Ketcher Rockefeller-Anne Mangan Franklin-Ethel Dunbar Stephens-Sharon Brooks Fulbright-Deborah Mitchell Wakefield-Les Taylor Mabelvaie - Tabitha Phillips Western Hills- Scott Morgan McDermott-Virginia Ashley Woodruff-Janice WilsonBadgett I Fax:324-2483 School Report Card - Badgett Elementary Sep 28 00 Draft Version of Layout 8:24 P.Ol rage 1 UI X Badgett Elementary - 6001051 LITTLE ROCK 1999-2000 School Performance Report to Parents i Blanks in this report indicate that this information: 1) was not collected prior to 1999-2000 or not available ,1 at time of printing 2) does not apply to specific schools grade levels As additional information becomes available, it will be published on http://www.as-is.org/reportcard/. Stonda^L^^TMt jivera^ Percentile l^eraJ P^uJ^lpn Combined Population C  SCHOOL SCHOOL i 1 1997- 1998 1998- 1999 Ischool\ndistrict I 1999- LAST YR i 2000 SHOWN STATE ' LAST YR SHOWN Fifth Grade i^th Grade 1 Fifth Gt^e]' Orade| Tenth Grade '^XiSansas Benchmark Exams ' Percent At or Above Proficient Level General Population '' Fourth Grade Reading and Writing Literacy Gi^de Math^atics Ei^tii Graefe'Reading and Writing Literacy Grade 'Mathematics CondAied Populdii in 20 18 J'.. jl. 36 \n|' Jg ?? r\" ........ 2 7 \" SO' ZrEZZjr\"\"^''\"T zzziCzzZZt'izczz: ........ r z.:zjr :ZEZ 3? 3r ir^L\" - -IT-J 1 44-- Fouitf Grade Reading md Writing Literacy 'Fourth Gn^ Matheratiics \"ET^th Gra^\"^adthg and Writing Liter^ Eighdi Grade MatbematTc'sl l\nr .v:' 1 IT r. y 30 1. College AdmTssjpn Test lACp zzi. ...zr  .zi\n'll T1 \"T-'?! Z X.' I..\"ZT\"\n~ lAbVAtiiCEiWERT\"\"^\" Matfaemati^P 'hglish\n ~ Composite\n JCZ qr i^Lzz^' Zl \u0026gt;9.4 II 26.6 ' Percent of Students Promoted I i iZ I l.Z. 1....: z r\"z.- Kindergarten Grade 1 Gradel Graded Grades Grad^ \"Grade 7 Grade 8 ^1001 II [ '100.0 ll LZ^EIZ.: [jTwr^l \" i|  Z2?^^l ZL' ..T\"' I . .J, 97.1 ]r'93\n7 i ]E 97.7 yiij'971 9?.r~~]r\"98.2\" ZZiZ 99'.fry[Z98T\" y 99?r\"\"l| \"7197\"\" ji 987\"\"i[''97\nr'j 'cTff  E' 95:5- ii 17.1 http\n//www.as-is.org/reportcard/drafl/reportcard.cgi 9/27/00! Fax:324-2485 scBooi Kepon vara - Bsageti memeniary L Attendance Rate \" ~ Dropout Rate College Remediation Rate October I.^.rpllroent Sep 28 'UU 1 ' 8:2b K.U2 ri^e z ai z J[y 88.7 94.0 .... 1[1 ir. r ..... .A 5S.3 DISCiPUNi AND SAFETY J ji 196 li ~ 24804. School Uwciplin* ferceptage . .. I PisciplincTblicies Filed ~( Y or Nt Expulsions S^pol Safety PerMnJ^M T\"^ 11 .-.1 p .Y....JL =T-\"V O.O' 1 ..\ni:... o.i  i[\n'o.2 Weapon Incidenti^ - -   .| ______LA-----a I I .Mt ^BataBauaeJUi Student Assault !| 0.0 J 0.2 Ji 0.2 o.2'\"' or... bEMdOftAPHlCS/PROFlLE {STAFF AND STUDENTS) jlo-y-itr f'2.6 ^eachtog Staff P L .. ... J Percent (SinpIete^CeR35^[ Percent with Master's DepwlJ ........tj 100.0 I ^o:7^p96.5' Percent df Students .EBgible To? Et--^pEBji'j.g*jjrjrhjtMeab [plSTRjCT taxpayer I 91.1 98.0 3^1 98.4 1 .j 52.0 45.6 L [ ........... District Total Mills Vdt^][.............................____ jl\" ' j, Dfstnd Expehdituire'per'Studentlj \"J[... __j|.................j|_ _ 6_W__ J[ ~ District Average Tead^er SalarylP 1 Return to Seiwtion F^e ]i 3772g yjf_3^9' http\n//www.as-is.org/reportcard/draft/reportcard.cgi 9/27/00School: Badgett Elementary School Improvement Plan Date 2000-2001 Priority 1: Improve student achievement in mathematics. Supporting Data:  State Benchmark ExamGrade 4 Mathematics: 100% performing below proficient level and 82% performing at below basic level\n SATO Grade 5 Total Mathematics: 7% performing at or above the 50^ percentile. Goals: 100% of our students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grade 4 mathematics on the State Benchmark Examination. 65% of our students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50^ percentile in mathematics on the SATO One-Year Benchmarks:  In 2000-2001, Badgett School shall improve by 10 percentage points (from 0% to 10%) so that at least 10% of the students will perform at or above the proficient level on the State Benchmark Examination in grade 4 mathematics.  In 2000-20001, Badgett School shall improve by 5 percentage points (from 7% to 12%) the percentage of students performing at or above the 50*^ percentile on the grade 5 SATO mathematics test.School: Badgett Elementary School Improvement Plan Date 2000-2001 Intervention: I-1 Increase computer-based mathematics instruction. Actions Investigate grant opportunities for funding to purchase computers and software. Apply for grant(s) to purchase additional computers, printers, and software. Person(s) Responsible M. Wroten, Title I Specialist M. Golston, Principal, J. Wakelyn, Media Specialist M. Golston, Principal Timeline Nov. 2000- Dec. 2000 Nov. 2000 - April 2000 Resources Internet Badgetts Partners in Education: Jerry Peters, Webster University District Budget N/A Title I Budget N/A APIG/Other. Budget n7a Provide professional development for selected staff in computer applications. Purchase 5 new computers and software for classroom use. M. Golston, Principal M. Golston, Principal Oct. 2000- June 2001 Dec. 2000- Feb. 2001 Identified Sources for Grant funding, Leon Adams, Title I Director Staff Development Office Technology Dept. J. Wakelyn, Media Specialist Purchasing and Procurement Title I Dept. N/A N/A N/A N/A $3,000 N/A N/A $3,000School: Badgett Elementary School Improvement Plan Date 2000-2001 Priority 1: Improve student achievement in mathematics. Supporting Data:  State Benchmark ExamGrade 4 Mathematics\n100% performing below proficient level and 82% performing at below basic level\n SATO Grade 5 Total Mathematics: 7% performing at or above the 50^ percentile. Goals: 100% of our students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grade 4 mathematics on the State Benchmark Examination. 65% of our students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50 percentile in mathematics on the SATO One-Year Benchmarks:  In 2000-2001, Badgett School shall improve by 10 percentage points (from 0% to 10%) so that at least 10% of the students will perform at or above the proficient level on the State Benchmark Examination in grade 4 mathematics.  In 2000-20001, Badgett School shall improve by 5 percentage points (from 7% to 12%) the percentage of students performing at or above the 50^ percentile on the grade 5 SATO mathematics test.School: Badgett Elementary School Improvement Plan Date 2000-2001 Intervention: I-2 Increase use of literature and writing in the teaching of mathematics. Actions Provide professional development on using literature to teach mathematics. Research strategies on using literature in the teaching of mathematics. Increase library holdings of mathematics-related literature. Person(s) Responsible M. Golston, Principal M. Golston, Principal, M. Wroten, Title I Specialist J. Wakelyn, Media Specialist Timeline Aug.2000 June 2001 Nov. 2000 April 2001 Oct. 2000- June 2001 Resources Paula Smith, Mathematics Specialist Internet Paula Smith, Math Specialist Book Lists from Mathematics Dept, and Research findings. Reviewing Sources (School Library Journal) District Budget N/A N/A $400 Title I Budget N/A N/A N/A APIG/Other Budget n7a N/A N/ASchool: Badgett Elementary School Improvement Plan Date 2000-2001 Priority 2: Improve student achievement in reading and writing literacy. Supporting Data:  State Benchmark ExamGrade 4 Literacy 88% performing below proficient level and 76% performing at below basic level\n100% of these students are African-American.  SATO Grade 5 Total Reading: 21% performing at or above the 50^ percentile  Developmental Reading Assessment,.Grades K-2 78.4% performing below readiness in Kindergarten\n94.1% performing below readiness in Grade 1, and 88.2% performing below readiness in Grade 2 Goals: 100% of our students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grade 4 Literacy on the State Benchmark Examination. 65% of our students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50^ percentile in Reading- on the SATO. 100 % of students in grades K-2 shall reach the readiness level on the Developmental Reading Assessment. One-Year Benchmarks:  In 2000-2001, Badgett School shall improve by 9 percentage points (from 12% to 21%) so that at least 21% of the students will perform at or above the proficient level on the State Benchmark Examination in grade 4 Literacy.  In 2000-2001, Badgett School shall improve by 5 percentage points (from 21 % to 26%) the percentage of students performing at or above the 50^ percentile on the grade 5 SAT9 reading test  In 2000-20001, Badgett School shall improve by 10 percentage points in each grade the percentage of students performing at readiness level on the Developmental Reading Assessment (from 21% to 31% in grade K\nfrom 5% to 15% in Grade 1, and from 12% to 22% in Grade 2).School: Badgett Elementary School Improvement Plan Date 2000-2001 Intervention: II-1 Increase computer-based reading and literacy instruction. Actions Investigate grant opportunities for funding to purchase computers and software. Apply for grant(s) to purchase additional computers, printers, and software. Person{s) Responsible M. Wroten, Title I Specialist M. Golston, Principal, J. Wakelyn, Media Specialist M. Golston, Principal Timeline Resources Nov. 2000 - June 2001 Nov. 2000 - April 2000 Provide professional development for selected staff in computer applications. Purchase 5 new computers and software for classroom use. M. Golston, Principal M. Golston, Principal Nov. 2000- June 2001 Dec. 2000 - April 2001 Internet Badgetts Partners in Education Leon Adams, Title I Identified Sources for Grant funding, Ann Freeman, Broker Leon Adams, Title I Director Staff Development Office Technology Dept. J. Wakelyn, Media Specialist Purchasing and Procurement Leon Adams, Title I Director District Budget N/A N/A N/A N/A Title I Budget N/A~ N/A N/A $3,000 APIG/Other Budget N/A N/A N/A $3,000School: Badgett Elementary School Improvement Plan Date 2000-2001 Priority 2\nImprove student achievement in reading and writing literacy. Supporting Data:  State Benchmark ExamGrade 4 Literacy 88% performing below proficient level and 76% performing at below basic level\n100% of these students are African-American.  SATO Grade 5 Total Reading: 21% performing at or above the 50 percentile  Developmental Reading Assessment, Grades K-2 78.4% performing below readiness in Kindergarten: 94.1% performing below readiness in Grade 1, and 88.2% performing below readiness in Grade 2 Goals: 100% of our students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grade 4 Literacy on the State Benchmark Examination. 65% of our students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the SO*' percentile in Reading on the SATO. 100 % of students in grades K-2 shall reach the readiness level on the Developmental Reading Assessment. One-Year Benchmarks:  In 2000-2001, Badgett School shall improve by 9 percentage points (from 12% to 21%) so that at least 21% of the students will perform at or above the proficient level on the State Benchmark Examination in grade 4 Literacy.  In 2000-2001, Badgett School shall improve by 5 percentage points (from 21% to 26%) the percentage of students performing at or above the 50'^ percentile on the grade 5 SAT9 reading test.  In 2000-20001, Badgett School shall improve by 10 percentage points in each grade the percentage of students performing at readiness level on the Developmental Reading Assessment (from 21% to 31% in grade K\nfrom 5% to 15% in Grade 1, and from 12% to 22% in Grade 2).School: Badgett Elementary School Improvement Plan Date 2000-2001 Intervention: II-2 Utilize the Soar to Success (grades 3-5) and Early Success (1-2) Supplemental Reading programs. Actions Provide professional development for staff on Early Success\" program Identify targeted students (1 or more years below grade level) Person{s) Responsible M. Wroten, Title I Specialist M. Wroten, Title I Specialist Timeline Nov. 2000- March 2001 Sept. 2000 Resources Consultant, Soar to Success District Budget N/A Title I Budget N/A APIG/Other Budget N/A Include daily small group instruction, reinforcement of skills, reading for fluency, and creative writing exercises in each classroom, grades K-5. M. Wroten, Title I Specialist Sept.2000- June 2001 Teacher Recommendations Test data Grade monitoring reports Soar to Success and Early Success programs. Title I Specialists Reading Specialists (IRC) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ASchool: Badgett Elementary School Improvement Plan Date 2000-2001 Priority 2: Improve student achievement in reading and writing literacy. Supporting Data:  State Benchmark ExamGrade 4 Literacy 88% performing below proficient level and 76% performing at below basic level\n100% of these students are African-American.  SATO Grade 5 Total Reading: 21% performing at or above the 50'^ percentile  Developmental Reading Assessment, Grades K-2 78.4% performing below readiness in Kindergarten: 94.1% performing below readiness in Grade 1, and 88.2% performing below readiness in Grade 2 Goals: 100% of our students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grade 4 Literacy on the State Benchmark Examination. 65% of our students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50 percentile in Reading on the SATO. 100 % of students in grades K-2 shall reach the readiness level on the Developmental Reading Assessment. One-Year Benchmarks:  In 2000-2001, Badgett School shall improve by 9 percentage points (from 12% to 21%) so that at least 21% of the students will perform at or above the proficient level on the State Benchmark Examination in grade 4 Literacy.  In 2000-2001, Badgett School shall improve by 5 percentage points (from 21 % to 26%) the percentage of students performing at or above the 50 percentile on the grade 5 SAT9 reading test.  In 2000-20001, Badgett School shall improve by 10 percentage points in each grade the percentage of students performing at readiness level on the Developmental Reading Assessment (from 21% to 31% in grade K\nfrom 5% to 15% in Grade 1, and from 12% to 22% in Grade 2).School: Badgett Elementary ' School Improvement Plan Date 2000-2001 Intervention: II-3 Increase literacy by expanding time spent in recreational reading at all grade levels. Actions Promote reading with Rally for Reading Incentive Program, to include kickoff, classroom posters, prizes, monthly incentives and volunteer readers. Encourage reading through the Book It! Program: Earning pizzas for reaching monthly reading goals Implement and supervise Accelerated Reader program Purchase additional books and computer-based quizzes for Accelerated Reader Promote reading through scheduled DEAR times (Drop Everything And Read) Person(s) Responsible Jerry Peters, Webster Univ. Jack Lankford, Disney Radio. J. Wakelyn, Media Specialist Classroom teachers J. Wakelyn Media Specialist J. Wakelyn Media Specialist M. Golston, Principal Classroom teachers Timeline Resources Sept. 2000- June 2001 Oct. 2000- March 2001 Sept. 2000 - May 2001 Oct. 2000- April 2001 Sept. 2000- June 2001 J. Peters, Webster J. Lankford, Disney, and additional Partners in Education Pizza Hut Badgett Media Center Badgett Media Center Advantage Learning Systems School Library Journal Advantage Learning Systems Publisher catalogs Book Lists Specialized collections from Media Center District Budget N/A Title I Budget N/A APIG/Other Budget N/A N/A N/A $1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ASchool: Badgett Elementary School Improvement Plan Date 2000-2001 Priority 3: Increase Parent-Community Involvement Supporting Data: VIPS volunteer hours (363 in 1999-2000) Goal: Increase involvement of parents and the community in the educational program of the school. One-Year Benchmarks: In 2000-2001, Badgett School shall improve by 10 percent (from 363 to 400) the number of volunteer hours as reported to VIPS.School: Badgett Elementary School Improvement Plan Date 2000-2001 Intervention: III-2 Develop and implement a communications plan to increase parental and community awareness of school volunteer opportunities. Actions Brainstorm possible formats of communication (i.e. flyers, newsletters, phone calls, district newsletters, brochures). Research strategies of communicating with parents for What Works within and outside the district. Select methods of communication best suited for increasing parental / school communication. Person(s) Responsible M. Golston, Principal, M. Wroten, Title 1 Specialist M. Golston, Principal, Ethel Campbell, Chair, Parental Involvement Comm. Ethel Campbell, Chair, Parental Involvement Comm. Timeline Oct. 2000- Dec. 2000 Oct. 2000- March 2001 Nov. 2000- April 2001 Resources VIPS SueEllen Vann, Communications Dept. Title I Parental Involvement Committee Communications Dept. Title I Parental Involvement Committee Internet Schooldays and Mailbox magazines Selected research findings District Budget N/A N/A N/A Titie 1 Budget N/A N/A N/A APIG/Other Budget N/A N/A N/ASchool: Badgett Elementary School Improvement Plan Date 2000-2001 Actions Develop forms for documentation of school / parent communications. Person{s) Responsible J. Wakelyn, Media Specialist Timeline Resources District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget Dec-2000 - Jan. 2001 Improve documentation and reporting methods to reflect actual volunteer hours Increase school / parental communication contacts. Ethel Campbell, Chair, Parental Involvement Comm. Mary Golston, Principal Staff M. Golston, Principal Dec. 2000 -June 2001 Dec. 2000 - June 2001 Communications Dept. Title I Parental Involvement Committee Selected sample forms Documentation forms. Record of hours reported to VIPS Documentation forms N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A2000-2001 -Report d Cdrd^5 Bale Staff  25 certified teachers  72% have over nine years of experience  56% have Master's degrees  20 support staff Elementary School 6501 w. sand st LWIe Rock, AR 72204 501-570-4050 .sj I 8 Facts about Bale  334 students  376 PTA members  771 Volunteer hours for 1999- 2000 school year  96% of the students did NOT receive a reportable discipline sanction , ' Developmental Reading Assessment The percentage of students who have developed reading readiness skills for their grade level J Kindergarten - 58.5% First Grade - 66.7% Second Grade - 72.1% 3- J ,{ '{ School Improvement Plan  Improve reading by using Accelerated Reading program.  Provide academic assistance tor below proficient students: 1. ShareAmerica/UALR will provide tutoring with Kid's Club, Homework Center, and Student Literacy Program 2. AR State Department of Human Services will provide mentoring and tutoring 3. Small group instruction 4. Parent involvement using a reading contract  Improve reading using Literature Circles in the classroom  Emphasize writing with the use of standard writing prompts  Follow Great Expectations teaching philosophy emphasizing life principles  Improve mathematics with the use of computers and tutors t BALE elementary SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS y C^^OMDOED SCHOOL improvement plan 2000-2001 Arkansas Consolidated School Improvement Plan Bale Elementary School Contents I. Introduction A. Bale School Creed B. Mission Statements C. Core Beliefs D. School Improvement Committees E. Introductorv Introductory Summary 3 4 5 6 7 II. School and Community Information 10 III. Data Analysis Narrative 12 IV. School Improvement Plan Priorities and Actions A. Mathematics B. Writing C. Reading 1. Parent Involvement Through Contracting 2. Small Group Tutoring 3. Great Expectations 4. Accelerated Reading 17 23 27 28 31 32 33 1-V- '-4^ ?'. .f WWnucTiw J f y- !*:, -i- Vi- Ji i''\nj  ? '-ir'^ * ^^K* \\X *w ipb// y j' M f ' J- \" si* / 1 I f'\"  t. 't ': X' J ! A' 4 i / t^: . : r,  ii, ^.\n4 t j: '/J .\u0026lt; TJ. isS K'\u0026lt; ^lRv  L t A' ^  4 . A V \u0026gt; - :^.b w. (Hi fj' ) -i i\nV ivaM's- blbAS:' J!\nr  'l* 'i-'i : ?\u0026gt; i l!\u0026gt; Ji , 1 J I 'i c a R t? *9. J * H I r t   J t 'J -? f rZ^- Ii I r\u0026lt;\nf 3- \u0026gt;e^ J iJ?'*r r C :\nW?  k'X^A*** . .4 i ,f t' it J ooie, Today is a new day. I will make it the best day it can be. I am special and unique. I can and will succeed. Failures are behind before me. me\nnew challenges are I will accept responsibility for my behavior and consequences. I challenge myself to the classroom quietly and on time with enter necessary materials. I will complete all assignments and be satisfied with nothing but my best. I will respect myself and others because I am a sagacious and tenacious person. I promise to uphold this creed each day. I accept the challenge! 3Mission Statement of the Little Rock School District the sS with the skills and knowledge to realize their aspirations think *e fif independently, learn continuously and face the tore as productive contributing citizens This mission is accomplished through open access to a diverse, innovative and challenging cuiricuto in a secure environment with a staff dedicated to excellence and empowered with the trust and support of our community. Mission Statement of Bale Elementary School cnfp of Bale Elementaiy School is to provide a safe, nurturing environment in which all children will develop academic, emotional and cvauemic, emotional and social skills that will lead them to be productive citizens in the new millennium. 4J Core Beliefs WE BELIEVE ... 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Teachers should respect themselves and others. Teachers should be open-minded. Teachers should always keep a positive attitude. All children can learn. Teachers need the skills in order to teach. Each child is unique. We do not know all we need to know. Students should be taught at their level. Basic skills are the foundation to learning. Participation is necessary. We should praise the little accomplishments, as well as the big successes.School Improvement Committees Committee on Mathematics Improvement: Kim Cole Jennifer Pafford Leigh Moravec Terri Littell Kathleen Shute Jeanie Conley Carolyn Hill Vanessa Miller Valerie Scarborough Romunda Owens Amy Young Committee on Reading Improvement: I Paula Padilla Jean Rouse Clara Brown Lisa Cunningham Cindy Price Linda Davis Kim Rosby Mary Hutto Ramona Geurin Lynn Francis Katherine Dockery Carthoria Johnson Committee on Writing Across the Curriculum: Paula Funk Mary Balenko-Tucker Steve Tarkington Debbie Fitzpatrick Helen Talley Peggy Collins Renee Heard Cindy Shenep Ollie Bradford Frances Childs Mary Hudson Bobbie Homer 6Introductory Summary 1001 ,?^^?MPREHENSIVE outcomes evaluation for Bale began in the 1993-94 school year. After changes in the school administration, we continued the process with completion in March of 1995. At that point, all staff signed a commitment to the new pl^. After four full years under the approved COE plan, we as a staff feel that the plan has worked and been successful. As we start our final year of this COE cycle we want to review and evaluate our plan to define which areas have been successful and to align our goals with the needs of our students. The goals set forth in the COE plan involve\nClear School Purpose, Positive School Climate, Momtormg and Assessment of Student Achievement and Parent and Community Involvement. In the area of CLEAR SCHOOL PURPOSE our goals were to improve , . It,. -----------------------. Vfcxx lu UUUIUVC achievement and reduce disparity, reduce school incident reports and develop and mamtam a well-tramed and motivated staff. We feel all these goals have been achieved ^Jassrooms have added leammg centers, provided \"Weekly Readers\" on all grade levels language tutors. SHARE AMERICA provided extra field trips GT students participated m the district wide Quiz Bowl. We had our first ndvcc \u0026lt; the district wide Quiz Bowl. We had our first Odyssey of the compete and win locally in their division in the 1997-98 school year Two OM teams competed last year. To decrease school incidents and increase student  participation m extracurricular activities we incorporated D.A.R.E, Peer Helpers tudents of the Month, Awards Assemblies and positive reinforcements To develop and maintain a well-trained and motivated staff, our administration provided appropriate m-services and sent over 80% of the staff to Chicago for intensive raining m the philosophy on which the Great Expectations Program is based. Grade level planning was implemented along with success story time at each faculty meeting. Bale staff continued to recognize special days for staff and students The area of POSITVE SCHOOL CLIMATE may well be our area of greatest gains. The development of a Morning Assembly for all students and staff has set in motion a time every day for school pride and unity. Students are allowed to shine and sh^e^ Speakmg, hstening, and presentation skills are the key elements addressed. Celebrations begm each day on a positive note. Expectations for behavior are set forth daily in these assemblies. The counselor still implements many of our extracurricular activities such as Peer Helpers, Conflict Managers, and the Just Say No Club.  improvements on the school building and grounds have been amazing Murals painted throughout the building have added an element of creativity and warmth to the campus. Children enjoy seemg their stoiybook friends displayed. Pride in the school has developed and everyone pitches in to take care of the budding. Monthly displays in the schwl entiy have become recognized district wide. Bale has become a place where people CHOOSE to send their children. Our enrollment records support this fact. ---------------- V hAXAO lavi. In the target area of MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT we have implemented all the programs outlined in the COE plan. ome programs have been discontinued for lack of progress. Nevertheless improvements have been dramatic. Retention ----' ... m prunary grades has dropped. Title I testing has shown a dramatic improvement in the first and second grade placement test. Students who 7This information IS began at Bale in kindergarten are staying at or above grade level. Reading and comprehension have improved. Honor roll numbers and straight-A students have increased. Although teachers, parents and administrators feel a real change in the problem in the area of standardized test scores.  . analyzed thoroughly to find out why we can feel improvement m so^ny areas, but not see the results in our test scores. This will be the most unportant element to address in our new school improvement plan. The area of PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT is another success story without question. Every action outlined in the COE plan was implemented Initiating a comection with UALR turned out to be one of the keys to really improving a Partnership with UALR our school has become a SHARE ^WCA school with f^ds to provide field trips, health exams, a homework center Md after care for a least 80% of our students. Hundreds of volunteers and ^7 received awards from the local PTA organizations for ost volunteer hours and most improvement in the area of volunteer hours. Math P^^P^ofcssional students along with student teachers have all become a part of the Bale educational program. SHARE AMERICA has also helped to implement many of the actions that involve i ' Jas shown a tremendous increase in attendance along with our PTA^ni^sK' T^e . had many successful fundraisers and have been able to provide a new sign for hours have parents and parent training. Our Open House the front of the school, along with purchasing instructional materials for use in th! classrooms. 8! SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY INFORMATION A  e. 4 \u0026lt; I I  V A ' I  . I *i I .9' A '.'i ^' .. \n'\u0026lt;*' t  \u0026gt;  I: j I } .'S'  4 n  \u0026gt;\"  -, f \u0026gt;/ '.t r IT J *S' w J\" ( i. * y  fc  J f'. t- \u0026gt;'  J ' j ' i j*!*\n.    .'i }^ I i V % t ' School and Community Information Schools Mailing Address: Bale Elementary School 6501 West SZ\"** Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 Schools telephone number: 501-570-4050 Persons who may be contacted concerning the school improvement process: Name Telephone Position Assignment Barbara Anderson 228- 5857 Judith Courtney Paula Padilla Renee Heard 663-7272 834-3208 666-7063 Mary Tucker-Balenko 227-687 Jean Rouse 661-0522 Principal Speech Therapist Gifted Specialist Self-Contained Teacher Title 1 Specialist Counselor Campus Leadership Team Steering Committee Chairperson Campus Leadership Team Campus Leadership Team Campus Leadership Team Campus Leadership Team Description of the Community where the School Is Located: Bale is located in the heart of Little Rock, Arkansas. It is in the neighborhood of Broadmoor, one of the first neighborhoods organized in Little Rock. The neighborhood boundaries are University Avenue, Asher Avenue and Twelfth Street. It is an integrated s neighborhood with a middle class socio-economic background. Because of the proximity to the Umversity of Arkansas at Little Rock, the neighborhood provides homes for many attendmg college and acquiring postgraduate degrees. Major Businesses and Industries in the Immediate Area: The University of Arkansas at Little Rock and many small businesses such as service stations, fast food restaurants, and physician offices are within a one-mile radius of Bale. There are also strip malls housing other businesses and grocery stores that vary in size from a large discount store, K-Mart, to a small pawnshop within the same one-mile radius. Nearest Institutions of higher education: Bale IS within five blocks of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Philander Smith College is within five miles of the school. District Expenditure per pupil: $2162 District mill tax rate: 41.4 (32-Maintainance and Operations, 9.4-Debt Service) 10Data Analysis Narrative The populations in the Little Rock School District that are evaluated have radically c anged from our past self study. This school improvement plan reflects the current policy of only fifth grade students being assessed. Testing has also changed from 1 spring of the year to the fall. With this change in mind, achievement data was gathered using the SAT9 for the past three years from the fifth grade students. Data was also gathered for the Benchmark Exam that is given to the fourth grade students in the spring.  the After viewing the videotape from Doug Reeves concerning the importance of data driven goal making, the staff analyzed the results of the SAT9 and the Benchmark V* AIIU (lie\nJUCIIVIII Exam. After reviewing ail student data, the staff felt the level of achievement I ~ -----------------------  ..w Vi AVillW VIllCll^ at ale was such that even though there were a few sub-groups to identify, all student O Z*ll  Air ABM AM !_________ *'  achievement needed to improve. student Performance Data on SAT9 Total Reading 70-1' 60- 50 20- 10- O' ,4 97\u0026gt;98 96*99 99*00 J African-Americans  BWhite g  30 I i  } i i I were Bales SAT9 scores revealed that 80% of the fifth grade students scored below the 50 percentlie in reading. 75% of those scoring in these lowest quartiles were African-Americans. 33% of the White students scored at or below the 50' percentile. 12student Perfonnance Data on SATS Total Mathematics ) 100%-, ' 80% 70% Results of 4th Grade Benchmark: Mathematics o c a\u0026gt; e 60% - 50% 40%-d 30% - BAfrican Americans White 20% - d 10% 0% o co M 9 a 8 I 4\u0026gt; \u0026lt;x\u0026gt; O\u0026gt; (O (0 m o\u0026gt; co O\u0026gt; C O) g OL Oi 00 8 O) ra eb $ 90%-\u0026lt; I I J i I g g  \u0026amp; c ? -s 14 of the students scored at or above proficient on the Mathematics subtest. With the Smart Start Initiative in mind as well as our belief in the importance of data driven goal making, the staff formed the following goals for the heart of our improvement plan:  To improve student achievement in reading.  To improve student achievement in mathematics.  To improve student achievement in writing literacy across the curriculum\ni.e.: Social Studies, Science, Music, Language Arts, and Mathematics. lAr' \u0026gt;! .,-.4 z J T i' \u0026lt;.5\\! .. A' r. I i  f } I } .? k , . l4\u0026gt;* 'ifr\n7^ ij *iti*^ /'''^ ,*** 1a t^* ^ p / J s .s . t yX^ } f ,* //' \u0026gt; I I i 1 **\u0026lt; e?' .jS f\" / f \u0026lt;3*..*, i f 2 \u0026gt;-\u0026gt;.-. 3\u0026gt; 'Hi f. \\ if- / I z *' I,'''\n/ J 7 DCJ 5 / 5 JSchool: Bale Elementary School School Improvement Plan Year: 2000-2001 Priority 1\nMathematics eSma\" eX-* I' Mathenratloe portion of the Benchmark Exam, 14 /o of the 5* grade students scored at or above the 50\" oementilA on cat.q m. at or above the 50\" percentile on the SAT-9 in Total Mathematics on the SAT-9 peX^inXTa  percentege points \u0026lt;14% 1. - ... _ 17-/.) the percentage of students at or above proSXSIk **** performing at or above the 50*^ percentile '0 to 19%) the percentage of students00 School: Bale Elementary School Improvement Plan Intervention: Utilize Best Practices in Mathematics to improve math achievement Actions 1. Utilize the Campus Leadership Committee to oversee and insure use of all funding 2. Implement student writing involving the process of solving math problems 3. Encourage the use of board games involving math and counting 4. Improve continuity between grade levels through the use of curriculum mapping 5. Place emphasis on problem solving skills i.e. word problems, applications, and investigations Year: 2000-2001 Person(s) Responsible Campus Leadership Team Teachers, IRC Specialists Teachers, Parents Teachers, Administration Teachers, Adminis- T ration Timeline Sept. 2000- June 2001 Sept. 2000- June 2001 Sept. 2000- June 2001 Sept. 2000- June 2001 Sept. 2000- June 2001 Resources UALR Share America IRC Paula Smith (Math specialist assigned to Bale)________ Request to Share America for gifts IRC District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other Budgeto School: Bale Elementary School School Improvement Plan Intervention: Best Practices in Mathematics Actions 9. Address the language barrier with students/families with English as their second language by clustering students with 1 teacher at each grade level to promote communication 10. Improve comprehension by using math word walls, vocabulary list, and visual cues 11. Purchase additional math manipulatives for classrooms 12. Provide grade level homework for math two nights weekly 13. Purchase software for classroom computers Year: 2000-2001 Person(s) Responsible Teachers, Interpreters, P. Padilla Teachers Principal, Title 1 Specialist, CLT Teachers Principal, Title 1 Specialist, CLT Timeline Sept. 2000- June 2001 Sept. 2000- June 2001 Sept. 2000- June 2001 Sept. 2000- June 2001 Sept. 2000- June 2001 Resources UALR IRC Math committee Games, math manipulatives District Budget Title I Budget $500 APIG/Other BudgetSchool: Bale Elementary School School Improvement Plan Year: 2000-2001 Intervention: Best Practices in Mathematics Actions 14. Utilize Benchmark release items from state standards 15. Continue parent workshops during parent/conference day 16. Purchase computers for the classrooms 17. Implement Family math and Science night and grade levelparent meetings Person(s) Responsible Teachers J. Rouse, M. Tucker, P.Padilla, H. Talley CLT, M. Tucker,Title 1 Specialist Francis,Talley Jones,Tucker Timeline Resources District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget Sept. 2000- June 2001 Oct. 4 and Feb. 19 Sept. 2000- June 2001 Oct.2000 -Math- Jan. 2001-Sci. Arkansas Department of Education $2000 $22,000 $200 IRC^0 J t \u0026lt; \u0026gt; i / / t \\'i V..- / (f f L,5-^*r*575 Ji' 1^ 41 I f i.!iwii..,,wu\n\u0026gt;*-'j I'\nt' '^1 n 5 :i'Mai!!ai'4\u0026gt;j\n^Wrii^ S'.** I \u0026gt;8School: Bale Elementary School School Improvement PlMii Year: 2000-2001 Priority 2: Writing Supporting Data: 8% of the 4* grade students scored at or above proficient on the Literacy portion of the ACTAP Goal(s): 100% of the 4' grade students will score at or above proficient on the Literacy portion of the ACTAP One-Year Benchmark(s): Improvement of Bale students by 9 percentage points (8% to 17%) the percentage of students at or above proficient on the ACTAP UJSchool: Bale Elementary School School Improvement Plan Intervention: Building wide writing program Actions 1. Provide inservice for the whole school on Benchmark preparation 2. Implement daily writing at all grade levels to be completed as a yearly class project tied to each teachers' Individual Improvement Plan 3. Research and write guidelines for n utilizing Best Practices in Writing 4. Incorporate knowledge from inservice for writing strategies/formulas for K-5 5. Promote student ownership of writing mechanics and grammar by daily oral language Year: 2000-2001 Person(s) Responsible 4\" grade Teachers Teachers Teachers Teachers Teachers Timeline Sept. 2000- June 2001 Sept. 2000- June 2001 Sept. .2000- June 2001 Sept. 2000- June 2001 Sept. 2000- June 2001 Resources Materials from curriculum associates Writing prompts across the curriculum Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in Americas Schools Kathy Tilson District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget LSchool: Bale Elementary School School Improvement Plan Year: 2000-2001 Actions Person(s) Responsible Timeline Resources District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget 6. Display examples of advanced writing on bulletin board for ail to see 7. Share examples of writing with students (teachers will model for their class). 