{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_373","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Writings on Program Evaluation-Literacy''","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":["1997/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Literacy"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Writings on Program Evaluation-Literacy''"],"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/373"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":["312 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\"WRITINGS\" ON PROGRAM EVALUATION -LITERACYWritings on Program EvaluationLiteracy Formal Program EvaluationsLiteracy 1. PreK-3 Literacy Plan (with needs assessment, see pp. 12-26), June 1999 2. Memorandum to Board of Education from Bonnie Lesley, June 24, 1999, requesting their review of the proposed PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan 3. Report on Level of ELLA training for K-2 teachers, May 10, 2000 4. Definition of Proficient for the Developmental Reading Assessment, K-2, May 2000 5. Report on Spring 2000 Developmental Reading Assessment, Percent At or Above Readiness 6. Correlation StudyAmount of Training Hours and Student Achievement on the Developmental Reading Assessment, Spring 2000 7. Correlation StudyMultiple Comparisons of Effect of Four Approaches to Literacy Development, Spring 2000 8. Executive Summary, Title I/Elementary Literacy Program Evaluation, July 2000 9. Title I/Elementary Literacy Program Evaluation, August 2000 10. Updated Draft of Title I/PreK-3 Literacy Plan Program Evaluation, December 2000 11. Progress Report on Elementary Literacy Plan to Board of Education, January 2001 12. Update on Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, June 2001, presented to Board of Education 13. Copies of slide presentation to Board of Education on PreK-3 Literacy Program, June 2001 \u0026lt;^7 14. E-mail to principals and Division of Instruction from Bonnie Lesley, June 29, 2001, attaching copies of the formal Update on Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan to the Board of Education, plus the Highlights documents, and a copy of the presentation slides. 15. E-mail to elementary principals and other staff from Bonnie Lesley, June 29, 2001, attaching tables of DRA results by middle school feeder pattern.Formal Program EvaluationsSuccess for All 16. Evaluation of Success for All Programs, Little Rock School District, Year 1: 1997-98 by Steve Ross, Mary McNelis, Tracey Lewis, and Steve Loomis, University of Memphis 17. Evaluation of Success for All Program, Little Rock School District, Year 2: 1998-99 by Weipling Want and Steven Ross, University of Memphis, July 1999 Success for All 18. Memorandum to elementary principals from Bonnie Lesley in Sept. 1, 1999, Learning Links, assigning supervision of the Success for All program in the Division of Instruction for greater effectiveness 19. Memorandum to Kathy Lease from Bonnie Lesley, Mar. 31, 1999, attaching a copy of a contract for the evaluation of the Success for All program 20. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to selected SFA staff, Oct. 8, 1999, setting up training on Success for All 21. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to SFA principals, Nov. 11, 1999, providing to them copies of their contracts with the University of Memphis for SFA services ^^7 22. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to SFA principals, Nov. 15, 1999, providing them a study on SFA effectiveness\nattached article, Success for All: A Summary of Evaluations, by Jeanne Weiler, ERIC. 23. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to selected SFA principals, Aug. 8, 2000, suggesting that data analysis indicates SFA not being effective in their schools\nattached tables.  24. Report on Success for All Inservice activities, 1999-2000 School Year 25. Reports from eight-week assessments in Success for All schools, 1999-2000. ^35 26. Success for All Implementation Report for December 1, 1999 (site visit reports from the University of Memphis that are done twice aimually) 27. Success for All Implementation Reports for Spring 2001 (site visit reports from the University of Memphis that are done twice annually) ^^5Formal Program Evaluations-English as a Second Language 28. Executive Summary, English as a Second Language Program Evaluation, July 2000 29. English as a Second Language Program Evaluation (submitted to Office of Civil Rights), October 2000Position Paper PreK-3 Literacy Program Little Rock School District Division of Instruction June 1999 In short, literacy is key. to success in school and beyond, for effective participation in the workforce, the community, and the body politic. This was true in the pasteven more true in the future, (p. 1, Building a Knowledge Base in Reading. NREL, 1998)Table of Contents Introduction Origins for the PreK-3 Literacy Plan 1 1 Background The Strategic Plan The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan The Campus Leadership Plan The Arkansas Smart Start Initiative Title I Other Special Populations Summary 2 2 3 5 5 6 7 8 Methodology Core Committee Members 8 11 Involvement and Communication 11 Needs Assessment Data Analysis (Effectiveness) Arkansas Criterion-Referenced Tests SAT9 Implications for Social Promotion Alignment and Coherence (Efficiency) Professional Community Support for Students Conclusions 12 12 12 12 14 15 21 22 23 Review of Research 24 Plan Goals 26 PreK-3 Literacy Program Design Organizational Changes HIPPY Title I Lower Student-to-Adult Ratios 29 30 30 30 32^Minimized/Eliminoted Pullouts J\\lo New Programs Program Abandonment Flexible Schedules for Some Teachers Waiver Application Requirements Curriculum and Instruction Alignment Daily Schedule Technology in PreK-3 Limited-English Proficient Students Special Education and 504 Students Gifted/Talented Students Frequent Assessment and Regrouping Phonemic Awareness Early Literacy Learning (ELLA) Effective Literacy Thematic Instruction The Social Nature of Learning Role of the Library/Media Center Supplemental Reading Materials Assessment/Srading/Program Evaluation Frequent, Systematic Assessment New Elementary Report Card PreK-3 Literacy Program Evaluation Professional Development ELLA Effective Literacy Success for All Smart Start Professional Development School-Level Professional Development Principal Development Interventions Success for All Reading Recovery Direct Instruction English-as-a-Second Language Reading Clinic ^^Summer School 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 35 37 38 38 39 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 42 43 43 43 44 44 44 44 44 45 45 45 46 46 47 47 47 47 48 IParent Education/Involvement Par^|-School Compacts Parent Education Conclusions Timelines 48 48 48 49 51Position Paper PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan Little Rock School District June 1999 Introduction Origins for the PreK-3 Literacy Plan The proposed PreK-3 Literacy Plan outlined in this document is the culmination of extensive discussion and debate among district staff, interested parents, consulting colleagues, and concerned citizens. The discussion began with the launching of a major effort involving more than 500 community volunteers to plan strategically to make a significant difference in the learning lives of all Little Rock School District students. This 1996 undertaking became the first of an array of important planning efforts that, collectively, have charted for the District an exciting and ambitious journey into the 21^ century. The Strategic Plan outlined a series of thoughtful actions that have already produced major new initiatives, while impacting almost every realm of current District practice, including the District's desegregation efforts. One major issue confronting the strategic planners, as well as those involved in framing the subsequent initiatives, was literacy. Too many LRSD students enter school at risk of never learning to read and, alarmingly, the number of these students continues to increase. Illiteracy is a societal issue that has become an educational challenge that cannot be ignored or underestimated. The LRSD is committed to meeting this challenge and through research, analysis, hands-on involvement, professional development, and relentless tenacity, the District is developing an aggressive and very specific course of action, beginning with the PreK-3 Literacy Plan offered here. The plan draws on the work and scope of many initiatives, programs, and practices that are outlined below. 10^ 4 Background The Strategic Plan The Little Rock School District Board of Education adopted in 1996 a new Strategic Plan, which was subsequently updated in 1998. Two of the eleven strategies directly address issues relating to student literacy. Strategy 2\" of that plan is as follows\nIn partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. I The Action Plan designed to achieve Strategy 2\" delineates the objectives and processes to define, develop, and adopt content standards, performance standards, and delivery standards and then to develop and implement professional development programs for district staff, along with strategies for parent understanding of the standards and assessments. \"Strategy 3\" speaks to the importance of improved student achievement\nWe will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 50^^ percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving District standards in the core curriculum. The Strategy 3\" Action Plans call for implementation of action steps relating to literacy development in grades PreK-3: a policy statement providing for intervention as an operative and vital part of elementary school instruction\nexpansion of Reading Recovery/Literacy Support early intervention services for K-3 students who are at risk of not developing literacy skills\n2the development of an intervention team at each schooj which provides systemic support including professional dev^pment for teachers which enables all children to sustain adequate yearly progress through grade 3\nand promotion of school-wide reform and ensuring access of children (from the earliest grades) to effective instructional strategies and challenging academic content. Content will include intensive complex thinking and problem-solving experiences through an integrated literature-based program. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan In April 1998 the federal district court in Little Rock approved the District's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Implementation of this plan is a requisite step toward the District's attainment of Unitary Status, with the hearing on that petition anticipated in spring 2001. The Plan contains a series of commitments or obligations for the District. Section 5.2.1 relates specifically to reading/language arts at the primary level\nLRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through the third grade: a. b. Establish as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a page\nFocus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies content through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences\nc. Promote thematic instruction\nd. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills\n3z. f. g- h. i. j- k. I. A^nitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to_ochieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms\ne Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction\nMonitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\nProvide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students\nProvide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and first-grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences\nTrain teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms\nUse the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day\nand Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. Other relevant sections of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan to the PreK-3 Literacy Plan are as follows: 2.7 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students. e 4jSWo 2.7.1 LRSD shall assess the academic programs ... after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. 2.8 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures during each of the next three years designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students. 2,12.2 LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. The Campus Leadership Plan The Board of Education adopted the District's Campus Leadership Plan in July 1998, providing for decentralized, school-based decision-making in some cases and shared decision-making in others. That plan includes a Quality Index based in part on indicators of academic achievement for each level of school. The Quality Index will be the accountability (collective responsibility) system for the Little Rock School District, and it will include, but go beyond, the academic indicators established by the State of Arkansas. The Arkansas Smart Start Initiative In fall 1998 the Arkansas Department of Education launched a major new reform entitled Smart Start. The aim of the K-4 component of Smart Start is to improve reading and mathematics achievement for all students in grades K-4 so that all students meet or exceed grade level requirements by grade 4. The implementation of Smart Start necessitates the coordination of the following four areas\n( 51. Standards - At grades K-4, they will serve as the basis for the expected levels of proficiency demanded in reading and  mathematics. 2. Staff Development - Focused on both teachers and administrators, all activities will promote the mission of Smart Start and emphasize topics related to subject matter content, curriculum alignment with the Frameworks, analysis of assessment results, and the utilization of technology and distance learning. 3. Student Assessment - Will be clearly aligned with the Frameworks and classroom instruction. 4. Accountability - After standards are clearly communicated, staff development activities have been made available and reliable, valid assessments have been developed and administered, schools will be held accountable for student achievement. Specific staff development programs conducted during 1998-99 included training in the use of a balanced literacy approach, utilizing the state's Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4, and Multicultural Reading and Thinking (McRat). The Arkansas Academy for Leadership Training and School-Based Management will begin a series of training sessions for principals, emphasizing proper techniques for aligning their local curriculum to state frameworks and for analyzing student assessment results. Grade 4 and Grade 8 Benchmark Exams were continued during 1998-99 and all school districts have been advised to implement additional assessment components to check student progress prior to Grade 4. Title I Another source for this K-3 Literacy Plan is the District's Title I program. This federally funded program allocates major resources to the District's elementary and middle schools for the improvement of reading and mathematics achievement so that all students \"acquire the knowledge and skills contained in the challenging State content standards and meet the 6challenging State performance standards developed for all children.\" federal Title I regulations include the following related purposes: The a. Ensuring high standards for all children and aligning the efforts of States, local education agencies, and schools to help children served under this title to teach such standards\nb. Providing children an enriched and accelerated educational program, including, when appropriate, the use of the arts, through school-wide programs or through additional services that increase the amount and quality of instructional time so that children served under this title receive at least the classroom instruction that other children receive. c. Promoting school-wide reform and ensuring access of children (from the earliest grades) to effective instructional strategies and challenging academic content that includes intensive complex thinking and problem-solving experiences\nd. Significantly upgrading the quality of instruction by providing staff in participating schools with substantial opportunities for professional development\ne. Coordinating services under all parts of this title with each other, with other educational services, and, to the extent feasible, with health and social service programs funded from other sources, f. Affording parents meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at home and at school\n9- Improving accountability, as well as teaching and learning, by using State assessment systems designed to measure how well children served under this title are achieving challenging State student performance standards expected of all children\nand h. Providing greater decision-making authority and flexibility to schools and teachers in exchange for greater responsibility for student performance. Other Special Populations The needs of students from special populations (special education, 504, limited-English proficient, gifted/talented, and all catecories of so-called \"at-risk\" students) also informed the design of this K-3 Literacy Plan. Quality early literacy programs can do much to prevent the referral and labeling of students for special programs and services. 7Summary Sources, then, for the contents and components of the LRSD PreK-3 Literacy Plan include Strategy 2 and Strategy 3 of the LRSD Strategic Plan\nSection 5.2.1 and other relevant sections of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nacademic indicators in the Quality Index of the Campus Leadership Plan\nSmart Start standards, assessments, professional development, and accountability\nTitle I regulations, especially those sections addressing the purposes of Title I\nand the needs of students from various special populations. The LRSD PreK-3 Literacy Plan is carefully aligned with and in compliance with oil the local, state, and federal mandates, as well as the general philosophy of these planning documents, all of which emphasize the academic success of all children. Methodology In accordance with the goals and strategies of the District's Strategic Plan, the subsequent recommendations of a Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Work Team, and the court-approved Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the Little Rock School District has established as a goal that \"by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page.\" District personnel recognize that to accomplish this goal an aggressive approach to quality and comprehensive early literacy education in grades PreK-3 is essential. This recognition of a need to focus on literacy as a central component of early childhood/primary level education is referenced in the LRSD 1998-99 Priorities within the following subsections of the specific work plan for the Division of Instruction\n1 11. Align school schedules, prek-12 reading curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, assessment, professional development, monitoring/coaching, and parent information/education with Strategic Plan, Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and Smart Start. 18. Review Title I programs and services to align with the CCOE, Smart Start, Campus Leadership Plan, NSF, Strategic Plan, and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Oy' / 821. Assess ESL program and services and develop program improvement plan with estimated budget. 22. Begin needs assessment and initial planning for implementation of Smart Start program from ADE. The apparent logical starting point for accomplishing the ambitious goal of providing, without exception, independent readers in every mainstreamed classroom by the end of the third grade was to establish a committee to study District data and practices and to make specific recommendations for a new comprehensive, systemic reform of the pre-kindergarten through grade 3 language arts program. This committee has been engaged since September 1998 and has undertaken the tasks of reviewing current practices and programs, researching \"best practices\" within the reading education arena nation-wide, and recommending a broad course of actions that it believes will best facilitate the Division of Instruction Work Plan in the context of the District 1998-99 Priorities. To accomplish the tasks described above\nthe committee first identified and then completed the following action steps: 1. Reviewed current District curriculum and assessment practices and determined current level of implementation and overall appropriateness for achieving goal. 2. Completed the development of the PreK-3 standards and benchmarks for reading/language arts and constructed a curriculum map to ensure alignment with the Arkansas curriculum frameworks and assessments. 3. Reviewed the Arkansas State mandated Smart Start Initiative and identified possible gaps or discrepancies between the Initiative components and the District curricular focus. 9I 4. Identified all \"supplemental'' reading programs currently in use in the District's primary-level classrooms and noted compatibility with the goal, the District curriculum, and the Smart Start Initiative\nalso determined whether supplemental efforts strengthened or hindered continuity of effort in relation to achievement of the goal. 5. Compared District student performance to statewide student performance for the purpose of creating a context for District benchmarking. K-3 curriculum maps were reviewed to ensure close alignment of District curriculum and the Arkansas curriculum frameworks. 6. Drew conclusions about effectiveness of current District efforts and summarized key components of best practice efforts in early reading education nationwide. 7. Identified and mapped literacy components of all related initiatives, programs, and practices to ensure PreK-3 reading/language arts programming congruence and coherence. 8. Recommended key programmatic components essential to timely realization of the initial goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page. 9. Recommended key resources and necessary collaborations. 10Early Literacy Core CoH^ittee Members: Pat Price, Early Childhood Sene Parker, Reading Judy Milam, Reading Kris Huffman, Reading Judy Teeter, Reading Tish Henslee, Early Childhood - University of Arkansas at Little Rock Melissa Suldin, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ann Freeman, Smart Start Patty Kohler, Division of Exceptional Children Involvement and Communication Significant levels of staff, parent, and community involvement had already occurred during the past three years on the issue of PreK-3 literacy before the work of this specific plan. The development of the Strategic Plan, the Reading Summit involving about 150 people two years ago, and the involvement on the Work Team that wrote the initial recommendations for Section 5.2 in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan all informed the design of this PreK-3 Literacy Plan. The public was kept informed of these planning initiatives through public information sessions and the cable television channel. Additional activities occurred during March, April, May, and early June 1999 to update everyone. Following administrative review of the committee recommendations and proposed budget, the committee began a series of information sessions further to inform principals, teachers, other staff, parents, and community about the proposed changes and to solicit their input on the final design. Copies of the draft plan were sent to every elementary principal and every PreK-3 teacher in the Little Rock School District for their review and discussion, and numerous presentations were made to various groups. The June 2-3-4 inservice focused in large part on discussions of the plan. Once the review and input process was completed and the committee had had an opportunity to revise their original draft, then the full proposal was presented to the Board of Education for their review in June 1999. 11Needs Assessment Data Analysis (Effectiveness) According to an analysis of data conducted by the Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, unacceptable percentages of students across the District are performing at the \"Below Basic\" level on the Arkansas criterion- referenced tests, and far too few students are performing at the \"Proficient\" or \"Advanced\" levels. These data are one indication that current practices are not as effective as they must be to achieve District goals relating to student achievement. Arkansas Criterion-Referenced Tests Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Literacy Summary Report, Spring 1998 LRSb District 42^0 Below Basic 28% Basic 28% Proficient 2%. Advanced Region 34% Below Basic 29% Basic 34% Proficient 2% Advanced State 33% Below Basic 30% Basic 35% Proficient 2% Advanced An area of concern is that 48 percent of grade 4 males performed at the \"Below Basic\" level, compared to 35 percent of females. Fifty-three percent of African American grade 4 students performed at the \"Below Basic\" level, compared to 20 percent of white students. These gaps are, of course, unacceptable and are indicators that current practice is not effective. Only minor improvements occurred in the Spring 1999 results. Sixty-eight percent performed at the \"Below Basic\" and \"Basic\" levels, and 32 percent performed at the \"Proficient\" and \"Advanced\" levels. SAT9, Grade 3 Reading (Stanford Achievement Test) Data from the Fall 1998 administration of the grade 3 SAT9 also confirm that too many students are not learning how to read well by grade 3. SAT9 reports student performance in four categories or levels\n0 12e Level 1 indicates little or no mastery of fundamental knowledge and skills (roughly equating to the Below Basic\" level on the state tests). Level 2 denotes partial mastery of the knowledge and skills that are fundamental for satisfactory work (roughly equating to \"Basic\" level on the state tests). Level 3 represents solid academic performance, indicating that students are prepared for the next grade (roughly equating to Proficient\" level on the state tests). Level 4 signifies performance beyond grade level mastery (roughly equating to \"Advanced\" level on the state tests). LRSD posted the following percentages at each level of performance on the grade 3 reading subtest of the SAT9 in fall 1998\nSubtests________ Total Reading____ Word Study Skills Reading Vocabulary Reading Comprehension Language________ Spelling_________ Listening________ % Level 1 23 19 20 31 22 15 13 % Level 2 43 46 38 39 40 39 45 % Level 3 28 22 31 23 30 28 32 To Level 4 7 13 11 7 8 18 10 The grade 3 Reading Comprehension subtest of SAT9 is most like the Arkansas reading test in terms of difficulty. In both cases only approximately 30 percent of LRSD students performed at the \"Proficient\" or \"Advanced\" levels (Levels 3 and 4), again indicating that far too few students are becoming good readers by grade 3. The states proposed new accountability system, ACTAAP, states that 100 percent of the students are expected to perform at the \"Proficient\" level or above. Another indicator of need is that a large majority of all the schools participating in the Title I program in 1998-99 were identified for \"School Improvement,\" indicating that they had failed to make acceptable growth gains for two consecutive years. In such a case the District is mandated by the State and the federal regulations to intervene with \"corrective actions\" 13 to assist schools in improving performance. An analysis of those schools' programs revealea#hat not only were their Title I programs not be^' effective, but neither was the regular education program effective. Implications for Social Promotion The issue of social promotion is a concern throughout the country and in Arkansas. Social promotion is the long-standing practice of administrative placement of overage students at the next grade level even though the student is most likely not academically prepared to be successful at that next grade level. Citizens all over the country are calling for an end to this practice, and LRSD must respond to that call. To do so, however, without changes in programs, practices, and opportunities to learn, the District would simply be punishing the under-prepared, overage student. In the early grades, failure to achieve grade-level expectations in reading is the primary reason for retention. (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998, 267) This PreK-3 Literacy Plan, therefore, includes provisions for the following: Changes in curriculum through the newly developed local academic content standards and grade-level benchmarks\nChanges in instruction through the adoption of research-based instructional strategies and professional development programs\nChanges in assessment through the addition of research-based assessment strategies at kindergarten and grade 1 designed to both diagnose reading difficulties and to assess progress at the student, school, and District levels\n Early interventions for students at risk of not learning to read through the HIPPY program changes, pre-kindergarten program, ESL program, and an emphasis on the reading clinic at grade 1, followed by summer school for K-1 students who are not performing at grade level. 14 Changes in the District's promotion and retention policy that would end social promotion for LRSD students, startin^U^ith grade 1 in 1999-2000. Alignment and Coherence (Efficiency) There are several quality management needs that are addressed in this plan. The first relates to what W. Edward Deming called \"constancy of purpose.' For instance, it is difficult to describe or to assess the effectiveness of the current LRSD prek-3 curriculum since what is taught differs not only from school to school, but from teacher to teacher in the same school teaching the same grade level. Such fragmentation and lack of defined curriculum are especially harmful to low-performing, mobile children. Every time the family moves, the young child not only has to adjust to a new environment, a new school, a new teacher or teachers, and new peers, but also, in many cases, a totally different curriculum and approach to instruction. About the time he/she begins to be comfortable, the family may move again, and the confusion returns to the extent that the child may feel that school and confusion are one and the same. These events tend to de-motivate the student to learn and to lessen his/her sense of efficacybelief that he/she can learn. The LRSD Board of Directors approved new Reading/Language Arts Standards for grades kindergarten through grade six in April 1998. Additional work has been done on these standards to ensure that they are precisely aligned with the revised Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks and with the intent of the new statewide Smart Start Initiative. Also, specific grade-level benchmarks have been developed in reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies so that teachers, students, and parents may be as clear as possible about what it is that students are expected to know and be able to do. These grade level benchmarks will serve as the basis for designing quarterly criterion-referenced tests to be used to check individual student progress in relation to achievement of each grade level standard. Secondly, there is in several schools a proliferation of disparate \"programs,\" and both reviews of those lists and interviews with the principal and teachers of those schools reveal many times a lack of understanding of how 15 the many programs fit together (lack of coherence) and/or what problems they are intendec^^solve (lack of alignment). The LRSD Title I plan filed with the Arkansas Department of Education, for example, reveals this problem of lack of \"constancy of purpose\" with its long list of Title I programs by school. Many different supplemental programs/philosophies are being used in the elementary schools. Three of these are technology programs\nJostens, New Century, and the Computer Curriculum Corporation Program. The remaining reading and/or language arts programs/methods include the following: Reading Recovery, ELLA, Success for All, Accelerated Reader, Open Court, Shurley Method, Metro Phonics Program, Carbo Reading Styles, McRat, Writing to Read, Companion Reading, Writing to Write, SRA Labs, High Action Reading Program, Discovery Phonics, Junior Great Books, Reading Is Fundamental, DISTAR, and HOSTS. The duration of implementation of these programs varies from one semester to one to four years per school. As many as eight supplemental reading/language arts programs have been implemented at the same time in some schools. For example, four elementary schools are implementing one program, ten schools are implementing two programs, ten schools are implementing three programs, three schools are implementing four programs, four schools are implementing five programs, three schools are implementing six programs, and one school is implementing eight. The program descriptions for the most popular programs are as follows\n Jostens, New Century, and Computer Curriculum Corporation {CCC} These systems are computer-based instructional programs. All three are integrated learning systems that provide lessons. practice, and assessment in reading, language arts, and mathematics. A management system for each one provides individualized instruction for students along with a reporting system on student progress. Jostens and CCC include lessons for grades K-6. New Century is appropriate for grades 3-6. it 16 Reading Recovery. This intensive early-intervention literacy program features the following\n1. One to one tutoring program 2. Individualized instruction 3. Specially trained teachers 4. Literacy support groups 5. Home/school reading connection 6. Ongoing assessment  Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA). This is a three-year staff development process designed to assist teachers in grades K-2 in implementing instructional techniques that support emergent learners. The content of the staff development consists of the following\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. A balanced literacy program Planning appropriate reading/writing instruction Reading process Writing development and instruction Writing/encoding 6. Phonemic awareness 7. Letter discrimination/recognition 8. Letter/sound relationship 9. Recognizing high frequency words 10. Decoding/word attack skills/word analysis 11. Vocabulary development 12. Comprehension strategies 13. Classroom management and organization 14. Parent involvement 15. Authentic assessment/standardized test. Success for All. This program restructures elementary schools to make certain every child learns to read in the early grades. It provides specific curricula and instructional strategies for teaching reading. Primary features are as follows. 1. School-wide reading curriculum 2. Cooperative learning 173. Grouping by reading level (reviewed by assessment every 8 weeks) 4. 5. Tutoring for students in need of extra assist Family support team. ice Accelerated Reader. This individualized program allows each student to move at his or her own pace and level of ability. This program's strength is the development of fluency/automaticity and the improvement of comprehension skills. Parental involvement is crucial to the success of this program. Primary features are as follows: 1, 2. 3. Students choice of books from a list of carefully selected books Individualized reading that allow students to move at his or her own pace Computerized tests that measures student comprehension 4. Parental Involvement. Open Court. This phonics program centers on student drill, using a wall sound card chart. Shurley Method. This program is a way of teaching grammar that gives students a chance to remember rules and definitions through jingles. Metro Phonics Program. This phonics program uses student drills and worksheets and reading exercises. Direct Instruction. This program includes teacher development and carefully organized reading sequences. Through teacher training and in-class coaching, teachers in the lower grades learn to present highly interactive lessons to small groups. Primary features are as follows: 181. Field-tested reading, language arts, and mathematics curricula 2. Highly scripted instructional strategies 3. Extensive training. Carbo Reading Styles. This program is designed to increase literacy by matching reading instruction to the student's preferred style of reading. Primary features include the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Teachers diagnosing students' strengths and accommodating them with a range of effective reading strategies Carbo Recorded - Book method Comfortable, relaxed settings Individual and small group work. HOSTS (Help One Student to Succeed! This structured mentoring program in language arts/reading, mathematics, and Spanish language arts is an instructional strategy that is tailored to a state's, district's, and school's language arts/reading objectives and philosophies. Primary features as follows: are 1. Database and software programs aligned with the school and district's curriculum 2. Students matched with trained parents, businesses, community volunteer mentors, who work to strengthen students' reading, writing, vocabulary development, study skills, and higher-order thinking skills 3. Mentors provide role models of successful people who motivate, support, and provide individual student attention. McRat. This two-year staff development process helps teachers infuse higher-order thinking, multicultural concepts, and performance-based assessment into the existing curriculum. The content of the staff development consists of the following: 192. 3. 4. Instruction focused on four higher-order thinking skillsanalysis, comparison, inference, and eyc^Oation that students can use in all academic subjects and transfer to practical life situations. Reading and writing skills and strategies that are taught through real reading and writing experiences. Assessment involving performance-based techniques with emphasis on pre- and post-writing assignments. Portfolios used as systematic organized collections of evidence to monitor student growth in skill development. Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4. This program is an additional program/philosophy connected with Smart Start and is being pursued by some elementary schools. This program features a two-year staff development process designed to train teachers in instructional techniques which help students become fluent readers and writers. The content of the staff development consists of the following components\n( 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. A balanced literacy program Planning appropriate reading/writing instruction based on assessment and evaluation Reading process Phonetic skills and strategies Recognizing high frequency words Decoding/word attack skills/word analysis Vocabulary development Comprehension skills and strategies Independent reading and writing 10. Classroom management and organization 11. Assessment 12. Parental involvement. Thirdly, there is currently a lack of alignment in the design of the general education and Title I programs with each other or with the State's curriculum frameworks and its new Smart Start initiative or with what is tested. In a curriculum mapping activity early in 1998-99, the staff found major gaps in what had previously been established as the District's^ 20 curriculum standards and what was actually being tested on the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT9) or the State's criterion-referenced tes\n^that are aligned with State academic standards. An obvious conclusion is that it is entirely possible that a major reason for some schools' low performance is that they are not exposing the children to the curriculum on which tests are based. Past implementation of District curriculum, in summary, has been inconsistent from school to school due to a variety of factors. These include time allotted to reading/language arts instruction, pull-out programs, lack of comprehensive teacher training, lack of staff to monitor and assist all schools, incompatible supplemental programs, lack of consistent use of district-adopted reading program, lack of cohesive ongoing assessment, and lack of sufficient funding aimed at achieving continuity of effort from grade level to grade level within each school and from school to school within the district. Additional curriculum coordination is needed to ensure continuity of effort and appropriate transition from experiential learning to skill acquisition among Pre-K, K, and primary level literacy education efforts across the District. Professional Community Research on what works in school restructuring finds that successful and effective schools are those with several identifiable characteristics, including strong professional learning communities. Such schools have a staff who, due to their shared beliefs about student learning and their shared commitment to improvement, engage in ongoing professional development. Their learning is embedded in their work and is totally focused on improvement of every child's academic performance. It will take the form of team meetings where teachers collaboratively plan lessons and thematic units, where they learn and practice effective teaching strategies, and where they collaboratively write and administer assessments and then evaluate student work in the team, not privately. If observing a professional community, one would expect to see ongoing action research, data analysis, discussions of individual and group performance of students, inquiry, reflection, and rich dialogue. 21In speaking with principals and teachers, one would find inconsistent evidence of thes^(|Etivities. It is not surprising, therefore, to learn that at least some of the staff do not understand why the school has in place the programs that it has. There is in those schools a lack of opportunities for professional development, lack of research on what works, lack of a theory base, lack of data analysis and program evaluation, and lack of structures and organization that facilitate and make the time for teachers to engage in the very activities that would enhance student achievement. Support for Students Quality management principles insist that processes and procedures should be examined on an ongoing basis so that if students are failing to learn at an acceptable level, then adjustments and modifications must be made immediately to prevent as much failure at the end of the year as possible. End-of-year inspectionstest administrationsare too expensive and too late to modify the practices that led to the failure to start with, and so the cycle begins again with another group of children, many of whom will also fail. Although teachers currently assess on an ongoing basis as a part of their day-to-day work, these assessments do not necessarily lead to changes in school or teacher practices at all or in any change in what the student is experiencing. In other words, those frequent assessments are used more frequently to label students than they are to inform teacher practice, and then at the end of the school year, the school declares many students to be failures. The Arkansas criterion-referenced examinations are administered near the end of the year and only to grade 4 at the elementary level. If schools wait until grade 4 to identify a low-performing student, then the problem is almost beyond solution. SAT9 examinations are administered in the fall, but by the time teachers receive the data and have opportunities to conduct analyses, they are well into the school year and routines/ programs are already set. Students may have already failed one or two quarters, and the results at this point are not very helpful in diagnosing individual student needs. At the end of the year there are currently only three options for a failing K- 3 student\nto be retained in grade\nto attend summer school to earn promotion\nor to be promoted to the next grade without requisite knowledge and skills to be Successful at that level. Only a few elementary schools are 22n currently using their funds for extended day programs, and there does not appear even in some of these a well-designed or articulated program. Clearly, then, the District must put into place the structures and practices that predict student success and prevent failure to every extent possible. In addition, there must be processes in every school to identify as early as possible any learning difficulties, to make immediate adjustments and modifications in instruction, and to provide extended time to learn through pre-school programs and during the school year. Conclusions In terms of quality management, then, the District has reviewed its processes and identified several challenging needs\n improve student achievement and end the practice of social promotion\n ensure curriculum/instruction alignment and coherence\n provide research-based curriculum and instruction\n provide professional development for administrators, teachers, and other staff and create professional learning communities in each school\n improve assessment practices and the use of data\n provide appropriate prevention and intervention programs to support student success\n improve communication with and involvement of parents/guardians.\n23Review of Research 5 This plan reflects the very latest research available on early childhood education, emergent literacy, and the prevention of reading difficulties. Academic success, as defined by high school graduation, can be predicted with reasonable accuracy by knowing someone's reading skill at the end of grade 3. (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998, 31) The following are common characteristics that make a practice a best practice\" (from Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in America's Schools by Steven Zemelman, Harvey Daniels, and Arthur Hyde, 1998, Heinemann). These are the underlying threads that tie together any successful effort in teaching reading and language arts, and the committee endeavored to ensure that each was included in the program design for the PreK-3 Literacy Program. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Reading means getting meaning from print. Reading is a process. Hearing books read aloud is the beginning of learning to read. Beginning reading instruction should provide children with many opportunities to interact with print. Reading is the best practice for learning to read. An effective reading program exposes students to a wide and rich array of print and goes beyond the use of the basal. Choice is an integral part of literate behavior. Teachers should model reading. Effective teachers of reading help children actively use reading and writing as tools for learning. 10. Children learn reading best in a low-risk environment. 11. Young children should have well-structured instruction in phonics. However, phonics is not a subject in itself, but rather a tool. 2412. Teachers should provide daily opportunities for children to share and discuss what they have been reading and writing. 13. In an effective reading program, students spend less time completing workbooks and skill sheets. 14. Writing experiences are provided at all grade levels. 15. Reading assessment should match classroom practice. 16. Schools that are effective in teaching reading have an ethos that supports reading. .. .the performance of kindergartners on tests of phonological awareness is a strong predictor of their future reading achievement. (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998, 54)_________________________________________ .,. the arguments for including spelling instruction as a major component of the reading program are strong. Learning about spelling reinforces children's knowledge about common letter sequences. It also reinforces their knowledge about spelling-sound relationships and may help children become aware of word parts. Because of this, spelling practice enhances reading proficiency. (Beginning to Read: Thinking Qnd Learning About Print by Marilyn Jager Adams, 103) According to research and analysis of the 1994 National Assessment of Education Progress results on the grade 4 reading examination ( Teaching for High Standards: What Policymakers Need to Know and Be Able To Do\" by Linda Darling Hammond and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, 1997, in Implementing Academic Standards, p. D-7), there are several teacher characteristics that are highly correlated with student success in reading\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Teachers having coursework in literature-based instruction Teachers having coursework in integrated approaches to teaching language arts and reading Teachers having coursework in phonics Teachers having coursework in study strategies Teachers having coursework in motivational strategies. 25Zemelman, Daniels^ and Hyde also have synthesized the research on *^st practice\" in teachi^^jwriting. The exemplary writing activities are as^\u0026gt; follows\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. All children can and should write. Teachers must help students find real purposes to write. Students need to take ownership and responsibility. Effective writing programs involve the complete writing process. Teachers can help students get started. Teachers help students draft and revise. Grammar and mechanics are best learned in the context of actual writing. Students need real audiences and a classroom context of shared learning. Writing should extend throughout the curriculum. ! 10. Effective teachers use evaluation constructively and efficiently. ... for young or uncertain readers, the potential contribution of writing to reading runs deeper than any concern of form or style. In particular, as children become authors, as they struggle to express, refine, and reach audiences through their own writing, they actively come to grips with the most important reading insights of all. (Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print by Marilyn Jager Adams, 104) Plan Goals The Superintendent and the staff of the Little Rock School District propose this PreK-3 Literacy Plan to achieve the following goals\n1. To end the practice of \"social promotion\" (admin itrative placement of students to the next grade) in the Little Rock School District. Performance Indicators\n Revised Board policy on social promotion  Focus of resources on extended day, summer school, and other appropriate interventions to prevent failure at K-1 262. To put into place at grades PreK-3 (and then to phase in at higher grades) the curriculum, instruction, and assessments, plus necessary supports for students so that increasing percentages of children meet the rigorous academic standards established by the State of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District. Performance Indicators:  Increasing percentages of students at kindergarten and grades 1-3 who are performing at grade level on literacy measures adopted by the District  Increasing percentages of students performing at the \"Proficient\" and Advanced\" levels on the grade 4 Arkansas benchmark literacy examination 3. To ensure that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page. Performance Indicators:  Increasing percentages of students performing at grade level on grade 3 reading assessment  Increasing percentages of students performing above the 50^ percentile on the grade 3 norm-referenced test 4. To improve student achievement in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and thinking as measured by norm- and criterion- referenced tests determined by the State of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District. Performance Indicators: See #2 and #3 above. 5. To prevent, to the extent possible, the need for special education and 504 referrals and services for reading disabilities. Performance Indicators\n Decreasing percentages of students at grades k-4 referred for special education or 504 identification due to reading disabilities 276. To improve communication with and the involvement of parents of PreK-3 children, including those who speak a language other than English. Performance Indicators:  Results of parent surveys  Records of new communication strategies 7. To meet the obligations and commitments made to the community in the District's Strategic Plan and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and to align with the State's Smart Start Initiative and Title I regulations. Performance Indicators\n Work Plan Reports  Compliance Reports  Title I reports 8. To improve, over time, the overall academic success and graduation rates of students in the Little Rock School District. Performance Indicators\n Building-level report cards  Accountability reports, local and state Effective early reading instruction is crucial to all children. All children must learn to read so that they can read to learn. Since all future learning is predicated on the ability to read, every child requires the best possible foundation in reading. (Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice,\" The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998, 2) 28PreK-3 Literacy Program Design Many of the ingredients for success are already in place at the District level. The new reading/language arts standards and benchmarks are based on the best thinking within the discipline and are aligned with state and national reading education entities. These standards call for rigorous learning experiences for all students that are focused, comprehensive, and designed to result in maximum reader competency by not limiting students to basic skills alone. The multicultural emphasis on learning district-wide affords all students with access to meaningful and relevant learning experiences that lead to learning mastery. Many LRSD schools, as well, have already pieces of a research-based PreK-3 literacy program in place. Others do not, so the pace of full implementation for all schools will differ. Another determiner of pace will be fundinghow quickly a school can align its School Improvement Plan and Title I budgets, for instance. The PreK-3 Literacy Committee believes, after reviewing current practices in the LRSD elementary schools and after identifying the many supplemental reading programs currently in usesome of which are used in place of the District curriculum, that the bold action necessary for improvement requires a thoughtful, deliberate elimination of \"too much stuff.\" Teachers and students in PreK-3 classrooms across the District have so much to do that the real focus for learning is in many instances lost entirely or, at best, obscured. The learning goals are clear, but the challenge remains how to clear the learning path of the debris that becomes a daily obstacle for teachers trying to teach and students trying to learn. Allowing schools to choose how to address district learning goals and district curriculum is difficult. To successfully allow such autonomy requires clear guidelines and thoughtful district/school partnerships, as well as clear understanding and singular vision about desired results. In a district the size of the LRSD, the choice made by one school can and does dramatically impact the entire district. Continuity is essential as students and staff 29move from school to school. Patrons across the District expect and deserve the same focus and the same quality, regardless of which school their\nchildren attend. Hl This committee has studied the final report submitted by the Curriculum Work Group to the District on August 4,1997, which provided direction for writing the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We concur with the sixteen recommendations made by that group for K-3 reading education. The following summary of key components of those recommendations conveys what we believe is most critical in PreK through grade 3 reading education to achieving the goal that by completion of grade three all students will be reading independently. An outline of program design components, including those reflected in the Curriculum Work Group's report, follows\nOrganizational Changes { Hippy, The HIPPY program shall change its focus of service from four- and five-year olds to three- and four-year olds, given that almost all five-year-olds now attend kindergarten. The HIPPY program staff shall report to the Director of Early Childhood Education under this plan, effective fall 1999. HIPPY is a home-based program in which parents serve as the child's first teacher. The program provides children with school readiness skills and makes reading one of many activities parents and children do together. (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, National Research Council, 1998,144) Title I. The District shall restructure its Title I program and budgets in conformance with federal and state regulations to support the implementation of the PreK-3 literacy program and all children's success in achieving the academic standards and benchmarks. Components of the restructuring shall include the following: 301. 2. 3. 4. 5. Alignment of Title I programs and services with general education and Smart Start in order to support student success in achieving the rigorous academic standards and benchmarks established by the State and LRSD, Decentralization of decision-making relating to Title I plans and budgets to principals and their Campus Leadership Teams. Embedding the Title I accountability requirements in the LRSD Quality Index. Provision for PreK-3 literacy/mathematics program evaluation under the leadership of the department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. Establishing the following priorities for school-level Title I funding\na. b. c. d. Professional developmentbuilding the capacity of existing staff to ensure that all students learn to read by grade 3 Technology to support student success Supplemental instructional materials and supplies, especially for those at risk of failure to learn to read Extended-day interventions to support students at risk of failure e. Parent education and involvement f. Focus of programs and services on grades PreK-3 at the elementary level. Schools ore expressly discouraged from continuing to use the vast majority of their Title I funding simply to employ extra staffunless such staff are absolutely necessary for the implementation of this program, e.g., Reading Recovery or Success for All teachers\nteachers for extended day Reading Clinics\netc. Principals wishing to transfer current Title I employees to the regular budget and programs must collaborate with the department of Human Resources to ensure compliance with the PN agreement. 31-WRi--------------------------------------------------------- .,JAontview Elementary eliminated remedial reading teachers as part of its schoolwide Title I program, directing its resources instead to professional learning... . Montview's results are noteworthy.... As a result of the school's hard work, its language arts scores exceeded those in the district's more prosperous, stable schools, (from \"Meeting the Reading Challenge in Low-Income Schools\" by Dennis Sparks, Education Week. Nov. 11, 1998) i Schools are further discouraged from including travel to conferences in their Title I budgets since the District will have already provided awareness-level training in all the components of this design. Travel will be approved only for visits to exemplary schools implementing a similar design or for in-depth training and development not available in Little Rock or somewhere within the State. #1 Lower Student-to-Adult Ratios for Reading/Language Arts Instruction. Each school is encouraged to lower student-to- adult ratio to a maximum of 15:1 through the use of all certified personnel in the school during reading instruction. Further, each school is encouraged to explore and identify effective ways to strengthen teacher-student and teacher-parent relationships and to ensure instructional continuity through such strategies as looping, multiage classrooms, etc. The abilities and opportunities of teachers to closely observe and facilitate the literacy learning of diverse groups of children are certainly influenced by the numbers of children they deal with. (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998. 229) 32Closeness in the teacher-child relationship was * associated with better readiness performance. Closeness is an index of warmth and open communication in the teacher-child relationship. (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998,130) Minimized/Eliminated Pullouts. Schools must minimize or eliminate entirely pullouts from the classroom during instruction in language arts and mathematics, especially, in PreK-3. No New Programs. The District declares a moratorium on additional new supplemental reading/language arts programs at the PreK-3 levels for at least three years or until the implementation of these changes can be both formatively and summatively evaluated to determine their effectiveness with the diversity of students in the Little Rock School District. Program Abandonment. In order for the District and each school to be successful in the implementation of these program components, many former programs and practices must be abandoned. The mobility of our students requires us to be consistent in our curriculum and instruction. The importance of coherence requires us to have a common research and theory base for the program components. Also, limitations on teacher time and energy require us to abandon some old programs and practices to make room for the new. Fir-ally, in order to fund these new program components, both District budgets and Title I budgets must be reallocated to fund the teacher development, new teaching materials, and interventions now required. Flexible Schedules for Some Teachers. Schools are encouraged to schedule supplemental teachers differently from the traditional school day in order to fund some of the extended- day interventions that will be critical to success. For instance. 33 instead of a Title I teacher working during regular school hours, she/h^could come in at 10:00 a.m. and then work two hours at the end of the day with identified students who require extra time to learn. Waiver Application Requirements. The District provides the opportunity for schools to apply for a waiver from State and District policies, regulations, and programs, if they can demonstrate that their plan has the potential to be more effective with the students in their school. Waivers will continue as a possibility for PreK-3 literacy programs. Schools must, however, address the student mobility factor in their application since a powerful reason for consistency across all the schools in the district is the importance of this consistency for mobile students. i Supplemental reading/language arts programs initiated at the school level must meet the criteria of universally accepted characteristics of \"best practice\" in reading. Curriculum and Instruction Alignment. The PreK-3 LRSb language arts curriculum at each school shall be tightly aligned with the Arkansas and LRSb curriculum frameworks and the LRSb grade-level benchmarks. By combining aspects of phonics and whole language instruction, teachers can explicitly teach students the relationship between letters and sounds while increasing their comprehension skills and enthusiasm for reading by exposing them to interesting stories and real literature. In so doing, educators can actively address the major obstacles to effective readingdifficulty with the alphabetic principle, failure to acquire and use comprehension skills, and lack of motivation. (\"Beginning Reading Instruction\nResearch and Practice,\" The ERS Informed Educator Series. 1998. 5) 34Daily Sch\u0026amp;^le. All schools shall schedule and keep sacred a minimum of two and one-half hours daily for uninterrupted instruction in reading/ language arts. The following time allocations are not rigid. Rather, they are guidelines for teachers to use in planning how students should spend their timeboth to ensure that all the critical components are included and to ensure adequate time for student engagement in the activities. Twenty minutes ~ The teacher reads good literature aloud. The single most important activity for building the knowledge and skills eventually required for reading appears to be reading aloud to children regularly and interactively. (Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams, 124) Twenty minutes - Students are engaged in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary-building, and word study (word sorts, word walls, word families, spelling patterns) Letter recognition skills are strong predictors of reading success. (Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams, 124) Twenty minutes - Students are engaged in shared reading (teacher-guided discussions of reading, including language experience stories, big books, other literature) Children learn a great deal about both the nature and function of print through thoughtful interactions with adults. (Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams, 124) Thirty minutes - Students are engaged in independent reading at child's fluency level (wordless books, picture books, chapter books) 35Children should be given as much opportunity ang encouragement as possible to practice their reading. Beyond the basics, children's reading facility, as well as their vocabulary and conceptual growth, depends strongly on the amount of text they read. (Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams, 127) Twenty minutes - Students are engaged in writing (journal keeping, stories, responding to literature\nusing age- appropriate developmental spelling and drawing) Independent writing activities are a means of developing children's deeper appreciation of the nature of text and its comprehension. (Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams, 126) Forty minutes - Students are engaged in guided reading instruction (small group in which teacher provides support for development of reading strategies within student's zone of proximal development). The instructional level is the highest level at which the child can do satisfactory reading provided that he or she receives preparation and supervision from a teacher: errors in word recognition are not frequent, and comprehension and recall are satisfactory. (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998, 213) To nudge\" the children toward new understandings about reading, we want to provide assistance so that children can rehearse the text at a level that is just above where they function on their own. (Emerging Readers and Writers\" by Martha Combs, in Vygotsky in the Classroom, 1996,29) ? II 36Throughout the day, everydayStudents are engaged in activities designed to develop and to provide practice in enhancing their communication and social skills in the classroom, in the cafeteria, in before- and after-school activities, and on the playground. Additional time in language arts is also provided in the other content areas. For example, students should read and write within the context of a thematic unit at other times during the day. ... it is not only the time allocated for reading that is important. How that time is spent is also important. Low achievers generally are given less classroom time to read text than their higher achieving peers. When low achievers are asked to read, the reading tends to be oral, round-robin style, with the consequence that they read far fewer words, stories and books. (Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams, 118) Technology in PreK-3 , As with any resource, the teacher is the key to the successful integration of technology into an effective literacy plan. Instructional technology can be an extremely effective tool to engage, motivate, enhance, and accelerate learning if it is correlated to the goals and objectives being taught in the language arts curriculum and if it is seen as an integral part of the instructional day. Instructional technology is rarely effective if it does not meet those criteria. In the LRSD Literacy Plan, technology is to be used as a tool for achieving the teacher's instructional reading goals as planned by the teacher, not as a substitute for instruction by the teacher. Activities utilizing technology must also be consistent with the teaching strategies and principles outlined in the state's ELLA and Effective Literacy programs. 37If computer assisted instructional programs are used,^achers must be able to customize the instruction to include only the stories, concepts, or objectives that they are introducing during the 2 | hour instructional block. Computer assisted software can be used for whole group instruction, small group instruction, or individual instruction. Examples of appropriate use of this type of computer instruction are shared reading, familiar reading, art, music, spelling, language, and writing activities. Some appropriate examples of technology that can be used to enhance literacy skills are computers, video tapes, digital cameras, laser disk players, tape players, CD players, listening centers, TV/PC converters, scanners, camcorders, AlphaSmarts, and Talking Books. Limited-English Proficient Students. The District shall restructure its programs and services for limited-English proficient students in grades PreK-3 to align with this program design and to address the recommendations of the Office of Civil Rights as a result of their compliance review in April 1999. Many studies support the notion of a balanced literacy program as appropriate for students whose first language is not English, that is, programs that provide a balance of explicit instruction and student-directed activities that incorporate aspects of both traditional and meaningbased curricula. (Building a Knowledge Base in Reading by Jone Braunger and Jon Lewis, 1998, 25) Special Education and 504 Students. The diverse needs of special education and Section 504 children are included in this design, and the successful implementation of this plan is expected to reduce the numbers and percentages of children referred for special education or 504 programs and services relating to reading disabilities. 38Gifted/Talented Students. The needs of gifted/talented students are also included in this design. The ongoing^^ assessment of student performance and the regrouping of students for instruction shall enable advanced students to continue their own growth in all areas of the language arts. Each school is expected not only to decrease the percent of students performing at the lower levels, but also dramatically to increase the percent of students performing at the \"Proficient\" and \"Advanced\" levels. Frequent Assessment ond Regrouping for Instruction. Each school is encouraged to create a schedule to facilitate necessary changes and to design a grouping/re-grouping strategy, such as the regrouping strategies employed in Success for All or the modified Joplin plan to customize/ personalize guided reading activities. Tracking of students is unacceptable practice in the Little Rock School District, but short-term, flexible grouping based on individual student needs is a research-based, effective instructional strategy. Heterogeneous cooperative learning groups are strongly encouraged in all subject areas. Some research has found that long-term grouping of students by achievement or ability level is less effective than more flexible grouping based on specific, current skills of students. Such flexible grouping arrangements require that problem readers be monitored frequently on critical reading indicators, so that groups and instruction can be adjusted to their current needs, (p. 5, \"Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice,\" The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Phonemic Awareness. All kindergarten teachers shall receive professional development to teach Animated Literacy, an effective, research-based phonemic awareness component that is compatible with the planned overall reading/language arts program. Training for teachers and the necessary instructional materials for this intervention may be funded through the school's Title I budget. As schools acquire technology, there 39 are a,/miTiber of software systems that would also achieve this goal that the Campus Leadership Team may wish to consider. There are basic skills all students must acquire to read effectively. These skills include phonemic awareness, decoding strategies, vocabulary development, and comprehension strategies. (\"Beginning Reading Instruction\nResearch and Practice,\" The ERS Informed Educator Series. 1998. 