8. Write and use writing prompts that include three components: Scenario, Think About It, and Directions 9. Create a Writing Prompt Bank Teachers Teachers teachers Tarkington, Talley, Collins, Moravec Sept. 2000- June 2001 Sept. 2000- June 2001 Sept. 2000- June 2001 Sept. 15, 2000 Krista Underwood, ADESchool: Bale Elementary School School Improvement Plan Year: 2000-2001 Priority 3: Reading Supporting Data: 8% of the 4* grade students scored at or above proficient on the Literacy portion of the ACTAP\n14% of the 5* grade students scored at or above the 50'^ percentile on the SAT-9 in Total Reading Goal (s): 100% of the 4*^ grade students will score proficient in Literacy on the ACTAP\n100% of the 5'^ grade students will score at the 50\"^ percentile on the SAT-9 One-Year Benchmark(s): Improvement of Bale students by 5 percentage points (14% to 19%) the percentage of students performing at the 50*^ percentile on the SAT-9\nImprovement of Bale students by 9 percentage points (8% to 17%) the percentage of students performing at or above proficient on the ACTAP toSchool: Bale Elementary School School Improvement Plan Year: 2000-2001 Intervention: Parent involvement Through Contracting Actions 1. Contract Reading: Contract with child/parent/teacher at beginning of school year to determine amount of time spent at home on reading Person(s) Responsible Johnson, Cunningham, Shute, Baggett Timeline Sept. 7, 2000 Resources Printing Service a. b. c. Develop a contract Send contract home for parent signature Check contract at every conference 2. Send home weekly word list for parent signature a. b. c. d. Compile list of words for each grade level Send list home for signature Check words at each nine weeks Review with parents at conference 3. Provide training and materials for Make and Take workshops for parents to use in helping their children. District Budget Title I Budget $150 APIG/Other Budget Tucker, Cunningham, Jones, Littell Rouse, Padilla, Talley Sept. 7, 2000- Oct. 4, 2000 and Feb. 17,2001 Teachers Title 1 Specialist Title 1 Specialist Counselor G/T Teacher $500School: Bale Elementary School School Improvement Plan Year: 2000-2001 Intervention: Parent Involvement Through Contracting Actions Person(s) Responsible Timeline Resources District Title I Budget Budget APIG/Other Budget a. b. c. Inservice on parent Make and Take workshop Provide one workshop per semester Retain list of parents who attended the workshop for conference information 4. Provide resources to help improve parent reading skills a. b. c. Develop an area to provide resources for each grade level in reading Provide sign-in and check-out list Update resources each nine weeks d. Send letters home with interim reports to remind parents of available resources Rouse, Cole, Baggett, Conley, Pafford Oct. 4, 2000 and Feb, 19, 2001 IRC Library $500School: Bale Elementary School School Improvement Plan Year: 2000-2001 Intervention: Parent involvement Through Contracting Actions 5. Distribute refrigerator curriculum Person(s) Responsible Teachers, Heard, Fitzpatrick, Moravec Parents Timeline Sept, 7, 2000 Resources ADE District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other BudgetSchool: Bale Elementary School School Improvement Plan Year: 2000-2001 Intervention: Small Group Tutoring Actions 1. Continue Share America tutoring program a. b. c. d. Identify bubble students Pair students with mentor Implement contracts for mentors and students Conduct pre/post testing e. Obtain tutor feedback 2. Implement peer tutoring a. b. c. d. Pair high readers with low readers for reading practice Use modeling Use cross-grade tutors Provide daily opportunities for peer tutoring 3. Provide faculty small group tutoring a. Principal will tutor small groups b. Teachers will tutor different grade level students c. Non-certified staff will tutor small _____groups of students___________ Person(s) Responsible B. Anderson Share America Teachers J. Rouse, Johnson, Dockery Staff as assigned. Brown, Conley, Cole Timeline Sept. 2000- June 2001 Octi, 2000 June, 2001 Oct 31 Resources Share America District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other BudgetSchool: Bale Elementary School School Improvement Plan Year: 2000-2001 Intervention: Great Expectations Actions Person(s) Responsible Timeline Resources District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget 1. Communicate expectations to students and parents a. Communicate grade level reading requirements b. Provide immediate feedback to students from evaluations 2. Implement literature circles a. Using different types of literature form groups according to interests b. Use literature in all curriculum areas c. Use supplemental materials for book choices d. Develop competition through the literature circles 3. Utilize Benchmark release items from state standards 4. Label structures and areas of the school in Spanish/English Teachers Parents Geurin, Littell, Shute, Fitzpatrick, Pafford Teachers Padilla, Courtney Sept. 2000- June 2001 Oct 1, 2000- June 1, 2001 Sept. 2000- June 2001 Sept. 7, 2000 Parent Handbook School/ Classroom Communiques Best Practices: New Standards for Teachinq and Learninq in Americas School Arkansas Department of Education Boardmaker by Mayer JohnsonSchool: Bale Elementary School School Improvement Plan Year: 2000-2001 Intervention: Accelerated Reading Actions 1. Form AR Committee involving PTA and CLT in planning AR Committee-Fitzpatrick, Tucker, Jones, Geurin 2. Visit and collaborate with other schools to observe implementation 3. Attend AR Workshop 4. Purchase Star\" Assessment Tool and AR program 5. Evaluate and access students' l reading level using STAR' assessment Person(s) Responsible Principal Teachers Media Specialist Title 1 Specialist CLT_______ AR Committee AR Committee AR Committee Fitzpatrick, Tucker Timeline Aug. 2000 Aug. 2000 Oct. 1, 2000 Octi, 2000 Oct. 2000- Nov. 2000 Resources Mabelvale Media Specialist Mablevale Otter Creek Rockefeller Permabound and Follett Publishing Companies Permabound and Follett Publishing Companies Media Specialist Title 1 Specialist District Budget Title I Budget $3200 APIG/Other BudgetSchool: Bale Elementary School School Improvement Plan Year: 2000-2001 Intervention: Accelerated Reading Actions 6. Purchase software, printer, and library books for program implementation 7. Communicate information concerning AR to parents 8. Plan and develop school wide incentive for AR Program Person(s) Responsible Principal AR Committee Media Specialist Title 1 Specialist AR Committee Media Specialist Title 1 Specialist AR Committee Media Specialist Timeline Oct .2000- Dec. 2000 Oct. 2000- June 2001 Oct. 2000 Resources Permabound and Follett Publishing Companies Staff 9. Review program effectiveness and make recommendations for 2001-2002 AR Committee June 2001 Staff District Budget Title I Budget $5600 $400 $1000 APIG/Other BudgetChicot students will be-featured on KSSH RADIO CELEBRITIES! The following CHICOT RADIO ou^ Americans give their pledge and Jaliso Cooper, Thongsoy Singkhek, and Trelaine Punches. Chicot PTA Poll Comivnh Yur help is still needed for the foil uM thet will be held on ?ctXr 28, from l00 - 2 pm. here t the school. If you would be willing to help, coll Danielle Conroy at 570-4062 between 8\n00 a.m, and 12 noon any day. I leiecTion sheela w.cre sent home today for grades 3-5. Please assis yo selection. Clubs will be assigned on a first come, first serve basis, n ay October 13. If you arc interested in helping, contact Delwin Smith, Friday Clubs: Selection sheets were child in making a Clubs will begin on Assistant Principal, at 570-4062. IMPORTANT DATES\nOctober 4 - Parent Conference Day - NO School October 23 - Teacher Record Day - NO School October 28 - Fall Carnival, 10\n0Q a.m. - 2\n0Q p.m. ri' Chicot Ele I I j I  Students Enrolled514 I I Percent of Average lWAttendance-g4-i% Otodmom = wo%) tfercent UI/kvisixigc xyeuv ' '--------------------- 1ii Percent of students in grades Kr2 who developed appropriate reading readiness stalls tor  the next grade level  Kindergarten-56.1% ist Grade26.8% and Grade-38.6% Percent of students not receiviug a reportable discipline sanctions99.99% (By Btate hm dnelptoe aiittk\u0026gt;n. meat he reported end taduded acts UivoMng drugs, uiaolu,aloohol,weapons or gongs\nI \u0026lt;Bstiictwide.Metthsn 496 of our smdenuwere involved in these types of oflonoes.) Number of Teachers39 Percent of Teachers with Masters38% Staff Number of Support Staff35 Percent of Teachers with 9+ Years of Experience43% Involvement Number of PTA Members Last Year (1999/2000)  51 Volunteer Hours Last Year1,601 hrs. School Improvement Flap The following era priorities for our school and are included in our school improvement plan: the complete school improvement plan is available in the office and includes SpSdfiC SCtlOIlS ffild {6301111^ needed for implementation. 1J Sixty percent of Chicots K-2 students will perform at or above readiness for the next grade level on the Spring 2001 Developmental Reading Assessment 2.)Eighty percent of Chicot students in grades 3-5 will meet or exceed their personal growth scores on the Spring 2001 Achievement Level Tests.Cd Chicot Elementary School Improvement Plan 2000-2001 Achievement is Chief at ChicotSchool: Chicot Elementary School Improvement Plan Year: 00-01 Priority 1: Improve students reading and writing achievement Supporting Data: ACTAAP scores for April 2000 are unavailable. On the 98 SAT 9, total reading NCE for 5 grade was 31.9. On the 99 SAT 9, this score was 28.7-a decrease of 3.2. Goals\n1) 100% of Chicot 4** graders will perform at or above the proficient level in grade 4 reading on the State Benchmark Examination. 2) To be set by CLT, Fall 2000 One-Year Benchmark(s)-To be set by CLT, Fail 2000School: Chicot School Improvement Plan Year: 2000-2001 Intervention: Focus on literacy instruction with Title I staffing and funds Actions Implement Reading Recovery for first grade Person(s) Responsible G. Bryant L. Harrison Timeline Sept. 00 Resources IRC Staff UALR Staff District Budget Title I Budget $4000 APIG/Other Budget Provide small group instruction in writing process for grades 2-4 using Title I specialist and instuctionai aide Implement Native American and Puppetry Artists in Education Program to facilitate student writing Implement Voyager Afterschool Program J. Burgin G. Marts J. Burgin J. Harkey Sept. 00 Oct. 00 Sept. 00 IRC Staff T. Boley inservice $500 $8000 Voyager Staff $22,000School: Chicot School Improvement Plan Year: 2000-2001 Intervention: Utilize technology to increase reading and writing achievement Actions Person(s) Responsible C. Crawford Timeline Resources Maintain Accelerated Reader Program Sept. 00 District Budget Title I Budget $1000 APIG/Other Budget Continue use of Compass Software correlations to LRSD Objectives N. Galyean L. Fields D. Sabo Sept. 00 Instructional technology staff Continue use of Smart Start/Smart Step performance assessments Sept. 00 ADE materials Computer disks Develop new technology plan J. Harkey 12-00 IRC staff LRSD Standards Half-day monthly planning by grade levels using mapping template J. Harkey Oct. 00 UI Mapping the Big Picture, IRC staffSchool: Chicot School Improvement Plan Year: 2000-2001 Priority 2: Improve student achievement in mathematics Supporting Data: ACTAAP scores for 2000 are unavailable. On the 98 SAT 9, total math NCE for S** grade was 29.4 on total math. On the 99 SAT 9, this score was 25.9, a decrease of 3.5. Goal(s): 1) 100% of Chicot 4* graders will perform at or above the proficient level in grade 4 math on the State Benchmark Examination. 2) To be set by CLT, Fall 2000 One-Year Benchmark(s): To be set by CLT, Fall 2000School: Chicot School Improvement Plan Year: 2000-2001 Intervention: Utilize Title I funding and materials to increase math achievement Actions Person(s) Responsible J. Harkey Timeline Sept. 00 Resources Voyager Staff District Budget Title I Budget $22,000 APIG/Other Budget Implement Voyager afterschool program Conduct quarterly Family Math Nights J. Burgin Oct. 00 Distribute former math lab materials in an equitable manner to classroom teachers J. Harkey Aug. 00 IRC Staff TERC materials IRC Staff $1000School: Chicot School Improvement Plan Year: 2000-2001 Intervention: Utilize technology to increase math achievement Actions Continue use of Compass Software correlations to LRSD objectives Person(s) Responsible N. Galyean L. Fields D. Sabo Timeline Sept. 00 Sept. 00 Resources Instructional technology staff Continue use of Smart Start/Smart Step performance assessments ADE materials Computer disks J. Harkey Dec. 00 Develop new technology plan IRC staff LRSD Standards J. Harkey Oct. 00 UI Mapping the District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget Half-day monthly planning by grade levels using mapping template Big Picture, IRC staffSchool: Chicot School Improvement Plan Year: 2000-2001 Priority 3: Improve stakeholder/community involvement and create an environment of collaborative responsibility Supporting Data: VIPS hours for 98-99 were 1787. VIPS hours for 99-00 were 1601 (a decrease of 186 hours). PTA goal of 100% increase from 98-99 to 99-00 was met. Goal(s): 1) 100% of Chicot parents and staff will join PTA. 2) VIPS hours will increase to 10 hours per student yearly. One-Year Benchmark(s): VIPS hours will increase from 1600 to 2000 (25%). PTA membership will also increase 25% from 99-00.School: Chicot School Improvement Plan Year: 2000-2001 Intervention: Improve stakeholder/community involvement Actions Title I stipend paid to Family Involvement Coordinator-5 days/wk, 4 hrs/day CLT to determine Average Daily Attendance incentive for families Family Involvement Committee formed to determine ways to increase parental involvement Person(s) Responsible J. Harkey J. Harkey P. Kerr Timeline Aug. 00 Oct. 00 July 00 Resources Family Resource Center, Title I staff LRSD Recognition and Rewards LRSD Restructured Parent Program District Budget Title I Budget $5500 APIG/Other Budget To be determined To be determinedSchool: Chicot School Improvement Plan /...} I Year: 2000-2001 Priority 4: Discipline Supporting Data: Out-of-school suspensions for 98-99 totaled 151. The total of 44 for 99-00 was only 29% of the 98-99 total. Goal(s): A non-violent education component will significantly reduce behavior sanctions. One-Year Benchmark(s): Out-of-school suspensions for 00-01 will decrease by 10% of the 99-00 total.I School: Chicot School Improvement Plan Year: 00-01 Intervention: Provide non-violent education component Actions Implement uniforms Person(s) Responsible D. Smith G. Bryant Timeline Aug. 00 Resources District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget D. Smith Sept. 00 Continue Conflict Managers by Centers therapist D. Smith Oct. 00 Continue Friday Club behavior incentives Implement Peaceable Place Curriculum M. Smith J. Gunderman Sept. 00 Curriculum materials Full-time Centers Therapist on site J. Harkey Aug. 00 nLETTER TO PARENTS/GUARDIANS On the reverse side of this letter you will find some basic data about David O. Dodd Elementary School. The Developmental Reading Readiness Assessment was begun last school year. This was a result of the switch in programming required by the state. Our school begins in Pre-K to develop the skills necessary to develop sound reading skills. Small guided reading groups, interactive writing between teacher and student, lots of hands on time for both independent and large group reading allows the students to see, hear and interact with words, language, reading and writing strategies. This continues through the 2 grade and picks up in 3* grade with a more intense and focused emphasis on writing skills. Self-expression through daily journal writing and creative stories enhances the skills they will need for 4*^ grade. These strategies are tested on the statewide ACTAAP test given in May of the 4* grade school year. McRat Multicultural higher level thinking skills build on what the student has learned in the previous years and focuses on critical thinking, predictions of story outcome, analysis of character development and subjective writing. This encourages the student to use these specific skills across the curriculum in social studies, science and other c_or_e su_bje_ct_ ar_ea_s a*t the c5t*h grade lleAivzeail , uw/kh{i\u0026lt;c\u0026gt;hh prepares ssftuiiddeennttss for the next level of their education. The math program is the result of a multi- million-dollar grant received by the LRSD to enhance critical thinking and broad-based math understanding. Problem solving is a major strategy as students work in-groups where the right answer is any way it can be solved! It is not like the cut and dried math any of us grew up doing in school! If you have any questions about the curriculum or any part of the initial school report please do not hesitate to call me. The statewide report card should be released and sent to you in midOctober. / I School Name: Teachers'i 21 Attendance: David 0 Dodd EXernentary Support Staff: 6 92.21% (% of average daily attendance\nmaximum = 100%) (Enro Ilmen tT 232 ] Developmental Reading Readiness Assessment - % of students in grades K-2 who have developed appropriate reading readiness skills for their grade level: Kindergarten: 86.5% First Grade: 63.3% Second Grade: 89.65% of F I'A Members Last Y ear: 232 % ot I'eachers with Masters iJegree: 50.1% [Volunteer Hours Last Year: 3,545 1 [% of I eachers with 9 + Years ot l eaching Lxpenence: 51^ [ 94% Discipline \u0026amp; Safety - % of students NOT receiving a reportable discipline sanction: (By state law discipline sanctions must be reported and include acts involving drugs, assaults, alcohol, weapons or gangs\ndistrictwidc, fewer than 2% of our students were involved in these types of offenses.) School Improvement Plans - the following are priorities for our school and are included in our school improvement plan\nthe complete school improvement plan is available in the office and includes specific actions and resources needed for implementation: 1. Improve reading by'using Reading Recovery, Early Literacy strategies (ELLA), Effective literacy and HcRat Multi cultural higher level thinking skills. 2. Increase mathfemtics understanding by using the LRSD professional development team. 3. Increase use of manipulatlves in grades K-5.David O. Dodd Elementary School Improvement Plan 2000-2001David 0. Dodd Elementary School Mission Statement WE, at David O. Dodd Elementary, believe students, staff and parents will woik together cooperatively in a safe, positive environment demonstrating mutual respect for cultural diversity and academic achievement I !School David O. Dodd Elementary School School Improvement Plan Year Priority 1: Improve Student Achievement in Reading and Writing Literacy Supporting Data:  65% of fourth grade students performed below proficiency on the 1999 ACTAAP.  71% of fifth grade students scored below the 50% in total reading on the 1998 SAT9.  71% of fifth grade students scored below the 50* percentile in Reading Vocabulary on the 1998 SAT9.  33% of first grade students were identified for service in Reading Recovery based on Observation Survey.  21% of second grade students were identified for service in Early Literacy Groups based on Observation Survey.  20% of third grade students were identified for service in Early Literacy Groups based on Observation Survey. Goal (s): 2000-01 K 90% of Dodds kindergarten students shall perform at or above the proficient level in literacy. 2000-01 1 90% or Dodds grade 1 students shall perform at or above the proficient level in literacy. 2000-01 2-5 90% of Dodds students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grades 2-5 reading each semester on the CRT. 2000-01 4 100% of Dodd's students shall perform at or above the proficient level on the ACTAAP. 2000-01 5 65% of Dodds students shall perform at or above the 50* percentile in reading on the SAT9.School David O. Dodd Elementary School School Improvement Plan Year Priority 1: Improve Student Achievement in Reading and Writing Literacy Goal(s): 2000-01 K-5 100% of Dodds certified staff will complete at last 60 hours of approved professional development annually. One-Year Benchmark(s):  In 2000-01, 80% of Dodds kindergarten students shall perform at or above the proficient level in literacy.  In 2000-01, 80% of Dodds first grade students shall perform at or above the proficient level in literacy.  In 2000-01, at least 80% of the students in grades 2-5 shall perform at or above the proficient level, on the LRSD Criterion Reference Test.  In 2000-01, Dodd School shall improve 10 percentage points (from 35% to 45%) in the percent of students performing at or above the proficient level on the grade 4 ACTAAP.  In 2000-01, Dodd School shall improve by 5 percentage points (from 29% to 34%) the percentage of students performing at or above the 50* percentile in Total Reading on the SAT9.  In 2000-01, Dodd School shall improve by 5 percentage points (from 29% to 34%) the percentage of Students performing at or above the 50*^ percentile in Reading Vocabulary on the SAT9.School David O. Dodd Elementary School School Improvement Plan Intervention: Reading Recovery/Literacy Group Support Actions Provide Reading Recovery for first grade students identified by Observation Survey Establish Literacy Support Groups for second grade students identified by Observation Survey Establish Literacy Support groups for third grade students identified by teacher recommendation Establish Kindergarten Emergent Groups for students identified by Observation Survey Expand the number of students serviced by Reading Recovery by utilizing the Reading Recovery Teacher Leader in Training Person(s) Responsible Yeager Timeline August- June* Resources District Yeager Yeager Yeager Harr August- June* January- June* January- June* August- June* Pat Busbea, . LRSD UALR Dept of Ed. Linda Dorn Debbie Williams Reading Recovery/Early Literacy Training Site UALR UALR UALR Reading Recovery Training Site Budget: $0 Title I Budget $0 APIG/Other Budget $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0School David O. Dodd Elementary School School Improvement Plan Intervention: Increase time on task to impact student achievement in reading and writing Actions Identify by name all students in fifth grade who scored below the 50**^ percentile in reading on the 2000 SAT9 to focus on specific, individual needs.______________ Identify by name all students in fourth grade who scored below the proficient level on the 2000 ACTAAP to focus on specific, individual needs.______________ Implement the Accelerated Reader reading incentive program to promote independent reading.__________________ Conduct RIF (Reading Is Fundamental) distributions for grades PreK-5 to promote independent reading. Form Writing for Success study groups for fourth grade students to provide instruction and practice for thinking and writing skills. Person(s) Responsible Goldmon Goldmon Kennedy Classroom Teachers Kennedy Lowe Timeline Nov. * August* January- May* August- May* October- April* Resources SAT9 Dr. Ed Williams ACTAAP Dr. Ed Williams RIF Scholastic West Little Rock Kiwanis Club.CSR Grant Internet ADE District Budget $0 $0 $0 $0 Title I Budget $0 $0 $0 $0 APIG/Other Budget $0 $0 CSRD Grant LRSD Kiwanis $150.00 SCRD Grant $1,000.00 $0School David O. Dodd Elementary School School Improvement Plan Intervention: Increase time on task to impact student achievement in reading and writing Actions Form Writing for Success study groups for fourth grade students to provide instruction and practice for thinking and writing skills Use levelized books for guided reading to increase instructional and independent reading activities Implement LiNKing to integrate reading, writing and technology into the curriculum for grades 3-5. Utilize Literacy One, Literacy Two and Literacy Three students from UALR to provide additional reinforcement for emerging literacy skills with K-2 students scoring below the proficiency level. Person(s) Responsible Lowe Yeager classroom teachers Kennedy Grades 3-5 classroom teachers UALR students Classroom teachers Timeline October- April* August- May* August- May* Sept.- May* Resources Internet ADE Pat Busbea UALR Dept, of Education Reading Recovery/Early Literacy Training Site Barb Bumgardner Seattle, WA UALR District Budget $0 $0 Title I Budget $0 $0 APIG/Other Budget $0 SR Grant $16,500.00 SR Grant $10,000.00 $0School David 0. Dodd Elementary School School Improvement Plan Intervention: Increase time on task to impact student achievement in reading and writing Actions Utilize the computer lab attendant to provide additional opportunities for reading and writing using the computer in the classroom setting. Implement ELLA practices in the Resource and Primary Special Education Self-contained Classroom to promote effective literacy____________ Purchase class set of AlphaSmart to provide additional opportunities to develop writing and word processing skills for grades 2-5 Person(s) Responsible McLaughlin Buchanan Classroom teachers Schouweiller Kennedy Timeline Jan.- June* August- June .* August* Resources Computers MS Office products Internet Jump Start ADE IRC Intelligent Peripheral Devices, Inc. District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget CSRD Grant $6,300.00School David O. Dodd Elementary School School Improvement Plan Intervention: Support Vocabulary Development. Actions Create word-building centers in kindergarten through second grade to reinforce literacy instruction. Provide dictionaries in the writing and word building centers in first and second grades to promote vocabulary growth.___________________________ Provide journals for PreK-4'\" grade students to encourage daily practice of writing skills._______________________ Provide multiple sets of magnetic letters for Reading Recovery and centers for PreK- 2 classrooms to provide for practice in word building skills._____________________________ Incorporate the use of lexicons for grades 3-5 to increase proficiency in language mechanics. Person(s) Responsible Grade K-2 Timeline August- June* Yeager Yeager Gaddy Yeager Classroom Teachers August* August- June* August- June* August - May* Resources Pat Busbea IRC Books: Apprenticeship in Literacy and Guided Reading Silver Burdette Modern Learning Press Arch Ford Co-op LRSD Arch Ford Co-op Marva Collins Teacher Training Manual District Budgets Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget CSRD Grant $2,000.00 CSRD Grant $500.00 CSRD Grant $600.00 CSRD Grant $2,400.00 $15.95School David O. Dodd Elementary School School Improvement Plan Intervention: Support Vocabulary Development. Actions Use levelized books in grades K-3 to develop vocabulary in content areas. Person(s) Responsible Yeager Classroom Teachers Timeline August- June* Resources Rigby, Wright Group Scholastic, and Steck-Vaughn District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget CSRD grantSchool David O. Dodd Elementary School School Improvement Plan Intervention: Reading Recovery/Literacy Group Support Actions Identify first grade students utilizing Observation Survey to provide Reading Recovery services for students needing intervention. Establish Literacy Support Groups for second grade students identified by Observation Survey to promote literacy skills. Establish Literacy Support groups for third grade students identified by teacher recommendation to promote literacy skills. Establish Kindergarten Emergent Groups for students identified by Observation Survey to promote literacy skills. Person(s) Responsible Yeager Yeager Yeager Yeager Timeline August- June* August- June* Jan.- June* January- June* Resources Pat Busbea, LRSD UALR Dept of Ed. Linda Dorn Debbie Williams Reading Recovery/Early Literacy Training Site UALR UALR District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other BudgetSchool David O. Dodd Elementary School School Improvement Plan Intervention: Staff Development Actions Attend McRat (Multicultural Reading and Thinking) training to facilitate implementation in the classroom. Attend Continuing Contact for Reading Recovery to maintain effective teaching strategies._________________________ Attend Effective Literacy training sessions for third grade teachers to facilitate implementation in the classroom.________________________ Schedule staff development for LiNKing to coordinate with LRSD calendar. Attend LiNKing staff development to facilitate implementation of the program. Person(s) Responsible Goldmon Dilday Timeline August - June* Yeager August- May* Resources ADE UALR LRSD Knapp James August- June* ADE Kennedy August- May* District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget ADE $0 $0 $0 ADE grades 3-5 Classroom Teachers August- May* Barb Bumgardner, consultant Seattle, WA Barb Bumgardner, consultant Seattle, WA $0 $0 $0 CSRD Grant $5,000.00School David O. Dodd Elementary School School Improvement Plan Intervention: Staff Development Actions Form Literacy Study groups to study current research and practices. Person(s) Responsible Yeager McLaughlin Classroom teachers Timeline August- May* Resources District Budget Title I Budget Provide opportunities for school site visits for teachers of grades kindergarten through second to observe literacy strategies. Attend AlphaSmart workshop to facilitate integration of technology and writing in the third through fifth grade classrooms.______________________ Attend Arkansas Reading Conference to explore current resources and research. Yeager McLaughlin grades 3-5 classroom teachers Kennedy, Yeager, classroom teachers August- May* March* Nov.* Pat Busbea UALR Dept, of Ed. Books: Apprenticeship in Literacy, Guided Reading, and Whole-to-Part Phonics UALR ADE Kennedy IRC Dept, of Instructional Technology Arkansas Reading Association $0 $0 $0 $0 $200.00 APIG/Other Budget CSRD Grant $200.00 $0 $0 CSRD Grant $300.00School David O. Dodd Elementary School School Improvement Plan Intervention: Staff Development Actions t.-. Attend Hot Springs Technology Institute to acquire additional knowledge for implementation in the classroom.______________________ Attend Arkansas Early Literacy Conference to explore current resources and research. Attend Basic Computer Tool Box inservice to initiate the exploration of the world of technology and implications for use in the classroom. Train a Literacy Coach to provide leadership in literacy, manage the schools literacy program and provide professional development promoting a school-based professional community. Person(s) Responsible Kennedy Knapp Yeager McLaughlin Classroom Teachers Classroom Teachers Chambers Timeline June 2001 March* Nov.* August- June Resources Hot Springs School District UALR Reading Recovery IRC Pam Crawford UALR District Budget Title I Budget $200.00 $0 $0 ADE APIG/Other Budget CSRD Grant $98.00 CSRD Grant $500.00 $0School David O. Dodd Elementary School School Improvement Plan Year Priority 1: Increase Parent/Community Involvement Supporting Data:  30% of the parents responding to a 1999 Dodd Elementary Parent Survey do not read with their children nightly.  40% of the parents report on the Dodd Elementary Parent Survey that they do not assist their children with homework.  35% of the parents attend parent-teacher conferences on Parent Conference Day. Goal (s): 2000-2001 100% of the parents will read with their children nightly. 2000-2001 100% of the parents will assist children with homework. 2000-2001 100% of the parents will attend parent conferences. 2000-2001 The Partners In Education partnerships will increase by 100%. One-Year Benchmark(s):  tn the 2000-2001 school year, 80% of the Dodd parents will read to their children nightly.  In the 2000-2001 school year, 80% of the Dodd parents will sign homework nightly.  In the 2000-2001 school year, 80% of the Dodd parents will attend parent conferences.  In the 2000-2001 school year, two new Partners In Education will be added for Dodd Elementary.School David O. Dodd Elementary School School Improvement Plan Intervention: Improve Student Achievement through Parent Workshops Actions Host Pig Out on Books for PreK-2 to encourage parents and students to read at home. Host Write Night for third grade through fifth grade students and parents to inform and promote effective writing skills at home. Stage a Science Fair Workshop to provide students and parents with information necessary to complete a successful Science Fair Project. Conduct a G/T Parent Night to inform parents of the responsibilities of the students in the program. Explain the Title I program at a PTA meeting so parents will understand the benefits and criteria of the program. Person(s) Responsible Yeager PreK-2 Teachers Kennedy Yeager Kennedy 3-5 Teachers Fleming Davis Yeager Timeline October* April April Oct*. Sept.* Resources'* District Jan Wolfe Scholastic IRC IRC LIAMS Partners In Education G/T Department Title I Department Budget $0 $0 Title I Budget $137.00 $100.00 $100.00 $0 $0 APIG/Other Budget SCRD Grant $237.00 SCRD Grant $1000.00 SCRD Grant $1500.00 $0 $0School David O. Dodd Elementary School School Improvement Plan Intervention: Provide accommodations for parents. Actions Provide an interpreter for parents who have difficulty speaking or understanding English so they are able to participate in their students school life. Explore options for training in the English as a Second Language Program to further facilitate communication with students and parents. Person(s) Responsible McLaughlin McLaughlin Timeline Ongoing* Second Semester * 6 staff members summer ESL training Resources Edie Ax LRSD Foreign Language Teacher IRC District Budget $0 $0 Title I Budget $0 $0 APIG/Other Budget $0 $0School David O. Dodd Elementary School School Improvement Plan Intervention: Increase Opportunities for Parent/Community Involvement Actions Participate in the Jump Rope for Heart program to foster community service. Schedule the Healthy Lungs Program for first and fourth grades to reinforce the dangers of tobacco and utilize community volunteers in the classroom. Invite the Orchestra and You Program for the primary grades to explore the instruments of the symphony. Person(s) Responsible Crosby Lowe Jefferson Timeline March* October Nov. Resources American Heart Association American Lung Association Arkansas Symphony District Budget $0 $0 $0 Title I Budget $0 $0 $0 APIG/Other Budget $0 $0 $0School David O. Dodd Elementary School School Improvement Plan Intervention: Increase Opportunities for Parent/Community Involvement. Actions Provide space for the Stagecoach-Dodd Neighborhood Association to meet to provide a link to our neighborhood. Report school activities, meetings, and accomplishments through monthly newsletters to maintain informed patrons. Invite parents, guardians, and community members to visit classrooms on Grandparents Day, Career Week to share careers, read to students and interact with students. Provide alternative times for Parent/Teacher Conferences to accommodate working parents. Recognize academic achievement in an assembly to provide a public forum for celebrating student success. Person(s) Responsible McLaughlin President of the Association McLaughlin Knapp Davis Hospitality Committee McLaughlin Lowe Goldmon Dilday PreK-5 Teachers McLaughlin Lowe McLaughlin Pre-K to 5 Teachers Timeline All year August- Feb. * August- May* Ongoing* Aug.- June* Each quarter Resources Stagecoach- Dodd Neighborhood Association Kennedy Lowe Printshop Publisher VIPS Lowe Mitchell McLaughlin Food Services Custodians McLaughlin Darrel Jones Backyard Burger, Dixie Cafe, Tias, Pizza Hut District Budget $0 $200.00 $0 $0 Title I Budget $0 $0 $0 APIG/Other Budget $0 Activity Fund $200.00 $0 $0School David O. Dodd Elementary School School Improvement Plan Intervention: Staff Development Actions Recognize parental contributions by hosting a Parent Recognition Tea Host Study Circles to increase communication between school, parents, staff and community and to provide a platform to discuss the educational focus of Dodd Elementary School Person(s) Responsible Hospitality PTA McLaughlin Timeline May May* Sept. Resources* Community Bakery Kroger Title I Diane Vibhakar Arkansas School Board Association Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families District, Budget Title I Budget $135.00 APIG/Other Budget CSRD grant $50.00School David O. Dodd Elementary School School Improvement Plan Year Priority 1: Increase Student Achievement in Math Supporting Data:  86% of the students scored below Proficient in Math based on the 1999 ACTAAP results.  79% of the students scored below 50% in Math based on the SAT-9, Fall of 1998. Goal (s): 2000-01 2-5 The percent of Dodds students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 2000-01 2-5 The percent of students demonstrating gains from the grades 2-5 mathematics pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 2000-01 4 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient  level on the State mandated Criterion Referenced Grade 4 Mathematics test. 2000-01 5 65% of a schools students shall perform at or above the 50* percentile on the SAT9 in Grade 5 mathematics. One-Year Benchmark(s):  In the 2000-2001 school year, David O. Dodd Elementary students shall improve 8.6 points so that at least 22.6 % of the students (14 + 8.6) will perform above the first quartile on the grade 5 SAT-9 SAT9 mathematics test.  In the 2000-2001 school year, David O. Dodd Elementary students shall improve 4.4 points so that at least 25.4 % of the students (21 + 4.4) will perform at or above the proficient level on the 2000 ACTAAP.School David O. Dodd Elementary School School Improvement Plan Year Priority 1: Increase Student Achievement in Math  In the 2000-2001 school year, 90% of the David O. Dodd students shall achieve proficient or above on the Criterion Referenced Test in grades two through five..School David 0. Dodd Elementary School School Improvement Plan Intervention: Increase time on task for students in math experiences. Actions Implement an Economics Mini-Mall to culminate a Prek-5 unit to develop economic awareness. Identify fourth grade students who perform below the proficient level on the ACTAAP for supplementary supporting activities. Person{s) Responsible All staff Fleming Principal Timeline Dec.* Sept. 2000 Resources Teachers Parents IRC ADE LRSD District Budget $0 $0 Title I Budget $0 $0 APIG/Other Budget $0 $0School David O. Dodd Elementary School School Improvement Plan Intervention: Increase time on task for students in math experiences. Actions Provide additional individual and small group instruction and reinforcement for students performing at the Basic or Below Basic level. Use resources from Curriculum Associates at the fourth grade level to provide practice similar to the ACTAAP. Participate in the St. Judes Math-a- Thon to provide Math practice at home with parent supervision. Identify fifth grade students who score below the 5Cr^ percentile on the SAT-9 to participate in supplemental math activities. Person(s) Responsible Crosby Burton Fleming Price Goldmon McLaughlin Lowe Timeline August- June .* August- June* March October* Resources UALR Partners in Education Curriculum Associates St. Judes Hospital ADE LRSD District Budget $0 Title I Budget $0 APIG/Other Budget $0 Activity Fund $150.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0School David 0. Dodd Elementary School School Improvement Plan Intervention: Provide additional materials for Math. Actions Use the Everyday Math Calendar to support number patterns. Use the JumpStart Math computer program to reinforce math skills. Purchase additional manipulatives to strengthen the math program. Person(s) Responsible PreK-5 Teachers 3-5 fifth grade Teachers McLaughlin K-2 Classroom Teachers Timeline August- June* August- June* August- June Resources -2,. Teacher made activities Office Depot Educational Resources ADE IRC District Budget $0 $45.00 $200.00 Title I Budget $0 APIG/Other Budget $0 Activity Fund $200.00School David O. Dodd Elementary School School Improvement Plan Intervention: Expand integration of math in the specialist areas. Actions Focus on counting, time measurement, and fractions in Music. Use specialists to incorporate specific math skills and information into their lesson presentations upon request by a teacher to reinforce classroom instruction. Person(s) Responsible Jefferson Davis Jefferson Lowe Kennedy Crosby Timeline August- June* August- June Resources Teacher provided materials Teacher made materials and activities. Library materials District Budget $0 Title I Budget $0 APIG/Other Budget $0 $0 $0 $0Forest Park Elementaiy\n 600 North Tyler  Little Rock, Arkansas 72207  (501)671-6267 t ' -------- FOREST VVoolluummee 3 August/September 2000 Issue 1 [ PARK Welcome New Students! The following students have entered Forest Park for the 2000-2001 school year. We are so glad to have them and their families, Pro-K - Houston Angel, Marcus Burton, Hans Chen, Ruby Cordell, Carly Cortinez, Graham Coutts, Harrison Houser, Lauren Hudgens, Madison Jaros, Emily Claire Mackey, Katie Mowery, Remington Remmell, Peyton Robinson, Marit Scott, Andrew Willoughby, Jackson Woodliff, Kindergarten - Josh Cissell, Kevin Cunningham, Jacob Currence, Preston Fore, Hank Fuller, Quionte Hayes, Sammye Kogy, Ellis LaGrone, Lexie Levin. Keyira Martin, Cmeron Matson, Jackson Moore, Patrick O'Brien, Jim Rogers, Rachel Russell, Dinah Stewart, Alfred Warren, Clayton Williams, Maurice Green, Hayden Angel, Darrell Bailey, Briana Carter, Alex Coombs, Cote Dunn, Andrew England, Carson Gramling, Kennedy Hammond, John Law, Janie Blair Luft, Kevionna Lyons, Aaliyah Matthews, Nelson McCain, John Stanley McCay, Jordan Muir, Dasiah Ray, Anne Thomas Rystrom, Ray Thomas, William Willoughby\nFirst Grade - Josh Aldana, Lisa Brown, Jamira Flowers, Tyler Gulley, Ola Stewart, Hunter Ray Campbell, Paris Hosley, Jovante Minor, Brandon Rekow\nSecond Grade - Tyler Clinger, Sarah Frazier, Sarah Mowery, Jarvis Flowers, Artez Irvin, Angel Allen, Tyler Gramling, Kader Riddick\nThird Grade - April Allen, Saxton Exposito, Alexandra Frazier\nFourth Grade - Jacaquese Flowers, Troy Thompson, Allison Justiss, LaDiamond mith, Jennifer Stewart\nFifth Grade - Yancey Farmer, Raymond Bird, Jasmine Wingo, Levi Cissell, Jamar Flowers. Forest Park School Recognized by the American Heart Association by Deanor Coleman Forest Park school was recognized by the American Heart Association at their Annual Volunteer Recognition Luncheon, August 19, 2000 at the Excelsior Hotel, Forest Park participated in the Jump Rope for Heart Project and raised an average of $89.03 per participant. This was the highest amount per participant p raised in the state of Arkansas. Students raising the top dollar amount were as follow\nSophie Hollenbert - $380\nHamilton Eubanks - $352\nand Lundon Walker - $270. There were several other Forest Park student who raised $100 plus. Thanks to all our parents who helped and suf^'orted this most worthy cause. Stop by and see our Too Morket Penetrotion Trophy. From The Principals Desk Ueresa Gouriney^ T^rincipaf HELPING YOUR CHIU! SUCCEED rips from educators Have you ever heard the expression \"Well begun is half done'? One secret to a successful school year is to set good routines right from the beginning. How can you help your child become more successful in school? We asked educators from across the country to share their Ideas. here are some tips from teachers and administrators. Take time to make time \"One key to success is to follow a schedule, ' says one school superintendent, \"Children need a schedule they can depend onone that includes definite times for homework, meals, and sleep. Then they can work around those times to include the extras.* An elementary school principal suggests, Limit TV A and video games.' Decide j how much of z this kind of free time to allow and stick to It. Otherwise, these activities can consume too much of children's time. Read, read, read fchool Uniform/ needed If you hove uniforms that your child/children con no longer wear, please consider donating them to the school closet. We have distributed most of what ve had on hand. We can use all sizes. Thank you for all you do for Forest Pork School. You have really helped us ide for so many students. A reading teacher offers this reminder. \"Continue to share reading with children, even after they can read by themselves. This allows them to enjoy stories that may be too difficult for them to read alone. For variety, try reading newspapers, magazineseven the comic strips. You'll send the message that reading is important.' Check into it An elementary teacher recommends, \"Take a few minutes every day to look at what your child brings home from school. You'll probably see work that teachers thought was important enough to send home. Talk about the schoolwork together. This shows that you care about the things your child spends most of the day doing.' Continued on page 3 Page 2 September 2000 Issue 1 Enhance He Chance ft ETC Enrichment classes are taught in kindergarten through sec- ^id grade by Mrs. Laughlin. The kindergarten students are participating in a discovery unit, the first graders are studying a logic unit, and the second graders are being challenged by a questions unit. The third grade ETC students are getting their first taste of ETC v4th their teacher Ms. Scherer. These students are working on a unit about Space, during this unit, students will be researching facts about space as well as learning how to develop a web. The fourth grade ETC students are studying a unit entitled 'Drawing' from Art History with their teacher Mrs. Laughlin. These students are researching various artists and experimenting with those artists' techniques. Students will learn many new vocabulary words. The fifth grade ETC students are studying a unit about the electoral process with their teacher Ms. Scherer. During this unit, the stu-, dents will research the presidential candidates' platforms. The students will also hold a mock presidential election. Counselors COrneif \"TFT by Eleanor Coleman The counselor has been busy this week rneeling .with who are new to Forest Park School. The counselor has a persohol,  conference with each new student to welcome and introduce\n:-^\n:\nhim or her to Forest Park and to let them know she is here to^ help them have a good school year. Each student Is given a :  pamphlet that tells how the counselor can helpj^rp. ,  She Is also visiting each classroom to discuss the role ofit , counselor and how and when students should yl^lt tliie coun^ltFlQ,: 'J'? center. The Counselor has moved to f\u0026lt;?Q^ 214, She. having a larger roc^ Meet the Teacher Did you miss the chance to meet your child's teacher on Parents' Night? If so, introduce yourself with a short note, telling a little something about your child. Also, ask the teacher to contact you if your child needs any help. l^dd it up! Coupons that you don't use at the store can give your child math practice. Spread them out on a table. Then take turns asking each other questions such as, 'How much will we save if we buy this brand of toothpaste?' Did You Know? There is good news for teachers, parents, and kids. Compared to students around the world, American Fourthgraders are among the best in math and science. (Source: Third International Mathematics and Science Study) Spanish classes are off to a great start. We have been singing and speaking in Spanish since the first day of school. The older students remember so much from last year and the youngest are picking up words and phrases quickly. We are listening carefully to the ending sounds of Spanish words and our Spanish accents are good. There will be many students members of the Parrot Club (for excellent Spanish pronunciation). We have learned two songs to help us with greetings and farewells. We sing to them in each class, we also practice v4th the calendar, review the word of the week in Spanish and recite our class motto. Second graders are demonstrating their beautiful writing in sentences about themselves, which we will share with children in Argentina. Third graders are studying about communities in Spanish and in their classrooms. We will build a model of a commu- .lity in Spanish class. Fourth grade will study continents, oceans and land forms. Fifth graders have already written and performed short skits in Spanish. They will begin a unit on the Olympic Games. Gracias to all parents and teachers and muchas gracias to the PTA for making the Spanish program possible. Nuestra escuela es Numero Uno! ving room. student Council 0ecttorvirill ^i^eli^ in late_S^teiT Health Room News We hope you had a fun, healthy summer and are ready for some successful learning and grov/th here at Forest Park. The big news for most of you is the change in the immunization requirements. 1) All students now are required to have a 2nd Measles vaccF nation - MMR on your immunization record. This had been required by 7th grade in past years. Check your records and get the MMR If It is missing. Warning: a few doctors and their staff are not aware of this yet. Don't let them turn you away. Many local doctors. Health Department, ACH, and Baptist After Hour Clinics hove been busy giving the vaccine this past month. 2) All K and Pk must have proof of the Chicken Pox (Varicella) vaccine called Varivax or proof of having the disease. PK also must have Hep B and HIB. We need for everyone to comply with the new regulations so we are not forced to start excluding students from school. Contact Mrs. Janssen if you have questions. We will start screening for hearing and vision in the next month. If you hove any old glasses (Adult and Children) sitting around the house, please donate them. There are organizations that can put those to good use for those in need. Any medication sent to school must be In the original container and have a written note from the parent or guardian. We will give only medication that must be given during the school hours. Most 3 times a day medicines can be given am. afterschool, and bedtime. It is always a good idea for the parent to bring the medicine and to pick it up from school. Thanks for your cooperation. Mediil Center SSevrs The Forest Park Media Center is open for businessll We are getting ready for another year of Accelerated Reader. We have an updated version of the program and new readability levels have been assigned to the books. Students will start.|\u0026lt; the year with a clean slate of points. As | points accumulate we will have our Accelerated Reader store and students may spend points on items at the store. Names will again be on the bulletin board in the cafeteria as the Star Levels are reached. We had a great year last year and I am sure it will continue on this year. If you have any questions about the program, see Mary Boyce in the Media Center. Issue 1 September 2000 Page 3 PRE-KINDERGARTEN........... We are having a great beginning of lool in Pre-K. Everyone is settling in and joying reading, center time, and playtime. Many even enjoy rest timel Our units this month are \"All About Me\", \"Families\", and \"Apples\". We have had fun doing lots of activities which go along with our units. More next time. Ms. Bauman Mrs. Cunningham 1ST GRADE................................. First Grode got off to o great start for the 2000-2(l school yeorl We ore busy making new friends and learning many new things. In reading, we have read counting and alphabet stories and poems\nand done activities to go with them. Every week, we read new stories, songs, and poems in our reading series. We ore learning sight words and \"tracking\" them in print. We are reviewing all of our letters and sounds and working on blending sounds. In math, we are working on the first chapter of our new math books. We count objects, write numbers, and make o zariety of graphs. We have made a \"Poem Book of Colors\" and \"A Book About Me\". We are enjoying our own desks and personal space I For the first nine weeks of school we are concentrating on reading and math. We are learning and practicing school, classroom, cafeteria and playground rules. First graders are working hard and having a great time learningl Mrs. Isroff Mrs. Wenger From the Principal continued... Problem? Try the Team Approach What can you do If you don't agree with how a teacher is handling a problem? First, try talking with the teacher. There may be another side of the story you haven't heard. It's best to avoid putting down the teacher In front of you child. Why? Because your child may develop a negative attitude toward school. Instead, you can teach respect by supporting the teachereven if you don't agree with the decision. 2ND GRADE We hope everyone had a wonderful summer. We are ready for a new year In Second Grode. We have a new reading and math series. The theme in reading is \"Celebrate Me\". The theme in math is mathematical thinking. The Agenda Book is very important. Please look at it and sign it nightly. 3RD GRADE.................................. Third graders are busy and off to a great start for the 2000-2001 school yearl We are excited about studying rocks and minerals in science and also about our math Investigations. We are glad to hove Ms. Hansen and Ms. Feltus back this year for Spanish and Art. We look forward to learning a new character trait each week from our agenda books. Mrs. Coleman will work with us more on this in counseling. We all had an enjoyable summer, but we're ready to meet the challenges of third gradel Watch for our outstanding work in the hall! We invite all of our parents to Open House In September! Ms. Machen Mrs. Gestant P.T.A. NOTEBOOK By: Mary Thompson, President I want to welcome new and returning P.T.A. members. It looks like vje will again part of the first 10 schools with 100% P.T.A. membership. If you haven't joined read on. There are plenty of reasons why you should support your child s school P.T.A. It's been an exciting year already at Forest Park. The first, fourth, fifth 9TadT ai'rd music room received new air conditioners. The P.T.A. funded the Accelerated Recx^r program. The cafeteria got a face-lift with a new green velvet curtain. The front and side lawns were . refurbished and additional sprinklers were added. These improvements were made possible because of the P.T.A. Good reason to be proudl I want to congratulate and thank Mary Ann Gammill and DeAnne Thomas for another successful Innisbrook Wrapping Paper Sale. We could not afford our Spanish and Art teachers without this most important fund-raiser. Great job! Tickets are still available to the \"Sea of Art\" party, Thursday. September 2^. Proceeds from this event also help fund our Spanish and Art program. Tickets are 52^00 you can make your reservation by mailing your check to 4600 Cres^ood Rood. Little Rock, AR 72207. Can't come? Make a donation! For more information call Virginia Yeatman at 661-1872. Magazine Sales begin October 4th so don't buy or renew magazines until then. FOREST PARK GETS 40% OF EACH SUBSCRIPTION! Mary Millsap will kick off the sale with a |p rally for the kids. And oh yes, there will be incentives. Sale ends October 11. Support Forest Park by purchasing your subscriptions from your child! Kim Horreli, notorious Halloween Carnival Chairperson, promises to o^-dohers^f this year with the best Halloween Carnival in Forest Park history. The date is October 3Wh. Rena Hudgens says the Haunted House will be the scariest ever. And those ghoulish mom-zilla's In hair rollers and cold cream will rise again. Please come be a part of a hardworking, dedicated, fun-loving will hove fun! Cal! me, Mary Thompson with your thoughts, ideas, concerns and e agement at 664-1454. DATES TO REMEMBER Tutor Workshop-Tues.. Sept. 26-noon-l p m.-Media Center\nSm of A Sept.28-7p-Kevin \u0026amp; Cathy Crass\nP.T.A. Meetings- Mon.. Oct.2-noon-lp.m. Media Center. Magazine Sales-Wed., Oct.4-11 Halloween Carnival-Mon.. Oct.30-5\n30-8p.m. -Eastside of Building (inside if it rains) 4TH GRADE.................................. The fourth Grode is busy Integrating and applying the curriculum In fun and exciting learning experenices. Reading and writing in each subject is stressed everyday. Our agenda book has proven very useful in the classroom. Besides becoming more organized we enjoy reading the section of the book that deals with building better character. It is our goal to become better individuals. Fourth graders are destined to grow academically and socially this school year. STH GRADE.................................. The year has started off with a bangl The students ore excited to be the oldest and of course the most responsible In the school. We learned all the rules to being a fifth grader. We are prepared to keep up with our assignments with the use of our agendo books. We will begin the year reading stories from our new reading book, writing poetry, studying weather \u0026amp; early Americans, and so much more. There Is so much to learn during our last year as an elementary student. Being a fifth grader should be challenging and excitingl Page 4 April May 2000 Issue 1 2000 t \u0026gt; Ocftobfer 5.\n 4 y'- \u0026gt; *p Igfi- ?  SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY 1 2 3 'I \"fls * \u0026gt;* X  \u0026lt; ^Parorrt 4 5 ^as^ \u0026gt; Conference Dayi (STUDENTS OUT) 8 . 9 COLUMBUS DAY YOM KIPPER 10 11 12 School Board Agenda Meeting, 5 p.m. NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH WEEK : A2OOO^- FRIDAY SATURDAY 6 1 ^9^ SS 13 'W 14 16 BOSSES DAY 23 ,- fJeM^fl Record Day y^^DENT^qUT) r w' 17 18 NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS SAFETY WEEK 24 25 19 School Board 26 Meeting 6 p.m. ssraesssa 30 31 a I ABK. leadership ACADEMY-PRINCIPALS RED RIBBON WEEK T T Elementary Report Cards Sent Home HALLOWEEN Earn rt 20 End of First Quarter (43 days) 21 28 'Vt\nOctober is Arkansas Public Schools Month Discover the many ways you can help our children succeed. Visit a nearby school to learn how you can get involved today! I 1 on SBISB SAVINGS CHECKING accounts*... the HIGHEST Interest rate in Central Arkansas! nflgiiYWdMvK Aflrud IM YWd (Arn a d an ML ROk aJUMi to dwge ddy dtiMl Mica. MMwa batanoe d 9B00 mtffe4 v balance b Mav Mmw.1a V eertrice toe to aneaaed nonMy. Titto aeeowi to aalliMe Annuri Rrmt^ I IK flf anSiM. Rmk luUad Ie dwnM ibim d $tjOOO nquM I bdiraa a Id heMue oihr aW) a aMnum opan^ dipoal o\u0026lt; (WO. Him rnttrua, a tl 0 aanfca taa b taaai^ ator^' avMatta id MvUubIi aniy ***i a atMian cHi*e iTHascouiili ^otiwo. PINNACIEBANK 2610 Cantrell Road 614-5000$  1431 Merrill Prive - 312-7550 Member FUic - Nev Metropolitan Newsletter Published By Career-Technical Center Mwne nomoet nvaiMUVu nceunnB .r** Umi MCt. tfUMU r-T\" School Name: Forest Park Elementary # Teachers: 23 # Support Staff: 14 Attendance: 95.02 (% of average daily attendance\nmaximum = 100%) Enrollment: 299 Developmental Reading Readiness Assessment - % of students in grades K-2 who have developed appropriate reading readiness skills for their grade level: Kindergarten: 56% First Grade: 70% Second Grade: 90% // of PTA Members Last Year: 359 Volunteer Hours Last Year: 11,432 % of Teachers with Masters Degree: 59% % of Teachers with 9 + Years of Teaching Experience : 80% Discipline \u0026amp; Safety - % of students NOT receiving a reportable discipline sanction: 100% (By state law discipline sanctions must be reported and include acts involving drugs, assaults, alcohol, weapons or gangs\ndistrictwide, fewer than 2% of our students were involved in these types of offenses.) School Improvement Plans - the following are priorities for our school and are included in our school improvement plan\nthe complete school improvement plan is available in the office and includes specific actions and resources needed for implementation: 1.) Improve reading by using the Harcourt Brace Reading Curriculum, Accelerated Reader Program, and Word Masters in grades three through five. 2.) Increase mathematics understanding by using the Terc Math Investigations, manipulatives, parent/community tutors, and Math Family Night for parents. 3.) Increase the number of students achieving proficiency and advancement in writing skills by integrating writing into all curriculum areas. A writing component will be provided in all subject area assessments.FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2000 - 2001 SCHOOL YEARSchool Forest Park Elementary School Improvement Plan Year 2000-2001 Priority 1: Improve student achievement in math. Supporting Data\nSAT-9 Grade 5 -66% of the students scored above the 50^ percentile in Total Math on the 5* grade SAT-9. 36% of students scored in the upper quartile in Total Math on the 5^ grade SAT-9. 82% of students scored above the lowest quartile in Total Math on the 5^ grade SAT-9. Grade 4 Benchmark Exam (ACTAAP) - All students\n27% below basic and 21% basic\nAfrican Americans\n55% below basic and 27% basic, white\n4% below basic and 18% basic. Achievement Level Tests (Grades 2-5) - Scores were higher than the District average on the math test at all grade levels. The Operations strand has more students scoring in the low category than any other math strand at all grade levels. In addition African-American students are below the school average on the ALT in all subject areas at all grade levels by 6- 12 points. Goal(s): 100% of the students will score at or above the proficient level in mathematics at the 4** grade level. 65% of students in every sub-group of race and gender will perform at or above the 50th percentile on the SAT-9 in grade 5 mathematics: at least 30% of the students will perform at the highest quartile in 5\"* grade mathematics on the SAT-9: and at least 90% of students will perform above the lowest quartile in S grade mathematics on the SAT-9. One-Year Benchmark(s)\nTo increase the number of students who are proficient or above in math by 5% (from 52% to 57%) on the 4\" grade ACTAPP\nTo increase to 65% the number of students in all sub-groups scoring at or above the 50th percentile in Total Math on the 5\" grade SAT-9\nTo maintain the number of students scoring in the top quartile in Total Math on the 5'^ grade SAT-9 at 30% or above\nTo increase by 3% (from 82% to 85%) the number of students scoring above the lowest quartile in Total Math on the 5*^ grade SAT-9\nTo increase the RIT score for African-American students on the Achievement Level Test by 10 points for each subject area at each grade level, 3-5\nIncrease the average RIT score for all students on the Operations strand in mathematics by 10 points at each grade level, 3-5.School Forest Park Elementary School Improvement Plan Year 2000-2001 Intervention: Use the Arkansas Math Frameworks. LRSD Standards/Benchmarks, Achievement Level Test results. State Benchmark Exam for grade 4 math, SAT-9, etc, to plan and teach math Actions 1. Implement the Investigations math curriculum in grades 2-5 2. Use ACTAAP formats when assigning math practice and test\nuse released items from ACTAAP for practice__ 3. Purchase and utilize overhead math manipulatives for demonstration and instruction, i.e., fractions 3a. Pruchase Jostens Math Software 4. Recruit and train parent volunteers to tutor students in math 4a. Host Parent Family Math Nigh_______ 5. Analyze the ALT results to select strands in mathematics for extra emphasis - use manipulatives, Jostens software and tutors to reinforce these areas_________________________ 6. Reward students for high achievement using honors table in the cafeteria at lunchtime for those on the honor roll. Cokes forthose with perfect attendance, quarterly movie forthose receiving honor roll and having perfectattendance. 7. Identify lowest achieving students by name at each grade level for focused instruction. Person(s) Responsible Lead teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Lead Teacher Principal Classroom Teachers Principal Principal PTA T utor Committee Lead Teacher______ Principal Lead Teacher Principal Counselor Classroom teachers and specialists Classroom teachers and specialists Timeline Aug 21- Ongoing Aug 21 - Ongoing Oct 1 Aug 21 - Ongoing Nov 1 Aug 21 - Ongoing Each semester Aug 14 Resources IRC Math Dept ACTAAP retired test items PRE IRC Math Dept District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget NSF funds $500 X X X8. Schedule the instructional day to provide time for teachers to work with smaller groups of students with similar academic challenges__________ 9. Paint U.S. map on playground for enhancing measurement skills___ Principal Art Specialist Classroom teachers Aug 17 Octi Priority 2\nImprove student achievement in reading Supporting Data\nSAT-9 Grade 5 -76% of the students scored above the 60* percentile in Total Reading on the 5 grade SAT-9. 55% of students scored in the upper quartile in \"Total Reading\" on the 5 grade SAT-9. 86% of students scored above the lowest quartile in Total Reading on the 5*^ grade SAT-9. Grade 4 Benchmark Exam (ACTAAP) in literacy-All students\n15% below basic and 23% basic\nAfrican Americans\n27% below basic and 41 % basic, white\n7% below basic and 11 % basic. 61 % of all students scored at or above proficient on the 4^ grade Benchmark Exam (ACTAAP) in literacy. Achievement Level Tests - Reading scores were above the District average at all grade levels\npoint spread from grade 3 to 4 and from grade 4 to 5 higher than the District average in reading\npoint spread from grade 2 to 3 lower than the District average in reading. Grade 3 growth needs to be monitored as the 2nd administration of the ALT is done next fall. Goal(s)\n100% of the students will score at or above the \"proficient\" level in reading and writing literacy at the 4 grade level. 65% of students in every sub-group of race and gender will perform at or above the 50th percentile on the SAT-9 in grade 5 reading\nat least 30% of the students will perform at the highest quartile in 5 grade reading on the SAT-9\nand at least 90% of students will perform above the lowest quartile in 5 grade reading on the SAT-9. One-Year Benchmark(s)\nTo increase the number of students who are proficient or above in literacy by 4% (from 61% to 65%) on the 4 grade ACTAAP. 65% of students in all subgroups will score at or above the 50th percentile in total reading on the 5^ grade SAT-9\nTo increase by 2% (from 86% to 88%) the number of students scoring above the lowest quartile in Total Reading on the 5 grade SAT-9\n80% of kindergarten students will achieve mastery on DRA by the end of the school year.Intervention: Implement the Accelerated Reader Proqram/Utilize Supplemental Reading Materials Actions 1. Identify the lowest performing students in reading for extra tutoring assistance from staff, parents, and volunteers 2. Implement - DEAR time Drop Everything and Read for 30 minutes each day. 3. Solicit PTA for fundraising to purchase Books___________________________ 4. Reward students for reading books and taking tests. 5. Provide parents with the AR book list 6, Reward students for academic performance using honors table in the cafeteria at lunchtime for honor roll students. Cokes for students with perfect attendance, and a quarterly movie for students with both_______________ 7. Purchase Josten's Software to support reading 8. Implement Open Court Break the Code for Resource Classes___________ 9. Pilot Earobics Early Childhood Computer Program_____________ Person(s) Responsible Principal All faculty and staff Principal Media Specialist Media Specialist Classroom teacher Counselor Principal_________ Media Specialist Principal Classroom teachers Principal Principal Principal Timeline Aug 14 Nov. 1 Ongoing Octi Nov. 1 Ongoing Sept 1 Resources District Budget X X Title I Budget X X APIG/Other Budget PTA PTAIntervention: Teach whole group enrichment to all students by classroom teacher and G.T. teacher team teaching Actions T All 3^*^ - s' grade students will participate in Word Masters. Person(s) Responsible G.T. teacher Classroom teacher Timeline Aug 21 Ongoing Resources Word Master Entry District Budget Titlel Budget APIG/Other Budget PTA $79.00 2. Train and recruit volunteers to tutor in reading and vocabulary development. Principal PTA Tutor Committee Aug 21 Ongoing X 3. Teach children how to use the internet. 4. Practice real life skills through Forest Park Grocery Store Classroom Teachers. G.T. Specialists, Media Specialist Classroom Teachers. G.T. Specialists. Counselor _____ Aug 21 Ongoing Nov 1 Computers in the Classroom Donations Priority 3: Increase the number of students achieving proficiency in writing. Supporting Data: SAT-9 Grade 5 -76% of the students scored above the 50^ percentile in Total Reading, and 73% of the students scored above the 50*^ percentile in Language on the S grade SAT-9. 55% of students scored in the upper quartile in Total Reading, and 48% of students scored in the upper quartile in Language on the 5*\" grade SAT-9. 86% of students scored above the lowest quartile in Total Reading, and 82% of students scored above the lowest quartile in Language on the 5 grade SAT-9. Grade 4 Benchmark Exam (ACTAAP) in literacy-All students: 15% below basic and 23% basic\nAfrican Americans: 27% below basic and 41 % basic, white: 7% below basic and 11 % basic, 61 % of all students scored at or above proficient on the 4 grade Benchmark Exam (ACTAAP) in literacy. Goal{s): 100% of the students will score at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy at the 4\" grade level. One-Year Benchmark(s)\nTo increase the number of students who are proficient or above in literacy to 65% on the 4\" grade ACTAPP.V - Intervention: Use the LRSD Reading and Language Arts Standards and the Arkansas Framework to plan and write lessons for student instruction in writing. Actions 1. Integrate writing skills into all curriculum areas. a. use organizational component of the scientific method__________________ 2. Train all teachers to teach writing skills across the curriculum. a. IRC Writing Inservice b. Writing Across Curriculum training 3. Provide a writing component in all subject area assessments. 4. Use ACTAAP format in reading assessments in 2 - S* grade. 5. Purchase computers for classroom use ___-________________________ 6. Train teachers to use the internet as a resource for writing research papers, a. use e-mail for communication Person(s) Responsible G.T. teacher Classroom teacher Specialist G.T. teacher Classroom teacher Principal Specialist Classroom teacher Specialist Classroom teacher Specialist Principal Infomnation Services Media Specialist Principal Teachers________ Timeline Aug. 21 Ongoing Aug, 21 Ongoing Aug 21 Ongoing Aug. 21 Ongoing Aug 21 Ongoing Resources Curriculum Guides and plenty of paper  Staff Development Kris Huffman Principal Computers in the classroom District Budget Title I Bu\u0026lt;3get APIG/Other BudgetDraft Version of Layout Franklin Elementary - 6001025 LITTLE ROCK 1999-2000 School Performance Report to Parents Blanks in this report indicate that this information\n1) was not collected prior to 1999-2000 or not available at time of printing 2) does not apply to specific school's grade levels As additional information becomes available, it will be published on http\n//www.as-is.org/reportcard/. TESTING SCHOOL 1997- 1998 1999 *1W^ 2000 DISTRICT LAST YR SHOWN STATE LAST YR SHOWN Standardized Test Average Percenjild' G, Population Fifth Grade Seventh Grade Tenth Grade 20 24 20 36 42 40 48 Combined Population Fifth Grade Seventh Grade Tenth Grade Arkansas Benchmark Exams PercentdZnr Abmie-Proficient Level^---------- _______General Population _____________ Fourth Grade Reading and Writing Literacy 18 . . 23 19 33 39 19 42 45 Fourth Grade Mathematics | Eighth Grade Reading and Writing Litetacy\n Eighth Grade Mathematical 16^ 1 32^ 22 44 34 Combined Population________________| Fourth Grade Reading and Writing Literacy! Fourth Grade Mathemati^ Eighth Grade Reading and Writing Literacy! Eighth Grade Mathematic^ College Admission Test fACTl Mathematics ________________________English Composite ADVANCEMENT Percent of Students Promoted Kindergarten Grade 1 r ir ir http://www.as-is.org/reportcard/draft/reportcard.cgi 16 T 30 IT 41 32 93.1 94.4 ir nr 18.4 197 197 19.2 2o7 273 97.1 9U 93.7 94.2 ir 1 9/21/00Attendance Rate Dropout Rate Gradnation Rate ___________College Remediation Rate _____________October 1 Enrollment DISCIPLINE AND SAFETY uraae 2\n Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 II H School Discipline Percentage________ Discipline Policies Filed (Y or N)________ _________Expulsions__________________ School Safety Percentages___________ Weapon Incidents Staff Assaults Student Assaults] 100.0 I 100.0 I 100.0 I 526 DEMOGRAPHICS/PROFILE (STAFF AND STUDENTS) _______Teaching Staff________________ Percent Completely Certified ____________Percent with Master's Degree Percent of Students Eligible for Free and Reduced-Cost Meals 87.0 88.5 94.4 DISTRICT TAXPAYER INVESTMENT (1998-1999) District Total Mills Voted District Expenditure per Student District Average Teacher Salary Return to Selection Page http://www.as-is.org/reportcard/dralt/reportcard.cgi JL yKi 99.1 99.0 99.7 0.0 98.2 98.5 94.0 1.9 76.9 58.3 JL I 485 ir 24804 Y 00 Y 0.6 To T9 93.5 I94 92.5 0.2 02 90.7 384 52.0 41.4 6984 37726 98.2 98.8 99.2 99.0 97.1 97.1 94.5 3.2 81.0 45.8 449741 0,2 0.2 ^6 96.2 354 45.6 32.0 4679 32819 9/21/00FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PWN ETHEL DUNBAR, PRINCIPAL KAREN CARTER, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL 2000-2001School Franklin Elementary SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Year 2000-2001 Priority 1: To Improve Student Achievement in Reading and Writing Literacy Supporting Data: Stanford 9 Grade 5: Total reading: 20% at or above the 50th percentile\n34.5% of Black females\n10% of Black males. State Benchmark Examination Grade 4: 17% at or above the proficient level\n23% Black females\n8% of Black males. Goal(s): 1) Sixty-five percent of Franklin students in every subgroup shall perform at or above the 50% in total reading on the Stanford 9. 2) One-hundred percent of Franklin's grade 4 students shall perform at or above the proficient level on the State Benchmark Examination. One-Year Benchmark(s): 1) In 1999-2000, the percentage of students performing at or above the 50th percentile on the grade five Stanford 9 Reading subtest will increase, from 20% to 24.5%. Black females scores will increase from 34.5% to 38% and Black males from 10% to 15.5%. NOTE: 2) In 1999-2000,the number of students performing at the proficient\" level on the State Benchmark Examination will increase from 16% to 24.4%\nBlack fernales will increase from 23% to 31%, Black males from 8% to 16%. The SAT-9 and Benchmark results reflect 1999-2000 data.FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2000-2001 Intervention: Implement an After-School Writing Cross Curricula Program Actions Reinforce writing and mathematics skills through the development of an afterschool writing program for eligible 3rd and 4th graders. Involve community/businesses to volunteer to tutor, mentor and be pen pals. Establish a tutoring program in conjunction with the local university education program. Assign a Coordinator for the program, and the coordinator will recruit teachers for program implementation Person(s) Responsible E. Dunbar K. Carter T. Erwin E. Gaddy E. Dunbar K. Carter K. Ware 0, Crenshaw E. Dunbar Cheryl Chapman B. Harrison K. Ware E. Dunbar K. Carter K. Ware Timeline October 14, 2000 June 2001 October 14,2000 November 2000 September 2000 - June 2001 August 2000 Resources District Specialists ACTAAP Release items Writing Workshop Process P.I.E. (Partners In Education) VIPS Campus Leadership Team UALR LRSD Staff Development Department. Franklin School staff District Budget $100,00 .0 .0 Title I Budget .0 .0 .0 APIG/ other Budget .0 .0 .0FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2000-2001 Intervention: Continue to Utilize the S.T.A.R. Assessment Program Actions Administer the S.T.A.R. (Standard Test for Assessment of Reading) during the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters. Formulate a committee to develop a vocabulary list of words at each grade level. A. Introduce vocabulary list to teachers during grade level meetings. B. Implement usage of vocabulary activities utilizing the list. Provide training for classroom teachers in the use of the S.T.A.R. assessment. Person(s) Responsible M. Watson A. Giles T. Erwin M. Acott Y. Stuckey E. Dunbar K. Ware S.Jackson P. Smith Ware \u0026amp; Committee members Regular and special classroom teachers E. Dunbar L. Gray Timeline October 2000 March 2001 May 2001 October 2000 November 2000 November 2000 December 2000- May 2001 September 2000 Resources Classroom computers Media computer center Grade levels texts supplementary texts Dolch basic lists K. Huffman K. Huffman L. Gray District Budget .0 .0 $350.00 Title I Budget .0 .0 .0 APIG/ other Budget .0 .0 .0FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2000-2001 Intervention: Continue the Accelerated Reader Program Actions Purchase additional books for the Accelerated Reader Program, Continue to monitor students reading development through the Accelerated Reader Testing Program. Sponsor school-wide reading incentive promotion. Ex: - Game Room. The Store Person(s) Responsible Media Specialist E. Dunbar K. Carter M. Watson Media Specialist Y. Stuckey T. Erwin M. Acott M. Giles E. Dunbar K. Carter K. Ware Classroom Teachers Timeline August 2000 December 2001 August 2000 June 2001 October 2000 May 2001 Resources Accelerated Reader Book Adoption List Classroom computers Accelerated Reader Book Adoption List Media Computer Center Community sponsors District Budget $3,500.00 .0 .0 Title I Budget .0 .0 .0 APIG/Other Budget .0 .0 .0FRANKI TN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2000-2001 Incentive Revise Scheduling to Increase Teacher-Pupil Instructional Time and Common Planning Time bv Grade Level. Actions Schedule common planning time weekly for grade level teachers. Devise scheduling to reflect a rotation of specialty classes to increase instructional time. Increase teacher to pupil instructional time by limiting: a. b. c. d. e. whole group bathroom breaks intercom interruptions assemblies morning announcements and by utilizing daily written copies of the announcements. limiting incentives to Planning Day Schedule additional math instruction time by integrating Science and Social Studies. Person(s) Responsible E. Dunbar K. Carter K. Ware E. Dunbar K. Carter K. Ware E. Dunbar K. Carter K. Ware E. Dunbar K. Carter K. Ware Timeline Resources District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget August 2000 September 2000 August 2000 September 2000 August 2000 August 2000 June 2001 IRC Staff M. McNeal Rene Carson .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2000-2001 Intervention: To Further Utilize the Share America Homework Center Actions Person(s) Responsible Timeline Resources District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget Assign selected students to the UALR Homework Center to: a. b. c. increase writing skills increase reading skills enhance computer skills Notify parents of students selected. Select additional students to participate. E. Dunbar 0. Crewnshaw UALR Representative Cheryl Chapman 0. Crenshaw UALR Share America staff Cheryl Chapman 0. Crenshaw E. Dunbar V. Rouse September 2000 October 2001 November 2000 December 2000 January 2001 UALR/Share America Children International Cheryl Chapman .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Share America/ Children International Cheryl Chapman .0 .0 .0FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2000-2001 Intervention: Expand the Reading Recovery and Literacy Programs Actions Enroll eleven teacher in advanced literacy classes at UALR (grades K-3) Purchase reading recovery and other material to be used in the model classrooms and grades K-2. Enlist the expertise and endorsement of the campus leadership team to support new Title I initiatives. Collaboration among teachers K-2 to share student assessment outcomes and deliver instruction relative to outcomes (data driven decisions). Notify parents of childs participation in the program. Enroll Denise Holley in training - UALR as Franklins Literacy Coach. Person(s) Responsible Ethel Dunbar K. Carter Ethel Dunbar S.Jackson P. Smith E. Dunbar K. Huffman K. Ware P. Smith S. Jackson M. Watson D. Holley S. Campbell P. Smith S. Jackson E. Dunbar Timeline August 2000 - June 2001 August 2000 June 2000 - May 2001 September 2000 June 2001 September 2000 September 2000 May 2001 Resources IRC Staff Pat Busbea D. Williams Campus Leadership Team Pat Busbea Ann Freeman Pat Price Pat Busbea Ann Freeman Pat Busbea District Budget .0 $3,400.00 .0 .0 .0 .0 Title I Budget $1,000.00 $10,000.00 .0 .0 .0 .0 $1000.00 APIG/Other Budget .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2000-2001 Intervention: To Further Expand the Use of New Century Computer Laboratory Actions Utilize New Century lab to\nA. Provide student baseline data B. Customize student programs C. Provide formative and summative assessments Schedule parent-student seminars. A. All About Franklin B. Math/Science C. Parenting D. Reading (Accelerated Reader) Correlate computer instruction with small group math tutoring sessions. Schedule the laboratory for participating classes 3-5. Person(s) Responsible T. Erwin M. Acott A. Giles S. Phillips E. Dunbar S. Phillips M. Acott G. Carroll 0. Crenshaw B. Harrison M. Acott E. Gaddy M. Cooper D. Glason K. Ware Classroom teachers (3-5) Timeline August 2000 June 2001 November 2000 - June 2001 November 2000 - June 2001 August 2000 June 2001 Resources Computer laboratory T. Teeter, UALR C. Chapman, Computer Involvement Team Leon Adams UALR Personnel T. Teeter C. Chapman District Budget .0 .0 .0 .0 Title I Budget .0 .0 .0 .0 APIG/Other Budget .0 .0 .0 .0Actions Form a committee to establish dates and times of training sessions. Investigate vzays to further train teachers in computer skills. FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2000-2001 Person(s) Responsible Ms. Phillips K. Carter Ms. Ware C. Chapman T. Teeter E. Dunbar K. Carter K. Ware C. Chapman S. Phillips Timeline November 2000 June 2001 July 2000- December 2000 Resources UALR Parent Involvement Team T. Teeter C. Chapman UALR Staff District Budget .0 Title I Budget .0 APIG/Other Budget .0FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2000-2001 Intervention\nContinue the In-house Wee-Deliver Postal Svstern Actions Person(s) Responsible Timeline Resources Continue the in-house Wee-Deliver postal system to emphasize writing and reading. Lou Ann Gray Students September 2000 June 2001 U. S. Postal System District Budget $400.00 Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget .0 .0 Involve community/businesses to volunteer as tutors, mentors and pen pals. Invite postal workers to share information about the postal system.______________ Recruit, screen and interview applicants for select positions. a. b. c. d. Postmaster Carriers Sorters Nixey Clerks, etc. Elect postal officials and conduct swearing-in ceremony____________________ Establish an interview committee Conduct a training session of selected students. E. Dunbar C. Chapman K. Ware D. Holley October 2000 June 2001 VIPS UALR/Share America .0 .0 .0 L. Gray E. Dunbar September 2000 October 2000 U. S. Postal System .0 .0 .0 Third through fifth grade students Classroom teachers September 2000 October 2000 Staff Members Postmaster .0 .0 .0 L. Gray L. Gray Postal Employee September 2000 October 2000 Postmaster .0 .0 .0 L. Gray E. Dunbar L. Gray Postal Employee September 2000 October 2000 September 2000 October 2000 Postal Employee Postal employees .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0Actions Notification of selected postal workers. Advertise positions needed and deadline for applying. ________ Introduce postal workers at our October FRANKJ. IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2000-2001 Person(s) Responsible L. Gray E. Dunbar L. Gray E. Dunbar Timeline September 2000 October 2000 September 2000 Resources District Budget .0 .0 Title I Budget .0 .0 APIG/Other Budget .0 .0 October 2000 E. Dunbar L. Gray n 'Rise and Shine.' IFRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2000-2001 Intervention: To Continue and Enhance the School Generated Newspaper Actions Produce a monthly published school newspaper. Identify students for specific jobs. A. Publisher B. Editor C. Writers D. Proofreaders E. Reporters F. Newspaper Carriers Provide real life experiences in gathering data. Establish dates and times for distribution. Provide opportunities for students to apply higher order thinking skills, writing and human relation skills. Person(s) Responsible C. Gray B. Harrison Share America Staff C. Gray B. Harrison GT Students G. T. Students C. Gray H. Gage C. Gray G.-T. Students B. Harrison C. Gray G. T. Students B. Harrison Timeline October 2000 June 2001 September 2000 June 2001 September 2000 June 2001 September 2000 September 2000 June 2001 Resources Heather Gage Corey Anderson Heather Gage UALR Cheryl Chapman Volunteers Digital camera Video camera Tape recorder District Budget $200.00 .0 .0 .0 ,0 Title I Budget .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 APIG/Other Budget .0 .0 .0 .0 .0FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2000-2001 Actions Purchase additional software for publishing. Person(s) Responsible E. Dunbar\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_378","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Writings on Program Evaluation-Other''","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":["2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Writings on Program Evaluation-Other''"],"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/378"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\"WRITINGS I ON PROGRAM EVALUATION - OTHERWritings on Program EvaluationOther Formal Program EvaluationsMiddle School Transition 1. Executive Summary, Middle School Transition Program Evaluation, July 2000 2. Middle School Transition Program Evaluation, August 2000 Mann Middle School Waiver 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Memorandum to Brenda James (Mann principal) from Boimie Lesley, March 1, 1999, in response to their request to waive the implementation of new middle school curriculum and processes\nincludes evaluation concerns Request for Waiver from the LRSD middle school curriculum for 2001-02 from Mann Middle School Letter from Donna Creer to Bonnie Lesley, Mar. 23, 2001, requesting her to attend the April 10, 2001, meeting of the MRC relating to discuss of Mann Middle Schools request for waiver. Letter to Donna Creer, MRC Executive Director, from Bonnie Lesley, March 28, 2001, evaluating Mann Middle Schools performance under the waiver that had been approved and recommending that the waiver not be granted for 2001-02 Letter from Donna Creer to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 11, 2001, providing follow-up to the Magnet Review Committee meeting of April 10, 2001 relating to Mann Middle Schools request for waiver. Letter to Jim Fullerton (Mann Middle School principal), April 16, 2001, from Les Camine, Sadie Mitchell, Marian Lacey, and Bonnie Lesley denying Manns request for waiver for 2001-02 from the LRSD curriculum. Memorandum from Marian Lacey to Jim Fullerton, May 16, 2001, encouraging Mann Middle School to collaboratively plan for the correction of the decline in reading and language arts performance. 