2) Early Literacy Learning (ELLA). The centerpiece of the K-2 literacy program shall be Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), which includes a balanced literacy program, the reading process, writing strategies, assessment, spelling/phonics development, classroom management strategies, and word building. The instruction of the most effective teachers included attention to explicit teaching of skills, an emphasis on literature, and much reading and writing. The National Research Council synthesis also confirms that the best method for teaching children to read is coherent instruction that combines a variety of approaches. (\"Beginning Reading Instruction\nResearch and Practice,\" The ERS Informed Educator Serieg, 1998, 5) Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4. The Little Rock School District will also promote Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 through its professional development program. Instructional strategies developed through this training include those that help all students become fluent readers and writers. Components include\nbalanced literacy, reading, writing, phonetic skills and strategies, recognizing high frequency words, word attack skills, vocabulary development, comprehension skills and strategies, independent reading and 40 writing, class, management and organization, assessment, and parent involvement. Thematic Instruction, Thematic instruction is promoted and encouraged. Schools should provide for professional development, materials and supplies, and collaborative planning time for teachers to develop thematic units and to design assessments. The Social Nature of Learning. Given that learning is a social act, each teacher must acquire the skills to facilitate cooperative learning and other small group strategies so that student learning is mediated not only by the teacher, but also by peers. Additionally, the school must foster social interactions between and among children and between and among children and adults at every reasonable opportunityin classrooms, on the playground, in the cafeteria, and in before- and after-school programs. In this light, the practice of maintaining \"silent\" cafeterias is inappropriate. ... the fact that you learn to talk by talking implies that children should simply be allowed to talk far more than they currently do in school. The school norm of silent classrooms must be abolished\nironically, when teachers enforce the standard of silence, they are in a very real - sense making learning illegal. (Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in America's Schools by Steven Zemelman, Harvey Daniels, and Arthur Hyde, 14) Young children should engage in reading and writing experiences that integrate language and action in a social context. It is in the social context of literacy activity that children are able to interpret their literacy experiences and internalize knowledge about reading and writing. (\"Emerging Readers and Writers\" by Martha Combs in Vygotsky in the Classroom, 1996, 26) 41Role of the Library/Media Center. Each school shall ensjjre students' easy and frequent access (no fewer than one wo visits weekly) to the library/media center, and all students shall be encouraged through school-wide strategies to read as many books as possible for pleasure. Summer, winter-break, and spring break reading lists will be distributed to all LRSD children, beginning summer 1999. The library media specialist will collaborate with classroom teachers to make a connection between classroom activities and the library media program. Library media center activities will provide opportunities for students that involve reading, viewing, listening, writing and communicating. The library media program encourages and engages students in reading, viewing, and listening for understanding and enjoyment. (Information Power\nBuilding Partnerships for Learning, American Association of School Librarians, 1998, 66) Supplemental Reading Materials. Each school shall conduct an inventory of its PreK-3 classroom reading materials. Regular budgets and Title I funds may be used to acquire additional support materials, such as classroom literature sets and other sets of books to help teachers help students meet the curriculum standards and benchmarks in ways that address the needs of individual students, particularly those students functioning below the proficiency level. Comprehensive beginning reading programs are supported by adequate resources. (\"Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice,\" The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998, 3) 42Asscssment/Grading/Program Evaluation Frequent, Systematic Assessment. The District, in collaboration with the schools, shall create a systematic assessment system for grades PreK-3 so that student progress can be frequently monitored and aligned with LRSD benchmarks and Arkansas criterion-referenced tests and appropriate modifications made to the instructional program. The assessment components shall include a minimum of the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Running Records, etc., grades K-1 (diagnostic/prescriptive) LRSD Phonemic Awareness Assessment - K-1 (readiness profile) LRSD CRT - Criterion Reference Test - grades 2-3 Individual Reading Inventory, grades K-3 (as needed basis) Student portfolios to examine growth over time, grades K-3. Adequate progress in learning to read beyond the initial level depends on: having a working understanding of how sounds are represented alphabetically\ngetting sufficient practice in reading to achieve fluency with different kinds of text\nhaving sufficient background knowledge and vocabulary to render written texts meaningful and interesting\nacquiring control over strategies for monitoring comprehension and repairing misunderstandings\nand maintaining interest and motivation to read for a variety of purposes. (\"Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice,\" The ERS Informed Educator Series. 1998^4^ New Elementary Report Card. The District shall form a representative committee of staff and parents no later than June 1999 to redesign the elementary report card so that it reflects the standards-based approach to teaching and learning 43 and so that it provides more accurate and specific information to parents regarding their child's progress in meeting academic content standards of LRSD. b PreK-3 Literacy Program Evaluation. In keeping with the obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the District shall employ with Title I funding a program evaluator, who shall annually report on the level of effectiveness of the innovations in this PreK-3 Literacy Plan. Professional Development Teachers who teach reading must receive better training and engage in ongoing professional development in reading instruction. (\"Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice,\" The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998, 4) ELLA Troininq. ELLA training for K-2 teachers will begin in summer 1999 and continue through the school-year 1999-2000 until all teachers receive the basic training. The District will use a training for trainers model in order to accelerate the training and to build the capacity of teachers in each school to provide training and coaching to colleagues in order to ensure effective implementation. Funding has been requested to provide release time for at least three additional elementary reading specialists, who will provide initial training and then be in each school a minimum of one day per week to monitor and provide in-classroom coaching. Effective Literacy Troininq. As resources permit, training for grade 2-4 teachers will begin in the implementation of Effective Literacy. Success for All. Schools implementing Success for All hove been advised to include their training costs in their Title I budgets for 1999-2000. This training is provided by staff at the University of Memphis, with follow-up conducted locally. .T- ! 44Smart Start Professional Development. The District and each school should leverage as much as possible the profe,ssional development opportunities provided by ADE for Smart Start implementation, since the LRSD literacy plan is tightly aligned with Smart Start, which also promotes ELLA and Effective Literacy as recommended language arts programs. School-Level Professional Development. The District and each school shall create a professional development plan that reflects the standards for elementary school professional development (from the National Council for Staff Development) and which reflects the priorities in the School Improvement Plan (including the school's Title I plan), especially the implementation of ELLA. Each school's Campus Leadership Team is charged with the responsibility to create collaborative cultures to support change through activities associated with a professional learning community\n(1) collegial planning/teaming and assessment of student work\n(2) collective responsibility for results\n(3) ongoing, job-embedded learning\n(4) action research and inquiry\n(5) continuous improvement\n(6) empowerment through the activities of the Campus Leadership program. Principal Development. The District shall design and implement a professional development program for elementary principals and other administrators that is aligned with the PreK-3 Literacy Plan components. 45A report published by the Consortium on Reading Excellence advocates that inservice professional development should:  include current theory and research  provide training in assessment and instruction for phonemic awareness  convey dynamic methods to teach phonics and make use of connected texts  demonstrate effective ways to teach spelling that will reinforce reading  include a diagnostic tool kit that will enable teachers to teach what children need  include whole language strategies and powerful uses of literature  provide practice with children in a clinical setting with ample opportunity for feedback and support\nand  assist teachers to effectively implement balanced literacy programs. (\"Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice,\" The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998,6) Interventions Success for All. Schools currently implementing Success for All may continue, provided that the curriculum includes the Arkansas and LRSD academic standards and benchmarks. Student performance data should be thoroughly analyzed to determine the success of current practices, and then, if necessary, the program should be modified for improved results or abandoned. 7 46Reading Recovery. Schools implementing Reading Recovery may continue to do so with their Title I funding. Other schools may choose to redirect their Title I funding to this grade 1 intervention if the Campus Leadership Team makes this decision. Direct Instruction. Schools currently implementing Direct Instruction must seek a waiver to continue this program. Direct Instruction differs significantly in philosophy and methodology from the LRSD Literacy Plan, so consideration must be given to the implications for mobile students. Enqlish-as-g-Second Language (ESL). English-as-a-Second Language programs and services will be provided in the four Newcomer Centers for students who are limited-English proficient. These students need similar instruction as that required for other children to learn reading/language arts, but they will also require some extended time to become proficient in English. Limited-English proficient students attending other schools must also receive the necessary instruction, services, and support to move them as quickly as possible into English proficiency. Reading Clinic Intervention. Each school shall include in its Title I budget the funding for an after-school Reading Clinic or another research-based intervention to prevent reading failures before the end of the school year. Although volunteer tutors can provide very valuable practice and motivational support for children learning to read, the research does not show that they are effective in providing primary reading instruction or in helping children with serious learning difficulties. (\"Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice,\" The ERS Informed Educator Series. 1998,4^ 47srschool. The District shall !:* funding of summer school programs around the needs of grades K- students. The District shall design on intensive summ reading program patterned after the Reading Clinic approach. / Early identification and intervention are vital. Some children have more difficulty learning to read than others. Therefore, effective methods for preventing and addressing these difficulties must be included in any comprehensive Instruction instructional plan, f Beginning Hooding Research and Practice,' The FRS Informed Educator Series, 1998,4) Parent Education/Involvement Parent- strategies to .School Compacts. Each school is encouraged to identify embed the Title I mandated parent-school this vehicle as a compact in the culture of the school and to use P of improving school-to-parent communication and parent LRSD academic standards and benchmar s means 1 understanding of the and ways they can support their child's success. - J District shall align its parent education/ -3. including those involving Title I parents, ,iK-3 levels with the components of this PreK-3 Plan and with the PreK-3 provisions for mathematics the National Science Foundation project. Also. include the Strategy 2 Action Plan activities Parent Education. The involvement programs at the PreK-3 Literacy and science in this component will recently approved as amendments to the Strategic Plan. Title I parent involvement staff will be moved to the Volunteers in Public schools team so thatthey-con^b e I ,T,uen. .ul In the work of the Collaborative Action T^m, an initiative that will be developed in 1999-2000 with the influential in southwest Educational Development Lobjn Austin, Texas. Title I parent involvement will move more I 48with a concentration on building the capacity of schools to involve parents meaningfully in their children's education. Hess and Holloway (1984) identified five broad areas of family functioning that may influence reading development. They are\n1. Value placed on literacy\nby reading themselves and encouraging children to read, parents can demonstrate that they value reading. 2. Press for achievement\nby expressing their expectations for achievement by their children, providing reading instruction, and responding to the children's reading initiations and interest, parents can create a press for achievement. 3. Availability and instrumental use of reading materials\nliteracy experiences are more likely to occur in homes that contain children's books and other reading and writing materials. 4. Reading with children\nparents can read to preschoolers at bedtime or other times and can listen to schoolchildren's oral reading, providing assistance as needed. 5. Opportunities for verbal interaction\na lower quality of verbal interaction constitutes a risk factor primarily in that it relates closely to lowered child vocabulary scores. (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998, 121- 122) Conclusions These recommendations are the result of extensive study, collaboration, and thoughtful deliberation over more than two years and intensively during the last ten months. They convey a practical, meaningful, and doable framework for action that can and will, if properly sanctioned, lead to realization of the goal that all LRSD students will read independently by the end of the third grade. The committee recognizes that recommendations made by well- 49 meaning people often become unrealized hopes or dreams. We are committed to acti on these recommendations and, therefore, see^lie support of all in the implementation. We have agreed to continue to work together as a committee to oversee implementation of the recommendations. We will meet monthly to review progress and to ensure the cohesiveness of each action component. To help manage the tasks that lie ahead, we have developed a timeline that we believe should be immediately incorporated into the Division of Instruction's work plan for the remainder of the school year. Significant implementation tasks will be included in the 1999-2000 Work Plan of the Division of Instruction. In conclusion, to set as a goal that the District will ensure that all students are reading independently by the end of the third grade is ambitious, at the very least. Such a goal, however, is one that must be achieved, if all students are to have equitable access to an education that prepares them for productive adult lives in the twenty-first century. It is, therefore, imperative that the District provide unwavering support for the clearly focused, best-practice based, district-wide PreK-3 reading/language arts curriculum and program we believe our recommendations will provide. Such support requires dedication of all necessary resources to the effort, whether the resources are school-based or district based, district-funded or Title I supplemental. Campus-based decision making must be based on clear district guidelines and, if necessary, policy so that all schools in the LRSD exemplify \"best practice\" in the delivery of this critically important program. e 50Timelines Activities_______________________________ 1. Plan summer school curriculum, instructional focus, and professional development for summer 1999\nalso complete student selection process. 2, Identify timeline for delivery of training modules\nschedule dates, sites.______________ 3. bevelop criteria matrix for supplemental reading programs.________________________ 4. Conduct awareness sessions with elementary principals and teachers on the PreK-3 Literacy Plan.___________________________________ 5. Write guidelines/regulations for schools to follow when scheduling at grades PreK-3.______ 6. Write guidelines/teacher manual for two and one-half hour language arts block (make grade specific\ninclude how to/what to do/why do it/troubleshooting sections)._______________ 7. besign classroom profile rubrics (make grade specific\nformat status quo to most desirable matrix)._______________________________ 8. besign teacher practice rubrics._________ 9. besign criteria for materials selection (identify required materials\ndevelopment guidelines for additional materials)._________ 10. Complete PreK-3 standards, benchmarks, curriculum maps\npublish for teachers and parents._______________________________ 11, bevelop guidelines for thematic instruction. 12. bevelop assessment plan.______________ 13. bevelop training modules for each component part of plan.___________________ 14. Write guidelines for school implementation of After-School Reading Clinics. bate February 1999 February April April April April May May May May May May April and ongoing May 5 51Activities_________________________ 15. Begin module-based teacher training. 16. Order and distribute ELLA materials. 17. Reorganize HIPPY programs and services to be appropriate for age three and four students. 18. Provide to principals their projected Title I budgets, planning requirements, and other information related to the restructuring of Title I programs.__________________________ 19. Establish criteria for approval of Title I plans and communicate to principals and Campus Leadership Teams.______________________ 20. Compile lists of recommended reading for PreK-3 students for summer\npost in businesses and libraries around the community and provide to parents.________________________-______ 21. Review and approve Title I plans._________ 22. Plan and implement staff development for principals on the administration of the new plan. 23. Design, produce, and publish for fall distribution a parent brochure on the PreK-3 plan, including all components (such as Title I, Smart Start, etc.)._______________________ 24. Redesign the PreK-3 report cards so that communication with parents is improved._______ 25. Design the program evaluation study and set up data-collection procedures. bate June and ongoing June and July June April May May June June June July July 52LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 June 24,1999 To: Board of Education From: Dr. Bonnie Lesley,'Associate Superintendent for Instruction Through: Dr. Leslie V. Gamine, Superintendent of Schools Subject: Review of PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan Attached for the Boards information is a copy of the final draft of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan. The draft presented earlier to the Board of Education has been extensively  K .'-.u elementary principal and PreK-3 teacher received his or her own copy, and there have been multiple opportunities for all to provide reviewed over a three-month period. input, including during the June 2-3-4 inservice. In addition, the plan has been reviewed bv rrQenprrQeCsQenn+tantiiivuAeos orx-ff ODM, 1U I AA LI R, AA Dr-ifE, a__n__d_ i o_atih__e__r education colleagues, as well as by paren*t representatives. As a result of all this feedback, we confidently present this final draft. Responses have been nearly unanimously supportive. They applaud a well-designed, coherent District plan that is clearly aligned with the Arkansas literacy curriculum framework. Smart Start, and Title I regulations and that includes professional development and program evaluation components. All are supportive of doing whatever it takes to improve student achievement. Early implementors of the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), the centerpiece of the K-2 design, and Effective Literacy, the program for grades 3-4, were Dodd Elementary and Gibbs Elementary. The results of the spring 1999 Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Examination for these two schools are extremely encouraging and predict what we as a District can do if we implement well the components of our plan. levels. In W97-98 only 22 percent of Dodd grade 4 students scored at the \"Proficient or Advanced\" -------- This year, 1998-99, 35 percent scored at those levelsan improvement of 13 percentage points! ) Review of PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan - Memo June 24, 1999 Page Two Gibbs posted even greater gains. In 1997-98 they had 28 percent scoring at the \"Proficient or Advanced levels. Their score jumped to 49 percent in 1998-99an improvement of 21 percentage points! The PreK-3 Literacy Plan also allows for the continuation of Success for All, provided that those schools are posting improved performance. Romine Elementary has been a leader in Success for All implementation. Their performance jumped from 13 percent at Proficient or Advanced\" levels in 1997-98 to 48 percent in 1998-99an improvement of a very impressive 35 percentage points! Notable also is that Dodd decreased the percentage of students performing at the Below Basic level from 50 percent in 1997-98 to 30 percent in 1998-99an improvement of 20 percentage points. Gibbs reduced their percentage of \"Below Basic\" performers from 52 percent in 1997-98 to 22 percent in 1998-99an improvement of 30 percentage points. And Romine reduced the percentage of students at the \"Below Basic level from 58 percent in 1997-98 to 32 percent in 1998-99an improvement of 26 percentage points. These very dramatic gains are indicators of the soundness of the LRSD PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan design. To achieve these kinds of results at the District level will require our commitment, focus, and determination, as well as an alignment of our energy and resources behind the implementation. This final draft includes only a few changes from the earlier one reviewed by the Board of Education in March. The following are most significant: Update of section on Involvement and Communication to include March, April, May, and June activities (p. 11)\nUpdate of section on Arkansas Criterion-Referenced Tests to include spring 1999 results (p. 12)\nAddition of paragraph on schools identified for school improvement for Title I (p. 13)\nAddition of suggested performance indicators under Plan Goals (p. 26)\nAddition of section on \"Technology in PreK-3 in response to questions regarding role of computer labs in current use (p. 37)\nAddition of section on Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4 to show its place in the overall plan (p. 40)\nAddition of section on Role of the Library/Media Center to clarify expectations and involvement (p. 42)\nAddition of more specific information on plans for ELLA training (p. 44)\nAddition of a paragraph clarifying need for waiver to implement Direct Instruction (p. 47).Review of PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan - Memo June 24, 1999 Page Three Remaining changes were those relating to format, editing, and clarifying the original language. Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan is already in progress and will continue intensely throughout the summer in preparation for next fall. BAL/adg1 Io Level of ELLA training for K-2 teachers in the Little Rock School District 1 Teacher A. Outlaw C.Johnson D. Brooks D, McGowan A. Hesselbein A. McLennan K K 1 1 2 2 School Badgett D 1 X XX X X X D2 X X X XX X D 3 D4 D 5 D6 D 7 D 8 D 9 DIO D11 D12 I I i I M. Hotto K. Rosby K. Shute C. Brown K. Cole T. Littell K K K 1 1 1 Bale L. Cunningham 2 H. Talley M. Balenko 2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X r S. Clevenger Lamb B. Love B. Deaton B. Garner M. James C. Sharp B. Thomas D. Neal K K K1 1 1 2 2 Baseline X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Teacher,. Grade K. Bierbaum K School Booker Day 1 Day 2 Day3 Day4 Days Day6 Day7 Day8 Day9 Day10Day11 Day12 V. Jeffries J. Post T. Sexton B. Walls Y. Davis A. Jones J. Taylor J. Wolfe M. McGill D. Fair T. Higdon K. Lang M. Rhines K K K K 1 1 1 1 RR 2 2 2 2 D. Washington 2 F. Dugan P. Jones I. Tolbert M. Griggs S. Rose M. Wood G. Cromedy B. Koon G. Shells K K K 1 1 1 2 2 Brady S. Daniel A. Doyne M. Hooker K K K Carver X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X XX X XX X X XX X X X X X XX X XXX X y X X X X X X XX X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X XX X XX X X X XX X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX 72 72 '72 X X K X XX XX XX X X X I X XX X X X X X X X X X X X 72 y X X X XX X 72 X X X X X X X X I X X X X X f X Teacher P. Ruehr H. House D. Moix K 1 1 T. Richardson 1 E. Skubal J.Joseph T. Moore H. Shields 1 2 2 2 L. Yarbrough 2 J. Crum______I L. Glenn_____1 D. Runion R R R School Carver 1 X X X X XX X X X X X X 2 X X X X X X X X X X XX 3 X X X X X X X X 4 X X 5 X X 6 X X 7 X ^2 8X9 10 11 12 X X XX X X X X XX X X X X X XX X X X X X X X 72 X XX X P. Kerr S. Mims D. Sabo L. Baker P. Teeter K. Chu K Hicks S. Eans L. Neal K K K 1 1 1 2 2 Chicot X XXXX X X XX XXX XXXX XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X J. Wells J. Burgin I. Baird 2 T1 Chicot V. Gershner T1 K. Murph ESL X X X X X XX X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X I I I f J Teacher______ B. Epperson K School Cloverdale M. McClain S. Rolax G. Cokeley S. Hall K. Shuffield D.Johnson G. Miller A. Vanecko K. Wine K K1 1 1 2 2 2 S. Blue V. Hare A. Raines K K 1 S. Chambers 1 J. Meeks K. Palmer C. Price T. Knapp 2 2 3 S. Schouweiler J. Yeager RR David ODodd R, Brown L. Lewis M. Delozier R. Powell T. Goacher B. Corbin O. Rice K K 1 1 2 7. Fair Park D 1 X X XX X X X D2 X XX X XX X D 3 D4 D5 D6 D 7 D8 D9 D10 D11 D12 f I I X X X XXXX XXXX X X X X X X X X X XX XX X X X X X X X X X 1 X X XX XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXX XXX XXX XX XXX XX X X X X XXX X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X XX X XX XXXX X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X r Teacher A. Riley Grade T1 School Fair Park D 1 X D2 X D 3 X D4 X D5 X D6 X D7 X D8 X D9 X D10 X D11 X D12 C. Moore C. Signaigo S. White C. Wenger D. Williams K. Isroff S. Bauman L. Gwin J, Ghent J. Hall K K K 1 1 1 2 2 R Forest Park X X X X X X X X XX X X X , X X X XX X X f M. Holley Z. Madison A. Myrick M. Moore T. Anderson B. Butler C. Simpson M. Watson S. Campbell L. Gray Y Stuckey D. Strozyk K K K K1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Franklin P. Washington RR S.Jackson RR X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXX X X XX X X XX XX X X XX X X X XX X X X X XX XX XX X X X X X X X X XX XX XX X X X X X X X X XX X XX X X XX XX X X XX XXXXX X 72 X 72 X X D. Cooper K Fulbright X X X b X X X X XX X X XX X XX X X X X X X X X X XX I I I Teacher  L. Fausett J. Hurd______ G. Wyatt B. Westlake M. Henthorne R. Dukes P. Gray_____ C. Penn____ M. Neikirk B. Hipp RR K K K 1 1 12 2 2 School Fullbright D 1 X X X X X X X X X X D2 X XXXX X X X X X D 3 X XX X X D4 XX XX X D 5 X XX X X D 6 X X XX X D 7 XXX X X D 8 X X X X X D 9 D10 D11 D12 I X X X X X X X X X X X X X X C. Goss K. Holloway T. Arnold April Chandler K. Armstrong E. Miller S. Sims K K1 1 2 T1 2 Garland XX XXX X X X S. Lee______ P. Puckett P. Ross S. Cole K. Ray_____ Gentry Hardesty J. Dumas S. Talley F. Thompson Geyer Springs K K1 1 2 2 RR K K Gibbs X X X X X XX X XX X XX XX X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X 72 X X X X X I f Teacher A. Walters C. Biome ~ M. Miller T. Skarda S. Hestir K. Huffman Ann Hurd School K. Brotherton B. Dorman S. Richardson S. Hawk B. Ramsey Y. Luckadue M. Lankford B. Muench J. Thornton E. Miller R. Stone J. Lloyd T. Courtney M. Darr ~ G. Glasco J. Pence D, Lawson T. Fleming C. Sanders K 1 1 1 2 2 RR K K K1 1 12 22 RR Sp Ed PK nr K K K K 1 1 Jefferson M L. King D 1 X X X X X X X D2 X XX XX X X D 3 X X D4 XX D5 XX D 6 X X D 7 X X D8 X X D9 X X D10 X X D11 D12 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X XX X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X I 1 + l X X X X X X X X X X X X X I X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X __ X X X X X X X X Teacher R. Thorrias 1 School King K. Ashcraft Sp. Ed N. Bohannon J. Brooks M. Cooper L. Fletcher \"B. Harris 2 2 2 2 2 D. Finkbeiner CC I. Betton R C. Hansen D. Hudgens K. Whittaker C. Durham M. Jascuzzi S. Pinkerton J. Kathon J. Moore K. Witt L. Spencer K K K1 1 1 2 2 2 R M. Greenwood K E. ONeal G. Sanders P, Doan S. Thompson D. Willis N. Downing E. James K K1 1 12 2 Mabelvale McDermott D 1 X X XXX X X X X D2 X XX XXX X X X D 3 X D4 X D5 X D6 X D7 X D 8 X D 9 DIO D11 D12 I X X X X 72 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X XXX XX X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X f X X X XX X XA I I I I I-Teacher________ M. Washington 2 M. Butts D. Morgan J. Mason K. Thomas L. Bishop K. Burgess K K 1 1 2 2 School McDermott Meadowcliff D 1 X D2 X D3 X D4 X D 5 X D 6 X D 7 D8 D9 D10 D11 D12 I X X X X X X X X X X K. Potter T. Shorter S. Heffern G. Marshall P. Allen R. Harshaw K K1 1 2 2 Mitchell X XX X X X Ettatricia Hall V. Hall D, Howard K. Vaughn D, Broyles T. Cole_____ V. Mitchell S. Courtois L. Hayes K K K K 1 1 1 2 2 Otter Creek X XXX XX X X T. DeClue J. Neal_____ N. Massanelli KK 1 Pulaski Heights X XX X . X X XXX X X X X X XX XX XX XX XX X X X X XX XX XXX X X X XX X X X X XX X X XX XXX X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X I X X X Teacher,, Y. Petterson School 1 E. Maeweather 2 J. Matheny 2 D 1 X XX D2 X X X D3 D4 D5 D6 D 7 D 8 D9 D10 D11 D12 F. Dodson J. Reb J. Irby B. Fincher S. Walker K K 1 2 2 Rightsell XX X X X X X X X X A. Atwood V. Butts G. Glover C. Blackwell D, Gross J.May_____ B. Kuhlmann P. Maddox H. Williams K K K 1 1 1 2 7. 7 Rockefeller X X X X X XX X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X r XX X X XX X X X X X X X X X XI X I I A. Inman M. Jackson L. Nauden P. King C. Twaddle K K K 1 1 D. Waldrop ESL K. Brooks J. Gall J. Moore 2 2 2 Romine X XX X X XX X X X X X XX Teacher. A, Filiatreau Grubbs V. Harkin 7.. Madison B. Gwatney J. Holmes J. Alley A. Batt G. Hoffman A. Moore L. Gilliam M. Meachum B. Samler S. Smelco H. Pruett M. Rowe K iC K K K K 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 ESL R School Terry D 1 X IT XX X D 2 X X X X D 3 X X~ D4 X D 5 X X~ D 6 X T D 7 X D8 X D 9 D10 D11 D12 X X X X X X XXX X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X f X X X X X X X X X XXX X X X X X X X X 72 M Banks B. Batnes L. Hickerson J. Berry B. Stuart M. Branch J. Manley J. Stage K K K 1 1 1 2 2 Wakefield G. Washington 2 D. Davis B. Thomas R. Broussard R PreK K Washington X XX XX XX X X X X X XXX X X X X X X XX X X XX X X X X X X X XXX XX X X X X X XX XX X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X I X XX X X XX X X X X X X X X I I r I I Teacher. H. Brown M. Sellers R, Steward N. Thomas Lori Jeffrey C. McClain S. Speaks T. Sproles B. Brown K. Bujarski D. Conine M. Smith L. Umerah K. Worsham K K K K 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 School Washington D 1 X X D2 X X D3 D4 D5. D 6 D7 D 8 D 9 D10 D11 D12 K. Bull N. David J. Thomas E. Dupre L. Reed M. Sharpe B. Baggett M. Dawson C. Fox K K K1 1 1 2 2 7. Watson L. Pugh V. Webb M. Thomas J. Welborn K K1 1 Western Hills X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X .. / r Teacher- T. Klaus S. Thomas 2 2 School_____ Western Hills D 1 X X D2 X X D3 D4 D 5 D6 D7 D8 D 9 D10 D11 D12 F. Babbs R, Pulinski M. Bradberry K. Church E. Mobley T. Stoelzing B. Bowden K. Latch F. Martin Lynn Haney K K K 1 1 1 2 2 2 RR Williams X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X I I X X X X X X X X X X L. Carpenter E. Davis M. Dorsey K K K Wilson S. Krannichfeld 1 P. Lemon K. Reeves S. West 1 2 SpED E. Schoemakerljl A. Finn_____ M. Mitchell M. Thomas L. Tygart E. Brooks F. Williamson K K 1 1 2 2 Woodruff X XX X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X XX X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1/2 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grades K-2 Deflnition of Proflcient $ The Arkansas Department of Education has defined performance at four levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced for the Benchmark examinations that are administered at grades 4, 6, and 8 and the end-of-level examinations for designated high school courses. Proficient is the performance standard that all students should achieve. The ADE definition follows: Proficient students demonstrate solid academic performance for the grade tested and are well-prepared for the next level of schooling. They can use Arkansas established reading, writing, and mathematics skills and knowledge to solve problems and complete tasks on their own. Students can tie ideas together and explain the ways their ideas are connected. The Developmental Reading Assessment allows us to assess reading levels of students through a one-on-one test reading conference between teacher and student. Teachers observe student performance during the test, make notes on reading behaviors, and score the performance as they go along. 9 To gauge which level on the DRA is equivalent to how Arkansas defines proficiency,' the staff used national reading standards for each grade level and then identified the DRA level that corresponds to that specific performance. Standards and DRA equivalents by grade level follow: SfaiffeTjeveT Kindergarten Children at the aid of kindagarten should understand that eyery word in a text says somahing specific. They can demonstrate this competence by reading Level B books that they have not seat before, but that have been previewed for them, attending to each word in sequence and getting most of them correct. ft'S Assessment texts A through 2 consist of a Grade 1 By the end of the year, we expect first-grade students to be able to\nread Level 16 books that they have not seen before, but that have been previewed for them, with 90 pacent or betta accuracy of wad recognition (self-correction allowed). When they read aloud, we expect first gradas to sound like they know what they are reading. Fluent readers may pause occasionally to work out difficult passages. By the end of the year, we expect first-grade students to be able to independently read aloud from Level 1 books that have been previewed for them, using intonation, pauses and emphasis that signal the structure of the sentence and the meaning of the text. repeated word or sentence pattern with natural language structures. The simple illustrations include animals and objects fem iliar to primary children and highly support the text. One ar two lines of text appear on the left page and are large and well spaced so that children can point as they read. The number of words in the texts ranges from ten to thirty-six._______________ Assessment texts 16 through 28 are stories with beginnings, middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content begins to move beyond childrens personal expadences and builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other stades. Literacy language structures are integrated with natural language. Some description of characters and setting is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of difficulty. Gradel By the end of the year, we expect second-grade students to be able to independently read aloud unfamiliar Level 24 books with 90 percent or better accuracy of word recognition (self-correction allowed). Assessment texts 16 through 28 are stories with beginnings, middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content begins to move beyond childrens personal experiences and builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with natural language. Some description of characters and setting is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or beneath die illustrations, or a full page. The number of words in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of difficulty. 7/19/00 Little Rock School District (Zeroes included, missing data excluded) SY1999-2000 Developmental Reading Assessment Students At or Above Readiness Level By School Spring Reading Assessment School Grade Readiness Score Cutoff* K Districtwide 1 2 Below 544 27.8% 908 46.4% 620 32.5% At or above 1414 72.2% 1048 53.6% 1289 67.5% Total 1958 100% 1956 100% 1909 100% K Badgett 1 2 29 78.4% 32 94.1% 30 88.2% 8 21.6% 2 5.9% 4 11.8% 37 100% 34 100% 34 100% K Bale 1 2 22 41.5% 16 33.3% 12 27.9% 31 58.5% 32 66.7% 31 72.1% 53 100% 48 100% 43 100% K Baseline 1 2 22 48.9% 38 70.4% 18 52.9% 23 51.1% 16 29.6% 16 47.1% 45 100% 54 100% 34 100% K Booker 1 2 15 19% 27 30.7% 18 20.2% 64 81% 61 69.3% 71 79.8% 79 100% 88 100% 89 100% K Brady 1 2 9 23.1% 41 65.1% 14 29.2% 30 76.9% 22 34.9% 34 70.8% 39 100% 63 100% 48 100% i. * Cutoff scores: K = 2, 1st = 16, 2nd = 24 DRA2 by School 7/19/00 Little Rock School District (Zeroes included, missing data excluded) SY1999-2000 Developmental Reading Assessment Students At or Above Readiness Level By School Spring Reading Assessment School Grade Readiness Score Cutoff* K Carver 1 2 Below 15 19.5% 16 23.9% 16 18.2% At or above 62 80.5% 51 76.1% 72 81.8% Total 77 100% 67 100% 88 100% K Chicot 1 2 36 43.9% 60 73.2% 43 61.4% 46 56.1% 22 26.8% 27 38.6% 82 100% 82 100% 70 100% K Cloverdale 1 2 24 43.6% 48 71.6% 24 42.1% 31 56.4% 19 28.4% 33 57.9% 55 100% 81 100%, 57 100% K Dodd 1 2 5 13.5% 10 41.7% 14 48.3% 32 86.5% 14 58.3% 15 51.7% 87 100%, 24 100% 29 100% K Fair Park 1 2 13 31.7% 12 37.5% 13 37.1% 28 68.3% 20 62.5% 22 62.9% 41 100% 32 100% 35 100% K Forest Park 1 2 23 44.2% 16 30.2% 5 10.4% 29 55.8% 37 69.8% 43 89.6% 52 100% 53 100% 48 100%  * Cutoff scores: K = 2,1st - 16, 2nd = 24 DRA2 by School 7/19/00 Little Rock School District (Zeroes included, missing data excluded) SY1999-2000 Developmental Reading Assessment Students At or Above Readiness Level By School Spring Reading Assessment School Grade Readiness Score Cutoff* K Franklin 1 2 Below 25 35.7% 28 42.4% 13 78.8% At or above 45 64.3% 38 57.6% 56 87.2% Total 70 700% 66 700% 69 100%, K Fulbright 1 2 3 5.5% 23 39% 12 20.7% 52 94.5% 36 67% 46 79.3% 55 700% 59 700% 58 700% K Garland 1 2 29 59.2% 28 76.5% 33 68.8% 20 40.8% 8 23.5% 15 37.3% 49 700% 34 100% 48 100% K Geyer Springs 1 2 7 14.9%, 25 53.2% 11 27.5% 40 85.7% 22 46.8% 29 72.5% 47 700% 47 700% 40 700% K Gibbs 1 2 4 70.8% 15 34.7% 8 79.5% 33 89.2% 29 65.9% 33 80.5%, 37 100%, 44 700% 41 100% K Jefferson 1 2 6 10.5%, 17 30.9% 22 28.9% 51 89.5% 38 69.7% 54 77.7% 57 700% 55 700% 78 100%, It * Cutoff scores: K-2, 1st= 16, 2nd ~ 24 DRA2 by Schoch 7/19/00 Little Rock School District (Zeroes included, missing data excluded) SY1999-2000 Developmental Reading Assessment Students At or Above Readiness Level By School Spring Reading Assessment School Grade Readiness Score Cutoff* K King 1 2 Below 32 36.4% 46 43.4% 19 79.2% At or above 56 63.6% 60 56.6% 80 80.8% Total 88 700% 106 700% 99 700% K Mabelvale Elem 1 2 23 39% 30 49.2% 30 50.6% 36 67% 31 50.8% 23 43.4% 59 700% 61 700% 53 100% K McDermott 1 2 3 5.2% 11 79.6% 23 32.9% 55 94.8% 45 80.4% 47 67.7% 58 100% 56 100% 70 100%, K Meadowcliff 1 2 7 22.6% 12 30% 16 42.7% 24 77.4% 28 70% 22 57.9% 31 700% 40 700% 38 700% K Mitchell 1 2 3 9.4% 27 75% 19 57.4% 29 90.6% 9 25% 18 48.6% 32 100% 36 100% 37 700% K Otter Creek 1 2 7 9.6% 21 32.3% 5 72.8% 66 90.4% 44 6Z.1% 34 87.2% 73 100% 65 100% 39 700% 'I \u0026lt; * Cutoff scores: K = 2, 1st = 16, 2nd - 24 DRA2 by School imioo Little Rock School District (Zeroes included, missing data excluded) SY1999-2000 Developmental Reading Assessment Students At or Above Readiness Level By School Spring Reading Assessment School Grade Readiness Score Cutoff* K Pulaski Hgts Elem 1 2 Below 7 17.5% 24 50% 23 54.8% At or above 33 82.5% 24 50% 19 45.2% Total 40 100% 48 100%, 42 100%, K Rightsell 1 2 3 7.9% 27 64.3% 2 5.3% 35 93.1% 15 35.7% 36 94.7%, 38 100% 42 100% 38 100%, K Rockefeller 1 2 16 24.2% 14 23.7% 16 28.6% 50 75.8% 45 76.3% 40 71.4% 66 100% 59 100% 56 roo% K Romine 1 2 21 33.3% 19 40.4% 15 31.3% 42 66.7% 28 59.6% 33 68.8% 63 100% 47 100% 48 100% K Terry 1 2 8 8.1% 45 52.9% 16 18.8% 91 91.9%, 40 47.1% 69 81.2% 99 100% 85 100% 85 100% K Wakefield 1 2 33 53.2% 46 78% 30 60% 29 46.8% 13 22% 20 40% 62 100% 59 100%, 50 100%, * Cutoff scores: K~2, 1st 16, 2nd = 24 DRA2bySchoot 7/19/00 Little Rock School District (Zeroes included, missing data excluded) SY1999-2000 Developmental Reading Assessment Students At or Above Readiness Level By School Spring Reading Assessment School Grade Readiness Score Cutoff* Below I At or above Total K Washington 1 2 13 18.8% 49 64.5% 29 36.7% 56 81.2% 27 35.5% 50 63.3% 66 100% 76 100% 79 100% K Watson 1 2 34 43.6% 55 75.3% 31 45.6% 44 56.4% 18 24.7% 37 54.4% 78 100%, 73 100% 68 100% K WeSeht+iills 1 2 8 25% 8 18.8%, 4 10.5%, 24 75% 35 81.4% 34 89.5% 32 100% 43 100%, 38 100%, K-Williams 1 2 6 10.9%, 10 15.9% 7 10.3%, 49 89.1% 53 84.1% 61 89.7% 55 100%, 63 100%, 68 100%, K Wilson 1 2 19 33.3% 7 17.1%, 19 39.6% 38 66.7% 34 82.9% 29 60.4% 57 100% 41 100%, 48 100%, K Woodruff 1 2 12 30.8% 6 IS.8%, 10 21.7% 27 69.2% 32 84.2%, 36 78.3% 39 100% 38 roo% 46 100% * Cutoff scores: K-2, 1st = 16, 2nd - 24 DRA2 by Schoo/ .Correlations Intervention = Success for All, Grade = Kindergarten Correlations Amount ot I raining Hours ftSAej ftEAD_S' DRA Change: Fall to Spring Hearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Amount of Training Hours --------TW 379 -.145' .006 358 -.223' .000 352 -.137* .029 254 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). a. Intervention = Success for All, Grade = Kindergarten READ_F ------7^3' .006 358 1.000 373 .625* .000 353 .142* .021 265 READ_S ------ 7523' .000 352 .625*'' .000 353 1.000 380 .860' .000 265 DRA Change\nFall to Spring 7T37 .029 254 .142* .021 265 .860* .000 265 1.000 265 Intervention = Success for All, Grade = First Grade Correlations Amount of I raining Hours READ_F REAC.S DRA Change\nFall to Spring Hearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Amount of Training Hours --------TW 433 -.130' .009 406 -.181' .000 396 ** -.118* .027 354 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant al the 0.05 level (2-tailed). a. Intervention = Success for All, Grade = First Grade READ_F ----- TW .009 406 1.000 TP* 406 .573' .000 372 -.011 .830 354 lirii READ_S ------TfTF' .000 396 .573**' .000 372 1.000 399 .840 .000 354 I** DRA Change\nFall to Spring 7713^ .027 354 -.011 .830 354 .840*' .000 354 1.000 354 Intervention = Success for All, Grade = Second Grade Pagel Draft 8/15/00 Correlations Amount of I raining Hours T5EA'CrS DPa Change: Fall to Spring Hearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Amount of Training Hours n!!3U' 390 -.216 .000 376 -.234 .000 354 .104 .065 314 READ F .000 376 1.000 376 .857 .000 344 -.071 .208 314 READ_S ------723^' .000 354 ,857*' .000 344 1.000 356 .475 .000 314 DRA Change: Fall to Spring ------------- jnjT .065 314 -.071 .208 314 .475 .000 314 1.000 314 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a. Intervention = Success for All, Grade = Second Grade Intervention = Early Literacy Model, Grade = Kindergarten Correlations Amount of I raining Hours 'REAC)_P ^aD_S' DRA Change: Fall to Spring Hearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Amount of Training Hours ------- 384 -.071 .167 378 -.007 .892 377 .025 .648 338 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a. Intervention = Early Literacy Model, Grade = Kindergarten READ F ----- TUTT .167 378 1.000 381 .835' .000 377 .569 .000 340 READ_S ------TDCT .892 377 .835 .000 377 1.000 380 .928 .000 340 DRA Change: Fall to Spring ------------- .648 338 .569* .000 340 .928*' .000 340 1.000 340 Intervention = Early Literacy Model, Grade = First Grade Page 2 Draft 8/15/00 Correlations Amount ot I raining Hours RaD_F DRA Change: Fall to Spring Hearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Amount of Training Hours -------TW 378 .061 .247 363 .182 .001 357 .213 .000 343 I *4 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a. Intervention = Early Literacy Model, Grade = First Grade READ_F -------TiST .247 363 1.000 364 .604** .000 349 -.027 .618 343 READ_S ------- .001 357 .604**' .000 349 1.000 359 .784 .000 343 Intervention = Early Literacy Model, Grade = Second Grade Correlations Amount ot I raining Hours READ_F READ_S DRA Change: Fall to Spring Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Amount of Training Hours -------TW 378 -.266' .000 354 -.102 .059 347 .154' .010 282 READ_F ----- 7555\" .000 354 1.000 355 .739 .000 328 -.384 .000 283- **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a. Intervention = Early Literacy Model, Grade = Second Grade READ_S ----- \u0026lt;137 .059 347 .739 .000 328 1.000 349 .291 .000 283 Intervention = Direct Instruction, Grade = Kindergarten DRA Change: Fall to Spring ------------- 713^ .000 343 -.027 .618 343 .784* .000 343 1.000 343 DRA Change: Fall to Spring -------------13^ .010 282 -.384* .000 283 .291* .000 283 1.000 283 Page 3 Draft 8/15/00 Correlations Amount of I raining Hours F^6AO_F ReAb_S DRA Change: Fall to Spring Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Amount of Training Hours -------TW 69 .108 .380 68 .010 .934 65 -.092 .495 57 READ_F .380 68 1.000 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a. Intervention = Direct Instruction, Grade = Kindergarten 68 .695**' .000 65 .403**  .002 57 Intervention = Direct Instruction, Grade = First Grade Amount ot I raining Hours 'read_p RAD_S CRA Change: Fall to Spring Correlations Pearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Amount of Training Hours nw 75 -.088 .498 62 -.028 .833 60 .004 .978 59 READ_F ----- TCST .498 62 1.000 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a. Intervention = Direct Instruction, Grade = First Grade 62 .816* .000 60 .593' .000 59 READ_S W .934 65 .695' .000 65 1.000 65 .947' .000 57 *4 READ_S nw .833 60 .816 .000 60 1.000 60 .950 .000 59 Intervention = Direct Instruction, Grade = Second Grade DRA Change: Fall to Spring ------------Tcsr .495 57 .403*\" .002 __________57_ .947* .000 __________5^ 1.000 57 DRA Change: Fall to Spring -------------\"W .978 --------------- 5_9_ .593* .000 59 .950* .000 59 1.000 59 Page 4 Draft 8/15/00 Correlations^ Am\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_1748","title":"Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to report by the Office of Desegregation Management, PCSSD's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and filing extension, PCSSD's response to court's order dated October 16, 2003, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Pulaski County Special School District","High schools","Sylvan Hills High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School enrollment","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School integration","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to report by the Office of Desegregation Management, PCSSD's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and filing extension, PCSSD's response to court's order dated October 16, 2003, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1748"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["51 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, notice of filing, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to report issued by the Office of Desegregation Management on the implementation of Plan 2000; District Court, response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for an award of attorneys' fees; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief and reply to response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for an award of attorneys' fees; Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time in which to file their brief and appendix; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to the court's order dated October 16, 2003; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NOTICE OF FILING RECEIVED OCT 2 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD hereby gives notice of its filing of its response to Office of Desegregation Monitoring Report dated May 8, 2003. 451168-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October 1, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via 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 \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 451168-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 2 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT September 29, 2003 Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ann: 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 www.pcssd.org (501) 490-2000 - Enclosed is Pulaski County Special School District's reply to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring Report on the Implementation of Plan 2000, May 8, 2003. Department heads and others with responsibilities to the Plan have submitted responses to the status report in consultation with the Office of Equity and Pupil Services. If you have any questions please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, w~ Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services B /l-1.-....t-  16~)-.a.-o-- Dr. Brenda Bowles, Director of Equity and Multicultural Education C Dr. Don Henderson, Superintendent of Education Sam Jones RESPONSE TO REPORT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN 2000 RECEIVED OCT 2 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dr. Don Henderson Superintendent of Education September 2003 Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 John C. Fendley, Jr. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE RECEIVED OC1 7 1003 Off\\CE Of DESEGREGAllOK MOtll10ft1KG Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar. us October 6, 2003 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed the Arkansas Department of Education's Response to PCSSD's Motion for Attorneys ' Fees which has been filed today. MAH Enclosure cc: Mr. Scott Smith Very truly yours, --yri~-~ MARK A. HAGEMEIER Assistant Attorney General / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. RECEIVED OCT 7 2003 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR AN AW ARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES Comes now the Defendant Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\"), by and through its counsel, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney General Mark Hagemeier, and for its response to PCSSD's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees (\"Fee Petition\"), states as follows: I. Introduction Legal counsel for PCSSD seeks a total fee award of $78,326.50 for work allegedly associated with its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and For Allied Relief (\"Motion to Enforce\") filed with this Court on July 25, 2003. On August 18, 2003, this Court conducted a three-hour hearing on issues raised in the Motion to Enforce, and later that same day it issued an order ruling that the State Board of Education's (\"SBE\") action authorizing an election on the issue of detachment of the Jacksonville Area School System from PCS SD violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. For the reasons stated below, ADE submits the fee petition of PCSSD is unreasonable and should be reduced accordingly. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT - 9 2003 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: ______ -=:,-=,-- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHQA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED () e,t, 1 '1 ?nn~ OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is Pulaski County Special School District's Renewed and Supplemental Motion - Regarding Sylvan Hills Band Room (Doc. No. 3809), which was amended on September 26, 2003. 1 Also Pending is PCSSD's Motion for Temporary Portable Buildings at Robinson High School (Doc. No. 3810). No parties have responded to the PCSSD's motions, and their time for doing so has now expired.2 Sylvan Hills' Band Room In its motion regarding the Sylvan Hills Band Room, PCSSD requests authorization to lease a portable building to use as the Sylvan Hills band room for the remainder of the 2003-2004 1On September 26, 2003, PCSSD filed an Amended and Supplemental Motion Regarding the Sylvan Hills Band Room (Doc. No. 3811). In this motion, PCCSD revoked its request for permission to build a new permanent band room at Sylvan Hills, which was in the original motion (Doc. No. 3809); accordingly, I will not address the issue of a permanent band room at this time. 2See Local Rule 7.2. oEP CLERK 8 1 5 school year. PCS SD asserts that this portable building is necessary because of recurring water problems with Sylvan Hills' current band room. Robinson High School Portable Buildings According to PCCSD, for a variety ofreasons, the emollment at Robinson High School has significantly increased for the 2003-2004 school year. Because ofthis increase, Robinson -High School is presently conducting classes in the cafeteria, band room, auditorium, and gymnasium. As a temporary remedy to accommodate this increased emollment, while permanent classroom additions are considered, the PCSSD requests permission to lease two portable building for the remainder of the 2003-2004 school year. CONCLUSION The PCSSD's Amended and Supplemental Motion Regarding the Sylvan Hills Band Room (Doc. No. 38011) requesting permission to lease a portable building for the Sylvan Hills band room, for the remainder of the 2003-2004, school year is GRANTED. The PCSSD's motion (Doc. No. 3810) requesting permission to lease two portable buildings, for the remainder of the 2003-2004 school year, to accommodate increased emollment at Robinson High School is GRANTED. IT JS SO ORDERED thi/day of October, 2003. I ;;/J, 0 ~ 4tt UNIJL~J~~ THIS DOCUMENT El\\ffER!::u ui'-J DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WIT~1LE...;)8 AN~cr . ON{O ~ 0~ BY S\u0026gt; \u0026amp;- WM. R. WTLSON, JR. 2 __ EDWti:~t,i,ll'.,f1G.HL ______ -4.,.,-R-I6H-T-;-J:;-JN-1:\u0026gt;-S-EY--\u0026amp;-J-E-N-N-I-N6S- J:;-J:;-P------ ~~~BfR2U~~~ TUCKER ROBERTS. LINDSEY TROY A. PRICE (1913 - 1991 ) ATTORNEYS AT LAW PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS ISAAC A. SCOTT , JR . KATHRYN A. PRYOR JOHN G. LILE 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE J . MARK DAVIS ~g~~~~ -SG~~~~~! JR . SUITE 2300 ~~t:~\\,5,H~:NsN~~~COCK C. DOUGLAS BUFORD , JR . LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201-3699 JERRY J. SALLINGS PATRICK l. GOSS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON ALSTON JENNINGS , JR . (501) 371-0808 MICHAEL D. BARNES JOHN R. TISDALE STEPHEN R. LANCASTER ~~~~'..Ytfe~~~~:~ 111 FAX (501) 376-9442 ~uy~1 ~~~~CsooNN WILBER ~i~NJ.W~tilt:1o~IVEY 111 www . wlj .com iRis~~ ~~i::-::o~N N.M . NORTON J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY CHARLES C. PRICE M. SEAN HATCH CHARLES T. COLEMAN l. ANDREW VINES JAMES l. GLOVER OF COUNSEL JUSTIN T, ALLEN ~~~~~i/t:~HER, JR. ALSTON JENNINGS ~~g~;':.L;D~E!A1i_~~ERLING GREGORY T. JONES RONALD A. MA y PATRICK D. WILSON H. KEITH MORRISON BRUCE R. LINDSEY REGINA A. SPAULDING BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN JAMES R. VAN DOVER MARY ELIZABETH ELDRIDGE WALTER McSPADDEN BLAKES. RUTHERFORD JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Wri1cr ' s Dircc1 Di al No . 501 -212-1273 mjoncs@wlj .com October 10, 2003  LioetlJlod,opncticebehretbt: UaitedSUta h1t:111ADIIT111doswtO/lia RECEIVED OCT 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: Enclosed is a courtesy copy of the PCSSD's brief and reply to response to PCSSD's motion for an Award of attorneys' fees. The reply is accompanied by my supplemental affidavit. We ask the Court to consider both items. Thank you very much. MSJ:ao Encl. cc/w/encl.: 453145-vl Cordially yours, 2:~EY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP e_:;mre/ones, m Honorable J. Thomas Ray (via hand delivery) Mr. Timothy Gauger (U.S. Mail) All Counsel of Record (U.S. Mail) RECEIVED ---- .1-------------------------lJOlv-C.\\l--.1i._::,4;__,7u,Dn..,u..3,.'---- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. 0FFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S BRIEF AND REPLY TO RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR AN AW ARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES The PCSSD for its reply, which tracks the format of the State's Response, states: IV. Argument A. An Hourly Rate at $215 Per Hour is Appropriate. While counsel for the PCSSD voluntarily grants the PCSSD a 30 % discount, the State is not entitled to the same discount for violating the 1989 Settlement Agreement. The State's only current financial consequence for violating the 1989 Settlement Agreement is its exposure for attorney's fees. Indeed, if the State could be assured that future violations would warrant no more exposure than the discounted rate given to the PCS SD, then the State would have even less incentive to hew the line and abide by the Settlement Agreement. B. The Number of Hours Expended is Reasonable. Significantly, the State does not directly challenge the total number of hours expended. Rather, it seeks to avoid attorney fee responsibility in some instances by questioning, without citation to authority, the forums before whom the legal efforts were initially made. As we will explain, the relevant cases demonstrate the fallacy of the State's position. 452284-v1 The United States Supreme Court has squarely addressed these issues in Pennsylvania, et al. v. Delaware Valley Citizens Council for Clean Air, et al., 478 U.S. 546 (1986). In 1977 a citizens group, Delaware Valley, filed suit to compel Pennsylvania to implement a vehicle emission inspection program. A consent decree was entered in 1978 calling for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to seek legislation instituting the program. Id. @ 549. Thereafter, the Pennsylvania legislature balked at implementing the provisions of the consent decree. In this protracted case, the Supreme Court divided the procedural history after the consent decree thereafter into nine phases. For purposes of this analysis, only the relevant phases will be referred to. Phase IX of the case included work done by Delaware Valley in hearings before the Environmental Protection Agency in which the State unsuccessfully sought the EPA approval of a reduced emissions program. Delaware Valley then filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs for all work performed after issuance of the consent decree including the work before the administrative agency. Id. @ 553. Among other matters, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had affirmed the District Court's fee award including an award of fees for time spent \"commenting\" on the State's proposed emission regulations promulgated during Phase II. It likewise approved the award of fees for work done at the administrative level citing the Supreme Court case of Webb v. Board of Education of Dyer County, 4 71 U.S. 234 ( 1985), in which the Supreme Court held that time spent on \"optional administrative proceedings\" may be compensable under  1988 if the work was \"both useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to advance the ... litigation\" to the point where the parties succeeded. Id. @ 556. 452284-v1 2 -- - - --- ------------- The Supreme Court rejected challenges from the State that the proceedings involved in Phases II and IX were not judicial in the sense that they did not occur in a courtroom or involved traditional legal work. The Supreme Court reasoned that the work done by counsel in these two phases was as necessary to the attainment of adequate relief for their client as was all of their earlier work in the courtroom which secured Delaware Valley's initial success in obtaining the consent decree. Id. @ 558. It said: Protection of the full scope of relief afforded by the consent decree was thus crucial to safeguard the interests asserted by Delaware Valley; and enforcement of the decree, whether in the courtroom before a judge, or in front of a regulatory agency with power to modify the substance of the program ordered by the court, involved the type of work which is properly compensable as a cost of litigation ... . Id. @ 558. Finally, the Court observed that: Several courts have held that, in the context of the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C.  1988, postjudgment monitoring of a consent decree is a compensable activity for which counsel is entitled to a reasonable fee. Id. @ 559. After engaging in a discussion concerning the similarities between 304 (d) (the Clean Air Act) and 1988 (the Civil Rights Act), the Court noted that: 452284-v1 Given the common purpose of both  304 (d) and  1988 to promote citizen enforcement of important federal policies, we find no reason not to interpret both provisions governing attorney's fees in the same manner. We hold, therefore, that the fact that the work done by counsel in Phases II and IX did not occur in the context of traditional judicial litigation does not preclude an award of reasonable attorney's fees under  304 (d) for the work done during these portions of the present action. Id.@ 560. 3 Many other cases support the position of the PCSSD in these regards. For instance, in Schlimgen v. City of Rapid City, 83 F .Supp.2d 1061 (D.S.D 2000), the plaintiff was fired as a city employee after he opposed a new real estate development. He appealed his termination to the Department of Labor claiming his termination was a violation of his civil and constitutional rights. Id. @ 1065. The Department of Labor agreed. Plaintiff then filed an action in Federal Court seeking damages and attorneys' fees. Rapid City claimed that as a matter of law Schlimgen was not entitled to attorneys' fees related to the earlier Department of Labor hearing. In interpreting 42 U .S.C.  1988, the District Court disagreed. As the District Court explained: The claim must be for specific portions of work product from an earlier administrative proceeding. The work done must be useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to advance the civil rights litigation to the stage it has reached. 42 U.S.C.  1988 awards are not limited to work performed after the complaint is filed . ... fees may be awarded for \"research or investigation done in connection with\" a related proceeding, to the extent it \"proved directly relevant to the successful prosecution of the later civil rights\" action. The District Court also noted that Mr. Schlimgen's DOL action was not one to enforce a specific civil rights statute. Id. @ 1071. Here, however, the efforts of the PCSSD in opposing the detachment were all directed toward preventing the State from violating the 1989 Settlement Agreement, an effort which this Court has previously ruled triggers  1988 including liability for attorneys' fees. (Please see orders cited at pages 2 and 3 of counsel's initial affidavit.) Lambert v. Fulton County, GA, 151 F.Supp.2d 1364 (N.D.Ga. 2000), is to the same effect. Lambert was an employment discrimination case in which the procedural history included an appeal to the Fulton County Personnel Board before the federal court action was 452284-v1 4 I I initiated. Id. @ 1368. The defendant claimed that the time spent on the appeal to the Fulton - County Board was non-compensable. Id. The District Court disagreed. The District Court began its analysis by noting that: The starting point for calculating reasonable attorneys' fees is \"the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate\" for the attorneys' services. After calculating the lodestar, the court may within its discretion adjust the amount upwards or downwards based on a number of factors, such as the quality of the results obtained and the legal representation provided. Id. @ 1369. In further addressing the lodestar issue, Judge Thrash explained that: As to the work performed, compensable activities include pre-litigation services in preparation of filing the lawsuit, background research and reading in complex cases, productive attorney discussions and strategy sessions, negotiations, routine activities such as making telephone calls and reading mail related to the case, monitoring and enforcing the favorable judgment, and even preparing and litigating the request for attorneys' fees. Id.@ 1369-70. As to the time spent on the administrative proceeding, the Court noted that: A court should award attorneys' fees for time \"spent on administrative proceedings to enforce the civil rights claim prior to the litigation.\" The District Court also noted that: In this case, Plaintiffs' appeal to the Fulton County Personnel Board was not required for them to file this suit ... . Because the proceedings before the Fulton County Personnel Board were not mandatory, time spent on them is not automatically compensable. The Court, however, concludes that time spent on these proceedings should be compensated because they were \"useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to secure the final result obtained from the litigation.\" Here, of course, the PCSSD would have likely committed procedural suicide by not opposing the detachment proceedings initiated by the State Board of Education. Despite that fact, and at a minimum, the State Board proceeding served as a vehicle to conduct discovery through the FOIA, to delineate and brief the myriad legal issues and importantly served as a 452284-v1 5 vehicle whereby the State was presented with an opportunity to avoid its current liability by - comporting its actions with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. 1. The State Court Case. At least three observations are appropriate here. First, \"but for\" the State's passage and activation of the detachment statute, the State Court case would have never been filed. Second, most of the work involved in the State Court case involved identifying, researching and setting forth the legal issues which were generated by the passage of the statute and its activation by the State. Third, most if not all of the issues could have been brought as part of the Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement as matters of pendent jurisdiction. 2. The State Board of Education Proceedings. Had the PCSSD not opposed the detachment process before the State Board of Education, the argument would have undoubtedly been made that it waived its right to seek relief in this Court by not exhausting its administrative remedies. The PCSSD, as a signatory to the 1989 Settlement Agreement, had no choice but to argue to the State Board of Education, among other matters, that the Board's actions were violating the 1989 Settlement Agreement in at least two particulars. Further, the motion and brief ultimately filed before this Court was in substantial measure an adaptation of the written submissions the PCSSD made to the State Board. Thus, most of the submissions made to this Court by the PCSSD were largely researched and documented as part of the process of opposing the detachment before he State Board of Education. Again, but for passage of a statute which violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement, there would have been no appearances before the State Board because the State Board would not have had this process to engage. 452284-v1 6 3-4. The Passage of the Legislation. The Settlement Agreement itself requires the PCSSD to identify, every biennium, those recent legislative acts or regulations which impede desegregation. Here, the PCSSD identified the legislation while it was still pending and, had the legislature heeded the opposition of the PCSSD to the legislation, and refused to pass the detachment statute, the State would have no _pending fee petition to defend against. 5. Appeal Time. The State's observations concerning premature appeal time are probably correct. C. Other Practices. 1. All of the time entries presented in the petition are for work directly associated with the detachment issue. Except for those entries which have been lined through, counsel for the PCSSD had no other issues pending for the PCSSD during the relevant time period. 2. That which the State regards as \"file maintenance\" is actually part of the on-going effort to maintain a \"computer searchable data base\" for the documents, orders, pleadings, etc. generated in this case. This permits a voidance of time-consuming manual searches and assists counsel in locating decades old documents, orders and pleadings through key word searches. 3. The PCSSD believes that the clippings review helped supply a more cogent and refreshed context for many of the events which surrounded the drafting and legislative journey of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Given Arkansas' singular lack of formal legislative history, the PCSSD believes that the results of these efforts fall within the broad framework of Rule 807 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 452284-v1 7 4. The docket review was to locate orders, pleadings and Court of Appeals - decisions which bore upon the issue of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and other potential issues. 5. The fee petition contains no \"block billing\" whatsoever. Most if not all of the alleged \"block billings\" are clearly described and invariably relate to a discreet issue or activity. Conclusion. Significantly, the State does not contend that any time was wasted or that excessive time was recorded. The absence of such an argument helps to bring the issue full circle to the core question' of: Was the time reasonably expended toward the end of securing relief from a State created process which both violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement and previous orders of this Court? Having reviewed the State's response, the answer to this question appears to be clearly \"yes\" . But for the State's consideration of, passage of and activation of this detachment statute, there would be no fee petition for this Court to consider. 452284-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By ______ +--------1,-------- M. Atto cial Sch 8 I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October 10, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 452284-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 UJonesIII 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF SAM JONES PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. All of the matters contained herein are responsive to positions and statements made by the State as respects the fee petition of the PCSSD. 2. All of the time entries for which the PCSSD seeks reimbursement were directly related to and in furtherance of prevailing on the issue of the Jacksonville detachment effort. 3. The activities which the State characterizes as \"file maintenance\" are actually on-going efforts to maintain a computer searchable database for all of the documents, orders, pleadings and other paper generated in this case to promote efficiency and avoid wasted time in retrieving such documents, particularly documents which are several years old. 4. The clippings review was both necessary as a historical and legal exercise but was particularly time-consuming because it involved, among other matters, an era during which the State still had two statewide newspapers, generated news stories on the \"school 453181-v1 case\" on an almost daily basis, and involved hundreds of newspapers stories for the period of time in 1989 reviewed. 5. The \"document review\" was appropriate to locate those pleadings, orders, etc. which might have significance for the interpretation and implementation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 6. The fee petition does not contain any block billing. The time entries are clearly described and all relate to the legal effort to defeat the detachment issue. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, on this 10th day of October, 2003. My Commission Expires: dean\"ie Lacour, Notary Public Pulaski County, Arkansas My Commission Exp. 12,20.2008 453181-v1 Public 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October 10, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 453181-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 WILL BOND BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN TRIAL LAWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS 72076 NEIL CHAMBERLIN October 14, 2003 VIA FAX (314)244-2780 Michael E. Gans, Clerk Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 24.329 Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse 111 S. lO ili Street St . Louis, MO 63101 (314) 244-2400 TELEPHONE: (501) 982-9081 FAX: (501 ) 982-9414 RECEIVED OCT l fl 2003 OfflCEOF O~tGRi'GATIOtl M0Nff08Ul6 RE : United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, Case No. 03-3088 - Motion for Extension Dear Mr. Gans: Attached is a Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File Brief and Appendix in the above - referenced case. Please file and return a file-marked copy to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. TWB:ab Atch(s) cc: Greg Bollen Sam Jones Scott Smith Christopher Heller John W. Walker P.A. Mark Burnette Stephen Jones Ann -Marshall Karla Burnett Tim Gauger l.school district detachment . eighth circuit.appeal \\ clerk. oct.14 . 03 st Regards, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT RECEIVED OCT 1 6 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No . 0 3 - 3 0 8 8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. _MRS . LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER DEFENDANTS (APPELLEES) INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS/MOVANTS (APPELLANTS) MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE THEIR BRIEF AND APPENDIX Comes the Appellants, the proposed Bollen Intervenors, by and through their attorney, Will Bond, and for thei r Motion for Ex tension of Time in Which to File Their Brief and Appendix, state: 1 . On or about August 20, 2003, Appellants filed an Emergency Motion for Expedited Review Requesting Suspension of the Rules pursuant Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Motion for Emergency Stay of Judgment o f the District Court. This request came immediately following the decision of the District Court which was adverse to the Appellants. Appellants had received approval from the Arkansas State Board of Education to proceed with an election concerning detachment from Pulaski County Special District. The election was to take place on September 16, 2003. The request for expedited review and the stay was denied by this court. 2. Leading up to the filing of the appeal and the Motion for Expedited Review, Appellants' counsel had spent significant time preparing for and appearing in front of the Arkansas State Board of Education, the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, and the Federal District Court. Appellants' counsel has been and continues to work on the case on a pro bona basis. Appellants' counsel is in a partnership with one other attorney and two staff members. The issue of detachment, and the litigation leading up to the current appeal, has taken a significant amount of office time and attorney time to pursue. Following the denial of the stay, Appellants' counsel essentially had to get back to work on matters which pay the bills. 3. The need for expedited review of the case has become moot. The election date has passed and the next possible election upon which the issue of detachment could appear on the ballot would be a school election occurring in September of 2004 or the general election occurring in November of 2004. 4. An extension of time in which to file Appellants' brief and appendix is necessitated because: (a) Appellants' counsel himself has been \"strapped\" in court appearances and dealing with trial dates and briefing schedules in numerous cases from August 20, 2003 until October 13, 2003. 2 (b) Appellants' counsel's administrative assistant was out numerous days in late September undergoing medical treatment and was on vacation October 6 through October 10. (c) Appellants' counsel has also spent significant time since August 20, 2003 dealing with Legislative issues related to education because of his service as a State _Representative in Arkansas. The Arkansas Legislature is dealing with the impending State Supreme Court deadline dealing with the inequities and inadequacies of the Arkansas Public School System. 