10. E-mail to Jim Fullerton from Bonnie Lesley, May 23, 2001, with recommendations for Mann Middle Schools curriculum and efforts to narrow the achievement gap 11. E-mail from Jim Fullerton to Bonnie Lesley, June 5, 2001, inviting her to a meeting to discuss changes at Mann Middle School relating to narrowing the achievement gap 12. Sample letter to parents from Mann Middle School, Aug. 1, 2001, to set up a program devoted to the academic improvement of the lowest achieving sixth grade students.Advanced Placement and Pre-Advanced Placement Program 13. Memorandum to curriculum staff from Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 27, 1998, assigning duties related to the Talent Development Plan to improve access and success in AP courses\nattached planning strands with notes from meeting. 14. LRSD AP and Pre-AP Professional Development Course Survey Results (study on training experienced by AP and Pre-AP teachers conducted by Mable Donaldson to guide decision-making related to professional development plan for these teachers). 15. Memorandum in April 12, 2000, Learning Links from Bonnie Lesley to high school principals, cabinet, and Division of Instruction including analysis of Status of Enrollment in Advanced Placement and Pre-Advanced Placement Courses\nTwo-Year Comparison of Advanced Placement Examination Participation and Scores HIPPY 16. Evaluation of HIPPY Program: A Look at Outcomes for Children at the End of S\"* Grade and 6* Grade, July 1999, conducted by PRE. M. Site Visit Report from Arkansas HIPPY, Feb. 26, 2001. Pre-Kindergarten 18. Monitoring Reports provided to schools and the District by the Division of Child Care and Early Childhood Education (annual assessments) Instructional Technology 19. Little Rock School District Technology Plan, 2001-2004, December 2000\nsee pp. 17- 25 on evaluation of current status and see pp. 26-45 for program goals) ^7^ 20. Inventory of Computers by School, Spring 2001 Professional Development 21. Priorities for LRSD Professional Development, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 22. Report to the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development relating to LRSDs participation in the Urban Professional Development InitiativeFirst Quarter Report, April 14, 1999\nincludes a plan for evaluation and baseline measures. 23. Memorandum to the Board of Education from Bonnie Lesley, Feb. 22, 2001, requesting approval of the proposed professional development policy and regulations\n7 note the emphasis on using student performance data to drive the program, on expectations for improved education achievement and equity of outcomes for all students, and on the need for program evaluation. Other Programs Evaluated by PRE 24. Vital Link: Passage to 00 25. Alternative Learning Environment (ALE) Program Evaluation\nTwo-Year Comparison: Lyceum Scholars High School (LSHS) 26. Program EvaluationPhilander Smith College/LRSD Lyceum Scholars High School, 1999-2000. 27. Summer School 2000 (in draft) ^03 Program Evaluation Executive Summary Middle Level Transition School Year: 1999-2000 August 24, 2000 Planning Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Ish Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-324-2121 Executive Summary i Middle Level Evaluation Over time research has documented the diverse needs of middle level students, however recently there has been a dearth of knowledge concerning the implementation of the Carnegie Turning Points recommendations (Irvins study as cited in Seghers, Kirby, \u0026amp; Mesa, 1997\nMilgrams study as cited in Seghers, Kirby, \u0026amp; Mesa, 1997\nAnderman \u0026amp; Urdan, 1995\nJenkins \u0026amp; Jenkins, 1995). Recent studies have focused on evaluating middle level progress and in particular the implementation of the Carnegie Turning Points recommendations (Ward, 1998\nSeghers, Kirby, \u0026amp; Meza, 1997). Seghers, Kirby, and Meza (1997) reported low levels of Turning points implementation in Louisiana schools. However, a high level of implementation was reported in schools with low teacher turnover. The National Association of Middle Schools (Research Brief #3, 2000) affirms the lack of consistent and valid research in the field. Small studies using similar variables have reported divergent results. However studies using a meta-analysis or longitudinal design have reported consistent results. The meta-analysis design combines small studies, using similar variables, into one study. This design increases the sample size and power. A longitudinal design establishes baseline data, collects data on the same variable over time, and compares longitudinal to baseline data. Several research studies using the meta-analysis and in particular the longitudinal design (i.e., on-going and long term) have provided consistent results which indicate that schools with high levels of Turning Points implementation have greater student achievement, behavior, and socio-emotional outcomes (Research Brief #3, 2000). 15^ Experts in the field of program evaluation agree that relying solely on achievement data as a measure of success is inappropriate (Clark \u0026amp; Clark, 1995). Middle level evaluations should be designed to provide a variety of information to be used by teachers and other district personnel to model personal responsibility in questioning and reflecting on ones own work, and to show growth over time so that students, teachers, and other stakeholders can know and understand individual progress (Wolf, 1989). Research Brief #2 (2000), published by the National Middle School Association, recommends that evaluations should determine best practices, identify goals, and specify outcomes, processes, and inputs. Current practices should be compared to Ijaseline data and evaluations should include participation, performance, and perception data. The Little Rock School Districts strategic planning process delivered the message that as a result of discipline problems, declining enrollment, below-average academic achievement, and failing community confidence in the junior high program^ a need had been created for a middle level program based on the Carnegie Foundations Turning Points recommendations. Section 3.4 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan calls for the establishment of a middle level program consisting of grades 6, 7, and 8. The response to the Section 3.4 mandate was the Bonds October 1998 approval of the Middle Level Program Standards based on the Carnegie J 1recommendations. Beginning with the 1999-2000 school year, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) transitioned its eight junior high schools, grades 7- 9, to eight middle level schools, grades 6- 8. Completion of the first year of transition is an appropriate time to begin the ongoing evaluation process through the collection of baseline data. Participation, performance, and perception data for this report will address the concerns expressed during the strategic plaiming process. The following data will be reported through out the evaluation process: =\u0026gt; Participation Data  Enrollment  Percent of new teachers  Ethnic composition =\u0026gt; Performance Data .. i*  Attendance  Dropout rates  Discipline data  Stanford Achievement Test, 9* edition (SAT-9)  State Benchmark Exam  LRSDs criterion-referenced tests  LRSDs Achievement Level Tests (ALTs) Perception Data  Student and teacher perception  Stakeholder perception comparison data comparison data comparison data comparison data comparison data comparison data comparison data baseline data baseline data baseline data initial data collection to be gathered, 2000-2001 Participation Data. Middle level school enrollment remained stable from the 1998-1999 to 1999-2000 school year. During the 1999-2000 school year. Maim Magnet had the largest population (842) and Southwest had the smallest (447). Ethnic composition of the middle schools for the 1999-2000 school year was 69% African-American, 28% White, and 3% Other. There was an expected increase of new teachers due to the movement to middle schools. The average percent of new teachers in the middle schools for the 1998-1999 school year was 11.75%, while in the 1999-2000 school year the average was 26.87%. Cloverdale Middle School had the highest percent of new teachers (35%), and Mann Magnet Middle School had the lowest (14%). 2Performance Data. I Attendance is reported to the state as a 3\"* quarter average. Attendance rates for the 1999-2000 school year were the following:  LRSD - 94.08%,  middle level - 96.02%,  Dunbar - 97.7%, highest attendance rate, and  Cloverdale - 94.32%, lowest attendance rate. Dropout rates are reported as percent of the population. =\u0026gt; The percent of middle level dropouts has decreased over the last three years: Year Dropout Percent 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 6% 3.7% 1.6% =\u0026gt; Middle level African-American student dropout rates have sharply decreased: Year Dropout Percent 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 4% 2.3% .9% =\u0026gt; Middle level White'student dropout rates have also decreased: Year Dropout Percent 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2% 1% .6% The dropout disparity between African-American and White students has decreased. Over the last three years the percent of Afncan-American dropouts has approached the percent of White dropouts. 1 3Suspension Rates Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest SY 1997-1998 100.64% 50.06% 86.57% 81.63% 56.92% 26.10% 28.42% 81.37% SY 1998-1999 79.61% 40.27% 78.21% 78.71% 56% 23.62% 40.81% 63.43% SY 1999-2000 78.01% 35.59% 52.61% 36.84% 37.65% 16.74% 35.92% 67.56% Southwest had an increase and the remaining schools had a decrease in suspension rates from SY 1998-1999 to SY 1999-2000. Over the last two years. Forest Heights, Henderson, and Mabelvale had a dramatic decrease in suspensions. SAT-9 percentile scores for 7* grade students have been flat over the last three years: Year 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 Percentile: Complete Battery , 43 41 42 In SAT-9 scores, Henderson, Mabelvale and Southwest Middle Schools demonstrated the highest growth in African-American scores over the last two years: School Henderson Mabelvale Southwest Change in Percentile: Complete Battery +3%, +4% +1%. Perception Data. In consultation with Dr. Steve Ross, Center for Research in Educational Policy at the University of Memphis, the Middle School Survey (MSS) was developed by LRSD Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) and the curriculum directors of the Language Arts, Social Studies, and Math and Science Departments. The MSS was given to students and teachers first because these two groups were impacted to a greater extent by the transition. These data will be used to help determine the level of implementation of the Middle Level Program Standards and to assist the LRSD in making data-driven decisions to improve year two implementation. Parallel versions of the survey asked students and teachers to rate the level of activity in the areas of teaching and learning, organization and accountability, governance and resources, and curriculum specific standards. Perception of implementation data was also gathered by matching 16 items on student and teacher surveys. I 4 During the close of the 1999-2000 school year all middle level students and teachers were given the opportunity to complete the survey. Student response rate was 44% (N = 2343) and teacher survey response rate was 47% (N = 210). Findings indicate there is a perception among students and teachers across the middle level that a majority of indicators of the Middle Level Program Standards are implemented either occasionally or frequently. However, both students and teachers agree that the use of flexible periods and/or extended blocks of time are not implemented on a consistent basis. There is significant difference between schools on the implementation of program standards. In analyzing the data by school, an alternate hypothesis may be the effect of teacher mobility on implementation. As previously reported, the percent of new teachers sharply increased from the 1998-1999 to the 1999-2000 school year. The percent of change from the 1998-1999 to 1999-2000 school year was as follows: Percent of New Teachers Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest ^^otal SY 1998-1999 4% 16% 10% 7% 14% 14% 15% 14% ,12% SY 1999-2000 35% 29% 28% 29% 29% 14% 22% 23% 26% Change +31% +13% +10% +22% +15% No Change +7% +9% +IW The trend identified by the survey is that as the percent of new teachers increases, the perception of the implementation of the Middle Level Program Standards implementation decreases. Conclusions. Middle level attendance is above the district average and the dropout rate, particularly among African-American students has decreased sharply. Achievement scores, as measured by the SAT-9, have been flat over the last three years. However, several schools have demonstrated growth in African-American scores over the last two years. It appears the greatest effect on middle level transition has not been the movement of students, but rather the movement of teachers. This is due in part to the inverse relationship between the rate of new teachers and reported implementation of the Middle Level Program Standards. As previously stated, Seghers, Kirby, and Meza (1997) reported high levels of Turning points implementation in schools with low teacher turnover. However, LRSD survey results indicate that both students and teachers perceive that many of the Turning Points recommendations are being implemented. ) 5 Recommendations  Consider this report as a baseline report for future evaluation of the middle level program.  Use the data from the middle school survey to target schools and grade levels for further study.  Request that additional professional development on implementing Middle Level Program Standards be made available to all teachers.  Continue to encourage the development of programs that can facilitate a lower dropout rate and raise the attendance rate of middle level students.  Report State Benchmark Scores and comparison data on the Districts ALT scores.  Develop trend data on participation of students in extra-curricular activities.  Develop trend data on letter grade distribution.  Develop trend data on discipline.  Benchmark progress toward implementation of the middle school transition against other successful programs on a national scale and against researchbased middle school program standards.  Make middle level program evaluation an on-going activity with a status report presented as new data becomes available rather than just once a year. 6 References Anderman, E.M., \u0026amp; Urban, T. C. (1995). A multilevel approach to middle-level reform. Principal, 74 (3), 26-28. Clark, S. N., \u0026amp; Clark, D. E. (1995). Restructuring the middle school: Implications for school leaders. Albany: State University of New York Press. Irvin, J. L. (1992). Developmentally appropriate instruction: The heart of middle school. In J. L. Irvin (Ed.), Transforming middle level education: Perspectives and possibilities. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn \u0026amp; Bacon. Jenkins, K. D., \u0026amp; Jenkins, D. M. (1995). Total quality education: Refining the middle school concept. Middle School Journal, 27 (2), 3-11. Milgram, J. (1992). Developmentally appropriate instruction: The heart of middle school. In J. L. Irvin (Ed.), Transforming middle level education: Perspectives and possibilities. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn \u0026amp; Bacon. Seghers, M. M., Kirby, P. C., \u0026amp; Meza, J. (1997). More evidence for the implementation of middle level practices. NASSP Bulletin, 81. 99-107. Research brief #2 (2000 August). Nmsa.org Research brief #3 (2000 August). Nmsa.org Ward, M. (1998, April). A systems approach to middle school evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Wolf, D. P. (1089). Portfolio assessment: Sampling student work. Educational Leadership. 46 (7), 35-39. i 7f t Program Evaluation For Middle School School Year 1999-2000 August 24, 2000 fPOnsi^ lA\ng0'3^ Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Ish Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-324-212 1 Summary Recent longitudinal studies which focus on middle level implementation of the Carnegie Turning Points recommendations indicate that student achievement and behavior are related to the level of Turing Points implementation. In addition, research has indicated that the level of implementation is related to teacher turnover. The Little Rock School Districts strategic planning process delivered the message that as a result of discipline problems, declining enrollment, below-average academic achievement, and failing community confidence in the junior high program, a need had been created for a middle level program based on the Carnegie Foundation s Turning Points recommendations. Section 3.4 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan calls for the establishment of a middle level program consisting of grades 6, 7, and 8. The response to the Section 3.4 mandate was the October 1998 Board approval of the Middle Level Program Standards based on the Carnegie recommendations. Beginning with the 1999-2000 school year, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) transitioned its eight junior high schools, grades 7- 9, to eight middle level schools, grades 6- 8. Middle level school enrollment remained stable from the 1998-1999 to 1999-2000 school year. There was an expected increase of new teachers due to the transition to middle schools. Attendance rates for the SY 1999-2000 were above the LRSD average. Dropout rates, particularly among African-American students, have sharply decreased. The dropout disparity between African-American and White students has also decreased. Over the last three years the percent of African-American dropouts has approached the percent of White dropouts. While SAT-9 percentile scores for 7'* grade students have been flat over the last three years, several schools have demonstrated growth in Afi-ican- American student scores. In consultation with Dr. Steve Ross, Center for Research in Educational Policy at the University of Memphis, the Middle School Survey (MSS) was developed by LRSD Department of Planning Research, and Evaluation (PRE) and the curriculum directors of the Language Arts, Social Studies, and Math and Science Departments. The MSS was given to students and teachers because these two groups were impacted to a greater extent by the transition. This data is being used to help determine the level of implementation of the Middle Level Program Standards and to assist the LRSD in making data- driven decisions to improve year two implementation. Findings indicate there is the perception among middle level students and teachers that a majority of indicators of the Middle Level Program Standards are implemented either occasionally or frequently. However, both students and teachers agree that the use of flexible periods and/or extended blocks of time are not implemented on a consistent basis. The trend appears to be that as the percent of new teachers increases, the perception of the implementation of the Middle Level Program Standards implementation decreases. Recommendations include: (1) using the data from the middle school survey to target schools and grade levels for further study, (2) requesting that additional professional development on implementing the Middle Level Program Standards be made available to all teachers, and (3) continuing to encourage the development of programs that facilitate a lower dropout rate and raise the attendance rate of middle level students. can-2 Introduction Over time research has documented the diverse needs of middle level students, however recently there has been a dearth of knowledge concerning the implementation of the Carnegie Turning Points recommendations (Irvin, 1992\nMilgrim, 1992\nAnderman \u0026amp; Urdan, 1995\nJenkins \u0026amp; Jenkins, 1995). Recent studies have focused on evaluating middle level progress and in particular the implementation of the Carnegie Turning Points recommendations (Ward, 1998\nSeghers, Kirby, \u0026amp; Meza, 1997). Seghers, Kirby, and Meza (1997) reported low levels of Turning points implementation in Louisiana schools. However, a high level of implementation was reported in schools with low teacher turnover. The National Association of Middle Schools (Research Brief #3, 2000) affirms the lack of consistent and valid research in the field. Small studies using similar variables have reported divergent results. However studies using a meta-analysis or longitudinal design have reported consistent results. The meta-analysis design combines small studies, using similar variables, into one study. This design increases the sample size and power. A longitudinal design establishes baseline data, collects data on the same variable over time, and compares longitudinal to baseline data. Several research studies using the meta-analysis and in particular the longitudinal design (i.e., on-going and long term) have provided consistent results which indicate that schools with high levels of Turning Points implementation have greater student achievement, behavior, and socio-emotional outcomes (Research Brief #3, 2000). Experts in the field of program evaluation agree that relying solely on achievement data as a measure of success is inappropriate (Clark \u0026amp; Clark, 1995). Middle level evaluations should be designed to provide a variety of information to be used by teachers and other district personnel to model personal responsibility in questioning and reflecting on ones own work, and to show growth over time so that students, teachers, and other stakeholders can know and understand individual progress (Wolf, 1989). Research Brief #2 (2000), published by the National Middle School Association, recommends that evaluations should determine best practices, identify goals, and specify outcomes, processes, and inputs. Cunent practices should be compared to baseline data and evaluations should include participation, performance, and perception data. Purpose Completion of the first year of transition is an appropriate time to begin the longitudinal evaluation process through the collection of baseline data. The purpose of this evaluation is to provide stakeholders with baseline and comparison participation, performance, and perception data that addresses concerns stated during the 1996 Strategic planning process.1 Summary raplementation is related to teacher turnover. The Little Rock School Districts strategic (Z * (7? ' Of riiseiphne problems dechS inent, below-average academic achievement, and failing community confidence in the planning process delivered the junior high program, a need had been created for Education Plan calls for the establishment of ........\n- ' * rile Section 3.4 mandate was the October 1998 Board approval of the  1999-2000 schoofyem, the LiitS rRi ScVool Middle Level Program Standards based schools grades 7- 0 Tn T \\t (LRSD) transitioned its eight junior high remained stable ftom the 1998 77 * sh^ y dec,S?d 7'''\"'' African-American studX has also7ecreted Overtte(te S, \"77'2: African-American and White students ^[77''riropouts\" 9 percentile scores for 7'* grade students have been flat over the last three yea^s, severaTscL^ois* haT\ndTmZtote7 American student scores. In consultation with Dr. Steve Rus\nEducational Policy at the University of Memphis, the Middle developed by LRSD Department of Planning Research at ' - year two implementation. Findings indicate there is growth in African- Steve Ross, Center for Research in School Survey (MSS) was and Evaluation (PRE) and the to assist the LRSD in making data- among middle level students and teachers that a majority of indicators of the Middle Level Progrmn Standards am implemented eithD^cisS^^^^^^ SeTtaSd , extended b(octcs  implemented on a consistent basis. The trend are not appears to be that as the percent of new teachers  ,  Cv Uz w UxXu V do L mcreases, the perception of the implementation of the Middle Level implementation decreases. Recommendations include' L' survey to target schools and grade levels for further sSdy.' professional development on implementing the Middle T evei , Program Standards (1) using the data from the middle school implementing the Middle Level Program Standards be continuing to Ctteuutagc die development of progra facilitate a lower dropout rate and raise the attendance rate of middle level students. made encourage the development of programs that can4, 2 Introduction Over time research has documented the diverse needs of middle recently there has been a dearth of knowledge level students, however 1 hk  on evaluating .. implementation in Louisiana schools. - ea low levels of middle level progress and recommendations (Ward, 1998\nwas reported in schools with low teacher turnover. However, a high level of implementation rn Association of Middle Schools (Research Brief #3,2000) affirms the lack of ^o?r' \"dr high icvi'\"f\\ socio-emotional outcomes (Research Brief #3,2000). nievement, behavior, and in particular the longitudinal desigi :n Experts in the field of program evaluation agree that relying solely on achievement data growth over time so tin. swdemsSelXte individual progiess (Wolf, 1989). Research Brief #2 (2000), published by School Association, recommends that evaluations should determine best practices identiHz a i measure of success is on achievement data as a be and other district personnel to can know and understand the National Middle best practices, identify goals. and perception data. Purpose Completion of the first year of transition is provide stakeholders with baseline and .. The purpose of this evaluation is to . - A -------------  A'Aunvu IJ UV da,a daa, addresses concerns srated process.I I t i I Design The following data will be collected, analyzed, and reported: =\u0026gt; Participation Data  Enrollment  Ethnic composition  Percent of new teachers comparison data comparison data comparison data =\u0026gt; Performance Data  Attendance  Dropout rates  Suspension data  Stanford Achievement Test, 9'* edition (SAT-9)  RenrHmorlz State Benchmark Exam  LRSD s criterion-referenced tests  LRSDs Achievement Level Tests (ALTs) =\u0026gt; Perception Data baseline data comparison data comparison data comparison data baseline data baseline data baseline data Student and teacher Middle School Surveys (MSS)  StakeholHpr Stakeholder perception baseline data to be gathered, 2000-2001 Description of the Middle School Survey (MSS) version One of the surveys is designed e fie Fetl f 1 P3- Part Two is designed to measure cuiriculum standards  P'^^^'am standards implementation. Part arts / English, and social sM2Uht dma' f 'feri ethnicity) was also collected. '  location, grade, gender, and .he 3 0 both Board of Directors on October 22, 1998 (see Appendix Cl Part Standards adopted by the PRE staff and the curriculum specialists from mfth  statements were derived by studies. Part One is designed level program standards. Where as Part Two^is ,  of the LRSD middle curriculum standards impleme^uSn P^^^^P^on of to During the close of the 1999-2000 school year, student and teacher versions were dis,ribud .0 schools. Survey adls.radon ins,Uns CZXhhS? s. A Middle Level students and teachers were . 1^.1 mt OUI' given the opportunity to complete the MSS... 4 After reading each statement, students and teachers described bv he sXem  if the activity students asked to complete the entire 3 \"vvcro survey. Every teacher was asked to complete Part One while core SmTenXdT T  A T\"''\"' fomation on their respective class in part two Students and teachers recorded their ratings-----------'  ' PRE. Data were analyzed and interpreted. on scan sheets (see Appendix A and B) processed by items Student and teacher matched ! paired Part One Topic Connects subjects Computer use Group activities Extended time i Student #2 #4 #7 #1 Science Math Teacher #3 #2 #5 #4 Language Arts / English Topic Write more Skills used in other classt^ Different grade techniques Topic Group work Hands on Enough supplies Student #24 #26 #28 i Student #14 #15 #16 Teacher #20 #24 #22 Teacher Topic #18 #17 #15 Social Studies Student Teacher Group work Talk math Topic Use skills from other classes Cultural learning Hands-on work Encouraged to read #19 #20 1 #11 #12 Student #29 #30 #31 #32 Teacher #25 #26 #27 #29Results Participation Data Comparison data is available for all variables. Enrollment I I -i i i ! I Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights\" Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest .i' SY 1998-1999 618  740 ' 606 500  ' 838 4T3 SY 1999-2000 705 739 785 31 493 P2 760 447 Change +87  -55   +4 No Change +34 There have been modest had the largest increase while Henderson' - Cloverdale had no change in enrollment. orgost decrease in enrollment. Pulaski Heights Ethnic Composition Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights I Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Black 89% 59% 64% 88% 76% 51% 62% 85% SY 1998-1999 White ~6%~ 36% 32% 9% 22% 46% 36% 12% Other 3^ 5% 4% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% Black 88% 60% 65% SY 1999-2000 White 7% 34% 32% 77% , 20% 73% 52% 25% 45% 60% 39% 91% 7% Other ~6%~ 6% 3% 3% 2% 3% 1% 2% 3% -I -6-_ f i 1 Percent of New Teachers Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale ~Mann pulaski Heights Southwest :rage r SY 1998-199y 4% 16% 10% T4% 14% 15% 14% SY1999^^000 35% 293^ 28% 29% 29% 14% S%  23% ~~26% Change +31% +13% +10% +22% +15% No Change +9% had no change increase in new teachers. ^o above average with a 22% Performance Data Comparison data is available for all students. Attendance Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale~ Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest ' SY 1998-1999* SY 1999-2000 94.32% LRSD Attendance A Data unavailable 96?TO% 9^0% 94.08%i Dropout Rate SY 1997-1998 I I I I Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvaie Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest .Djist^c^i Avera^e7 Black ~7^ 2% 3% 7% 3% 0 .3% 12% 4%^* White 3^ 2% 1% 4% .1% 0 0 8% ^a% Other w .7% 0 .3% 0 0 0 Total 9%' 5% 4% 11% 3% 0 .3% 3% 21% 2%-.\n6%^ Black W 2% 2% 3% 2% .1% 1% 4%\n2\u0026lt;3%v SY 1998-1999 White .5% 2% 2% .2% .2% .1% 3% Other Total 3% Black 11% SY 1999-2000 .3% .3% .3% 0 .1% 0 .2% r2%T 2% 4% 5% 3% .5% 1% 7% 1317% white ?7% .3% .1% 1.4% 1.6% .2% 0 0 .2% 2% 1.6% .2% 0 0 0 Other-, w 0 .1% 2% .2% 0 0 0 i Total .4% 3.6% .6% 6% 0% 0% .2% Over the three years, total dropout rates have decrease hm 2 so,de, ------------ app,3,hidgr oWppheidte sshSarpnlyt fdroromp o4u%f mtot esf, V n,'AfAn\u0026gt;etiean student dropout rate Suspension Data Cloverdale J to 1.6%. Dropout rates for IS Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale ' Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Rflddle EevetlA^aee SY 1997-1998 100.64% ' 50?06% 807% 8lO% 502% 2O0% ~28.42% 81.37% 6r.21% SY 1998-1999 7161% 4127% 7121% 56%  372% 40.81% ~6743% 7 56.28%~T SY 1999-2000 78.01% 35.59% '5161% 3614% 704% 7192% S1o9u9th8w-eZst had font SY Mabelvale had a dramadc dec X O As 8 i ( I I 7 Grade SAT-9 Complete Battery Percentile Scores I I I Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson MabelvalF Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Black 25 30 29 26 26 SY 1997-1998 White IF' 68 69 42 55 38 68 35 24 75 55 Total 29 47 43 31 37 54 58 30 Black n 36 27 25 43 37 21 SY 1998-1999 White ~^3~ 64 66 53 Total 26 40 47 30 46 29 70 71 47 58 23 Black 24 28 34 30 29 40 28 28 fi3W SY 1999-2000 Sox^hvfcsi Henderson, and Mabelvale demonstrated si White 4r~ 80 66 44 51 74 76 44 Wa student acWevement aove^^ StowU, in Aftican-Anterican White student scores. \u0026lt;1 Mask. Heights demonstrated growth in Total 25 51 45 33 35 58 49 29 LRSDs Achievement Level Tests (ALTs) as the aSS w. he reported in the fall and spring Perception Data from the MSS Survey results below and results by^scXaS3\u0026amp;  \"  Appendix F and results by school and oradp i  a results by school are in are cross tabulation tables. Data not received b^P^  through G decision-making are as follows\nimpacts the results and subsequent m  6th grade student surveys from Dunbar middle school, and  All teacher surveys from Southwest middle school. In the tables below, the missing data column represents surveys  which the respondent did not bubble in the data.-a.- Demographic data The - 2343) and the teacher rate, based on October 1, 1999 enrollment' follows: survey response rate'wi77% m = 2m v .4 i Uj. Demographic data are as Grade Level Student Teacher 6^ Grade 7'* Grade 803 (34%) 812(35%) 3r(B%)~^ Missing data indicates Gender Student Teacher 51 (24%) 8^ Grade Missing 679 (29%) 49 (2%) 35 (17%) Total 2343 72(34%) -210 surveys in which the respondents did not bubble in their grade level. Male 105374^ 43720%r~ Missing data indicates Ethnicity Student Teacher Female 1168 (50%) I45 (69%)~ Missing 122 (5%) 22(11%) Total 2343 210 surveys in which the respondents did not bubble in their gender. 1523 (65%) 70 /V 1(33%) I 533 (22%) 113 (54%) Missing data indicates lie 60 (3%) 1 (.5%) 1 Native American 15 (.7%) 1 (.5%) Asian/ Pacific Islander 41 (.2%) 0 (0%) surveys in which the respondents did Other 66 2%) 0 (0%) Missing I Total 105 _(4%) 25 (12%) not bubble in their ethnicity. 2343 210 J[ 10 I Survey Results Teaching and Learning I Student Responses to items on Teaching and Learning I i 1. I M given opportunities to be actively involved in Frequently Occasionally Seldom my classroom. 46.8% 35.6% 2. My teachers help me undTrstand how subjects' connected. 3. At school I have studied about healthy living. 4. I have had instruction at schooFon how to use' computer. 5. 1 have regular access to a computer at school. 6. My teachers encourage group work. 7. I do classroom activities in groups are a 8 At my school extra help is available outside the' classroom. 9 I have had an opportunity to'display my work or tolonfp ' talents. Teacher Responses to items 1. The classroom activities are seen as relevant by the smdents and respond to diverse needs of a multi-cultural Student body. 2.1 make appropriate use of active learning strategies, mcluding appropnate use of computers, media, and cooperative group learning. 3^ I frequently take advantage of integrated and/or thematic teaching methods to enable students connections across the curriculum to make 13% Never T5% Missing 1% 42% 32.3% 36.7% 33.2% 24.7% 25.5% 29% 32.8% 1 37.1% 32.8% 22.8% 24.8% 36.4% 39.4% 26.4% 34.2% on Teaching and Learning T Frequently Occasionaily 54.3% 40% 56.2% 41.9% Teachers had high perception levels of implementation implementation on items one and two than with the other items. 32.9% 44.8% 16.1% 23% 18.8% 24% 31% 29.7% 25.7% 20.7% 4.3% 10.8% 21.1% 17% 7.2% 4.4% 17.9% 10.7% .5% 1.1% 0.6% .9% .6% 1.1% 1% 1.6% Seldom Never Missing 4.3% 9.1% 9.5% 0.5% 1% 1.4% J____ . Students had a higher perception of 1% 1% 2.4%I i Organization and Accountability Student Responses to items 10. I participate in clubs, organizations, and athletic teams. 11. My classes meet in extended blocks of time' 11 on Organization and Accountability 12. My family has been invited to participate in school events. 13.1 participate in my school's community service projects. Teacher Responses to items Frequently 46.6%  24.5% 37.1% 11.4% Occasionally 21.7% 18.7% 30.1% T93% Seldom 15% 20.1% 20.1% 28.1% .. Never Missing 15.8% 34.5% 11.7% 40.3% on Organization and Accountability 4. I am currently utilizing flexible periods or blocks of ^ime as needed to deliver thematic teaching and learning. 5. Steps have been taken to create smaller leamine-------- environments. '6. Students spend most of their ti5ie m heterogeneous groups, with homogenous grouping used selectively for special students needs. Frequently | Occasionally 26.2% 29.5% 433% 26.2% Seldom 21.4% 22,9% Never 23.3% 9% 40% 1 12.9% .. Students perceived a low level of implementation on items 11 and 13 Tpq k i perceived low levels ofimplementation on items 4 and 5. Teachers also had 2.4% i .9% 23^ 1% .9% Missing  2.9%~ 2.4% T.4% JI -12_ i Governance and Resources Governance and Resources was not measured on the student survey. I I I I I i Teacher Responses to Governance and Resources ii I f 7. The Campus Leadershi^T^^ regularly and keeps me informed at my school meets 8^ I engage in of student achievement data and best effective schools. 9. I ensure that classroom concerning use practices of materials and supplies developmentally appropriate and directly cnntpnt Qnrl _____ . content and performance standards are support Teachers perceived high levels of implementation Frequently Occasinnally 51.9% 48.6% 75.7% .. 28.1% 35.7% 19.52% on the above items. 14.8% 9.5% 2.9% 3.3% 4.3% 1% 1.9% 1.9% 1%-IJ- Science Class 1 i Student Responses to items on Science Class 14. In science class, ~ vvxjvcpi.b. Frequently Occasionally I 39.3% 318% 46.6% activities. 17. IuseajoumiJtokS^^^5te?SJd^ science activities. from my world. 47.4% 41.4% 46.1% 29.1% 25.4% 19.7% 31.6% Teacher Responses to items on Science Class I A _______I .. :-------------- 18. Students worked productively m science activities and investigations. cooperative groups to conduct 1 Students were Seldom 18.6% 14.4% 15.8% 16.5% 13.8% Frequently Occasionally 1 47.2% 1^9% 51.35% 52.8% 51.4% 35.1% '0 21.62% 30.6% 32.4% 371% 1 Never 6.5% 8.1% 18.4% 5.5% Seldom 19.4% 18.92% 8.3% 10.8% 16.2% Teachers perceived low . - - concerning the availability of supplies items Ib^^! S ^uesi implementation was lower than student perception. ^^^^her perception of comparison question Missing ~T7^ ~33^ 3.4% 3.9% 3.1% Never 19.4 % 8.1% 83%~ 5.4% 10.8 %14 I i Math Class Student Responses to items on Math Class I I i i I 19. In math class, we work in groups or in pairs to solve problems. 20. Talking and writing about math are encouraged. 21. I am asked how I solved interesting math problems. 22. I am graded for different types of work, not just tests._________ 23. Adding, multiplying, subtracting, and dividing are taught.  Frequently 37.3% Occasionally 29.1% Seldom 20.4% Never 10.2% Missing 3% 36.6% 44.7% 69.9% 65.5% 32.4% 29.3% 16.9% 14.4% Teacher Responses to items on Math Class mv the math curriculum for 11. Students worked product.wTfa?individuals and in pairs and ffrniinc tn lAarrt groups to learn mathematics. 12. I emphasize written and oral communication in my math classroom. 13. The math curriculum is closely aligned with the high stakes HPnPhmarL' _ ^.i . Benchmark Exam given in the 8th grade. 14. Instmction is significantlTdStirent in the regular math classes' OM/n rha A n !..___ and the pre-AP classes. Student perception was consistent Frequently 46.5% 45.2% 65% 39.5% 34.2% 18.1% 15.5% 6.2% 9.8% 7% 4.4% 3.1% 3.6% 2.6% 9.2% 7.6% 3.4% Occasionally 41.9% 45.2% 25% 39.5% 55.3% Seldom 7% 7.8% 5% 10.5% 5.3% except for item 13, Studenu had alZ levd^XT P\u0026lt;=-pdowas consistent did teachers, item 11. on working in groups, item 19, than Never 4.8% 5% 10.5% 5.3%I I I 15 Language Arts / English Class Student Responses to items on Language Arts! English Class I J I I i 1 I 24. 1 have been encouraged to read and write more this year.__________ 25. The reading and writing have improved my English skills.___________ 26. 1 practice in other classes what 1 learn in English. 27. 1 have done many different types of reading and writing. 28. I am graded for different types of work, not just tests. Teacher Responses to items Frequently 68.6% Occasionally 17.8% Seldom  7.6% Never ~4^ Missing J 2% 51% 30.8% 11.2% 3.7% 3.3% 27.2% 52.8% 28.7% 27.5% 25% 11.4% 15.3% 4% 3.8% 4.2% 69.8% 15.7% 7.7% 3.7% 3.1% on Language Arts / English Class 20. I have seen an increase in my shidents' reading and writing skills. 21. I have improved my own reading and writing proficiency. 22. 1 have used a variety of grading techniques and sources. 23 . I have taught English skills through use of the mini-lesson with minimal worksheet/grammar exercise drills. 24. My students practice their English skills through cross-curriculum activities. Frequently 65% 72.4% 71.2% 70.2% 52.5% Occasionally 30% 24.1% 25.4% 26.3% 28.8% Seldom 3.3% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 15.3% Except for Item 26, student perception of implementation is consistent. Teacher perception of imnlementation is mns __uvuvi pciecpuuu implementation is consistent except for item 24. Never 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 3.4%i A Social Studies Class Student Responses to items on Social Studies Class 29. I use knowledge and skills from mhw social studies class. courses in my 30. I have learned about cultuTTSld the experiences of diverse groups. 31. I get to do hands-on learning activities and projects\" 32. My social studies teacher assigns mV? and places that I study. 16 Frequently 40.9% Occasionally 3L2% Seldom Never 16.2% 8.1% Missing 3.6% 51.6% 28.5% 42% 27.2% 24.1% 21.2% Teacher Responses to items on Social Studies Class studies topics. 27. With each unit of studTl'iHgageTsnTd^^r activities and projects. in hands-on learning 12.4% 24.3% 18.1% i 5.8% 3.1% Frequently Occasionally 65.1% 36.4% 22% 43.2% 28. I iise various reso-UFZ^ilHdhiiS^^ 36.4% 38.6% about Arkansas history. 29. I assiffl and about people' events, and places that have been studied  46.2% 39.5% 28.2% 32.6% 18.4% 15.2% 4.7% 3.5% Seldom 3.4% Never 0% - 20.4% 20.4% 15.4% 18.6% - -- 30 .han did on iie^s remaining items. ofimplementation on item 25 than they did on the 0% 4.6% 10.3% 9.3%I K J 7 Comparison of Student and Teacher Responses on Similar Questions compares the percent of responses by teachers to the The chi-square statistical procedure formats oifrequently, occasionally, seldom, - exception of science pairs #14 vs. #18 and #15 and #28 vs. #22, and Social Studies pairs #32 vs. #29 all ofthe and students to response I, or never is significantly different. With the #17, language arts/ English pairs#24 vs. #20 teacher responses were significantly different. remaining pairs of student and Combined Response Formats: Frequently and Occasionally Part One Topic Connect subjects Computer use_____ Group activities Extended time * Student #2* 79.2% #4* 59.7% #7* 64.6% #11* 42.2% Science Math Teacher #3* 86.7% #2* 89.1% #5* 65.7% #4* 52.4% = Significantly different Language Arts / English Topic Write more Skills used in other classes Different grade techniques * = Significant Topic Group work Hands on Enough supplies Student #14 72.2% #15 75.7% #16* 73% i Social Studies Teacher #18 83.7% #17 83.3% #15* 61.1% Topic Group work Talk math Student #19* 40.2% #20* 69.1% Teacher #11* 90.5% #12* 90% Student #24 86.2% #26* 55.9% #28 85.5% Teacher #20 95% #24* 81.4% #22 96.6% Topic Use skills from other classes Cultural learning Hands on work y different Encouraged to read i Student #29* 71.9% #30 78.7% #31* 52.3% Teacher #25* 87.2% #26* 79.5% #27* 75% #32 63.4% #29 ' 72.1% J18 Conclusions Middle level attendance is above the district average and the dropout rate, particularly among African-American students has decreased sharply. Achievement scores, as measured by the SAT-9, have been flat over the last three years. However, several schools have demonstrated growth in African-American scores over the last two years. Students and teachers who completed and returned the MSS reported that a majority (i.e., 29 out of 32 in the student version and 29 out of 29 in the teacher version) of the program and curriculum standard items were being implemented frequently or occasionally. The perception of implementation does vary across program and cuniculum standard items. Listed below are the top three items perceived as implemented frequently and occasionally and the top three items perceived as implemented seldom or never. Student Survey Items most frequently perceived as implemented ffequently or occasionally.  In math class, I am graded for different types of work, not just tests.  I have been encouraged to read and write more this year.  In language arts/ English class, I am graded for different types of work, not just tests. Items most frequently perceived as implemented seldom or never.  I participate in my school's community service projects.  In math class, we work in groups or in pairs to solve problems.  My classes meet in extended blocks of time. Teacher Survey Items most frequently perceived as implemented freguently or occasionally.  Language arts / English teachers have used a variety of grading techniques and  Language arts/ English teachers have improved their own sources. reading and writing proficiency.  I ensure that classroom materials and supplies are developmentally appropriate and directly support content and performance standards. Items most frequently perceived as implemented seldom or never.  I am currently utilizing flexible periods or blocks of time as needed to deliver thematic teaching and learning.  Science teachers had sufficient materials to implement the science curriculum.  Steps have been taken to create smaller learning environments. While teachers tended to perceive implementation activities as happening more frequently than students, a phenomenon most commonly attributed to the self-evaluation nature of thei A 19 are very useful in significantly different, there i were IS item pair #4 vs. #2, in which 59.7% of students which includes computer use. that they make appropriate use of active learning strategies, not been the movement of reported lower levels of implementation. This many of the Turning Poims recommendations are being ^mptrnenJed.\"'20 Recommendations Consider this report as a baseline report for future evaluation of the middle level program. Use the data from the middle school survey to target schools and grade levels for further study.  Request that additional professional development on implementing the Middle Level Program Standards be made available to all teachers.  Continue to encourage the development of programs that can facilitate a lower dropout rate and raise the attendance rate of middle level students.  Report State Benchmark Scores and comparison data on the Districts ALT scores.  Develop trend data on participation of students in extra-curricular activities.  Develop trend data on letter grade distribution.  Develop trend data on discipline.  Benchmark progress toward implementation of the middle school transition against other successful programs on a national scale and against research-based middle school program standards.  Make middle level program evaluation an on-going activity with a status report presented as new data becomes available rather than just once a year.21 References PrinHn^74 approach to middle-level reform. r nnCIpgl, /2D2o. Cl^k, S N \u0026amp;. Clark, D. E. (1995). Restructuring the middle school: Implications for AOdAre Alk\u0026lt;-xr. O + + ____  /\"kr --------= school leaders. Albany: State University of New York Press. Tn 1 T Developmentally appropriate instruction: The heart of middle school. X? J JU u  Transforming middle, level education: Perspectives and possibilities (pp) Npp.dhflm Hpiohtc N/f A  P, -n___ --------------kTH/* Needham Heights, MA: Allyn \u0026amp; Bacon. Jenkins, K^ D Jenkins, D. M. (1995). Total quality education: Refining the middle Pfinrpnr t____i m school concept. Middle School Journal, 21 (2), 3-11. Milgr^ Developmentally appropriate instruction: The heart of middle i education: Perspectives and possibilities (pp.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn \u0026amp; Bacon. .1,??' f *= implementation of middle level practices. NASSP Bulletin. 81.99-107. Research brief #2 (2000 August). Nmsa.org Research brief #3 (2000 August). Nmsa.org Ward M. (1998, April). A systems approach to middle school evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association., San Diego, Leadership, 46 (7), 35-39. assessment: Sampling student work. Educational.. Appendix A Student Surveyn  Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation Middle School Student Survey KIGaT  \u0026lt;S^ a cu S\u0026gt; - Use a No. 2 pencil only - Fill in bubble completely - Erase completely to change - Do not fold or staple Never Seldom Occasionally -requently  'tai^:9h^^iO^iJQpBuuiltiessto b actively-involved in my classroom. P . .....V.^ (.)% r\nr^ o '5^-- .\u0026gt;i : 2. My teachers help me understand how subjects are connected o o o  3. At school. I ha^e studieX^b6ut.hedlth^ltl^SWW3Ws SskSs^ IfeQws- 's2'q ?' ' \\ 'j'*wf'('.I 4. I have had instruction at school on how to use a computer. o o o o 5. Xhave reguianaccess?tiS i-\u0026gt; ' 1 ' fi I- 5Sv .ja\ncomputer a\u0026amp;cRa^ W?ii V' '.r's^K I.S 6. My teachers encourage group work. 'Activities  in g roi v*3r.a3^7} s-Vs( i )b ?S?S- :! 'til ^^^^OWlas^room\nrssap5\nK\u0026gt;iR^g@$.\naws -\" o )3 o o o 8. At my school extra help is available outside the classroom. o o Sfe'Ai-9' if :isS-Wi SI tefei\n. l*s it sB : 'ij 5 10. I participate in clubs, organizations, and athletic teams. T O o o o T\n1t My classes^meetimextended blocks of time, .. 2R- r? ?- V* -Vj:\u0026gt; \u0026gt;. ) Cf'')\\ t % J '^. * Wr 12. My family has been invited to participate in school events. o o o o I.?' pl participate in my school's community service projects\nUli. V ) School Number Grade ) \u0026lt;A') E? i Q \u0026amp;    V @ Gender Male O Female |fS| Race/Ethnicity Black White Hispanic American Indian/AI. Native Asian/Pacific Islander Other ( 111 PLEASE USE NO. 2 PENCIL EIGHT * Ml A 2\u0026gt; WONG \u0026lt;S\u0026lt; O cS\u0026gt; \u0026lt;S\u0026gt; - Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation Middle School Student Survey - Use a No, 2 pencil only -Fill in bubble completely - Erase completely to change - Do not fold or staple NeveL^ Seldom [ Occasionally Science Class\nT4i Un^science\nGlassi-ie work in?groi3p^^i^t^^g^? I Frequently 15. Hands-on activities help me understand science concepts. 16. We ha\u0026gt;Z\u0026amp; had enobgfi supplies to do science acfivitiesC i\n17. I use a journal to keep notes and data from my science activities. jO leniS\n-fii^KiW^^il^tf tciefice 'Ll''.Vs.'\n''i?\n.5*\n'-\u0026lt;''\n-''-'  ' O'ii^-^ t. :\n  (J o J o o o o o Math Class 19. in math class, we work in groups or in pairs to solve problems. ^ai\njiStl^*ana\nVvriti'H^B^^h^ghig5ufag^^^^g^ 21. lam asked how I solved interesting math problems. 23. Adding, multiplying, subtracting, and dividing are taught. English Class 24\u0026amp; Lilave b'f '.v\n: sirTtfc\n-j-\nsi:'iS!..\nas15!W:\u0026gt;\u0026lt;S5 JU.-l 25. The reading and writing have improved my English skills. I^actfcb In : \u0026lt;4Xusc^*'. \u0026lt; SusSd 27, I have done many different types of reading and writing. 28. i anfiQraSe'ci fdr^iffSSi^iy^pl^^^^j^^^^^'i^^is. . Social Studies Class 29. I use knowlege and skills from other courses in my social studies class. 30. I have learfiid SSodt culture and the expediences MS.iverse groups. . 31. I get to do hands-on learning activities and projects. 32. My social stuciies teacher assigns arid encourages nie to  ' ,-' read books about the people, events, and places that I study\n.\n-  IV o o *  o o 5^7=: o o o o o o T o F: gSR#^ J3S\u0026lt;^ wway.#\". o t. ^2, o c\u0026gt; o ,os C)'i. o o ) Q X: LRSD/PRE A. Appendix B Teacher SurveyOB SH  SBB a a Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation Middle School Teacher Survey PLEASE USE NO. 2 PENCIL \u0026gt; EIGHT SI M WEONG-O  IS? - Use a No. 2 pencil only - Fill in bubble completely - Erase completely to change 1. The classroom activlties are seen as retevant by thenstudenfs , andrespond to diverse needs of a multi-cultural student body. 1 I 1 Never [Occasionally I Frequently .'11 X* 4r 1 i'Tr'A?! ii ' 2. I make appropriate use of active learning strategies, including appropriate use of computers, media, and cooperative group learning. ,3/1.frequently fakeadvant^e of integrated(and/br thiBma^\u0026lt;^ tif',. - teaching rnethods to enable students tojmake conhectiiOT'''across the curriculum  4. I am currently utilizing flexible periods or blocks of time as needed to deliver thematic teaching and learning. 5j:ISfeps'have been\ntaken tol *\u0026amp; rrfe smaller letting environmerfts^S^isI' J -Ai Seldom * 'S' y .r 1 4. o y-o o o u S!?S'3 e ?( tf - / ?\u0026lt; ?\n \niSC 6. Students spend most of their time in heterogeneous groups, with homogeneous grouping used selectively for special students needs. \u0026gt;7 i Ki ^7: o [ )'K5y(. ig  ^2 o . The Campus LeadershlpTeam at my,schqqF meets regularly anti keeps ' 8. I engage in professional discussions concerning use of student achievement data and best practices of effective schools 9. I ensure.that classroom materials and .Applies.'a^e '^jappfopfiate affd directlysupport cdnt^^Snd petfoi School Number Grade develop^^t^ irrmmaannccee standards. A-./ .'rt'l'. (uj fry (1.) 'a\n(3) (3) ' ik \u0026lt; ,i a? T\ni\niTsSfeSseTaa^ss o o\nf* m5ir2T I'.** W.' o 7Jr \\3- k'.l .'i ' o .s\n-r. Race/Ethnicity Black White Z-*- Q (3.) Cv fa.i (Tj (Si (3) re) . Gender Male jgj Female Hispanic fj American Indian/AI. Native (', Asian/Pacific Islander Other (' i '.J Please complete both sides ofthe survey. On the reverse side complete the subject area that applies to you. ' ~ LRSD/PRE I. Truett Never Math Teachers j\n'-T0. I FeceJve(1.acrequaVe fralHiH'g io imjoTelH'etit tHe'ifiaW '^.\n,-.-curriculum for my\ngrade'levfel.' Si! '.nt' I Occasionally I Frequently Seldom Bi  M - 11. Students worked productively as individuals and in pairs and groups to learn mathematics. o o o. .,^ .12\nkemphasize?wntten andioralscommuriicationiin'my .Y :\n,O7nathzcIassrd6m5^\ni?^^UYYiA^^M Ste 'a- os 13. The math curriculum is closely aligned with the high stakes Benchmark Exam given in Sth grade. iJ. R^jj^l^ru^idm^signi\u0026amp;earftil^i^re^ Yy bfassfesi airiohtif^ pr eiAOHatRecla^s? tne^reguiarrnath- s/cTs S.4 M'O WB nn O o o o Science Teacher 15. I had sufficient materials to implement the science curriculum\ny: o o O ^\n^\n3 r.-t6., I r^etved adet^uate training to teach the science curriculum for my grade level O Lbl' 17. Students learned important science concepts and inquiry skills through their engagement in the science program. O o o o inf T3.,jStirafents^ipH pHiaij0Yei|^HfcBg^iBFaH^fe^^ut3s^o.fe^ =\nsciehc^ activities?and4nvbstigati6ns.^r?\u0026lt;iSS0ii:'fttftSi\u0026lt;  19. When requested, I received technical assistance related to the science program !S lis, r 'J O ra^ t' English Teacher . .. . . -jrjT--   u , ^, jgj.ui 20. l.have seen an 1^7-.J?-'\n'-.'.'- ''\"T.sV-JfeiSf.v ..? increase,in rny.students' readihg:and writing skihs. 'y s   21. I have improved my own reading and writing proficiency x 22. I have used a variety ,of grading techniques and sources. ,) O' O\n-ifcX' O Q O O % SS^ 23. I have taught English skills through use of the mini-lesson with minimal worksheet/grammar exercise drills. o o o o 24. My students practice their English skills through cfbss-cu rf icul ii miacti v^itiesi Social Studies Teacher 25. In my class, I discuss other subiect areas that apply to social studies topics vjsgta SssSsjitea ? ST- r 26 My students seem to know and respect experiences of diverse groups of people M. '.(Si (J fl( ) ' V-i ys o C \u0026lt;!\u0026lt; 'X 27. With each unit of study I engage students in hands-on learning activities and projects. -8^ ji.c-'' y. 28 f use variousVesources and instructional materials '  tt/nen teaching aSoutArkansas histotv*.  2^ i.a  *9f 29. I assign and encourage students to read trade books about people, events, and places that have oeen studied. (J n J ?? \u0026amp;a. J . K o y c u ) \u0026gt; I J uAppendix C Middle School Mission Statement and Program StandardsA, Mission for the Division of Instruction Little Rock School District The mission of the Division of Instruction is to improve the academic achievement of all students by providing leadership, standards, curriculum, instructional resources, technical , * A -------~***2^, WVVUASAMA V*U5 WSAAXlV-VilWiilj lllOt, assistance, professional development, and student advocacy. Middle School Program Mission Statement The mission of the Little Rock School District Middle School Program is to meet the umque needs of all young adolescents, equipping them with the knowledge and the intellectual, physical, emotional, and social skills to successfully accomplish the transition to high school. This IS achieved through\na developmentally appropriate curriculum that is challenging, integrated, relevant and exploratory\nspecially trained, nurturing educators using varied teaching and learning approaches within a flexible organizational structure\nstrong family and community partnerships\nprograms and policies that foster health, wellness, and safety\nand a faculty advocate for every student. LRSD Middle School Program Standards (Adopted by the Board of Directors on October 22, 1998) Teaching and Learning All LRSD Middle Schools will:  Align all parts of grades 6-8 academic programming with grades K-5 and 9-12 K?31?Xoi and learning of language arts/reaaing, nia?heScs5cta^^^^^ Establish a district-wide set of clear and challenging standards for student performance in language arts/readmg, mathematics, science, and social studies. learning for all students through age and skill appropriate study of visual and nerfnrmina nrtc nrr,! fXr\nr,r.  appiupiidic Sluuy of visual and performing arts and foreign languages. Provide all students with health and fitness education that promotes the fiftvp nnmpnT at q hTA_i/-i-n- ____j -ztr. development of a life-long healthy lifestyle and offers a v^iety of recreation nersona fitnecQ ivuitauuu, personal fitness, and individual and team sport activities. SnSS, teaching as a method for helping all students to make curriculum, and in ways that make it possible for all sruaents to^ -think critically and creatively and problem solve\nA -participate as empowered and engaged hands-on learners\n-make real-world connections and school-to-work applications (career education)\" -use technology as a tool for learning and for skills building practice\n-Onl lohArc+Q ________1 u. _ _ Or 9 -collaborate with their peers and teachers\n~ * ^develop socialization skills and cultural awareness through opportunities to interact with others beyond the classroom and into the community\nand -demonstrate evidence of learning in a variety of ways. Assess and report individual and/or group learning in relation to the performance standards. Organization and Accountability All LRSD Middle Schools will: Organize teaching staff into interdisciplinary teams that serve a common group of fk . manageable size for appropriate periods of time during the school day, throughout the school year, and throughout the Middle School experience. Structure required and elective course offerings to fit the interdisciplinary team approach, well as the learning interests, abilities, and needs of all students including those with identified giftedness, those in need of special education services, and those in need of English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) services- Provide all students with access to interest clubs, scholar clubs, student 8ovemment participation opportunities, intramural sports, and competitive athletics to provide opportunities for healthy interaction with peers and adults. Use flexible scheduling to provide appropriate periods of time for thematic learning and provide extended learning opportunities beyond the school day and the school year to enhance and support the learning success of all students. Ensure that adequate time is provided for common planning for teams, for professional development, for interaction with specialized teaching and support services staff and student families, and for staff participation in campus-based decision-makmg. Commit to campus-based leadership and decision-making to chart and customize the educational course of the school, using student achievement data and proven practices. Develop opportunities for families and the community-at-large to support the QrhnnI iinH tn J______xt______i__________ .i  . . * * X ------------ wxxx\u0026gt;x Uixw wwxxxxxivwixitj-UU-XCU gv lU Ol school and to participate in the educational processes of the school. Governance and Resources All LRSD Middle Schools will: Ensure through an ongoing professional development program that all middle k specifically prepared for middle school work and are committed to the education of all young adolescents in a culturally diverse community.Empower each middle school principal to be a leader of leaders for whom a primary task is to develop leadership in teachers. Empower all middle school teachers to perceive themselves as generalists first and specialists second, who perform multiple roles and who are committed to interdisciplinary team organization. Plan to acquire on a most-to-least needed basis all materials, including technology, and supplies necessary to provide thematic learning experiences through interdisciplinary team organization. Ensure that classroom materials and supplies are age and skill appropriate, that they directly support content and performance standards, and that they appeal to the interests of the students. Empower teams to determine how the school budget is appropriated to ensure that needs are met and goals are achieved.APPENDIX D Teacher Survey Results by SchoolI 1. The classroom activities are seen as reievant by the students and respond to diverse needs of a muiti-culturai student body. * Schooi Crosstabulation % within School ii 1. I he classroom activities are seen as relevant by the students and respond to diverse needs of a multi-cultural student body. Total t-requently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 72.9% 27.1% 100.0% Dunbar 89.5% 10.5% 100.0% Forest Heights 40.7% 55.6% 3.7% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 33.3% 60.6% 6.1% 100.0% Henderson 83.3% 16.7% 100.0% Cloverdale 34.3% 51.4% 11.4% 2.9% 100.0% Mabelvale 52.9% 41.2% 5.9% 100.0% 2. I make appropriate use of active learning strategies, including appropriate use of computers, media, and cooperative group learning. * School Crosstabulation - % Within School 2. I make appropriate use of active learning strategies, including appropriate use of computers, media, and cooperative group learning. Total t-requently Occasionally Seldom Never Total 54.8% 40.4% 4.3% .5% 100.0% Mann 72.9% 16.7% 10.4% 100.0% Dunbar 47.4% 52.6% 100.0% Forest Heights 55.6% 25.9% 14.8% 3.7% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 48.5% 42.4% 9.1% 100.0% Henderson 83.3% 8.3% 8.3% 100.0% Cloverdale 40.0% 45.7% 11.4% 2.9% 100.0% Mabelvale 55.9% 38.2% 5.9% 100.0% Total 56.7% 33.2% 9.1% 1.0% 100.0% 3. I frequently take advantage of integrated and/or thematic teaching methods to enable students to make connections across the curriculum. * School Crosstabulation % within School 3. I frequently take advantage of integrated and/or thematic teaching methods to enable students to  make connections across the curriculum. Total frequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 61.7% 31.9% 6.4% 100.0% Dunbar 57.9% 36.8% 5.3% 100.0% Forest Heights 44.4% 44.4% 7.4% 3.7% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 30.3% 54.5% 12.1% 3.0% 100.0% Henderson 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% Cloverdale 17.6% 55.9% 23.5% 2.9% 100.0% Mabelvale 48.5% 45.5% 6.1% 100.0% Total 42.9% 45.9% 9.8% 1.5% 100.0% I 4. I am currently utilizing flexable periods or blocks of time as needed to deliver thematic teaching and learning. * School Crosstabulation % within School I 1 4. I am currently utilizing flexable periods or blocks of time as needed to deliver thematic teaching and learning. Total % within School 5. Steps have been taken to create smaller learning environments. Total i-requently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 14.6% 20.8% 18.8% 45.8% 100.0% Dunbar 73.7% 15.8% 10.5% 100.0% Forest Heights 15.4% 50.0% 15.4% 19.2% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 21.9% 15.6% 37.5% 25.0% 100.0% Henderson 16.7% 66.7% 8.3% 8.3% 100.0% Cloverdale 24.2% 24.2% 27.3% 24.2% ___ 100.0% 5. Steps have been taken to create smaller learning environments. * School Crosstabulation I-requently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 28.3% 43.5% 19.6% 8.7% 100.0% Dunbar 63.2% 15.8% 21.1% 100.0% Forest Heights 42.9% 14.3% 10.7% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights TFTJr 36.4% 30.3% 15.2% 100.0% Henderson 50!^ 25.0% 16.7% 100.0% Cloverdale W 32.4% 38.2% 20.6% 100.0% Mabelvale 38.2% 23.5% 23.5% 14.7% 100.0% Mabelvale ---- 367^ 45.5% 18.2% 100.0% Total 27.0% 27.0% 22.1% 24.0% 100.0% Total 30.2% 37.1% 23.4% 9.3% 100.0% 6. Students spend most of their time in heterogeneous groups, with homogenous grouping used selectively for special students needs * School Crosstabulation % within School 6. Students spend most of their time in heterogeneous groups, with homogenous grouping used selectively for special students needs. Total l-requentiy Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 41.7% 50.0% 4.2% 4.2% 100.0% Dunbar 57.9% 31.6% 10.5% 100.0% Forest Heights 40.7% 29.6% 25.9% 3.7% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 39.4% 42.4% 15.2% 3.0% 100.0% Henderson 41.7% 50.0% 8.3% 100.0% Cloverdale 34.3% 40.0% 25.7% 100.0% Mabelvale 57.6% 36.4% 3.0% 3.0% 100.0% Total 44.0% 40.6% 13.0% 2.4% 100.0% 7. The Campus Leadership Team at my school meets regularly and keeps me informed. * School Crosstabulation % within School 1 M /. 1 he Campus Leadership Team at my school meets regularly and keeps me informed. frequently Occasionally Seldom Never Total Mann 47.5% 31.3% 16.7% 4.2% 100.0% Dunbar 63.2% 36.8% 100.0% Forest Heights \" 50.0% 35.7% 14.3% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 83.5% 12.9% 3.2% 100.0% Henderson ------5573^ 25.0% 8.3% 8.3% 100.0% Cloverdale 35.3% 29.4% 8.8% 100.0% Mabelvale ---- STW 23.5% 20.6% 2.9% 100.0% Total \"52.5% 28.6% 15.0% 3.4% 100.0% 8. I engage in professional discussions concerning use of student achievement data and best practices of effective schools. * School Crosstabulation % within School / l 8. I engage in professional discussions concerning use of student achievement data and best practices of effective schools. Total t-requently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 57.4% 27.7% 10.6% 4.3% 100.0% Dunbar 73.7% 21.1% 5.3% 100.0% Forest Heights 30.8% 42.3% 23.1% 3.8% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 48.5% 45.5% 6.1% 100.0% Henderson 83.3% 16.7% 100.0% Cloverdale 22.9% 51.4% 14.3% 11.4% 100.0% Mabelvale 55.9% 35.3% 2.9% 5.9% 100.0% Total 49.5% 36.4% 9.7% 4.4% 100.0% 9. I ensure that classroom materials and supplies are developmentally appropriate and directly support content and performance standards. * School Crosstabulation % within School y. I ensure that classroom materials and supplies are developmentally appropriate and directly support content and performance standards. Total hrequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 87.5% 8.3% 2.1% 2.1% 100.0% Dunbar 94.7% 5.3% 100.0% Forest Heights 71.4% 21.4% 3.6% 3.6% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 69.7% 30.3% 100.0% Henderson 83.3% 16.7% 100.0% Cloverdale 61.8% 29.4% 8.8% 100.0% Mabelvale 73.5% 23.5% 2.9% 100.0% Total 76.4% 19.7% 2.9% 1.0% 100.0% / % within School 1Q. I received adequate training to implement the math curriculum for my grade level. * School Crosstabulation 10. I received adequate training to implement the math curriculum for my grade level. 1-requently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 35.5% 66.7% Dunbar 55'3% 66.7% Forest Heights 25.0% 62.5% School Pulaski Heights 40.0%' 40.0% 20.0% Henderson ------7515^ 25.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 12.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale  22.2% 22.2% 11.1% 100.0% Mabelvale ---- TSUW 25.0% 100.0% 11. Students worked productively as individuals and in pairs and groups to learn mathematics. * School Crosstabulation % within School 11. students worked t-requentiy productively as individuals and in pairs and groups to learn mathematics. Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 33.3% 50.0% 16.7% Dunbar 50.0% 50.0% Total % within School 100.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 50.0% 25.0% 12.5% 12.5% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 20.0% 80.0% 100.0% Total 46.5%' 41.9% 7.0% 4.7% 100.0% Henderson 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 33.3% 55.6% 11.1% 100.0% Mabelvale 62.5% 37.5% 100.0% Total 45 2% 45.2% 4.8% 4.8% 100.0% 12. I emphasize written and oral communication in my math classroom. * School Crosstabulation 12. I emphasize written and oral communication in my math classroom. hrequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 83.5% 16.7% Dunbar 100.0% Forest Heights 75.0% 12.5% School Pulaski Heights SOTW 20.0% Henderson ----- 55155^ 50.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 12.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale -------TTW 33.3% 22.2% 11.1% 100.0% Mabelvale ---- 7T75^ 28.6% 100.0% Total 65.0% 25.0% 5.0% 5.0% 100.0% I' 1 % within School 13. The math curriculum is closely aligned with the high stakes Benchmark Exam given in Sth grade. * School Crosstabulation I J TT I ne math curriculum is closely aligned with the high stakes Benchmark Exam given in 8th grade. Total Frequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 100.0% Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 57.1% 14.3% 28.6% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 40.0% 60.0% 100.0% Henderson SCTJT 50.0% 100.0% Cloverdale ------- 55.6% 11.1% 11.1% 100.0% Mabelvale -- 57T!r 42.9% 100.0% 14. Instruction is significantly different in the reguair math classes and the pre-AP math classes. * School Crosstabulation % within School 14. Instruction IS significantly different in the reguair math classes and the pre-AP math classes. Total % within School 1 b. I had sufficient materials to implement the science curriculum. Total Frequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 50.0% 33.3% 16.7% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 100.0% Henderson 25.0% 75.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 33.3% 55.6% 11.1% 100.0% 15. I had sufficient materials to implement the science curriculum. * School Crosstabulation Frequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 75.0% 12.5% 12.5% 100.0% Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights ' 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 100.0% Henderson SIW Cloverdale ------- 20.0% 20.0% 100.0% 14.3% 28.6% 100.0% Mabelvale 42.9% 57.1% 100.0% Mabelvale 25:5%- 14.3% 42.9% 14.3% 100.0% Total 39.5% 39.5% 10.5% 10.5% 100.0% Total 34.2% 55.3% 5.3% 5.3% 100.0% Total 47.2% 13.9% 19.4% 19.4% 100.0% / i 4^ /  % within School I \u0026lt;' 16. I received adequate trainng to teach the science curriculum for my grade level. * School Crosstabulation 1 lb. I received adequate trainng to teach the science curriculum for my grade level. Total Frequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann  75.0% 25.0% 100.0% Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 20.0% 100.0% Henderson TOW 60.0% 100.0% Cloverdale -----57W 28.6% 14.3% 100.0% Mabelvale 28.6% 42.9% 100.0% Total 51.4% 21.6% 18.9% 8.1% 100.0% 17. Students learned important science concepts and inquiry skills through their engagement in the science program. * School Crosstabulation . % within School 11. Students learned important science concepts and inquiry skills through their engagement in the science program. Total l-requently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 87.5% 12.5% 100.0% Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 60.0% 40.0% 1000% Henderson 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 28.6% 28.6% 14.3% 28.6% 100.0% Mabelvale 57.1% 28.6% 14.3% 100.0% 18. Students worked productively in cooperative groups to conduct science activities and investigations. * School Crosstabulation % within School 1 a. Students worked productively in cooperative groups to conduct science activities and investigations. Total Frequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 62.5% 37.5% 100.0% Total 52.8% 30.6% 8.3% 8.3% 100.0% Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 80.0% 20.0% 100.0% Henderson 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 28.6% 28.6% 28.6% 14.3% 100.0% Mabelvale 57.1% 42.9% 100.0% Total 51.4% 32.4% 10.8% 5.4% 100.0% % within School 19j When requested, I received technical assistance related to the science program.  School Crosstabulation 1 M iy. When requested, I received technical assistance related to the science program. hrequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 50.0% 37.5% 12.5% Dunbar 100.0% Forest Heights 25.0% Total % within School 20. I have seen an increase in my students' reading and writing skills. Total % within School 21. I have improved my own reading and writing proficiency. Total 100.0% 100.0% 50.0% 25.0% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights \"\"5015% 60.0% 20.0% 100.0% Henderson ----- SJTW 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 100.0% Cloverdale ------- 28.6% 14.3% 28.6% 100.0% 20. I have seen an increase in my students' reading and writing skills. * School Crosstabulation hrequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 100.0% 100.0% Dunbar '100.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 45:w 57.1% 100.0% Total 35.1% 37 8% 16.2% 10.8% 100.0% Forest Heights 62.'5% 25.0% 12.5% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 70.0% 30.0% 100.0% Henderson ------ 5TW 42.9% 100.0% Cloverdale ----- 55:5%' 57.1% 14.3% 100.0% 21. I have improved my own reading and writing proficiency. * School Crosstabulation hrequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 100.0% 100.0% Dunbar 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Mabelvale ---- 7575%' 25.0% 100.0% Total 55T)% 30.0% 3.3% 1.7% 100.0% Forest Heights 71.4% 14.3% 14.3% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 90.0% 10.0% 100.0% Henderson ---TOT 28.6% 100.0% Cloverdale -----45W 50.0% 7.1% 100.0% Mabelvale ----- 75755^ 25.0% 100.0% Total 72.4% 24.1% 1.7% 1.7% 100.0% / i 4' 'I ' % within School 22. I have used a variety of grading techniques and sources. Total ) 1 22. 1 have used a variety of grading techniques and sources. * School Crosstabulation hrequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 90.0% 10.0% 100.0% Dunbar ~66.7% 33.3% Forest Heights \" 57.1% 28.6% School Pulaski Heights 80.0% 20.0% Henderson ----- TTW 28.6% Cloverdale 6TW 28.6% 7.1% Mabelvale  37.5% 100.0% 14.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total 71.2% 25.4% 1.7% 1.7% 100.0% 23. I have taught English skills through use of the mini-lessen with minimal worksheet/grammar exercise drills. * School Crosstabulation % within School 23. I have taught English hrequentiy skills through use of the mini-lessen with minimal worksheet/grammar exercise drills. Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 88.9% 11.1% Dunbar 66.7% 33.3% Forest Heights 71.4% 14.3% School Pulaski Heights 80.0% 20.0% Henderson 71.4% 14.3% 14.3% Cloverdale 53.8% 46.2% Mabelvale 62.5% 37.5% Total % within School 100.0% 100.0% 14.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 24. My students practice their English skills through cross-curriculum activities. * School Crosstabulation 24. My students practice their English skills through cross-curriculum activities. t-requently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 80.0% 20.0% Dunbar '66.7% 33.3% Total 100.0% 100.0% Forest Heights SSW 28.6% 28.6% 14.3% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights SCTJW 30.0% 10.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total 70.2% 26.3% 1.8% 1.8% 100.0% Henderson 7T7%' 14.3% 14.3% 100.0% Cloverdale -----2TW 42.9% 28.6% 7.1% 100.0% Mabelvale 6235^ 25.0% 12.5% 100.0% Total \" 52.5% 28.8% 15.3% 3.4% 100.0% /' 'i i % within School 25. In my class, I discuss other subject areas that apply to social studies topics. * School Crosstabulation 25. In my class, 1 discuss other subject areas that apply to social studies topics. Total % within School hrequently Occasionally Seldom Mann 85.7% 14.3% 100.0% Dunbar 66.7% 33.3% Forest Heights 83.3% 16.7% School Pulaski Heights 57.1% 42.9% Henderson 40.0% 60.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 55.6% 22.2% 22.2% 100.0% Mabelvale 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% 26. My students seem to know and respect experiences of diverse groups of people. * School Crosstabulation 2b. My students seem to know and respect experiences of diverse groups of people. Total I-requently Occasionally Seldom Mann 57.1% 42.9% 100.0% Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 66.7% 16.7% 16.7% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights iT3% 71.4% 14.3% 100.0% Henderson Cloverdale 60.0% 40.0% 100.0% 55.6% 44.4% 100.0% Mabelvale 57??% 28.6% 14.3% 100.0% 27, With each unit of study I engage students in hands-on learning activities and projects. * School Crosstabulation % within School 2/. With each unit or study I engage students in hands-on learning activities and projects. hrequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann ~7'1.'4% 14.3% 14.3% Dunbar \"35.5% 66.7% Forest Heights 66.7% 33.3% School Pulaski Heights 57.1% 42.9% Henderson  60.0% 20.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale ----- TTK 33.3% 44.4% 11.1% 100.0% Mabelvale -- 577^ 28.6% 14.3% 100.0% Total 65.1% 30.2% 4.7% 100.0% Total 36.4% 43.2% 20.5% 100.0% Total \"36.4% 38.6% 20.5% 4.5% 100.0% t iX 1\n% within School .^28. I use various resources and instructional materials when ! ) 28. I use vanous resources and instructional materials when teaching about Arkansas history. Total l-requently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 80.0% 20.0% 100.0% teaching about Arkansas history. * School Crosstabulation Dunbar 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Forest Heights 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 33.3% 33.3% 16.7% 16.7% 100.0% Henderson 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 22.2% 22.2% 44.4% 11.1% 100.0% 29. I assign and encourage students to read trade books about people, events, and places that have been studied.   % within School 29. I assign and encourage students to read trade books about people, events, and places that have been studied. Total l-requently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 42.9% 42.9% 14.3% 100.0% Dunbar 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Forest Heights 66.7% 16.7% 16.7% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 28.6% 28.6% 42.9% 100.0% Henderson 25.0% 75.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 57.1% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 100.0% Total 46.2% 28.2% 15.4% 10.3% 100.0% School Crosstabulation Cloverdale 22.2% 33.3% 33.3% 11.1% 100.0% Mabelvale 42.9% 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 100.0% Total 39.5% 32.6% 18.6% 9.3% 100.0% I I A APPENDIX E Teacher Survey Results by School and GradeI ' ( Grade Level = 6^h t 1. The classroom activities are seen as relevant by the students and respond to diverse needs of a multi-cultural student body. * School Crosstabulation % within School a Mann 1. I he Classroom activities are seen as relevant by the students and respond to diverse needs of a multi-cultural student body. Total a. Grade Level = 6th Hrequently Occasionally Seldom 90.0% 10.0% 100.0% Dunbar 88.9% 11.1% 100.0% Forest Heights 16.7% 83.3% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 27.3% 72.7% 100.0% Henderson Cloverdale Mabelvale Total 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% 60.0% 40.0% 100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 57.7% 38.5% 3.8% 100.0% I 2. I make appropriate use of active learning strategies, including appropriate use of computers, media, and cooperative group learning. * School Crosstabulation % within School a /: 2. I make appropriate hrequently Mann Dunbar Forest Heights School Pulaski Heights Henderson Cloverdale Mabelvale Total f . k*. use of active learning strategies, including appropriate use of computers, media, and cooperative group learning. Total a. Grade Level = 6th Occasionally Seldom 90.0% 33.3% 66.7% 50.0% 33.3% 10.0% 100.0% 100.0% 16.7% 100.0% 45.5% 54.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 80.0% 20.0% 100.0% 87.5% 12.5% 100.0% 65.4% 30.8% 3.8% 100.0% J4 Page f , 4 3.?nrequept)y take advantage of integrated and/or thematic teaching methods to en^le\nI School Crosstabulation % within School 3. I trequently take advantage of integrated and/or thematic teaching methods to enable students to make connections across the curriculum. Total a. Grade Level = 6th l-requently Occasionally Seldom 4. I am currently utilizing flexable periods % within School ! 4. lam currently utilizing flexable periods or blocks of time as needed to deliver thematic teaching and learning. Total a. Grade Level = 6th j % within School 5.'Steps have been taken to create smaller learning environments. Total  a.' Grade Level = 6th Mann 55.6% 33.3% 11.1% 100.0% Dunbar 55.6% 44.4% 100.0% students to make connections across the curriculum. * Forest Heights 16.7% School Pulaski Heights 45.5% Henderson Cloverdale Mabelvale Total 66.7% 45.5% 16.7% 9.1% 33.3% 66.7% 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 47.1% 25.0% 45.1% 7.8% 100.0% 100.0% or blocks of time as needed to deliver thematic teaching and learning. * School Crosstabulation a Frequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 10.0% 10.0% 40.0% 40.0% 100.0% Dunbar 66.7% 22.2% 11.1% 100.0% Forest Heights 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 36.4% 27.3% 18.2% 18.2% 100.0% Henderson 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% Cloverdale 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 100.0% 5. Steps have been taken to create smaller learning environments.  