5. Appellants request an extension of time until November 6, 2003 in which to file their brief and appendix. A short extension will allow Appellants to properly prepare the appeal. Appellants' counsel does not believe any further extensions will be necessitated short of his death. Respectfully Submitted, Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin Attorneys for Plaintiff 602 West Main Street Jacksonville, AR 7 76 Telephone (501) 9 -9081 Telefax (501) 9 By: Wil CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC I, Will Bond, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing pleading by United States Mail, addressed to such attorney or party with suff/Ft prepaid postage to ensure first-class delivery this day of October, 2003: Mr. Sam Jones Via Fax@ 376-9442 Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, LLP 200 W. Capitol, Ste. 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 3 Telephone (501)371-0808 Scott Smith State Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone 376-2011 John W. Walker P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Telephone (501)374-3758 Via Fax@ 682-4249 Via Fax@ 376-2147 Via Fax @ 374 - 4187 Mr. Mark Burnette Via Fax @ 375 - 1940 Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 378-7870 Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone (501)375-1122 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Karla Burnett Suite 400, 201 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone 340-8285 4 Via Fax @ 375-1027 Via Fax@ 371-0100 Via Fax \u0026amp; 340-8282 Tim Gauger Senior Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 Telephone 682-2586 By: Via Fax \u0026amp; 682-2591 l.school district detachment . eighth circuit.appealmotion tor extension.oct.14 . 03 5 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS lNTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OCT 1 6 2003 UTILE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK By: , DEPCLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPE:CIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET Al.. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATIIERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS lNTERVENORS On July 29, 2003, I .received the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's proposed budget for the 2003-2004 fiscal yea.r.1 I have attached a copy of the budget to this order, and ifthere are any objections, parties must respond within five days; otherwise, the ODM's proposed budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of October, 2003. THIS DOCUfvic.1'-11 c:NTEH~C, ON JOC!\u0026lt;ET SHEET ,N COMPLIANCE NITH feLE 58 i~N~~mC[ oN_j_O t~/(} 3 BY~ t, t vJ~k~ UNITED STATESD!STIUCDGE W~l. R. WILSON, JR. 1Althou~ the proposed budget was oriJ?inally presented in April, pursuant to an order of this court, action was postponed in consideration of any decisions made by the 8th Circuit while - the case was on appeal. Travel: Expenditures for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with traveling or business, such as parking fees. Payments for per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. 2002-'13 Budget 2002-03 \u0026amp;pendltures 2003-04 Budget 200.00 184.66 2,459.00 ,~ .. . .. , ., /J,J, last year, the budget includes gUErSt parking and reimbursement to support staff ror the mileage they drive in their own vehicles on official business, an amount bud,eled at $175. The remainder is for travel and lodging associated with the two training events explained above in Due and Fees, one for $1 ,132 and the other for $1,152. amounts that are the average of the previous costs for each of lhelie two events. Insurance: Expenditures for all types of insurance coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgmeints. 2002~1 Budget 2002-03 Ellpendltures 2003-04 Budget 544.00 544.00 712.00 '---------- ... , Our Insurance has increased to the ;amount shown. We were unable to find an underwritel\" at a lower rate. Page 7 Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid in behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but are over and above. Such payments are fringe benefit payments. 2002-03 Budget 2002.03 Expenditur'ff 2003--04 Budget 91,166.00 92,935.16* 80,018.00 ..... ,..,.,,_ .. \"Expenditures exceeded budget Ill; an unforeseen result of provisions In Act 11 of 1999, which govems certain aspecla of the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and the Teacher Deferred Retirement Option Plan (T-Orop), which Ms. Marshall entered at the conclusion of Iha 2002-03 fiscal year. Below is a breakdown by categoiy of each employee's 2003-04 budgeted fringe benefits. Increases in this category are due in part to recently-enacted legislation that changed retirement contributions. Some decrease resulted from Ms Mar:,hall's entrv into T-Droo. - Name car so,:tat Retire Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Slloct Total Allowance 8ec:1Jrtty meni !Qtlon\" lne. lndemnit.)' Term Benefits Marshall 1.800.00 7,119.82 1,208.22 2,478.43 44.16 250.32 60.96 62.88 13,024.79 Jones 960.00 4.573.78 -0- -0- -0- -0- --0- --0- 5,533.78 Powell 1,200.00 5,451.79 9,281 .48 2,478.43 44.16 250.32 60.96 62.88 18,840.0Z --\"\"'\"\"\"'' ......  .. --- .... _ --.. - --.-- .... ....... , ..... ., ...- -.-~,., ,._. ... .~ . .. -.................... _.. ................ ~_. ... .... ... _._, ______ Smith 1,200.00 5,481 .79 9,281 .48 2.478.43 44.16 250.32 60.96 62.88 18,840.02 Ramer 0.00 4,030.71 6,849.57 2,478.43 44.16 250.32 60.86 62.88 13,7n.03 , Bryant 0.00 2,235.25 3,798.47 2,478.43 27.60 250.32 60.98 62.88 8,913.91 Act 11 of 1999 403.08 684.97 1,088.05 T~I 5,180.00 2!1,286.22 . 31 ,104.19 12,392.15 204.24 '  1,251 .6Q 3Q4.80  314.40. so.011.00 . \"Rates for hospitalization have increased this year, but the exact proportion that will be charged for each employee will not be known until LRSO negotiations have been finalized. F,,r budget preparation, we have estimated the Increase at 10%. Staff Development: Serv:ices petfonned by persons qualified to assist in enhancing the quality of the operation. ---~ -- -03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 0.00 0.00 ., ... -  .. -... , ... _..,.,. ..... - - . .... --.... ~--~-- - 2003-04 Budget 0.00 Supplies: Expenditures for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid for material items of atn expendable nature that are consumed, worn out, or deteriorated in use or items that lose their identity through fabrication or incorporation into different or more complex units or substances. 2002-03 Budget 2002..03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 6,643.00 4,999.77 6,000.00 - ---------  -- ---Hh - Page6 Repairs and Maintenan1te; Expenditures for repairs and maintenance services which restore equipment to its original :rtate or are a part of a routine preventive maintenance program. This includes service contracts and contractual agreements covering the maintenance and operation of equipment and equipment systems. 2002.()'3 Budget 2002..03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 400.00 408.85 400.00 ----- - -- -~- Resource Library: Expenditures for regular or incidental purchases of library books available for general use. 2002--03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' ----- -- Salaries: Salaries are the :amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a permanent or temporary nature. 2002~3 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 110,770.00 422,618.40\" 405,419.00 .. *ExpendilUres exceeded buoget as an unforeseen result of proV1s1ons in Act 11 of 1999, Which governs certain aspects of the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and the Teacher Deferred Retirement Option Plan (T-Drop), which Ms. Marshall entered at the conclusion of the 2002-03 f1SCal year. Below is a breakdown of each employee's budgeted 2003-04 salary, reflecting a 2% base increase for Ms. Marshall and, for the remaining employees, a 3.29% base increase, which is equal to or less than the annual step increase on the salary scales of the local districts. - -.. -  N\u0026amp;Jine of Employee 2002-03 Salary 2003..CJ4 salary AnriMarshall 116,688.00 119,022.00 Melina Guldin 1 21 ,842.00 0.00 Gene Joneti 2 57,021.00 58,828.00 Margie Powell 67,960.00 70,196.00 Horace Smith 67,960.00 70,196.00 .. --- ----- --..   --'- --- Polly Ramer 51 ,011 .00 52,689.00 Linda Bryant 28,288.00 29,219.00 ..,.,. __. _, ., ... _...,.._..,J,. ,., J_,._,._. ___ _.. . ,. . .. ..........,. .-..~ ....- ---.--\"\"' Act 11 of 1999 s 5,269.00 . Totial 410,770.00 405,419.00 'Melissa Guldin retired on September 30, 2002. 2Gene Jones, who works 4/5 time, 1?1ected to receive payment ror annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits; his salary reflects that decision. 3Polly Ramer will complete her 28111 )'8ar under Iha Arkansas Teacher Retirement System on June 30. 2004 and will enter the Teacher Deferred Retirement Option Plan fr-Drop) on that date. Act 11 of 1999 entitles Ms. Ramer to receive the amount noted. which is compensation for unused leave, as she enters TDrop. Pages - Management Services: S,ervices performed by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy area or in general operations. This category includes consultants, individually or as a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. I-~  3 Budget 2002-03 Expenditur9s 2003-04 Budget 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 Periodicals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at regular intervals ofless than a year and continuing for an indefinite period. ~ - - 3Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 80.00 79.94 121.00 -- The budget covers the cost of !he 1\\rkan\u0026amp;as Democrat-Gazette, a daily source of current information on events that directly affect the school districts we monitor. Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job printing and bindmg, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003--04 Budget 6,000.00 4,902.74 6,000.00 Professional and Technkal Services: Services which by their nature can be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 1,700.00 1,700.00 1,700.00 ..-~-- - Rent: Expenditures for lea.sing or renting land and buildings for both temporary and long-range use . .... ~ ....... 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-G4 Budget 47,896.00 47,256.02 48,880.00 Page4 - EXPENDITURES Note: Definitions of expmse categories are from the Arkansas School F'inancial Accounting Manual. Communications: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages or infonnation. This category includes telephone services as well as postage machine rental and postag,:. ~ 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 9,700.00 8,416.88 8,000.00 -~ ~ We were able to reduoe this budgeli category by arranging to operate on fewer phone lines. Dues and Fees: Expenditures or assessment for membership in professional or other organizations or associations or payments to a paying agent for services provided. such as conference registration fees. 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 ExpenditurN 2003-414 Budget ..... 439.00 439.00 735.00 The allotment for 200304 includes regis1ration fees for two professional events that are integral to maintaining staff skills that directly serve the mission of ODM. One is the International Association of Facilitatons, a one\u0026amp;-a-year intense training event in which Ms, Marshall hes participated fur a number of years to hone her facmtatlon ekilla by learning and pracliclng new techniques and methodologies fur facilitation, negotiation, promoUng dialogue, team building, problem solving, and conflict resolution among the parties, school perBOnnel, and patmna. The second is the National Counselors' Conference for ODM associate Ms. Powell, who is a nationally board certifl8d counselor. The conference provides professional development pertaining not only to counseling, but to special education, gifted and talentEd education, alternative learning, discipline, and achievement, all areas that she is charged with monitoring. Equipment: Expenditure:; for the initial, additional, and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. , ......... dget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-414 Budget 0.00 0.00 500.00 One of our printers, an old machine, has quit working. The repair service has told us the machine is not salvageable due to Its age. The amount budgeted in lhis categ~ry is to replace the printer, which is indispensable office equipment. Food Services: Ex:pendi1tures for food or preparation and serving of food. which may include catering. 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003--04 Budget 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---~--- Page3 ANNOTATED ODM BUDGET FOR2003-04 REVENUE The Court's Interim Order ,'.)f June 27, 1989 required that: ... [T]he amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Co-op) [$200,000.00] shall be applied toward the budget of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor .... The balance of the budget will be apportioned among the school districts on a. per pupil basis .... Eighth Circuit Order ofDet:-ember 12, 1990: ... [11he office previ,:msly known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring .... 10/1/02 %of Total 200~ 2002-03 2003-1)4 Enrollment Enrollment Budget Crull Estimated Allocation (Budget Budget not spent) PaymJlt LRSD 25,430 48.43 177,217 724 176,493 --~ .... NLRSO 8,796 16.75 61,292 250 61,042 PCSSD 18,283 34.82 127,415 520 126,895 - - '\" \"- State of AR NIA NIA 200,000 NIA 200,000 _,_,,,,_ .. Total .52,509 100.00 565,924 1,494  564,430 This chart shows that the 2003-04 Budget Allocation, the 2002-03 Credit and the 2003-04 BudgetPayment are apportioned among the three school dilitricts according lo last year's OCtober 1 enrollment numbers. After the finel 2003-04 enrollment has been tallied, we wiU adjust the figures according~, and notify each district of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's 2003-04 budget Described below is the step-by-step process, reflected in the chart above, that we use to detennine each district's contribution to the ODM budget: 1. The State of Arkansas' contribution ($200,000.00) is subtracted from ODM's total budget. 2. Based on the previous year's October 1 enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share ofODM's budget (minus the state's contribution). 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share ( or estimated share) of ODM' s unspent budget for the previous year. 4. Each district contriibutes that sum to ODM' s budget or, if the credit has been estimated, each district will be notified of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's budget before the close of the cU1Tent fiscal year. . ' OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONIT., O. RING. BUD-GET FOR 2003-04 Rf:VENUE 2002-03 2002-03 2003-o4 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET State of Arkansa1; 200,000;00 200,000.00 200,000.00 - - - LRSO Budget alloca~,t\u0026gt;n 184,295.00 184,295.00 177,217.00 Minus credit fn:,m previous year ________4_., 4 ___,_7__0__9___.0___0__ _ ........4..4...,.7..0...9....0...0.. . 724.00 ..... .......................... Equals LRSD's share of the budget 139,588.00 139,586.00 176,493.00 NLRSD Budget allocati,:,n 63,740.00 63,740.00 61,292.00 Minus credit frc,m previous year 15,463.00 15,463.00 250.00 ----------------------- uunuon onuu ............. ________________ Equal!! NLRSD's share of the budget 48,277.00 48,277.00 81,042.00 PCSSO Budget allocati,;,n 132,503.00 132,503.00 127,415.00 Minus credit frtrn previous year 32,144.00 32,144.00 520.00 OOOHOO OOOH o  o      n o ............................ Equals PCSSO's share of the budget 100,359.00 100,359.00 126,895.00 - Interest 0.00 5,441 .10 0.00 Total Revenue 580,638.00 585,979:10 565,924.00 Note: The sum of the credits in the chart above is the unspent amount of our previous year's OUdget, including bank interest eaml!d. Every budget cycle, ODM applies this amount toward each school district's budgeted ;illocatlon. Both that allocaUon and the credit are determined for the proposed budget by the previous yea(s October 1 enrollment numbers, then adjusted accordingly when the enro!lment number.; for the current year become available. -  ' EXPENDITURES 2002-03 2002--03 2003-04 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET Communications 9,700.00 8,416.88 8,000.00   .- __,-, , .Y  \"-_, Dues and Fees 439.00 439.00 735.00 ,_.., _____ -- Equipment 0.00 0.00 500.00 Food Seivices 0.00 0.00 0.00 Management Seri,icea 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 -Pe-riodicals 80.00 79.94 121.00 Printing \u0026amp; Blndln{1 6,000.00 4,902.74 8,000.00 Prof \u0026amp; Tech Services 1,700.00 1,700.00 1,700.00 -- ------- -.. Rent 47,896.00 47,256.02 48,860.00 Repairs \u0026amp; Maintenance 400.00 408.85 400.00 Resource Library 0.00 0.00 0.00 Salaries 410,no.oo 422,618.40 405,419.00 Benefits 91,168.00 92,935.16 80,018.00 -- ------ Staff Developmerlt 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supplies 6,643.00 4,999.77 6,000.00 Tfl!vel 200.00 184.-66 2,459.00 Insurance - 544.00 544.00 712.00 Total El(pendltu~s 580,538.00 584,485;42 565,924.00 Difference (Income minus Expenditures) 0.00 1,493.68 0.00 TO: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 There are l pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge Wm. R. Wils U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW - PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, E'I'. AL. RECEIVED OCT 2 2 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER DATED OCTOBER 16, 2003 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS This responds to the Court's Order dated October 16, 2003, regarding the ODM proposed budget for the 2003-2004 fiscal year. I am authorized to state that so long as the allocations proposed are not changed, the PCSSD has no objection to the proposed budget. 455118-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 0) ounty Special I I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October}, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via 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 \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM  One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 455118-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower . 425 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Raymond Simon Director State Board of Education JoNell Caldwell, Chair UttleRock Shelby Hillman, Vice Chair Carlisle Luke Gordy Van Buren Robert Hackler Mountain Home Calvin King Marianna Randy Lawson Bentonville A aneRebick - Rock Diane Tatum Pine Bluff Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Liltle Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 October 31, 2003 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 http:l larkedu.slale.ar.us RECEIVED f\\!OV 3 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of October 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, 11~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier 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 NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for October 2003. Respectfully Submitted, Scott Smitn,#92251 Attorney, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - I, Scott Smith, certify that on October \u0026amp;\u0026gt;-rl.\\ , 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2003 Bas~d on'th.~ 'iqfor,friatio~'availab!e. at .Septen.,~( 301'2003, the ADE, calcuiated the Equaiizat,oi;iJl:ilridin9tor i=Y63i64;:sob;ecf fo:penoic adjustmerlfa. 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.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_327","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Assessment Processes (Examples)''","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":["1998/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Assessment Processes (Examples)''"],"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/327"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":["488 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nASSESSMENT PROCESSES ( EXAMPLES)zro mm z (A o f Assessment Processes (Examples) 1. Memorandum to elementary and junior high principals, Nov. 16, 1998, on schedule for picking up SAT9 testing materials 2. Memorandum to elementary school principals, Dec. 14, 1998, on procedures for upcoming administration of the criterion-referenced tests in reading and mathematics 3. Memorandum to elementary and junior high principals, Jan. 5, 1999, on the testing procedures for grades 4 and 8 ACTAAP Benchmark examinations fi 4. Memorandum to elementary and junior high principals and counselors, Jan. 26, 1999, on inservice schedule for test coordinators for the ACTAP Benchmarks for grades 4 and 8 5. Memorandum to selected administrators on Data Quality with attached paper written by Dr. Glytm Ligon 6. Memorandum to elementary principals, Aug. 17, 1999, relating to use of released items from Smart Start assessments 1. E-mail to curriculum staff, Aug. 23, 1999, relating to use of released items from Smart Start assessments 8. E-mail to elementary and middle school principals, Sept. 17, 1999, inviting them to an overview session on the new pre- and post-test Achievement Level Tests developed by Northwest Evaluation Association.  9. Memorandum in Sept. 22, 1999, Learning Links to prineipals identifying training needs to administer the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment 10. Memorandum to principals and K-2 teachers in March 15, 2000, Learning Links setting up an assessment training review for the Developmental Reading Assessment and Observation Survey 11. E-mail to Bormie Lesley on Mar. 17, 2000, suggesting a resource on how to assess technology knowledge 12. Memorandum in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links to elementary and middle school principals and test coordinators on new information relating to ACTAAP Benchmark examinations in grades 4 and 8 and the field testing in grade 6. 13. Document entitled Description of the Assessment System prepared in April 2000 in response to a request from the National Science Foundationrelating to the assessment of mathematics and science 14. Document entitled Procedures for Providing Data Analysis/Interpretation to Decision Makers prepared in April 2000 in response to a request from the National Science Foundationrelating to the assessment of mathematics and science =^^1 15. Document entitled Orientation to the Analysis and Interpretation of Test Results prepared in April 2000 in response to a request from the National Science Foundation^relating to the assessment of mathematics and science. 16. E-mail to Kathy Lease, May 23, 2000, providing feedback to proposed survey of middle school students and teachers. 17. E-mail to principals, Aug. 25, 2000, providing information on upcoming administration of the Achievement Level Tests in September. -fl' 18. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 31, 2000, providing information on new middle school report card 19. E-mail to Botmie Lesley, Aug. 31, 2000, providing copy of new middle school report card report 20. Memorandum from Linda Austin to Marian Lacey providing Middle School Report Card Update 21. E-mail to middle school principals, Jan. 3, 2000, setting up training for teachers on how to administer the State Benchmark examinations 22. Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Feb. 1,2000, setting agenda for Feb. 2 meeting\nincludes information on the District Assessment Plan 23. E-mail to elementary principals, Feb. 1, 2000, providing information on the use of calculators on Benchmark examinations 24. E-mail to principals, Feb. 3, 2000, providing copy of assessment schedule/matrix to distribute to teachers 25. Document prepared in fall 1999 by PRE on Achievement Level Tests\nAssessments that Make a Difference 26. Memorandum to all principals and test coordinators, Mar. 17, 2000, establishing training sessions for the administration of the Benchmark and end-of-course examinations 21. Memorandum in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links to high school principals and test coordinators providing new information from ADE on the end-of-course literacy examination 3^ ^7 ^7 28. E-mail to Kathy Lease and Les Gamine, Apr. 7, 2000, providing rationale for adding science assessments to the Achievement Level Tests -^3- 29. Memorandum in Aug. 30, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals and K-2 teachers including pre-testing instructions for the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment 30. Memorandum in Aug. 30, 2000, Learning Links to all principals and test coordinators establishing inservice schedule for administration of the SAT9 and ALTs 31. Memorandum in Sept. 8, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals relating to K- 2 assessment and the importance of the language arts instructional block '/(f 32. Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to elementary and middle school principals relating to the administration of the end-of-module tests in mathematics and the end-of-unit tests in science ^7 33. Memorandum in Sept. 26, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals relating to instructions to complete the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment 34. Memorandum to principals, Oct. 13, 2000, requesting feedback through a survey for consideration by the Assessment Focus Group\ncopy of survey attached 35. Memorandum to principals, Feb. 13,2001, with information on the administration of the climate surveys for parents, teachers, students, and administrators -7^ 36. E-mail, Feb. 26, 2001, relating to administration of surveys for the Extended Year Education school evaluation ^7 37. E-mail to curriculum directors, Feb. 27, 2001, relating to discussion of the potential purchase of an electronic curriculum/assessment management system 38. E-mail to principals and selected others on Mar. 1, 2001, relating to an information session on ALT online testing 39. E-mail to principals. Mar. 1, 2001, providing spring testing schedule for elementary, middle, and high schools 40. E-mail to Les Gamine, Mar. 8, 2001, providing outline of PRE responsibilities for Dr. James, incoming superintendent 41. Memorandum to elementary principals. Mar. 14, 2001, providing information on end- of-module mathematics criterion-referenced tests42. E-mail between various staff. Mar. 14-15, 2001, relating to analysis of results of mathematics and science criterion-referenced tests 43. Document entitled Mathematics, Reading, and Language Achievement Tests: Administration Guide prepared by PRE for use in training sessions for the ALTs, 2000-01 1I- LL I I Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation -Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 M TO: FROM: DATE: Elementary and Junior High Principals Dr. Kathy Lease, Asst. Supt. ^4 November 16,1998 E SUBJECT: Pick up of Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition, Reports for Grades 3 \u0026amp;8 The Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition, (Stanford 9) reports for grades 3 and 8 are available for you or your designee to pick up in the Instructional Resource Center (IRC), Room 12. If you have not picked up your Stanford 9 reports for grades 5, 7, and 10, please do so immediately. 0 If you have any questions regarding these reports, please contact us at 2121, 2123, or 2125. cc\nElementary and Junior High Counselors 2 f TO: ftp. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation FROM: Elementary School Principals Dr. Kathy Lease, Asst. SuptJ^ Planning, Research, and Evaluation SUBJECT: Criterion Reference Tst (CRT) Administration DATE: December 14, 1998 LL The purpose of this memorandum is to inform you of the procedures for the upcoming administration of the CRT. The grade levels to be tested are 3, 4, 5 and 6. The subject areas that will be tested are mathematics and reading. The CRT is scheduled to be administered to one half of the schools on January 6-7, 1999\nthe remaining schools will test on January 7-8. Each school will be assigned testing dates. If you have a conflict with your assigned testing dates, please contact PRE and we will try our best to accommodate your schedule. See attached list for your testing dates. As you are aware, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Boarfrof Education approved the administration of the CRT to measure student progress with the curriculum. It is for this purpose that we are conducting the second CRT in January of 1999\" that will assess progress on the grade level benchmarks. Unlike the first CRT that was scored by individual teachers, this test will be machine scored by PRE in order to assist teachers with the grading. Therefore, it is necessary that the instructions and procedures for administering be followed exactly. Please remember that the results of this test must be incorporated into the second nine weeks grade. The value of the test and how it is incorporated may be decided at the building level. The Reading and Mathematics Departments, along with input from teachers, established ten (10) benchmarks per subject area representing skills and objectives that students should know and be able to do. There will be four (4) questions per benchmark totaling forty questions for both sections of the test. Students must answer 3 of 4 questions correctly to obtain mastery. Please share the relevant information from this memo with your teachers and share instructions on the following pages with your elementary teachers, grades 3 through 6. We have attached a list of Teacher ID Numbers for you to assign to individual classroom teachers. The teachers will use these numbers when completing the scoring sheets. The following pages will provide additional information related to the administration of the CRT. If you have any questions regarding the testing instructions or procedures, please contact the PRE staff at 2120, 2123, or 2125. Thank you for your cooperation and dedication to providing students in the LRSD a quality and equitable education.CRITERION REFERENCED TESTS ASSIGNED TESTING DATES January 6-7,1999 Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Magnet Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Magnet Jefferson January 7- 8,1999 - King Magnet Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Elementary Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson Woodruff r CRITERION REFERENCED TEST DIRECTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING (READING AND MATHEMATICS)PROCEDURES PRIOR TO,and.AFTER..TEST,ADMINISTRATION Delivery and Return of Scoring Sheets from PRE CRTs and score sheets will be delivered to schools. The score sheets must be returned by the principal or his/her designee promptly at the completion of the second day of testing and returned to PRE (Room 12). Each grade level should be identified by teacher and returned separately in the envelope provided. Teachers may keep the classroom sets of CRTs for reference. Please make sure that the scoring sheets are turned in the same direction prior to placing in the return envelope. IMPORTANT: \u0026gt; PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT THE SCORING SHEETS ARE TURNED IN THE SAME DIRECTION PRIOR TO PLACING IN THE RETURN ENVELOPE. \u0026gt; DO NOT PAPER CLIP OR RUBBER BAND THE SCORING SHEETS. \u0026gt; PLEASE REMOVE THE PERFORATED STRIPS ON EACH SIDE OF THE SCORING SHEETS BEFORE RETURNING TO PRE. PROCEDURES.DUR.ING.T.E.ST.ADM.INISTRA.TION The test administration should be conducted in an optimal testing environment that will promote a successful experience for all students. Unlike the SAT-9, (a timed, norm-referenced test) the CRT is not timed. Therefore, students should be given ample time to complete each section of the test. It is recommended that the reading and mathematics sections of the test be administered on separate days. Determination of the sequence for administering the mathematics and reading tests will be your decision to make. However, the first forty items on the scoring sheets must be reserved for the Reading Test and following forty items must be reserved for the Mathematics Test The teacher should read the directions provided at the beginning of each test to the students. Sample test items will be provided for the third grade Reading Test only.Completing the Scoring Sheets To complete the scoring sheets you must\n\u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Use #2 pencils only. Disregard true and false selections. This is a multiple-choice test with four selections (a, b, c or d). Have students print the following: Name, Subject (CRT-2), DO NOT COMPLETE HOUR AND DATE. Print appropriate teacher number in the Test ID Number section (see your principal for the correct teacher number). Then mark the corresponding circle below each box.). Begin the teacher number with the first numeral aligned from \u0026gt; the left. NOTE: The last three boxes will be blank. Print student social security number in Student /Teacher ID No. section. Then mark the corresponding circles. Begin the student social security number with e first numeral aligned from the left. NOTE: The last box will be blank. \u0026gt; Follow instructions provided on the score sheets for correct marking of bubbles. PLEASE NOTE: The first forty (40) items on the scoring sheet are designated for the Reading Test (1-40). The following forty (40) items are designated for the Mathematics Test (41-80). Attached, is an example of a completed simulated copy of the scoring sheet. I IMPORTANTl I Please make sure that students do not^ when marking their ansvvers. The coring. # \u0026gt; -\u0026lt; i s If you have any questions with reg the CRT, please do not hesitate to i,,^ swImm MHAMF .. SUPJ6CT I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT _____ DATE _ ( MARKING INSTRUCTIONS USE_NO._ 2 ^^NCIL^pNJ^ INCORRECT MARKS     CORRECT MARKS a  a o C 6 M Bl N ATI ON A N S W E R SHE ET a/' [Q update student RECOHD8~}  ERASE ALL CHANGES CLEANLY AND COMPLETELY . MAKE NO STRAY MARKS ANYWHERE ON THIS FORM TEST ID NUMBER        @    o o o        w    0             1 _ STUDENT/TEACHER ID NO.  o o Q U I etQQQQQQQQQ e e0 0000000 Q 0 OO       -^q1JL(^-Q----Q- - '7?(2Qci/n^ 1\n16OO 2000  17 T F ! T F 3 : 18   o   T F T F T F 4 O  0  0 T F 5  20 T F MULTIPLE CHOICE/TRUE-FALSE 6    O  T F 1      T F 8 O     T F ,90 T F 10 O     T F 11 0    0 T F 12OO I 27 T F 13     0 i T F 14OO0 j 23 T F 15 0 i 30 i T F T F I T F i 19      I T F T F 21      T F 22   O   T F 23 0     T F 24 0     T F 25 0     T F 26 0     T F I T F 26   O  0 T F T F r T F 31      T F 32      T F 33      T F 34      T F 35      T F 36      T F 37      T F 38      T F 39      T F 40      41     T F 42     0 T F 43 0     T F 44 0     T F 45      T F 46 0     T F 47 0     T F 48 0     T F 49      T ,F 50 0     T F 51      T F 52      T F ! 53      T F 54 0     T F 55      T F 56      T F 57      T F 58 0    0 T F 59      T F 60 0     T F 61      T F 62      T F 63      T F 64      T F 65      T F 66      T F (1      T F 68      T F 69      T F 70      T F      T F 72     0 T F 73      T F 7i   0  0 T F 75      T F 76 O     T F 77 0     T F 78      T F      T F 80      T F 81      T F 82 0     T F 83 0     T F 84 0     T F 85      T F 86 0     T F 87      T F 88 0     T F 89      T F 90   0   T F 91 0     T F 92      T F 93      T F 94      T F 95      T F 96    0  T F 97      T F 98 0  O   T F 99      T F 100      1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1,111 111 I II I n I I I I Ti II I I 11 I I I I I I II I I I I I I I MARKING INSTRUCTIONS DO NOT MARK IN USB NO. 2 PENCIL ONLY rj THIS SHADED AREA INCORRECT MARKS 0   @ CORRECT MARKS e e    ERASE ALL CHANGES CLEANLY AND COMPLETELY  MAKE NO STRAY MARKS ANYWHERE ON THIS FORM MATCHING t0OOOQ00000 1B0 QOO0000O000GOC 2O0O00O00OO0O00O0000O0000O0 170 OOOOOO0OO0OOOOO00OOOOOOO' 3O0O00O00OO0O0000000O0O00O0 18  0   0'0 0 O O 0 0 0 0  0 0 0  O 0 O 0'0 o c 1O0OO0OOOOOOO000O000O0O0OO 13O0000OOOOO0O0O0O00OOOOOOOC 5 OOOOOOO0OOO 20 OOOO0O0O00000OOOOOOC tOO0O0O00O00000000 2iOOOO0O0OO0OOOOOOOf iQ 0OOOOOOO0 22 OOOO0OO0OOOOOOC 8O0OOOOO0O0OO0OO 23OOOOO0O0OOOOOOOO'^ 9 00OOOOOOOO 24 00OO00000OO00O( :i)O OO00OOOOO0O00OOOO0O 25OOOOOOOO0OO00OOOOOOOC iiO00OOOOO0O 26 OOOOOOO0OOOOOC 12 OOOOOOOOOOOOOO0 13 0OOOOOOO0 2jQ O0OOOO0OOOOOOOOOGO 28OOOOOOOOOQOOOOO 14 O(p0OOOO0(^OOOO0 29OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOC 15 00OO0O000000Q0Q 30 OOOOOOO0OOOOOOO i I I I I i I 11 I i l l i i I I i I I i I I I i f iIiiiiiiiiiiiTiiii i iiiiii i 11 i 3L-L //z/\u0026lt;\u0026lt;7 Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 To: From: Date: Elementary and Junior High Principals -Aathy Lease, Asst Supt., PRE January 5,1999 Re: ACTAP for 4 and graders ACTAP will be administered February 1-4. You will receive more specific information on times and testing procedures later. Through school mail you will receive copies of the ACTAP Parent Notification Pamphlet which must be distributed to the parents of 4^ and 8^ graders prior to January 15. This pamphlet provides parents with an overview of the test and some strategies for helping their students prepare for these tests. The back of these pamphlets has a place for you to fill in the Little Rock School District name, the name of your school, and the dates of the test. Principals can decide who they want to fill in the information (students, teachers, office staff) and how (hand written, using a stamp, etc.). Please call PRE, if you have questions (324- 2121). ia 4 L~L (/ V? 7 Planning\nResearch, and Evaluation TO: FROM: Elementary and Junior High Principals and Counselors Dr. Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent, PRE Yvette Dillingham, Evaluation Specialist, PRE DATE: January 26, 1999 I 5 SUBJECT: ACTAP Benchmarks for Grades 4 and 8 In-service Rescheduled I The ACTAP in-service has -been rescheduled for January 28, 1999, in the district office Boardroom from 2:00 - 4:00 p.m. We do realize this will allow school test coordinators only one day to in-service test administrators. Please allow the time to provide this in-service on Friday, January 29, 1999. S Test materials will be available for pick-up on Wednesday, January 27 at 1:00 p.m. Please DO NOT open secured test materials until the first day of testing, February 1, 1999\nhowever, grade 4 test administrators may prepare manipulatives as soon as they receive them. Test materials must be placed in a secured location at all times except during the time of testing. Please review and become very familiar with the Test Security Guidelines. Your patience and understanding are greatly appreciated as we prepare, not under the most optimal conditions, for the administration of grades 4 and 8 (pilot) Benchmark Examinations. If you have further questions, please contact PRE at 2120, 2123 or 2125. 5LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 June 10, 1999 TO\nLes Gamine John Ruffin Kathy Lease Brady Gadberry Junious Babbs Ed Williams FROM: Dr. Bonnie LesleyrAssociate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT\nData Quality I think youll find the attached paper by .Glynn Ligon on data quality interesting and helpful as we search for ways to improve. Attachments BAL/rcm dataqual Page 1 of 17 EvaluatioiTSoftwafe Publishing Data Quality: Earning the Confidence of Decision Makers Glynn D. Ligon Evaluation Software Publishing, Incorporated Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association April 1996 New York, New York Data quality is more than accuracy and reliability. High levels of data quality are achieved when information is valid for the use to which it is applied, and when decision makers have confidence in the data and rely upon them. Summary Professionals responsible for educational research, evaluation, and statistics have sought to provide timely and useful information to decision makers. Regardless of the evaluation rriodel, research design, or statistical methodology employed, informing the decision making process with quality, reliable data is a basic goal. The definition of quality for education data has not been adequately addressed in the literature of educational research and evaluation. In the publications describing quality related to general information systems, the concept is narrowly interpreted to mean accurately J and reliably processed data. This paper ties together the foundations of data '' quality from the formal information systems literature with the practical aspects of data quality in the arena of public education decision making. A hierarchy of data quality is described to assist both the understanding of http://www.evalsoft.coin/esp/html/body_dataqual.html 6/8/99 dataqual Page 2 of 17 quality and the requirements for achieving quality. The hierarchy ranges from the availability of dysfunctional, bad data to the quality level of data-based , decisions made with confidence. For practitioners, a checklist is provided for use in determining the quality of their data sources. Readers of this paper are requested to provide the author with ideas on the topic of data quality. Comments specific to this paper, anecdotes illustrating points, or further thinking related to the pursuit of data quality are all solicited. Please communicate your reactions to: lnternet:gligon@evalsoft.com Voice:512-458-8364 Fax:512-371-0520 Mail:1510 W. 34th Street Suite 200Austin, Texas 78703 Background Data quality is essential to successful research, evaluation, and statistical efforts in public schools. As statewide accountability systems that rely upon large data bases grow, concern follows about the data quality within those emerging state-level data bases. As states and the Federal government move toward establishing data warehouses to make information available electronically to anyone, questions are raised about the quality of the data collected and stored. What is not universally sought is Federally imposed standards for data and information systems. There is broad support for voluntary standards which states and local school districts can adopt. What is needed first is a way to know when quality data are available and when caution should be exercised. (New. Developments in Technology: Implications for Collecting, Storing, Retrieving, and Disseminating National Data for Education G. Ligon, Paper Prepared for MPR Associates and the National Center for Education Statistics, November, 1995.) Decision makers at all levels are relying upon data to inform, justify, and defend their positions on important issues. What are the key criteria on which to determine data quality? Is there a logical sequence to the processes for ensuring quality in information systems? The concern for data quality is somewhat different than the slowly emerging interest in education data that has grown for decades. The concern for data quality is a sign of maturity in the field, an increasing sophistication by the audiences who use education data. In other words, first we asked \"Are our students learning?\" Then we had to ask \"What are the education indicators that we should be monitoring?\" Finally, we are asking \"Now that we have some indicators, do we trust them?\" (WhatDow-Jones Can Teach Us: Standardized Education Statistics and Indicators, G. Ligon, Presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, 1993\nA Dow Jones ! Index for Educators , G. Ligon, The School Administrator, December,-1993.) Nn easy point in time to mark is the release of the \"Nation at Risk\" report-. Much reform in education followed, including expansion of accountability http://www.evalsoft.com/esp/htmbT3ody_dataqual.html dataqual Page 3 of 17 systems within states. The search heated up for the true, reliable indicators of quality in education. A major event was the passage of the 1988 Hawkins Stafford Education Amendments that called for improving the quality of the nation's education data. From that legislation, the National Forum for Education Statistics was begun, and from that group has followed a continuing focus on data quality issues. The Forum is made up mainly of state education agency representatives, who at times include local education agency staff in their work groups. I have combined notes and observations from two decades of research and evaluation in public schools with the experiences from five years of reviewing and designing information systems for state and national education agencies. Often the question has been asked as to the definition of data quality and how to achieve it. The deliberations of the work groups responsible for the development of the Standards for Educational Data Collection and Reporting (SEDCAR), the ANSI ASC X-12 EDI standards for the electronic exchange of student records (SPEEDE/ExPRESS), and the national definition of dropout rates for the Common Core of Data collected by the National Center for Education Statistics have provided a unique opportunity to observe how quality is sought and defined from various perspectives. (Getting to the Point and Counter Point of Dropout Reporting Issues , G. Ligon, Presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, April, 1994.) My membership on the U.S. Department of Education Evaluation Review Panel and Texas' Commissioner's Advisory Committee for Research and Evaluation has presented opportunities to relate the definitions and processes for quality data to on-going activities. One overarching observation from these experiences is that there are multiple perspectives that determine the reality of data quality. These are generally represented by:  Decision Makers (parents, teachers, counselors, principals, school board members, tax payers, etc.)  Program Managers (principals, directors, supervisors, etc.)  General Audiences (parents, taxpayers, businesses, etc.)  Data Collectors and Providers (clerks, teachers, counselors, program managers, etc.)  Evaluators, Researchers, Analysts Individuals may occupy more than one of these groups simultaneously. At the risk of over simplifying, the primary perspective of each group may be described as: I  Decision Makers: \"Do I have confidence in the data and trust in the person providing them?\"  Program Managers: \"Do the data fairly represent what we have accomplished?\" -  General Audiences: \"Did I learn something that appears to be true and useful, or at least interesting?\"  Data Collectors and Providers\n\"Did the data get collected and reported completely and in a timely manner?\"  Evaluators, Researchers, Analysts: \"Are the data adequate to . support the analyses and the results from them?\" http://www.evalsoft.coin/esp/html/body_dataqual.html 6/8/99 dataqual Page 4 of 17 In this view, the burden for data quality falls to the data collectors and providers, and the evaluators, researchers, and analysts. Who else would be in a better position to monitor and judge data quality? However, in the end, the audiences (e.g., program managers, decision makers, and general audiences) give the ultimate judgment when they use, ignore, or disregard the data. Which ties in well to this paper's conclusion that the highest level of data quality is achieved when information is valid for the use to which it is applied and when decision makers have confidence in the data and rely upon them. The Pursuit of a Definition of Data Quality Four years ago, Robert Friedman, formerly the director of the Florida Information Resource Network (FIRN) and now in a similar position for Arkansas, called and asked for references related to data quality. The issue had arisen as the new statewide education information system for Arkansas was being developed. There were few references available, none satisfactory. I began documenting anecdotes, experiences, and insights provided by individuals within the educational research, evaluation, and information systems areas to search for \"truths. The resultant hierarchy is one representation of what was found. This paper describes some of these anecdotes and experiences to illustrate the thinking of national, state, and local professionals. Several ideas were consistently referenced by individuals concerned with data quality. 1. Accuracy Technical staff mention reliability and accuracy. This is consistent with the published literature in the information systems area. Accuracy, accuracy, accuracy-defined as do exactly what we are told, over and over. Not all information specialists limit themselves to the mechanical aspects of accuracy\nhowever, because they may not be content or process specialists in the areas they serve, their focus is rightfully on delivering exactly what was requested. After all, that is what the computer does for the Quality data in, quality data out. 2. Validity However, programmatic staff point out that data must be consistent with the construct being described (i.e., validity). If their program is aimed at delivering counseling support, then a more direct measure of outcomes than an achievement assessment is desired. ) Valid data are quality data. http://www.evalsoft.com/esp/html/body_dataqual.html 6/8/99 dataqual Page 5 of 17 1 3. Investment A key element frequently cited as basic for achieving quality is the reliance upon and use of the data by the persons responsible for collecting and reporting them. School clerks who never receive feedback or see reports using the discipline data they enter into a computer screen have little investment in the data. School clerks who enter purchasing information into an automated system that tracks accounts and balances have a double investment. They save time when the numbers add up, and they receive praise or complaints if they do not. Whoever is responsible for collecting, entering, or reporting data needs to have a natural accountability relationship with those data. The data persons should experience the consequences of the quality of the data they provide. This may be the most important truism in this paper: The user of data is the best recorder of data. 4. Certification Typically, organizations have a set of \"official\" statistics that are used, regardless of their quality, for determining decisions such as funds allocation or tracking changes over time. These official statistics are needed to provide some base for planning, and the decision makers are challenged to guess how close they are. Organizations should certify a set of official statistics. 5. Publication Public reporting or widespread review is a common action cited in the evolution of an information system toward quality. In every state that has instituted a statewide accountability system, there are stories of the poor quality of the data in the first year. Depending upon the complexity of the system and the sanctions imposed (either money or reputation), subsequent improvements in data quality were seen. The most practical and easily achieved action for impacting data quality is: Publish the data. I 6. Trust Decision makers refer to the trust and confidence they must have in both the data and the individuals providing the data. http://www.evalsofl.com/esp/html/body_dataqual.htinl 6/8/99 dataqual Page 6 of 17 1 Trust is a critical component of the working relationship between decision makers and staff within an organization. That trust must be present for data to be convincing. Consultants are used at times to provide that trust and confidence. Decision makers often do not have the time nor the expertise to analyze data. They rely upon someone else's recommendation. Data should be presented by an individual in whom the decision makers have confidence and trust. Trust the messenger. These six statements faithfully summarize the insights of professionals who have struggled with data quality within their inforrhation systems. They address processes that contribute toward achieving data qualitythe dynamics influencing quality within an information system. They do not yet clearly indicate how successful the organization has been in achieving quality. To make that connection, the following hierarchy was developed. A Hierarchy of Data Quality A hierarchy of data quality has been designed to describe how quality develops and can be achieved. The paper details the components and levels within this hierarchy. This schema is to be regarded as fluid within an organization. Some areas of information, such as student demographics, may be more advanced than others, such as performance assessments. Some performance assessments may be more advanced than others. The highest level of quality is achieved when data-based decisions are made with confidence. Therefore, several components of quality must be present, i.e., available data, decisions based upon those data, and confidence by the decision maker. Ultimately, quality data serve their intended purpose when the decision maker has the trust to use them with confidence. The traditional virtues of quality (e.g., reliability and validity) form the basis for that trust, but do not ensure it. Accuracy is the traditional characteristic defined within formal information systems architecture. Accuracy begs the question of whether or not the data are worthy of use. From the observations of organizational quests for quality information systems, the concept of official data has been described. Data are official if they are designated as the data to be used for official purposes--e.g., reporting or calculation of formulas such as for funding schools and programs. At the earliest stages of information systems, the characteristic of being available is the only claim to quality that some data have. The level at the base of the hierarchy is characterized by no data being available. Attachment A illustrates the hierarchy. ) Bad Data http://www.evalsoft.com/esp/html/body_dataqual.html 6/8/99 dataqual Page 7 of 17 -1.1 Invalid Bad data can be worse than no data at all. At least with no data, decision makers rely upon other insights or opinions they trust. With bad data, decision makers can be misled. Bad data can be right or wrong, so the actual impact on a decision's outcome may not always be negative. Bad data can result from someone's not understanding why two numbers should not be compared or from errors and inconsistencies throughout the reporting process. The definition of bad data is that they are either\nPoorly standardized in their definition or collection to the extent that they should be considered unusable, or Inaccurate, incorrect, unreliable. An example of bad data occurred when a local high school failed to note that the achievement test booklets being used were in two forms. The instructions were to ensure that each student received the same form of the exam for each subtest. However, the booklets were randomly distributed each day of the testing, resulting in a mixture of subtest scores that were either accurate (if the student took the form indicated on the answer document) or chance level if the form and answer document codes were mismatched. This high school was impacted at the time by cross-town bussing that created a very diverse student population of high and low achievers. From our previous analyses, we also knew that an individual students scores across subtests could validly range plus or minus 45 percentile points. Simple solutions to interpreting the results were not available. {Empty Bubbles\nWhat Test Form Did They Take? D. Doss and G. Ligon, Presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, 1985.) Carolyn Folke, Information Systems Director for the Wisconsin Department of Education, contributed the notion that the hierarchy needed to reflect the negative influence of bad data. In her experience, decision makers who want to use data or want to support a decision they need to make are vulnerable to grasping for any and all available data-without full knowledge of their quality. The message here is look into data quality rather than assume that any available data are better than none. None O.OUnavailable ) Before \"A Nation at Risk,\" before automated scheduling and grade reporting systems, and before the availability of high-speed computers, often there were no data at all related to a decision. So, this is really the starting point for the hierarchy. * http://www.evalsoft.com/esp/html^ody_dataqual.html 6/8/99 dataqual Page 8 of 17 When a local school district began reporting failure rates for secondary students under the Texas No Pass/No Play Law, one school board member asked for the same data for elementary students. The board member was surprised to hear that, because elementary grade reporting was not automated, there were no data available. (After a long and painful process to collect elementary grade data, the board member was not pleased to learn that very few elementary students ever receive a failing grade and that fewer fail in the lower achieving schools than fail in the higher achieving schools.) (No Pass - No Play: Impact on Failures, Dropouts, and Course Enrollments, G. Ligon, Presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, 1988.) When no data are available, the options are typically obvious-collect some or go ahead and make a decision based upon opinion or previous experience. However, there is another option used by agencies involved in very large-scale data collections. The Bureau of the Census and the National Center for Education Statistics both employ decision rules to impute data in the absence of reported numbers. Missing cells in tables can be filled with imputed numbers using trends, averages, or more sophisticated prediction analyses. Decision makers may perform their own informal imputations in the absence of data. Available 1.1 Inconsistent Forms of Measurement Poor data come from inconsistencies in the ways in which outcomes or processes are measured. These inconsistencies arise from use of nonparallel forms, lack of standardized procedures, or basic differences in definitions. The result is data that are not comparable. In 1991, we studied student mobility and discovered that not only did districts across the nation define mobility differently, but they also calculated their rates using different formulas. From 93 responses to our survey, we documented their rates and formulas, then applied them to the student demographics of Austin. Austin's \"mobility\" rate ranged from 8% to 45%, our \"turbulence rate ranged from 10% to 117%, and our \"stability rate ranged from 64% to 85%. The nation was not ready to begin comparing published mobility rates across school districts. (Student Mobility Rates: A Moving Target, G. Ligon and V. Paredes, Presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, 1992.) A future example of this level of data quality may come from changes in the legislation specifying the nature of evaluation for Title I Programs. For years, every program reported achievement gains in normal curve equivalent units. Current legislation requires each state to establish an accountability measure and reporting system. How will performance be aggregated across states? How will gains be verified by the U.S. Department of Education as mandated? Full time equivalents and head counts, duplicated and unduplicated counts, average daily attendance and average daily membership are all examples of how state accountability systems must align the way schools maintain their http://www.evalsoft.com/esp/html/body_dataqual.html 6/8/99 dataqual Page 9 of 17 records. Who is not familiar with the \"problem\" of whether to count parents in a PTA meeting as one attendee each or as two if they have two students in the school? 1.2Data Collected by Some at Some Times Incomplete data are difficult to interpret. In 1994, the Austin American Statesman published an article about the use of medications for ADD/ADHD students in the public schools. The headline and point of the story was that usage was much lower than had been previously reported. The person quoted was not a school district employee and the nature of some of the statistics caused further curiosity. So, I called the reporter, who said he had not talked to the District's Health Supervisor and that the facts came from a graduate student's paper. Checking with the Health Supervisor showed that only about half the schools had participated in the survey, some of those with the highest levels of use did not participate, the reporter used the entire District's membership as the denominator, and the actual usage rate was probably at least twice what had been reported. The reporter's response: \"I just reported what she told me.\" 1.3Data Combined, Aggregated, Analyzed, Surhmarized The highest level of \"available data\" is achieved when data are summarized in some fashion that creates interesting and useful information. At this point in the hierarchy, the data begin to take on a usefulness that can contribute to a cycle of improved quality. At this point, audiences are able to start the process of asking follow-up questions. The quality of the data becomes an issue when someone begins to use summary statistics. One of the most dramatic responses to data I recall was when we first calculated and released the numbers and percentages of overage students, those whose age was at least one year over that of their classmates. Schools have always had students' ages in the records. Reality was that no one knew that by the time students reached grade 5 in Austin, one out of three was overage. In at least one elementary school over 60% of the fifth graders were old enough to be in middle school. (The number of elementary retention's began to fall until the rate in the 9O's was about one fifth of the rate in the 8O's.) {Do fVe Fail Those We Fail?, N. Schuyler and G. Ligon, Presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, 1984\nPromotion or Retention, Southwest Educational Research Association Monograph, G. Ligon, Editor, 1991.) _ ) When relatively unreliable data'are combined, aggregated, analyzed, and summarized, a major transformation can begin. Decision makers can now apply common sense to the information. Data providers now can see consequences from the data they report. This is an-important threshold for data quality, in countless conversations with information systems managers and public school evaluators, a consistent theme is that when people start to see their data reported in public and made available for decision making, they begin to focus energies on what those data mean for them and their school/program. http://www.evalsoft.com/esp/html/body_dataqual.html 6/8/99 dataqual Page 10 of 17 Texas schools began reporting financial data through REIMS (Public Education Information Management System) in the 198Os. The first data submissions were published as tables, and for the first time it was simple to compare expenditures in specific areas across schools and districts. Immediately, a multi-year process began to bring districts more in line with the State's accounting standards and to ensure better consistency in the matching of expenditures to those categories. When districts reported no expenditures in some required categories and others reported unrealistically high amounts, the lack of data quality was evident. DATA BECOME INFORMATION. Around this point in the hierarchy, data become information. The individual data elements are inherently less useful to decision makers than are aggregated and summarized statistics. From this point on in the hierarchy, basic data elements are joined by calculated elements that function as indicators of performance. Official 2.1 Periodicity Established for Collection and Reporting Periodicity is the regularly occurring interval for the collection and reporting of data. An established periodicity is essential for longitudinal comparisons. For valid comparisons across schools, districts, and states, the same period of time must be represented in everyone's data. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has established an annual periodicity set around October 1 as the official date for states to report their student membership. Reality is that each state has its own funding formulas and laws that determine exactly when membership is counted, and most do not conduct another count around October 1 for Federal reporting. I was called on the carpet by the superintendent once because a school board member had used different dropout rates than he was using in speeches during a bond election. He explained very directly that \"Every organization has a periodicity for their official statistics.\" That of course is how they avoid simultaneous speeches using different statistics. After working hard with the staff to publish a calendar of our official statistics, I discovered that very few districts at the time had such a schedule. (Periodicity of Collecting and Reporting AISD's Official Statistics, G. Ligon et al., Austin ISD Publication Number 92.M02, November, 1992.) 2.20fficial Designation of Data for Decision Making ) Finally, official statistics make their way into the hierarchy. The key here is that \"officiar does not necessarily guarantee quality. Official means that everyone agrees that these are the statistics that they will use. This is a key milestone, because this designation contributes to the priority and attention devoted to these official statistics. This in turn can contribute to on-going or future quality. http://www.evalsoft.com/esp/htm l/body_dataqual.html 6/8/99 dataqual Page 11 of 17 Every year, our Management Information Department's Office of Student Records issued its student enrollment projection. The preliminary projection was ready in January for review, and a final projection for budgeting was ready by March. Here is another example of how the presence of a bond election can influence the behavior of superintendents and school board members. The superintendent gave a speech to the Chamber of Commerce using the preliminary projection. Then our office sent him the final projection. He was not happy with the increase of about 500 in the projection. He believed that created a credibility gap between the figures used in campaigning for the bonds and the budgeting process. So, the preliminary projection, for the first time in history, became the final, \"official\" projection. The bonds passed, the next year's enrollment was only a few students off of the \"official\" projection, the School Board was impressed with the accuracy of the projection, and Austin began a series of four years when all the projection formulas were useless during the oil arid real estate bust of the late 8O's. The next time the \"official\" projection was close was when a member of the school board insisted that the district cut 600 students from its projection in order to avoid having to budget resources to serve them. THE RIGHT DA TA MUST BE USED. At this point, the qualities of accuracy and reliability are required. Moreover, the best data are not quality data if they are not the right data for the job. 2.3Accuracy Required for Use in Decision Making With the official designation of statistics, either by default or intent, their use increases. Now the feedback loop takes over to motivate increased accuracy. The decision makers and the persons held accountable for the numbers now require that the data be accurate. Wh6n we began publishing six-week dropout statistics for our secondary schools, the principals started to pay attention to the numbers. They had requested such frequent status reports so the end-of-the-year numbers would not be a surprise, and so they could react if necessary before the school year was too far along. Quickly, they requested to know the names of the students that we were counting as dropouts, so verification that they had actually dropped out could be made. Having frequent reports tied directly to individual student names improved the quality of the dropout data across the schools. THE RIGHT ANALYSES MUST BE RUN. The quality of data is high at this point, and the decision maker is relying upon analyses conducted using those data. The analyses must be appropriate to the question being addressed. A caution to data providers and audiences: There are times when data quality is questioned, but the confusing nature of the data comes from explainable anomalies rather than errors. We should not be too quick to assume errors when strange results arise. A district's overall average test score can decline even when all subgroup averages rise\nstudents can make real gains on performance measures while falling farther behind grade level\nschools can fail to gain on a state's assessment, but be improving. (Anomalies in Achievement Test Scores: What http://www.evalsoft.coIn/esp/html^ody_dataqual.html 6/8/99 dataqual Page 12 of 17 Goes Up Also Goes Down, G. Ligon, Presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, 1987.) Valid 3.1 Accurate Data Consistent with Definitions Trained researchers are taught early to define operationally all terms as a control in any experiment. Every organization should establish a standard data dictionary for all of its data files. The data dictionary provides a definition, formulas for calculations, code sets, field, characteristics, the periodicity for collection and reporting, and other important descriptions. Using a common data dictionary provides the organization the benefits of efficiency by avoiding redundancy in the collection of data elements. Another important benefit is the ability to share data across departmental data files. (Periodicity User Guide, Evaluation Software Publishing, Austin, Texas, 1996.) The classic example of careless attention to definitions and formulas is Parade Magazine's proclamation that an Orangeburg, South Carolina, high school reduced its dropout rate from 40% to less than 2% annually. Those of us who had been evaluating dropout-prevention programs and calculating dropout rates for a number of years became very suspicious. When newspapers around the nation printed the story that the dropout rate in West Virginia fell 30% in one year after the passage of a law denying driver's licenses to dropouts, we were again skeptical. Both these claims had a basis in real numbers, but each is an example of bad data. - The Parade Magazine reporter compared a four-year, longitudinal rate to a single-year rate for the Orangeburg high school. The newspaper reporter compared West Virginia's preliminary dropout count to the previous year's final dropout count. (The West Virginia state education agency later reported a change from 17.4% to about 16%.) (Making Dropout Rates Comparable: An Analysis of Definitions and Formulas, G. Ligon, D. Wilkinson, and B. Stewart, Presented at The American Educational Research Association Aimual Meeting, 1990.) 3.2Reliabie Data Independent of the Collector Reliability is achieved if the data would be the same regardless of who collected them. / What better example is available than the bias in teacher evaluations? When Texas implemented a career ladder for teachers, we had to certify those eligible based upon their annual evaluations. The school board determined that they were going to spend only the money provided by the State for career ladder bonuses, so that set the maximum number of teachers who could be placed on the career ladder. Our task was to rank all the eligible teachers and select the \"best.\" Knowing there was likely to be rater bias, we calculated a Z score for each teacher based upon all the ratings given by each evaluator. Then the Z scores were ranked across the entire district. The adjustments based upon rater bias were so large, that near perfect ratings given by a very easy evaluator could be ranked below much lower ratings given by a very tough evaluator. The control was that the teachers' http\n//www.evalsoft.com/esp/htmLl3ody_dataqual.html 6/8/99 dataqual Page 13 of 17 rankings within each raters group were the same. ) Everything was fine until a school board member got a call from his childs teacher. She was her schools teacher-of-the-year candidate but was ranked by her principal in the bottom half of her school, and thus left off the career ladder. The end of the story is that the school board approved enough local money to fund career ladder status for every teacher who met the minimum state requirements, and we were scorned for ever having thought we could or should adjust for the bias in the ratings. {Adjusting for Rater Bias in Teacher Evaluations: Political and Technical Realities, G. Ligon and J. Ellis, Presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, 1986.) 3.3Valid Data Consistent with the Construct Being Measured The test of validity is often whether a reasonable person accountable for an outcome agrees that the data being collected represent a true measure of that outcome. Validity is the word for which every trained researcher looks. Validity assumes both accuracy and reliability. Critically, valid data are consistent with the construct being described. Another perspective on this is that valid data are those that are actually related to the decision being made. The local school board in discussing secondary class sizes looked at the ratio of students to teachers in grades 7 through 12 and concluded that they were fairly even. Later they remembered that junior high teachers had been given a second planning period during the day, so their actual class sizes were much higher. Then they moved on to focus on the large discrepancies between class sizes within subject areas to discover that basic required English and mathematics classes can be efficiently scheduled and are large compared to electives and higher level courses. In the end, the school board members became more understanding of which data are valid for use dependent upon the questions they are asking. Quality 4.1 Comparable Data: Interpretable Beyond the Local Context Quality is defined here beyond the psychometric and statistical concepts of reliability and validity. Quality is defined by use. Quality data are those that function to inform decision making. For this function, the first criterion is: Quality data must be interpretable beyond the local context. There must be a broad base of comparable data that can be used to judge the relative status of local data. We can recognize that there are some decisions that do not necessitate comparisons, but in most instances a larger context is helpful. Each time I read this criterion, I argue with it. However, it is still in the hierarchy because decisions made within the broadest context are the best informed decisions. Knowing what others are doing, how other districts are performing does not have to determine our decisions, but such knowledge ensures that we are aware of other options and other experiences. AERAS Division H sponsors an annual publications award competition to showcase the best of the nations evaluation reports. Each year, these can be seen in the Annual Meeting exhibit area. Educational Research Service http://www.evalsoft.com/esp/html/body_dataqual.html 6/8/99 dataqual Page 14 of 17 I and PDK's CEDR both disseminate these reports. The annual award recipients represent excellent examples of evaluation studies that typically provide analyses and interpretations useful beyond their local context. Most states and districts have struggled with defining and reporting their dropout rates. Despite the lofty goal often embraced of having 100% of our students graduate, there is still the need for comparison data to help interpret current levels of attrition. When we compared Austin's dropout rate to published rates across the nation, we found that the various formulas used by others produced a range of rates for Austin from 11 % to 32%. Our best comparisons were across time, within Austin, where we had control over the process used to calculate comparable rates. (Making Dropout Rates Comparable\nAn Analysis of Definitions and Formulas, G. Ligon, D. Wilkinson, and B. Stewart, Presented at The American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, 1990.) 