School Crosstabulation  frequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann ~40.0% 50.0% 10.0% 100.0% Dunbar 55W 11.1% 33.3% 100.0% Forest Heights T5?7^ 33.3% 33.3% 16.7% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 27.3% 36.4% 18.2% 100.0% Henderson 10o.o% 100.0% Cloverdale 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 62.5% 25.0% 12.5% 100.0% Total 37.3% 29.4% 15.7% 17.6% 100.0% Mabelvale -----373^ 37.5% 25.0% 100.0% Total 36.5% 28.8% 23.1% 11.5% 100.0% Page 2 9. Students spend most of their time in heterogeneous groups, with homogenous grouping used selectively for special students needs. * School Crosstabulation % within School a B. Students spend most of their time in heterogeneous groups, with homogenous grouping used selectively for special students needs. Total a. Grade Level = 6th frequently Occasionally Seldom Mann 60.0% 40.0% 100.0% Dunbar 55.6% 33.3% 11.1% 100.0% Forest Heights 33.3% 16.7% 50.0% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 36.4% 63.6% 100.0% Henderson Cloverdale Mabelvale Total 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% 100.0% 62.5% 37.5% 100.0% 50.0% 40.4% 9.6% 100.0% % within School 7. The Campus Leadership Team at my school meets regularly and keeps me informed. * School Crosstabulation a / /. I he Campus Leadership Team at my school meets regularly and keeps me informed. Total a. Grade Level = 6th frequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% 100.0% Dunbar 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Forest Heights  66.7% 16.7% 16.7% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights STTW 10.0% 100.0% Henderson ----- SSTJT 33.3% 100.0% Cloverdale -----5CW 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 100.0% Mabelvale ------ 37.5% 12.5% 100.0% Total 62.7% 21.6% 13.7% 2.0% 100.0% 8. I engage in professional discussions concerning use of student achievement data and best practices of effective schools. * % within School School Crosstabulation^ y. I engage in 'professional discussions concerning use of ^student achievement 'data and best practices of effective schools. 'Total a. Grade Level = 6th frequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 60.0% 30.0% 10.0% 100.0% Dunbar 55.6% 33.3% 11.1% 100.0% Forest Heights 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 54.5% 45.5% 100.0% Henderson 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 50.0% 37.5% Total 55.8% 36.5% 1.9% 12.5% 100.0% 5.8% 100.0% Page r'i . 4 r 9. I ensure that classroom materials and supplies are developmentally appropriate ^d directly support content and performance standards * ' ( School Crosstabulation % within School\n9. I ensure that classroom materials and supplies are developmentally appropriate and directly support content and performance standards. Total a. Grade Level = 6th t-requently Occasionally Seldom Mann 90.0% 10.0% 100.0% Dunbar 88.9% 11.1% 100.0% Forest Heights 66.7% 16.7% 16.7% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 90.9% 9.1% 100.0% Henderson Cloverdale Mabelvale Total 100.0% 100.0% 80.0% 20.0% 100.0% 75.0% 84.6% 25.0% 11.5% 3.8% 100.0% 100.0% I * 10. I received adequate training to implement the math curriculum for my grade level. * School Crosstabulation  % within School School 10. I received adequate training to implement the math curriculum for my grade level. Total a. Grade Level = Sth Frequently Occasionally Mann 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 100.0% 100.0% Henderson Cloverdale Mabelvale Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% J J 11. Students worked productively as individuals and in pairs and groups to learn mathematics. * School Crosstabulation % within School a 4 School ,11. Students worked hrequently ' productively as . individuals and in t pairs and groups to . learn mathematics. fTotal  a. Grade Level = 6th Occasionally Mann 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 100.0% 100.0% Henderson 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 100.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 100.0% 100.0% Total 83.3% 16.7% 100.0% Page % within Schooi 4^ \"  '' 1?, I emphasize written and oral communication in my math classroom. * School Crosstabulation a  'll 1 ii. I emphasize written and oral communication in my math classroom. Total a. Grade Level = 6th frequently Mann 100.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 100.0% 100.0% School Henderson Cloverdale Mabelvale Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 13. The math curriculum is closely aligned with the high stakes Benchmark Exam given in Sth grade. * School Crosstabulation % within School I I 13. I he math curnculum : is closely aligned with the high stakes Benchmark Exam given in Sth grade. Total a. Grade Level = 6th Hrequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 100.0% 100.0% School Henderson Cloverdale 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Mabelvale TOO.0% 100.0% Total 33.3% 33.3% 16.7% 16.7% 100.0% h*' 14. Instruction is significantly different in the reguair math classes and the pre-AP math classes, * School Crosstabulation % within School a .V' 4- 14. Instruction is significantly different in the reguair math classes and the pre-AP math classes. (Total a. Grade Level = 6th Hrequently Occasionally Mann 100.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 100.0% 100.0% School Henderson Cloverdale Mabelvale Total 100.0% 100.0% 16.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 83.3% 100.0% Page 7 ,\u0026lt;1  15. I h'^d sufficient materials to implement the science curriculum. * Schooi Crosstabulation % within School School 15. I had sutticient materials to implement the science curriculum. Total a. Grade Level = 6th frequently Seldom Mann 100.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 100.0% 100.0% Henderson 100.0% Mabelvale 50.0% Total 85.7% 100.0% 50.0% 100.0% 14.3% 100.0% ! 1 I 1 4 a 16. I received adequate trainng to teach the science curriculum for my grade level. * School Crosstabulation % within School a School I 16. I received adequate 'trainng to teach the science curriculum for my grade level. Total a. Grade Level = 6th t-requently Occasionally Seldom Mann 100.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 100.0% 100.0% Henderson 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 100.0% 100.0% Total 57.1% 14.3% 28.6% 100.0% 1,*' 17. Students learned important science concepts and inquiry skills through their engagement in the science program. * % within School School Crosstabulation a School 4 1/. Students learned important science concepts and inquiry skills through their engagement in the (Science program. Total I a. Grade Level = 6fh frequently Occasionally Seldom J Mann 100.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 100.0% 100,0% Henderson 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Total 71.4% 14.3% 14.3% 100.0% Page I i I '! I' I 18. Students worked productively in cooperative groups to conduct science activities and % within School T i 18. Students worked productively in cooperative groups to conduct science activities and investigations. Total a. Grade Level = 6th l-requently Occasionally Mann 100.0% 100.0% investigations. * Schooi Crosstabulation a Pulaski Heights School 100.0% 100.0% Henderson Mabelvale Total 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 71.4% 28.6% 100.0% 19. When requested, I received technical assistance related to the science % within School program. * School Crosstabulation a School 1 y. When requested. I received technical assistance related to the science program. Total a. Grade Level = 6th % within School 2U. I have seen an increase in my students' reading and writing skills. Total a. Grade Level = 6th l-requently Occasionally Mann 100.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 100.0% 100.0% Henderson 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 100.0% 100.0% Total 71.4% 28.6% 100.0% 20. I have seen an increase in my students' reading and writing skills. * School Crosstabulation  Frequently Occasionally Seldom Mann \"100 0% 100.0% Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% Forest Heights \" 100.0% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 60.0% 50.0% 100.0% Henderson 5irw 50.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Mabelvale 1oo.o% 100.0% Total ~55.7% 27.8% 5.6% 100.0% Pagel / I % within School 24^ My students practice their Engiish skiils through cross-curriculum activities. * School Crosstabulation 1 24. My students practice their English skills through cross-curriculum activities. Total a. Grade Level = 6th Frequently Occasionally Seldom Mann 100.0% 100.0% a Dunbar 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Forest Heights 100.0% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 100.0% Henderson 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0% 25. In my class, I discuss other subject areas that apply to social studies topics. * School Crosstabulation^ % within School 25. In my class, I discuss other subject areas that apply to social studies topics. Total______________ a. Grade Level = 6th t-requentiy Occasionally Sc\nhool Mann 100.0% 100.0% Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% Henderson 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 100.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 100.0% 100.0% 26. My students seem to know and respect experiences of diverse groups of people. * School Crosstabulation ' % within School School a Mabelvale 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Total 61.1% 22.2% 16.7% 100.0% Total 60.0% 40.0% 100.0% 26. My students seem to know and respect experiences of diverse groups of people. Total Frequently Occasionally Seldom Mann 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% , a. Grade Level = 6th Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 100.0% 100.0% Henderson Cloverdale Mabelvale 100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total 30.0% 50.0% 20.0% 100.0% Pagi I ,Y I 7 % within School c 21. I nave improved my own reading and writing proficiency. Total a. Grade Level = 6th % within School 22. I have used a ! variety of grading techniques and sources. Total a. Grade Level = 6th 21. I have improved my ovim reading and writing proficiency. * School Crosstabulation a Frequently Occasionally Mann 100.0% 100.0% Dunbar 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Forest Heights 100.0% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% Henderson 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% 22. I have used a variety of grading techniques and sources. * School Crosstabulation a Mabelvale 100.0% 100.0% Total 83.3% 16.7% 100.0% Frequently Occasionally Mann 100.0% 100.0% Dunbar 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Forest Heights 100.0% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% Henderson 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 100.0% 100.0% 23. I have taught English skills through use of the mini-lessen with minimal worksheeUgrammar exercise drills. * % within School 23. I have taugnt tngiish skills through use of the mini-lessen with minimal worksheet/grammar exercise drills. Total )' a. Grade Level = 6th Frequently Occasionally Mann 100.0% 100.0% Dunbar 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Forest Heights 100.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Total 83.3% 16.7% 100.0% School Crosstabulation a School Pulaski Heights 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% Henderson Cloverdale Mabelvale Total 100.0% 100.0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 72.2% 27.8% 100.0% Page I ' * 27,\n^With each unit of study I engage students in hands-on learning activities and projects. * School Crosstabulation % within School iV a School 2/. With each unit ot study I engage students in hands-on learning activities and projects. Total a. Grade Level = 6th hrequently Occasionally Seldom Mann 100.0% 100.0% Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Henderson 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 100.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 100.0% 100.0% Total 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 100.0% 28. I use various resources and instructional materials when teaching about Arkansas history. * School Crosstabulation % within School a School / 28. I use vanous resources and instructional materials when teaching about Arkansas history. Total a. Grade Level = 6th hrequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 100.0% 100.0% Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Henderson 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 100.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 100.0% 100.0% Total 28.6% 28.6% 14.3% 28.6% 100.0% 29. I assign and encourage students to read trade books about people, events, and places that have been studied. * School Crosstabulation . % within School 11 a School 29. I assign and encourage students to read trade books  about people, events, and places that have been studied. Total * a. Grade Level = 6th hrequently Occasionally Seldom Mann 100.0% 100.0% Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% 7 Pulaski Heights 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% Henderson Cloverdale Mabelvale Total 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% 100.0% Page I Grade Level = 7th 1. The classroom actWities are seen as relevant by the students and respond to diverse needs of % within School I a multi-cultural student body. * School Crosstabulation 1. I he classroom activities are seen as relevant by the students and respond to diverse needs of a multi-cultural student body. Total a. Grade Level = 7th hrequently Occasionally Seldom Mann 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Dunbar 80.0% 20.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 14.3% 85.7% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 20.0% 70.0% 10.0% 100.0% Henderson Cloverdale Mabelvale Total 100.0% 100.0% 83.3% 16.7% 100.0% 75.0% 12.5% 12.5% 100.0% 41.2% 52.9% 5.9% 100.0% I 2. I make appropriate use of active learning strategies, including appropriate use of computers, media, and cooperative group learning. * School Crosstabulation % within School a t 'L' 4 2. I make appropriate use of active learning strategies, including appropriate use of computers, media, and cooperative group learning. Total a. Grade Level = 7th hrequently Occasionally Seldom Mann 64.3% 21.4% 14.3% 100.0% Dunbar 40.0% 60.0% 100.0% ^7 Forest Heights 57.1% 28.6% 14.3% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 100.0% Henderson Cloverdale Mabelvale Total 100.0% 100.0% 16.7% 66.7% 16.7% 100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 49.0% 39.2% 11.8% 100.0% Page  I v/ V. )' 4A .3. I frequehtly take advantage of integrated and/or thematic teaching methods to enabie students to make ' i School Crosstabulation  ( % within School 3. I trequently take advantage of integrated and/or thematic teaching methods to enable students to make connections across the curriculum. Total a. Grade Level = 7th l-requently Occasionally Seldom Mann 42.9% 42.9% 14.3% 100.0% Dunbar 60.0% 40.0% 100.0% connections across the curriculum. * Forest Heights School Pulaski Heights Henderson Cloverdale Mabelvale Total 57.1% 28.6% 70.0% 100.0% 20.0% 60.0% 57.1% 42.9% 14.3% 30.0% 20.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 36.7% 49.0% 14.3% 100.0% 4. I am currently utilizing flexable periods or blocks of time as needed to deliver thematic teaching and learning. * School Crosstabulation .'% within School 4. I am currently utilizing flexable periods or blocks of time as needed to deliver thematic teaching and learning. Total a. Grade Level = 7th % within School 5. Steps nave been taken to create smaller learning environments. Total Grade Level = 7th a Frequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 42.9% 14.3% 42.9% 100.0% Dunbar 80.0% 20.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 14.3% 57.1% 14.3% 14.3% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights rri 66.7% 22.2% 100.0% Henderson 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0% 5. Steps have been taken to create smaller learning environments. * School Crosstabulation a Frequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann ^3.1% 46.2% 23.1% 7.7% 100.0% Dunbar ~gn.o% 20.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 1'4.3% 85.7% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights  20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 10.0% 100.0% Henderson 100.0% Cloverdale 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 50.0% 12.5% 12.5% 25.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 373%' 50.0% 12.5% 100.0% Total 20.0% 30.0% 24.0% 26.0% 100.0% Total TSW 46.0% 22.0% 4.0% 100.0% Page / k.*' I 6. Students spend most of their time in heterogeneous groups, with homogenous grouping used selectively for special students needs. * School Crosstabulation % within School 6. Students spend most of their time in heterogeneous groups, with homogenous grouping used selectively for special students needs. Total a. Grade Level = 7th ,% within School a I-requently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 35.7% 57.1% 7.1% 100.0% Dunbar 40.0% 60.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 28.6% School Pulaski Heights 40.0% Henderson Cloverdale 33.3% Mabelvale 57.1% Total 38.0% 71.4% 30.0% 30.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 50.0% 16.7% 100.0% 42.9% 52.0% 8.0% 2.0% 100.0% 7. The Campus Leadership Team at my school meets regularly and keeps me informed. * School Crosstabulation a 100.0% /. I he Campus Leadership Team at my school meets regularly and keeps me informed. Total a. Grade Level = 7th hrequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 28.6% 50.0% 14.3% 7.1% 100.0% Dunbar SITW 40.0% 100.0% Forest Heights ' 57.1% 42.9% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights \" 80.0% 20.0% 100.0% Henderson 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale ----- TS7K 50.0% 33.3% 100.0% Mabelvale sinrjr 12.5% 25.0% 12.5% 100.0% Total 47.1% 37.3% 11.8% 3.9% 100.0% 8. I engage in professional discussions concerning use of student achievement data and best practices of effective schools. * School Crosstabulation % within School 8. I engage in professional discussions concerning use of student achievement data and best practices of effective schools. Total ,'a. Grade Level = 7th hrequently Occasionally Seldom Mann 42.9% 50.0% 7.1% 100.0% Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 40.0% School Pulaski Heights 60.0% Henderson Cloverdale Mabelvale Total 100.0% 16.7% 62.5% 53.1% 20.0% 40.0% 100.0% 40.0% 100.0% 100.0% 50.0% 33.3% 100.0% 25.0% 34.7% 12.5% 12.2% 100.0% 100.0% Page ( I ensure that classroom materials and supplies are developmentally appropriate directly support content and performance standards. * V School Crosstabulation %' within School i 9. I ensure that classroom materials and supplies are developmentally appropriate and directly support content and performance standards. Total________________ a. Grade Level = 7th hrequently Occasionally Mann 92.9% 7.1% 100.0% Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 71.4% 28.6% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 80.0% 20.0% 100.0% Henderson Cloverdale Mabelvale Total 100.0% 100.0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% 62.5% 37.5% 100.0% 80.4% 19.6% 100.0% I 10. I received adequate training to implement the math curriculum for my grade level. * School Crosstabulation %, within School a School / ,1 1U. I received adequate training to implement the math curriculum for my grade level. Total________________ a. Grade Level = 7th hrequently Occasionally Seldom Mann 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% Dunbar 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 100.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale Mabelvale 100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total 33.3% 50.0% 16.7% 1 100.0% II 11 Students worked productively as individuals and in pairs and groups to learn mathematics. * School Crosstabulation a 4A % within School School i ll. Students worked productively as individuals and in ' pairs and groups to , learn mathematics. Total ?. Grade Level = 7th hrequently Occasionally Mann 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Total 45.5% 54.5% 100.0% Page ) / I ( % within School 12. I emphasize written and oral communication in my math classroom. * School Crosstabulation a School 12. I emphasize written and oral communication in my math classroom. Total a. Grade Level = 7th Frequently Occasionally Mann 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 100.0% 100.0% Total 70.0% 30.0% 100.0% 13. The math curriculum is closely aligned with the high stakes Benchmark Exam given in Sth grade. * School Crosstabulation % within School School a 13. I he math curriculum is closely aligned with the high stakes Benchmark Exam given in Sth grade. Total a. Grade Level = 7th Frequently Occasionally Seldom Mann 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 100.0% 100.0% 14. Instruction is significantly different in the reguair math classes and the pre-AP math classes. * School Crosstabulation % within School School Total 55.6% 22.2% 22.2% 100.0% 14. Instruction is significantly different in the reguair math classes and the pre-AP math classes. Total a. Grade Level = 7th frequently Occasionally Mann 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 100.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 100.0% 100.0% Total 54.5% 45.5% 100.0% Page 15. I had sufficient materials to implement the science curriculum. * School Crosstabulation a % within School School 15. I had sufficient materials to implement the science curriculum. t-requently Occasionally Seldom Mann 66.7% Dunbar 100.0% Pulaski Heights \"50.0%' 50.0% Total a. Grade Level = 7th 33.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total 50.0% 33.3% 16.7% 100.0% 16. I received adequate trainng to teach the science curriculum for my grade level. * School Crosstabulation % within School a / Schooi 16. I received adequate trainng to teach the science curriculum for my grade level. Total a. Grade Level = 7th l-requently Occasionally Mann 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 100.0% 100.0% Total 83.3% 16.7% 100.0% 17. Students learned important science concepts and inquiry skills through their engagement in the science program. * School Crosstabulation a % within School .V 1/. students learned important science concepts and inquiry skills through their .engagement in the ' science program. ! Total a. Grade Level = 7th l-requently Occasionally School -1 Mann 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 100.0% 100.0% Total 83.3% 16.7% 100.0% Page 4 (/ I 48. Students worked productively in cooperative groups to conduct science activities and investigations. * School Crosstabulation i% within School 4! a i School 18. Students worked productively in cooperative groups to conduct science activities and investigations. Total a. Grade Level = 7th hrequently Occasionally Mann 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Total 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 19. When requested, 1 received technical assistance related to the science program. * School Crosstabuiation % within School i a I School iy. When requested, I received technical assistance related to the science program. Total a. Grade Level = 7th hrequently Occasionally Seldom Mann 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0% Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Total 50.0% 33.3% 16.7% 100.0% I 3'^ 20. I have seen an increase in my students' reading and writing skills. * School Crosstabulation a % within School 4 School 20. I have seen an increase in my students' reading and writing skills. Total a. Grade Level = 7th hrequently Occasionally Mann 100.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 100.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 100.0% 100.0% Henderson 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Mabelvale 100.0% 100.0% Total 85.7% 14.3% 100.0% Page / I 21. I have improved my own reading and writing proficiency. * School Crosstabulation % within School School 21. I have improved my own reading and writing proficiency. Total a. Grade Level = 7fh Frequently Occasionally Mann 100.0% 100.0% % within School Forest Heights 100.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 100.0% 100.0% Henderson 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% Mabelvale 100.0% 100.0% 22. I have used a variety of grading techniques and sources. * School Crosstabulation Total 85.7% 14.3% 100.0% r a a School / 22. I have used a variety of grading techniques and sources. Total a. Grade Level = 7th hrequently Occasionally Mann 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 100.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Henderson 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% Mabelvale 100.0% 100.0% Total 64.3% 35.7% 100.0% 23. I have taught English skills through use ofthe mini-lessen with minimal worksheet/grammar exercise drills. * School Crosstabulation % within School a School 23. I have taught bngiish skills through use of the mini-lessen with minimal worksheet/grammar exercise drills. Total hrequently Occasionally Mann 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% ' a. Grade Level = 7th Forest Heights 100.0% Pulaski Heights 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Henderson Cloverdale Mabelvale Total 100.0% 100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 84.6% 15.4% 100.0% Page I 1 i I 'I, 4 1 i 24. My students practice their English skills through cross-curriculum activities. * School Crosstabulation % within School School a 24. My students practice their English skills through cross-curriculum activities. Total a. Grade Level = 7th hrequently Occasionally Mann 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 100.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Henderson 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 100.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 100.0% 100.0% 25. In my class, I discuss other subject areas that apply to social studies topics. * School Crosstabulation % within School 25. In my class, I discuss other subject areas that apply to social studies topics. Total a. Grade Level = 7th hrequently Occasionally Seldom Mann 100.0% 100.0% School Total 57.1% 42.9% 100.0% Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 100.0% Pulaski Heights 50.0% 50.0% Cloverdale 50.0% Mabelvale 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% 100.0% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 26. My students seem to know and respect experiences of diverse groups of people. * School Crosstabulation '% within School School Total 76.9% 15.4% 7.7% 100.0% a 26. My students seem to know and respect experiences of diverse groups of people. 'Total I a. Grade Level = 7th hrequently Occasionally Seldom Mann 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Dunbar 100.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 50.0% Pulaski Heights Cloverdale Mabelvale 66.7% 50.0% 100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 33.3% 100.0% Total 46.2% 30.8% 23.1% 100.0% Page  27. With each unit of study I engage students in hands-on learning activities and projects. * School Crosstabulation %'within Schooi f School 2/. With each unit ot study I engage students in hands-on learning activities and projects. Total a. Grade Level = 7th Frequently Occasionally Seldom Mann 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Dunbar 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% Total 30.8% 53.8% 15.4% 100.0% 28. I use various resources and instructional materials when teaching about Arkansas history. * School Crosstabulation % within School a i I School t 28. I use various resources and instructional materials when teaching about Arkansas history. Total a. Grade Level = 7th l-requently Occasionally Mann 100.0% 100.0% Dunbar 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 100.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Total 69.2% 30.8% 100.0% i  u Al) 29. I assign and encourage students to read trade books about people, events, and places that have been studied. * School Crosstabulation % within School a A' J School 29. I assign and encourage students to read trade books a^out people, events, and places that have been studied. Total a. Grade Level = 7th Frequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 100.0% 100.0% 7 Dunbar 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 100.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 33.3% Total 23.1% 53.8% 33.3% 15.4% 33.3% 100.0% 7.7% 100.0% Page 2C I I ' Grade Level = ^th  '-p' 1. The classroom activities are seen as relevant by the students and respond to diverse needs of a multi-cultural student body. * School Crosstabulation % within School a School i. I he classroom activities are seen as relevant by the students and respond to diverse needs of a multi-cultural student body. Total a. Grade Level = Sth hrequently Occasionally Seldom Mann 85.7% 14.3% 100.0% Forest Heights 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 50.0% 37.5% 12.5% 100.0% Henderson 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Cloverdale 62.5% 25.0% 12.5% 100.0% Mabelvale 33.3% 50.0% 16.7% 100.0% Total 54.3% 34.3% 11.4% 100.0% I I i 2. I make appropriate use of active learning strategies, including appropriate use of computers, media, and cooperative group learning. * School Crosstabulation % within School a School A \u0026gt; , ?? X 4 2. I make appropnate use of active learning strategies, including appropriate use of computers, media, and cooperative group learning. Total a. Grade Level = Sth hrequently Occasionally Seldom Never \u0026gt;. - .t I Mann 57.1% 28.6% 14.3% 100.0% Forest Heights 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 62.5% 25.0% 12.5% 100.0% Henderson 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 50.0% 25.0% 12.5% 12.5% 100.0% Mabelvale 50.0% 33.3% 16.7% 100.0% Total 60.0% 22.9% 11.4% 5.7% 100.0% Page I t / A t 41' ,Y \u0026lt;1 4I '*. ' I ' I ,3. I frequently.take advantage of integrated \"\u0026lt;VorttGmatic ^ching^methods to ensile students to make connections across the % within School 3. I frequently take advantage of integrated and/or thematic teaching methods to enable students to make connections across the curriculum. Total a. Grade Level = 8th I-requently Occasionally Seldom Never curriculum. * School Crosstabulation Mann 71.4% 28.6% 100.0% Forest Heights 66.7% Pulaski Heights 50.0% School Henderson 100.0% Cloverdale 25.0% Mabelvale 33.3% Total 51.4% 33.3% 37.5% 50.0% 25.0% 50.0% 37.1% 16.7% 8.6% 100.0% 12.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 2.9% 100.0% 4. I am currently utilizing flexable periods or blocks of time as needed to deliver thematic teaching and learning. * School Crosstabulation % within School a 4. I am currently utilizing flexable periods or blocks of time as needed to deliver thematic teaching and learning. Total a. Grade Level = 8th % within School hrequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% 100.0% Forest Heights 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 12.5% 12.5% 50.0% 25.0% 100.0% Henderson 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0% Cloverdale 37.5% 12.5% 25.0% 25.0% ___ 100.0% 5. Steps have been taken to create smaller learning environments. * School Crosstabulation '5. Steps have been .taken to create smaller learning environments. Total Grade Level = 8th hrequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 28.6% 28.6% 28.6% 14.3% 100.0% Forest Heights \"33.3% 66.7% 100.0% Pulaski Heights ~12.5% 37.5% 25.0% 25.0% 100.0% School Henderson ----- 333% 66.7% Cloverdale 100.0% 37.5% 12.5% 50.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Total 20.0% 17.1% 37.1% 25.7% 100.0% a Mabelvale ----20% 40.0% 40.0% 100.0% Total 17.6% 35.3% 20.6% 26.5% 100.0% Page 2 / I  ^bTStudenU spend most of their time in heterogeneous groups, with homogenous  ' % within School B. Students spend most of their time in heterogeneous groups, with homogenous grouping used selectively for special students needs. Total a. Grade Level = Sth % Within School / l-requently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 28.6% 57.1% 14.3% 100.0% grouping used selectively for special students needs. * School Crosstabulation a Forest Heights 66.7% Pulaski Heights 37.5% School 37.5% 12.5% 33.3% 100.0% 12.5% 100.0% Henderson 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 12.5%' 50.0% 37.5% 100.0% Mabelvale 33.3% Total 37.1% 50.0% 40.0% 16.7% 17.1% 100.0% 7. The Campus Leadership Team at my school meets regularly and keeps me informed. * School Crosstabulation a 5.7% 100.0% I. I he Campus Leadership Team at my school meets regularly and keeps me informed. Total a. Grade Level = Sth l-requently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann \"57.1% 28.6% 14.3% 100.0% Forest Heights  66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 14.3% School 100.0% Henderson 33.3% 100.0% Cloverdale ----- 5575%- 37.5% 25.0% 12.5% 100.0% Mabelvale ------ 33.3% 100.0% 8, I engage in professional discussions concerning use of student achievement data and best practices of effective schools. * % within School U. I engage in professional discussions concerning use of student achievement data and best practices of effective schools. Total . a. Grade Level = Sth hrequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 57.1% 14.3% 28.6% 100.0% Forest Heights 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 100.0% Henderson 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 37.5% 37.5% 25.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% Total 58.8% 20.6% 17.6% 2.9% 100.0% School Crosstabulation\" Total 45.7% 34.3% 14.3% 5.7% 100.0% Page \u0026lt; \n. I ensure that classroom materials and directly support content and performance I sianoaros. \" achool Crosstabulation ' % within School t y. I ensure that classroom materials and supplies are developmentally appropriate and directly support content and performance standards. Total a. Grade Level = Sth trequently Occasionally Seldom Mann 85.7% 14.3% 100.0% Forest Heights 66.7% Pulaski Heights 25.0% School Henderson Cloverdale Mabelvale Total 100.0% 50.0% 66.7% 60.0% 33.3% 75.0% 37.5% 12.5% 16.7% 16.7% 34.3% 5.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% I 10. I received adequate training to implement the math curriculum for my grade level. * School Crosstabulation a , % within School / 10. I received adequate training to implement the math curriculum for my grade level. Total a. Grade Level = Sth Frequently Occasionally Never Mann 100.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 503% 50.0% 100.0% Henderson 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 100.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Total 60.0% 30.0% 10.0% A 100.0% 11. Students worked productively as individuals and in pairs and groups to learn mathematics. * % within School School Crosstabulation 11. students worked i-requentiy productively as Mann Forest Heights Pulaski Heights School individuals and in pairs and groups to learn mathematics. Total a. Grade Level = Sth Occasionally Seldom Never 100.0% 100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Henderson 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Total 30.0% 40.0% 20.0% 10.0% 100.0% Page I. 12. I emphasize written and oral communication in my math classroom. * School Crosstabulation , % within School ,1 School 12. I emphasize wntten and oral communication in my math classroom. Total a. Grade Level = Sth Frequently Occasionally Never Mann TOW 100.0% Forest Heights  50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights \"TOW 100.0% Henderson ---- TOW 100.0% Cloverdale SCTW 50.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Total \u0026gt;0.0% 20.0% 10.0% 100.0% , 1 I a 13. The math curriculum is closely aligned with the high stakes Benchmark Exam given in Sth grade. * School Crosstabulation % within School a School / Is. I he math curnculum is closely aligned with the high stakes Benchmark Exam given in Sth grade. Total a. Grade Level = Sth Frequently Occasionally Never Mann 100.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 50.0% Pulaski Heights 100.0% Henderson 100.0% Cloverdale 100.0% Mabelvale 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total 40.0% 50.0% 10.0% 100.0% 14. Instruction is significantly different in the reguair math classes and the pre-AP math classes. * School Crosstabulation % within School a School .I' ! 14. Instruction is significantly different in the reguair math classes and the pre-AP math classes. Total a. Grade Level = Sth Frequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 100.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Henderson 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 100.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Total 30.0% 50.0% 10.0% 10.0% 100.0% Page I 4 ): ' % within School I , 15. I had sufficient materials to implement the 1 b. I had sutticient materials to implement the science curriculum. Total a. Grade Level = Sth Frequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% science curriculum. * School Crosstabulation a Forest Heights School Pulaski Heights Cloverdale 100.0% Mabelvale 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Total \" 25.0% 25.0% 12.5% 37.5% 100.0% 16. I received adequate trainng to teach the science curriculum for my grade level.  School Crosstabulation '% within School a IB. I received adequate trainng to teach the science curriculum for my grade level. Total a. Grade Level = Sth Hrequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 50.0% 50.0% Forest Heights 50.0% 100.0% 50.0% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale njo.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Total \" 37.5%' 37.5% 12.5% 12.5% 100.0% r w TT  School C^cUbuMoh ' A) Within School a 1 f. Students learned important science concepts and inquiry skills through their engagement in the science program. Total a. Grade Level = Sth hrequently Occasionally Never y Mann 100.0% Forest Heights School Pulaski Heights 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 100.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 50.0% Total 57.1% 50.0% 28.6% 100.0% 14.3% 100.0% Page: k*\n' )1' f' I  18. StudQhts^worked productively in cooperative groups to conduct science activities and investigations. * School Crosstabulation i % within School I 18. Students worked productively in cooperative groups to conduct science activities and investigations. Total a. Grade Level = Sth hrequently Occasionally Never Mann 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% a Forest Heights 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% School Pulaski Heights 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 100.0% 100.0% Mabelvale 50.0% Total 50.0% 50.0% 37.5% 100.0% - 19. When requested, I received technical assistance related to the science program.  School Crosstabulation % within School I ia. When requested, I received technical assistance related to the science program. Total a. Grade Level = Sth % within School 12.5% 100.0% a Frequently Occasionally Seldom Never Mann 100.0% 100.0% Forest Heights School Pulaski Heights Cloverdale ---- TOITTOr Mabelvale 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total 12.5% 50.0% 25.0% 12.5% 100.0% 20. I have seen an increase in my students reading and writing skills. * School Crosstabulation 2U. I have seen an increase in my students' reading and writing skills. Total a. Grade Level = Sth Frequently Occasionally Never Mann 77^0% 100.0% Forest Heights Pulaski Heights School Henderson TUTTW 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Cloverdale 5575^ 33.3% 100.0% Mabelvale ---- 57515^ 50.0% 100.0% Total \"65.7% 25.0% 8.3% 100.0% Page i*  I,' A' 4 \u0026lt;1 % within School 21. I have improved my own reading and writing proficiency. * School Crosstabulation  2i. I have improved my own reading and writing proficiency. Total a. Grade Level = Sth % within School t-requently Occasionally Never Mann 700.0% 100.0% Forest Heights 100.0% 100.0% Schooi Pulaski Heights \"77)0.0% 100.0% Henderson ----- STTW 50.0% 100.0% Cloverdale ----TOTW 100.0% Mabelvale ---- STW 50.0% 100.0% Total 72.7% 18.2% 9.1% 100.0% 22. I have used a variety of grading techniques and sources. * School Crosstabulation a School 22. I have used a variety of grading techniques and sources. Total a. Grade Level = Sth l-requently Occasionally Never Mann 1oo.o% 100.0% Forest Heights 100.0% 100.0% Pulaski Heights 100.0% 100.0% Henderson 100^0% 100.0% Cloverdale 100.0% 100.0% Mabelvale SITW 50.0%\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_48216","title":"[Coretta Scott King speaking at a church] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["[Coretta Scott King speaking at a church] [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.48216"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["King, Coretta Scott, 1927-2006"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1710","title":"Court filings: District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the defendants' motion for plan approval; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the Court's November 5, 1999, order; District Court, order; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, reply and brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply to Joshua intervenors' response to the defendants' motion for plan approval; District Court, order; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the court's November 22, 1999, order; District Court, notice of filing, 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":["2000-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","Education and state","School administrators","School employees","Education--Finance","Education--Economic aspects"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the defendants' motion for plan approval; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the Court's November 5, 1999, order; District Court, order; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, reply and brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply to Joshua intervenors' response to the defendants' motion for plan approval; District Court, order; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the court's November 22, 1999, order; District Court, notice of filing, 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/1710"],"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":["35 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JAN 3 2000 Cff1CE(f ID6ll6A1XIIDIRIIE LITfLE 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 ADE's Project Management Tool for December, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Atto General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL \\iAli 3 2QCD OffiCEOF -GA1i0?! h\\O~~ In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 1999 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. RECEJVEO - JAN 4 2000 OfFICE OF D~TION MONITORIIG oAsrMt~{~~D RT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT RI ijijNSAs EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ,/M,f n .i 2000 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W M C By:  c 0RMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 IFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PLAN APPROVAL The Joshua Intervenors conditionally oppose the defendant's request for a new plan and respectfully request that a hearing be set in order that defendants may demonstrate what they expect to accomplish therewith. The Joshua Intervenors negotiated changed with the Pulaski County Special School District (hereinafter \"PCS SD\") in the preexisting PCS SD desegregation plan during the 1998-99 school term during the administration of Mr. Bobby Lester, then Superintendent of Schools. The basic changes were negotiated during October, November, and December, 1999. The plan was designed to replace and update the existing plan within the context of the administration of Mr. Lester. It contemplated that, inter alia, the Desegregation Office of the district and its two primary administrators would continue to implement the plan in accordance with earlier representations to the Court. It also contemplated cooperation between the parties with respect to the monitoring activities of Joshua and it set forth a process for obtaining good faith compliance with the desegregation objectives of the ogginal plan. -1- The plan was not to be submitted to the Court,, however, except as a joint submission and it was then to be after agreement upon all issues including attomevs fees. Bv submitting the plan unilaterallv. the defendants breached the agreement and thev now seek to avoid pavment offees and costs as agreed. Joshua also requests that the Court consider further plan modifications and other plan alterations in order to insure achievement of the original plan's desegregations goals. The plan submitted by the defendants takes as the work of the defendant the joint efforts of the parties. It is now being submitted out of context and out of regard for materially changed circumstances. It is submitted as a unilateral resolution of controverted issues which may be more than a year stale. Moreover, the unilateral plan presented to the Court contemplates notice to the class, a matter not even discussed by the document; and it includes a provision for raising compliance issues which Joshua would not agree to now or during the current administration due to changed circumstances. The Joshua Intervenors note to the Court that the present principal administrators of the district are vaguely familiar with the history of the desegregation plan and its commitments. Their early actions denigrate the plan and lower it as a district priority. They then reduced the role of Mr. Billy Bowles, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, and deprecated the role and the work of the Director of Desegregation, Dr. Ruth Herts, by, inter alia, refusing her access to the second level power structure of the district known as the \"A Team\". Furthermore, citizen access before the board to discuss issues has been limited, on recommendation of the new superintendent, and in disregard of the Joshua Intervenor's request to be involved in resolution of the issue. The Joshua Intervenors have continued monitoring during the current administration and have met with general negative, if not hostile, responses from many teachers and administrators in -2- the district including the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent for Academic Matters, Dr. Fox. When Joshua has reported issues to the Office of Desegregation, Mr. Bowles now declines to make his own responses to the reports in writing lest they be used against the district. And, the district openly discriminates against Mr. Bowles' wife, Brenda, the district's Coordinator of Multicultural Education on the basis of race with respect to pay, duties and responsibility. We note the cosmetic nature of administrative changes. The superintendent touts academic improvement by attempting to point up significant test score changes. See Exhibit A. He then asks the board for a substantial pay raise for increasing test performance taking underserved credit for whatever changes may have occurred, if any, before he arrived. To top the plate, however, the test score data are not disaggregated by race. The Superintendent and Dr. Fox deliberately refused to allow disaggregation of the data. In this respect, the superintendent totally disregarded the \"A Team\" membership request by Dr. Herts but placed Dr. Robert Clowers, Test Director, and mostly other white male on the \"A Team.\" These are not signs of good faith of a district which is committed to desegregation. At the least they cause Joshua substantial concern that the district has no intention of effective remediation of constitutional rights of African American children. We have included the Affidavit of Joshua Monitor, Ms. Joy Springer, in support of our request that the district show cause that its plan addresses the current needs of African American students, is administratively consistent with the plan, and that the new plan does not diminish rights secured by the existing plan. The plan submitted by the district should not be approved, if at all, unless and until there has been a hearing to address compliance and other issues raised by Joshua. The role of the Office of Desegregation; the reduction of status of its principal officers; the limitation upon public access to -3- the board in public meetings; the misrepresentation of achievement scores and the comcomitant failure to disaggregate the data; the limitation of access to Joshua in monitoring; the unfamiliarity of the administration with either plan; the lack of commitment to either plan; the continuation of segregated assignments within classrooms the allowance of individual teachers to set rules on the spot which apply only to African American students (see the Cooley case); and the continued disparate treatment indiscipline, special education and extracurricular activities cry out for the Court to set a show cause hearing in order for the district to address the current Joshua concerns. The concerns have not been addressed in part because of the diminished status of the Office of Desegregation of the district. There is no doubt that the Court has the authority to modify the plan. But the Court's previous admonitions have been that the parties work together to that end. That has not been - effectuated and the defendants are now seeking to be rewarded for their failure to cooperate and effectively for their failure to implement the preexisting plan. Good faith is therefore abundantly lacking. The good faith of the district is a prerequisite for the Court's exercise of discretion in a way which favors the district. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to set this matter for a hearing, require the defendants to show cause why its preexisting plan needs to be changed and the particulars therefor and require the defendants to show how the proposed new plan under the new administration will work in face of a diminished Office of Desegregation. Joshua also requests the Court for an opportunity to conduct discovery in order to be prepared for such a hearing. After such discovery and after hearing, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the Court approve those parts of the plan that are shown to be necessary and positive changes to the existing plan; disapprove -4- those portions of the plan which are not demonstrated to be goal related or likely to work to strengthen or improve the preexisting plan; allow for further amendments and modifications as may be required by the evidence; require the district to allow monitoring and enforcement activities to proceed through Joshua and to pay all fees and costs associated with plan deviation, monitoring and other desegregation activity. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Mass 02421 (781) 862-1955 -5- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this 3rd day of January, 2000. Mr. Tim Humphries Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -6- Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Towers 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 PCSSD GRADE 5 Percentile Ranks Complete Battery Reading Math Language Arts Science - PCSSD GRADE 7 Percentile Ranks  Complete Battery Reading Math Language Arts Science PCSSD GRADE 10 Percentile Ranks Complete Battery Reading Math Language Arts Science PRESS RELEASE Pulaski County Special School District Office of Educational Accountability 1999 SAT-9 Score Increases December 3, 1999 .. 1996 1997 1998 1999 1996-99 Change 40 43 41 44 +4 40 44 43 45 +5 34 38 34 37 +3 39 42 40 45 '.1-6 34 39 36 40 +6  1996 1997 1998 1999 1996-99 Change ' 46 45 44 46 0 43 42 41 44 +1 41 40 39 41 0 41 41 38 42 +1 48 50 50 50 +2 1996 1997 1998 1999 1996-99 Change 45 ' 46 48 48. +3 40 41 44 44 +4 49 49 50 52 +3 41 42 45 47 +6 49 48 50 49 O  . _-~. ..- -~. -,. ,_ - . ' . . : . .,_._. /~ _-: -: . ...  . -: _ :.- - I ,  . .  . . . .. . ~, -~\u003e  :I , . .. .. ,. .. ..  . ' - 1998-99 Change +3 +2 .. : , ~ . +3 ::-~ ',( _1 +5 +4 ... , . ',,  ', ' , : ..-, . \\.' { : 1998-99 --: : ;,~ .- ' Change .... : . .  +2 +3 +2  +4 0 1998-99 Change 0 0 +2 +2 - 1 EXHIBIT I A IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ETAL. :MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. STATE OF ARKANSAS) SS) COUNTY OF PULASKI) AFFIDAVIT OF JOY C. SPRINGER PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VENO RS Comes now the affiant, Joy C. Springer, who admits the following affidavit under oath: 1. I was hired by class counsel for the Joshua Intervenors in approximately January, 1990 to monitor the compliance of the Pulaski County Special School District (later referred to herein as PCSSD) regarding its desegregation plan obligations and other court orders that relate to the settlement of this case. 2. Over the years as a member of the Joshua monitoring team, I have monitored PCCSD's compliance with its desegregation plan obligations. PCSSD's mission statement and plan goals are outlined on pages 3 through 12 of their respective plan. See DESEGREGATION PLAN, Pulaski County Special School District, dated April 29, 1992. Over the last five years, we - chose the following areas to monitor during our visits to schools in PCSSD: 1) Building Leadership and Management; 2) Separation of Races in School programs; 3) Staff Development; 4) Student Discipline; 5) Parental Involvement; 6) Curriculum and Educational Programs; 7) Student Achievement and Assessment; 8) Special Education; 9) Talented and Gifted and 10) Extracurricular Activities. 3. Joshua's findings over the past five years with respect to PCCSD's good faith implementation of its plan goals and obligations have been overwhelmingly mixed. The District has a tendency of \"going through the motion\" with respect to implementation of plan goals and obligations. In other words, it may be able to say on paper that a particular program has been implemented, but there are no evaluation or assessment criteria in place to determine their effectiveness. The District has a storehouse of data it has collected over the years and to my knowledge, has not done anything with its data collection. This can be said for the majority of its efforts regarding implementation of plan obligations. An example of data collection is the District's goal to correct the problem of over representation of black males in special education. Data are collected regarding student participation in special education programs and to my knowledge, nothing is done with the data .. Another example of data collection involves the discipline management system. The intent of the discipline management system was to address disproportionate discipline of black students. Many of the schools in the District have discipline management plans, however, that is just about it. They have them and to my knowledge, they don't do anything with them. The alternative discipline program for at-risk youth for the District has deteriorated over the years. The current format of this program has similarities to that of shift work for a factory. Students attend based upon shifts. Finally, and even more alarming, there is no counselor on staffi 4. In the majority of the schools visited, areas of concern remain in student achievement, ---- - - - - student discipline, separation of races in school programs, student participation in extracurricular activities, student participation in gifted and talented and advanced placement classes, parental involvement and student participation in special education. 5. I have received numerous parent and student complaints of disparate treatment with respect to discipline, participation in extracurricular activities, educational placement and the general overall treatment of black staff and students. 6. Ms. Carolyn Cooley has worked under my supervision as a monitor during the last school year. She reports that a number of classes have black students seated on one side of classrooms while white students are seated on the opposite side. She also reports that at schools like Baker, Oak Grove, and North Pulaski, she has met hostile response from teachers and the administration. They are uncooperative. 7. I have reported Ms. Cooley's findings, as well as my own, to Mr. Bowles. In the past, Mr. Bowles would investigate the complaints and often give our office a written response. Since that time, he has declined to put anything in writing because, we believe, the Superintendent has instructed him not to do so or because of the criticism that he has received from having previously documented his findings. 8. The District has hired a number of new administrators within the past twelve months, virtually all of them have been white. The hiring officials failed to consult in most instances, on information and belief, the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation before filling such I vacancies. This clearly relates to effective implementation of the District's desegregation goals and obligations. 9. As a continuing monitor of the PCSSD who is involved on a daily basis in the monitoring activities of the District, I believe that the District has not effectuated any positive changes which favor black students in the PCSSD in the past year and a half In addition, I believe that the District's efforts regarding desegregation are denigrating rather than improving as it strives to achieve unitary status in all aspects of school operations. 10. In conclusion, the District does not give us the support necessary for our monitoring activities to be successful. I hereby state that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief SWORN BEFORE ME TIIlS 3n1 day of January, 2000. dlliQ a !Lu:t ublic My Commission Expires: Cf/;:j2dl.s I  JANS 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS ADE'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S NOVEMBER 5, 1999 ORDER In its order entered November 5, 1999 (docket no. 3308), and in response to the LRSD's motion to modify the Settlement Agreement, this Court concluded that there - was no basis to modify the Settlement Agreement so as to increase the total number of magnet school seats the State must fund beyond a total of 4,065 for all six magnet schools. The Court requested additional submissions on the question of \"whether the number of stipulated seats for each individual [magnet] school, as set forth in the settlement agreement, involves a substantive commitment (which may not be modified absent a showing of significant change in fact or law) or a detail (which may be modified when a reasonable basis for modification exists).\" The Settlement Agreement specifically limits the State's financial obligation for students attending the six original magnet schools. The Settlement Agreement does not define the limits to the State's financial obligation in terms of an aggregate number of students for all magnet schools, regardless of individual school enrollment. Rather, the  Settlement Agreement ties the limits to the State's financial obligation to a maximum number of students for each of the six magnet schools. The parties' decision to enumerate individual, specific seating limits for each of the six magnets as defining the limits to the State's financial obligation evidences the parties' belief that those individual seating limits are \"substantive commitments\" under the Agreement, and not mere \"details.\" Had the parties intended that the State's financial obligation for magnet schools be based on a fixed total enrollment of 4,065 students each year - without regard to fluctuations in the seating capacities at the individual schools - they could easily have crafted the Settlement Agreement to make that clear. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant tto ne General 323 Center S e , Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on January 4, 2000, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, m Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Timoiliyatig ~lf 3 FILED EAS U.S. DISTRICT COURT TERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAN 10 2000 WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, :MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED JAN 1 2 2000 OfflCEOf ~MONITORING The Little Rock School District moved for an extension of time in which to respond to the - Court's Order ofNovember 5, 1999.1 For good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED [docket no. 3321]. The District has to and including January 21, 2000 to respond. 'f--- IT IS SO ORDERED THIS ifi_DAY OF JANUARY, 2000 ~uJ\\4u UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT !\"HIS DOCU~.ffNT PffERED Oi\"l DOCKET SHEET lN CCJMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a} FRCP '\")N /J,/;;O,i) _ BY --~ _ 1 In its Order, the Court directed the parties to brief the Court regarding whether under the settlement agreement, the stipulated number of state-funded seats for individual magnet schools may vary (providing the total number of state-funded seats remains at 4,065) without disrupting the substantive commitments contained in the agreement. Docket no. 3308. :,::~~;i~} ~t .p \u003cl-~ rl~  )~,::J~---..---11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION RECEIVE\" -JA. \",,' .: 10 -O-DO OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORIR\u0026 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME For their Motion for Extension of Time, Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: 1. Counsel for LRSD requests additional time of two weeks within which to respond to the Court's Order of November 5, 1999. 2. Counsel for LRSD has made several attempts to contact AD E's attorney but has been ,, unable to reach him. WHEREFORE, PlaintiffLittle Rock School District prays for an extension of the time within which they must respond to the Court's Order of November 5, 1999 by two weeks to and including January 21, 2000. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Christopher, Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 By: ~t . , Jr . . 92182 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on this 7th day of January, 2000: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 NationsBank 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol A ven~e Little Rock, AR 72~01 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JAN 1 (,; 'lon~ t \u003c- ' ut.J OftlCE'Of ID~TIONMONITORWG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS REPLY AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD'S REPLY TO JOSHUAINTERVENORS'RESPONSETO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PLAN APPROVAL On November 17, 1999, the PCSSD filed its motion seeking approval of Plan 2000. The motion was accompanied by a brief which set forth the undisputed facts and the applicable law. The PCSSD consented to a 20-day enlargement of time for Joshua to respond and thereafter, Joshua sought and obtained a second enlargement of time to respond until January 3, 2000. Given the nature of Joshua's response, the PCSSD is at a loss to explain why Joshua needed any enlargement of time whatsoever. Unlike the PCSSD's submissions, the Joshua response is bereft of legal analysis, legal authority or any other matters that would be of any assistance to the Court in determining whether to approve Plan 2000. Instead, Joshua has basically submitted a stream of consciousness narrative decrying certain alleged current practices of the PCSSD and generally grousing about perceived slights and alleged 149205-v1 oversights. While Joshua's response further faults the management style of the new PCSSD administration and asserts that goals of the 1989 plan remain as yet unmet, Joshua has submitted nothing that should deter this Court from simply applying the legal standards set forth in PCSSD's opening brief and approving Plan 2000 without further delay. While the PCSSD could respond in kind and discuss Joshua's inaccurate assertions and unfounded personal attacks, could highlight the generally aggressive, inyour- face monitoring style of Joshua, explain the essentially useless written monitoring reports generated in the past by Joshua which invariably applied incorrect and inapplicable legal standards, could discuss the exorbitant financial demands of Joshua, and could highlight the generally counter productive practices of the principal Joshua monitor, such discussion would not advance a resolution of the legal issues and will therefore not be pursued here. THE PCSSD HAS BREACHED NO AGREEMENT. It is true that in a previous incarnation, Plan 2000 was developed with Joshua as the principal author, as a plan to be submitted jointly by Joshua and the PCSSD. Thereafter, Joshua refused to execute the plan as an agreement when its monetary demands went unmet. PCSSD then appended the plan to its petition for unitary status dated March 25, 1999. In response and at that time, Joshua vouchsafed no opposition to the plan. Indeed, while Joshua opposed the petition for unitary status, Joshua \"embraced\" the plan characterizing the proposed commitments as a \"renewed and more targeted\" plan that could serve as a new or amended desegregation plan. (See - PCSSD brief, p.2) 149205-v1 2 This status was fully discussed at the hearing held by this Court on September 21, 1999. It was submitted then that either party could submit the amended plan unilaterally and that this Court would not have to even apply the contested amendment standard because the parties had agreed upon the plan. The Court agreed with this proposition. (See PCSSD brief, pp.6-7) THE JOSHUA RESPONSE IS A TALE FULL OF SOUND AND FURY SIGNIFYING NOTHING. It should be noted here that the PCSSD's declination to discuss each of Joshua's accusations explicitly should not be interpreted as any kind of concession. Indeed, the PCSSD denies them all. Instead, reduced to its bare essentials, the Court has before it only two legally viable propositions. First, will the Court decline to approve Plan 2000 and continue the - 1989 plan, a conclusion, we respectfully submit, that is at variance with the Court's previous pronouncements and rulings; or, will the Court approve Plan 2000 as a better means to the end of this litigation. That is really all this Court can and should do. While it is certainly true that this Court might very well schedule compliance hearings in the future calculated to ascertain compliance with Plan 2000, there is no current logical legal reason for this Court to indulge, by a hearing, Joshua's latest efforts to second guess personnel issues, how board meetings are structured, prematurely hear matters which are currently monitored by the ODM and other similar matters. Clearly, a desegregation plan is not logically or legally required to be tailored to the particular personalities in charge of a school district at any particular time (See 149205-v1 3 Joshua argument at its brief, p.1) but, rather, is required to be tailored to the circumstances extant at the time of the proposed modification in terms of remedying past constitutional violations. (See PCSSD brief, p.3) CONCLUSION For all of its bellicosity, the Joshua response avails nothing. It ignores the legal issues pending before this Court and represents little more than an effort to distract the Court from the real issues. In contrast, the PCSSD has thoroughly and appropriately informed the Court of the controlling law and the guiding legal principles. There are no issues for which a hearing is appropriate, much less necessary. It is respectfully submitted that Plan 2000 should be approved forthwith and the PCSSD directed to commence its implementation. 149205-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 BY_,,...,..._,;__:;,~~~~~d::,.----M. Atto pecial Sch 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On January jj_, 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 149205-v1 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Suelones Ill / 5 FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN f; 2000 WESTERN DMSION JA~Es r M~ORMACK, CLERK By '~,- t)( MM LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, DEPCi.lAA Plaintiff vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 RECEI ED WJ 1s iooo OJFlCE OF TlON MONITORING The three Pulaski County school districts-the Little Rock School District, the North Little Rock School District, and the Pulaski County Special School District (hereinafter \"the Districts\") --moved for an award of prejudgment interest related to the State's obligation to fund the Districts' contributions for teacher retirement and employees' health insurance for the 1998-1999 school year [docket no. 3297]. The State responded [docket no. 3298], and the Districts replied to the response [docket no. 3301]. After carefully considering the parties' pleadings and briefs, the Court determines the Districts' motion should be granted. I. Previously, the Court found that the State's new method for funding school districts' contributions for teacher retirement and employees' health insurance disadvantaged the Pulaski County Districts in violation of the parties' settlement agreement with the State. The Eighth Circuit ordered the Court to determine appropriate relief that would place the Districts \"in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed.\"1 In response to the Eighth Circuit's directive, the Court ordered the State to pay the Districts 100% of their costs for teacher retirement and health insurance for the 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 school years and found that the Districts were entitled to an award of prejudgment interest. 2 With respect to the 1998-1999 school year, the parties agreed that the States' principal liability totaled $10,288,773. On September 2, 1999 the State paid the agreed amount. Now the Districts move for an award of prejudgment interest. II. The State asserts that the Court did not issue a judgment regarding the States' liability for the 1998-1999 retirement and insurance funding shortfall and, therefore, the Districts should not label their request a motion for \"prejudgment\" interest. 3 Whatever the label, the Court finds the subst "},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_49285","title":"Dear Mrs. Parks, we read your story. We are glad you began the civir [i.e., civil] rights movement. We want you to know how things have changed. Black people is with whites people, Love Kiara [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Texas, Wise County, 33.2159, -97.65445","United States, Texas, Wise County, Rhome, 33.05346, -97.47197"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000"],"dcterms_description":["Drawings (with text) showing a yellow bus next to a figure of a woman with brown hair, likely representing Rosa Parks.","Title from item.","Drawing sent to Rosa Parks by \"Kiara\", a student at Prairie View Intermediate School, Rhome, Texas."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Children's art"],"dcterms_title":["Dear Mrs. Parks, we read your story. We are glad you began the civir [i.e., civil] rights movement. We want you to know how things have changed. Black people is with whites people, Love Kiara [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.49285"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["drawingscolor2000-2010.gmgpc","children's art2000-2010.gmgpc","greeting cards2000-2010.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_970","title":"Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/970"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nII NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT II RE .-EIVED Ill SEP\n0 2001 Urfit\nt Of Ill DESEGREMGAOTNIIOTNO RING ll ANALYSIS I OF ' DISCIPLINARY I ACTIONS I I District Level I I ll 2000-2001 I ll ll FRANC/CAL]. JACKSON Director of Student Affairs I I Ref: Date: Time: DIS032 9/10/01 16:06:08 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ELEMENTARY K-5 From AUGUST Through JUNE ==========================-=---------------------------====--------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ======================---------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ==========--===---======--------=======--------------=--====-===-=-=-----------= 09 S.A.C. 113 58.5% 58 30 .1% 19 9.8% 3 1.6% 193 54 39 17 2 112 10 HOME SUSP. 263 62.9% 80 19.1% 62 14.8% 13 3.1% 418 171 54 42 11 278 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 246 61.5% 63 15.8% 75 18.8% 16 4.0% 400 120 40 36 8 204 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 1 100.0% 0 O!l-  0 1 0 0 1 0 1 =========================--------------------------============================- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 =========================--------------------------============================- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =============================--------------============== =========-============ 09 S.A.C. 25 48 .1% 19 36.5% 6 11.5% 2 3.8% 52 21 13 5 2 41 10 HOME SUSP. 204 70.3% 55 19.0% 28 9. 7% 3 1.0% 290 123 42 21 3 189 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 162 58.3% 55 19.8% 40 14.4% 21 7.6% 278 101 44 23 10 178 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----================---------------------------============================----= COMPARISON ----=================----------------------=-==============-==================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -----============--=--------------------------================================== 09 S.A.C. 88- 77.9-% 39- 67.2-% 13- 68.4-% 1- 33.3-% 141- 33- 26- 12- 0 71- 10 HOME SUSP. 59- 22.4-% 25- 31.3-% 34- 54.8-% 10- 76.9-% 12 8- 48- 12- 21- 8- 89- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 84- 34.1-% 8- 12.7-% 35- 46.7-% 5 31. 3 % 122- 19- 4 13- 2 26- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 1- 0 0 1- 0 1- ~ ~ .) Ref: DIS032 Date: 9/10/01 Time: 16:06:08 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MIDDLE SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE ==============================-----------------------------------------==------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ==========================-====--------------------------=---------------------= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ======================-========--------------==========================--------- 09 S.A.C. 652 52. 7% 329 26.6% 186 15.0% 71 5. 7% 1238 295 185 107 43 630 10 HOME SUSP. 47 52.2% 14 15.6% 28 31.1% 1 1.1% 90 21 9 16 1 47 11 BOYS CLUB 203 54 .1% 98 26.1% 58 15.5% 16 4.3% 375 116 66 40 9 231 12 E. I.C. 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 !1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 0!1-  0 0 0 !1-  0 0 0!1-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 ==========================-------==-------------------=====================----= 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ============================-------------------===============================-- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =========================--------------------------===========================-- 09 S.A.C. 500 54.0% 260 28.1% 131 14.1% 35 3.8% 926 254 136 85 26 501 10 HOME SUSP. 104 74.8% 18 12.9% 16 11. 5% 1 7!1-  0 139 35 11 8 1 55 11 BOYS CLUB 175 58.3% 88 29.3% 29 9. 7% 8 2. 7% 300 99 48 22 5 174 12 E.I.C. 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 100.0% 0 0!1-  0 0 0~  0 0 0!1-  0 2 2 0 0 0 2 ==========================-----------=----==-==================================- COMPARISON ========================--------------=---=====================================- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -===================--------------------------==============================---- 09 S.A.C. 152- 23.3-% 69- 21.0-% 55- 29.6-% 36- 50.7-% 312- 41- 49- 22- 17- 129- 10 HOME SUSP. 57 121.3 % 4 28.6 % 12- 42.9-% 0 . 0 % 49 14 2 8- 0 8 11 BOYS CLUB 28- 13.8-% 10- 10.2-% 29- 50.0-% 8- 50.0-% 75- 17- 18- 18- 4- 57- 12 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 1 1 0 0 0 1 Ref: DIS032 Date: 9 /10/01 Time: 16:06:09 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions HIGH SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE =====--===========-------====--------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ==================-----=====---------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =======================-===-----------------------------=====-=======----------- 09 S.A.C. 703 56.7% 275 22.2% 196 15.8% 65 5.2% 1239 266 155 110 40 571 10 HOME SUSP. 94 72.9% 19 14. 7% 12 9.3% 4 3 .1% 129 54 12 11 3 80 11 BOYS CLUB 148 66.7% 31 14.0% 32 14.4% 11 5.0% 222 102 26 27 8 163 12 E. I.C. 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 66. 7% 0 0~  0 1 33.3% 0 0~  0 3 2 0 1 0 3 ===========================----------------------=============================-- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ============-=-============-----------------------===========================--- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ========================-------------------------------------============------- 09 S.A.C. 567 56.4% 277 27.5% 130 12.9% 32 3.2% 1006 242 143 85 24 494 10 HOME SUSP. 79 65.3% 19 15.7% 20 16.5% 3 2.5% 121 47 18 12 2 79 11 BOYS CLUB 150 65.5% 48 21. 0% 27 11. 8% 4 1. 7% 229 104 36 25 4 169 12 E. I.C. 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0 g..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 11.1% 0 Og..  0 5 55.6% 3 33.3% 9 1 0 5 3 9 -========================------------------------=============================-- COMPARISON -=======================--------------------------============================-- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -===========================------------------================================-- 09 S.A.C. 136- 19.3-% 2 .7 % 66- 33.7-% 33- 50.8-% 233- 24- 12- 25- 16- 77- 10 HOME SUSP. 15- 16.0-% 0 .0 % 8 66.7 %- 1- 25.0-% 8- 7- 6 1 1- 1- 11 BOYS CLUB 2 1. 4 % 17 54.8 % 5- 15.6-% 7- 63.6-% 7 2 10 2- 4- 6 12 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 %- 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1- 50.0-% 0 .0 %- 4 400.0 % 3 300.0 % 6 1- 0 4 3 6 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:09 School: 012 NORTH Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST LITTLE ROCK HIGH Through JUNE SCHOOL - 11/12 ==================----==---==----------------=-=====-====-======---------------= 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ==================----=====---------------------=============------------------= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ==============-------=======-------------===============================------== 09 S.A.C. 160 47.5% 90 26. 7% 63 18. 7% 24 7.1% 337 94 65 44 17 220 10 HOME SUSP. 7 63.6% 0 Og...  0 2 18.2% 2 18.2% 11 5 0 2 2 9 11 BOYS CLUB 44 56.4% 12 15.4% 16 20.5% 6 7.7% 78 34 11 14 4 63 12 E. I. C. 0 Og...  0 0 Og...  0 1 Og...  0 0 Og...  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 50.0% 0 Og...  0 1 50.0% 0 Og...  0 2 1 0 1 0 2 ==========================------------------------===========================--- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 =======================---------------------------------=---===============----- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ========================----------------------------==========================-- 09 S.A.C. 142 51. 4% 68 24.6% 54 19.6% 12 4.3% 276 87 so 40 9 186 10 HOME SUSP. 3 42.9% 2 28.6% 2 28.6% 0 Og...  0 7 3 2 2 0 7 11 BOYS CLUB 52 57 .1% 19 20.9% 18 19.8% 2 2.2% 91 43 16 17 2 78 12 E. I.C 0 Og...  0 0 Og...  0 0 Og...  0 0 Og...  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 50.0% 0 Og...  0 1 50.0% 0 Og...  0 2 1 0 1 0 2 ---==================--------------------------================================= COMPARISON ----=================----------------------===-================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-} # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------============================--- 09 S.A.C. 18- 11.3-% 22- 24.4-% 9- 14.3-% 12- 50.0-% 61- 7- 15- 4- 8- 34- 10 HOME SUSP. 4- 57.1-% 2 200.0 % 0 .0 % 2- 100.0-% 4- 2- 2 0 2- 2- 11 BOYS CLUB 8 18.2 % 7 58.3 % 2 12.5 % 4- 66.7-% 13 9 5 3 2- 15 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:09 School: 013 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 09/10 ----====------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ----==-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---==-=---------------------------------------------==-------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 538 60.2% 184 20.6% 132 14.8% 40 4.5% 894 170 92 66 23 351 10 HOME SUSP. 7 58.3% 2 16.7% 3 25.0% 0 09-  0 12 7 2 3 0 12 11 BOYS CLUB 104 72.2% 19 13.2% 16 11.1% 5 3.5% 144 68 15 14 5 102 12 E. I.C. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 -======================------------------------===============================-- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ---======-==============-------------------------================----=========-- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =========---=============-------------------------============================== 09 S.A.C. 424 58.2% 209 28. 7% 76 10.4% 20 2. 7% 729 155 95 46 15 311 10 HOME SUSP. 4 66. 7% 2 33.3% 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 6 4 2 0 0 6 11 BOYS CLUB 98 71. 0% 29 21.0% 9 6.5% 2 1. 4% 138 62 20 8 2 92 12 E.I.C 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 4 57.1% 3 42.9% 7 0 0 4 3 7 -==-------------------------------------------------==========================-- COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ====---------------------------------------=-===-============================-=- 09 S.A.C. 114- 21.2-% 25 13. 6 % 56- 42.4-% 20- 50.0-% 165- 15- 3 20- 8- 40- 10 HOME SUSP. 3- 42.9-% 0 . 0 % 3- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 6- 3- 0 3- 0 6- 11 BOYS CLUB 6- 5.8-% 10 52.6 % 7- 43.8-% 3- 60.0-% 6- 6- 5 6- 3- lO- 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 4 400.0 % 3 300.0 % 6 1- 0 4 3 6 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:09 School: 020 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE ARGENTA ACADEMY -----=-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ----===------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----==------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 7 58.3% 3 25.0% 1 8.3% 1 8.3% 12 7 3 1 1 12 10 HOME SUSP. 126 65.3% 32 16.6% 33 17.1% 2 1.0% 193 62 21 20 1 104 11 BOYS CLUB 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 9--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 9--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =--=====----====-=====----------------------------------=======================- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ==-====------=========-=------------------------------------==================-- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ==========================------------------------------------================== 09 S.A.C. o 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 9--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 172 71.4% 32 13. 