4.2Data-Based Decisions Made with Confidence The second criterion is: Data-based decisions must be made with confidence, at least confidence in the data. This is the ultimate criterion upon which to judge the quality of data-'do the decision makers who rely upon the data have confidence in them. Assuming all the lower levels of quality criteria have been met, then the final one that makes sense is that the data are actually used with confidence. This is a good time to remind us all that confidence alone is not sufficient. One reason the construct of a hierarchy is useful is that each subsequent level depends upon earlier levels. A local district's discipline reporting system had been used for years to provide indicators of the number of students and the types of incidents in which they were involved. The reports were so clear and consistent that confidence was high. /\\s part of a program evaluation, an evaluator went to a campus to get more details and discovered that only about 60% of all discipline incidents were routinely entered into the computer file. The others were dealt with quickly or came at a busy time. No one had ever audited a school's discipline data. On the other hand, the dropout and college-bound entries into a similar file were found to be very accurate and up-to-date. My biases are evident in the descriptions of the ievels of this hierarchy: 1. Accurate and reiiable data should be a given in any information system. 2. Knowing the question being asked or the decision to be made is critical to ensuring that the right data are used and the appropriate analyses are conducted. 3. Beyond these more mechanical levels of quality, use is the goal. A claim of true quality cannot be made unless the data are useful, usable,' and used. Information systems professionals can be understood for ending their http://www.evalsoft.com/esp/htinl/body_dataqual.html 6/8/99 dataqual Page 15 of 17 I treatment of data quality somewhere in the middle of this hierarchy. For those who work at the decision-making level of an organization, more is required. Applying the Hierarchy to a Local School District To illustrate whether or not the hierarchy has any relationship to a real information system, I thought back three years to our data in Austin. Attachment B is a summary of my ratings of several of the information systems from that time. These ratings range from -1.1 for the misleading data available on the computers in each school, to 4.2 for the reliable and relied upon data available on lunch and transportation programs. Yes, I rated those two areas as higher quality than assessment, in which I had invested almost 20 years. Our assessment data were excellent, but we never achieved that highest level of trust and confidence afforded lunch and transportation data. Some of that might be part of the nature of school board members' uneasiness with complex-looking test scores, or the constant tirades of detractors giving individual accounts of how test scores mislabeled their students. Assessment data will always be more challenging to control than the basic counts of who eats and who rides. But take nothing away from the lunch and bus people. They used their data, depended upon them, and ensured their quality. What Can an Organization Do? A self-assessment of data quality can be conducted in each area. This can be very formal with a team approach, or very informal with a checklist kept handy for reference whenever quality issues arise. Attachment C is a sample checklist that contains the key criteria that were identified through the development of the hierarchy. The highest level of data quality would be illustrated by a positive response to each question in the checklist. The format recognizes that data quality will vary across areas and even across sub-areas within an area. The answers to the questions on the checklist may not be known or may be different depending upon an individual's role within the organization. Sections A. Statistics and B. Data Eiements match with levels 1.3 through 3.1 of the hierarchy. Positive ratings in these sections indicate a foundation for best practice in creating reliable, quality data files. Section C. Results and Interpretation matches levels 2.2 through 3.3. Positive ratings in this section indicate that the data are being analyzed and reported for use. Section E. Investment fits into the hierarchy around levels 2.2 and 2.3 where the attention focused upon the data and the use of the data by the providers are key. Section D. Confidence represents level 4.2 where use is made of the data-with confidence. - 1 Dealing with Error http://www.evalsoft.coin/esp/html/body_dataqual.html 6/8/99 dataqual Page 16 of 17 When I read this paper just before its printing, there was a sense that the higher level nature of the hierarchy did not deal well with some of the nitty- gritty issues of data quality that are usually fretted over by information systems managers and data providers. Many of these fall into the general category of error. Error can be mistakes that result in bad data or those pesky probability statistics that keep us from ever being 100% confident in our data. / have always been uncomfortable calling some of these problems errors when the reality is that they represent at times conscious decisions merely differences in how data are recorded from place to place. factors are divided below in two general categories. Error or 1. Measurement Errors Measurement errors are those imprecisions that result from our inability to be absolutely perfect in our measurements. One is the reliability of an instrument, test, or performance task (illustrated by a test-retest difference). Measurement errors can also be \"intentional\" as occurs when we round numbers or put values in ranges rather than use a more precise value. Sampling error limits the probability of reliable data. Measurement error is adequately dealt with in text books. Measurement error is less often adequately dealt with in practice. At times, we lose precision by translating our data from one format to another. For example, a student's course history from one high school must be translated into the standards of another high school when the student transfers. Not only might the course content and levels not match, but the credits awarded and grading system may differ. When a California school that uses three dozen ethnicity codes for its students reports to the Office for Civil Rights, those codes are crosswalked to five categories. 2. Mistakes These errors occur, and the challenge is to notice them, so they can be corrected if possible. Calculation errors, data entry errors, programming errors, and other human mistakes are best addressed with adequate training, monitoring, and redundancy. Some useful techniques for detecting errors accompany the emergence of automated information systems. We now have the ability to run edit checks on data bases to determine the reasonableness of the data. Check sums can be calculated and compared to benchmark totals. Ranges of values, valid codes, and field characteristics (e.g., alphabetic, numeric, date, etc.)'can be verified by the computer. Professionals always have available one of the best techniques-the use of estimating. Individuals who are goo estimators are those that are good at detecting potential errors. Use of trend data and comparable group data when available is helpful to judge the reasonableness of data. A perspective that has become almost universal among professionals dealing with data quality issues is that when information systems became distributed throughout organizadons rather than being centralized, that the potential for errors was also distributed. The design of a distributed information system must account for data quality checks and establish responsibility for quality. The traditional notion that data processing's responsibility for accuracy begins http://www.evalsoft.com/esp/html/body_dataqual.html 6/8/99dataqual Page 17 of 17 and ends at the computer room door changed when that \"door\" was distributed to multiple locations through the magic of networks. Now the organization as a whole, each department that uses information as well as each department that collects information, must take responsibility for data quality. The bottom line on statistical error is that other references have been dealing with the details of this issue for a long time. The probability issues basic to sampling and measurement error are permanent and calculable. The mistake issues have management solutions that should be employed within every organization. Conclusion The hierarchy was a convenient way to think through what makes for quality data. Reality is that our information systems will not fall neatly into one of the levels of the hierarchy. In fact they may not often evolve sequentially through each level. At any point in time, their levels may shift up or down. What is useful here is that the hierarchy describes the characteristics of relatively low and relatively high levels of data quality. With the checklist and the hierarchy, an organization can begin to examine quality issues and plan improvements as needed. http\n//www.evalsoft.coni/esp/html/body_dataqual.html 6/8/99 6 To: From: Date: Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 Elementary Principals Kathy Lease, Asst. Supt., PRE August 17, 1999 Re: Smart Start Assessments mil A committee of folks from the Instructional Division, along with the PRE staff, met Friday, August 27, 1999 and reviewed the released items from the Smart Start disk. It was the decision of the Assessment Planning Committee that schools could use all the assessments on the disk. The group decided that schools could benefit greatly from utilizing those assessments, and that our curriculum staff could design second and third quarter CRTs. For schools who need to concentrate on improving their scores on the CRTs and the Benchmark exams, these released items will be a big asset. We are going to have to invest some time in teaching teachers who need training in how to score papers using a scoring guide (rubric). What we do know is that students will perform better on assessments, if they are familiar with the format of the questions. These released items give teachers an excellent opportunity to provide quality practice for the Benchmark exams. The other thing that we know about these released items is that they assess the curriculum that we are required by the state to teach. Therefore, how well the students perform on these assessments gives principals an opportunity to informally assess the effectiveness of the delivery of the curriculum. If you have questions about how to use the released items, please contact one of the curriculum folks from that area of expertise (literacy or math) or PRE, and well get someone to help you. If you do not have a disk, contact Marion Woods. Cc\nDr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent Frances Cawthon, Assistant Superintendent 7 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LEASE. KATHY R. Monday, August 23,1999 12:53 PM PRICE, PATRICIA\nHUFFMAN, KRIS\nTEETER, JUDY\nMILAM, JUDY\nKILLINGSWORTH, PATRICIA\nFREEMAN, ANN\nCLEAVER, VANESSA\nGLASGOW, DENNIS LESLEY, BONNIE\nTRUETT, IRMA Smart Start Assessments Importance: High Dear Folks, We would like to initiate some conversation about the released items on the Smart Start disk and how we could use them in our CRTs. I would also like Susie Davis and Pat Busbea to join us, but they dont have email, so Pat Price and Ann, when you see them, please invite them. We would like to meet on Friday morning at 8:30 in room 18. I sent a memo to principals asking if they had folks who would be interested in working with us. We have had several responses. After this initial brainstorming session, we will add teachers, parents, and principals to a larger planning group. If you cant join us, please me or Irma (2121) know. Thanks, KL Dr. Kathy Lease, Asst. Supt. Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski St. Little Rock, AR 72206 Phone: 501-324-2122 Fax: 501-324-2126 Email: kriease@lrsdadm.lrscl.k12.ar.us 1 8 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LEASE. KATHY R. Friday. September 17.1999 1:43 PM ANDERSON. BARBARA\nASHLEY. VIRGINIA\nBEARD. SUSAN\nBRANCH. SAMUEL\nCARSON. CHERYL\nCARTER. LILLIE\nCHEATHAM. MARY\nCOURTNEY. THERESA\nCOX. ELEANOR\nSMITH. DARIAN\nMITCHELL. DEBORAH\nDUNBAR. ETHEL B.\nDONOVAN. FAITH\nFIELDS. FREDERICK\nGOLSTON. MARY\nHALL. DONNA\nHARKEY. JANE\nHARRIS. HENRY\nHOBBS. FELICIA L.\nJONES. BEVERLY\nKEOWN. ADA\nSCULL. LILLIE\nMANGAN. ANN\nBARKSDALE. MARY D.\nMENKING. MARY\nMORGAN. SCOTT\nACRE. NANCY\nOLIVER. MICHAEL\nPHILLIPS. TABITHA\nBROOKS. SHARON A.\nSMITH. DARIAN\nTUCKER. JANIS A.\nWARD. LIONEL\nWILSON. JANICE M.\nWORM. JERRY\nZEIGLER. GWEN S.\nCARTER. JODIE\nHOWARD, RUDOLPH\nBROWN, LINDA\nNORMAN. CASSANDRA R.\nSMITH. VERNON\nBERRY. DEBORAH\nFULLERTON. JAMES\nHUDSON. ELOUISE\nJAMES. BRENDA\nBUCK, LARRY\nMOSBY. JIMMY\nPATTERSON. DAVID\nROUSSEAU. NANCY MITCHELL. SADIE\nCAWTHON. FRANCES H.\nLACEY. MARIAN G.\nBRADFORD. GAYLE NWEA Overview Darian. I dont which of these addresses is right for you! Hope you get this. It came back the first time! KL Dear Principals. I would like to invite you to an. overview session on the new pre-and post-test assessments that we will be developing for grades 3-11 with Northwest Evaluation Association. Our consultant will be here from Portland to give us a presentation on what we can expect from our new assessments and the process that will take place to design those assessments. The session will be on Sept. 23\"' at 3:00 in room 19 of the IRC. I scheduled it at this time so that there would be a minimum amount of interference with your school day. should you decide to attend. I think you would find the session informative and helpful as we look at the whole assessment package that is facing us. If you cannot come at this time, there will be a morning session for curriculum and district-level folks at 9:00 in room 19 at the IRC. You are welcome at either session. Please call me if you have questions (2122). Thanks. Kathy PS-Please call your fellow principals that may not be reading their email!! Dr. Kathy Lfease, Asst. Supt. Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski St. Little Rock, AR 72206 Phone: 501-324-2122 Fax: 501-324-2126 Email: krlease@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us 1 9F EARLY CHILDHOOD/LITERACY LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 September 17,1999 TO: Principals FROM\nPat Busbea and AAnnn Freeman THROUGH: Pat Price, Early Childhood/Literacy SUBJECT: Assessment Training During our recent assessment trainings we found that several teachers have not received all the training necessary to fulfill the Districts testing requirements. We need your help in identifying these teachers so we can provide the needed training. Please provide a list of any new K-2 teachers who began working in your building after the trainings were held on August 16*^ and 17^. Also, if you are a Success For All school please list any teachers that did not attend the ELLA trainings that were held on August 16* and 17 . Both lists need to include the teachers name, grade level, and assessment trainings needed. Please send your list(s) to us by Monday, September 27. Or you may e-mail this information to Pat Price. Thank you for your cooperation. Listed below is a list of the assessments for each grade level: Kindergarten teachers need to be trained in the following assessments from Marie Clays Observation Survey:  Letter identification  Word test  Concepts about print  Writing vocabulary  Hearing and recording sounds in words (dictation sentence). First Grade teachers need to be trained in the following assessments from Marie Clays dbservation Survey:  Assessment Training - Memo September 17, 1999 Page Two  Letter identification  Word test  Concepts about print  Writing vocabulary  Hearing and recording sounds in words (dictation sentence) Ret^nn administering the Developmental Reading Assesments by Joetta Beavers. --------- Marie Clays Observation Survey: i\" ' fello^ins assessments from  Word test  Writing vocabulary  Heanng and recording sounds in words (dictation sentence)  teachers also need training in administering the ^velopmental Reading Assessment by Joetta Beavers Test by Gentry and Gillett. and the Gentry Spelling /adg i ) j i r i10 i i Memorandum LL l\u0026gt;l\\sloc \u0026lt;0Mtnw I I I To: From: Principals and K-2 Teachers Pal Busbea and Ann Freeman Through: rat Price, Director of Early Childhood/Literacy Date: Re: 03/09/00 Assessment Training There will be an assessment training review for anyone who feels they need to go over the assessments before post-testing begins in April. We will review running records, the Developmental Reading Assessment and the sub-test in Observation Survey. The training will be Monday, March 20,2000 from 3:30 p.m.- 6:30 p.m. at King Elementary in toe multipurpose room. Please call Sandra in toe Literacy Department at 324-0526 to register for toe training. We will have to limit toe session to 50 participants due to space, so please notify us as soon as possible. t f' if' .F 1 t. '.i- I11LESLEY, BONNIE From: lent: Subject: NEAL, LUCY Friday, March 17, 2000 3:38 PM LESLEY, BONNIE great book Last night I had one of those wake-up-in-the-middle-of-the-night-and-worry sessions. Thinking I would read myself back to sleep I picked up How Teachers Learn Technology Best by Jamie McKenzie. It is super. He covers so many issues we are dealing with from how adults learn, how we assess technology knowledge, approaches to integrating technology and not just buying \"stuff'....and on and on. I would lend it to you but I'm afraid you might not give it back and I need this book. Anyway -1 had to share it. If I buy a few more copies, would you like one? One site he lists for assessing technology is http-.l/www.bham.wednet.edu/assess2.htm. Take a look at the assessment for staff. If we could survey our staff for baseline data and then give it again each year, we would have some good stuff that would help us figure out a plan. See what you think. Enough. I think I'll go home. Lucy M. Neal, Director, Technology and Media Services Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501.324.0577 (voice) 501.324.0504 (fax) 1 12LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation . 3001 South Pulaski X Little Rock, Arkansas 72006 March 4, 2000 - TO\nElementary, Middle School Principals and Test Coordinators FROM\nYwette Dillingham, Testing and Evaluation Specialist THROUGH\nathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent, PRE SUBJECT\nACTAAP Benchmark Exam (Grades 4 \u0026amp; 8) and Field Testing (Grade 6) We have received the following important and new information from the ADE regarding the above exams\n Please make note that Intermediate Level (Grade 6) students in the LRSD will take the Writing portion of the Benchmark Examination (Field Test).  LRSD was not selected to participate in the End of Course Algebra I and Geometry Field Tests.  Please send home with students, the week of April 10-14, the enclosed Benchmark Parent Notification Pamphlet that explain the importance of ACTAAP and provide information on the Benchmark Exams (Grades 4 \u0026amp; 8) and Field Test (Grade 6).  Test Administrators need to be very familiar with the content of the enclosed Test Administrators Manuals, therefore, please disseminate the manuals immediately upon receipt.  Secured test materials for (Grades 4 \u0026amp; 8) will be delivered to schools on April 19. Secured test materials for (Grade 6) will be delivered to schools no later than April 24. If you have any questions or need additional Parent Notification Pamphlets and Test Administrators Manuals, please call me at 2123 or fax your request to 324-2126. 13r Description of the Assessment System System Overview Assessment of student achievement is partitioned as follows\n1. Comparison with national norms 2. Mastery of State standards and benchmarks 3. Mastery of District standards and benchmarks The District trend has been to reduce broad utilization of norm referenced measures, such as the Stanford Achievement Test, 9* Edition and to target select grades where comparison with national norms may be most useful. Concurrently, a broad expansion of criterion referenced measurement has been instituted in a sequential and cumulative process of administration at targeted grade levels. Norm Referenced Measures of Math \u0026amp; Science Achievement Relative to mathematics and science, the following three measures are administered annually at targeted grade levels: SAT-9 ACT EXPLORE PLAN AP Stanford Achievement Test 9\" Edition American College Testing American College Testing American College Testing The College Board Advanced Placement Test Grades 5, 7, 10 Grades 11, 12 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grades 10, 11, 12 Widely known and utilized in school systems, no description of these measures is provided here. Criterion Referenced Measures of Math \u0026amp; Science Achievement Relative to mathematics and science, the following three measures are to be administered armually at targeted grade levels: ALT ACTAAP CRT ACTAAP Achievement Level Test State Benchmark Examination District Benchmark Examination Grades 2-11 Grades 4, 8 Grades 3-11 End of Course Tests: Algebra I, Geometry, Biology I A brief overview of these lesser known measures is provided later in this document. Measures for Testing Mathematics Achievement The tables below were designed to clarify the assessment system. Measures for Testing Mathematics Achievement Grade Level K i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 End of Course Total Grade Level K i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 End of Course Total Number of Tests 0 0 2 2 3 3 2 3 4 2 5 4 2 2 34 Type of Tests Name of Tests Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion \u0026amp; Norm Criterion Criterion \u0026amp; Norm Criterion \u0026amp; Norm Criterion Criterion \u0026amp; Norm Criterion \u0026amp; Norm Norm Criterion 11 criterion, 6 norm ALT, CRT ALT, CRT ALT, CRT, ACTAAP ALT, CRT, SAT-9 ALT, CRT ALT, CRT SAT-9 ALT, CRT, EXPLORE, ACTAAP ALT, CRT ALT, CRT, SAT-9, PLAN, AP ALT, CRT ACT, AP AP, ACT Algebra 1, Geometry Measures for Testing Science Achievement Number of Tests 0 0 01 12 12 21 43 31 21 Type of Tests Name of Tests Criterion Criterion Criterion \u0026amp; Norm Criterion Criterion \u0026amp; Norm Criterion \u0026amp;. Norm Criterion Criterion \u0026amp; Norm Criterion \u0026amp; Norm Criterion \u0026amp; Norm Criterion 11 Criterion, 6 Norm ALT ALT ALT, SAT-9 ALT ALT, SAT-9 ALT, EXPLORE ALT ALT, SAT-9, PLAN, AP ALT, ACT, AP ALT, ACT, AP Biology 1 2 Orientation to Criterion Referenced Assessment Measures Criterion referenced testing is an increasingly significant approach to assessment in the Little Rock School District and in the Arkansas State Department of Education in a phinful effort to measure achievement in relation to standards and their attending benchmarks. Summaries of lesser known measures are provided below. State Mandated ACTAAP Benchmark Examination, Grades 4 \u0026amp; 8 The State is in the process of implementing its Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment \u0026amp; Accountability Program (ACTAAP) which includes a Benchmark Examination containing a measure of mathematics achievement. The intent and purpose of this component is to identify students in need of additional instruction in mathematics. This examination process is being developed, piloted, and implemented in a sequential and cumulative process beginning with 4' th grade in SY 1997-98, and including 8' grade in SY 1998-99. SY 2000-01 will incorporate the math measure for b\"\" grade currently being piloted in other schools across Arkansas. Also end- of-course measures for Algebra I, Geometry, and Biology I are currently in the item development phase. The comprehensive mathematics component contains multiple-choice and open-response questions based on The Arkansas Mathematics, Reading, and English/Language Arts Curriculum Frame-works. Items are developed with the assistance and approval of the Arkansas Department of Mathematics Content Advisory Committee composed of active Arkansas educators with expertise in mathematics. The committee develops and reviews both multiple-choice and openresponse items to ensure they reflect the Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks and are grade- appropriate. While multiple-choice questions are scored by machine to determine if the student chose the correct answer from four options, responses to open-response mathematics questions are scored by trained readers using a pre-established set of scoring criteria. Students can receive a test score of one through four with four representing Advanced followed by Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. Achievement Level Test (ALT), Grades 2-11 The recently implemented Achievement Level Test (ALT) includes a series of mathematics achievement measures that increase in difficulty across eight levels. This type of measurement is designed to document growth by assessing students at the cutting edge of their individual achievement level. Fall and spring administration across grades 2-11 permit measurement of growth within and across school years expressed in two kinds of scores: percentile scores and scale or RIT (Rasch Interval Scale) scores. Percentile scores can be used to compare students to the large group of test takers using the ALT developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association. It is important to note that this is a comparative group currently involving 104 schools districts 3and 500,000 students and growing 4 to 13 points annually. This is not a norm group configured to represent public school populations. More importantly, demonstration of growth within and across an individuals matriculation in grades 2-11 is documented using the RIT score designed to make direct comparisons to a criterion performance level along a scale from 160 to 250. Students typically start at a RIT score of about 170-190 in the fall of the 3\"* grade and progress to the 230-260 range by high school. Students at 235 have reached a readiness level for Algebra I. It is very important to note that along the Rasch Interval Scale, scores have the same meaning regardless of the individual students grade level. This type of measurement allows some students to start at a higher RIT level and some low-achieving students to never reach the top level. The design provides an accurate measure of each students achievement where the typical standardized test, by its nature, provides inadequate measures for many students, especially those at the high and low ends of the scale. Also important is the fact that tests are aligned with The Arkansas Mathematics, Reading, and English/Language Arts Curriculum Frameworks, thus enabling the District to determine impact and effectiveness of its instructional programs. The pool of test questions, developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association, has been extensively field tested to insure items of the highest quality and fairness. A balance of math teachers and curriculum specialists (i.e., race, gender, and grade level) matched the pool of questions to the standards and their attending benchmarks included in the aforementioned Frameworks. During test development activities, questions were calibrated for difficulty and assigned to a level (e.g.. Math levels 1-8). For example\nAn appropriate expectation of a Level 1 student is to multiply whole numbers, while a Level 6 student should be able to multiply fractions. This calibration makes it possible to calculate the RIT score which is tied directly to the curriculum. alts are administered during the 1\" and 3\"* quarters and measure achievement in elementary grade and middle grade math, algebra I, algebra II, and geometry. The tests consist of multiple choice questions and while there is no time limit each test takes approximately 90 minutes to complete. A variety of reports are available and the NWEA software disaggregates the data by school, teacher, grade level, subject, gender, ethnicity, and special codes (e.g., special education and ESL). Classroom reports provide student data on RIT scores, percentile scores, and performance in relation to standards and benchmarks. District/school wide reports provide comparison data among schools. Parent reports provide RIT, percentile, and benchmark performance scores as well as an explanation of how to interpret test scores. Future developments include the addition of a Science Component to the ALT in the late Spring of 2000. Using the aforementioned process, select science teachers and curriculum specialists will draw items from a software pool provided by the Northwest Evaluation Association. This process, which can be repeated to revise the test periodically, will enable the District to ensure congruence of the science measure with the aforementioned Frameworks. First administration of 4 the science measure is planned for Fall, 2000. District Mandated CRT Benchmark Examination, Grades 3-12 Both the aforementioned ACTAAP Benchmark Examination and the Districts CRT Benchmark Examination are designed to measure a students proficiency of The Arkansas Mathematics, Reading, and English/Language Arts Curriculum Frameworks. In contrast to sequential and cumulative implementation of the ACTAAP (4* and 8'*' grades to date with 6* grade in 2001), the CRT Benchmark Examination measures mathematics achievement across grades 3-12. The Districts Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation conducted an extensive and thorough reliability and validity study using data from students taking the CRT Benchmark Examination during Spring, 1999. Study results performed by Ph.D. level research personnel document the CRT Benchmark Examination as a reliable measurement with concurrent validity. In addition, very strong evidence documents that over time this measure will get consistent results (reliability). Pearson-Product Moment correlation results were obtained using test scores from the 4* grade ACTAAP and CRT Benchmark Examinations. A test of internal consistency (i.e., reliability) was performed on the CRT Benchmark Examination. Results indicate the ACTAAP and CRT Benchmark Examinations have a positive and significant conelation (Math, .663, \u0026lt;.01 and Reading, .690, \u0026lt;.01). Alpha levels, an indicator of reliability, were .924 for the CRT Benchmark Examinations measure of mathematics achievement and .899 for the measure of reading achievement. The effectiveness of this powerful and sensitive measure has been enhanced by development of district and class summaries designed to display results in an item analysis format that connects test results for individual questions to benchmarks and their respective standards. Examination of the class report reveals how visually easy it is to identify precisely which benchmarks an individual student or groups of students need further instruction on and which they perform at the proficient or advanced level. 514 Procedures for Providing Data Analysis/Interpretation to Decision Makers System Overview Decision makers work at all levels of math and science programming. Parents, teachers, curriculum consultants, principals, program directors, various levels of system administrators, and community partners all make decisions relevant to CPMSA programming. Each cohort needs data collected and recorded for the project. The format varies from comprehensive documents laden with figures for annual reports or site visits from the funding agent to targeted fact sheets or briefs prepared for program participants such as lead teachers participating in academic support initiatives or ancillary staff coordinating academic enrichment programs. Formats For Disseminating Data to Facilitate Direct Programming A variable format from the brief to the comprehensive is needed for direct program providers. At the time of this report the academic support format involves a series of tables with a fact sheet used to record and report progress on a mathematics initiative encompassing 4* and 8* grades. This specific example of a working format designed to collect and disseminate data in a circular fashion that promotes program evaluation and program implementation in a feedback loop and is continually adapted to meet emerging needs is a particular area of expertise for the NSF Program Evaluator. This format works particularly well with direct service providers and will continue to be used. A version of this loop format is currently being utilized to facilitate expansion of the After School Science Club. Activities include and elementary and middle school teacher surveys to capture their input in decision making related to prioritizing science club content for the upcoming year to be congruent with standards and benchmarks addressed in classroom-based activities. The materials used in these two endeavors are designed to collect and disseminate data across various participants in a decision-making network related to a specific program. Table/fact sheet materials are in place to collect and disseminate data for direct providers to use their own decision making or in collaborative decsion making with classroom teachers or communitybased site participants. Formats vary for facilitating direct programming but typically they involve mechanisms that can visually convey just-in-time data to personnel applying the information directly. They are designed to promote effective functioning and to capture all critical variables with ease in recording, transmitting, processing (analyzing and interpreting) and returning processed data to participants in a timely manner to keep the loop functioning to the benefit of all. Formats for Disseminating Data to Facilitate Long Range Planning Various groups need access to the Program Evaluation Record, the repository where current dataI, are housed on the following topics: 1, 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. District-Wide Student Demographics \u0026amp; Select Statistics Enrollment Information for Gate-Keeping Math and Science Courses Achievement Data for Math and Science Academic Support Initiatives Academic Enrichment Programs Professional Development and Certification Across Teachers of Math and Science Community Engagement Resource Allocation Such groups include the following types of personnel: CPMSA program/project administrators Cabinet members Board of Education Community media Principals School facilities Counselors Assistant principals CPMSA Governing Board Other grant funded program.'project administrators Easy access to this repository is needed for direct (1) fiscal, (2) programmatic, and (3) community-based initiatives related to NSF. Additionally, these types of personnel have frequently contacted the NSF Program Evaluator for specific data to extend and enrich CPMSA planning. Personnel representing other District programs also request data they know is warehoused in the Program Evaluation Record for a variety of District needs. At the current time, a primary copy of the Program Evaluation Record is housed in the NSF Program Evaluators office and the Program Directors office. These two individuals have planned for some time to utilize an existing District approach to transmit a copy of the current edition to select personnel from list above. The approach is to distribute copies in ring binder format with periodic Information Updates forwarded by in-house mail. The Information Update can take memo form: identifying its purpose and intent and where to insert it into the ring binder. This is a mechanism all District personnel are familiar with and utilized for similar types of projects. Plans are underway to introduce the Information Update process and to distribute initial materials at the next NSF Governing Board meeting. For example, the recently completed first year evaluation of the After School Science Club would be an excellent Information Update as would the 4' and S* Grade Mathematics Initiative. 2To extend the utility of tins approach, a Project Circular in the form of a fact sheet, will be disseminated electronically using the extensive District e-mail network. Updates at periodic intervals will be emailed to personnel selected by the Co-Principal Investigators and the Project Director. It is important to note that in the fall meeting of the NSF Governing Board this type of electronic information dissemination was enthusiastically endorsed. The Districts email directory installed in each computer will facilitate this. The electronic network is there and can be easily utilized for this purpose. Additionally, a feedback loop can be implemented here to enable personnel to request data and to submit data and in this way enhance planning and decision making. Formats for Disseminating Data to Facilitate the Understanding of Data Frequently reports related to test results are distributed to coimselors, principals, and other busy personnel with little time or expertise in decoding these dense and technical manuscripts. District-wide ACT, Plan, Explore, and AP reports have been purchased and routed to the NSF Program Evaluators office where they are processed and transformed into useful, practical formats with direct application to program decision making. Currently these reconstituted test reports are housed in the Program Evaluation Record. This data can easily be disseminated in small relevant segments using a fact sheet form that is compact, visually accessible and highly useful for busy personnel who need to apply the information directly. The Information Update or Project Circular format in hard copy or electronically or both can be used to distribute this very useful information to District personnel. Marketing research has long demonstrated the value of the touch-touch method of information dissemination in contrast to the one-time bury them with data approach. Recent brain research conoborates these findings. This concept will be embedded in the approach of disseminating the analysis and interpretation of test results in small relevant segments as close to the time of administration as possible. This process will be monitored to identify modifications that will make it more effective and efficient. Formats for Disseminating Data to Specific CPMSA Program Components The NSF Program Evaluator will meet with the Project Team to identify the most effective and useful approach for processing data. Once data has been processed, it will be presented to the Project Team so they have access to program evaluation data prior to other District personnel. Evaluation reports, both formative and summative, will be included as well as a preview of Information Updates such as the aforementioned After School Science Club report or the 4* and 8' Grade Mathematics Initiative. In addition, CPMSA program personnel have related data needs that can be met through this mechanism. For example, Dr. Bonnie Lesley recently needed to access raw data on students enrolled in Pre-AP and AP courses for the past three years. She analyzed and interpreted the 3data, by school and by specific course. Her intent and purpose was to (1) report the efforts that had been made to increase percentages of African American students enrolled in these courses and (2) to identify areas needing improvement by school and subject area. The resulting information was disseminated in writing and discussion with the Division of Instruction. Plans were made to enhance curriculum and teacher training for the Pre-AP courses. A goal was established to align activities with ACT objectives and the AP syllabus and to begin reviewing materials. This is an excellent example of data driving decision making that produces a feed back loop with direct impact on programming. Formats for Disseminating Data to Meet Policy Reporting Requirements A May/June program evaluation presentation has been scheduled to inform District board members of the status and activities of CPMSA program evaluation. While this formal activity will serve to meet policy reporting requirements, it will be an appropriate time to initiate an informal reporting process utilizing the aforementioned Information Updates and Project Circulars. Summary Principal inyestigators, the program director, and the NSF program evaluator have considerable combined expertise in presenting information to stimulate its direct application in educational environments. In addition, the NSF Program Evaluator has provided technical assistance to programs nationwide related to the dissemination of data in accessible formats that promote immediate application. The combined energy and expertise will bring the initiatives described herein to a high level of quality and utility designed to promote excellence in decision making. 415 1. Orientation to the Analysis \u0026amp; Interpretation of Test Results District-wide Orientation A major transition is underway related to the type and number of assessment measures used to document the mathematics and science achievement of students. Two major initiatives (ALT, CRT) designed to obtain highly detailed information directly related to standards and benchmarks for all students, from primary to secondary, are so new that the results are still being processed. At the time of this report, race/ethnicity disaggregation is not yet available. These measures have great breadth and depth and are designed to located students on a scale and then measure growth. These pieces of the picture will be accurate and comprehensive based on reliable and valid measures but these pieces of the picture will arrive later. See addendum to this report, sent separately to Julio Lopez, NSF project officer, with our first figures to document CPMSA programmatic impact at the fourth grade cohort - both the current group and those who are now in 5* grade. Our first real sign of impact is powerful: the J\"\" and 5*** grade had gains of 1.5% and 18.8% respectively between the first administration of the CRT Benchmark Exam in 1998 and the second administration in 1999. This is a grade level cohort at which considerable resources have been targeted not the least of which are the wonderful lead teachers. At the time of this report the data were not yet disaggregated by race so we cannot yet identify how these increases are spread across the 6 race/ethnicity cohorts . Implications for us center around the fact that 3\"* and 6\"' grades had a decrease of 3.4% and 4% respectively. Other criterion-referenced measures (ACTAAP) are being implemented sequentially and cumulatively one grade at a time so although scores and race/ethnicity disaggregation are available they only cover two grades. While the information they provide is excellent and has great promise for expanding the achievement picture, it is a work in progress. Test results for the well-established norm referenced measures are available, particularly with race/ethnicity disaggregation. It is important not to be distracted by their availability. They have serious flaws and that is why the ongoing transition is occuring to support their results with criterion referenced data. Targeted grade levels for administering this particular measure do not capture growth and may be producing an incomplete picture of student achievement. Other norm referenced measures such as Advanced Placement are measures students self select to take. For this measure and for the Explore, Plan, and ACT tests, from American College Testing, teacher concern centers around the fact that students and their parents, particularly minority students, are not well informed about the intent and purpose of such measures. Students take these tests with little or no planned introduction to promote motivation and enhanced test performance. It is also important to note the impact on math and science during this transition. The change initiative first impacted mathematics and only now is addressing science assessment. For example, work is underway to implement criterion referenced measures, particularly the ALT. At this time the only available data in this report related to .science achievement comes from norm referenced tests: the SAT-9, Advanced Placement, Explore, Plan, and ACT. A review of this document will create the impression of an incomplete picture. That impression will be accurate and serve to underscore the transitional status of LRCPMSA activities to document mathematics and science achievement. A positive influence on this process has been created by the National Science Foundation. Not only has the initiation timetable has been speeded up but (1) measures that capture growth for each student and (2) measures that document achievement in relation to standards and benchmarks have become a major focus. The achievement picture is expanding in tandem with CPMSA. At the same time grant- sponsored programs are stimulating achievement, the Assessment System is better able to measure the growth. It is important to note that the Core Data Elements report required by NSF focuses on mathematics and science assessment results after three years of CPMSA programming. The LRCPMSA will be implementing its third year at the same time the Assessment System transition activities are coming together. In the meantime, this report has been partitioned to aid the reader in getting a clearer picture related to mathematics and science achievement at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Across measures, the most complete picture possible at this time is presented. Particularly in the case of the new criterion referenced measures, preliminary data is all that is currently available. This information is presented as it affords a valuable preview of upcoming comprehensive data. IL Analysis \u0026amp; Interpretation of Mathematics Test Results Elementary Student Achievement in Math Overview Elementary student achievement in mathematics is measured by one norm referenced measure: the Stanford Achievement Test - 9'*' Edition. Three, less familiar, criterion referenced measures are also utilized: the Achievement Level Test (ALT)\nthe Criterion Referenced Test (CRT)\nand the ACTAAP Benchmark Examination. In preparation for understanding the results of these less familiar please refer to the Description of the Assessment document contained in another section of this report. Mathematics Achievement Measured by Criterion Referenced Tests Interpretation of Achievement Level Test (ALT) Results The most recent documentation of elementary mathematics achievement are results of the recently administered Achievement Level Test (ALT). Administered in March, test takers 2involve students in Grades 2-5. District-wide summaries are available at the time of this report. However, data related to race/ethnicity are not yet available to identify the configuration of the population. Nevertheless, the available mean, median, and standard deviation document the achievement of each grade level cohort. More importantly, the first administration of this type of measure locates each of the 7711 LRSD students in grades 2 - 5 on the Rasch Interval (RIT) Scale so each subsequent fall and spring administration of the test can measure growth. Across grades 2 - 5, 7145 test takers (92.6% of the total elementary population of 7711) comprised the following cohorts: Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 23.5% 26.0% 25.9% 24.3% 1,686 students 1,864 students 1,852 students 1,743 students The ALT utilizes the Rasch Interval Scale in which test takers typically start at a scored of 170- 190 in the fall of the third grade. Mean RIT scores displayed below are consistent with expectations for their grade. Although the range of RIT scores is not yet available for each grade, the median and standard deviation indicate little dispersion or variability of scores. For grades 2-5 scores are clustered around the mean and not widely scattered. Grade Mean Median Standard Deviation 2 3 4 5 182 194 202 208 183 194 202 208 13.46 13.49 13.26 13.60 Once race/ethnicity data are available, it will be possible to determine how much of the variability or dispersion from the mean is associated with these variables. These scores should be regarded as the starting location on the RIT scale from which growth will be measured twice annually until each student completes grade 11. Interpretation of ACTAAP Benchmark Test Results As the ACTAAP overview in Description of the Assessment System indicates, the Benchmark Examination for 4* grade has only been administered for two school years. Across the two first administrations of the Benchmark Examination, an average of 1,701 fourth graders (1,643 in SY 1997-98 and 1,760 in SY 1998-99) took the math component of this test. Complete data is available for both Baseline and Year One. Although this measure is only administered at the 4th grade level, 88.8% of the population at that grade level took the test. Available race/ethnicity data make it possible to describe configuration of the population in detail. 3The majority of 4th grade test takers performed at the basic or below basic quartiles: 74% (1208 students) in the Baseline year\n78% (1366 students) in Year One. Distribution across quartiles was very stable (less than 10% change). The greatest change in the number of test takers was a 9.0 increase in those performing at the below basic quartile in Year One. Quartile 1997-98 1999-98 Difference Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Test Takers 10% 16% 24% 50% 1,639 9% 13% 19% 59% 1,754 -1 -3 -5 9 115 The majority of test takers were Black/not Hispanic. From Baseline to Year One the mean number of test takers in this cohort was 680 or 39.9% of the test taking population. As figures in the following table indicate, a significant majority (89.0%) of this cohort performed at the two lowest quartiles. Compared to other cohorts. Black test takers had a significant minority performing at the Advanced and Proficient quartiles. This cohort had the smallest percentage of test takers performing at the Advanced quartile. Quartiles Indian Asian Black White Hispanic 1 2- 3 4 12.5 7.0 20.5 60.0 30.5 23.5 16.5 29.5 2.5 8.0 20.0 69.0 24.5 27.5 26.5 23.5 9.0 27.5 16.5 47.5 The second largest group of test takers were White/not Hispanic with a mean of 501 (29.4%) test takers from Baseline to Year One. As in the following table indicate, this cohort was very evenly distributed across each of the four achievement levels with a slightly larger (6%) at the Proficient and Basic quartiles. The Hispanic cohort had a mean of 24 (14.1%) test takers from Baseline to Year One. A bifurcated distribution characterized this cohort: 47.5% at Basic/Below Basic and 27.5% at Proficient. The Asian cohort had a mean of 30 (17.6%) students. The majority of students (54.0%) performed at the Advanced and Proficient while 46.0% were at Basic/Below Basic. The small American Indian cohort had a mean of 14 (8.5%) across Baseline and Year One with 80.5 % at 4at Basic/Below Basic. Mathematics Achievement Measured by Norm Referenced Test Results Interpretation of SAT-9 Test Results A single norm referenced measure is administered at the elementary level - the Stanford Achievement Test - 9th Edition. Complete data are available for Baseline through Year Two. Although this measure is only administered to 5th graders, available math achievement data make it possible to describe configuration of the population in detail. Across the three administrations of the SAT-9, an average of 1575 fifth graders (1,635 in SY 1997-98\n1530 in SY 1998-99\nand 1560 in SY 1999-2000) took the math component of this test. Complete data is available for Baseline through Year One. Although this measure is only administered at the 5th grade level, 82.9% of the population at that grade level took the test. Available race/ethnicity data make it possible to describe configuration of the population in detail. Quartile 1997-98 1999-98 Difference 1999-20 Difference Fourth Third Second Top Test Takers 15% 23% 23% 39% 13%  20% 25% 42% -2.0 -3.0 2.0 3.0 12% 19% 23% 46% -1 -1 -2 -4 1,635 1,530 105 1560 75 The majority of test takers were Black/not Hispanic. Across Baseline and Year One the mean number of test takers in this cohort was 989 or 63.2% of the test taking population. As figures in the following table indicate, a significant majority (80.5%) of this cohort performed at the two lowest quartiles. Compared to other cohorts. Black test takers had a significant minority performing at the top two quartiles. This cohort had the smallest percentage of test takers performing in Quartile 4. Quartiles Indian Asian Black White Hispanic Other 1234 41.6 8.3 16.6 33.3 11.5 12.6 34.6 41.0 57.3 23.2 13.2 6.1 21.3 22.3 28.2 28.0 40.5 28.2 15.1 18.5 23.8 26.1 23.8 26.1 5 The second largest group of test takers were White/not Hispanic with a mean of 414 (26.4%) students. As figures in the following table indicate, this cohort was very evenly distributed across each of the four quartiles with a slightly larger (6%) number in the top two quartiles. The Hispanic cohort had a mean of 127 (8.1%) test takers across Baseline and Year One. The majority (68.7%) performed in e two lowest quartiles. The remaining 33.6% were rather evenly dispersed across the top two quartiles. Configuration of this cohort is similar to the dispersion of Black test takers across the four quartiles. The Asian cohort had a mean of 18 (1.5%) students. Configuration of this cohort is the opposite of that for Hispanic test takers. The majority of students (75.6%) performed in Quartiles 3 and 4 with a rather evenly distributed 24.3% in Quartiles 1 and 2. The Other cohort of students for whom race/ethnicity is not identified had a mean of 14 (.08%) students. Configuration of this cohort is similar to the rather even dispersion of White test takers across the four quartiles. A bifurcated distribution characterized the American Indian cohort: 41.6% in Quartile 1 and 49.9% in Quartiles 3 and 4. This small group had a mean of 12 (.006%) from Baseline to Year Two. Summary of Mathematics Achievement at the Elementary Level The ACTAAP and SAT-9 document stability in the number of test takers across race/ethnic cohorts. Additionally, these two measures identify the ongoing position of Black and Hispanic test takers in the lower two quartiles in contrast to White and Asian cohorts distributed at higher quartiles and more evenly across the four quartiles. Both measures locate 67 - 78% of elementary test takers in the two quartiles signifying the lowest performance level. Criterion referenced data currently available locate elementary students on an interval scale that will be utilized twice annually in upcoming school years to identity growth in mathematics achievement. Current mean, median, and standard deviation analysis indicate scores have small amounts of variance and that student scores are consistent with expectations for their grade. Middle School Student Achievement in Math Overview Middle school student achievement in mathematics is measured by two norm referenced measures: the Stanford Achievement Test - 9 Edition\nand Explore. Three, less familiar, criterion referenced measures are also utilized: the Achievement Level Test (ALT)\nthe Criterion Referenced Test (CRT)\nand the ACTAAP Benchmark Examination. In preparation for 6understanding the results of these less familiar please refer to the Description of the Assessment document contained in another section of this report. Mathematics Achievement Measured by Criterion Referenced Tests Interpretation of Achievement Level Test (ALT) Results As with the elementary population, the most recent documentation of middle school mathematics achievement are results of the recently administered Achievement Level Test (ALT). Across grades 6-8,4765 test takers (88.4% of the total elementary population of 5386) comprised the following cohorts: Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Algebra I Algebra II Geometry 33.6% 32.9% 26.1% 6.9% .04% .02 % 1604 students 1568 students 1246 students 330 students 30 students 14 students One 8*^ grader, a special education student, performed at an elementary level with a score of 189. This type of student would perform at the 1 quartile on the SAT-9 with no possibility of measuring growth. The ALT is able to document small increments of growth over time. Although the range of RIT scores is not yet available for each grade, the median and standard deviation indicate little dispersion or variability of scores, For grades 6 - 8 scores are clustered around the mean and not widely scattered although the variability for grade 6 and particularly for grade 7 are larger than for the 8* grade cohort and for cohorts in the elementary grades. Mean RIT scores displayed below are consistent with expectations for their grade. Grade Mean Median Standard Deviation 207 213 213 206 212 212 14.08 16.65 13.49 6 7 8 The performance of middle school students in Algebra I, Algebra II, and Geometry is displayed below: Algebra I Mean Median Standard Deviation Grade 7 Grade 8 260 252 259 252 12.95 9.09 7Algebra II Grade 8 259 259 12.20 Geometry Grade 8 264 264 9.96 Once race/ethnicity data are available, it will be possible to determine how much of the variability or dispersion from the mean is associated with these variables. These scores should be regarded as the starting location on the RIT scale from which growth will be measured twice annually until each student completes grade 11. Interpretation of ACTAAP Benchmark Test Results As the ACTAAP overview in Description of the Assessment System indicates, the Benchmark Examination for 8* grade was administered for the first time in SY 1998-99. Complete data is available for the 1497 eighth graders (85.0 of the 1772 eighth grade population) who took the math component of this test. Available race/ethnicity data make it possible to describe configuration of the population in detail. The majority of 8th grade test takers (89.0%) performed at the basic or below basic quartiles. Quartile Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Test Takers 1998-99 2% 9% 24% 65% 1,639 The majority of test takers were Black/not Hispanic. The 1011 test takers in this cohort were (67.5%) of the test taking population. As figures in the following table indicate, a significant majority (97.5%) of this cohort performed at the Basic/Below Basic quartiles. Compared to other cohorts. Black test takers had a significant minority performing at the Advanced and Proficient quartiles. Such a bottom-loaded distribution is typical for this cohort. Quartiles Indian Asian Black White Hispanic 1 2 3 4 0 0 17.6 82.3 9.0 27.2 33.3 30.3 1.8 2.0 17.0 80.5 5.0 25.6 41.8 26.4 0 5.7 17.1 77.1 8The second largest group of test takers were White/not Hispanic with a mean of 401 (26.7%) students. The majority of test takers (68.2%) are bottom-loaded in quartiles 3 and 4. This is a very different distribution than the 4* grade ACTAAP test takers who were evenly distributed across the four quartiles. The Hispanic cohort had a mean of 127 (8.1%) test takers across Baseline and Year One. The majority (94.2%) performed at the Basic/Below Basic quartiles. The 33 member Asian cohort (2.2% of the test taking population) was top-loaded with 63.6% at the Advanced and Proficient quartiles as is characteristic of this cohort. A similar distribution characterized the American Indian cohort\n99.9% in the Advanced and Proficient Quartiles. This small group contained 17 members or 1.1% of the test taking population. Mathematics Achievement Measured by Norm Referenced Test Results Interpretation of SAT-9 Test Results Complete Stanford Achievement Test - 9th Edition data are available for Baseline through Year Two. Although this measure is only administered to 7th graders, 85.5% of the population at that grade level took the test. Available race/ethnicity make it possible to describe configuration of the population in detail. Across the three administrations of the SAT-9, an average of 1545 seventh graders (1592 in SY 1997-98\n1615 in SY 1998-99\nandl428 in SY 1999-2000) took the math component of this test. Complete data is available for Baseline through Year Two. The majority of test takers were Black/not Hispanic. From Baseline to Year Two the mean number of test takers in this cohort was 1013 or 65.5% of the test taking population. As figures ill the following table indicate, a significant majority (76.7%) of this cohort performed at the two lowest quartiles. Compared to other cohorts. Black test takers had a significant minority performing at the top two quartiles. This cohort had the smallest percentage of test takers performing in Quartile 4. Quartile 1997-98 1999-98 Difference 1999-20 Difference Fourth Third Second Top 17% 18% 21% 44% 16% 19% 23% 40% -1.0 1.0 2.0 -4.0 18% 18% 22% 41% 2.0 -1.0 -1.0 1.0 Test Takers 1,592 1,615 -23 1428 -187 9 The second largest group of test takers were White/not Hispanic with a mean 443 (28.6%) students. The majority (64.2% of this cohort performed in quartiles 3 and 4. Quartiles Indian Asian Black White Hispanic Other 1 2 3 4 44.4 22.2 11.1 22.2 18.7 20.3 25.0 35.9 53.5 23.2 14.2 7.3 46.8 18.9 26.6 37.6 16.8 18.8 26.6 37.6 33.3 27.5 13.7 25.4 The Hispanic cohort had a mean of 26 (1.6%) test takers from Baseline to Year Two. The Other cohort of students for whom race/ethnicity is not identified had a mean of 16 (1.0%) students. The Asian cohort had a mean of 42 (1.1%) students. The majority of students (60.9%) performed in Quartiles 3 and 4. A bifurcated distribution characterized the American Indian cohort: 44.4% in Quartile 2 and 33.3% in Quartiles 3 and 4. This small group had a mean 3 (.01%) across Baseline and Year Two. Interpretation of Explore Test Results Complete Explore data are available for Baseline through Year One. Although this American College Testing measure is only administered to 8th graders, 96.7% of the population at that grade level took the test. Across the two administrations of Explore, an average of 1715 eighth graders (1842 in SY 1997-98 and 1589 in SY 1998-99) took the mathematics, Pre-Algebra, Algebra/Geometry component of this test. Available race/ethnicity data make it possible to describe configuration of the population in detail. The 1997-98 average score of 11.9 for the District was 2.7 points lower than the national average of 14.3. In 1998-99, the average District score was 14.6 compared to the national average of 14.3. Thus in Year One, a gain of 3 points was made in the District's average score. The comparison of math scores across race/ethnic groups clearly illustrate that the White and Asian test takers performed close to the national average in the Baseline Year and well above it in Year One. Positively, each cohort demonstrated growth. Black Indian White Mexican Hispanic Asian Puerto Rican Hispanic 1997 11.7 1998 13.0 Dif 1.3 7.0 11.0 3.0 14.4 16.6 2.2 9.0 12.0 3.0 13.7 15.8 2.1 9.0 12.0 3.0 10Summary of Mathematics Achievement at the Middle School Level As with the elementary population, the ACTAAP and SAT-9 document stability in the number of test takers across race/ethnic cohorts. Additionally, the Explore measure identifies the ongoing position of Black and Hispanic test takers in the lower two levels of test performance in contrast to White and Asian cohorts distributed at higher levels of performance and more evenly across levels. At this time, these measures provide the only race/ethnicity documentation of achievement in mathematics. Criterion referenced data currently available locate middle school students on the RIT scale for middle math. Algebra I, Algebra II and Geometry. An added benefit is the ability to document growth of special education students using the ALT measure. These students would otherwise be lodged permanently in the SAT-9 quartile 1 with documentation of small increments of achievement in mathematics. High School Student Achievement in Math Overview High school student achievement in mathematics is measured by three norm referenced measures: the Stanford Achievement Test - 9* Edition\nthe ACT\nand Plan. One, less familiar, criterion referenced measure has cunently been implemented from the master plan for the Assessment System\nthe Achievement Level Test (ALT), soon to be followed by Criterion Referenced Test (CRT) for end-of-course documentation of Algebra, Geometry, Concept Geometry, and Trigonometry. In preparation for understanding the results of these less familiar please refer to the Description of the Assessment document contained in another section of this report. Mathematics Achievement Measured by Criterion Referenced Tests Interpretation of Achievement Level Test (ALT) Results As with elementary and middle school populations, the most recent documentation of high school mathematics achievement are results of the recently administered Achievement Level Test (ALT). Across 9-11, 3853 test takers (54.2% of the total high school population of 7106) comprised the following cohorts: Algebra 1 Algebra II Geometry 16.9% 16.4% 20.8% 1203 students 1171 students 1479 students 11Twenty-eight special education students, performed at an elementary level and 53 at the middle math level. This type of student would perform at the I* quartile on the SAT-9 with no possibility of measuring growth. The ALT is able to document small increments of growth over time. Although the range of RIT scores is not yet available for each grade, the median and standard deviation indicate little dispersion or variability of scores. Scores are clustered more closely around the mean and less widely scattered for these specific subjects than for elementary or middle math. Student mean RIT scores displayed below for Algebra I are consistent with expectations for their grade. Grade Mean Median Standard Deviation 9 10 11 241 239 238 240 239 237 7.08 6.37 6.14 Student mean RIT scores displayed below for Algebra II are consistent with expectations for their grade. Grade Mean Median Standard Deviation 10 11 12 254 250 249 253 250 248 7.80 5.80 4.55 Student mean RIT scores displayed below for Geometry are consistent with expectations for their grade. Grade Mean Median Standard Deviation 10 11 12 248 246 246 247 245 245 6.60 5.78 6.88 Once race and gender data are available, it will be possible to determine how much of the variability or dispersion from the mean is associated with these variables. 12Mathematics Achievement Measured by Norm Referenced Test Results Interpretation of SAT-9 Test Results Complete Stanford Achievement Test - 9th Edition data are available for Baseline through Year Two. Although this measure is only administered to 10th graders, 80.7 % of the population at that grade level took the test. Available race/ethnicity data make it possible to describe configuration of the population in detail. Across the three administrations of the SAT-9, an average of 1571 seventh graders (1645 in SY 1997-98\n1576 in SY 1998-99\nand 1493 in SY 1999-2000) took the math component of this test. Complete data is available for Baseline through Year Two. Quartile 1997-98 1999-98 Difference 1999-20 Difference Fourth Third Second Top 15% 27% 28% 31% 34% 26% 24% 34% -19 -1.0 -4.0 -3.0 13% 24% 27% 36% -21 -2.0 -3.0 2.0 Test Takers 1,646 1,576 -70 1493 -83 The majority of test takers were Black/not Hispanic. From Baseline to Year Two the mean number of test takers in this cohort was 1070 or 55.0% of the test taking population. As figures in the following table indicate, a significant\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_166","title":"Magnet Review Committee (MRC) meeting, agenda, minutes, handouts,and reports","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2013-09-24"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee (MRC) meeting, agenda, minutes, handouts,and reports"],"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/166"],"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":["agendas (administrative records)","minutes (administrative records)","handbills","reports"],"dcterms_extent":["55 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nMAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA September 24, 2013 I. Call to Order II. Reading of the Minutes of August 13, 2013 Ill. General Report A. Correspondence B. Financial Transactions C. Newspaper Articles D. Recruitment Update E. LRSD Original Magnet Schools Personnel - Vacancies and New Hires IV. Business and/or Action Items A. Discussion and Approval for Stipulation Magnet Schools BudgetKelsey Bailey, Chief Financial Officer, LRSD B. Discussion of Job Description and Selection Process for Executive Director Position C. Discussion of Magnet Schools Evaluation Report - New Submission D. Discussion of Sibling Preference Policy for Middle School Students E. Set Next Meeting Date V. Adjournment DRAFT MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES August 13, 2013 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was held in the Magnet Review Committee Office, 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101, North Little Rock, Arkansas on Tuesday, August 13, 2013. Members Present: Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson - LRSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Dr. Robert Clowers, PCSSD Danny Reed, ADE Joy Springer, Joshua lntervenors Members Absent: Micheal Stone, NLRSD Guests: Kelsey Bailey, Chief Financial Officer - LRSD Margie Powell, ODM The meeting was called to order at 8:45 a.m. by Chairperson Dr. Sadie Mitchell. She immediately called for a reading of the minutes of July 10, 2013. Joy Springer offered one correction to the minutes. Oliver Dillingham made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected, and Dr. Robert Clowers seconded the motion. The minutes were unanimously approved as corrected. Copies of an e-mail received from Dr. Robert Clowers, PCSSD MRC representative, were given to Committee members. Dr. Clowers provided information that Dr. Janice Warren is now the Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services, as well as continuing as the Director of Elementary Education. Dr. Clowers also provided contact information for Dr. Warren. No action was required by the MRC. -!JRAFT DRAFT An e-mail was sent to all Student Registration Offices to notify them of the scheduled date for the annual SWAP meet, planned for Monday, July 29, 2013, in the MRC Office. Copies were given to MRC members for their information. Dr. Sadie Mitchell provided MRC members with a copy of an e-mail she sent to a parent concerned about her student's acceptance to Central rather than Parkview. No action was required by the MRC. Bills in the amount of $174.78 were presented for payment. Oliver Dillingham made a motion to pay the bills, and Dr. Clowers seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously to pay the bills. With regard to newspaper articles since the previous MRC meeting, two e-mails were given to MRC members for their information. These articles came from the office of Hogan Lovells and related to Civil Rights issues. When talking about a recruitment update, it was noted that several contacts have been received from parents regarding their children's assignment for the new school year. The MRC Office has been answering their calls and following up on information at their request. An ad has been placed with the Metro Little Rock Magazine, which has a shelf-life of one year and is given to new families moving into the area. Copies were given to MRC members for their information. Vacancies and new hires at the Stipulation Magnet Schools include a new Principal at Mann Magnet, Keith McGee, and an Assistant Principal at Booker, Charlotte Cornice. Dr. Mitchell has requested that her secretary compile a list of all support staff and custodians who also have been hired, and she will have that available for the next MRC meeting. Kelsey Bailey, Chief Financial Officer at Little Rock School District, came to the table to present preliminary budget information for the Stipulation magnet schools. The average in the schools for the previous year is the basis for the -2- DRAFT DRAFT new budget. The  average is down in all schools except for Gibbs, with the total  average now at 3,371.88. Dr. Mitchell noted that the MRC used to submit the budget in July of each year, but now the timeline is set for a September submission. She called the Committee's attention to a Court Order received from Judge Price indicating that a September submission was in order. Mr. Bailey also noted that Arkansas is behind time in providing their indirect costs rates, and no information was received from the State until April, 2013. It should have been received in October, 2012. Mr. Bailey further explained that indirect costs are costs that are not used for student services. Ms. Springer asked Mr. Bailey if LRSD is going to continue with the magnet schools when 50% of the funding is not there anymore. Has it been discussed how LRSD will be funding the schools? Mr. Bailey said it all depends, but it has been discussed. They may have to re-do attendance zones. It all depends on the judge and whether he will want the schools to stay in existence. Dr. Mitchell noted that LRSD is trying for the MSAP Grant for Stipulation magnet schools. They had this grant before and, hopefully, will be selected again. Dr. Clowers said that PCSSDis talking about a phase-out if funding is stopped for magnet schools. It will depend on the judge. Ms. Springer asked if all the districts are all planning for the ending of funding for magnet schools. Mr. Bailey said thinking is that there will be a five-seven year phase-out. But, you still have to see if districts will allow students to cross district lines. Dr. Mitchell thanked Mr. Bailey for coming before the MRC and told him they are looking for his budget submission in September. -3- DRAFT A draft copy of a Job Description for Director of the Magnet Review Committee Office was given to all Committee members for their review. Ms. Springer wants to give it consideration and talk about it at the next meeting. She will need at least a day or two to go over it. Dr. Mitchell said she didn't know if there was an urgency for the posting. Danny Reed asked who does the interviewing and hiring. Dr. Mitchell said that LRSD does so in accordance with their guidelines, but with the input of the MRC. Dr. Clowers asked about the oversight of curriculum requirement. Dr. Mitchell that Donna Creer did a lot of work with the schools as the oversight of curriculum requirements. With regard to the Stipulation Magnet Schools Evaluation Report, MRC members were given a packet of correspondence which occurred recently with Dr. Jeanne Dreyfus, External Evaluator. In the end, Dr. Dreyfus felt it was a lot larger than she had expected and suggested that a new evaluator be hired. Dr. Mitchell said that she would talk to Dr. Karen DeJarnette, in LRSD, to see what could be done. Dr. Mitchell will report back to the MRC in September. A discussion was held with regard to Mann Magnet's discipline program. A copy of the report prepared by Cassandra Steele was given to each Committee member. Ms. Springer noted that she had asked if this discipline program was placed in all the middle school magnets, and the answer is yes. Ms. Springer is pleased that students will be able to access the program from their area school. Dr. Clowers complimented Ms. Springer about a great job she did recently for PCSSDd iscussing the deseg plan with school personnel. Dr. Mitchell said that all Business and Action Items, with the exception of Mann's discipline program will remain as agenda items for the next MRC meeting. It was agreed by consensus that the next MRC meeting will be held in the MRC Office on September 17, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. -4- DRAFT When no further business was brought before the Committee, Joy Springer made a motion to adjourn the meeting, and Oliver Dillingham seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 a.m. -5- Magnet Review From: Sent: To: Subject: customerservice@arkansasonline.com Thursday, August 22, 2013 10: 11 AM Magnet Review Subscriber transactions Thank you for contacting the ARKANSADSE MOCRAT-GAZETTE! MAGNERTE VIEWC OMMITTEE, Your newspapers will be donated to Newspaper in Education. Thank you. We value you as a subscriber. Please call our customer service department should you have any further questions at 1-800-482-1121 or 501-378-3456 during normal business hours which are: Sunday: 6:45 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Monday through Friday: 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday: 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3211/6596 - Release Date: 08/21/13 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE BILLS TO BE PAID SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Subscription Renewal) American Home Life (MRC's Office Rent for September, 2013) American Home Life (Communications Expense for August, 2013) Capital Business Machines (Monthly Charge for Maintenance Contract for the MRC Office Copier) Staples (Supplies for the MRC Office) CompSys (Monthly Billing to Act as Host for MRC's E-Mail) TOTAL BILLS TO BE PAID 60.00 825.00 182.50 78.12 120.56 48.33 $1,314.51 ,S tays oughti n LRs chools uit Attorneys say pending appeals will factor into hearings EVIE BLAD ARKANSADS EMOCRAT-GAZETTE Attorneys for the little Rock School District and an intervenor group asked a federal judge Monday to delay a December trial to determine whether the state should be released from a desegregation settlement agreement that requires it to pay about $70 million in annual aid to Little Rock and two other central Arkansas school districts. The same attorneys previously made a similar request to U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr., asking him for a continuance, which would have stalled the trial while the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis considers whether the state's authorization of independently run charter schools in Pulaski County violated that settlement agreement. Marshall denied that motion. On Monday, the attorneys moved for a stay, a different legal mechanism that would also delay the court proceedings. The request was made by attorneys for the state's largest school district and the Joshua intervenors, which represent black students in the decades-old case. Marshall previously ruled against the Little Rock School District in the charter school matter, disagreeing with its claim that the state approved open-enrollment charter schools without regard for their effects on district magnet schools and other court-approved desegregation efforts. The district has asked the appeals court to overturn that ruling. The state - represented by the attorney general's office - has argued previously that any delay in the December hearing could be costly because it pays the desegregation aid to the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts monthly. But the appeals court's decision in the charter school issue will be a factor in the December hearings, attorneys for the Little Rock district and the Joshua intervenors wrote. That's because the state's argument in its motion for release from the agreement is that it has complied \"in good faith\" with the terms of the settlement. \"The question of whether the State is currently violating the 1989 Settlement Agreement with respect to charter schools cannot be separated from the question of whether the state has generally complied in good faith with that same agreement,\" wrote Chris Heller on behalf of the Little Rock School District and John Walker on behalf of tl1e Joshua intervenors. If the district court sides with the state and grants it a release from settlement obligations before the 8th Circuit rules, it risks legal confusion and a rehearing of the issue if the appeals court rules in Little Rock's favor on the charter school issue, the attorneys wrote. Little Rock filed the original lawsuit in 1982, arguing that the state and two other school districts had fostered segregation between the three Pulaski County school districts. That suit led to a 1989 settlement under which the state pays about $70 million a year to help finance Little Rock's six 01iginal magnet schools and all three districts' majority-to-minority interdistrict student-transfer programs, some employee healthcare and retirement costs, and general operating expenses. Magnet Review From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Good Afternoon All, Curtis, Kimberly D.H. [kimberly.curtis@hoganlovells.com] Wednesday, August 21, 2013 11 :39 AM Donna Creer\nMagnet Review\nKeisha Crowder-Davis (keidavis@dallasisd.org)\nAmaila Cudeiro (cudeiroa@bsd405.org)\nArthur Culver (culverar@champaignschools.org)\n(Jack.Dale@fcps.edu}\nDaniel Harrell\nDavid Duff, Duff, Turner, White \u0026amp; Boykin\nDavid Peterson, Super, No. Suburban Spec.\njohn.davis@dougherty.k12.ga.us\nMichael Davis (madavis@philasd.org)\nSandra K. Day (sandy.day@ops.org)\nSandy Day\nexecutive.director@magnet.edu\nDC Public Schools - Jim Sandman\nDCPS - Harriet Segar (GC's ofc)\nDCPS - Kevin Clinton, BoE Staff\nDCPS - Peggy Cooper Cafritz\nDCPS - Robert Board - Board\nDCPS - Robin Martin\nDCPS - Sara White (CG's office)\nDeidra Honeywell\nDelaware - Mary Cooke (mary.cooke@state.de.us)\nDenver - John Kechriotis, General Counsel\nDenver - Lorna Candler - Deputy General Counsel, Denver Schools\nDenver - Michael Bennet - Supt.\nDetroit - General Counsel's office\nDetroit - M.B. Farrell, Thrun Law Firm\ndicaprioj@schenectady.k12.ny.us\noliver.dillingham@arkansas.gov\nDon Kennedy\nmdonalds@aldine.k12.tx.us\nDonna Elam\nDr. Jill A Shackelford\nDurango School District - Mary Barter - Superintendent (mbarter@durango.net)\nMartha M. Durkin (martha.durkin@tusd1.org)\nPia Durkin Ph. D. (pdurkin@attleboroschools.com)\nDuval - Board - Brenda Priestly Jackson\nDuval - Board - Kris Barnes\nDuval - Board - Nancy Broner\nDuval - Board - Vicki Drake\nDuval - Dr. Joseph Wise, Supt.\nDuval County- Super - Joey Wise\nEarnest Washington, Jr.\nEast Baton Rouge -- Interim Super -- Charlotte Placide\nEast Dubuque Unit SD - Donald Kussmaul, Super.,\nEileen Baker\nElaine Feese\nElaine Ranieri (eranieri@tampabay.rr.com)\nDonna! Elam (dkelam@aol.com)\nElgin - BOE - Amy Kerber\nElgin - BOE - Dale Spencer\nElgin - BOE - Donna Smith\nElgin - BOE - Joyce Fountain\nElgin - BOE - Karen Carney\nElgin - BOE - Ken Kaczynski - President\nElgin - BOE - Maria Bidelman\nElgin - GC - Pat Brancato\nElgin - Superintendent - Dr. Jose Torres\nmaryellen.elia@sdhc.k12.fl.us\nMaryEllen Elia (maryellen.elia@sdhc.k12.fl.us)\nWA- Susan Enfield (saenfield@seattleschools.org)\nEquity Assistance Centers - Dr. Bradley Scott\nEquity Assistance Centers - Dr. Charles Rankin\nEquity Assistance Centers - Jerry Graniero\nEquity Assistance Centers - Joyce Harris\nEquity Assistance Centers - Percy Bates Dr.\nEquity Assistance Centers - Ramon Villarreal\nEvergreen School District - Victoria Bradford\nRonald Felger (rdf@skbw.com) FW: Office for Civil Rights Issues Notice Requesting Public Comment on Mandatory Civil Rights Data Collection OCRdatamemo.docx Per John Borkowski and Shannon Hodge. Kimberly Curtis Assistant to John W. Borkowski, Partner Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Tel +1 202 637 5600 Direct: +1 202 637 7269 Fax: +12026375910 Email. kimberly.curtis@hoganlovells.com www.hoganlovells.com Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. About Hogan Lovells Hogan Lovells is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells US LLP and Hogan Lovells International LLP. For more information, see www.hoqanlovells.com. CONFIDENTIALITY. This email and any attachments are confidential, except where the email states it can be disclosed\nit may also be privileged. If received in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone, but notify the sender by return email and delete this email (and any attachments) from your system. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3211/6596 - Release Date: 08/21/13 2 Hogan Lovells To FROM School District Clients and Friends John W. Borkowski Shannon T. Hodge DATE August 21, 2013 MEMORANDUM Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 T + I 202 637 5600 F +I 202 637 5910 www.hoganlovells.com SUBJECT Office for Civil Rights Issues Notice Requesting Public Comment on Mandatory Civil Rights Data Collection On June 21, the Office for Civil Rights (\"OCR\") at the United States Department of Education (the \"Department\") issued a notice requesting public comment on proposed changes to the Civil Rights Data Collection (\"CRDC\"). 1 This memorandum summarizes the key changes the Department has proposed for the 2013-14 and 2015-16 CRDC. Since 1968, OCR has used its statutory authority2 to require the biennial reporting of civil rights data on schools, including information on school demographics, student outcomes, and programs and services available to students. OCR relies on this information when it identifies enforcement priorities, investigates alleged violations of federal civil rights laws, initiates compliance reviews, and provides guidance and assistance to school districts, parents, students, and the public. OCR usually draws upon a sample of 6,000 to 7,000 local education agencies (\"LEAs\" or \"school districts\") to provide data for the CRDC. However, it occasionally collects data from all school districts, which it did most recently in 2011-12. Participation in the CRDC is mandatory for all LEAs receiving federal funds. OCR redesigned its CRDC in 2009, adding new requests for data on college- and careerreadiness, student discipline, teacher equity, third-grade retention policies, access to prekindergarten programs, bullying and harassment, and school-level expenditures. In addition, the 2009-10 CRDC requested data disaggregated by race, ethnicity, sex, disability, and English learner status. OCR built on the 2009 changes in 2011-12 by taking steps designed to improve the integrity of the data and by consolidating its fall and spring data collection periods. Notice, 78 Fed. Reg. 37529 (June 21, 2013). Under 20 U.S.C.  3413(c)(l ), OCR has the authority to collect data to ensure compliance with civil rights laws. \\\\DC 704749/000300  4952303 v1 The proposed changes to the upcoming CRDC are intended to build on the changes implemented during the two most recent data collections. According to OCR, the proposed changes \"reflect the need for a deeper understanding of and accurate data about the educational opportunities and school context for our nation's students.\" The new proposed CRDC questions fall into several categories: school and district characteristics, discipline, harassment and bullying, early childhood education, pathways to college and career, school finance, and teachers. In addition, OCR also proposes to stop collecting some information that it has previously requested. This memorandum summarizes the proposed additions and deletions to the CRDC in each of these categories. The new school and district characteristics about which OCR proposes to collect information include whether a school that does not classify students by grade level has mainly elementary-, middle-, or high-school age students or a combination of those students and whether an LEA has a civil rights coordinator for discrimination against students on basis of sex, race, and disability. The proposals also include new items about juvenile justice facilities, such as the type of facility, the number of days in the facility's regular school year, the total number of hours per week that the facility offers educational programs, and the number of students who participated in such program for specific numbers of days. In addition, OCR proposes to revise existing data items by defining \"preschool\" as programs and services for children ages three through five. One proposed addition to the discipline questions is an item requesting the number of students with and without disabilities removed from school for disciplinary reasons, disaggregated by race, sex, English learner status, and, where applicable, disability. The proposed CRDC would also request disaggregated data on the number of preschool students who received corporal punishment (by race, sex,.disability, and English learner status), the number of instances of corporal punishment (by students with disabilities and students without disabilities), and the number of school days missed by students who received out-of-school suspensions (by students with disabilities and students without disabilities). OCR also proposes to require school districts to report the number of documented incidents that occurred at the school that trigger discipline. The revised data collection also would include inquiries into whether the school experienced at least one incident that involved a shooting and whether any of the school's students, faculty, or staff died as a result of a homicide committed at the school. OCR also proposes to add harassment and bullying on the basis of both sexual orientation and/or religion to its inquiry into the number of reported allegations of harassment and bullying. The proposal does not require schools to report demographic data on the complainant or alleged harasser, nor does it authorize schools to inquire about the sexual orientation or religion of students. Instead, the proposed question directs school districts to examine the likely motives of the alleged harasser rather than the status of the alleged victim. The proposed changes to early childhood education data items would allow OCR to learn more about how programs serve young children. Specifically, OCR intends to ask whether an LEA provides early childhood programs for children from birth through age two\nthe cost of preschool and kindergarten\nthe number of students served by the school district in preschool 2 \\\\DC - 704749/000300 - 4952303 v1 programs in both district and non-LEA facilities, disaggregated by age\nwhether the preschool program includes students not eligible for services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act\nand whether a state statute or regulation requires the LEA to provide full-day or part-day kindergarten. According to OCR, the proposed changes to data items on pathways to college and career would \"provide a more accurate accourit of course taking and passing opportunities.\" The proposed questions ask whether and how many students are enrolled in distance education courses and dual enrollment/dual credit programs\nwhether the school has students who participate in credit recovery programs to graduate from high school\nand the number of student absent fifteen or more school days. OCR would also require school districts to report the number of students enrolled in Algebra I in grade seven and Geometry in grade eight, in addition to the number of students who passed Algebra I in grade seven. Under the proposal, LEAs would indicate whether they have a policy that allows retention of third grade students who are not proficient in Reading. Under the proposed changes to school finance data items, school districts would report the number of full-time equivalents (\"FTEs\") and the amount of the salaries of personnel funded with state and local funds, including instructional staff, support services staff for pupils, support services staff for instructional staff, school administration staff, and non-instructional staff. Under the teacher data collection category, OCR proposes to inquire about the number of FTE psychologists, social workers, security guards, school resource officers, and sworn law enforcement officers funded with federal, state, or local funds. The new CRDC would delete or modify a number of other prior questions. Deleted questions include how many students await evaluations for special education services and whether schools group students by ability in English and Mathematics. In addition, the new CRDC would no longer collect separately the number of students enrolled in Advanced Placement (\"AP\") foreign language courses ( disaggregated by race, sex, and disability and English learner status). Rather, the new proposal is to include AP foreign language students in the \"other\" category. Finally, the proposal includes a major technical change in the CRDC process. In school years 2009-10 and 2011-12, the CRDC was a part of the Department's EDFacts information collection. Under the Department's proposed changes, however, the CRDC would become a separate information collection process. As in prior years, the 2013-14 and 2015-16 CRDC would use a Web-based system in which users could upload data files, enter the data in response to questions displayed on the screen, or use a combination of the two methods. The Department, which has received public comments on the proposed CRDC, will revise the proposal and provide an additional public-comment period. * * * * * * 3 \\\\DC 704749/000300 -4952303 v1 As you start a new school year, we hope this information gives you a sense of the type of information OCR is likely to be collecting in its next two CRDC cycles. If you have any questions about the June 21 notice or OCR data collection more generally, please contact John W. Borkowski at 574-239-7010 or john.borkowski@hoganlovells.com or Shannon T. Hodge at 202-637-5792 or shannon.hodge@hoganlovells.com. 4 \\\\DC - 704749/000300 -4952303 v1 Magnet Review From: Sent: Subject: Gibbs, Leslie E. [leslie.welch-gibbs@hoganlovells.com] Wednesday, August 28, 2013 9:24 AM Hogan Lovells US LLP Clients and Friends Memorandum Attachments: Hogan Lovells Client Advisory- Title IX - Gender Discrimination - FINAL.pdf Attached is a memorandum prepared by Maree Sneed and Esther Haley Walker. If you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please contact the attorneys listed on the last page. If you have a new e-mail address or would like to be removed from the mailing list, please let me know. Leslie Gibbs Assistant Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Tel +1 202 637 5600 Direct +1 202 637 7121 Fax +1 202 637 5910 Ema,I lesliewelch-gibbs@hoganlovells com www.hoganlovells.com Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail About Hogan Lovells Hogan Lovells is www hoqanlovellsa nc oinmt.e rnational legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells US LLP and Hogan Lovells International LLP. For more information, see CONFIDENTIALITY. This email and any attachments are confidential, except where the email states it can be disclosed\nit may also be privileged. If yreocuer ivseydst einm e. rror, please do not disclose the contents to anyone, but notify the sender by return email and delete this email (and any attachments) from No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG- WWv\\.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 I Virus Database: 3211/6596 - Release Date: 08/21/13 Internal Virus Database is out of date. 1 Hogan Lovells To School District Clients and Friends FROM Maree Sneed Esther Haley Walker DATE August 28, 2013 MEMORANDUM Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 T +1 202 637 5600 F +1 202 637 5910 www.hoganlovells.com SUBJECT Office for Civil Rights Signs Resolution Agreement Addressing Title IX Protection for Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students On July 24, 2013, the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (\"OCR\") and the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division (\"DOJ\") entered into a Resolution Agreement with Arcadia Unified School District (\"Arcadia\"), which required Arcadia to implement districtwide measures to better protect transgender and gender nonconforming students from discrimination. 1 The Resolution Agreement resulted from an investigation by OCR and DOJ of a complaint alleging that the school district prohibited a transgender boy, who had \"consistently and uniformly presented as a boy at school and in all other aspects of his life for several years,\" from accessing sex-specific facilities designated for male students at school and at an overnight academic camp. 2 Although the Resolution Agreement only imposes requirements on Arcadia, other school districts across the country may view such requirements as reflective of what OCR and DOJ consider to be best practices. This memorandum (I) briefly places the Resolution Agreement in context based on past OCR statements about gender discrimination and (2) summarizes the actions Arcadia agreed to perform-and other school districts may consider adopting-in an effort to prevent discrimination of trans gender and nonconforming students. Placing the Resolution Agreement in Context OCR is responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws that prohibit recipients of federal financial assistance from discriminating based on sex (among other protected categories), in See U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, and Arcadia Unified School District, Resolution Agreement, July 24, 2013, available at: http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/Arcadia Resolution agreement 07.24.2013.pdf. 2 Resolution Agreement, at 1. \\\\DC - 700999/000060 - 5109447 v1 accordance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (\"Title IX\"). Although Title IX does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, OCR has taken the position that Title IX protects all students from sex-based discrimination and harassment.3 As a result, OCR concluded that sex discrimination may occur \"if students are harassed either for exhibiting what is perceived as a stereotypical characteristic for their sex, or for failing to conform to stereotypical notions of masculinity and femininity.\"4 OCR and DOJ's July 2013 Resolution Agreement with Arcadia more fully explains the steps that OCR and DOJ believe a school district could take to prevent such discrimination. Also, the Resolution Agreement defines key terms (such as gender-based discrimination, gender identity, and gender expression) so that important discussions surrounding these issues can begin to utilize a common vocabulary. Taking Action to Protect Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students From Discrimination In order to comply with OCR and DOJ's view of Title IX's protections, Arcadia agreed to take certain steps to protect transgender and gender nonconforming students from discrimination. As part of this process, Arcadia agreed to hire one or more third-party consultants with an expertise in child and adolescent gender identity to support it during implementation of the Resolution Agreement. Also, Arcadia agreed to send annual reports to OCR and DOJ detailing its compliance with the Resolution Agreement, including a description of relevant training events for school district employees. As described further below, Arcadia agreed to take two main steps in the Resolution Agreement: (1) better serve the student whose complaint initiated the OCR and DOJ investigation and (2) implement district-wide measures that aim to benefit all similarly-situated students. Because OCR and DOJ may view some of the specific steps Arcadia agreed to take as best practices, other school districts may want to consider revising their own policies in light of the Resolution Agreement. Specific actions Arcadia agreed to take to better serve the original complainant:  Provide access to sex-specific facilities designated for male students at the school and district-sponsored activities (such as extracurricular activities) consistent with the student's gender identity, and (if requested by the student) access to private facilities based on privacy, safety, or other concerns\n Treat the student as other male students are treated in education programs and activities offered by the district\n Ensure the student's birth name and assigned sex are treated as confidential, personally identifiable information\nand OCR, Dear Colleague Letter, Harassment and Bullying 7 (October 26, 2010), available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20 IO I 0.pdf. 4 Id. at 7-8. 2 \\\\DC - 700999/000060 - 5109447 v1  Advise the student that he may request a \"support team,\"5 which would include his parents, himself, an advocate of his parents' choice (if any), a medical professional of his parents' choice (if any), and relevant district personnel, to help ensure that he has the access and opportunity to participate in all programs and activities at school. District-wide measures Arcadia agreed to implement to better serve all of its students:  Revise all policies, procedures, regulations, and related documents (such as complaint forms, handbooks, notices, and websites) so that they: o include explicitly \"gender-based discrimination as a form of discrimination based on sex \"6 ' o state that \"gender-based discrimination includes discrimination based on a student's gender identity, gender expression, gender transition, transgender status, or gender nonconformity,\" 7 and o ensure all students are provided with equal access to programs and activities offered by the school district\n Develop a \"comprehensive gender-based non-discrimination policy\"8\n Develop an implementation guide for administrators, faculty, and staff addressing the gender-based non-discrimination policy\n Inform students who are undertaking, planning to undergo, or who have completed gender transitions that they have a right to request a support team that will help ensure equal access to and equal opportunity to participate in school district programs and activities\n Provide annual training to all certificated district-level and school-based administrators about: o the school district's \"obligations to prevent and address gender-based discrimination, \"9 o implementation of policies, procedures, and regulations, and o best practices for creating a nondiscriminatory school environment\nand  Provide age-appropriate instruction to students about gender-based discrimination, accompanied by examples of prohibited conduct. While the Resolution Agreement does not set any new legal standards for school districts, it does illustrate that OCR and DOJ view protection of transgender and gender nonconforming students as falling within the scope of Title IX and that they are prepared to enforce Title IX accordingly. As a result, school districts should review their policies and procedures to ensure that they have Resolution Agreement, at 3. lg_. at 4. Id. at 4. The Resolution Agreement provides detailed definitions for each of these tenns. See j_g., at 1-2. lg_. at 5. lg_. 3 \\\\DC - 700999/000060 - 5109447 v1 taken steps to prevent discrimination against this particular student population, and that they are providing training for administrators and age-appropriate instruction for students. Finally, although the Resolution Agreement focuses on the K-12 environment, best practices for preventing discrimination of transgender and gender nonconforming students apply to postsecondary institutions that receive federal funds as well. * * * We hope this information is useful to you as you consider your schools' discrimination policies and procedures. If you have questions about the Resolution Agreement or Title IX more generally, please contact Maree Sneed (202-637-6416 or maree.sneed@hoganlovells.com) or Esther Haley Walker (202-637-5764 or esther.walker@hoganlovells.com). 4 \\\\DC - 700999/000060 - 5109447 v1 Magnet Review From: Sent: Subject: Attachments: Gibbs, Leslie E. [leslie.welch-gibbs@hoganlovells.com] Thursday, September 12, 2013 2: 11 PM Hogan Lovells Client Advisory - US DOE ELL Developments Hogan Lovells Client Advisory - US DOE ELL Developments.pdf Attached is a memorandum prepared by Maree Sneed and Chris Lott. If you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please contact the attorneys listed on the last page. If you have a new e-mail address or would like to be removed from the mailing list, please let me know. Leslie Gibbs Assistant Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Tel: +1 202 637 5600 Direct: +1 202 637 7121 Fax: +1 202 637 5910 Email: leslie.welch-gibbs@hoganlovells.com www.hoganlovells.com Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. About Hogan Lovells Hogan Lovells is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells US LLP and Hogan Lovells International LLP. For more information, see www.hoganlovells.com. CONFIDENTIALITY. This email and any attachments are confidential, except where the email states it can be disclosed\nit may also be privileged. If received in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone, but notify the sender by return email and delete this email (and any attachments) from your system. No virus found in this message. Checked by A VG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3222/6654 - Release Date: 09/10/13 Hogan Lovells To School District Clients and Friends FROM Maree Sneed Chris Lott DATE September 12, 2013 MEMORANDUM Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 T +1 202 637 5600 F +1 202 637 5910 www.hoganlovells.com SUBJECT U.S. Department of Education English Language Learner Developments Two recent U.S. Department of Education (\"Department\") developments highlight the growing challenges school districts face in educating English Language Learners (\"ELL\") and an opportunity school districts and other stakeholders have to shape Department ELL policy and technical assistance going forward. First, in June 2013 the Department published The Biennial Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Title III State Formula Grant Program: School Years 2008-2010, available at http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/3/Biennial Report 0810.pdf. (Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides funds to states and school districts to support the education of limited English proficient (\"LEP\") students\nin tum, recipients of Title III funds must meet annual progress goals with respect to LEPs.) The report highlights the growing LEP population in U.S. schools: between 2002-03 and 2009-10, the number ofK-12 LEP students identified for services increased by 7%, and the number of K-12 LEP students served under Title III increased by 22%. The report also details states' mixed progress in achieving annual goals under Title III. Of note:  In terms of the percentage of LEP students making progress in learning English, states ranged from 18.4% to 68.3% in 2008-09, and from 19.5% to 97.6% in 2009-10.  In terms of the percentage of LEP students scoring at or above proficient in reading or language arts, in 2008-09 states ranged from 5.3% to 84.8% in reading or language arts and from 1.7% to 84.9% in mathematics. In 2009-10, the range for reading or language arts was from 8.6% to 81.9%, and the range for mathematics was from 11.5% to 86%.  In 2008-09 and 2009-10, 55% of local education agencies met their targets for the three annual measurable achievement objectives-increases in the number of students (1) \\\\DC - 700999/000060  5156377 v1 making progress in learning English, (2) attaining English proficiency, and (3) scoring at or above proficiency in reading or language arts and mathematics Second, on September 9, 2013, the Department published a request for information in the federal register asking school districts and other ELL stakeholders to provide \"information on priorities for future evaluation and research studies needed to inform effective instruction, assessment, and professional development that is responsive to the needs of English learners.\" 78 Fed. Reg. 55,068 (Sep. 9, 20 I 2), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-09/pdf/2013- 21767 .pdf. The notice is an opportunity for school districts to help guide the Department's future ELL policy and technical assistance. The Department has identified the following topics and requested information regarding in which of these areas or others it should conduct new studies:  Identification, screening, and assessment practices of ELLs\n Strategies for data collection, data analysis, and data-based decision-making\n Alignment of English-language proficiency (\"ELP\") standards with college- and career-ready standards and alignment ofELP assessments with ELP standards\n Key features of instruction for ELLs that promote language acquisition\n Technology-based instructional strategies that promote ELL achievement\nand  Professional development. Responses must be submitted by September 25, 2013. Interested parties may submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail. We hope this information is useful to you as you continue to address the challenges of educating ELLs. If you have questions about this information, please contact Maree Sneed (202-63 7-6416 or rnaree.sneed@hoganlovells.com) or Chris Lott (202-637-5877 or christopher.lott@hoganlovells.com). 2 \\\\DC - 7009991000060 - 5156377 v1 Magnet Review From: Sent: Subject: Attachments: Gibbs, Leslie E. [leslie.welch-gibbs@hoganlovells.com] Monday, September 23, 2013 2:32 PM Hogan Lovells Client Advisory - Bullying Hogan Lovells Client Advisory - Bullying.pdf Attached is a memorandum prepared by Maree Sneed and Esther Haley Walker. If you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please contact the attorneys listed on the last page. If you have a new e-mail address or would like to be removed from the mailing list, please let me know. Leslie Gibbs Assistant Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street. NW Washington DC 20004 Tel +1 202 637 5600 Direct +1 202 637 7121 Fax +1 202 637 5910 Email leslie.welch-gibbs@hoganlovells.com www hoganlovells com Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail About Hogan Lovells Hogan Lovells is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells US LLP and Hogan Lovells International LLP. For more information. see www hoganlovells com. CONFIDENTIALITY. This email and any attachments are confidential, except where the email states it can be disclosed, it may also be privileged If received in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone, but notify the sender by return email and delete this email (and any attachments} from your system. No virus found in this message Checked by AVG - www avg com Version 2013 0 3408 I Virus Database 3222/6692 - Release Date 09/23/13 Hogan Lovells To School District Clients and Friends FROM Maree Sneed Esther Haley Walker DATE September 20, 2013 MEMORANDUM Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 T +1 202 637 5600 F +1 202 637 5910 www.hoganlovells.com SUBJECT Students With Disabilities: Legal Issues Surrounding Being Bullied and Being Bullies On August 20, 2013, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (\"OSERS\") issued a Dear Colleague Letter1 addressing school districts' responsibilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C.  1400 et seq. (\"IDEA\") when students with disabilities are bullied or engage in bullying. If a student with an individualized education program (\"IEP\") is bullied or is engaging in bullying behavior, the school district should provide any support and/or services needed to address inappropriate behavior because it has a responsibility under the IDEA to ensure that each student is receiving a free appropriate public education (\"FAPE\"). This memorandum (1) briefly places this Dear Colleague Letter in context based on past OSER guidance and (2) summarizes the requirements for school districts serving children with disabilities who are bullied or engage in bullying behavior. Placing the Dear Colleague Letter in Context OSERS is responsible for working to ensure school districts across the country provide children with \"positive, safe, and nurturing school environments in which they can learn, develop, and participate.\"2 The August 20, 2013 Dear Colleague Letter from OSERS supplements the July 25, 2000 Dear Colleague Letter that OSERS and the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (\"OCR\") jointly released to address disability harassment under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (\"Section 504\"), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (\"Title II of the ADA\"), and the IDEA.3 Although not all bullying constitutes harassment under Section 504, Title II of the ADA, and the IDEA, the Dear Colleague Letter issued in 2000 acknowledges that bullying can be one of the many forms of harassment that disabled students may face.4 The August OSERS, Dear Colleague Letter, Bullying of Students With Disabilities (August 20, 2013), available at http/ /www2. ed. gov/pol icy/speced/g uid/idea/memosdcltrs/bul lyi ngdcl-8-20-13. pdf. 2 .!,Qa.t 1. 3 OCR and OSERS, Dear Colleague Letter, Reminder of Responsibilities under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (July 25, 2000), available at http://www.ed.gov/ocr/docs/disabharassltr html. 4 lg_. \\\\DC - 703633/000410 -5135795 v1 20, 2013 letter focuses specifically on bullying (not just bullying that constitutes harassment), a school district's obligations to respond to bullying, and discusses evidence-based practices for preventing and addressing bullying. Requirements for School Districts Defining \"Bullying\" Bullying can involve \"physical behavior or verbal, emotional, or social behaviors (~, excluding someone from social activities, making threats, withdrawing attention, destroying someone's reputation) and can range from blatant aggression to far more subtle and covert behaviors.\"5 Cyberbullying is a type of bullying that uses technology (such as texting or electronic mail messages).6 The focus of the bullying need not be related to a student's disability in order to trigger a school district's obligations to a bullied disabled student under the IDEA. Although students with disabilities are \"disproportionately affected by bullying,\" some disabled students may not understand the extent to which bullying behaviors are harmful.7 Bullying Can Result in a Denial of FAPE Any bullying that results in a disabled student \"not receiving meaningful educational benefit\" from the services provided by the school constitutes a denial of FAPE under the IDEA.8 Schools have an obligation under the IDEA to ensure a student receives FAPE in accordance with his or her IEP, which should be revised as needed to ensure the student's needs are met. The Dear Colleague Letter cautions school districts, however, regarding changing the placement of children who have been bullied. The letter states: \"While it may be appropriate to consider whether to change the placement of the child who was the target of the bullying behavior, placement teams should be aware that certain changes to the education program of a student with a disability (~, placement in a more restrictive 'protected' setting to avoid bullying behavior) may constitute a denial of the IDEA's requirement that the school provide FAPE in the\" least restrictive environment. 9 School Districts Must Meet the Needs of the Bullied and the Bullies School districts have an obligation to disabled students who are bullied and those who are bullies. Although sometimes the focus is on the students who are bullied, school districts must ensure that IEP teams review the IEPs for bullies \"to determine if additional supports and services are needed to address the inappropriate behavior.\"10 Also, bullying may trigger a school's \"child find\" obligations under the IDEA\na bullying incident may cause a school to identify a child who is in need of special education and related services. 11 OSERS, Dear Colleague Letter, Bullying of Students With Disabilities 2 (August 20, 2013), available at http://www2 edgov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/bullyingdcl-8-20-13.pdf. 6 Id. 7 11- 8 )_g_. 9 )..Qa. t 3. 10 )_g_. 11 )_g_a.t 2 (citing 34 C.F.R.  300.111, 300 201). 2 IIDC - 703633/000410-5135795 v1 Policies and Practices Addressing Bullying OSERS invites all school districts to reevaluate their policies and practices in light of the July 25, 2000 Dear Colleague Letter, and the August 20, 2013 Dear Colleague Letter and its enclosure: \"Effective Evidence-based Practices for Preventing and Addressing Bullying.\"12 OSERS posits that there is no \"one-size-fits-all\" solution to bullying.13 Instead, it suggests that schools adopt a \"comprehensive, multitiered behavioral framework\" that can be used to \"establish a positive school environment, set high academic and behavioral expectations for all students, and guide delivery of evidence-based instruction and interventions that address\" all students' needs (not just those with disabilities).14 Such an evidence-based framework would include: (1) teaching students and personnel what behaviors are expected and how to respond appropriately when bullying occurs\n(2) providing active adult supervision of students, (3) providing training and ongoing support to school personnel and students, (4) disseminating anti-bullying policies to school personnel, parents, and students, in a form accessible to those with disabilities, and (5) collecting data about instances of bullying. We hope this information is useful to you as you consider your schools' compliance with the IDEA. If you have questions about the August 20, 2013 Dear Colleague Letter issued by OSERS or the IDEA more generally, please contact Maree Sneed (202-637-6416 or maree.sneed@hoganlovells.com) or Esther Haley Walker (202-637-5764 or esther.walker@hoganlovells.com). 12 OSERS, Dear Colleague Letter, Bullying of Students With Disabilities, Enclosure (August 20, 2013), available at http ://www2. ed .gov/pol icy/speced/g uid/idea/memosdcltrs/bu llyi ngdcl-en closure-8- 20-13 pdf. 13 l_g_a.t 1. 14 l_g_. 3 \\\\DC - 703633/000410 - 5135795 v1 Magnet Review From: Sent: To: Magnet Schools of America [communications@magnet.edu] Sunday, September 15, 2013 7:02 AM Magnet Review Subject: Study Finds Magnet Students Outperform Peers by Wide Margins (J Like - MAGNET SCHOOL.....U'~ OF AMERICA State Study Finds Hartford Magnet Students Outperform Peers by Wide Margins A new report released by the Connecticut State Department of Education found that students attending one of the city's magnet or suburban schools outperform their peers by wide margins in math, reading, writing, and science. The report is the first of its kind to measure the performance of students attending one of the interdistrict magnet programs supported by the state. Magnet Schools of America is proud to host its next national conference in Hartford in 2014 where magnet school teachers, principals, and leaders will share their best practices and visit Hartford's top magnet schools. MSA Board Member, Susan Eaton also wrote a great piece about Hartford's interdistrict magnet programs and how other school districts can replicate their success. It is definitely worth a read! like us on Face book() View our profile on Linked~ Forward this email :\u0026gt;1 ifSafeUnsubscribc This email was sent to magnet@magnetschool.com by communications@magnet.edu Update Profile/Email Address Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe'\"' Privacy Policy. Magnet Schools of America 1909 K Street, NW Suite C-140 Washington DC 20006 CoostantC.OOtact\" 1l13m@iBii11 Conn ecticutS tate Department of Education CMT /CAPT Results for Hartford Resident Students The data in the following pages contain CMT and CAPT performance of Hartford resident students who are enrolled in local and choice programs. Notes: Data reflect Hartford resident students\nstudents from other towns are not included. State Department of Education does not report CMT/CAPT results for student counts less than 20. 2013 data include performance of Hartford resident students in the CT Technical High Schools. 2013 Hartford Public Schools results do not include Ramon E. Betances Early Reading Lab, a school that is under special review. These data represent annual snapshots of student performance\nas such, the cohort of students tested from one year to the next will be different. The 2012 Hartford Magnet School results for the \"percent of students at or above goal in Science\" is being reissued (see page 9). Connecticut State Department of Education, September 3, 2013 1 of 9 HARTFORD RESIDENT STUDENTS ATTENDING LOCAL AND CHOICE PROGRAMS BY GRADE Reading Percent at/above Goal 2013 Writing Percent at/above Goal 2013 Grade HPS Regular Hartford Magnet CREC Magnet Open Choice Grade HPS Regular Hartford Magnet CREC Magnet Open Choice 3 25.5 36.4 53.7 31.7 3 37.2 47.7 59.0 37.0 4 27.1 39.5 51.0 39.2 4 31.3 37.5 46.0 42.8 5 29.6 46.9 75.0 52.3 5 34.6 49.4 60.0 43.1 6 34.6 60.6 43.0 54.5 6 30.0 49.0 41.7 52.1 7 41.2 62.0 66.3 66.4 7 23.1 45.0 45.6 46.5 8 36.8 51.8 50.0 61.6 8 26.4 42.9 50.7 50.0 10 5.4 26.9 25.3 15.2 10 15.5 44.7 49.5 35.8 Math Percent at/above Goal 2013 Science Percent at/above Goal 2013 Grade HPS Regular Hartford Magnet CREC Magnet Open Choice Grade HPS Regular Hartford Magnet CREC Magnet Open Choice 3 25.1 29.9 52.9 30.6 5 18.2 41.5 60.0 39.2 4 24.8 39.0 53.7 39.6 8 15.5 32.4 24.4 36.4 5 26.8 43.7 57.1 45.8 10 4.7 30.4 15.2 13.7 6 26.8 48.0 30.6 43.1 7 18.8 31.2 39.8 39.8 8 18.9 36.8 37.0 35.4 10 4.9 26.0 31.1 19.8 Connecticut State Department of Education, September 3, 2013 2 of 9 HARTFORD RESIDENT STUDENTS ATTENDING LOCAL AND CHOICE PROGRAMS BY GRADE Reading Percent at/above Proficiency 2013 Writing Percent at/above Proficiency 2013 Grade HPS Regular Hartford Magnet CREC Magnet Open Choice Grade HPS Regular Hartford Magnet CREC Magnet Open Choice 3 45.8 59.3 74.6 54.7 3 65.0 71.5 76.9 63.6 4 44.5 61.5 74.5 60.8 4 63.7 68.8 76.2 78.3 5 46.4 64.6 92.9 71.6 5 65.8 84.8 93.3 80.8 6 54.9 78.1 65.3 73.6 6 58.6 78.4 73.5 76.0 7 55.7 80.9 77.9 86.9 7 51.7 74.9 71.9 74.8 8 53.8 70.7 69.2 79.8 8 58.7 74.4 75.4 82.7 10 38.1 74.8 68.1 63.3 10 56.8 88.9 94.6 74.7 Math Percent at/above Proficiency 2013 Science Percent at/above Proficiency 2013 Grade HPS Regular Hartford Magnet CREC Magnet Open Choice Grade HPS Regular Hartford Magnet CREC Magnet Open Choice 3 54.6 66.0 77.9 60.4 5 42.5 70.1 96.7 66.9 4 52.4 62.5 87.0 67.9 8 32.7 57.9 50.4 61.8 5 45.8 62.9 89.3 73.7 10 34.3 71.9 64.1 51.6 6 53.8 73.4 69.4 73.4 7 45.7 66.5 72.8 78.8 8 49.5 72.2 80.3 88.9 10 29.5 64.7 63.3 49.4 Connecticut State Department of Education, September 3, 2013 3 of 9 HARTFORD RESIDENT STUDENTS ATTENDING LOCAL AND CHOICE PROGRAMS BY RACE Hartford Resident Students: Reading Percent at/above Goal 2013 CMT and CAPT Race HPS Regular HREGn Hartford Magnet HMn CREC Magnet CRn Open Choice OCn Latino/Hisp 24.7 3138 45.7 823 46.8 267 46.6 253 Native Amer. \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 African Amer. 34.4 1853 47.7 650 47.6 275 45.4 485 Asian 27.8 115 53.1 32 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Hawaiian/Pacific \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 White 51.1 231 73.9 111 \u0026lt; 20 58.3 \u0026lt; 20 Two+ races 24.6 134 57.9 38 \u0026lt; 20 43.8 \u0026lt; 20 Hartford Resident Students: Math Percent at/above Goal 2013 CMT and CAPT Race HPS Regular HREGn Hartford Magnet HMn CREC Magnet CRn Open Choice OCn Latino/Hisp 19.3 3251 36.0 833 40.4 267 42.3 267 Native Amer. \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 African Amer. 24.0 1886 31.6 652 35.5 276 32.9 496 Asian 32.6 135 51.6 31 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Hawaiian/Pacific \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 White 38.1 247 62.2 111 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Two+ races 14.0 136 39.5 38 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Connecticut State Department of Education, September 3, 2013 4 of 9 HARTFORD RESIDENT STUDENTS ATTENDING LOCAL AND CHOICE PROGRAMS BY RACE Hartford Resident Students: Reading Percent at/above Proficient 2013 CMT and CAPT Race HPS Regular HREGn Hartford Magnet HMn CREC Magnet CRn Open Choice OCn Latino/Hisp 42.7 3138 68.4 823 70.0 267 68.0 253 Native Amer. \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 African Amer. 55.9 1853 72.9 650 70.2 275 69.3 485 Asian 42.6 115 78.1 32 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Hawaiian/Pacific \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 White 70.6 231 89.2 111 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Two+ races 43.3 134 86.8 38 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Hartford Resident Students: Math Percent at/above Proficient 2013 CMT and CAPT Race HPS Regular HREGn Hartford Magnet HMn CREC Magnet CRn Open Choice OCn Latino/Hisp 44.2 3251 68.2 833 76.0 267 71.2 267 Native Amer. \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 African Amer. 52.9 1886 62.6 652 71.0 276 69.6 496 Asian 54.8 135 77.4 31 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 White 68.0 247 85.6 111 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Two+ races 44.1 136 76.3 38 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Connecticut State Department of Education, September 3, 2013 5 of 9 HARTFORD RESIDENT STUDENTS ATTENDING LOCAL AND CHOICE PROGRAMS BY RACE Hartford Resident Students: Writing Percent at/above Goal 2013 CMT and CAPT Race HPS Regular HREGn Hartford Magnet HMn CREC Magnet CRn Open Choice OCn Latino/Hisp 24.8 3593 42.5 917 41.2 289 45.0 289 Native Amer. \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 African Amer. 35.1 2090 43.3 719 51.6 304 42.8 549 Asian 36.5 126 52.9 34 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Hawaiian/Pacific \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 White 46.1 245 68.1 113 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Two+ races 27.5 138 59.0 39 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Hartford Resident Students: Science Percent at/above Goal 2013 CMT and CAPT Race HPS Regular HREGn Hartford Magnet HMn CREC Magnet CRn Open Choice OCn Latino/Hisp 12.8 1493 31.5 340 24.3 111 36.0 111 Native Amer. \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 African Amer. 15.1 906 31.8 299 23.3 129 27.8 216 Asian 8.7 69 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Hawaiian/Pacific \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 White 26.3 99 51.2 43 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Two+ races 12.3 65 54.2 24 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 :onnecticut State Department of Education, September 3, 2013 6 of 9 HARTFORD RESIDENT STUDENTS ATTENDING LOCAL AND CHOICE PROGRAMS BY RACE Hartford Resident Students: Writing Percent at/above Proficient 2013 CMT and CAPT Race HPS Regular HREGn Hartford Magnet HMn CREC Magnet CRn Open Choice OCn Latino/Hisp 55.7 3593 75.0 917 75.8 289 76.5 289 Native Amer. \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 African Amer. 67.7 2090 77.1 719 78.6 304 74.5 549 Asian 57.1 126 82.4 34 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Hawaiian/Pacific \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 White 73.9 245 90.3 113 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Two+ races 65.9 138 87.2 39 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Hartford Resident Students: Science Percent at/above Proficient 2013 CAPT and CMT Race HPS Regular HREGn Hartford Magnet HMn CREC Magnet CRn Open Choice OCn Latino/Hisp 33.1 1493 63.2 340 58.6 111 60.4 111 Native Amer. \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 African Amer. 40.7 906 64.2 299 60.5 129 61.6 216 Asian 17.4 69 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Hawaiian/Pacific \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 White 70.7 99 79.1 43 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Two+ races 41.5 65 87.5 24 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Connecticut State Department of Education, September 3, 2013 7 of 9 HARTFORD RESIDENT STUDENTS ATTENDING LOCAL AND CHOICE PROGRAMS BY RACE CTHSS (Grade 10 Only)% at/above Proficiency and% at/above Goal 2013 Race Reading Reading Reading Math Math Math Writing Writing Writing Science Science Science Prof. Goal n Prof. Goal n Prof. Goal n Prof. Goal n Latino/Hisp 66.4 13.3 113 52.2 10.4 115 85.3 28.4 116 58.6 12.1 116 Native Amer. \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 African Amer. 55.3 2.1 47 61.7 10.6 47 90.2 17.6 51 62.7 2.0 51 Asian \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 Hawaiian/Pacific \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 White \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 Two+ races \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 Connecticut State Department of Education, September 3, 2013 8 of 9 HARTFORD RESIDENT STUDENTS ATTENDING LOCAL AND CHOICE PROGRAMS BY RACE Hartford Magnet Data Corrected from 2012 transmission Hartford Resident Students: Science Percent at/above Goal 2012 CMT and CAPT Race HPS Regular HREGn Hartford Magne HMn CREC Magnet CRn Open Choice OCn Latino/Hisp 13.0 1433 30.9 311 26.4 129 67.9 78 Native Amer. \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 African Amer. 14.7 902 31.9 235 28.4 141 66.1 174 Asian 9.1 55 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 Hawaiian/Pacific \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 White 21.9 96 48.8 41 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 Two+ races 14.8 128 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 Connecticut State Department of Education, September 3, 2013 9 of 9 June 2013 Volume 26, Number 5 TheA bellR eport What we think about, and what we'd like you to think about Published as a community service by The Abell Foufldation Years After a Landmark Court Decision, Connecticut's Solution to School Segregation Shows Promise: Can it Inform Action in Baltimore? ABELL SALUTES: \"The ETC\": helping entrepreneurs grow companies \"further and faster\" and \"creating new jobs in Baltimore.\" Tom Murdock was reaching school and saw a need-in his case, in the classroom learning process. Following the pattern of so many similar and successful scare-up stories, he began to put together a business plan designed to fill char needinvicing friends in to share. The plan led co a relationship wich cofounders (in Long Island) and to a meeting with che Emerging Technology Centers (ETC) in Baltimore. Mr. Murdock says, \"Ac char point our group found icselfhappily in che ETC's incubation process, where we were introduced to managers whose contributions to our scare-up's organization and growth became a chapter in a book we began writing together.\" This history, wriccen cogecher, led to che founding scare-up company known today as Moodlerooms. There are many Moodlerooms stories where che ploc involves, at a critical point along the way, the involvement of che ETC. The ETC is an initiative of the Baltimore Development Corporation, a nonprofit technology business incubator chat works with early-scage Baltimorebased technology entrepreneurs. The continued on page 8 By Susan Eaton J use beyond the bleak jail for juveniles, pasc bodegas painted tropical hues and commercial vacancy signs along Hartford, Connecticut's Broad Street, stands a sleek, shiny collection of modern buildings. On weekday mornings, a chain of yellow buses encircles chis meticulous, bustling 14-acre compound called The Learning Corridor. Kids hop through che buses' accordion doors, file into buildings, and sectle into classrooms where the mix of complexions and family incomes does nor match Census data culled from these streets. Many of the roughly 1,570 students scattered among che elementary, middle, and two high schools here have indeed been \"bused in\" to-yes-engineer rhe creation of racially and economically diverse schools in chis otherwise extremely poor Latino neighborhood. Some of the children who attend schools on chis campus do live nearby. Ochers come from Hartford's African-American neighborhoods to the north. A large share of the students, however, travels up to an hour from che suburbs beyond the city limits. Educators in several other \"magnet\" schools in and around Hartford open their doors each morning, too, to a scudent body chat reflects rhe diversity of the region, as opposed to the homogeneity found in most of Connecticut's public schools, which enroll scudents from just one cown or neighborhood. As of summer 2012, chere are 31 interdistricc magnet schools in the Greater Hartford region, including chose at The Learning Corridor, enrolling about 13,000 scudents and supported by a mix of state, local, and philanthropic funds. (Four more are scheduled to open chis fall.) Another state-funded program, called Open Choice, enrolls about 1,700 students and provides transportation for children who live in Hartford to attend suburban schools. Students who live in Hartford's suburbs can also transfer into Hartford through chis program, though only a few dozen have chosen char option in recent years. In the larger national public education context, where entrenched racial and economic segregation is the norm, the purposeful integracion effort that has taken root and blossomed here is undoubtedly an outlier. Bue ic is an educational anomaly char may be instructive for other racially and economically stratified regions. Created in response to a 1996 stare court ruling, rhe schools and programs in and around Hartford have nor only substantially reduced rhe share of students of color in high-poverty, segregated schools, bur rhey have also engendered a broad array of innovative educational options char have proven appealing to families of all racial and economic backgrounds and resulted in promising outcomes for the students who take pare. How did all chis come into being in of all places, Connecticut, one of the nation's wealthiest and mosc economically unequal scares? The story of what emerged in Connecticut and why is instructive not just for Balri more, bur also for the numerous metropolitan areas across rhe country beset by segregation and educational inequality. continued fom page I The Long Road to Remedy In 1989, a single mother of two, Elizabeth Horton Sheff, signed on as lead plaintiff in the civil rights case Sheff v. O'Neill. Sheff's lawyers argued chat the racial and class segregation in che region's public schools denied students che \"substantially equal education\" granted in the state's Conscicucion. In all, a racially diverse group of 19 schoolchildren and their families were plaintiffs in the case. Elizabeth Horton Sheff and the national civil rights organizations and local lawyers who brought Sheffsaw ic firsc as a way ro assist children of color and economically disadvantaged children in Hartford and, by implication, low-income students of color in ocher similarly challenged Conneccicuc cities. But from the beginning, their aspirations looked far beyond Conneccicuc. They imagined char Sheff might be the long dreamed about case chat could revive the ideals inspired by the iconic 1954 United States Supreme Court ruling, Brown v. Board of Education. In Brown, the Court declared unanimously char \"in the field of public educacion separate but equal has no place.\" Brown sparked the civil rights movement, which toppled enforced, intentional segregation in the American souch. However, the sotermed de facto segregation common in the North-segregation created not by wriccen law, bur consequential nonetheless- would prove far harder for civil rights lawyers co eradicate. In 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court severely limited Brown's power and reach with the lesser-known 5-4 decision Milliken v. Bradley, which exempted Detroit suburbs from inclusion in urban desegregation plans. This meant chat urban school districts, where the pool of whice students was shrinking, were on their own in remedying segregation. As whice flight from cmes sped up, desegregation became increasingly difficult to achieve especially in che north. Because Sheff was brought in scare court, it represented a detour around the federal Milliken roadblock. The Sheff case was different in another important way, too. Sheff's lawyers did nor bother crying co prove char govern menc officials had intentionally segregated students by race or ethnicity. Rather, they argued chat the condition of racial and ethnic segregation cue off white students and students of color from necessary, viral exposure to ocher cultures, experiences, and knowledge. Racial and ethnic segregacion's accendant-concentraced poverty-the lawyers argued, overwhelmed even the best Hartford educacors who worked in schools with hallmark sympcoms of profound, chronic institutional disadvantage: constant disruptions, neglect, instability, and stress. In 1996, seven years after Sheff was filed, Conneccicuc's highest court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. In this 4-3 decision, the scare Supreme Court found chat it was the school district borders themselves- lines thac are coterminous with established racially segregated housing patterns-chat had created race and class isolation and the resulting inequality in the first place. The Court ordered lawmakers co fashion a remedy to reduce racial and ethnic segregation in Greater Hartford's public schools, but it provided no guidance on how to go about doing ic. \"Racial and ethnic segregation has a pervasive and invidious impact on schools, whether the segregation results from intentional conduct or from unorchestrated demographic factors,\" wrote chenChiefJ uscice Ellen Peters. \"We conclude ... chat che school districting scheme ... as enforced with regard to these plaintiffs, is unconstitutional.\" The Sheff ruling hinged on unusual language in Connecticut's Consriturion char prohibited \"segregation,\" which rhe courr, in chis case, declared need not be intentional in nature ro warrant remedy. This case forced public discussion and debate about segregation, and ics victory meant rhac reducing segregation would remain on political agendas. Major civil rights cases like Sheff require enormous investments of rime and money. Interestingly, if such a case were brought today, it would likely be a far srronger one. Since che rime Sheff was argued in the early 1990s, the research base on rhe educational harms of racial isolation and of concentrared poverty and on rhe potential of race and class diversity has grown far stronger and remarkably larger. After the court decision in 1996, the Sheff remedy rook several years to even begin to materialize in a serious way. As rhe years went on, district borders would remain sacrosanct, bur schools goc builr and programs were created ro make ir easier ro cross those lines. Geccing the schools up and running and the money allocated for chem required constant vigilance on rhe part of the legal ream, which included local lawyers and civil rights lawyers from rhe American Civil Liberties Union and rhe NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. As che scare began co increase its investments in Sheff, many onlookers speculated chat spending millions to promote diversity would nor move urban or suburban parents to leave the typically racially homogenous schools to which they'd ordinarily be assigned. \"People are happy in their neighborhood schools,\" then-Commissioner of Education Ted Sergi said of Hartford parents during a legislative commiccee hearing in 2001. Even some Sheff supporters doubted whether large numbers of white suburbanites, with access to some of the The Abell Report is published quarterly by The Abell Foundation 2 111 S. Calvert Srreec, 23rd Floor, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-6174  (410) 547-1300  Fax (410) 539-6579 The Abell Reporcs on the Web: www.abell.org continued from page 2 highest performing schools in the state, would put their children on buses to Hartford no matter how good the new schools might be. As it turned out, however, the doubters were wrong. Magnet schools and the transfer program Open Choice are so popular among both urban and suburban parents that demand for them is not being met. \"It's good news that the schools are so popular and so successful,\" says Liz Dupont-Diehl, who lives in suburban Windsor and has two daughters who attended middle school at The Learning Corridor. \"Bue it's bad news because people are getting left out.\" Sheff s Mantra: \"Quality Integrated Education\" From Sheff's earliest days, its plaintiffs, lawyers, and allies talked about the need to provide \"quality integrated education.\" The implication here was chat, unlike desegregation remedies of the 1970s, merely meeting some kind of numerical diversity standard would not suffice. Lawyers, educators and parents demanded that the educational remedy had to be of the highest quality, and it had to be responsive to and inclusive of families from many racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds. Each so-termed \"Sheff\" magnet school has a particular curricular theme or focus, and each opens its enrollment to students throughout the region. In order to be considered by the court a part of the remedy, schools must consistently meet an \"integration standard,\" which requires chat at least 25 percent of the students be white. (Though crude, this standard is based upon current and forecasced demographics in the region.) To meet chis goal, school officials have largely relied upon \"affirmative marketing,\" through which they reach out co parents and families, and recruit and advertise offerings in communities whose demographics might help chem create the diversity standard. No schools use quotas to meet the integration standard, as students are always selected via lottery. In other words, no students are selected on the basis of their race or ethnicity. None of the schools impose admission requirements, such as tests or specialized applications or interviews. No student is compelled to attend a magnet school. It is difficulc to calculate the overall cost of the Sheff remedy. All students who attend magnets, for example, would obviously be educated somewhere. Bur state officials routinely cite rhe overall cost of providing the remedy to be more than $2 billion. It would have been far less costly-and agreeable to the plaintiffs, too-if lawmakers had regionalized the schools, but chat option was never seriously debated in a state wedded to the idea of local control. Post Sheff, there are 65 interdistrict magnets in the state, no doubt many of chem inspired by the Sheff case. Magnets chat existed before the ruling tend to be more racially diverse than non-magnet schools overall, but are not required by the court co meet desegregation standards. Scace officials refer co these as \"non-Sheff' magnets. As impressive as the integration remedy is, data show chat the offerings are meeting only 72 percent of the demand among Hartford families, and that demand is growing both in Hartford and its suburbs. In 2012, about 16,000 students entered che school choice lottery for either magnets or Open Choice with 5,700 of them from Hartford and about 10,000 from suburban communities. This marked a 21 percent increase in applications from the previous year. In 2012, about 34 percent of Hartford's African-American and Latino students attended schools in \"integrated settings\" as a result of the Sheff remedies. In lace April 2013, a scare judge extended for a year a prior legal settlement char required 41 percent of children of color in Hartford co be in diverse schools. As a result, three more existing Hartford schools became designated as interdiscricc magnets in the spring of 2013 and will open in September. Under the extension agreement, state officials also promised to cry to increase suburban participation rn the Open Choice program through financial incentives. In spite of demographic change that has brought increasing racial and economic diversity to several of Hartford's older suburbs, public schools beyond Hartford's closest neighbors still enroll comparably miniscule shares of students of color and/or students from low-income families. In Hartford, meanwhile, 92 percent of students come from families earning low incomes. In Hartford's nonmagnet schools, all or nearly all of the students are students of color. Hiscorically, it has been more difficult for interdiscricc magnets operated by Hartford Public Schools co achieve the required diversity in enrollment. Magnet school seats are assigned in the spring by a Regional School Choice Office within the state's Department of Education. Some families chosen by the lottery may decide nor to enroll, which can open up more seats and a second lottery. A common complaint among integration critics is chat even voluntary efforts depend disproportionately upon attracting African-American and Latino students from disadvantaged communities so they can attend schools in affluent white suburbs and face the burden of adapting. This has not been the case in Hartford, though, where opportunities for integration have quite deliberately been spread throughout the region and where most magnet schools enroll predominantly students of color. In face, the most popular schools for both urban and suburban families are more likely co be found in Hartford's poorest Latino neighborhood where The Learning Corridor is located, or in che city's ocher working-class neighborhoods. Where Innovation Meets Integration: Sheff's Magnet Schools Hartford's Learning Corridor houses four interdiscricc magnet schools. In addition to the Arcs Academy, there is another high school, che Greater Hartford Academy of Mach and Science, as well as the Montessori Magner 3 continued from pag, 3 School, which enrolls 3-12 year olds. The Hartford Magnet Trinity College Academy (HMTCA), for grades 6-8, brings cogecher roughly 600 students from about cwo dozen cities and towns for a comprehensive, rigorous curriculum. In 2011, HMTCA was awarded che Dr. Ronald P. Simpson Award, which recognizes che cop magnet school in che country, from che professional organization Magnet Schools of America. The Greater Hartford Academy of che Arcs (GHAA), with 766 students, has proven particularly popular among families in che region. Some GHAA students accend school there all day, caking their required courses in math and English ac the 16-acre Learning Corridor complex. Some ocher students cake che required courses at a high school in the community where chey live and come each afternoon co GHAA for arcs classes. Unlike many ocher arcs or performing arcs high schools, GHAA does not require chat students audition or submit portfolios for admission. This means that a wide range of skills and experience will often be represented in each classroom. For example, one student may have taken private baller lessons since she was 3, while another may have never been in a dance studio before coming co GHAA. The school's director of che arts, Kim Stroud, acknowledges chat chis policy of \"being open co all\" is not beloved by all of the teachers all of the time. \"le is a real issue,\" says Stroud. \"We have to talk about these things. But we have as a core mission valuing diversity and honoring diversity. That is what we do here. I chink it would be easier, in a way, yes, if we had auditions, if we sec some standard in terms of skill levels in the arcs prior co entry. Bue if we did chat, then we just would not be us.\" Because of che popularity of the arcs high school, in 2010, educators opened a second campus chat houses music and cheater arts programs on the former sire of the famous Colt gun factory, which supplied weapons for the Civil War, World War I, 4 and World War II. Just off che interstate highway, on che former site of a housing project, the 355 students at che Breakthrough Magnet Elementary School crave! from 24 cities and cowns. In 2012, Breakthrough was named a \"School of Excellence\" by che professional organization Magnet Schools of America. It is among che highest achieving and most popular of che interdiscricc magnet schools. The school's principal, Norma NeumannJohnson, testified ac che Sheff trial in favor of che plaintiffs and is an active member of che ShejfMovement-a grassroots organization of educators, parents, and ochers chat advocates for che expansion of Sheff remedies. In che hallway ac Breakthrough, docs on a colorful map connote the some 25 nations from which Breakthrough's students trace their immediate families' origins: Mexico, Mozambique, Vietnam, and Poland. Neumann-Johnson, who has worked as a teacher and adminiscraror in che city schools for more than four decades, describes Breakthrough as a \"global community for students of character.\" Drawing on che rich racial and cultural diversity of the school, Breakthrough includes an intensive focus on geography and culture within a character- based curriculum chat emphasizes personal responsibility, integrity, and contribution co che school community. A culture of belonging and responsibility permeates Breakthrough. Students set formal cables in their classrooms for lunch, help ouc wich che laundry, tend a rooftop garden, and staff a school score. Each Friday morning, che entire school assembles in che auditorium for games, interactive presentations, or social events. Different grades cake cums hosting the Friday assemblies. Breakthrough's students practice mindfulness in medication classes where one student explains, \"I quiet che negative voices and learn co listen co che positive stories about what I can do and who I am.\" To che west, in suburban Avon, where the median family income is $109,161 compared ro Hartford's paltry $29,000, che Reggio Magnet School for che Arcs enrolls about 300 scudents from more than a dozen cities and towns in che region. Curriculum here is based on che philosophy of the educator Reggio Emilia who, in ravaged pose-World War II Iraly, introduced early childhood centers chat focused on respect, community exploration, and a self-guided curriculum. A white school board member in Avon, Barbara Zuras, helped found the school and has been a leading supporter of che interdiscricc magnet school. She is also an outspoken advocate for creating racially diverse learning experiences even in children's earliest years. \"Connecticut needs co build on chis crack record by making quality, integrated preschool education universally available for 3 and 4yearolds,\" testified Zuras before the state legislacure in 2012. \"This scare should avoid creating a segregated preschool education syscem for low-income children of color.\" In Bloomfield, a predominantly black suburb just north of Hartford, the more than 700 students in grades 6-12 at the Metropolitan Learning Center (MLC) graduate with an international baccalaureate degree. MLC emphasizes global studies with che aim of helping students develop \"caring, inquiring, and openminded perspectives\" and of becoming \"empowered as agents of change creating a better and more peaceful world.