3% 33 13. 7% 4 1. 7% 241 72 24 17 3 116 11 BOYS CLUB 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 9--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 9--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT ( +/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 7- 100.0-% 3- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 12- 7- 3- 1- 1- 12- 10 HOME SUSP. 46 36.5 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 2 100.0 % 48 10 3 3- 2 12 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 9/10/01 Time: 16:06:10 School: 024 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL --------===--=------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ======-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---======-----===========-------=-------------------==================--==------ 09 S.A.C. 220 55. 7% 82 20.8% 52 13.2% 41 10.4% 395 103 48 31 21 203 10 HOME SUSP. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 1 100.0% 1 0 0 0 1 1 11 BOYS CLUB 119 64.0% 33 17.7% 21 11. 3% 13 7.0% 186 66 23 19 6 114 12 E. I.C. 0 Og,  0 0 Og,  0 0 09-  0 0 Og,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 0 g,  0 0 0 g,  0 0 09-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 ===--=--------====----------------------------------====------======----==-----= 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 -=====--------=-=-----------------------------------=============-======-======= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---==---------------------------------------------------========-----=--====---- 09 S.A.C. 154 50.8% 97 32.0% 42 13. 9% 10 3.3% 303 83 49 26 7 165 10 HOME SUSP. 1 100.0% 0 0 g,  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 112 59.3% 52 27.5% 19 10.1% 6 3.2% 189 57 26 14 3 100 12 E. I. C 0 0 g,  0 0 09-  0 0 0 g,  0 0 0 g,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 100.0% 0 09-  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 g,  0 2 2 0 0 0 2 -----------------------------------------------------=====-=-==-----====---=---- COMPARISON =-=------------------------------------------------=---------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ===----------------------------------------------=---===================--====== 09 S.A.C. 66- 30.0-% 15 18.3 % 10- 19.2-% 31- 75.6-% 92- 20- 1 5- 14- 38- 10 HOME SUSP. 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 1 0 0 1- 0 11 BOYS CLUB 7- 5.9-% 19 57.6 % 2- 9.5-% 7- 53.8-% 3 9- 3 5- 3- 14- 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 g, 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 Ref: DIS032S Date : 9 / 1 O / O 1 Time: 16:06:10 School: 025 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL -------==----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ----===------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -=====-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 96 45. 7% 66 31.4% 41 19.5% 7 3.3% 210 48 37 28 5 118 10 HOME SUSP. 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 13 35.1% 17 45.9% 6 16.2% 1 2. 7% 37 9 12 5 1 27 12 E.I.C. 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =======--================-------------------------============================== 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 =====------============-------------------------------========================-- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 117 49.0% 56 23.4% 50 20.9% 16 6.7% 239 59 30 34 11 134 10 HOME SUSP. 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 27 55 .1% 17 34. 7% 4 8.2% 1 2.0% 49 19 9 4 1 33 12 E.I.C 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l,  0 0 Og..  0 0 O!l,  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----------------=========--==--------=---=-----================================ COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------======================--- 09 S.A.C. 21 21.9 % 10- 15.2-% 9 22.0 % 9 128.6 % 29 11 7- 6 6 16 10 HOME SUSP. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 14 107.7 % 0 . 0 % 2- 33.3-% 0 .0 % 12 10 3- 1- 0 6 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:10 School: 026 ROSE Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL =======------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ------===----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---===-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 119 48.4% 62 25.2% 49 19.9% 16 6.5% 246 64 39 20 12 135 10 HOME SUSP. 1 33.3% 0 O!!--  0 2 66.7% 0 O!!--  0 3 1 0 2 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 41 41.8% 30 30.6% 26 26.5% 1 1.0% 98 22 17 13 1 53 12 E. I.C. 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ===--==--================------------------------------------====-----======---- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ~==-=======================--------------------------------======---==========-- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =---===--===============-----------------------------------------==--=======---- 09 S.A.C. 56 47.9% 44 37.6% 9 7.7% 8 6.8% 117 34 26 9 7 76 10 HOME SUSP. 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 17 51.5% 12 36.4% 3 9.1% 1 3.0% 33 10 7 2 1 20 12 E. I.C 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ====-=-----=-============--=----------------------------=====================--- COMPARISON ========-===================-==------------------==--========================--- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ============================-=--===------------=-===========================---- 09 S.A.C. 63- 52.9-% 18- 29.0-% 40- 81.6-% 8- 50.0-% 129- 30- 13- 11- 5- 59- 10 HOME SUSP. 1- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 2- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 3- 1- 0 2- 0 3- ll BOYS CLUB 24- 58.5-% 18- 60.0-% 23- 88.5-% 0 . 0 % 65- 12- 10- 11- 0 33- 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 9/10/01 Ti me : 16 : O 6 : 1 O School: 030 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE POPLAR STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL =====--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ----===------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---==--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 215 56.1% 117 30.5% 44 11. 5% 7 1.8% 383 84 60 28 6 178 10 HOME SUSP. 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 !1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 30 55.6% 18 33.3% 5 9.3% 1 1. 9% 54 21 14 3 1 39 12 E. I.C. 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0~  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0~  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----=--------------------------------------------------=====----=======----===- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ======----------------------------------------------------=====================- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---====-----======--=--------------------------------------=====--------------== 09 S.A.C. 174 64.9% 63 23.5% 30 11.2% 1 4 !1--  0 268 82 32 18 1 133 10 HOME SUSP. 3 60.0% 1 20.0% 1 20.0% 0 0 !1--  0 5 3 1 1 0 5 11 BOYS CLUB 19 65.5% 7 24 .1% 3 10.3% 0 0!1--  0 29 15 6 2 0 23 12 E. I.C 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =====-----------------------------------------=-================================ 09 S.A.C. 41- 19.1-% 54- 46.2-% 14- 31.8-% 6- 85.7-% 115- 2- 28- 10- 5- 45- 10 HOME SUSP. 3 300.0 % 1 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 .o % 5 3 1 1 0 5 11 BOYS CLUB 11- 36.7-% 11- 61.1-% 2- 40.0-% 1- 100.0-% 25- 6- 8- 1- 1- 16- 12 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:10 School: 031 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE AMBOY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ------=------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---==--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 42 75.0% 5 8.9% 7 12.5% 2 3.6% 56 20 5 6 2 33 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ==-===--------===-----------------------------------=============-=-============ 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ~=--==--------===-=-----------------------------------=========---=----==----==- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =--===--------========------------------------------=========----======-=====--= 09 S.A.C. 1 100.0% 0 Og..  0 0 OJ\u0026gt;,-  0 0 Og..  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 10 HOME SUSP. 24 52.2% 16 34.8% 5 10.9% 1 2.2% 46 13 11 5 1 30 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 0 Og..  0 0 09,  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----------------------------------------------------=========================== COMPARISON -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -----------------------------------------------------============---============ 09 S.A.C. 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 1 1 0 0 0 1 10 HOME SUSP. 18- 42.9-% 11 220.0 % 2- 28.6-% 1- 50.0-% 10- 7- 6 1- 1- 3- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:10 School: 032 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -------==----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ----===------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU --====-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 O!l-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1 16. 7% 4 66.7% 1 16.7% 0 O!l-  0 6 1 3 1 0 5 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!l-  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 9-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 09-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ===--=----------------------------------------------------======-----======----- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ~=--====-===============--------------------------------============-=========-- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ===-==---=-==-==========------------------------------------=====--------====--- 09 S.A.C. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 0 09-  0 2 66.7% 1 33.3% 0 09-  0 3 0 2 1 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 O!!.-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =====------------=--=-----------------------------===-=======================--= COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =====-----------------=--=-----------------=-================================--- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1- 100.0-% 2- 50.0-% 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 3- 1- 1- 0 0 2- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:10 School: 033 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -------===---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 =====--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----===------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 47 73.4% 17 26.6% 0 0 g..  0 0 Og..  0 64 31 9 0 0 40 ll BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 99 82.5% 20 16.7% 0 Og..  0 0 8 !1--  0 120 53 11 0 1 65 17 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =======================-----------------------------------=-================-=-- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ===-===================---------------------------------------================-- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ==--====-==============----------------------------------------===============-- 09 S.A.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 49 80.3% 11 18.0% 1 1. 6% 0 Og..  0 61 29 7 1 0 37 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 42 84.0% 8 16.0% 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 50 33 6 0 0 39 17 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT ( +/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =-----------------------------------------------==----=-====================---- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2 4.3 % 6- 35.3-% 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 3- 2- 2- 1 0 3- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 57- . 0 % 12- .0 % 0 .0 % 1- . 0 % 70- 1- 1- 0 1- 26- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:10 School: 035 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ------==------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ----====------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --====-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 93 66.4% 41 29.3% 6 4.3% 0 O!,,-  0 140 42 26 5 0 73 10 HOME SUSP. 21 70.0% 5 16.7% 4 13. 3% 0 O!,,-  0 30 17 3 2 0 22 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!\\-  0 0 O!\\-  0 0 O!\\-  0 0 O!,,-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 4 100.0% 0 O!,,-  0 0 O!\\-  0 0 O!,,-  0 4 4 0 0 0 4 17 EXPULSION 0 O!,,-  0 0 O!\\-  0 0 O!,,-  0 0 O!\\-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ===--==------========-------------------------------=======------====---=----==- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 =---==--------==-=----------------------------------=---=======--=-==-------===- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 11 84.6% 2 15.4% 0 O!\\-  0 0 O!,,-  0 13 7 2 0 0 9 10 HOME SUSP. 12 57.1% 6 28.6% 3 14.3% 0 O!\\-  0 21 9 4 1 0 14 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!\\-  0 0 O!\\-  0 0 O!,,-  0 0 O!,,-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 44 68.8% 18 28.1% 2 3 .1% 0 O!\\-  0 64 24 13 2 0 39 17 EXPULSION 0 O!\\-  0 0 O!\\-  0 0 O!,,-  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPARISON ==--------------------------------------------------=============-=--===-======= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =---------------------------------------------------=============---====--====== 09 S.A.C. 82- 88.2-% 39- 95.1-% 6- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 127- 35- 24- 5- 0 64- 10 HOME SUSP. 9- 42.9-% 1 20.0 % 1- 25.0-% 0 . 0 % 9- 8- 1 1- 0 8- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 40 . 0 % 18 . 0 % 2 . 0 % 0 .0 % 60 10 18 2 0 35 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:10 School: 037 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ======-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ------=------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---===-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 16 66.7% 6 25.0% 1 4.2% 1 4.2% 24 11 6 1 1 19 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 38 73.1% 11 21. 2% 0 5.8% 0 0!1-  0 52 24 11 2 0 37 17 EXPULSION 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ====---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 =====--======-----===----------------------------------------------=------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ====---=======-==-======------------------------------------------========------ 09 S.A.C. 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 23 85.2% 3 11.1% 1 3.7% 0 0 !1-  0 27 16 3 1 0 20 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 8 100.0% 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 8 8 0 0 0 8 17 EXPULSION 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =======--------=-=====-------------------------------------------=======-------- COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ==========-===========--=---=------------------------=------=============------- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 7 43.8 % 3- 50.0-% 0 .0 % 1- 100.0-% 3 5 3- 0 1- 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 30- . 0 % 11- . 0 % 3- . 0 % 0 . 0 % 44- 1- 1- 3- 0 29- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 9/10/01 Time: 16:06:10 School: 040 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ---===-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 --====------------------------------------------------------------=------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -=--==--------------------------------------------------------====-=======------ 09 S.A.C. 2 50.0% 1 25.0% 0 O!!-  0 1 25.0% 4 2 1 0 1 4 10 HOME SUSP. 51 59.3% 14 16.3% 18 20.9% 3 3.5% 86 28 7 7 2 44 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 09,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 0 09,.  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!\\-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 09,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =--====================---------------------------================--=---=-====== 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 =======----===========----------------------------====--======================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 3 75.0% 1 25.0% 0 O!!-  0 0 O!\\-  0 4 3 1 0 0 4 10 HOME SUSP. 27 77 .1% 4 11.4% 3 8.6% 1 2.9% 35 20 3 2 1 26 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!\\-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 09,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 09,.  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!\\-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!\\-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ====------------=======---------------------------============================== COMPARISON =-=---------------------------------------------=-============================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------------------------------------------------=----======================== 09 S.A.C. 1 50.0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 1 0 0 1- 0 10 HOME SUSP. 24- 47.1-% 10- 71.4-% 15- 83.3-% 2- 66.7-% 51- 8- 4- 5- 1- 18- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:11 School: 041 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ------=------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ----==-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----=--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 22 52.4% 1 2.4% 13 31.0% 6 14.3% 42 16 1 12 5 34 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 105 46.9% 32 14.3% 0 32 .1% 0 6.7% 224 40 18 34 7 99 17 EXPULSION 0 0!1-  0 0 0 !1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =======-------=======-----------=----------------=======================-======= 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 -====---------=======-----------------------------============================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =-----------------------------------------------------------------------=====--- 09 S.A.C. 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 !1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 14 73. 7% 1 5.3% 4 21.1% 0 0!1-  0 19 9 1 4 0 14 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0!1-  0 0 0 !1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 52 46.8% 15 13. 5% 29 26.1% 15 13. 5% 111 26 12 15 6 59 17 EXPULSION 0 0!1-  0 0 0 !1-  0 0 O!\\-  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----------------------------------------------------======--------------------- COMPARISON -----------------------------------------------=--====-------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------------------------------------------------=-======--=----------==---=-- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 8- 36.4-% 0 .0 % 9- 69.2-% 6- 100.0-% 23- 7- 0 8- 5- 20- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 53- .0 % 17- . 0 % 43- . 0 % 0 .0 % 113- 1- 1- 43- 0 40- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:11 School: 042 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -======------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -=====-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---====-------------------------------------------------------------==--------=- 09 S.A.C. 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 15 55.6% 9 33.3% 3 11.1% 0 Og,.  0 27 11 4 2 0 17 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -======----===========--------------------------=====-====-=---=--============== 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =====---------========----------------------------------=--------=============== 09 S.A.C. 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 45 81. 8% 6 10.9% 4 7.3% 0 Og,.  0 55 20 5 2 0 27 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C 0 Og,.  0 l 100.0% 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 1 0 l 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON --------------------------------------------------------==========-=-==-======== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ========--====================================================================== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 30 200.0 % 3- 33.3-% 1 33.3 % 0 .0 % 28 9 1 0 0 10 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 1 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 1 0 l 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:11 School: 043 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ----==-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ---===-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -====-------------------------------------------------------------====---------- 09 S.A.C. 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 20 54 .1% 10 27.0% 7 18.9% 0 02-  0 37 13 9 6 0 28 11 BOYS CLUB 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 O!?--  0 0 0 2-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =--================--------------------------------------=-=======----------==== 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ==================------------------------------------------==================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 2-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 O!?--  0 0 0 2-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2 28.6% 0 02-  0 5 71.4% 0 02-  0 7 2 0 4 0 6 11 BOYS CLUB 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 2 20.0% 4 40.0% 3 30.0% 1 10.0% 10 2 4 2 1 9 17 EXPULSION 0 0 2-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-} # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-} # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ==---------------------------------------------------------==================-== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 18- 90.0-% 10- 100.0-% 2- 28.6-% 0 .0 % 30- 11- 9- 2- 0 22- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 2 .0 % 4 .0 % 3 .0 % 1 .0 % 10 2 4 3 1 9 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:11 School: 044 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -----==------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ----==-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -====--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 9 100.0% 0 0~  0 0 OS\\-  0 0 0~  0 9 7 0 0 0 7 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 OS\\-  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 OS\\-  0 0 09--  0 0 OS\\-  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 09--  0 0 OS\\-  0 0 OS\\-  0 0 OS\\-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =--===---------=------------------------------------========================---- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 =--=====---=-=========----------------------------===============-----=----===-- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =========================-----=-----------------================================ 09 S.A.C. 0 0~  0 0 OS\\-  0 0 OS\\-  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 6 75.0% 2 25.0% 0 OS\\-  0 0 OS\\-  0 8 6 2 0 0 8 11 BOYS CLUB 0 09--  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 OS\\-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 14 41.2% 9 26.5% 6 17.6% 5 14. 7% 34 11 8 4 3 26 17 EXPULSION 0 09--  0 0 OS\\-  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---------------------------------------------------=-========================-== COMPARISON -----------------------------------------------================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -----------------------------------------=---=================================== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 3- 33.3-% 2 200.0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 1- 1- 2 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 14 .0 % 9 .0 % 6 .0 % 5 . 0 % 34 14 9 6 5 26 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 9/10/01 Time: 16:06:11 School: 045 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ---====------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 --===--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -===---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 5 62.5% 1 12.5% 2 25.0% 0 O!!-  0 8 5 1 2 0 8 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 1 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 1 100.0% 0 0!1-  0 1 0 0 1 0 1 ====-===----=-========-------------------------------=---------====--=-===------ 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 =--======--============---------------------------------------===============--- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =====-=----============---------------------------------------================== 09 S.A.C. 0 O!!-  0 0 .0% 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!!-  0 0 Og_  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 g_  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --------------------------------------------------=-============================ COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -----------------------------------------------------========================--- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 5- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 2- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 8- 5- 1- 2- 0 8- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 1- 0 0 1- 0 1- Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:11 School: 046 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -------=------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ---====------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -=--=-----------------------------------------------==========------===-==------ 09 S.A.C. 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1 100.0% 0 02-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 02-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 2-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!!-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =======------========-------------------------------=====================--===== 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ====----------====-------------------------------------------======-====---===== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --===--------======------------------------------------========----==-==---==--- 09 S.A.C. 1 100.0% 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 10 HOME SUSP. 1 50.0% 0 0 2-  0 1 50.0% 0 0 2-  0 2 1 0 1 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 2-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 0 0 2-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 2-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------============-=====----===--- COMPARISON ----------------------------------------------------=-==========-----=====------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-} # REF PCT (+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------------------------------------------------=====================--===== 09 S.A.C. 1 100 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 .0 % 1 1 0 0 0 1 10 HOME SUSP. 0 0 % 0 . 0 % 1 100 0 % 0 .0 % 1 0 0 1 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I .c. 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 9/10/01 Time: 16:06:11 School: 048 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL --==---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ===-==-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 18 36.7% 16 32.7% 13 26.5% 2 4.1% 49 10 12 12 1 35 10 HOME SUSP. 12 46.2% 7 26.9% 6 23 .1% 1 3.8% 26 10 7 5 1 23 11 BOYS CLUB 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =--=====--=-=-=======------------------------------============-==============-- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 =====---=-===========--------------------------------=-========================- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =========================-----------------------===========================~==== 09 S.A.C. 9 27.3% 16 48.5% 6 18.2% 2 6.1% 33 9 10 5 2 26 10 HOME SUSP. 1 20.0% 3 60.0% 0 0 9-  0 1 20.0% 5 1 3 0 1 5 11 BOYS CLUB 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 05!,,  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON ==---------------=-------------------=========================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------------------------------------=-==-================================-== 09 S.A.C. 9- 50.0-% 0 . 0 5!,, 0 7- 53.8-% 0 .0 % 16- 1- 2- 7- 1 9- 10 HOME SUSP. 11- 91.7-% 4- 57.1-% 6- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 21- 9- 4- 5- 0 18- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 9/10/01 Time: 16:06:11 School: 049 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE REDWOOD PRE-SCHOOL =====--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ---====------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU --==--==---------------------------------------------------==========-=--------- 09 S.A.C. 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 3 100.0%- 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 3 2 0 0 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 0 !1,-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ==---===========-==-------------------------------------------=============----- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ====---=---=-=-===--=====--------------------------------==-===----===---=-===-- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --===========-====-==-----------------------------------------=============----- 09 S.A.C. 0 0!1,-  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 0!1,-  0 0 0!1,-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 0 O!l,o  0 1 100.0%\" 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 1 0 1 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!l,o  0 0 0 !1,-  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 0 !1,-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 0 !1,-  0 0 0 !1,-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU --------------------------------------------------------=-===================--- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 %- 0 . 0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 3- 100.0-%- 1 100.0 %- 0 . 0 % 0 .0 %- 2- 2- 1 0 0 1- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 %- 0 . 0 %- 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 %- 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 %- 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 %- 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Little Rock Public Schools I Analysis of Discipline Actions I School Year 2000-2001 I District Level I Elementary I Middle Schools I High Schools I 8 Year Comparison North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 09: SAC 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 1468 662 401 139  00-01 1092 556 267 69  99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 10: Home Suspension 450_/ 400-V -b 350- i,,- 300- /- 250- /- 200- /- 150- /- ~ 100- /- - ~ e-- L 50- /- - - ~ 0 ... I,--- i,,~ ~ ____,. ,_ BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 406 113 102 18 D 00-01 387 92 64 7 99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 11: Boys Club 400 _,, 350J ~ ~ 300- /,- 250- ,,,,_. 200- ,,,_. 150- _,\u0026gt;- .r--:\nrC-- 100- ,,- - ~L 50- ,,,..... - - - 0 ... - .,,,_ ~~ BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 351 129 90 27 D 00-01 325 136 56 12  99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 12: Alt School Susp K-5 250-\" ~ 200- v,- ..:::=? 150- v,- 100- v,- .=:\n50- v'- ,_~b_ ~ 0 - ---- --- ju-FrL BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 246 63 75 16 D 00-01 162 55 40 21 99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 17: Expulsion 5- ,,__ ~ 4.5- ' 4-v ~. 3.5 _v 3-V fl/!-- [, 2.5- v .... pr-- f' 2- v .... - ,...._ 1.5- v\u0026gt;- r-- 1 -v- i,-- 0.5- I,'- ~ - 0 - - )- BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 3 0 2 0  00-01 3 0 5 3  99-00  00-01 120 100 80 60 40 20 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 09: SAC BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 113 58 19 3 000-01 25 19 6 2  99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 10: Home Suspension 300-\" ,:::\nj 250- ,.,\u0026gt;- - 200- / ,-. - 150- ,,._ 100- ,,._ ~L ~ 50- ,,._ - _\n:\n_ ..':::::7 0 - - - ~ - BM BF NBM NBF C 99-00 263 80 62 13 D 00-01 204 55 28 3 / 99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 11 : Boys Club 1 _/ 0.9 _v 0.8 _v 0.7 _v 0.6-V 0.5 _v 0.4- 0.3_/ 0.2-V 0.1 _/ 0 BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 0 0 0 0 000-01 0 0 0 0  99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 12: Alt School Susp K-5 250 _,, _.. 200- ,,.. ... ...._ - 150- ,,.. ... 100- ,,.. ... ..,_. _ ... 50- ,,.. ... -- ...._ - .r--:.1 0 - - - 0 ll BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 246 63 75 16 000-01 162 55 40 21 99-00  00-01 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0  99-00 D 00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 17: Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0  99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 09: SAC 700- -c::::\n600- v'- 500- v- _,, 400- v- ..c::::\n300- ,,- I-- ~ 200- ,,- - b 100- ,,~ - ,___ 0 ..... - ,~. .......... _l=fL BM BF NBM NBF Cl 99-00 652 329 186 71 000-01 500 260 131 35 99-00  00-01 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 10: Home Suspension BM BF NBM NBF 99-00 47 14 28 1 000-01 104 18 16 1  99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 11: Boys Club 250 _,, 200-V - ---- 150- ,, .... 100- i.,1--- n:::: -- 50- i.,1--- - - -- 0 - - - ~ BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 203 98 58 18 D 00-01 175 88 29 8  99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 12: Alt School Susp K-5 1 _/ 0.9 _,, 0.8 _,, 0.7 _,, 0.6 _,, 0.5 _v 0.4 _,, 0.3 _v 0.2 _,, 0.1 _,, 0 BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 0 0 0 0  00-01 0 0 0 0 99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 17: Expulsion 2-/ .__ 1.8 _v 1.6 _v 1.4 _v 1  2 _v 1 _v ~ . 0.8- v._ 0.6- v._ 0.4- v,- 0.2- v- .' 0 - - BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 1 0 0 0  00-01 2 0 0 0  99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 09: SAC 800 _,, 700--' - 600- .,,,.... -- 500- v\u0026gt;- 400- v'- 300- v'- 200- v\u0026gt;- .. ,____ - 100- v'- \u0026gt;--- 0 ~ --- - _r-9- BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 703 275 196 65 000-01 567 277 130 32  99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 10: Home Suspension 100 _/ ,.c::::.i 90- v- 80- L/\u0026gt;- :=:\n70- v\u0026gt;- 60- v- 50- v- 40- ,-,\u0026gt;- 30- V,-.. 20- v\u0026gt;- - , ,\n._.,, 10- v\u0026gt;- --- -\nc - 0 - -- --- r r-,j_, BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 94 19 12 4  00-01 79 19 20 3 99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 11: Boys Club 160- ~ tL- 140- I,,\u0026gt;- 120- 1,,\u0026gt;- 100- i..,t- 80- 1,,\u0026gt;- 60- 1,,- ~ 40- I,,- 1 .r:=. ~ I' 20 1,,\u0026gt;- ,___ r--- 0 = - t\n,- -~~ BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 148 31 32 11 D 00-01 150 48 27 4 99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 12: Alt School Susp K-5 1 _,, 0.9 _v 0.8 _v 0.7 _v 0.6 _v 0.5 _v 0.4-\" 0.3 _v 0.2 _v 0.1 _v 0 BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 0 0 0 0  00-01 0 0 0 0 99-00  00-01 II --- II II q North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 17: Expulsion 5_/ - 4.5 _v 4-v 3.5 _v 3-V ,4- 2.5 _v ,-- 2-V ,- ,__ 1.5- 1,,\u0026gt;- ,-- 1 -1\n\u0026gt;- ,....._ - .- 0.5- v- ,. ,-- 0 - ., --:,, BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 2 0 1 0 D 00-01 1 0 5 3  99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 8 Year Comparison Action 09: SAC 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 BM BF NBM NBF 93.94 977 529 449 156 869 460 411 126 1052 446 410 140 96-97 1264 55 469 142  97-98 1801 862 547 132  98-99 1443 718 458 138  99-00 1468 662 401 139 D 00-01 1092 556 267 69  93-94 094-95  95-96  96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00 D 00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 8 Year Comparison Action 10: Home Suspension 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 BM BF NBM NBF 93-94 231 60 76 22 236 106 103 20 162 46 47 3 96-97 591 208 125 17  97-98 511 125 104 13  98-99 566 141 125 22  99-00 406 113 102 18 D 00-01 387 92 64 7  93-94 0 94-95  95-96  96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00 D 00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 8 Year Comparison Action 11: Boys Club 800 500 400 300 200 100 0 BM BF NBM NBF  93-94 119 39 39 9 094-95 133 44 31 8  95-98 334 82 72 12  96-97 357 148 85 20  97-98 515 148 112 8  98-99 359 148 88 22  99-00 351 129 90 27 000-01 325 136 56 12  93-94 0 94-95  95-98  98-97  97-98  98-99  99-00 0 00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 8 Year Comparison Action 12: Alt School Susp K-5 1600- 1400- 1200 1000 800- 600 400- 200 lUi.r 0- _.,_.. ~  - BM BF NBM NBF  93-94 168 54 45 8 D 94.95 178 68 58 5  95-96 1563 492 510 71  96-97 154 30 32 3  97-98 0 0 0 0  98-99 211 106 27 6  99-00 246 63 75 16  00-01 162 55 40 21  93-94  94-95  95-96  96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 8 Year Comparison Action 17: Expulsion 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 BM BF NBM NBF  93-94 6 4 3 0 094-95 7 0 1 0  95-96 2 1 0 2  96-97 3 7 0 0  97-98 6 5 0 0  98-99 7 2 1 1  99-00 3 0 2 0 000-01 3 0 5 3  93-94 D 94-95  95-96  96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00 D 00-01\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":"dhs_activists_718","title":"Donna Palmer","collection_id":"dhs_activists","collection_title":"Detroit 67: Looking Back to Move Forward","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Michigan, Wayne County, Detroit, 42.33143, -83.04575"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000/2024"],"dcterms_description":["In this interview, Donna Palmer discusses growing up in Detroit’s University district, more specifically the changes that she’s seen the area go through over time and what she expects to see moving forward."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Detroit, Mich. : Detroit Historical Society"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Race riots--Michigan--Detroit","Civil rights movements--Michigan--Detroit","Nineteen sixty-seven, A.D."],"dcterms_title":["Donna Palmer"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Detroit Historical Society"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://detroit1967.detroithistorical.org/items/show/718"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Detroit Historical Society"],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"dhs_activists_725","title":"Dwight Stackhouse","collection_id":"dhs_activists","collection_title":"Detroit 67: Looking Back to Move Forward","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Michigan, Wayne County, Detroit, 42.33143, -83.04575"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000/2024"],"dcterms_description":["In this interview, Dwight discusses growing up in the North Corktown/Briggs neighborhood. He discusses what life was like for him growing up in a poor neighborhood as a young African-American boy. He describes the neighborhood and the people who live there."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Detroit, Mich. : Detroit Historical Society"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Race riots--Michigan--Detroit","Civil rights movements--Michigan--Detroit","Nineteen sixty-seven, A.D."],"dcterms_title":["Dwight Stackhouse"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Detroit Historical Society"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://detroit1967.detroithistorical.org/items/show/725"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Detroit Historical Society"],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1055","title":"Exhibits: Potential exhibits, Little Rock School District compliance hearing","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School discipline","School employees","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits: Potential exhibits, Little Rock School District compliance hearing"],"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/1055"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":393,"next_page":394,"prev_page":392,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":4704,"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}}]}}