\" le was named a \"Magnet School of Excellence\" for che past five consecutive years by Magnet Schools of America. The Capitol Region Education Council (CREC), which is similar in operation co a regional school district, operates some of the magnet schools. Its funding comes from a mix of local member school districts chat participate in magnets, state funds sec aside for the Sheff remedy, foundation dollars, and federal grants. Enrollment in CREC's magnets is remarkably diverse. Overall, about 33 percent of scudents in che CRECrun schools are African-American, 30 percent are white, and 28 percent are Latino. Close co half come from families earning low incomes. CREC's mission continued ftom page 4 is straightforward: \"To promote racial integration and reduce racial, ethnic, and economic isolation and foster an understanding of and an appreciation for cultural diversity.\" Hartford Public Schools also oversees some of the interdistricc magnet schools-all are in che city of Hartford and most are in existing buildings. The small, private Goodwin College, in East Hartford, oversees three magnet schools. \"I think we have a great story co tell about what is possible,\" says Robert Cocco, a member of the grassroots group the Sheff Movement. Cotto is also a former teacher at the Metropolitan Learning Center and a member of Hartford's Board of Education. He remembers moving from Hartford as a child and being one of just a few Puerto Rican students at his suburban school. \"So, I do chink I understand the really huge potential of diversity, for increasing opportunity,\" he says. \"I also chink I understand what a welcoming school should be, what a school chat strives coward true equality needs co do in order co realize chat potential. And I do feel like I've seen that here.\" Encouraging Early Results The U.S. Census Bureau reports chat by the end of che decade, no single racial or ethnic group will constitute a majority among children. In about three decades, no single racial or ethnic group will have a majority in the country as a whole. The way Cocco sees it, che more than 15,000 young people participating in che Hartford region's integration efforcs will be particularly well prepared for chis transformed nation. What's more, he suggests, is chose young people will be the men and women best qualified co be \"leaders in a society chat will look very different from che one their parents knew.\" The \"quality\" pare of che Sheff Movement's \"quality and integrated education\" mantra is best measured, Cocco says, by the satisfaction level among parents and students\nthe level of engagement observed in the classrooms and dance studios, during recitals and in robotics competitions at the schools\nthe low reacher turnover races\nche constructive, welcoming climate\nthe collaboration among students\nand the positive social relationships that break down stereotypes. Seeing that Sheff's goal was not co nudge up rest scores, but co provide more students access co opportunity and expanded horizons, Cotco's measures seem like logical ones. However, it is also true that test scores remain a meaningful measure for policymakers and ochers who measure school success. By this standard, coo, Sheff remedies have, so far, made the grade. A 2009 study in the peer-reviewed journal Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis compared academic results between students who had applied co Connecticut's magnets and were not selected through the blind lottery and students who were selected and attended a magnet school. The magnet school students who lived in urban zip codes (these students were moscly Latino or black) made greater gains and did significantly better in math and reading in high schools and on reading cescs in middle school. What's more, the suburban students-this group being largely white-who attended magnets outdid their peers at traditional suburban (and generally much whiter and more affluent) schools, coo. The \"achievement gap\" between white students and students of color tended co be smaller in magnet schools than it was in traditional schools. The study also showed chat students in magnet high schools and regular high schools stated similar racial attitudes, but students of color in magnet schools were significancly more likely to say they felt close co white students and had white friends than did students of color who did not attend magnets. Similarly, white students in magnets were significantly more likely than students in nonmagnet schools co say they were close co students of color and had students of color as friends. This study is particularly informative because it avoids the common methodological concern of \"self-selection\" bias embedded in simple comparisons between students who choose a school and students who attend a school to which they are assigned. Self-selection bias refers to the fact that qualities chat plausibly cause a family to purposefully choose a given school-say, perseverance, foresight, planning, drive, ambition-might themselves be factors contributing to higher relative academic performance. But che 2009 study avoids that pitfall by using as a control group students who did choose to attend magnets but who were denied entry. More recent data from 2011 show that, on average, the region's seven interdistrict magnet high schools record far higher graduation rates than even some of the more affluent suburban districts in the Hartford region. Perhaps most revealing, interdiscricc magnets do a far better job at graduating students from families who earn low incomes than even several far more affluent school discricts. The graduation rate for low-income students ac magnet schools ranges from about 85 percent co higher chan 90 percent. (By comparison, the graduation rate for low-income students in Hartford char year was about 60 percent in 2011 and 53 percent in 2010.) In 2012, achievement data showed that students who live in Hartford and attend either a magnet school or who are enrolled in che Open Choice program tend to outperform their counterparcs in che Hartford Public Schools. These simple comparisons do not control for potential self-selection bias. However, the size of the differences makes the data informative. The share of Hartford resident students meeting or exceeding scare goals on mandated rests was typically 20 co 40 percentage points higher in magnets or Open Choice. A Deep Grassroots Connection Since che beginning, Sheff's lawyers, educator allies, and concerned community members built their strong multiracial, mulci-echnic, economically diverse base of urban and suburban supporters through old-fashioned community organizing. The lawyers were empowered 5 continuedfr om page5 by chis broad community base, and the interviews and meetings with community leaders and parents informed not only the shape of the case but rhe negotiations about remedy as well. In 1987-a full two years before Sheff was filed-the now well-known local civil rights lawyer John Brittain was at che cime a law professor ac the University of Connecticut. He worked with community- based advocates and ochers co put together a meeting between civil rights lawyers, parents, teachers, union activists, ministers, priests, and rabbis. The meeting was called co calk about a report recently issued by the state's very own Department of Education. The report derailed and lamented the intensifying racial segregation of the state's schools and called segregation \"educationally, morally, and legally wrong.\" On chat day, Brittain, who would go on co become dean of the Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University in Houston and Senior Deputy Director at the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, laid out the history of the construction and maintenance of segregation. He and his colleagues from the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund then laid out some plausible legal options. For Brittain, that meeting brought back memories of his days organizing AfricanAmerican voters in Mississippi. \"People in the North were conditioned co living separately,\" Brittain recalls years later. Inequality, he adds, \"was something everyone knew about. Bue once we got people talking, right under the surface was a feeling chat we could do better, that it didn't have co be chis way.\" The intensity of the community-based organizing dissipated somewhat following the much-watched trial in the early 1990s and then after the court decision in 1996. About a decade ago, however, parents, local educators, and Greater Hartford residents regenerated Sheff's communitybased advocacy by forming the Sheff Movement Coalition. Coalition members, some of whom had been plaintiffs (, or had testified for the plaintiffs in the original case, have been meeting formally, usually at least once a month, for 10 years. Among the seven (and far less ambitious) voluntary incerdistrict desegregation programs in the nation, none has a grassroots advocacy counterpart chat is as institutionalized and active as the Sheff Movement. The Sheff Movement has a well-established routine of gathering at one of the incerdistrict magnets, the Capital Preparatory Academy on Main Street, which sics just beyond Hartford's downtown. Members spread our donuts and coffee in the school library, which in 2012, was officially named the Sheff Center, in Elizabeth Horton Sheff's honor. Members organize public forums related to Sheff and to ocher educational trends. They testify at legislative hearings, and hold meetings with state legislators and informational sessions for local school board members and suburban PTOs. Members have also in recent years sat on panels at national meetings of education scholars and policy expercs. They have sat behind cables at local magnet school fairs. They have crunched data to demonstrate the Sheff schools' and Open Choice's strong records of academic achievement. They get quoted regularly in the press. They publish and disseminate shore newsletters chat announce events and bring readers into daily life in diverse schools in the region. Lead plaintiff Elizabeth Horton Sheff often chairs the regular meetings and remains one of the case's most quoted spokespeople. These days, she says, she cries co strike a balance between complaints over the fact chat \"not enough people have access co quality integrated education\" and celebration \"over the incredible success we have been able co achieve here.\" Baltimore Parallels? Racial segregation came co characterize Greater Hartford and its schools in much the same way it did in other formerly grand American cities. Like in Baltimore, a confluence of economic trends, government housing policies and practices, and racially discriminatory banking and insurance practices encouraged, exacerbated, and then cemented in place incense race and class isolation in Hartford. Baltimore, with a longstanding identity as a border city between north and south, embarked on school desegregation soon after che Brown v. Board of Education decision. As Harold Baum chronicles in his book, Brown in Baltimore, rhe city school board was one of the first in the nation to end its de Jure system peacefully. However, the board instituted a weak \"freedom of choice\" plan char kept the current school assignment plan in place, but allowed for blacks and whites to choose different schools if they wanted, with no regard to race. Thus, as Baum shows, blacks did choose schools chat they perceived were of higher quality, but whites tended to choose the schools chat were close co their homes and were more likely to remain predominantly white. Baltimore did not provide transportation co transferring students. Like in other similarly situated urban districts, white flight ro the suburbs of Baltimore County concinued during these years, eventually making desegregation efforts pointless within the city. (Hartford never had a desegregation plan.) Today, metro Baltimore and metro Hartford have similar rates of segregation between blacks and whites. In Baltimore, about 64 percent of whites would have co move to different neighborhoods in order co be evenly distributed in the region. In Hartford, chat number is about 62 percent. Called a \"dissimilarity index,\" a number of 60 or higher is considered \"very high\" segregation. Of the 138 largest metro areas in the United Sraces, Baltimore has the 19th highest index for segregation between whites and blacks. Hartford is ranked 24th. Connecticut's government did not write laws mandating school segregation as they did in Maryland and 16 ocher states. Bue it did aid and abet the creation of segregated education by siring and building schools in accordance with a racially and economically separate setup chat decades of racial discrimination had continued from page 6 brought into being. Race and class separation remains such an embedded part of the Connecticut landscape chat if it had not been for Sheff, it might escape notice. With its focus on access, opportunity, and che present-day effects of longstanding structural discrimination, the Sheff case shares qualities with the important public housing desegregation case from Baltimore, Thompson v. HUD. Filed in 1995 on behalf of African-American families who had been relocated co segregated neighborhoods following che demolition of their public housing projects, Thompson argued chat city officials and HUD purposefully placed replacement public housing in segregated areas as a way co appease white residents who did not wane ic in their neighborhoods. After about 10 years of licigacion, Federal District Court Judge Marvin J. Garbis found chat che U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) violated che Fair Housing Ace of 1968 by concentrating African-American public housing residents in che poorest, most segregated neighborhoods of Baltimore Cicy. However, city officials were not held responsible and che Court viewed chem as accors within a fragmented system chat failed co consider che region as a whole and thus limited their ability co sire housing beyond municipal borders. In his decision, Judge Garbis wrote chat HUD had created che city of Baltimore like \"an island reservation ... a container for all of the poor of a contiguous region.\" A central element of che remedy was continuation of che Baltimore Housing Mobility Program (BHMP), created in an earlier phase of che case. A more recent secdement, in 2012, continued che program and court jurisdiction until ac lease 2019. A voluntary program, BHMP has enabled nearly 2,000 African-American families co move from high-poverty neighborhoods co lower-poverty neighborhoods chat provide easier access co high-performing schools and job opportunities. According co a 2009 report issued by che Poverty and Race Research Action Council and the Baltimore Regional Housing Campaign, schools in neighborhoods co which program participants moved, enrolled, on average, 33 percent of students who are eligible for free and reduced lunch (a proxy for poverty) compared with 83 percent poverty in their former neighborhoods' schools. The report also showed chat in the families' new neighborhood elementary schools, 69 percent and 76 percent of students scored proficient or higher on scare math and reading tests, respectively, compared co 44 percent and 54 percent who did at their former schools. Perhaps most important, though, is chat 88 percent of seeded participants said in a su rvey chey are satisfied or very satisfied with che schools in their new communities. About 89 percent of seeded parents say their children appear co be learning better or much better at their new schools. In a recent report on deepening school segregation trends in Maryland, che Civil Rights Project at UCLA acknowledged chat there is no \"magic solution for comprehensive integration of schools\" in che Baltimore region. \"It would be foolish co claim chat there is one,\" writes report author, UCLA professor Gary Orfield, co-director of the Civil Rights Project. \"Ic is equally foolish, on che ocher hand, co do nothing about the continuing spread of segregated schools and resegregacion of neighborhoods or not co use school choice and magnet methods appropriately co create integrated schools where ic is feasible. Stably integrated communities are more successful educationally and socially chan resegregaced communities, which tend co experience rising poverty and declining educational and job opportunities.\" Toward Stable Integration A constructive first step coward what Or field calls \"a stably integrated\" community might be co bring Baltimore's regional housing experts and advocates cogecher wich Connecticut's regional education experts and advocates to think collaboratively about comprehensive, complementary strategies co reduce segregation. Every metropolitan area has its own set of challenges, both political and practical. Bue community members, educators, and leaders who embark upon discussions about reducing segregation through schooling opportunities also face some common questions. At the outset, it is important co realistically assess the political obstacles a regional school integration plan might face and co chink in advance about where interests might converge. Similarly, a thorough review of existing state education policy would ensure chat proposals do not violate existing laws and could also identify ways co facilitate regional efforts. Baltimore's ambitious new plan co rebuild and refurbish ics aging school facilities might provide an opening co discuss che creation of regional magnet schools or ocher programs chat provide opportunities for students from all racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds co attend diverse schools. For example, could any of che planned new or renovated city schools become regional magnet schools? If so, what themes or curricular focuses might be most effective in attracting students from the city and the suburbs? Would it be possible co place magnet schools near job centers or major regional employers? Are there any existing summer programs or excracurricular programs chat bring urban and suburban students together? If yes, how might chose be expanded? \"I always keep in mind chat segregation was created by people,\" Sheff's lead plaintiff Elizabeth Horton Sheff said recendy. \"And chat doesn't make me depressed. le reminds me chat ic can be undone by people.\" Susan Eaton is research director at the Charles Hamilton Houscon Inscicuce for Race \u0026amp; Justice at Harvard Law School. She is the author of The Children in Room 4: American Education on Trial, a narrative non-fiction book about che Sheff v. O'Neill case. 7 Baltimore School for the Arts-a local example of a \"one-way\" interdistrict high school? While Maryland does not have legislation requiring interdistricr enrollment among school districts, Baltimore City's Baltimore School for the Arts may well serve as an example of what is possible with at least one-way interdistrict transfer. Opened in 1980 and located in the Mt. Vernon neighborhood of downtown, Baltimore School for the Arcs (BSA) is a public high school offering a pre-professional am program with a challenging college-preparatory academic program. Admission to irs music, dance, visual art, theatre, and theatre production programs is based solely on audition\nthere are no academic criteria. While BSA is a school within the Baltimore City Public School Sys rem, it has an independent Board of Overseers rhat ensures fidelity to the original mission and engages in substantial fund-raising. While BSA attracts a majority of its students from Baltimore City, the school is open to studencs throughout the state. Typically, 25 percenr of its 400 studencs reside in rhe counties surrounding Baltimore City. Families of these non-city students are responsible for contributing $5,360 in tuition and must provide their own transportation. The State of Maryland contributes its share of per pupil funding for these students, but there is no portion paid by the sending school district. As a result of this one-way incerdistricting, BSA has attracted a more racially and economically diverse student body than other Baltimore City high schools. In 2012, 56 percenc of BSA students were African-American, 36 percenc white, 5 percenc Asian, and 3 percent Hispanic\nless than one-third of its students come from families who qualify for free and reduced meals. Compare that to the average Baltimore City Schools high school population, which is 90 percent African-American and 76 percent eligible for free and reduced lunch. This mix appears to be beneficial for all studencs: Baltimore School for the Arts earns a high School Performance Index score from the state, and is particularly noted for its ability to close the achievement gap in English and math among socioeconomic groups. Its srudencs' average combined SAT score of 1542 is the highest in Baltimore City, and more than 95 percent of its entering 9th graders graduate in four years. ABELL SALUTES continued from page I ETC describes its involvement with these Aedgling companies rhis way: \"We move their business ahead further and faster than they could on their own.\" To back up rhe claim, the ETC has data: It estimates rhar in rhe 14 years in which it has been operating, ETC companies have created companies in excess of $375 million in economic activity for Baltimore City. In its mentoring relationship, rhe ETC offers a comprehensive array of business services: Aexible turnkey solutions rhat free the founding entrepreneurs to focus on rhe critical success factors driving the business. The ETC incubator offers office space with common conference rooms and services, relieving companies of a number of administrative derails. The full-rime ETC staff assists companies by providing srraregic planning\nhelp with decision making on product development and marketing\nand use of 8 an extensive network of volunceer mentors and professional service providers to give start-up companies unprecedented access to business, university and governmenc concracrs, public and private funding sources, and new opportunities with both early-stage and mature technology companies. Over its 14 years in existence, the ETC has had an impressive record of results:  Of281 companies assisted, 85 are still in business as of this writing\n All graduate companies remain in Maryland, 56 percenc in Baltimore Ciry\n More than 2,000 jobs have been created at an average salary of $70,000\n More than 1.5 billion in outside investment has been raised by ETC companies\nand  Thirty-nine percenc of the companies have successfully transferred technology from a university or federal lab. Deborah Tillett, president of the ETC, poincs our the defining characteristic of rhe ETC: \"The ETC provides more than the opportunity for individual companies to maximize their growth potencial, it provides a creative environmenc in which like-minded encrepreneurs can increase rheir companies' porencial through shared learning, partnerships, joinc vencures, and collaborations. Some other companies we have served include Looking Glass, Groove Commerce, Ainsley \u0026amp; Co., Millennial Media, R2i, Straighrerline, and CSA Medical.\" In a typical year, the ETC receives about one-quarter of its operating budget from Baltimore City-the remainder is earned in the form of fees and services from its 86 portfolio companies. Abell Salutes ETC president Deborah Tillett, for helping rhe many start-up Moodlerooms get off rhe ground fast, and go further than the founders could on their own, and for helping to create jobs in Baltimore. NEW STAFF 2013-2014 NAME OF SCHOOL: BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL POSITION NAME OF STAFF RACE ASSISTANT CHARLOTTE CORNICE AA PRINCIPAL FOURTH GRADE BENJAMIN GRANT C TEACHER RESOURCE JANE HARKEY C TEACHER MEDIA SPECIALIST EMILY HESTER C FOURTH GRADE MELANIE MINOR C TEACHER VISUAL ARTS CARRIE PORTER C TEACHER FIFTH GRADE RACHEL SCHNEIDER C TEACHER GENDER F M F F F F F NAME OF SCHOOL: POSITION 5TH GRADE 1ST GRADE NEW STAFF 2013-2014 CARVER MAGNET NAME OF STAFF LYNNETTE PITTS CYNTHIA FINSTROM RACE GENDER BLACK FEMALE WHITE FEMALE NAME OF NEW STAFF 2013-2014 SCHOOL:_GIBBS ___________________ _ POSITION NAME OF STAFF RACE GENDER 2ND GRADE LAURA SUTTON w F 4TH GRADE JULIE DA VIS w F KINDERGARTEN LAUREN GASKELL w F RESOURCE DEBORAH BAKER w F NEW STAFF 2013-2014 NAME OF SCHOOL:_WILLIAMS MAGNET SCHOOL POSITION NAME OF STAFF RACE COACH ANTONI LASKER B ART AMANDA MAMULA w 4TH GRADE STACI HULA w MEDIA CLERK SANDRA MCINTOSH B 1ST GRADE CARISE ECHOLS(INTERN B FROM LAST YEAR) COUNSELOR CHARRIT A HUNNICUT B GENDER M F F F F F NEW STAFF 2013~2014 NAME OF SCHOOL: MANN MAGNET ARTS/SCIENCE MIDDLE SCHOOL POSITION NAME OF STAFF RACE GENDER SPANISH ASHLEY BOSHEARS WHITE FEMALE TEACHER ENGLISH WILLIAM BRAZLE WHITE MALE TEACHER 6TH MATH SHEA DRAKE BLACK FEMALE 6TH MATH DIANE Ross WHITE FEMALE 8TH MATH SARA GAINES WHITE FEMALE 7TH MATH CHRISTY MCNEARY BLACK FEMALE 6TH SCIENCE ST ARLETTE INGRAM WHITE FEMALE 7TH SOCIAL CLARICE SUMMONS BLACK FEMALE STUDIES 8TH SOCIAL ANGLEA MORRISON BLACK FEMALE STUDIES 7TH MATH AMISTA SUTTON WHITE FEMALE ENGINEERING TREMAYNE WHITE BLACK MALE TECHNOLOGY NEW STAFF 2013-2014 NAME OF SCHOOL: PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL POSITION NAME OF STAFF SPECIAL ED CHANDLE CARPENTER HISTORY TEACHER PATRICK DONOVAN EAST LAB PHILICIA BELL ENGLISH TYESHAIL MILLER TEACHER ENGLISH DEANNAH JOHNSON TEACHER *CAREER COACH FRANK NEWSOME *CAREER COACH ROBERTO CANDELARIA ASST. HEAD TORRENCE TILLMAN CUSTODIAN INTERIM DANCE ALLISON CLARK TEACHER RACE GENDER B F w M B F B F w F B M H M B M w F ~CAREER COACl-1 POS/T/0!'1S ARE PAID THROUGH PULASKI TECHNICAL COLLEGE B'r' WAY OF ARKANSAS OEP,,RTMENT OF CAREER DUCA TION Horace Mann VACANT SEATS LRSD NLRSD PCSSD SCHOOL B w T B w T B w T Mann/SCIENCE 6 -2 7 7 0 5 5 3 10 13 7 6 5 11 1 3 4 0 8 8 8 2 6 8 2 5 7 1 9 10 Mann/ARTS 6 -8 6 6 -2 9 9 6 11 17 7 2 7 9 -2 9 9 4 4 8 8 7 11 18 0 6 6 -1 19 19 A number with a negative sign indicates the number of students that district is over by in that particular grade and magnet side. TOTAL CAPACITY= 900 Sept 03 2013 B w 0 TOTAL BLK 460 164 134 758 61.0% PowerHouse QUIZ More + - ---- ---------------------------------------- ~--------------------- 1 LRSD SCHOOLC OUNTSB Y SCHOOL- C~ 2013/09/18 PAGE 1 . CHOOL: 005 PARKVIEWAR TS/SCIENCEM AGNET class Black Slack Other Other Total Max Vacancy count Percent count Percent count Capacity SP 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 09 143 54.2% 121 45.8% 264 325 61 10 150 56.4% 116 43.6% 266 315 49 11 132 54.1% 112 45 .9% 244 285 41 12 135 54.0% 115 46.0% 250 ~ 275 25 Total 560 54.7% 464 45. 3% 1024 00 /~ F2=Screen wait F3=EXit F6=TOp line F9=Retrieve FlO=TOp  Fll=Bottom F12=Break Fl4=View Parkview Magnet Swap Report 2013-2014 Parkview # Seats LRSD NLRSD PCSSD (current count B w T B w T B w T 9/19/13 From Swap Reporto -- ... 60 . ,. (15 13 _.,, Science 100 30 30 7- 8 12  25 9 0 3 3 0 7 7 6 5 11 10 5 8 13 0 7 7 0 7 7 11 5 6 11 4 5 9 4 10 14 12 5 5 10 6 7 13 7 8 15 Band 42 12 12 24 2 2 4 7 7 14 9 3 3 6 1 0 1 4 6 10 10 1 4 5 0 0 0 3 4 7 11 0 3 3 1 2 3 4 4 8 12 -1 2 2 1 1 2 0 4 4 Dance 38 11 10 21 2 1 3 6 8 14 9 -1 0 0 0 1 1 2 6 8 10 0 -2 0 -1 -2 0 -4 6 6 11 1 0 1 1 1 2 2 5 7 12 2 5 7 0 1 1 0 3 3 Drama 54 16 16 32 3 3 6 8 8 16 9 0 -2 0 0 2 2 2 2 4 10 1 0 1 1 3 4 0 2 2 11 2 2 4 1 2 3 4 4 8 12 0 2 2 .. 0 2 2 2 2 4 Orchestra 13 4 3 7 1 1 2 ,_. 2 2 4 9 -1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 10 0 0 0 1 0 1 -1 1 1 11 -1 -1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 12 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Visual Arts 42 13 13 26 2 2 4 6 6 12 9 -3 -1 0 1 1 2 2 2 4 10 3 -3 3 0 2 2 1 4 5 11 1 1 2 -2 1 1 2 1 3 12 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 -1 1 Vocal Music 36 10 10 20 2 2 4 5 7 12 9 0 3 3 0 1 1 2 3 5 10 2 -1 2 0 1 1 0 6 6 11 -5 -2 0 2 1 3 3 5 8 12 0 -1 0 -1 2 2 4 4 8 SEPTEMBER 3, 2013 BLACK WHITE OTHER TOTAL %BLACK 560 254 208 1022 55.0% SCIENCE UPDATED 9/19/13 CIE RACE COUNT TOTALW/L RACE COUNT GRADE NB 16 124 BLK 112 09 NB 17 153 BLK 142 10 NB 1 120 BLK 121 11 NB 3 54 BLK 50 12 BAND UPDATED 9/19/13 GRADE RACE COUNT TOTALW/L RACE COUNT 09 NB 3 36 BLK 33 10 NB 1 46 BLK 45 11 NB 0 20 BLK 20 12 NB 2 23 BLK 21 DANCE UPDATED 9/19/13 GRADE RACE COUNT TOTALW/L RACE COUNT 09 NB 17 132 BLK 115 10 NB 24 159 BLK 135 11 NB 12 104 BLK 92 12 NB 0 74 BLK 74 DRAMA UPDATED 9/19/13 GRADE RACE COUNT GENDER GENDER RACE COUNT GENDER GENDER (FEMALES) (MALES) (FEMALES) (MALES) 09 NB 39 30 9 BLK 124 74 50 10 NB 33 22 11 BLK 163 112 51 11 NB 13 10 3 BLK 112 58 54 12 NB 13 8 5 BLK 88 56 32 ORCHESTRA UPDATED 9/19/13 GRADE RACE COUNT TOTALW/L RACE COUNT 09 NB 6 26 BLK 20 10 NB 5 32 BLK 27 11 NB 1 24 BLK 23 12 NB 0 12 BLK 12 VISUAL ARTS UPDATED. 9/19/13 GRADE RACE COUNT TOTALW/L RACE COUNT 09 NB 39 145 BLK 106 10 NB 39 154 BLK 115 11 NB 33 150 BLK 117 12 NB 47 118 BLK 71 VOCAL MUSIC UPDATED 9/19/13 GRADE RACE COUNT TOTALW/L RACE COUNT 09 NB 11 80 BLK 69 10 NB 6 102 BLK 96 11 NB 6 61 BLK 55 12 NB 1 72 BLK 71 10 DAY COUNT FOR THE STIPULATION MAGNET SCHOOLS BOOKER MAGNET BLACK 286 CARVER MAGNET BLACK 212 GIBBS MAGNET BLACK 158 WILLIAMS MAGNET BLACK 220 Total capacity Booker Magnet 579 Carver Magnet 398 Gibbs Magnet 330 Williams Magnet 473 WHITE 105 WHITE 75 WHITE 94 WHITE 100 OTHER TOTAL PRECENTAGE 119 510 8-56.0% 0-44.0 % OTHER TOTAL PRECENTAGE 57 344 B - 64.4% 0 - 38.6 OTHER TOTAL PRECENTAGE 40 292 B - 54.7% 0 - 45.3% OTHER TOTAL PRE CENT AGE 88 408 B - 53.2% 0 - 46.8% 10 DAY COUNT FOR THE STIPULATION MAGNET SCHOOLS SCHOOL #VAC LRSD NLRSD PCSSD B 0 T B 0 T B 0 T BOOKER K 10 1 5 6 0 1 1 1 2 3 1 7 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 17 2 9 11 1 2 3 0 3 3 3 7 1 1 2 0 2 2 1 2 3 4 10 0 3 3 0 2 2 0 5 5 5 23 2 18 20 0 1 1 0 2 2 CARVER K 6 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 4 0 3 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 4 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 14 2 4 6 0 3 3 2 3 5 5 26 4 19 23 0 0 0 0 3 3 GIBBS K 5 2 1 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 8 0 3 3 0 0 0 2 3 5 2 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 1 5 6 0 0 0 1 0 1 WILLIAMS K 9 4 0 4 0 2 2 0 3 3 1 8 0 6 6 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 12 3 7 10 0 1 1 0 1 1 3 3 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 4 15 4 6 10 1 1 2 1 2 3 5 16 3 10 12 1 1 2 1 1 2 Mitchell, Sadie From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Please see attached. From: Mitchell, Sadie Carson, Cheryl Monday, September 23, 2013 1 :20 PM Mitchell, Sadie RE: Recruitment RECRUITMENT ACTIVITIES FOR AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 2013.rtf Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 11:28 AM To: Booth, Dexter\nBrown, Lori\nBarksdale, Mary\nHobbs, Felicia\nCarson, Cheryl\nMcgee, Keith Cc: 'Magnet Review' Subject: Recruitment Send me a bullet list of things that you have done for recruitment since August. I need this information for the MRC meeting in the morning. I am sorry for such short. Please send by then end of the day. To: From: Subject: Date: Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent for Elementary Schools Cheryl A. Carson, Principal, Booker Arts Magnet School Recruitment Activities September 23, 2013 Please find listed below recruitment activities during the 2013-2014 school year.  Tours have been conducted.  Addressed parents at Kindergarten Orientation and encouraged them to refer other families  Spoken with parents at Open House and encouraged them to refer other families  Collaborated with PTA to host Grandparent's Day on September 11, 2013  Contacted Student Registration in LRSDa nd PCSSDo n several occasions to facilitate the assignment of students Mitchell, Sadie From: Sent: To: Subject: Barksdale, Mary Monday, September 23, 2013 4:21 PM Mitchell, Sadie RE: Recruitment Back to School Bash at the Museum of Discovery for all staff, parents, children and friends (PTA paid) Open House ---discussed Recruitment and Parents Importance telling other parents Grandparents Days PTA Newsletter Facebook developed by our VIPS Coordinator Asked Dr. Suggs for a meeting of Magnet Schools to discuss strategies for recruitment Visited with all three Magnet school assignment people per district over the phone begging for help with assigning students Toured a few parents, and talked to some on the phone about coming to Carver Hosted the Love Your School Grant Kick Off Supported the development of our new STEM room----lmagination Station Stressed CUSTOMERS ERVICEW ITH OUR STAFFa nd RECRUITMENTa s a priority Greeted and thanked the Readers of 9/11 Discussed with the PTA President that recruitment must be our top priority- we are entertaining the idea of purchasing ads in two Family magazines From: Mitchell, Sadie Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 11:28 AM To: Booth, Dexter\nBrown, Lori\nBarksdale, Mary\nHobbs, Felicia\nCarson, Cheryl\nMcgee, Keith Cc: 'Magnet Review' Subject: Recruitment Send me a bullet list of things that you have done for recruitment since August. I need this information for the MRC meeting in the morning. I am sorry for such short. Please send by then end of the day. Mitchell, Sadie From: Sent: To: Subject: Brown, Lori Monday, September 23, 2013 4:41 PM Mitchell, Sadie RE: Recruitment 1. Updated Williams School website 2. Hosted school tours 3. Distribution of Williams Bumper Stickers 4. School marquee 5. Artwork displayed at school partners From: Mitchell, Sadie Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 11:28 AM To: Booth, Dexter\nBrown, Lori\nBarksdale, Mary\nHobbs, Felicia\nCarson, Cheryl\nMcgee, Keith Cc: 'Magnet Review' Subject: Recruitment Send me a bullet list of things that you have done for recruitment since August. I need this information for the MRC meeting in the morning. I am sorry for such short. Please send by then end of the day. EI Mundo LeMonde Die Welt The World Gibbs International Magnet School Vol. No. 16 Issue No. 2 Gibbs Magnet School of International Studies and Foreign Languages Inside this Newsletter IMPORTANT EVENT DATES NATIONS AT GIBBS WATER FROM THE SOLE CHILDREN'S THEATRE GIBBS PTA NEWS Important Event Dates LABOR DAY NO SCHOOL Monday, September 2 GIBBS OPEN HOUSE Thursday, September 5 GRANDPARENTS LUNCHEON Friday, September 6 PTA MEETING Thursday, September 12 NATIONS AT GIBBS FOR 2013-2014 Our class nations this year have changed at a couple of grade levels. Please note the changes below. Pre-K Harris Germany Pre-K Parrish France Kindergarten Shaw China Kindergarten TBA Australia 1 stGrade Sub-Saharan AFRICA 1st Grade Blome Kenya 1st Grade Love Nigeria . 2 Grade 2nd Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade EAST ASIA Sims Japan Sutton Taiwan MIDDLE EAST 3rd Grade Alonso Egypt 3rd Grade White Saudi Arabia 4th Grade LATIN AMERICA 4th Grade Davis Brazil 4th Grade Long Mexico 5th Grade WESTERN EUROPE 5th Grade Barbarotto Spain 5th Grade Gillespie U. K. (United Kingdom of Great Britain \u0026amp; Northern Ireland) WATER FROM THE SOLE By Coach Passini OzarWk atePrr oject The Ozark Water Project is a nonprofit organization that asks for donations of clean, in good repair, gently used footwear of all kinds. The donated shoes finance well digs and the installation of water purification systems in poor nations bringing clean water to the Earth's people. Word of the collection has gone home with all students this week in the PE letter from Coach Passini. PT A has been asked to get this information of the collection out on their email line. An additional flyer will be sent with each student next week ...... TO BRING YOUR DONATED FOOTWEAR TO OPEN HOUSE NEXT WEEK El Mundo ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5TH AND ON THE FOLLOWING DAY, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 6th if you forget. At open house, shoes will be collected outside the entrances to the building. Collection boxes will be available on Friday inside the school entrances. The Voyager After School Students will count and bag the shoes for pickup. This is simple stewardship supporting the Earth's precious resource called \"water\". So Gibbs students, families, and staff, CLEAN OUT YOUR CLOSETS AND DONATE SHOES AT THE GIBBS OPEN HOUSE TO THE OZARK WATER PROJECT! IT'S WHAT WE DO AT -( Our first year with the project, Gibbs families donated a mountain of shoes!) FOR THE ARTS, PLAY, \u0026amp; RECREATION: CHILDREN'S THEATRE FROM LR CULTURE VULTURE Arkansas Arts Center has announced the 2013-2014 Children's Theatre season lineup. The season will open with Pinkalicious the Musical, running from September 20 through October 6. Based on a popular children's book by Elizabeth and Victoria Kann, LeMonde Die Welt this story is about a girl who turns pink. The songs are written by John Gregor. Next up will be The Sorcerer's Apprentice, just in time for Halloween. It will run from October 25 through November 10. Alan Keith Smith has adapted Johann Wolfgang van Goethe's poem of magic and imagination. In this version, a modem young girl is taken on a mystical journey where she meets a medieval sorcerer's apprentice. The holiday show at the Children's Theatre will involve a train filled with toys. From November 29 through December 15, The Engine That Thought It Could will take the stage. Alan Keith Smith has adapted Rev. Charles S. Wing's 1906 story to create this tale of hope and determination - with plenty of holiday fun thrown in. The winter blues will melt like butter with Click, Clack, Moo: Cows That Type. From January 24 through February 7, this comical romp through the barnyard will be on stage. It involves Farmer Brown, typing cows, striking foul, and learning about compromise. It is adapted from Doreen Cronin's book with illustrations by Betsey Lewin. The familiar tale The Boy Who Cried Wolfwill premiere at the Children's Theatre from March 7 through 23. Based on Aesop's story, Alan Keith Smith has adapted this timeless classic about honesty. The 2013-14 season will conclude with Sleeping Beauty. The World Based on the Brothers Grimm folk tale, it will be on stage from April 25 through May 11, 2014. This classic tale of love, courage and the triumph of good over evil is sure to delight audiences of all ages. Bradley Anderson is the artistic director of the Arkansas Arts Center Children's Theatre, and Dr. Todd Herman is the executive director of the Arkansas Arts Center. GIBBS PTA NEWS By President Johnson GIBBS OPEN HOUSESeptember 5th at 5:30 p.m. Check out your child's classroom. Catch up on what they're learning this year. There will be pizza \u0026amp; drinks for the kids and sweet treats and door prizes for the parents. Please donate cookies or other storebought desserts for the dessert table. Contact Open House Chair - Rokina Gibson - RokinaGibson@yahoo.com REMEMBER TO CHECK THE WISH LISTS FOR YOUR TEACHERS AND SPECIALISTS! Grandparents Luncheon is Friday, September 6th  Grandparents, please come eat with your grandchild/ren on the 6th! Our PT A membership drive is ongoing! Please join the Gibbs PT A for only $5 per membership. Get grandparents to join as well. Our first PT A meeting will be Thursday, September 12. Working together can make all the difference in the world! El Mundo Gracias, Dr. Felicia Hobbs, Principal LeMonde Die Welt The World Recruitment Plan for Gibbs Magnet School of International Studies \u0026amp; Foreign Languages 2013-2014 1. Publicity in the local news media and LRSD website A. Gibbs has been in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette newspaper twice already this year: (1) First Day of School with Fathers Bringing Students to School  I . -- Arkansas DemocratGazette/ M ELISSA SUE GERRITS 08/19/13 - Amy Nicholas embraces daughter Avery Nicholas, 7, at Gibbs Magnet Elementary School August 19, 2013 while they wait to hear which classroom Avery will be in for her first year of school at Gibbs. (2) Ja anese Students at Gibbs B. Gibbs has been featured on local television three times this year: (1) Japanese Students at Gibbs (2) 9/11 Day of Service and Remembrance with Firefighter Ceremony (3) Ozark Water Project C. Gibbs has been featured on LRSD website three times already: (1) Gibbs Educator at Global Conference in NYC Gibbs Educator Participates in Japan Society's Global Conference in NYC In May, Ms. Vicki Stroud Gonterman, International Studies Specialist at Gibbs International Magnet School, received a select invitation to participate in the Third Annual Going Global: International Student Social Networking Conference for Educators organized by the Japan Society. Gonterman, one of only ten US-based educators invited, attended the three day conference, August 7-9 in New York, with educators from Japan and Pakistan. The all-expenses paid conference was sponsored in part by the Japan Foundation Center for Global Partnership and the Toshiba International Foundation. The U.S.-Japan Foundation submitted Gonterman's name for inclusion in the conference as she was their 2006 Elgin Heinz Humanities Educator of the Year. Gonterman now has a Japanese \"Kamishibai\" lesson published online with the Japan Society on their educator's website! Click here to view the lesson. Also, as a result of participation in the conference, Gonterman is currently establishing a new partnership with an international elementary school in Japan. Photo: Gonterman is sitting on the far right of the first table with educators from Japan and Pakistan. (2) Two LRSD Teachers Win Competitive Study Opportunity at the Truman Library Chris Gonterman, Physical Education Teacher at Hall High School, and Vicki Stroud Gonterman, International Studies Specialist at Gibbs International Magnet Elementary School, have both been selected as winners of the Summer Teachers Seminar entitled, \"U.S. Presidents and the Middle East: Truman to Obama,\" offered by the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri this July. The two will attend the weeklong conference, along with teachers selected from across the United States, attend lectures, and utilize the Truman Library's primary source documents on Presidential Policy Making in the Middle East to create lesson plans. The competitive application process included a personal essay explaining the content and pedagogy that would be utilized in their classroom along with an application and resume. (3)Reading Quiz Bowl Results Results for Gibbs Magnet's First Reading Bowl! Gibbs International Magnet School has just concluded its first Reading Bowl of the year! Students in grades 3-5 had an assigned book over the summer. Upon their return to school in August, the children anticipated involvement in a quiz bowl competition around their book. The competition was conducted in each classroom. The winning team in each classroom faced off against the winning team in the opposing grade level homeroom! Homeroom winners were: Third Grade - Mrs. Jennifer White's students\n4th Grade - Mrs. Julie Davis's students\nand Fifth Grade - Ms. Jennifer Gillespie's students! Each student on the winning teams received a certificate with their team photo. A trophy is also displayed outside each classroom! These children exhibited great sportsmanship! They are looking forward to the next Reading Quiz Bowl at Gibbs! Pictured above are (1) fourth graders and (2) third grade students competing in the first-ever Gibbs Reading Quiz Bowl! D. Gibbs is also featured on the LRSD Access Channel with our \"9/11 Day of Service and Remembrance\" which included First Lady of Arkansas, Ginger Beebe, reading to a Kindergarten class and many other service volunteers reading in grades K-3. 2. Community Involvement: (1) Gibbs fifth graders perform at Opening Ceremony of WorldFest annually for school and community relations (City of Little Rock and LR Racial and Cultural Diversity Commission) (Friday, September 27, 2013) (2) Other community events such as with Clinton Foundation or Sister Cities Commission as come up during the year. 3. Weekly newsletter (every Wednesday) 4. Special Days at School (1) Grandparents Day Luncheon (September) (2) Dads Day Luncheon (October) (3) Mom Day Luncheon ( 4) Coffee Cafe, monthly 5. Special Evenings at Gibbs: (1) New Student/Family Or\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_428","title":"Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE In the Little Rock School District: Research Report, 2004-2005, Draft","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":["2005-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE In the Little Rock School District: Research Report, 2004-2005, Draft"],"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/428"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["126 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nCase 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 2 of 69 CREP Center for Research in Educational Policy Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE In the Little Rock School District Center for Research n Educational Policy The Universiy of Memphis 325 Browning H\u0026lt;d t4emphis. Tennessee 38152 ToB Free. 1-866^70^147 Research Report 2004-2005 DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW BY Little Rock School District December 2005 Lyle Hull Davis, Ph.D. Gail Weems, Ph.D. John Nunnery, Ph.D. Center for Research in Educational PolicyCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 3 of 69 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION DHlUOilNO W N0lW5)3H33S3a Nvr aaAiaoaa This report summarizes the 2004-2005 evaluation study of the SMART and THRIVE programs. The global purpose of the evaluation was to: a) provide cumulative evidence of SMART/THRIVE implementation practices\nb) examine the extent to which the programs have been effective in improving and remediating academic achievement of African-American students\nand c) explore perceptions of participants, parents and teachers as well as level of student participation in SMART and THRIVE. The overall purposes of the SMART and THRIVE programs are to provide supplemental prealgebra support to students entering Algebra I and to prepare students to meet state standards in Algebra I, respectively. The programs intentions/goals are to: a) provide a solid foundation for Algebra, encourage exploration\nb) make mathematics fun\nc) enable students to achieve academic success in mathematics\nand c) create the confidence necessary to pursue higher level courses. The SMART program meets for two consecutive weeks during the summer and the THRIVE program meets every other Saturday during the Spring semester. SMART uses a co-teaching model with one teacher and one high school student mentor while THRIVE uses a co-teaching model with two certified teachers. The primary context of observations, focus groups and surveys was the 2005 THRIVE program. Additional attendance data were collected from the 2004 SMART program. Survey and focus group responses concerning both programs also were collected. Both programs served students from the following schools: Cloverdale, Dunbar, Forest Heights, Henderson, Mablevale, Mann, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest. Research Questions Seven research questions provided the focus of the evaluation. The primary research question focused on the extent to which SMART/THRIVE programs improved and/or remediated math achievement among African American students. Evaluation questions were: 1. Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? 2. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? 3. 4. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 7. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? RECEIVED JAN 3 2006 1 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINGCase 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 4 of 69 Design The evaluation was conducted during the spring of 2005. A mixed-methods design was employed to address the research questions. Results within this summary are primarily descriptive in nature\nhowever, achievement data will be used for comparative analyses among SMART participants. THRIVE participants^ students participating in both programs, and students participating in neither program. These data will be examined in light of attendance data provided by program heads. Evaluation Measures Six measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: standardized achievement test scores, classroom observations, surveys, focus groups, and program-developed achievement benchmarks. Administration procedures and descriptions of instrumentation are provided below. Direct Classroom Observation Measures  School Observation Measure (SOM*): Examines frequency of usage of 26 instructional strategies.  Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA)\nProvides measurement of the degree of learner engagement in cooperative learning, project-based learning, higher-level questioning, experientiai/hands-on learning, student independent inquiry/research, student discussion and students as producers of knowledge.  Math Addendum: Rates teachers' actions in emphasizing conceptual understanding, connecting the content to daily life, and promoting students confidence in mathematics. Surveys  Student Survey: Collects participant impressions and perceptions regarding the satisfaction, short-comings, strengths and influence of SMART and THRIVE programs.  Parent Survey: Collects parent perceptions and impressions regarding availability (access), influence, transportation and opinions of SMART and THRIVE.  Algebra I Teacher Survey: Collects Algebra I teacher perceptions and impressions of influence of program on student performance as well as global awareness and opinions of SMART and THRIVE.  SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey: Collects THRIVE teacher perceptions and impressions regarding professional development, influence of technology, influence of program on student performance and overall opinions of the program. Focus Groups  Student Focus Groups: Collects program participant impressions and perceptions regarding the influence of each program on Algebra I achievement, test scores, and self-confidence about math. Also collects information about SMART and THRIVE program weaknesses, strengths and needs.  Mentor Focus Group: Collects high school SMART mentor impressions and perceptions of SMART program strengths, weaknesses, needs, and influence on students. Student Records  Attendance records from the 2004 SMART program and 2005 THRIVE program were examined in light of achievement data. Participation rates are reported as well. 2Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 5 of 69 student Academic Performance  Math Benchmark Test (2003 - 2004) scores were analyzed. The Benchmark Test is a state- mandated criterion-referenced test aligned with state math standards and developed by Arkansas teachers and the Arkansas Department of Education. Benchmark scores are reported as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. The mathematics portion of the exam is comprised of multiple-choice and open response items  End of Course Exams (EOC) 2004-2005 scores were analyzed. The Algebra I End of Course Examination is a criterion-referenced test with questions that align with the goals and subjectspecific competencies described by the Arkansas Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Algebra I Course Goals. The purpose of the test is to assess student mastery of Algebra I knowledge and skills. Students take the exam at the completion of Algebra I. Scores are reported as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic.  ITBS Math Subtests scores were analyzed. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Math) assesses students ability to compute, deal with math concepts and solve problems dealing with numeration, graph/table interpretation, and computation.  SMART and THRIVE Pre/Post Tests: The curriculum-based tests are measures of student ability to utilize algebraic concepts to solve equations, judge inequalities, evaluate and simplify basic problems, graph equations, plot data, and solve applied problems. The THRIVE program tests were comprised of content more advanced than that of SMART program tests. Pre-test problems were identical to post-test problems in both programs. Procedure Data for this evaluation were collected during the ^ring of 2005. Targeted observations were conducted in February and March of 2005 using the SOM, Math-addendum, and RSCA instruments. J , IVIUK I UUUOl lUUl I I, dl lU ITOV/ZA II lO U UI I I Cl I lb. Surveys, focus groups and program-designed achievement tests were also administered during this time period. Observations were scheduled for random classrooms participating in the THRIVE program on three different days. Student perfonnance measures were administered in late spring. The following table summarizes the data collection procedure. 3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 6 of 69 Data Collection Summary Type of Measure Targeted Classroom Observations Instrument SOM RSCA Math Addendum Number Completed/Data _____ Source Total 5 19 5 Description A series of observation sessions in which random THRIVE classes were observed. During a one hour period, four^ note forms were completed every 15 minutes. Completed during Spring, 2005 THRIVE sessions. Surveys SMART/THRIVE Teacher Parent Algebra I Teacher Student 10SMART/18 THRIVE 21 SMART/35 THRIVE 25 SMART/33 THRIVE 70 SMART/142 THRIVE Items specific to SMART and THRIVE were included in the surveys and administered to all groups in Spring, 2005. THRIVE student surveys were distributed in class and collected by researchers. THRIVE teacher surveys were distributed during a faculty meeting and administered by researchers THRIVE parent surveys were distributed by teachers via students, returned to the school and sent to researchers Algebra I teacher surveys were distributed through the district, returned to the school and sent to researchers or sent directly to researchers. Focus Groups Student Focus Group Mentor Focus Group 21 Participants 2 Participants During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental permission slips were included in the focus groups. Each focus group interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. Mentors from the SMART 2004 program were contacted by researchers. Researchers used the Student Focus Group protocol to conduct an on-site, 45-minute locus group with 2 of the 7 mentors. Achievement Tests Math Benchmark Test 2003-2004 and 2004 -2005 End of Course Exams ITBS Researchers used data collected from three major math measures designed by independent entities and distribute throughout the LRSD for achievement data analysis. Exams were taken during the Spring of 2005. Attendance Data SMART 2004 Attendance THRIVE 2005 Attendance 210 students (88% African American) 143 students (84% African American) Researchers used the attendance and demographic data from SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 to examine level of participation among African American students *One observation session was comprised of three rather than four observation segments due to scheduling constraints. 4Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 7 of 69 Results Direct Classroom Observation Results Targeted Observations Analysis of data collected using SOM, the Math Addendum and RSCA during the five observation sessions revealed that THRIVE teachers are using a variety of instructional strategies aligned with Arkansas state-designed Student Learner Expectations (SLE). The most striking result was the extent to which team teaching and coilaborative/cooperative learning dominated the curriculum. Additionally, notable use of higher level questioning strategies and teachers acting as coaches rather than lecturers was noted among observed sessions. During the teaching sessions that were observed, the Math Addendum items revealed that teachers were frequently emphasizing conceptual understanding over rote learning. Furthermore, this practice facilitated frequent instances of promoting students confidence and flexibility in doing mathematics. Overall, students in the THRIVE program had a high level of interest and were observed being engaged in instruction that emphasized practical and conceptual learning in a comfortable, student-centered setting. The RSCA results suggest that the THRIVE program integrated technology into the curriculum. Average or above average implementation (e.g., level of intensity, meaningfulness, quality) was noted for activities associated with higher level thinking strategies, teamwork and independent technology use. Survey Results Student Survey The overall trend in response types was positive for survey items pertaining to THRIVE and SMART. Regarding THRIVE, students demonstrated high levels of agreement for items probing self-confidence, comfort level, growth among problem solving skills, and overall satisfaction with the program. Two areas in which some students showed some disagreement were related to generalization and application. Students indicated an overall satisfaction with the program on the open ended portion of the student survey, but did not feel that the program changed their study habits or helped them apply information to real life situations. Responses to items pertaining to SMART indicated agreement among students for items pertaining to preparedness, motivation, and application. Open-ended items also suggest overall satisfaction with SMART\nhowever, a number of student suggestions were made about changing the time during which the summer program met. Parent Survey Responses from the 35 parents who responded to the THRIVE parent survey suggest that they have positive feelings towards the program. Agreement or strong agreement was consistently noted across all survey items. No negative responses to the items were reported. The 21 parent respondents provided similar information, particularly for those items reflecting their satisfaction with the teachers, their childrens preparedness for Algebra I, and their comfort level with the program meeting time. None of the respondents indicated disagreement or strong disagreement with any of the items. Neutral responses were noted for one item pertaining to whether SMART had improved attitudes about math. Parent perceptions measured with analysis of open-ended responses reflected an overall satisfaction with both programs. When asked specifically about transportation, the majority of parents did not site it as an issue\nhowever, some parents reported access to transportation being inconsistent. Algebra I Teacher Survey In contrast to response trends from the parents, students and THRIVE teachers surveyed, Algebra I teachers responses to SMART items showed slightly more varied distribution across the survey scale (Strongly Agree/Agree-Neutral-Strongly Disagree/Disagree-Dont Know). Responses from the 33 Algebra I teachers responding to THRIVE items and the 25 Algebra I teachers responding to SMART items showed a 5Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 8 of 69 positive response trend. These teachers agreed that both programs had bolstered students self-confidence and positively impacted student achievement\nhowever, they responded more neutrally to items probing the programs' influence on childrens problem solving ability and influence on general Algebra I instruction. When asked specifically about whether they felt SMART and THRIVE had had an impact on achievement differences among races, a small percentage disagreed, approximately one third responded neutrally or did not know and the remaining 48% agreed. SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey SMARTTTHRIVE Teachers responses overwhelmingly favored agreement or strong agreement with items pertaining to positive attributes among professional development, resources/materials, methodology and instructional delivery within the THRIVE and SMART programs. Two items for which some teachers indicated neutrality across both programs were related to the extent to which they felt the program had improved their own ability or their students ability to use calculators. No negative responses were noted among the items\nhowever, some teachers indicated that the limited time available for teaching was considered a shortcoming for both SMART and THRIVE. Focus Groups Student Focus Group Students perceptions of both programs suggest that there is a generally positive feeling towards SMART and THRIVE. Specifically, the consensus among the twenty-one students who participated in the focus groups was that SMART and THRIVE bolstered math skills and boosted confidence. Despite some mild distaste for required meeting times (Saturdays and during the summer), most student participants indicated that both SMART and THRIVE had reinforced Algebra I skills and provided a fun, relaxing context for learning. Many students noted that the programs had provided new strategies for problem solving and made Algebra I less daunting. There were no outwardly negative comments made. Mentor Focus Group Two high school student mentors who had participated in SMART, 2004 provided input about the SMART program primarily. The mentors viewed SMART as a preparatory program focused on reviewing prealgebra principals. Both mentors, however, also noted that SMART provided a unique environment in which competition helped motivate students and make math more enjoyable. The mentors global perception of the program was that SMART allowed students to get a head start on Algebra I principals with a simultaneous boost in confidence. Attendance Collectively, the 2004 SMART program served 210 students for which attendance data was available and the 2005 THRIVE program served 143 students for which data was available. Compared to the general population served by the district (69.0% African American), SMART and Thrive programs served a higher percentage of African American students (88.0% SMART\n84.8% Thrive\n89.6% Both). The attendance rates for SMART yielded an average rate of 97% (range: 94%- 100%) and the attendance rates for Thrive yielded an average rate of 90% (range: 81 %-100%). Achievement The results provide evidence that, in 9'*' grade, the SMART program, the Thrive program, or the combination of the two programs were associated with substantial and statistically significant improvements in the achievement of participating students relative to non-participating students on the Algebra I EOC exam. The strongest effect size was associated with a combination of the programs. Additionally, eighth grade students participating in any combination of the programs were less likely than their non-participant peers to perform at basic or below basic proficiency levels on the Algebra I EOC exam. More specifically, African American students in both eight and ninth grade who were 6Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 9 of 69 enrolled in any of the three program configurations were more likely to perform at proficient or advanced levels of proficiency than the non-participant comparison group. Statistically significant gains were also noted on the program-specific assessments for the SMART and Thrive programs. No statistically significant program effects or racial differences noted among scores from the ITBS. CONCLUSIONS Each of the major research questions will provide a framework around which the conclusions for the present study will be structured. Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? StudenMevel achievement analyses yielded results suggesting that participation in SMART, Thrive and a combination of programs is associated with comparative improvements in achievement relative to nonparticipating students. Specifically, our interpretation of these outcomes focuses on the extent to which these differences in achievement relate to growth among African American students. Findings suggest that although there was not a statistically significant interaction term specific to race, participation in any of the program configurations was associated with a major reduction in the achievement gap between African American students and students of other races from 8* grade to 9* grade, from a one standard deviation deficit on 2003-04 Benchmark scores to virtually no difference on 2004-5 Algebra I EOC scores. For 2004-05 8 graders, the results suggest a positive effect of the programAfrican American students attending any program configuration were more likely to achieve at Proficient or Advanced levels. However, the lack of 2003-04 achievement data tor use as a covariate limits the strength of this evidence. Although results were favorable for African American students enrolled in both programs, no statistically significant effects were noted from ITBS scores for race or program, demonstrating that although SMART and Thrive have a direct and significant impact on curriculum-based performance measures, they have a lesser influence on standardized math achievement performance. In light of the current goal in increasing achievement among African American students, particularly in the domain of mathematics, the results from EOC and Benchmark exams are highly significant. These results are encouraging as implementation of the SMART and Thrive programs seems to have had a positive impact on African American student achievement. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? Overall, the level of participation for both programs was high. The vast majority of students enrolled in SMART, Thrive or both programs missed no sessions, yielding average attendance rates of 90% or above. Additionally, data from classroom observations suggested a high degree of student engagement and participation across classrooms within the Thrive program. Given the demographic characteristics of the participants, the significant quantitative relationship between participation and student achievement gains, and the high participation rates among participants, the results provide evidence that SMART and Thrive have a positive impact on participation among African American students and that participation has had significant influence on achievement. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? During classroom visits, the majority of observed instructional strategies were couched in a collaborative teaching model focused on higher level thinking skills and student grouping. Students were observed utilizing technology throughout their lessons and were highly engaged during observation sessions. Teachers frequently posed hypothetical questions to groups to accommodate use of higher-level thinking skills and generate more varied student responses. Even when students were engaged in independent seatwork, which was rare, teachers were observed circulating among various student groups, requesting more in-depth questioning strategies in their problem solving approaches. Additionally, although the competition component 7Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 10 of 69 of the program was not observed directly, students were frequently cited encouraging fellow students in preparation for competition while working in collaborative groups. What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? There was a positive response trend among SMART/THRIVE teachers across questionnaire items for both programs. Teachers generally believed that the core components of both programs bolstered student learning, particularly among students who were struggling to perform well in Algebra I classes. Additionally, they reported feeling comfortable with expectations and resources, noting that having opportunities to collaborate with other teachers and utilize competition to motivate students were essential to success. Teachers cited time constraints as a recognized weakness across both programs. The general consensus was that they wanted more time to develop deeper skills among students and to reinforce concepts taught in Algebra I classrooms. None of the respondents expressed feelings of dissatisfaction with either program and demonstrated the highest percentage of positive responses when compared to other groups (students, parents. Algebra I teachers). What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Algebra I teachers were generally positive in their reaction to both SMART and THRIVE programs, representative of an overall feeling that SMART and THRIVE facilitated student learning and generalized to the Algebra I classroom. Algebra I teachers noted observed improvements among students participating in SMART/THRIVE and globally agreed that the programs effectively enabled students to use technology in the Algebra I classrooms. A number of Algebra I teachers indicated that both programs needed to reach a larger and broader group of students. There were no indications that Algebra I teachers disliked SMART or THRIVE\nhowever, there was some evidence that some respondents felt that the programs did more to supplement what was being taught in Algebra I classrooms rather than cultivate more meaningful understanriinn nf algebraic concepts, ~ What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Students were somewhat mixed in their reactions to SMART and THRIVE, although the response trend among respondents across items was generally positive. While most of the students believed that SMART and/or THRIVE helped them with Algebra I class, others indicated mild dislike for time spent doing academics during summer and/or Saturdays. Students did perceive the programs as motivating, fun, and globally helpful. It was rewarding to note that despite some dislike of the programs' scheduled meeting times, most students indicated a desire to continue with the programs modifying very little about the actual instructional delivery. These comments were corroborated by comments students made during focus group sessions. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents' reactions to both programs were globally positive. Specifically, parents commented that the motivational, fun nature of the programs was fostering an interest in math among students. Comments for change were largely dominated by parents requesting that the program be expanded both in breath/scope and duration. None of the parents cited negative features\nhowever, some parents requested more rigor within the curriculum. When asked specifically about transportation, a concern of SMART/THRIVE program heads, the majority (84%) of parents indicated that it was not a problem. Of the parents who did indicate that transportation was a problem, inconsistency of service was cited as the primary issue. The majority of parents felt comfortable sending their children to the programs during the summer and/or on Saturdays, particularly because transportation on those days/during that time did not conflict with work or other activities that typically dominated school days. 8Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 11 of 69 Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE In the Little Rock School District Research Report: 2004-2005 INTRODUCTION The Arkansas Department of Education contracted with the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) at The University of Memphis to collect formative evaluation data in schools implementing SMART/THRIVE. This report summarizes the 2004-2005 evaluation study of the SMART and THRIVE programs. The global purpose of the evaluation was to examine the extent to which the SMART/THRIVE programs have been effective in improving and remediating academic achievement of African-American students. Additionally, the evaluation explores perceptions of participants, parents and teachers as well as level of student participation in SMART and THRIVE. The overall purposes of the SMART and THRIVE programs are to provide supplemental pre-algebra support to students entering Algebra I and to prepare students to meet state standards in Algebra I. It was designed as an intervention for rising and current 8'\"- and 9-grade students who are entering or will be enrolled in Algebra I. Applications for SMART are disseminated through the Sth grade teachers for any rising 9th grade student who has not taken Algebra I. Eligible rising 9th grade students who are registered to attend high school in the LRSD and will take Algebra are selected on a first come-first served basis. Seventh grade math teachers are asked to recommend students, particularly African-American or Hispanic students, who have the potential to be successful in Algebra I in the Sth grade. Students who participated in SMART are invited to participate in THRIVE. After a designated enrollment period, remaining seats are opened to any student taking Algebra I. Applications for these remaining seats are disseminated by the Algebra 1 teachers. The programs intentions/goals are to:  Provide a solid foundation for Algebra, encourage exploration Make mathematics fun Enable students to achieve academic success in mathematics  Create the confidence necessary to pursue higher level courses The goals encompass two components: pre-algebra instruction for two weeks during the summer (SMART Program) and 10 Saturdays across the school year (THRIVE Program). Instruction in both 9Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 12 of 69 programs utilizes small class sizes (fewer than 18) with two teachers per class. Each program currently (2004-2005) engages approximately 10 percent of the total African-American student population enrolled in Algebra I classes. Various local grants have funded both programs since 1999. Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training (SMART) provides opportunities for students to gain the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed for success in Algebra 1. SMART is a two-week half-day summer institute for eligible rising 8'\" and 9' grade students who will be enrolled in Algebra 1. SMART serves approximately 200 students each year. Each SMART classroom consists of a qualified mathematics teacher, one high school mentor who demonstrates outstanding mathematical skills and a positive attitude, and no more than seventeen SMART students. Each teacher uses a variety of strategies and tools to enhance their instructional delivery. Activities include real-life situations requiring the use of math skills. SMART students are exposed to and become familiar with a range of technological tools. The most popular tool used is the Tl- 84 Plus graphing calculator. SMART students learn how to use the calculator to further and deepen their knowledge of mathematics. In addition to the TI-84 Plus calculator, students use the Calculator-Based Laboratory (CBL) and the Calculator-Based Ranger (CBR) to solve problems and perform experiments. Students who successfully complete the SMART program receive a free TI-84 Plus graphing calculator, a SMART T-shirt, and a certificate. Instructional delivery and structure within the THRIVE program is virtually identical to that noted within SMART sessions\nhowever, students do not have a high school mentor acting as a facilitator. THRIVE serves approximately 150 students, many of whom generally have been enrolled in SMART during the previous summer. Students currently enrolled in Algebra I meet bi-monthly on Saturdays during the Spring semester from 8:45 a.m.  12:25 p.m. The sessions are divided into 45-minute instructional blocks with learning activities prescribed for each block. The last block consists of two classes competing in a mathematics game/competition featuring the material covered that day. Teaching methods mirror those used in SMART, but integrate more advanced content and focus on material covered in Algebra I classrooms across the district. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Seven research questions provided the structure around which the evaluation was developed. The primary research question focused on the extent to which SMART/THRIVE programs improved and/or remediated math achievement among African American students. A substantive supplemental question 10Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 13 of 69 addressed the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African-American students. Additional attention was focused upon academically focused time and student engagement as well as parent, student, teacher and Algebra I teacher perceptions of the programs. The questions are listed below and are followed by a brief explanation of the areas addressed in the present evaluation. PRIMARY EVALUATION QUESTION Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? A treatment (2-levels)-control student pre-tesVpost-test designed was employed for this evaluation. The analysis controlled for pretest, gender, ethnicity and SES. Four types of Algebra I students were compared: a) no program/comparison, b) SMART program only, c) THRIVE program only and d) both SMART and THRIVE programs. The pretest data was collected from the 2003-2004 Math Benchmark Test and the posttest data was collected from the 2004-2005 Math Benchmark Test. Additional test information gathered for treatment-control comparison includes the 2004-2005 ITBS Math subtests and Algebra I End of Course Exams (EOC). Descriptive data from SMART and THRIVE participants were derived from pre- and post-test program exams. All standardized tests were administered by and throughout the Little Rock School District. Pre- and post- test program exams were administered through SMART and/or THRIVE. SUPPLEMENTAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 1. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? Attendance data from the SMART program of 2004 and the THRIVE program of 2005 were examined. In addition to descriptive information, the levels of participation were analyzed in light of student achievement. 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? This question was addressed through classroom observations using an instrument focused on 26 research-based teaching strategies associated with increased academically focused instructional time and technology use within the classroom. Three additional math-specific items were designed to gather observation data about math-specific instructional practice. Five, random observation visits were conducted during the THRIVE program sessions. 11Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 14 of 69 3. What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Questions 3, 4, 5 and 6 were addressed through use of self-report surveys, including objective and open-ended items. Demographic data was also collected and analyzed. In addition, three student focus groups were created during which students perceptions of program strengths\nweaknesses and overall satisfaction were collected, and then analyzed. PARTICIPANTS Currently, SMART/THRIVE serves students from the following eight Little Rock School District middle schools: Cloverdale: 82% African-American student population\nDunbar: 61% African-American student population\nForest Heights: 77% African-American student population\nHenderson: 82% African-American student population\nMabievale: 81% African-American student population\nMann: 52% African-American student population\nPulaski Heights: 57% African-American student population\nSouthwest: 94% African- American student population. Of 274 eighth- and ninth-grade students who participated in SMART, Thrive, or both programs, matching district demographic data were available for 258 (94.2%). Tables 1 and 2 provide summaries of demographic and grade-level data for the various subsamples of SMART, THRIVE, and Comparison students in the study. These programs served a higher percentage of African American students than existed in the student population at large (69.0%): 88.0% of SMART students, 84.8% of Thrive students, and 89.6% of students attending both programs were African American. Of the 258 students with matching data, 125 attended SMART only, 66 attended Thrive only, and 67 attended both programs. Most students attending SMART only were ninth graders (83.2%), while the majority attending Thrive only were eighth graders (66.7%). About equal percentages of eighth graders (53.7%) and ninth graders (46.3%) attended both programs. Whereas the district percentage of female students in eighth and ninth grades was 50.1%, the 12Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 15 of 69 programs served a much larger proportion of females: 63.2%, 66.7%, and 59.7% for SMART, Thrive, and both programs, respectively. Table 1 Percentage of Students Served by Race: SMART^hrive and Comparison PROGRAM Am Indian Asian Black Hispanic Other White Total n Comparison 0.2 1.7 69.0 4.8 1.4 22.9 3726 SMART 0.0 0.0 88.0 0.8 4.0 7.2 125 THRIVE 0.0 6.1 84.8 3.0 0.0 6.1 66 BOTH 1.5 1.5 89.6 4.5 0.0 3.0 67 Total 0.3 1.7 70.2 4.6 1.4 21.8 3984 Note. Comparison group is all eighth and ninth grade students not served by either the SMART or Thrive programs. Table 2 Program Attended by Grade Level PROGRAM Total GRADE 08 09 Total Count % within PROGRAM Count % within PROGRAM Count % within PROGRAM Comparison 1727 SMART 21 THRIVE 44 BOTH 36 1828 46.3% 16.8% 66.7% 53.7% 45.9% 1999 104 22 31 2156 53.7% 83.2% 33.3% 46.3% 54.1% 3726 125 66 67 3984 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% EVALUATION DESIGN The evaluation was conducted during the spring of 2005. A mixed-methods design was employed to address the research questions. Results are primarily descriptive in nature\ninferential statistics from achievement analyses are discussed. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected by trained observers. The observers administered and collected surveys to THRIVE teachers and students and conducted focus groups with students and SMART mentors. The majority of the time was spent observing 13Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 16 of 69 classrooms using the School Observation Measure (SOM) described below. Observers also conducted focus groups with students and SMART mentors and administered or distributed surveys to students, teachers. Algebra I teachers and parents. Additionally, achievement data from students participating in SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 was collected and analyzed by CREP. Details about all of the instruments and evaluation procedures are provided in subsequent sections INSTRUMENTATION To address the questions proposed in this mixed-methods evaluation, data from achievement tests, student records, classroom observations, surveys, and focus groups were collected. Six measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data\nstandardized achievement test scores, classroom observations, surveys, focus groups, and program-developed achievement benchmarks. ACHIEVEMENT TEST SCORES Math Benchmark Test 2003 - 2004 and 2004 - 2005: The Benchmark Test is a state-mandated criterion-referenced test aligned with state math standards and developed by Arkansas teachers and the Arkansas Department of Education. Benchmark scores are reported as advanced, proficient, basic, and below basic. The mathematics portion of the exam is comprised of multiple-choice and open response items. Internal consistency reliability estimates, from the 2002-2004 administrations ranged from Cronbachs Alpha of .84 - .87.  End of Course Exams (EOC) 2005: The Algebra I End of Course Examination is a criterionreferenced test with questions that align with the goals and subject-specific competencies described by the Arkansas Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Algebra I Course Goals. The purpose of the test is to assess student mastery of Algebra I knowledge and skills. Students take the exam at the completion of Algebra I. Scores are reported as advanced, proficient, basic, and below basic. Internal consistency reliability estimates, from the 2001-2004 administrations ranged from Cronbachs Alpha of .81 - .88.  ITBS Math Subtests\nThe Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Math) assesses students ability to compute, deal with math concepts and solve problems dealing with numeration, graph/table interpretation, and 14Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 17 of 69 computation. The ITBS test is a norm-referenced. The ITBS information is proprietary and, therefore, estimates of reliability and validity could not be obtained.  SMART and THRIVE Pre/Post Tests\nThese curriculum-based tests measured students' ability to utilize algebraic concepts to solve equations, judge inequalities, evaluate and simplify basic problems, graph equations, plot data, and solve applied problems. The THRIVE program tests were comprised of content more advanced than that of SMART program tests. Pre-test problems were identical to post-test problems in both programs. STUDENT RECORDS  Attendance records from the 2004 SMART program and 2005 THRIVE program were examined in comparison to achievement measures. CLASSROOM OBSERVATION MEASURES The data collection instruments for classroom observations were the School Observation Measure (SOM), including three math-specific items designed to better-tailor the instrument, and the Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA). The SOM and addendum items were designed to gather information about instructional practices and classroom activities. The RSCA was used to gather more detailed information about the level of student engagement during target activities throughout target observations. The instruments used for classroom observation are described below. School Observation Measure (SOM): School Observation Measure (SObP). The SOM was developed to determine the extent to which different common and alternative teaching practices (e.g., direct instruction, cooperative learning, student inquiry, experiential learning) are used by teachers (Ross, Smith \u0026amp; Alberg, 1999) in typical (non-evaluative) classroom contexts. During each recording session, notes were completed every 15 minutes in different classrooms for a total of four at the end of one, 60-minute observation period. Researchers objectively recorded the relative use, non-use and frequency of 26 observation items covering a variety of classroom practices. Additionally, researchers recorded the extent to which high academically focused instructional time and high student attention/interest were observed. At the conclusion of a one-hour targeted visit, a trained observer summarizes the frequency with which each of the strategies was observed, yielding one SOM Data Summary Form. The frequency is recorded via a 5-point rubric that 15Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 18 of 69 ranges from (0) Not Observed to (4) Extensively Observed. Two global items rate, respectively, the academically-focused instructional time and degree of student attention and interest. A reliability study by Lewis, Ross, and Alberg (1999) found that pairs of trained observers selected identical SOM categories 67% of the time and rated within one category 95% of the time. Math Addendum: Because the program under evaluation was specifically a mathematics program, three additional observations items unique to mathematics were developed. The items were written by a member of the research team with an Arkansas teaching certificate in mathematics based on the standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). The three items addressed the teachers actions in emphasizing conceptual understanding, connecting the content to daily life, and promoting students confidence in mathematics. Each item was rated as 1 indicating not observed to 5 reflecting strong application. Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA): This Rubric (Ross \u0026amp; Lowther, 2002) is applied in conjunction with SOM visits to determine the quality and depth of teacher applications of selected strategies (e.g., cooperative learning, higher-order questioning, project-based learning, and technology as a learning tool). These strategies reflect emphasis on higher-order learning and attainment of deep understanding of content. Such learning outcomes seem consistent with those likely to be engendered by well-designed, real- world linked exercises, projects, or problems utilizing technology as a learning tool. Each item includes a two- part rating scale. The first is a four-point scale, with 1 indicating a very low level of application, and 4 representing a high level of application. The second is a Yes/No option to the question: Was technology used? with space provided to write a brief description of the technology use. The RSCA was completed as part of SOM observation periods. The RSCA reliability results indicate that observer ratings were within one category for 97% of the whole-school observations and for 90% of the targeted observations (Sterbinsky \u0026amp; Burke, 2004). A RSCA was completed at the end of each targeted classroom observation. SURVEYS Four surveys were developed by the evaluation team to collect data pertaining to the effectiveness of the SMART/THRIVE Program. The specific audiences around which the current evaluation focused were parents. Algebra I teachers currently teaching in Little Rock schools, SMART/THRIVE teachers, and students 16Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 19 of 69 currently enrolled in THRIVE. Items were designed to address both the primary and secondary research questions of the study and to glean open-ended perceptions from the four data collection groups. Items specific to SMART and THRIVE were included as were open-ended questions about both programs. Program-specific items were presented to gain general and specific knowledge about both programs as separate entities. This also eliminated the need for respondents to complete two separate surveys. Each survey was divided into three sections. The first section was used to collect demographic information specific to each group. The second section was comprised of objective items specific to the research questions and each program (SMART and THRIVE), in the final section, the respondents were presented with four, open-ended questions which probed strategies, strengths, weaknesses and general additional comments for each program. Responses across all surveys were scored through the use of Likert- type ratings ranging from strong disagreement (1) to strong agreement (5). Demographic information was also collected. Drafts of all surveys were presented at the evaluation team meetings in Little Rock and revisions were made from team participants suggestions. Sun/eys are found in Appendix A. FOCUS GROUPS Two sets of focus group protocols were developed by the evaluation team. Students were asked their perceptions of the effectiveness of the SMART/THRIVE program. SMART mentors also were asked their impressions of program effectiveness. Additionally, participants were also asked to report their perceptions of program impact. Student and Mentor protocols were similar, but tailored to their specific audience. Question drafts were presented at an evaluation team meeting in Little Rock and revisions were made from team participants' suggestions. PROCEDURES Data for this evaluation were collected during the spring of 2005. Targeted observations were conducted during late spring, 2005 using the SOM (including 3 math-specific addendum items) and RSCA instruments. Surveys, focus groups and program-designed achievement tests were also administered during this time period. The classroom observations were conducted during February and March, 2005. Observations were scheduled for random classrooms participating in the THRIVE program on three different days. Student performance measures were administered in late spring, collection procedure. Table 3 summarizes the data 17Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 20 of 69 Table 3 Data Collection Summary Type of Measure Instrument Targeted Classroom Observations SOM RSCA Number Completed/Oata Source Total 5 19 Description Surveys SMART/THRIVE Teacher Parent 10 SMART/18 THRIVE 21 SMART/35 THRIVE 25 SMART/33 THRIVE Algebra I Teacher 70 SMART/142 Student THRIVE Focus Groups Student Focus Group Mentor Focus Group 21 Participants 2 Participants Achievement Tests Attendance Data Math Benchmark Test 2003 - 2004 and 2004 - 2005 End of Course Exams ITBS SMART 2004 Attendance THRIVE 2005 Attendance 210 students 143 students Note: One SOM session was cut short due to scheduling, yielding 3 observations sheets and 3 FiSCAs. Observation sessions in which random THRIVE classes were observed. During the observation period, note forms were completed every 15 minutes. Four* sets of observation notes were completed for each SOM. Completed during Spring, 2005 THRIVE sessions. Four RSCAs were completed for each SOM._____________ Items specific to SMART and THRIVE were included in the surveys and administered to all groups in Spring, 2005. THRIVE student surveys were distributed in class and collected by researchers. THRIVE teacher surveys were distributed during a faculty meeting and administered by researchers. THRIVE parent surveys were distributed by teachers via students, returned to the school and sent to researchers. Algebra I teacher surveys were distributed through the district, returned to the school and sent to researchers or sent directly to researchers._________________________ During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental permission slips were included in the focus groups. Each focus group interview lasted approximately 45 minutes.  Researchers used the Student Focus Group protocol to conduct an on-site, 45- minute focus group with 2 of the 7 mentors. Researchers used data collected from three major math measures designed by independent entities and distributed throughout the LRSD for achievement data analysis. Exams were taken during the Spring of 2005._______________________ Researchers used the attendance and demographic data from SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 to examine level of participation among African American students. Data were collected from program heads and sent to researchers. 18Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 21 of 69 ACHIEVEMENT TESTS End-of-course (EOC) Algebra I test scores were used as 2004-05 outcomes for g** grade students, with 2003-04 Benchmark Mathematics scale scores used as a covariate. No covariate was available for 8' grade students, because no district or state tests were administered to graders in 2003-04. The End of Course Exams were administered at the end of the academic year to all students enrolled in Algebra I during the 2004-2005 school year. The ITBS exam was administered only to O' grade students, thus outcomes for this exam were available only for 9* graders. With no S grade scores available, 2003-2004 Benchmark scores were used for covariate comparisons. Additionally, curriculum-based pre- and post- program were administered on the first and last day of both programs. Both pre- and post-program-designed exams exams were comprised of 20 items, asking students to simplify, evaluate, graph, and solve equations. The SMART exams were geared to test pre-algebra and early algebra content and the THRIVE exams were designed to examine content expected of students completing Algebra I. The pre-program exams and post-program exams were identical. These exams are provided in Appendix B. CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS Trained observers completed a series of classroom visits to collect frequency data regarding observed instructional practices, use of technology and level of student engagement. Classroom teachers were advised that the observers would be present throughout the semester, but were instructed to deliver lessons as usual. A targeted procedure was used for the present study given that the observations were of the THRIVE sessions rather than of a school-wide, cross-categorical program. The majority of the observations were conducted by one researcher, with the second researcher observing for one SOM to examine inter-rater reliability. The inter-rater reliability for the joint observation was high\nobservers selected identical SOM categories 88% of the time and rated within one category 100% of the time. The standard SOM procedure involves evaluation of an entire school by visiting 10-12 randomly selected classrooms for 15 minutes each. However, the goal of this evaluation was to examine the practices within a single program, where all classrooms were participating in the same activities at the same times, not assess an entire school. Therefore, procedures were modeled from those used by Lowther, Ross, and Morrison (2003) in their examination a school laptop computer program. A total of five SOM observations were conducted. Both the RSCA and the Math Addendum items were completed at the same time. A total of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 22 of 69 19 RSCAs were completed because one observation session was interrupted by a scheduled class dismissal. SURVEYS The program teacher surveys were administered and collected by researchers on March 5, 2005 during a faculty meeting. Student surveys were administered and collected by researchers during a March 5 class. Algebra I teacher surveys were distributed via district mail. Parent surveys were distributed through students and collected by teachers before being sent to CREP for analysis. Additional parent surveys were administered and collected by a member of the research team at the student Math Fair. FOCUS GROUPS During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental permission slips were included in the focus groups, each of which lasted 45 minutes. The mentors were contacted individually by researchers via phone, mail and email. Two of the seven mentors responded and attended. The mentor focus group interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. RESULTS The results of this evaluation are presented below and synthesized to address each research question in the Discussion section. These results are presented by measurement strategy\nhowever, the findings are synthesized across instruments to reflect each research question in the Discussion section of this report. SCHOOL OBSERVATION MEASURE (SOM) As noted previously, observers focused on the 26 instructional strategies provided in the SOM using a standard five-point rubric (0 =not observed, 1 = rarely, 2 = occasionally, 3 = frequently, and 4 = extensively). The results are presented with a full, categorical breakdown in Table 4. Four strategies were observed occasionally to extensively at a frequency level of at least 75% or higher. These strategies include team teaching (100%), cooperative/collaborative learning (100%), use of higher-level questioning strategies (80%), and teacher acting as a coach/facilitator (100%). The data indicates that students were engaged in collaborative learning situations with high teacher support where they were asked to use problem solving and critical thinking skills to solve problems. Strategies that were observed occasionally 20Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 23 of 69 to extensively during 40-60% of the sessions included direct instruction (lecture), higher level instructional feedback (40%), experiential hands-on learning (40%), independent inquiry or research (40%) and student discussion (60%). Student discussion heavily dominated the instructional context (60% observed frequency) with teams of students working together to solve problems and propose new ideas. Some individual seat work and independent research was observed (40% each respectively), however, these frequently were noted to lead into a group-based activity in which individuals proposed ideas to a team that was used to create a corporate answer to problems proposed by the teachers. Sustained reading was observed in one classroom. Technology was heavily used (80%) as teachers relied upon graphing calculators and problem solving with technology as an integral part of the curriculum. Teachers demonstrated different ways to solve problems and/or work towards solutions via calculator and multi-media use. High academically focused time was observed extensively (80% of the time) as was high student engagement (in 60% of the observation sessions). Since the evaluation context was an Algebra I Saturday supplementary program with specific model parameters, some instructional strategies within the SOM were not observed. These strategies included individual tutoring, ability and multi-age groupings, work centers, integration of subject areas, project-based learning, independent seatwork, sustained writing/composition and systematic individual instruction. Generally, the aggregated data reflect efficient use of class time with teachers using a team teaching approach to deliver instruction to collaborative teams of students. The aforementioned math addendum items served to capture specific strategies used frequently among math teachers. Results from observations showed that THRIVE teachers frequently emphasized conceptual understanding over rote learning 60% of the time observed. Teachers also demonstrated connections between math and daily life frequently in at least 60% of the observations. One additional strategy of high interest was teachers cultivation of students confidence. flexibility and inventiveness in doing mathematics. This was observed frequently among 80% of the observations. None of the math-specific strategies were observed extensively. 21Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 24 of 69 Table 4 School Observation Measure (SOM) Data Summary for Little Rock-SMART/THRIVE Project N = 5 The extent to which each of the following was used or present in the school..._______ Instructional Orientation Direct instruction (lecture) Team teaching Cooperative/collaborative learning Individual tutoring (teacher, peer, aide, adult volunteer) Classroom Organization Ability groups Multi-age grouping Work centers (for individuals or groups) Instructional Strategies Higher-level instructional feedback (written or verbal) to enhance student learning Integration of subject areas (interdisciplinary/thematic units) Project-based learning Use of higher-level questioning strategies Teacher acting as a coach/facilitator Parent/community involvement in learning activities Student Activities Independent seatwork (self-paced worksheets, individual assignments) Experiential, hands-on learning Systematic individual instruction (differential assignments geared to individual needs) Sustained writing/composition (self-selected or teacher-generated topics) Sustained reading Independent inquiry/research on the part of students Student discussion Technology Use Computer for instructional delivery (e.g. CAI, drill \u0026amp; practice) Technology as a learning tool or resource (e.g., Internet research, spreadsheet or database creation, multi-media, CD Rom, Laser disk) Assessment Performance assessment strategies Student self-assessment (portfolios, individual record books) Summary Items High academically focused class time High level of student attention/interest/engagement Percent None Percent Rarely Percent Occasionally Percent Percent Frequently Extensively 20.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 60.0 100.0 100.0 20.0 0.0 80.0 100.0 20.0 100.0 100.0 8Q.0 40.0 40.0 80.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 Wole\nOne SOM is comprised of approximately 8 classroom visits. 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 60.0 22Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 25 of 69 RUBRIC FOR STUDENT-CENTERED ACTIVITIES (RSCA^ The RSCA results reflect the percentage of observed sessions in which selected strategies are observed at least once. The quality of the application and the percentage of sessions in which technology was used with the observed strategy are also recorded. A descriptive summary of the RSCA results is presented in Table 5. The RSCA results suggest that the level of application with which THRIVE program teachers applied certain instructional practices, particularly with regard to cooperative learning and higher-level questioning strategies was high. Additionally, students evidenced appropriate use of technology (calculators, multimedia, and spreadsheets) in self-directed activities to create new knowledge. The most notable area of technology use was among cooperative learning groups, where students collaboratively utilized multimedia, calculators and graphing applications to solve problems\nteachers often helped direct collaborative groups. Project-based learning was not observed and although student discussion, experiential hands on learning, and independent research were applied, the level of application was limited or somewhat limited without technology use. Additionally, aggregate results suggest that technology was used in more than a third of the instances during which 5/7 remaining student-centered activities were observed and in over 25% of the instances during which 6/7 remaining activities or strategies were applied. 23Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 26 of 69 Table 5 Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA) N = 19 Student-Centered Activities Not Limited Somewhat Somewhat Cooperative Learning Project-Based Learning Higher-Level Questioning Strategies Experiential Hands-on Learning Independent Inqulry/Ftesearch Student Discussion Students as Producers of Knowledge Using Observed Application Limited Strong Application Application Strong Application Technology In Use * 8.7 13.0 8.7 21.7 47.8 60.9 100.0 26.1 56.5 56.5 56.5 30.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 8.7 17.4 8.7 Technoiogy Percentages Indicating Observed Levels of Application Rating Scale: 1- limited application\n4=strong application 30.4 39.1 4.3 26.1 4.3 0.0 8.7 21.7 21.7 30.4 17.4 39.1 13.0 39.1 4.3 0.0 0.0 39.1 30.4 * See addendum description of technology use SCHOOL OBSERVATION SUMMARY Analysis of data collected using SOM, the Math Addendum and RSCA during the observations revealed that THRIVE teachers are using a variety of instructional strategies aligned with Arkansas state- designed SLEs. The most striking result was the extent to which team teaching and collaborative/cooperative learning dominated the curriculum. Additionally, notable use of higher level questioning strategies and teachers acting as coaches rather than lecturers was noted among observed sessions. During the teaching sessions that were observed, the Math Addendum items revealed that teachers were frequently emphasizing conceptual understanding over rote learning. Furthermore, this practice facilitated frequent instances of promoting students confidence and flexibility in doing mathematics. Overall, students in the THRIVE program had a high level of interest and were observed being engaged in instnjction that emphasized practical and conceptual learning in a comfortable, student-centered setting. 24Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 27 of 69 SURVEY RESULTS Four surveys (Algebra I Teacher, Student, Parent, SMART/THRIVE Teacher) were administered in late March, 2005. Results for each characteristics of the respondents demographic section of the surveys. of the four instruments were examined independently. Demographic are representative\nhowever, not all respondents completed the Additionally, the total number of respondents to THRIVE items varied from the total number of SMART respondents across questionnaires. Demographic differences are described for each group. Finally, item percentages across surveys did not always total 100% because of missing input from some of the respondents (i.e., there were questions to which some people did not respond). PROGRAM PARTICIPANT SURVEY THRIVE A total of 142 students responded to items pertaining to THRIVE and 70 students responded to items pertaining to SMART'. Of the 138 THRIVE respondents who reported their ethnicity, 77% specified African- American, 7% specified Multi-Ethnic, and 4.2% specified Asian. The remaining categories of Caucasian (3.5%), Hispanic (2.8%), and Other (2.1%) were specified less frequently. A total of 63.4% of the respondents were female\n35.9% of the respondents were male. Of the 70 students responding to SMART questionnaire items and specifying demographic information, 38.6% were female and 61.4% were male. Regarding ethnicity, 82.9% of the SMART respondents specified African American, 4.3% specified Caucasian or Hispanic respectively, 2.9% specified Multi-Ethnic and 1.4% specified Other or Asian. Table 6 contains the results for THRIVE and SMART objective survey items. These results are summarized in text below. Summaries of the open ended questions are shown in subsequent Tables. The overall trend in response types was positive\nfifty percent or more students indicated agreement or strong agreement across all items. Well over eighty percent of students responding to the survey reported that team competitions made THRIVE classes more fun. Over seventy-five percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE made Algebra more enjoyable and instilled confidence in doing well on the Algebra Benchmark Exam. Over sixty percent of student respondents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE improved their self-confidence about math, helped them feel comfortable asking questions in THRIVE class. Because some students participating in the THRIVE program did not participate in SMART during the previous summer, differences between respondent numbers were expected. 25Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 28 of 69 and facilitated problem solving through calculator use. A total of 66.6% of respondents indicated that THRIVE teachers helped them with problems they were having in their regular algebra class. At least one half (50.0%) of the students responding to the survey indicated that THRIVE helped improve their algebra grades and helped them understand how to apply algebra concepts in real life. In contrast to the positive trend in responses across items, two areas in which some students showed disagreement were related to generalization and application. This is somewhat consistent with responses noted within the open ended portion of the student survey where students indicated an overall satisfaction with the program but did not feel that the program changed their study habits or helped them apply information to real life situations. Additionally, more students responded neutrally to items pertaining to content, grades and application when compared to responses for items related to motivation, fun and self-confidence. Table 6 Student Survey - THRIVE N = 142 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. THRIVE items Because of THRIVE, I have learned how to use a calculator to help solve algebra problems. THRIVE makes Algebra more enjoyable. THRIVE has helped me get good grades in Algebra. I think I will do well on the Algebra Benchmark Exam because of THRIVE. In THRIVE, I have learned how algebra can be used in real life. THRIVE has made me more confident about math. My THRIVE teacher helps me with problems I am having in my algebra class. I feel comfortable asking questions in THRIVE class. Team competitions make THRIVE classes fun. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 67.6 77.5 50.0 78.9 55.6 66.2 66.2 74.7 87.3 Percent Neutral 23.9 20.4 40.9 16.2 33.8 24.7 25.4 21.1 6.3 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 8.5 2.1 8.5 4.2 10.6 7.8 8.5 4.2 2.8 26Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 29 of 69 SMART Responses indicating agreement or strong agreement for items pertaining to the SMART portion of survey were consistently above 75%. Of the 70 respondents, over 85% agreed or strongly agreed that SMART helped prepare them for Algebra I in the fall, and 80% agreed or strongly agreed that SMART made algebra more fun. Seventy-eight percent agreed or strongly agreed that the SMART program helped them remember math skills from the previous year. Students agreed or strongly agreed that they were motivated to go to their SMART classes and that the program helped them apply math to solve real-life problems across 75% of the surveys. Fewer students indicated neutral or negative responses for the SMART survey items than noted among THRIVE survey responses. Of those that indicated disagreement or strong disagreement. the item noted most frequently (4.3%) was related to application (We learned how to use math to solve reallife problems.). Overall, the trend towards agreement with items probing the attributes of the programs was positive. Table 7 presents detailed results for the SMART student survey. Table 7 Student Survey -SMART N = 70 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. SMART Items SMART helped me remember the math skills I learned last school year. SMART made algebra more fun. In SMART, we learned how to use math to solve real-life problems. I was motivated to go to my SMART class during the summer. Because of SMART, I was prepared to begin Algebra I in the fall. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 78.6 Percent Neutral 18.6 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 2.9 81.4 75.7 75.7 88.6 14.3 15.7 18.6 5.7 1.4 4.3 1.4 1.4 OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES THRIVE students had an opportunity to respond to four, open-ended questions as part of the survey. Student impressions of the SMART program were polled across all students even though SMART was not in session and not all students participated in it during the previous summer. SMART and THRIVE were evaluated separately using the same questions to preserve the integrity of their differences. Student responses are summarized below. 27Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 30 of 69 Question 1: Students were asked to comment on what they liked about the THRIVE program. The majority of responses reflected an appreciation of the programs use of competition and a sense that the program made math more fun/enjoyable. Additional comments suggested that students enjoyed having a program that allowed for review and expansion of concepts taught in the regular Algebra I classroom. Students also noted that they enjoyed the teachers and felt comfortable asking for clarification when necessary. Additionally, snacks and rewards were notably cited as positive influences of THRIVE. Table 8 summarizes what students liked about THRIVE. TABLE 8 What do you like about THRIVE? Description Makes math fun Uses competition/games in Provides expansion/review of math concepts Clarifies/Remediates confusing concepts Teachers are good/likeable Snacks People/friends in THRIVE classes Class size/Format Money/Rewards NA - responses did not pertain to question Enjoy using a calculator Provides a head start for following week in class Improves self-confidence/provides comfortable place to learn Class Time/Format TOTAL  Frequency 42 37 18 17 17 14 11 8 7 1 4 3 3 2 190 Percentage 22% 19% 9% 9% 9% 7% 6% 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 1% 100% Question 2: When asked what they would change about the THRIVE program, the overwhelming majority of students responded that they would make no changes. Students who did comment on needed changes mostly cited a later start time or a more compressed time period (e.g., two hours rather than four hours) as potential prospects. Non-specific time changes (e.g., change time, time, different time) were also noted among open-ended comments but coded separately due to the large number of students commenting on previously cited specifics about THRIVE hours. Table 9 provides an illustration of student comments. The miscellaneous category captured unique comments made by individual students (e.g., field trips, guest speakers, PE). 28Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 31 of 69 TABLE 9 Whaf would you change about THRIVE? Description No change Less time Later start time Miscellaneous Class format/more varied activities Longer breaks Non-specific time change Snacks/lunch Enhance competition More time More peers/neighborhood school Rewards Earlier time Teacher changes TOTAL Frequency 57 17 14 11 10 8 8 8 5 4 3 3 2 2 152 Percentage 38% 11% 9% 7% 7% 5% 5% 5% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 100% Question 3'. Students were asked to comment on how THRIVE has helped them over the course of the semester. Most comments suggested that THRIVE helped students enhance comprehension of general Algebraic concepts. Many students also indicated that THRIVE helped improve their grades and improved their understanding of how to use a calculator to solve and graph equations. Additionally, students' comments suggested that THRIVE reinforced specific concepts (e.g., graphing equations with polynomials) and made the students feel that they were staying ahead in weekly Algebra classes. Of 150 responses, three indicated that THRIVE was not helpful\nnone indicated that it was detrimental. Table 10 summarizes the results. TABLE 10 If THRIVE has helped you, how has it helped you? Description Enhanced comprehension of Algebra Improved grades Use of calculator Reinforced specific concepts in Algebra Helps stay ahead in math Builds confidence/makes math more positive Miscellaneous (individual answers) Negative-Did not help TOTAL Frequency 63 20 18 16 14 8 8 3 150 Percentage 42% 13% 12% 11% 9% 5% 5% 2% 100% 29Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 32 of 69 Questions about SMART were analyzed. Response rates across SMART questions, although somewhat different, do not vary significantly. Question 4: When asked to identify the most appealing aspects of SMART, most comments were positive, yet nonspecific in nature. Examples included responses that alluded to liking everything about the program or how the program helped me (in general). A number of students (13%) noted that SMART prepared them for math in the fall and reduced anxiety when entering first year Algebra. Calculator use and team competition garnered notably high response rates (13% and 12% respectively). Some students made specific comments about the positive influence of the SMART teachers and others made comments about rewards delivered through the program. Response categories are provided in Table 11. TABLE 11 What do you like about SMART? Description Nonspecific positive responses (e.g.. Everything: How it helped me) More prepared for math/ reduced anxiety Using the calculator Team competitions The teachers Reinforcement and rewards Social aspects/visiting with peers from other schools The snacks Games and content delivery NA (e.g., I did not go to SMART\nI do not know) Format/time/class size TOTAL ~ Frequency 31 11 11 10 5 5 5 3 2 2 1 86 Percentage 36% 13% 13% 12% 6% 6% 6% 3% 2% 2% 1% 100% Question 5: Students also provided information about what aspects of the SMART program they would change. Over sixty percent of the responses favored no change. Of the remaining responses, 23% indicated a time change as appropriate. Of those, the large majority of comments suggested a later starting time rather than a reduced time period. One student noted a desire to reduce the amount of time spent at SMART. A few students who did not participate in SMART simply indicated such\nno additional comments were recorded among these respondents. The remaining responses indicated a desire to enhance the program by adding team competitions, extending the time during which SMART was available, and providing more applied skills for use in everyday situations. Data are summarized in Table 12. 30Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 33 of 69 TABLE 12 What would you change about the SMART program? Response No change Time Snacks NA (I did not go to SMART\nI like Math) More team competitions More applied skills Extend time/day and/or hours TOTAL Frequency 41 15 3 3 2 1 1 66 Percentage 62% 23% 5% 5% 3% 2% 2% 100% Question 6: When asked about how SMART helped students, the ovenwhelming majority of comments identified the programs purpose in preparing students for Algebra I as most important. Many responses also indicated the use of a calculator as instrumental in helping students solve Algebra problems. Additionally, students noted that SMART helped improve their grades and built confidence in math. TABLE 13 If SMART helped you, describe how. Response Made me feel prepared Use of calculator Built confidence in math Improved grades NA(I did not go to SMART\nI liked THRIVE) Reinforced specific concepts Miscellaneous (I would like field trips) Increased engagement/interest TOTAL Frequency 41 11 6 6 3 1 1 1 70 Percentage 59% 16% 9% 9% 4% 1% 1% 1% 100% PARENT SURVEY THRIVE A total of 35 parents responded to survey items pertaining to THRIVE. Of those, 57% were female and 40% were male. A total of 80% of parent respondents indicated that their child was African American, 8.6% specified Asian and 2.9% specified Caucasian, Hispanic and Other respectively. No parental respondents specified Multi-Ethnic as the ethnicity of their child. 31Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 34 of 69 Responses indicating agreement or strong agreement were consistently above 80% across all survey items. Overall, parents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE was a good program (94%), that they felt comfortable having their child attend classes on Saturdays (91.4%) and that they felt teachers in the program helped their children feel successful in math (91.4%). The neutral responses that were noted were made in response to items pertaining to childrens attitudes about math and improvement in grades. No negative responses to the items were reported. Table 14 provides a summary of the responses. Table 14 Parent Survey - THRIVE N = 35 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. THRIVE items The teachers in this program make my child feel that he/she can succeed. Because of this program, my child is more motivated to complete algebra homework. This program has helped improve my child's attitude about math. I am comfortable having my child attend classes on Saturdays. Because of this program, I have seen an improvement in my child's Algebra I grades. Overall, I think this is a good program. Percent Strongly Agree/Agree 91.4 88.6 82.9 91.4 80.0 94.3 Percent Percent Strongly Neutral Disagree/ 5.7 8.6 17.1 5.7 14.3 2.9 Disagree 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percent Don't Know 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SMART A slightly smaller number of parents (21) responded to the five survey items pertaining to SMART. Of those, 61.9% were female and 33.3% were male. Eighty-five percent of parental respondents cited their childs ethnicity as African-American. The remaining respondents indicated Asian (4.8%) or Other (4.8%) as their childs ethnicity. Ninety percent of parent respondents indicated agreement or strong agreement when asked whether SMART did a good job of preparing children for Algebra I in the fall and improving childrens perception that they could succeed in math. Slightly over 85% of respondents indicated agreement or strong agreement with items related to whether SMART improved their childs attitude about math and whether they felt comfortable sending their children to classes during the summer. A total of 76% of parents agreed or strongly agreed that 32Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 35 of 69 the program classes were easy for their children to attend. None of the respondents indicated disagreement or strong disagreement with any of the items. Of those that responded neutrally, the highest number (14.3%) were noted for the item pertaining to whether SMART had improved attitudes about math. No parents indicated negative responses for any of the items. Table 15 Parent Survey - SMART N = 21 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. SMART Items Because of this program, my child felt like he/she could succeed in Math. The summer classes were easy for my child to attend. This program helped improve my child's attitude about Math. I am comfortable having my child attend classes during the summer. This program did a good job of preparing my child for beginning Algebra I in the fall. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 90.5 76.2 85.7 85.7 90.5 Percent Neutral 4.8 4.8 14.3 0.0 4.8 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percent Don't Know 0.0 4.8 0.0 4.8 0.0 OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES Question 7\nWhen asked to provide their impressions of THRIVE, many parents responses described it as a motivating math program (19%) targeting childrens math skills. Numerous comments suggested that parents characterize THRIVE as a program that improves general math skills (19%) and/or focuses on problem solving and/or critical thinking (15%). A number of parents comments also reflected an awareness of the programs use of motivating games and competition to foster interest in math (15%). The balance of the comments were positive and reflected an awareness of THRIVE as a supplemental alternative to the weekly Algebra I curriculum. 33Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 36 of 69 TABLE 16 Please tell us your impression of the THRIVE program. What do you see as taking place during the sessions? Description Helps child feel fulfilled/motivated about math Helps child improve math skills Focuses critical thinking and problem solving Integrates games and fun into math Non-specific positive commendation Practical application Provides individualized tutoring provides review of school curriculum Class format: small groups and team competition TOTAL Frequency 5 5 4 4 2 2 2 2 1 27 Percentage 19% 19% 15% 15% 7% 7% 7% 7% 4% 100% Question 2 and Question 3: Questions 2 and 3 addressed parents opinions of THRIVE. One third of the comments made about parents positive opinions indicated that it was motivating. Parents also noted that they liked how THRIVE provided additional help (17%) and made efforts to improve specific math skills (12%). Some parents reported global positive experiences and satisfaction with THRIVE (14%). Table 17 provides additional data regarding what parents liked about the program. Regarding parents' opinions about whether aspects of THRIVE should be changed, 29% 'O recommended no change and/or responded positively about the program. Of the comments requesting change, one third recommended expanding the breadth and length of the program. Specifically, these parents made note that more time (23%) should be allocated for THRIVE and that more students (10%) should be involved. Table 18 provides additional information about isolated comments for changing THRIVE. 34Case 4:82-cv-00866-\\/VRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 37 of 69 TABLE 17 What did you like about the THRIVE program? Description Motivating Provides additional help Non-specific positive commendation Improve math skills Class size, time, format Learning new strategies Games Parent gatherings Prepares for benchmark exam Teaches calculator skills_________ TOTAL ' Frequency 14 7 6 5 3 3 1 1 1 1 42 Percentage 33% 17% 14% 12% 7% 7% 2% 2% 2% 2% 100% TABLE 18 If anything, what would you change about the THRIVE program? Description No change Extend time/meet more frequently Expand program to more students More challenge Expand into summer Expand program to after school Get credit Later start Measurement of progress More communication between parents and teachers More funding More hands on learning More structure Transportation__________ TOTAL Frequency 9 7 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31 Percentage 29% 23% 10% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 100% Two questions probed the operational aspects of the THRIVE program. Regarding notification and enrollment, parents comments indicated that their childrens schools (34%) and teachers (26%) were the primary sources of information about THRIVE. Children reportedly were additional sources of information (11%). A substantial percentage of parents also indicated that their childs participation in SMART the previous summer served as a source of information about THRIVE. 35Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 38 of 69 The majority of respondents suggested that transportation was not a problem. Of the four of respondents who viewed transportation as problematic, one indicated that bus services were not provided in her area. Two respondents noted that bus services were provided, but were inconsistent. Of the 28 respondents who did not identify transportation as a problem, none elaborated as to whether or not their children made use of the buses that were provided. Tables 19 and 20 provide frequency and percentage data for these questions. TABLE 19 How did you find out about THRIVE? Description Child's school Child's teacher Child SMART Child's friend District Math programs Mailings, flyers PTA Respondent is a THRIVE Teacher School Counselor TOTAL Frequency 12 9 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 35 Percentage 34% 26% 11% 9% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 100% TABLE 20 IVas transportation a problem? Please explain. Description No Yes. Bus provided, but inconsistent No. Weekend no problem Yes. Yes. No bus provided TOTAL Frequency 27 2 1 1 1 32 Percentage 84% 6% 3% 3% 3% 100% Parents also had an opportunity to respond to questions regarding the SMART summer program. These questions were exactly the same as those asked about the THRIVE program. Bearing in mind that fewer students participated in SMART than in THRIVE, it was expected that fewer parents would respond to 36Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 39 of 69 questions regarding SMART. Three respondents indicated that their child did not participate in SMART\nthese three respondents did not answer the remaining questions. Parents impressions of the SMART program were positive. The majority of parents responding indicated that the program exposed their children to a variety of methods for solving Algebra problems (24%) and improved their motivation (19%) tor math. Five parents made very general positive comments (14%) about the program and/or indicated that the teachers were integral in motivating students (10%) to learn about Algebra. TABLE 21 Please tell us your impression of the SMART program. Description Use of variety of teaching methods Improving motivation for math NA (response indicated that child did not participate in SMART) Non-specific positive commendation Teachers making math enjoyable Description of time spent in program Improving grades in math Motivating Teachers making math enjoyable TOTAL Frequency 5 4 Percentage 24% 19% 14% 3 2 1 1 1 1 21 14% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 100% 3 Parents were asked to comment on whether or not they would recommend changes being made to the program. Results suggest that many parents desire to extend the duration of the program (43%) and would like to expand the program to more students (14%). The remaining 43% of respondents indicated that they would make no changes. Table 22 provides an illustration of the comments regarding change. TABLE 22 What, if anything, would you change about SMART? Description Extend duration (weeks) No change Expand to more students TOTAL Frequency 6 6 2 14 Percentage 43% 43% 14% 100% 37Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 40 of 69 Parents were asked how they found out about SMART and whether or not transportation posed a problem for them to examine operational needs of the program. Results from these questions are summarized in Tables 23 and 24. The majority of parents indicated that they were notified about SMART through their childs school (59%). Of these respondents, a specific person (e.g., general math specialist) or department was noted as a source. Adult peers (12%) also were among sources of information notably contributing to disseminating information about SMART. Five respondents (30%) indicated that specific school personnel notified them about SMART\nof these, one was a SMART teacher. Transportation was not viewed as problematic. Of the respondents, three provided more specific information about how they traveled to and/or from SMART. None of the respondents indicated negativity toward bus or car. TABLE 23 How did you find out about the SMART program? Description Frequency Childs school Friends of parent Math Specialist at Childs School Childs teacher LRSD Math Dept Respondent is a SMART Teacher TOTAL 10 2 2 1 1 1 17 Percentage 59% 12% 12% 6% 6% 6% 100% TABLE 24 IVas transportation a problem? Description Frequency No No. Bus Provided No. Parents Drove TOTAL 13 2 1 16 Percentage 81% 13% 6% 100% 38Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 41 of 69 SMART/THRIVE TEACHER SURVEY THRIVE A total of 23 THRIVE teachers were asked to provide opinions and perceptions of SMART and THRIVE. Of those, 18 completed objective survey items for the THRIVE program. Seventeen of the respondents reported their ethnicity. Over sixty percent of these respondents specified their ethnicity as African-American\nthe remaining respondents identified their ethnicity as Caucasian (27%) or Other (5%). Regarding experience, the majority of the teachers responding to the survey had between 6-10 years of teaching experience and had worked with the THRIVE program for 3 or more years. Over 30% of respondents indicated having 1-2 years experience with THRIVE. Over 25% indicated having 5 or more years of experience with THRIVE. Teachers' responses overwhelmingly favored agreement or strong agreement with items pertaining to positive attributes among professional development, resources/materials, methodology and instructional delivery within the THRIVE program. Two items for which some teachers indicated neutrality were related to the extent to which they felt the program had improved their own ability or their students ability to use calculators. Overall, however, teachers responses suggest an overall positive perception of the program. This is consistent with the opinions shared from open-ended questions designed to glean similar information. Table 25 presents summary information from the objective items. 39Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 42 of 69 Table 25 SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey - THRIVE N = 18 Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following items: 1. I have received adequate professional development 2. 3. to implement this program. I have a thorough understanding of the objectives of this program. The students enjoy the planned activities. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 100.0 Percent Neutral 0.0 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 0.0 Percent Dont Know 0.0 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. The facility at which the classes are held is adequate. Materials (books, copies, equipment) needed for this program are readily available. The daily briefing and debriefing sessions are valuable. The program has improved my ability to use graphing calculators. The program has improved my students ability to use graphing calculators. The program is aligned with state and district math standards. The co-teacher (THRIVE) and Mentor (SMART) approaches are effective instructional methods for teaching and reinforcing Algebra concepts. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.4 94.4 94.4 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 5.6 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SMART Of the 18 surveys collected from THRIVE teachers, ten contained completed items pertaining to SMART. Demographic data from all ten suggests that this cohort consisted of teachers with more than 5 years of teaching experience. The majority of respondents reported between 6-10 years experience (60%). Teachers with 11-15 years experience comprised 20% of the respondent group and teachers with 16 or more years comprised the remaining 20% of the group. The majority of respondents indicated having four or more years experience with THRIVE (70%) and all respondents indicated having 4 or more years with SMART (100%). With regard to ethnicity, the majority of respondents specified African American (70%). The remaining 30% specified Caucasian. Respondents indicated 100% agreement or strong agreement across eight of the ten items. For two items probing teachers perceptions of how SMART improved their ability or their students ability to use graphing calculators, total agreement was noted among 90% of the surveys. The remaining 10% of the survey 40Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 43 of 69 respondents indicated neutral responses for these two items. None of the respondents indicated disagreement or strong disagreement for any of the items. Table 26 summarizes this data. Table 26 SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey - SMART N = 10 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following items: I have received adequate professional development to implement this program. I have a thorough understanding of the objectives of this program. The students enjoy the planned activities. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 100.0 Percent Neutral 0.0 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 0.0 Percent Don't Know 0.0 10. The facility at which the classes are held is adequate. Materials (books, copies, equipment) needed for this program are readily available. The daily briefing and debriefing sessions are valuable. The program has improved my ability to use graphing calculators. The program has improved my students' ability to use graphing calculators. The program is aligned with state and district math standards. The co-teacher (THRIVE) and Mentor (SMART) approaches are effective instructional methods for teaching and reinforcing Algebra concepts. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 90.0 90.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES In addition to closed-ended items, THRIVE Teachers also had an opportunity to respond to four open- ended questions as part of the survey. The open ended items also gave the teachers who were involved with the SMART program an opportunity to provide comments regarding the program from the prior summer. A summary of these questions and respective responses are listed below. Question 1. In response to the question, What SMART/THRIVE strategies do you use in your classroom? teachers listed a total of 41 distinct responses. The most frequently made comments related to strategies pertaining to games (29%) and calculator applications (22%). Strategies relating to cooperative learning, computer applications and general strategies were also noted. The results are found in Table 27. 41Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 44 of 69 TABLE 27 What SMART/THRIVE strategies do you use in your classroom? Description Games Calculator applications Cooperative learning Specific Strategies (warm-up/review) Computer applications (beyond calculators) General strategies TOTAL Frequency 12 9 9 7 2 2 41 Percentage 29% 22% 22% 17% 5% 5% 100% Question 2: In response to the question, What are the most/least beneficial aspects to the professional development component of SMART and/or THRIVE?, teachers listed a total of 24 responses. Beneficial aspects of the professional development portion of the SMART and THRIVE programs most frequently noted were: new strategies, opportunities to collaborate with other teachers, hands-on application, co-teaching component, and application in regular algebra class. Three comments were made about the least beneficial aspects of the program\nall three noted time constraints as a major limitation. See Table 28 for a summary. TABLE 28 What are the most/least beneficial aspects to the professional development component of SMART and/or THRIVE? Description Hands-on application Opportunities to collaborate with other teachers Application in regular algebra class New strategies Time is an issue TOTAL Frequency 7 5 5 4 3 24 Percentage 29 21 21 17 13 100% Question 3: A total of 14 comments were made in response to the question, 'If you were a teacher tor SMART during the past summer, are there any additional comments that you would like to make about the SMART Program? The overwhelming majority of comments cited SMART as a strong pre-algebra preparation program. Additionally, teachers noted the following comments about SMART: reinforcing concepts, fostering technology awareness, improving teacher relationships, and preparing students for 42Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 45 of 69 algebra. Two teachers noted a desire to expand and continue the SMART program. See Table 29 for a summary. TABLE 29 If you were a teacher for SMART during the past summer, are there any additional comments that you would like to make about the SMART Program? Description Reinforcing concepts Preparing for Algebra Expansion Fostering teacher relationships Fostering technology awareness TOTAL Frequency 6 4 2 1 1 14 Percentage 43% 29% 14% 7% 7% 100% ALGEBRA I TEACHER SURVEY SMART Demographic information from the Algebra I Teacher survey show that of the twenty-five Algebra I teachers who responded to six survey items pertaining to SMART 68% were female and 28% were male. A total of 44% of respondents specified their ethnicity as Caucasian. Thirty-six percent specified African American and 12% specified Multi-Ethnic. The remaining categories of Asian and Hispanic were not specified by any of the respondents. The number of respondents indicating that they had worked for SMART or THRIVE in the past comprised 44% percent of the total group\nfifty-two percent indicated not having worked with either program. Few respondents (8%) reported having fewer than 5 years teaching experience and the majority of respondents (total 56%) reported having 11 or more years of experience. In contrast to response trends from the parents, students and THRIVE teachers surveyed, Algebra I teachers' responses to SMART items showed slightly more varied distribution across the survey scale (Strongly Agree/Agree-Neutral-Strongly Disagree/Disagree-Dont Know). Over 80% of the teachers surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that SMART positively impacted student achievement in math and effectively enabled students to use technology to solve algebra problems. Eighty percent of respondents indicated agreement or strong agreement when asked to determine the extent to which they agreed that SMART helped students become more confident of their abilities in algebra. A little over 72% of responses indicated agreement or strong agreement with the statement that SMART offered strategies that could be used in the 43Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 46 of 69 Algebra I classroom and 65% agreed or strongly agreed that SMART offered strategies that could be used in the Algebra I classroom. When asked to judge whether SMART had helped close the achievement gap between African American and Caucasian students, just over 48% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed. Eight percent disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement, while 24% remained neutral and 20% indicated that they did not know. Table 30 Algebra I Teacher Survey - SMART N = 25 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The program has... Positively impacted student achievement in math Helped close the achievement gap between African American and Caucasian students Helped students become more confident of their abilities in Algebra Effectively enabled students to use technology to solve Algebra problems Facilitates students' meaningful understanding of algebraic concepts Offered me strategies that I use in my own classroom Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 88.0 Percent Neutral 4.0 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 0.0 Percent Don't Know 8.0 48.0 80.0 88.0 72.0 68.0 24.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 0.0 16.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 12.0 8.0 16.0 THRIVE Among responses from the 33 Algebra I teachers who responded to the six THRIVE items, 66.7% were female and 24.2% were male. Reports of teaching experience and experience with THRIVE and SMART were comparable to those noted among the group responding to SMART. The demographic distribution of this group was also similar to that noted among SMART respondents (39.4% Caucasian, 36.4% African American, and 12.1% Multi-Ethnic). Over 84% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE effectively enabled students to solve problems using technology. Eighty-one percent agreed that THRIVE positively impacted student achievement in math. Over 75% agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE facilitated conceptual understanding of algebra and helped students become more confident in Algebra. Seventy-two percent of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE offered strategies that could be used in the Algebra I classroom. The same percentage of respondents (48%) as those responding to the same item about SMART agreed or 44Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 47 of 69 strongly agreed that THRIVE had closed the achievement gap between African American and Caucasian students. A total of 18% remained neutral about this item, 6.1% disagreed or strongly disagreed and 24.2% indicated that they did not know. Table 31 Algebra I Teacher Survey - THRIVE N = 33 Percent Percent 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The program has... Positively impacted student achievement in math Helped close the achievement gap between African American and Caucasian students Helped students become more confident of their abilities in Algebra Effectively enabled students to use technology to solve Algebra problems Facilitates students meaningful understanding of algebraic concepts Offered me strategies that I use in my own classroom Strongly Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 81.8 48.5 75.8 84.9 75.8 72.7 Neutral Disagree/ Disagree Percent Dont Know 3.0 0.0 12.1 18.2 6.1 24.2 9.1 0.0 9.1 6.1 3.0 0.0 3.0 6.1 9.1 12.1 9.1 12.1 OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES To further evaluate teachers perceptions of SMART and THRIVE, four open-ended questions were administered to all district Algebra I teachers, regardless of whether or not they were directly involved in the programs. Tables 32 and 33 illustrate how SMART and THRIVE programs are perceived among ail Algebra I teachers polled in Little Rock. Since not all of the Algebra I teachers polled were SMART/THRIVE teachers, it was important to gather information about teachers awareness of both programs. Question 1: A total of 50 comments were made when teachers were asked to briefly describe their understanding of the SMART program. SMART was cited as a strong pre-algebra preparation program by the large majority of respondents. Algebra I teachers comments reflected a general understanding of the nature and target population, and several noted specific elements about its focus on promoting understanding Algebra I concepts through use of technology, particularly among at-risk populations. Results are summarized in Table 32. 45Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 48 of 69 Table 32 Please briefly describe your understanding of the SMART Program. Description Program designed to provide a preview of Algebra I concepts and build math confidence Program designed to integrate calculators Frequency 20 Percentage 40% 10 20% Identified time (day) and location of program Program designed to motivate students and make Algebra I fun Identified program for grades 8 and 9 only 14% 8% 8% Program designed to target at-risk children Program designed to address ARK and ACTAAP goals___________________________ TOTAL 6% 4% 50 100% 7 4 4 3 2 Question 2: When Algebra I teachers were asked to briefly describe their understanding of the THRIVE program, a total of 55 comments were made. THRIVE was most frequently characterized as a supplement to the Algebra I curriculum designed to bolster concepts taught in school. Teachers also generally described THRIVE program's time (Saturdays), location and relationship to SMART. Additionally, Algebra I teachers made comments about the motivational nature of the program as well as its purpose in reinforcing principles for various standardized tests (e.g.. Benchmark and ACCTAP). Results are summarized in Table 33. 46Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 49 of 69 TABLE 33 Please briefly describe your understanding of the THRIVE program. Description Program designed to supplement Algebra I concepts and build math confidence Identified time (day) and location of program Frequency 23 Percentage 42% 10 18% Related to or a follow-up to SMART Program designed to motivate students and make Algebra I fun Program designed to address standardized Benchmark tests, ARK and ACTAAP goals Program designed to integrate calculators 10 18% 9% 7% 4% Program designed to target at-risk children TOTAL 2% 55 100% 5 4 2 1 Questions 3 (Table 34) and 4 (Table 35). Questions three and four were designed to gather information about teachers perceptions of effective and ineffective components of SMART and THRIVE. These questions did not differentiate between the two programs. Responses suggested that teachers evaluative open-ended comments for both programs were similar. Responses to question 3 yielded complimentary commentary describing the efficacious elements of the programs. Question 4 yielded comments describing the programs shortcomings. TABLE 34 What do you see as the most effective aspects of the SMART and/or THRIVE programs? Description Enriches Algebra concepts in authentic contexts Integrates calculatorAechnology use Reinforces Algebra concepts Fosters motivation and integrates fun into teaching Fosters confidence and success Enhances peer relationships/collaborative learning Enhances professional development Provides tutoring for children having trouble with Algebra I Helps prepare for standardized tests Emphasizes co-teaching TQTAL Frequency 10 10 8 5 4 2 1 1 1 1 43 Percentage 23% 23% 19% 12% 9% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 100 47Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 50 of 69 TABLE 35 What do you see as the feast effective aspects or areas in need of improvement? Description Need to serve broader group of students Over-reliance on calculator More funding needed No direct evaluation of the program (grades) Enrollment/recruitment Too much emphasis on games Space TOTAL Frequency 9 4 3 2 2 2 1 23 Percentage 39% 17% 13% 9% 9% 9% 4% 100% FOCUS GROUP RESULTS PROGRAM PARTICIPANT FOCUS GROUP The questions asked of the selected students were designed to glean more information about their perceptions of THRIVE and the perceived effects of participation in the program. Each focus group began by asking students to describe THRIVE. A little over one third of the comments (36%) indicated that the students viewed THRIVE as a program that focused on math tutoring. An additional 21% of participants indicated that THRIVE made math more fun. Other comments referenced THRIVE as a (standardized) test-preparation program, a program designed to build specific math skills and improve grades, and/or a program that used competition and snacks to help motivate students interest in math. Some students made note of the heavy use of calculators in instruction. In a similar vein, students noted that they thought the purpose of THRIVE was to help struggling students, improve math scores, provide differentiated instruction and improve district math programs. When asked to describe more discrete details of the Saturday program, student participants frequently noted use of game play and rewards to facilitate teaching and test taking skills in Algebra 1. To get a better sense of students perceptions of math in general, respondents were asked to comment on their level of comfort or dislike in math. Almost half (46%) of the student participants indicated that they have not traditionally liked math, but have enjoyed it more through THRIVE. Twenty-three percent of respondents noted always having enjoyed math. Two students (15%) noted not liking math. One student noted having mild disdain for math and another reportedly enjoyed math but felt that Algebra I was difficult. Students were asked to provide opinions of their overall student satisfaction of the program. When asked whether or not they liked THRIVE, all respondents replied positively. When probed about why they liked the 48Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 51 of 69 program, fewer individuals provided further commentary. Of those who did, hands-on activities and the personal, comfortable environment were noted as elements that made them feel more confident. Games, rewards and use of competition in math application were also noted as positive attributes. None of the respondents indicated negative feelings toward the program in response to this question, although one student recommended that the program start later in the day. When asked whether they would recommend THRIVE to other students, half of the participants (10) responded. No negative responses to this question were noted. When asked to elaborate, the majority of respondents who did not respond with a simple yes noted that the program would be particularly appropriate for students struggling with Algebra and/or those students who desire to get ahead in Algebra. Students also were asked to comment on specific changes that they would foresee as improvements to THRIVE. Among those who responded, the most frequently noted request for change related to the time or duration of the program (4 respondents). Three students indicated they would make no changes, and two students indicated that they would like to get credit for THRIVE. The remaining responses were noted among individuals and are listed in Appendix C. Because students come to THRIVE with a variety of instructional backgrounds, the next two questions addressed whether the students felt that THRIVE changed how they approached math problems and whether new ways of studying math had emerged as a result of participating in THRIVE. Over a third of the respondents indicated that THRIVE had given them different ways to solve problems. Individual comments suggested that THRIVE helped students improve grades, get ahead in class and use calculators in problem solving. One student indicated that THRIVE made math less intimidating\nanother suggested that the practice it provided made classroom concepts easier to grasp. None of the respondents indicated that THRIVE had significantly changed how they studied math. When further probed, it was noted that students perceived this question as one pertaining to test-taking and test preparation. They indicated that they continued to prepare for traditional tests as they did before participating in THRIVE. The core purpose of the question was to determine whether students applied study strategies learned in THRIVE to Algebra I class. Although it is apparent that students felt THRIVE helped them in Algebra I, their responses did not indicate that it significantly changed their study habits. When asked how THRIVE is specifically helping in Algebra, the three most frequently made comments related to the programs role in reviewing material presented in Algebra I classes, improving grades and 49Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 52 of 69 helping apply concepts. Other comments were proposed by individuals\nhowever, all but one related to THRIVE supporting math-specific needs through basic instruction that complimented but could be differentiated from classroom practices. Three probe questions were asked as follow-up. The first probe helped elicit information about how calculators serve as facilitative devices in THRIVE. One student stated that calculators could be used as a crutch and should be relied upon less heavily\nhowever, another student noted the use of calculators as helpful in solving problems more efficiently. Additional comments included references to calculators as instruments that could be used to do anything (not merely calculations) and tools that reduce the amount of thinking\" required to solve problems. Regarding the use of games and competitions, students responses suggest that they help reinforce concepts, make concepts easier to understand, make time spent learning math more fun. and help retention. When asked how students apply strategies learned in THRIVE to Algebra I classrooms. two students noted that THRIVE gives them more practice. Other students reported learning different ways to solve problems and having information from the Algebra class reinforced as helpful. Additional comments are noted in Appendix D. Since Benchmark exams play a significant role in district-level evaluations of math programs, students were asked to comment about their performance expectations on the exams as well as whether or not they felt their THRIVE experience would enhance their performance. Over 50% of respondents said they felt ready/prepared to take the Algebra subject area exams. Three students indicated that they were unsure about whether their efforts would transfer or not and one student reported feeling that he had more tricks (strategies) for solving some of the Benchmark problems than he did before attending THRIVE. Students were asked to comment on what Algebra I would be like without THRIVE or SMART. Well over one third of respondents indicated that math/algebra would be difficult and/or that they would have to study harder to keep up in class. Other comments indicated that it would be difficult to remember concepts and problems would be more complicated. One student noted that he would not have taken Algebra this year had he not been enrolled in THRIVE. 50Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 53 of 69 MENTOR FOCUS GROUP The questions posed to the SMART mentors were designed to glean information about the mentors perceptions of both SMART and THRIVE. Specifically, the purpose was to gather data about how the programs affected students. Two of the eight THRIVE mentors attended the focus group. As mentors, their jobs were reported as conducting icebreakers with the students such as scrambled math problems and providing individual help/instruction during the class sessions. While the teacher is providing instruction, the mentors walk the room and offer assistance to any student in need. The mentors viewed SMART as beneficial citing benefits that extend through pre-calculus. In describing SMART, the mentors stated that the program is exactly what the name entails Summer Math Algebra Readiness Training.\" They noted that the SMART program trains students on the graphing calculator for their first year in algebra. It makes them successful, otherwise the kids that dont go they just buy the calculator and dont know how to use it. According to the two focus group participants, participation in SMART boosts students confidence, they begin enter algebra knowing they have a head start on the major topics like order of operations, factoring, inequalities, and stuff like that. The mentors indicated that they would recommend SMART to other students because it will help them in the long run. One mentor noted that, \"Id recommend this to students who hate math, cause you get in there, give up 2 weeks of your summer, and then come out saying 'Wow, I learned and had so much fun. Especially in the competitions.' When asked how working as mentors for SMART benefited them, the mentors attributed ail of their algebra knowledge to their work with SMART. Additionally, it was noted that the program helped the mentors learn to work with students of different ages. learn teaching techniques, and new learning techniques for themselves. When asked about THRIVE, the mentors described it as the extension of SMART. The SMART program was described as a program that, gets students going, and THRIVE keeps students going by retaining their skills, tricks, and calculator skills throughout the year. However, neither tutor had participated in THRIVE so all knowledge of THRIVE is from their peers. The mentors concluded that THRIVE must be good to get you up on Saturdays because students hate to miss it. They love it. 51Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 54 of 69 ATTENDANCE Attendance data were available for 143 Thrive students. A total of eight Thrive sessions were held once every two weeks during the school year. Attendance rates ranged from 81 % to 100%, with an average attendance rate of 90% (see Figure 1). A plurality of students {n = 64,44.8%) attended all sessions, while 30.0% (n=43) missed one session, 21.7% (n=31) missed two sessions, and 3.5% (n=5) missed three sessions (see Figure 2). SMART students (n=210) attended up to eight sessions held during the summer. SMART attendance rates ranged from 94% to 100%, with an average attendance rate of 97% (see Figure 3). The vast majority of students (n=183,87.1%) missed no sessions, while 10.9% {n = 23) missed one session, and 2% (n=4) missed two or more sessions (see Figure 4). 52Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 55 of 69 Figure 1. Thrive Attendance Rate by Session. Figure 2. Number of Students by Number of Sessions Missed: Thrive. 70  SOSO 40  10  53 3 0  2 0  0 6 4 T 0 4 3 T 1 3 1 T 2 0= T 3 Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 56 of 69 Figure 3. SMART Attendance Rates by Session. Figure 4. Number of Students by Number of Sessions Missed\nSMART. 20 0  150  1 00  if' 1 83 50  HD 54 0 T 0 T 1 2 4 Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 57 of 69 STUDENT PERFORMANCE-BASED ASSESSMENT 2003-2004 AND 2004-2005 MATH BENCHMARK AND EOC SCORES For ninth graders, a 4 (Treatment Status) X 2 (African American vs. Other) analysis of covariance was performed on Algebra I EOC scores, using 2003-04 Benchmark scores and free lunch status as covariates. Effect size estimates were computed for the ninth grade programs by subtracting the adjusted mean for the comparison group from the adjusted mean for each program group, then dividing by the pooled-within groups standard deviation. Standardized (z) scores (with overall M = 0.00 and SO = 1.00) were computed for Benchmark Math scale scores and EOC Algebra I scale scores by subtracting the district mean from each score and dividing by the district standard deviation. Mean z-scores were then computed for comparison students and students participating in any program configuration by race to describe relative shifts in the achievement gap across years. For eighth graders, a descriptive analysis was conducted by computing the percentages of students at various levels of proficiency for each treatment condition. Because very few nonAfrican American students participated in any of these programs in eighth grade (n = 11), eighth grade comparisons were conducted only for African American students. All results for Benchmark and EOC data were derived from a pool of students whose scores on both exams were available. Algebra I EOC test: Ninth Grade. The ANCOVA model, which explained 55.9% of the variance in 2004-05 Algebra I EOC scores, revealed two significant main effects: 2003-04 Benchmark Mathematics scale scores (F|,a45 = 855,4, p \u0026lt;.001), used as a covariate, and treatment status (F3345 = 6.10, p \u0026lt;.001). Follow-up tests indicated that the adjusted mean scores for SMART students (M=175.58, ES = +0.28), Thrive students (AT = 187.88, ES = +0.56), and students attending both programs (M= 189.77, ES = +0.60) were all significantly higher than the adjusted comparison group mean (Af=163.42\nsee Figure 5). There were no main or interaction effects of student race. 55Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 58 of 69 Figure 5. Effect Size Estimates by Program: 2004-05 Ninth Grade Algebra I End-of-course Test. 0.70 - 0.60 - 0.56 0.60 0.50 0.40------ 0.30 0.20-------- 0.10 0.00 0.28 SMART Thrive Both Table 36 provides a breakdown of mean Algebra I test scores by race and treatment status. As can be seen in the table, all program means were significantly higher (p \u0026lt; .05) than the comparisons means within each racial category. Table 36. 2004-05 Algebra I Observed and Covariate-adjusted EOC Test Means by Race and Treatment Condition: Ninth Grade Race Program Mean Non-AA Comparison SMART Thrive Both 184.47 201.07 Adjusted Mean 163.65 178.54 SD ES African American Comparison SMART Thrive Both 186.33 187.30 155.84 163.18 45.22 45.16 52.81 40.62 180.49 192.23 202.00 172.61 187.87 192.15 39.29 53.64 35.72 150 14 0 3 581 70 13 23 -t-0.34 -1-0.54 -^0.21 -hO.56 -hO.66 N Note. All Smart, Thrive, and Both means are significantly higher than comparison group mean within racial category at p \u0026lt;.05. Note. Total SD = 43.93. Note. Scores were derived from 9\" grade students with available EOC scores from 2004-2005 and Benchmark scores from 2003-2004. 56Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 59 of 69 Supplementary analyses indicated that students in any of the three program groupings were more likely to achieve at Basic, Proficient, or Advanced proficiency levels than the comparison group, while the comparison group had a large percentage of students (42.1%) achieving at a Below Basic level (see Table 37, Figure 6). Further, as shown in Figure 7, African American students participating in any of the three program configurations (z- -0.16) scored more than one standard deviation below other students in the comparison condition (z= +0.90) on 2003-04 Benchmark Mathematics, but had a nearly equal score on the 2004-05 Algebra I test (z= +0.42) relative to comparison students (z= +0.50). Table 37 Percentage of Students by Proficiency Level and Program: 2004-05 Grade Algebra I End-of-Course Test Algebra I Proficiency Level Program Comparison SMART Thrive Both n % within program n % within program n % within program n % within 1-Below Basic 409 42.1% 15 17.0% 4 25.0% 2 6.7% 2-Basic 347 35.7% 45 51.1% 6 37.5% 13 43.3% 3-Proficient 174 17.9% 22 25.0% 3 18.8% 11 36.7% 4-Advanced 41 4.2% 6 6.8% 3 18.8% 4 _____________________________program Note. Scores were derived from 3^ grade students with available EOC scores from 2004-2005 and Benchmark scores from 2003-2004. 13.3% 57Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 60 of 69 IVE ISON 58 Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 61 of 69 Figure 7. Mean Z-score by Program Status and Race\n2003-04 Benchmark Mathematics and 2004-05 Algebra I. Algebra I EOC test: Eighth Grade. As shown in Figure 8, African American students who attended SMART (73.3%), Thrive (69.7%), or both programs (71.9%) were more likely to achieve at Proficient or Advanced Levels than the comparison group (58.6%\nsee Table 38. Figure 8). Comparison group students were more likely than either of the three program groups to achieve at Below Basic (12.2%) or Basic (29.3%) levels. 59Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 62 of 69 Table 38 Percentage of Students by Proficiency Level and Program: 2004-05 Grade Algebra I End-of-Course Test (African American Students) Algebra I Proficiency Level Program Comparison SMART Thrive Both n % within program n % within program n % within program n % within program 1-Below Basic 10 12.2% 6.7% 3.0% .0% 2-Basic 24 29.3% 20.0% 27.3% 28.1% 3-Proficient 35 42.7% 60.0% 17 51.5% 16 50.0% 4-Advanced 13 15.9% 13.3% 18.2% 21.9% Note. Scores were derived from Sf\" grade students with available EOC scores from 2004-2005 and Benchmark scores from 2003-2004. 60 1 1 0 3 9 2 9 9 6 7Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 63 of 69 Figure 8. Percentage of Students by Proficiency Level and Program: 2004-05 8* Grade Algebra I End-of-Course Test (African American Students). 60  50  40  c 03 O O Q. 30  20  10 PROGRAM ----------- COMPARISON -------- smart ---------thrive ----------- BOTH 1 -Below Basic 2-Basic 3-Proficient 4-Advanced 0  T T T T Proficiency Level 2004-2005 MATH ITBS SCORES (9 GRADE ONLY) ITBS Mathematics NCE scores: Grade. The ANCOVA model, which explained 70.5% of the variance in ITBS Mathematics NCE scores revealed two significant main effects: 2003-04 Benchmark Mathematics scale scores (Fuses =\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_357","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, ''School Improvement''","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":["1998/2000"],"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","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, ''School Improvement''"],"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/357"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":["6 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nSCHOOL IMPROVEMENT0-1 zm zmm 0) o School Improvement lO. Memorandum to Cabinet from Bonnie Lesley, Sept. 8, 1998, with excerpts from a book on total quality management. The Five Pillars of TOM: How to Make Total Quality Management Work for You by Don Creech. 11. Memorandum to Cabinet from Bonnie Lesley, Sept. 8,1998, with copy of an article she wrote on school restructuring and TQM, Do They Hear What We say? Understanding School Restructuring Initiatives. 12. Memorandum to principals from Bonnie Lesley in Feb. 24, 1999, Learning Links with copies of transparencies from February 1999 principals meeting on school improvement. 13. Memorandum by Bonnie Lesley in Aug. 18, 1999, Learning Links on good teachers\nattached article from Education Week, What Makes a Good Teacher? 14. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in Sept. 29, 1999, Learning Links on the few essential components of successful school reform\nattached article, Perspectives: What Does it Take to Reform a Low-Performing School? 15. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in Mar. 1,2000, Learning Links on school improvement\nattached article, Getting Results. 16. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in June 14, 2000, Learning Links on effective schools research\nattached article, Educating Urban Minority Youth: Research on Effective Practices. Y1. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in Oct, 2, 2000, Learning Links on what works\nattached study, Making Standards Work: Active Voices, Focused Learning. -/^1 10LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 September 8, 1998 TO\nDr. Les Gamine Dr. Kathy Lease Dr. Vic Anderson Dr. Richard Hurley Brady Gadberry Marian Lacey Sadie Mitchell Mark Milhollen Suellen Vann Junious Babbs Dr. Linda Watson Frances Cawthon FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJCT: TQM in Practice One of my favorite TQM books is Don Creechs The Five Pillars of TQM: How to make Total Quality Management Work for You. Attached are some of the more relevant (to us in education) excerpts from that book - I hope you find them helpful as we begin thinking about how to implement the Campus Leadership Plan. BAL/adg Excerpts from The Five Pillars of TQM: How to Make Total Quality Management Work for You New York: Truman Talley Books, 1994 This book is about the management problems of our countryand proven solutions to them. The problems seem especially daunting and highly resistant to correction, but that need not be the case. So the book is aimed at every level within every organization because that is where the change for the better must begin, whatever the organization's nature. (2) . .. when it comes to introspection in individual businesses, you will find everything from demal that management change is needed there, to uncertainty as to what is broken, and on to serious doubts about how to fix it even if it is. This book addresses those issues. (2) Our management practices must change. Adequate though not ideal for earlier times they are thoroughly unsatisfactory in an era of intense competition. (3) I've found a TQM program must meet four criteria if it is to succeed. First, it must be based on a quality mindset and quality orientation in all activities at all times, including in every process and product. Second, it must be strongly humanistic to bring quality to the way employees are treated, included, and inspired. Third, it must be based on a decentralized approach that provides empowerment at all levels, especially at the frontline, so that enthusiastic involvement and common purpose are realities, not slogans. Fourth,  TQM must be applied holistically so that its principles, policies, and practices reach every nook and cranny of the organization. It [TQM] works successfully in any organization, whatever its size, whatever its nationality, whatever its product or service, whatever its industry, and whatever its market niche. (5) Product is the focal point for organization purpose and achievement. Quality in the product IC imnriCPikla it mmlihi im ___It..___ .1  . \" \" _ is_impossible without quality in the process. Quality in the process is impossible without the right organization. The right organization is meaningless without the proper leadership Strong,.bottom-up commitment is the support pillar for all the rest. Each pillar depends upon the other four, and if one is weak all are. ~ ------ The five pillars of TQM: Product, Process, Organization, Leadership, Commitment. (7) Various surveys show that a mere 5 percent of American workers are organized into work teams.... The long-standing American preference is for organization by functions with a vertical, centralized structure to provide the oversight.  ... the choice of the organizational system, structure, and style ends up deeply affecting th A nct/rkp cnirit o11 ___u :____cri the psyche and spirit of all employees. There's insufficient recognition that the most important system of all is the human system. (10) .. . a decentralized structure facilitates leadership and unleashes creativity. Indeed the kev nilPCtinn ic whAthAr thA r\\rnnri'Totir\\ ----------------1____...i-.i.. ..  . question is whether the organization serves or squashes the human spirit. Therefore how you choose to organize can either make you or break you. (11) There is increasing recognition Ihat how one organizes profoundly affects everything else mH fho Imm .-kT-z-vy-l.  U. . .L _ I .. i\u0026gt; z i * and that the team approach produces by far the best results. (12) 1In fact, individual behavior is powerfully shaped by the organizational roles people play. The most effective way to change behavior, therefore, is to put people into a new organizational context, which imposes new roles, responsibilities and relationships on them. . . . your approach must feature goals and tasks which are clearly defined. Finally, success indeed depends on sensitive and focused leadership-which I agree is a resource in very short supply. (13) ... organizing by functions creates separation, not integration. (14) Most centralized organizations have too many managers, and too little management. ... Centralization produces too little managementdespite layers of managersfor two reasons. First, it simply does not create and foster the active, sensitive involvement by managers that is needed. Second, in a centralized system the \"management,\" in the proactive sense, is not found at the frontline level where things to be done need to be managed. (20) .., the application of centralist thinking has been the principal culprit in America's flat productivity growth. . . . (22) I am convinced that the way to win big and grow big is to organize small. My advice to organizational leaders over the years has been: Think big about what you can achieve\nthink small about how to achieve it. That's because you get things done through individuals and small groups of individuals. (25-26) Any organization will be only as successful as those at the bottom are willing to make it. Their focus, spirit, enthusiasm, objectivity, and motivation are masters that transcend all others in importance. Study after study shows that employees are powerfully affected by the organizational principles and structure that shape their roles, responsibilities, and feelings of fulfillment. (26) The best organizations use the team approach to stay agile and adaptable. (28) The decentralized approach is radically different from the centralized approach discussed earlier. In fact, it's the virtual antithesis, and the differences from the centralized, managership approach show up sharply. The structure is based on Teams, not Functions. The supervisory focus is centered on Outputs, not Inputs. The accomplishment mindset is on the team Product, not on each person's Job. ... Its great and proven strength lies in the creation of new motivation and commitment among ^1 employees and of proactive leadership from the bottom up. (30) I've found the resistance to changing the centralist style is less a matter of hardheaded intransigence than of a lack of insight into the problems it produces. The resistance is buttressed by dim understanding of how a decentralized approach can improve matters (31) If I learned nothing else, it is that what goes on at the front is what determines organizational success-all the rest is background music. (32) Honda organizes by teams, not by functions. (45)Also, every team has goals that give meaning and substance to \"Kaizen\" (the Japanese term that essentially means \"continuous improvement\"). One finds measurement at all key product-process interlace points. The results of those measurements and assessments analyzed comparatively with history, goals, like shifts, and like teams. Scoreboards are reflecting those results and standings are everywhere. The objective feedback to the employee is relevant, rigorous, and rapid. As a result, leaders at every level display impressive, in-depth understanding of the subcomponents at each of the various assembly stages of their final product. .. . Honda trains, trains, and trains some more, and special training emphasis is placed on team leaders at every level. ' Each of the Honda principles and the methods used to carry them out are fully oriented to the customers, internal and external. And, Honda is absolutely unyielding on the quality of the product. The employees build the quality in-not inspect it in-at the various subcomponent stages. They do it right the first time and every time to every possible extent. (46-47) ' ... Honda's success with quality circles is due to their being but one of four key parts in Honda's overall approach to detailed employee involvement. (48) It's the management system and the way employees are organized and treated within that system that count. And that applies everywhere. (50) ... continuous, measurable, and incremental improvement.... Everyone I tolked with talks goals in numbers as well as in words, from the bottom to the top. (51) Principles operate top to bottom. Decisions operate bottom to top. (54) The team concept supports the basic attitude that the company belongs to each and every team member, not just management. (57) . a Toyota s principles . .. include high standards, excellent management-labor relations, well-motivated work force, outstanding planning, smooth integration of the various elements, and the pervasive use of goals, measurement, and feedback to employees at all levels. Like Honda, Toyota uses multiskilling as a key feature of its team approach. All team members learn one or more additional skills related to their team's responsibilities. (58) ... open offices and companywide dining are merely the start. It's an important way of making the leaders, the most senior ones included, accessible and approachable. It replaces the usually empty phrase \"open door\" with lots of opportunities for personal interactions. Those practices demonstrate with actionsnot just with wordsa readiness to listen with interest not aloofness. .. . When the top leader places that kind of premium on seamless communication and openness, it sets the tone for every'one. It's not that hard to instill in the organizational culture, but it has to come from the top. (61) . . . the team concept is absolutely dependent upon mutual trust, mutual respect and mutual support. . . . the leadership challenge is to have no weak links. (79) 31 saw in case after case that if you can create teams of people who care about and trust one another, and get leadership and commitment operating from the bottom up, you can create feats of quality and productivity that appear miraculous when compared to the levels that others are achieving. (83) When you don't have to do it over, it yields great mission efficiency, effort efficiency, and cost efficiency. (121) The centralized approach works to separate the thinkers from the doers. That's one of the reasons it works so poorly. (132) Leaders . .. must not only stick to their knitting, but also frequently reappraise what their knitting is all about. (144) We constantly challenged and reviewed our own most devoutly held beliefs. Paying that kind of attention to the business of the business is fundamental to aware, proactive leadership. However, it simply doesn't get enough attention by enough leaders in enough organizations. (145) ... it is at the top of the ladder that TQM management principles must be supportedeven championed-if they are to be allowed to spread. (147) ... if the organization is wrongly structured, nothing else goes well either. The evidence that this is the case is simply overwhelming. The evidence is also abundant that the right organization-decentralized, team-based-provides the required framework for TQM to operate freely and effectively in every organizational element at all levels. (157) Product is the focal point for organization purpose and achievement. (158) ... all organizations, their subelements, and the individual employees within them have a product. That's true whether those organizations are public or private, whether they deal in goods or services. . . . That product can be identified and defined in terms of its customer, internal or external (159) I I I A common purpose is essential for success. (161) . . . plumbing the extent of the common values, perspectives, and purpose is the surest way to judge whether an organization is being managed well or poorly. (162) The quality mindset. . . manifests itself in the pride and professionalism the employees feel and reflect\"Or do not reflect... . Pride is the fuel of human accomplishment. . . Unquality is unaffordable. (166) . . . pride and quality (in all things, not just some things) go together. You can't have one without the other. And you won't achieve professionalism without both. I . . . lack of sensitivity to the wellsprings of quality largely stems from shopworn but doggedly persistent ideas on where to economize. And it usually traces back to the beancounters lound in nearly all companies, especially traditionally managed ones. They VnrMl/ I kn /'net of (L..X , ,l____r_.x1_- 4 I . a know the cost ol everything and the value o! nothing. And they exercise a hammerlock on all the cost and value trade-off decisions. Those beancounters don't fully understand the 4 ifirst effects of their decisions, much less the secondary effects, but those secondary effects /*s ri t m 1 r Ari I 1 J 1 rt I I 1 z, \u0026lt;1 i 1. J -  most assuredly influence attitude, motivation, and pride. (167) Quality begets quality. (171) .l.jlAY-?..tto problem whatsoever with diligent efforts to save money. I do have problems big problemswith insensitive bureaucrats who try to save money on the wrong things. (173) Be wary of cuts that affect the quality mindset-don't disable it. (174) I've never seen a sharp organization that didn't look sharp. That's just the start, of course. It must go on to professionalism in all things, but the quality mindset is the cornerstone of all professionalism. A necessary condition of being professional is to look professional. People are affected by their surroundings, the way they're treated, and the way they're led either positively or negatively. It's up to senior leaders to decide which it is to be. (175) Turnarounds, in rny experience, share one common element a change in the way the organizations human system rallies itselfunder changed policiesto bring forth unrealized work-force potential. That slumbering potential is always there. (181) .. . success lies in making each group's product the focal point for purpose and achievement. It also serves as the logical rallying point for quality and productivity. (189) The cycle that shapes the process can appropriately start nowhere else than with the customer's needs and wants. (191) There are at least two \"customers\" of the American primary and secondary educational system. (1) the student, and (2) those who will use the services of that student. The first isn t complaining about the way the system is working, but the second is. Numerous surveys show how poorly equipped students are t ______favta i techmeal complexity and intensifying competition. Much h^b^n written a^ut  to enter a work force that faces increasing ' 7 :. ^77*7  vAjuipcuuuu. iviucn nas neen written atxiut our deficiencies in defining the product of that educational system, other than as graduation' the pntincm mr'innoc r\u0026gt;r\\nrirfi ________x- , , . criticism includes concern over the lack of comparative nationd standards and the lack of countrywide testing against such standards. Indeed, there's a strong case to be made that Its the very absence of a satisfactory product definition that leads to policies like \"social promotion (moving a student on to the next grade because of age, not accomplishment) Many teachers decry the practice, but most school boards either champion it or tolerate it. rp .f X,  * , . ' , ----------------- viiauijJikJll 11 UI lUICldLC I 1 o them It s an answer to alarming dropout rates and the perceived right for all students orQzliiQto__^1/1 th /-- ____ 4.:___ z-i- .1 .. .'x.x.  ixMj . aicuiiiHig uivpuul Idles ana me lor to graduate-with or without an education. Given that lack of focus on the customer and the r\\rA/li inUnM v.z.... __________ x_ x1_ _ .   . (.tiv. product, when you move on to the actual educational processes, it's not surprising that they  J 1 , . --------------- vvviwva, 110 iivi ouipiiaillH llldl II vaiy widely, have fuzzy definition and purpose, and often are geared simply to pumping students out the door. (192)  Seven-Steps approach to process related problem-solving: 1. What's the problem? 2. Where are we now? 3. 4. 5. What are the root causes? What is needed to improx e? What happened from our actions? 6. How do we hold on to the improvement? 57. Whal is the next item to be addressed? (196) The best way to start is with the basics. Even simple measurement, analysis, and scoreboarding techniques can yield needed insights and point employees in the right directions. (202) Typically, companies that were experiencing the most serious crisis were willing to implement change at a faster rate. Successful companies implemented gradual changes. Total Quality Management truly is a cultural change. It involves a change in both the stated and unstated rules which govern the behavior and beliefs of an organization. Adopting new techniques, tools, or programs such as problem solving working groups can be important-but in themselves do not represent cultural change. (209) ... you don't have to become an expert at statistical and mathematical legerdemain to transform your organization for the better. (211) In God we trust\nall others bring data. (240) ... 95 percent of businesses need broad systemic changesnot patchwork changes that leave the traditional style basically untouched. (242) ... quality improvement teams, and, indeed all of the other parts of a TQM system are each well worth doing in their own rights.... But it is all of them working together in a systemic way that produces the dramatic results companies really want. Anyone interested in quality management must consider it as a complete management system. (243) ... six sigma means one is achieving process perfection 99.9999997 percent of the time. Translated, that's only 3.4 defects per million. Six Steps to Six Sigma: 1. Determine what your product is. 2. Determine who the customer is for that product. 3. Identify the suppliers you need for your product. 4. Map out the process you must use in putting it together. 5. Examine that process to eliminate errors and wasted steps. 6. Establish measurement means to feed continuous improvement. (250) Tolstoy: All men's instincts, all their impulses in life, are only efforts to increase their freedom. Wealth and poverty, health and disease, labor and leisure, culture and ignorance, repletion and hunger, virtue and vice, are all only terms for greater or lesser degrees of freedom. (256) ^59^^^ inversely proportional to the degree of management centralization. Bosses need to take a critical look at their entire management system. They must decide, that they will have less control of people and more control of events. That's not a contradiction in terms. (259) Decentralization, empowerment, and ownership created great improvement in our control of events, products, and outcomes. (260) 6How employees feel is even more important than what they know in determining job performance. (262) Matrix management is a blueprint for organizational confusion, which in some of its variations approaches anarchy. It does so in an altogether appropriate quest-the quest for more effective internetting of effort. But the clouded authority and accountability, and the continued dominance of the top-down, functional structure in decision-making and ownership, washes out almost all its beneficial effects. While good people can make it work-after a fashion-that doesn't mean it's the best approach. The best approach is not to organize in the centralized manner in the first place. There's a better way to internet and integrate the organization (269) Surveys show that where you have excessive behavior formalization as the principal management tool you get alienation and apathy, not motivation and initiative. (273) To create organizational success the boss must build a system that, among other TQM principles to be applied, provides widespread empowerment and non-interference from the top. However, the top boss also must stay involved and informed. That's necessary to keep the decentralized empowerment going, and to resist the ever-present tendency of lower-level managers to recentralize. The toss also must know when and where to intrude to head off incipient problems before they can grow to disasters. It is striking that balance between involvement and intrusion that's important. Some characterize the notion underlying that balance as \"nose in, fingers out,\" or NIFO. By whatever name, those at the lower levels quickly perceive how you are striking that balance, and whether their own empowerment is real or fanciful. It's not difficult or complicated so long as you base your actions on trust and respect until the scoreboard and other measurements show that intrusion is required. Leaders indeed should get out of the way, but they also must help find the way, show the way, and pave the way. (281) Nothing speaks louder than powerful, irrefutable indications that you are getting far better all the time. (282) Centralization breeds and nurtures managership.... Decentralization breeds and nurtures leadership. (294) The Japanese call frontline employees associates because their management philosophy is to treat them as such. The Japanese companies also call the superxisors of their teams leaders. That's because they expect them to do some real leading, and they train them accordingly. Tl^ we long have prized managing over leading is one of our biggest national problems. You cannot have leadership unless you belie\\ e in it.... There's a vast difference between exhortation and empowerment. You must do more than talk about it\nyou must change the organization conceptually and structurally to bnng leadership alive at all levels. . . . Obviously, some decisions can only be made at the very topbut they should be rare exceptions, not the rule. And they should deal with major resource decisions and new directions, not day-to-day management. The leaders at the top should chart the course, not constantly steer the ship. (297) 7It's managership, not leadership, that breeds apathy, disincentive, and dependency. I have yet to see a top-notch organization, public or private, that didn't have the benefit of strong leadership. There are no poor outfits, just poor leaders. (300) Leaders must be taught, and can be taught. And they must be taught how to motivate those who work for themand to accept personal responsibility for building common purpose and organizational success. Leading involves determining the right things to do. It involves creating the favorable orgamzational dynamics to get people to commit themselves, energetically and enthusiastically, to bringing those right things about. Leading involves vision and principles. It involves influencing employee mindset and motivation. It involves creating a positive culture and harmonious climate. It involves creating ownership and empowerment in pursuit of the shared vision and common purpose. So leadership is hardly the sole province of the top leaders. And it most definitely is not the centrdist business of just telling employees what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. (301-302) Leaders provide the vision\nmanagers carry it out Leaders make it better\nmanagers make it run. Leaders make it happen\nmanagers hope it happens. Leaders create more leaders\nmanagers create more managers. Leaders address the constant race between inspiration and indolence-and add to the inspiration. ... leaders build commitment through policies that increase motivation and decrease alienation. And leaders constantly probe for evidence of each. That requires involvement and sensitivity. It also requires trust, openness, and unfettered communicationnot aloof, Olympian managerial detachment, as is so common in centralized organizations. ... leaders understand that the way to win starts with the will to win-and that instilling both is leadership business. In that pursuit, leaders understand that fervor feeds on opinions-and opinions feed on presumed facts. So they influence those opinions by getting the actual facts out for everyone's benefit. They combat misinformation, and disinformation, with the straight skinny. They understand that it's objectivity that keeps misdirected subjectivity under control. Uninformed opinions and misplaced fervor thrive in an information vacuum because there's no counterforce at work. Yet most companies and managers pay scant attention to the need to keep employees well informed-or to seek their opinions. They simply don't invoke the four most important words in any management system: What do you think? (304-305) Leadership and motivation go together. (305) The team-based approach is the ideal way to ensure that real empowerment reaches the frontline-and that it gets exercised in a focused and responsible way. (306) Teams provide an ideal structure for recognizing where technology can be fruitfully applied and gaining support for its introduction into the work equation. (308) [Tenacity] is my shorthand for backbone, chutzpah, determination, endurance, fortitude, guts, grit, spunk, stamina, pluck, persistence, and perseverance. (309) 8Without meaningful comparison, people in all walks of life are simply not objective about their strengths and weaknesses. They tend to magnify the former, downplay the latter, and overdramatize their standing and accomplishments.. .. businesses that do not provide measurement and comparison, and most don't, can count on their planning being faulty and their leadership misdirected, because neither is formulated in the harsh light of objective reality, (313) You can't tell the winners without a scoreboard, or tell the losers either. And without a scoreboard neither winners nor losers will know which they are. No one will know how to get better, either. In that regard, I strongly believe a leader's greatest nemesis is human subjectivity. I quickly add that it can be a leader's greatest ally-when marshaled in the proper way. In all cases, the greater the objectivity of everyone in the organizationbased on ample data, facts, and surveys and not on supposition-the better off you are. (314) . . . you have to work hard at keeping organizations decentralized. (315) . . . the best way to achieve coherence and control is through leadership, not rules and managership.... you have to work at keeping decentralization going because of the prior conditioning of generations of our managers.... it takes guts to be a decentralizer, but the payoff is large. (317) The measurement system must not only be simple and understandable, but it must be primarily designed for the employees who are actually doing the work. (319) George Bernard Shaw: The greatest problem in communication is the illusion that it has been accomplished. One of the cardinal rules in effective communication is to be sure you're saying what you mean to say in the first place. (320) It's no mystery to anyone that the language used in an organization is one signal of its policies and practices. (323) I made up and used twenty-five reminders to myself on how to help make communication boundaryless, honest, and unstilted. They reminded me of the keys to making it a language of purpose, not protest, between front and rear: 1. Speak the language of trust, not of mistrust. 2. Don't confuse fancy words with profound ideas. 3. Don't harangue the many as the message for the few. 4. Reward the messengers of bad tidings, not shoot them. 5. Listen intently to the dissenting view\nit may be right. 6. Keep all the language goals-directed-not rules-directed. 7. Talk in numbers as well as in words to crystallize purpose. 8. On key issues communicate several layers deep. 9. If the policy is important, put it in writing-concisely. 10. Listen for the echoes to learn if it's all getting through. 11. Follow up to ensure there is full comprehension throughout. 12. Remove all barriers to upward communication. 13. Be candid, and tell it like it iswithout fear or favor. 14. Get all possible facts before expounding on the conclusions. 15. Get out the straight skinnyto combat misinterpretations. 16. Don't overhype or advertise. Let actions speak the words. 9 17. Praising the winners has more power than criticizing losers. 18. Credibility depends on flexibility, not mindless consistency. 19. Knowledge is power when widely shared, not withheld. 20. Feel free to admit you don't know, but you do want to learn. 21. The best opening sentence of all is: What do you think? 22. Listening, Hearing, Caring are the keys to mEdong it thrive. 23. Provide the means and the incentives that will make it work. 24. Go where you need to go. Spend whatever is needed. 25. Treat the communications grid as an electrical grid. Any node failures leaves people in the dark. Fill the vacuums. Find the reason they're there. Fix the grid. (325) In short, leaders need to stay closely attuned to the organization language. It is telling them what the organization is thinking, feeling, and doing. Effective communication depends on the means and methods to make it free-flowing-and also depends on the leadership positively affecting the thinking, feeling, and doing. That can't be done with adequate effectiveness unless employees at all levels are sharing common information about what's going on. Therefore, the need is not only for caring, proactive leadership and free-flowing communication, but also for effective means of information gathering and distribution that provide the insight for enlightened choices and decisions. (326) . . . you must have ways to measure progress throughout. Otherwise you \"don't know whether it's doing any good or not\" when you take actions to improve. And you don't know where to make midcourse corrections, either. (327) Peter Drucker: If you want it, measure it. If you can't measure it, forget it.\" Tom Peters: \"I haye become a fanatic about quantifyingbut a new sort of quantifying. I insist upon quantifying the soft stuffquality, customer linkups, innovation, organizational structure, people involvement.\" When used imaginatively [information technology] facilitates decentralized leadership, enlightened decisions, common perspectives, and common purpose. (328) Leadership is needed more than ever. As knowledge and attendant complexity grows the more important, not less important, core values become. Also, complexity calls for even more efficient operation of the human system in every organization, regardless of its type. (329) Leadership is far easier than ever before, not harder. It's far easier (because the tools are available) to provide overall purpose and coherence while at the same time widely distributing authority for agility, responsiveness, and effectiveness at all levels. The best companies, including the Japanese companies, prove it. With such tools we can acquire, aggregate, analyze, assimilate, and disseminate timely management information in more efficient and creative ways than ever before. . . . information technology can and must be used to facilitate decentralization. (330) Paul Strassmann: Automate only after you simplify. You cannot measure what is not defined. Effectiveness is a matter of team performance. Without productivity goals business has no direction. Without productivity measurements business has no control. Without strong leadership little succes.s can be expected. (332) 10 . . . information technologies flatten hierarchies. (332) . . . good communication is simply everyone having the same set of facts. (334) The companies that make the fullest and most imaginative use of information technology in a \"think small, tl II graphic example. (336) think wide\" contextare leaders in their industry. Wal-Mart serves as a Use information technology to aid the switch from managership to leadership. (341) . .. there must be strong leadership at the top. ... top management must be committed to distributing the authority throughout the organization-so that leadership can be exercised at the cutting edge, where it counts the most. (346) A leader's vision has power only to the extent it is shared by those who are asked to carry it out. (347) Lead by example. (349) Numerous studies show the influence of supervisors' qualities and behavior in shaping the attitudes of their subordinates. .. . I've frequently seen employee behavior and performance swing markedly back and forth as leaders change-even between positive and negative extremes. Positive, constructive behavioral patterns are important in leaders from the frontline level all the way up. (350) I never saw a new leader fail to have an effect. I found that leadership failures usually fit one of three basic patterns.... The first of the three involves the aloof and detached boss who simply doesn't know what's going on and whose employees don't know what he or she stands for. Leadership must be proactive, not reactive. That's what separates it from managership. And proactive leadership depends upon detailed involvement and awareness. The second of the three patterns involves those who practice rule through terror. Their leadership tools are threats, bombast, and intimidation. That intimidator approach is always a loser. Everyone below the boss becomes frightened to take any initiative, and communication dries up completely. (351) The third pattern is at the opposite extreme. That's the type of boss who is all over the place, but \"running for office\" and gladhanding, not probing, understanding, and setting new directions where necessary. This boss's personality craves the affection of everyone. . . . Such bosses confuse leniency with leadership. . . . employees soon learn it's no use telling them what's going on\nthey won't do anything about it anyway. Yes, leadership is essential-and it's not managership. But you won't have leadership without the freedom to exercise it. And you can't get it by sloganeering\nit depends on structure and system changes that provide the oxygen of empoweiTncnt. Only then will it nourish at every level. And that, in turn, will make the organization flourish. (352) 11 There are six [leadership qualities 11 have found to be of the greatest importance: courage, confidence, savvy, maturity, integrity, and desire. They interact, one with the other. (353) 1. Courage... . courage in interpersonal relationships and in adherence to principle. That brand of courage includes the courage to follow your convictions, but also the courage to change your mind, the courage to say, \"I don't know, but 1'11 find out\"\nthe courage to admit that neither you nor the organization you lead is perfect-or ever will be\nthe courage to keep learning, not resting on your laurels\nthe courage to place principles over prejudice, and over expediency. 2. Confidence. It goes with courage. Doing great things always starts with the belief that you can. So leaders need the tenacity that flows from confidence, not the timidity of doubt. But there's a vast difference between confidence and arrogance. The confident leader recognizes his or her need to keep growing and learning. The arrogant leaders knows it all, so there's nothing else to grow toward. The confident leader listens to others intently and is not threatened by criticism or the need to change policies that aren't working. In fact, the confident leader continually seeks them out. It's what you leam after you know it all that counts. (354) Some leaders build confidence in their subordinates\nothers drain it away. You want the first kind\nyou can't afford the second. Organizations should prize confidence and work hard to build it.... If it's confidence the organization reflects, based on the example of its leadership, the need for continuous improvement is taken for granted. If it's arrogance, forget improvement. 3. Savvy. It's more than knowledge and more than intelligence. It's a practical blend of the two. .. . Understanding, Know-how, Shrewd, Discerning. . . . The savvy are smart enough to recognize what they're dumb about, and take steps to fill in the blanks. 4. Maturity. I'm speaking here of emotional maturity, not age and not experience. (355) Leaders need to be trained so they do not confuse inspiration with intimidation, or being tough with being mean, or exercising control with their own loss of it.... Invariably, the emotionally immature are ineffective-though they fancy themselves the opposite-because the immaturity shows itself in other more subtle but equally damaging ways. Not the least of those are snap judgments and bull-headed obstinacy. That immature kind of leadership behavior is terribly damaging to employee morale and commitment. None of this means leaders shouldn't be tough-minded, make tough choices, and even be tough in handling individuals when required.... maturity is high on the list of leadership qualities. 5. Integrity. To establish organizational character, leaders must reflect integrity and honesty in all their actions, and demand the same from others. (356) 6. Desire.... desire to lead-for the right reason. . . . To make life better for others, not for oneself. That's what sustains the best leaders, and makes them go the extra mile and work unceasingly to make the organization succeed. (357) The most successful leaders, military or civilian, are good with people, and they provide the people-onented leadership example for the entire organization. 12 The strong desire to be the leader who \"makes it belter\" for others fuels determination that translates into extra effort and concern. (358) those who desire to lead for the right reason have the greatest empathy with those who work for them, and they build the needed rapport between the various layers of the organization. They are comfortable around people because they like people and are secure in the knowledge they are working in the best interests of everyone. (359) . .. they give and then some. Ask them to do a job, they do it-and then some.. . . They're running to make the organization and all its people better off, not running for office or for self-aggrandizement. .,. they're always aware of the need to accentuate each employee's dignity, not tear it down. (359) The more complex the world becomes, the more important core values become. The kind of leadership I espouse here, 1 have found, build loyalty throughout the organization. (360) Protecting cronies ruins many fine organizations. (361) When leaders practice the right kind of loyalty to their employees, they get the right kind in return. (362) I... spent a large amount of time in the selection, training, and grooming of the most senior leaders. Since most companies simply don't groom and train their leaders well, they see no good option but to proselytize and fill top positions by raiding other companies of their talent. .. . Many companies also operate on the flawed theory that you can't do it unless you've done it before. (365) ... I'm convinced leaders are made, not bom. Nurture can overcome nature in nearly all cases, given the right training. (366) Beyond creating the leaders with the right qualities and instincts, there's the matter of creating the organization's competence. That goes hand in hand with the quality of the leadership\norganizational competence obviously doesn't happen on its own. It comes from proactive, aware leaders who pay close attention to the training provided to each employee at every level. Unfortunately, surveys show that training is another of the weaknesses in the American management style. Clearly, situation awareness must include assessing internal training needs. (367) America's education system has proved stubbornly resistant to change. (370) Certainly, there's no groundswell for change. As a result, the elected school boards, which theoretically manage the system, end up tinkering on the periphery of its major problems. If the school boards don't get exercised and organize themselves for change in some reasonably consistent way across the land, don't expect change. Given that those school boards are committees, and there are thousands of them, my advice is not to hold your breath waiting for them to act. (371-372) 13. Training has always been important. Globalization makes it even more important. .. . the Japanese view training, including formal training, as a value issue, not a cost issue. They're right about that. . .. greatly expanded training-frequent, focused, formal-pays for itself many times over. Pay the price or pay the piper. (374) .. . devoting time, money, and effort to frontline team leader training makes sense because the caliber of the leadership there determines Honda's success. One simply cannot achieve high levels of competence, or of cooperation and commitment, without ample formal training. It's the leader's responsibility to build the competence and motivation within the organization. In the best companies they also participate in the teaching. Training is, quite simply, one of the highest leverage activities a manager can perform.... A manager generally has two ways to raise the level of individual performance of his subordinates\nby increasing motivation, the desire of each person to do his job well, and by increasing individual capability, which is where training comes in. (376) It is generally accepted that motivating employees is a key task for all managers.... You yourself should instruct your direct subordinates and perhaps the next few ranks below them. This doesn't mean, however, that companies should not reach outside for help if that's useful, all needs considered. ... I have one special piece of advice. If the business leaders aren't prepared to do it all, the one thing they simply should not \"outsource\" is determining the land of training they need to provide. (377) Some see a widely proclaimed erosion in the American work ethic as a sign of our times that's irreversible. I agree there's been an erosion, but I emphatically disagree that it can't be reversed. It's the managers who are failing the workers, not the other way around. .. . the work ethic is alive and well in America. (Provided, of course, that you don't turn the employees from committed to alienated with dumb management practices.) The leadership must provide the training, and the training the leadership. That's what organizational competence and renewal are about. The rest is background music. Fail in that and you fail in everything. (378) ... companies must replace the customary cost obsession with uncustomary' value orientation. And that, in turn, depends on each company's addressing and eliminating the beancounter mentality that's rampant in the traditionally managed organizations. (379) You can find beancounters in almost any job, at any level, in any endeavor. Very often they are in charge. They simply don't pay attention to the human aspects of their undertaking except in the most cursory way. (380) . . . far greater leadership involvement and dynamism are called for in the shaping of the organizational structure and organizational dynamics. What is needed is highly involved leaders-leaders who are not micromanaging but who are creating leadership thinking and involvement by everyone, and eliciting stronger motivation and commitment from everyone. 14The world will belong to passionate, driven leaders, people who not only have enormous amounts of energy but who can energize those whom they lead. . ,. leaders must stay in close touch and in tune with those they lead. (381) .. . the most important principle of proactive leadership\nYou go to the front not to issue instructions, but to gain insight and perspective. That cannot be delegated. The best leaders know that. ... to do our job right required personal interaction, not insulated management of an in box and a telephone from the rear. (382) It's my strong belief that in-depth insight into all organizational elements is the foundation for nonintrusive management. It's when leaders do not understand the challengesand the real problems and issues-that they intrude with direction that adds to the problem rather than to the solution. Involvement, immersion, interaction-call it what you will. American management doesn't do enough of it. (384) I knew the more I became a slave to my desk and in box the less well I would do my job. (385) Any bureaucratic entity of forty or more people can stay busy ten hours a day, six days a week, with no inputs and no outputs. (386) ... work is generated to fill the time and number of people available to do it, without any obvious connection to real-world needs. (387) . . . it's a very good idea to start worrying about leadership. What people feel is important. That provides motivation. What people know is important. That provides competence. More than anvthing, you need leaders and leadership, not some pale substitute for both. (388) No matter how you slice it, a team without a leader is a committee. And a team without a leader, a plan, and specific goals is the lost patrol. It is important to keep in mind the three basic management questions: What's the plan? Who's in charge? Compared to what? (389) The Japanese populate their companies with leaders. . . .I'm speaking of the enlightened, caring leadership that is based on full recognition of the profound difference between ordering people and persuading them to make good things happen in an organization. You can order compliance, but you can't order initiative, enthusiasm, and creativity. The power of resistance can always overcome the power of direction. That's what leads to creative incompetence as an art form practiced the world over by those who are not motivated and committed. In fact, you can count on it from the alienated. It's the worst kind of incompetence of all because it is the purest form of squandered potential. (390) . . . it's the caliber of the leadership that sorts out the winners from the losers. Every organization has leadership at work, whether it's called that or not. (391) 15 Mike Loh: One of the mostdominantcharacteristicsalcader must portray in these times is a sense of vision. A vision of where he or she wants that organization to go and what that organization should be thought of. A g\u0026lt;\nx)d leader sets goals, measures progres.s and rewards performance. He or she tries to give everyone a stake in the mission of the organization and its outcome. That's the role of leadership. (393) The reason most TQM programs are lloundering is that TQM is being treated as another management initiative and not as a pervasive change in the leadership style. (394) A wag once said, \"It isn't ignorance that causes the problems in the world, it's what people know beyond a shadow of a doubt that just isn't so.\" (395) An organization not only has a head\nit also has a heart. And the size of the heart depends upon the size of employee commitment to its ideals and goals. Organizational vitality from the bottom up must be built. And it doesn't happen with halfhearted employee support of where the head wants to go.... commitment must not only be on the list, but at the head of the list. Vince Lombardi: The quality of a person's life is in direct proportion to their commitment to excellence, regardless of their chosen field of endeavor. Mario Andretti: Desire is the key to motivation. It is the commitment to an unrelenting pursuit of your goal that will enable you to attain the success you seek. Abraham Lincoln: Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who hustle. (399) It is very difficultno, virtually impossible-to achieve the loftier goals that globalization demands unless the employees at each level, bottom to top, perceive continuous improvement as a benefit and become committed to the goals that produce it. We know that organizational practices and policies directly affect the attitudes of the employees within that organization-and by extension their level of desire and commitment. ... Employee commitment is a largely neglected realm of American management, and within it lies the key to our competitiveness in a rapidly changing world. (400) ... research shows that \"little personal control on the job was the single largest cause of burnout.\" The workers themselves explain that a principal reason for their lack of enthusiasm for higher productivity is the lack of incentive to work harder. (403) We cannot substantially improve productivity when the preponderance of America's workers simply see no benefit in it to themselves. (405) ... unless the employees perceive that productivity and quality improvements will benefit them, directly and tangibly, you can forget the company's productivity improvement plan. It won't work because it lacli the principal ingredient. I find the single largest source of frustration is that femployeesl would like to make more of a contribution than they do now-if practices were changed so they could. (406) I'm convinced most do indeed want to do a good job. (407) 16 Pay-for-Skill-an incentive for workers to increase their job knowledge and productivity. Earned Time Off--Time off is given as a reward for productivity and quality achievements against specific goals. . . . Evidence shows that earned time off rewards, structured properly, can greatly improve productivity and quality. Thus it can help make money, not cost money, in the long run. (410) A willingness to learn from others is a strength, not a weakness. None of us came into this world with full-blown concepts and conditioning. We all learn from others. But some learn lots and some learn little. A willingness to learn from others, and a readiness to adapt to changing circumstances, help set the best companies apart. (418) Some union chieftains-not all-see a vastly diminished role for themselves in a system of performance-reward links. They also understand that benefits traditionally are tied to wage scales, including the retirement benefits, not to wages plus bonuses. That also provides a strong vested interest in perpetuating the status quo. Simply stated, we need new definitions of winning and losing in management and labor relations. These biases and habits are deeply ingrained, and changing isn't easy. (430) But it's high time both management and the unions assessed where they've been and where they're going or we're in for even rockier days ahead. I don't know about the rest of this fractious and contentious world, but that's where America most needs a peace treaty. (431) People believe in opportunity, not equality. Faith in individual effort and reward remains strong. (434) ... if you treat people fairly and justly they will respond in positive ways.... everyone wants to matter. And policies that in effect tell people they don't matter are a big turnoff. ... Conversely, those that make people believe they do matter inspire loyalty and commitment in return. . . . psychic pay greatly outweighs monetary pay. (435) . . . employees want responsibility whether it comes with a promotion or not. Company leaders need to pay lots of attention to the satisfaction index. (436) We pay a big price when common purpose and commitment become the missing ingredients b^ause of shortsighted management policies and practices. ... the work ethic is suffering in America because managers pay too little attention to the worth ethic. (437) Vince Lombardi... was fond of saying there are three key elements to winning in any human endeavor-be it sports, business, or life. The first is talent. The second is discipline. And the third, Lombardi said, is \"You ha\\'e to care for each other.\" And that spirit must come from the top. (438) Winston Churchill\n\"Man often stumbles across the truth, but then gets up and hurries on as if nothing had happened.\" (441) Rosabeth Kanter\n\"Powerlessness corrupts. Absolute powerlessness corrupts absolutely.\" (450) 17Everything I've experienced, and everything I've seen in the best companies, convinces me that success depends on the effectiveness of the management system by which a business operates-including the structure and style that shape its operations. (452) So how do businesses make real improvements in quality and productivity? It requires system changes, and that requires people who are determined to make a change. Obviously it's best if the leader at the very top of the organization sees the need for a holistic TQM approach and leads the charge. But it can also happen from within, starting in one part of the organization. From small acorns grow mighty oaks. Therefore, you can make a difference. You can be a principal catalyst for changewhatever your particular level might be. (4S3) A lot of the barrier to change is in the mindset.... My point is, a lot of the barriers to change are to be found in the minds of those who could carry it out, if only they would. No guts, no change. No guts, no glory. (454) . .. we used an evolutionary' method to bring about revolutionary change... creating models, conditioning people to change, winning converts as we went. . . . it's important to have a clear vision of where you're going--and to share it with everyone in the organization. It need not be a written, step-by-step plan, but the direction and ultimate reorganization goals should be well understood by all. Then you need to get all the employees involved in crafting as well as implementing the new organizational vision. (455) ... no matter how skillfully and humanistically you go about it you can expect some opposition-even a few hard-core pockets of it-as a few protect their turf and the status quo ante with which they are comfortable. You should use logic, example, and persuasion first, and to every possible extent. (You'll find that peer pressure from the majority who like the new approach will help in that regard.) Challenge individuals who are impervious to all that to get all the way in or all the way out. ... organizational transformations must be led, not driven. And companies must go about implementing decentralization in a decentralized way. Relentless pursuit of perfection can begin right away-but can be fine tuned as you settle into the new system. (456) i Once system change is started properly it takes on a momentum of its own. (457) There are not a lot of hard-and-fast rules on how to form the teams. But there are four general rules to keep in mind. First, we're talking about permanent organizational structure, not ad hoc team overlays. Second, the teams should be designed to exercise ownership over a specific product, and each team given adequate authority to carry our that charter. Third, each team should have a leader as the focal point of responsibility. (And the leadership style should create leadership involvement by every single team member.) Fourth, the teams should be small. That's to give content and meaning to the team product and to the relationships, interpersonal and organizational. How big should teams be? Depends on the industry, the company, and the product. In general, they should be kept as small as possibleas few as three or four and as many as fifteen, but no more. i The charter must be defined and the outputs measurable. (458) 18 The Combined Actions That Make Teams Successful T rust them E mpower them A im them M easure them S upport them Above all recognize After training them With wide latitude With objectives and goals For feedback and comparison With backing and resources and reward them to provide a stake in the outcome. (459) I Employees recognize when they are distrusted-and they resent it, as well they should. Moreover, they simply won't accept responsibility (or accountability) without adequate authority to carry it out-nor should they. (460) Therefore, a principal advantage of the team-based approach is that it allows managers to build trust and respect into the system, while also providing for accountability at every level. (460) The key to harmony and efficiency is the smooth integration of the various specialties, at a meaningful team level, and with clear-cut goals. Cooperation stems from giving people reasons and incentives to look at their endeavors in a team context. The functional approach just does not produce the same spirit or perspective. Teams do. They do, that is, if they are installed throughout~as the organizational building blocks. Pseudo-teams don't. Quasi-teams don't. Ad hoc committees (called teams) don't. And cross-functional teams make marginal not primary contributions. (464) Why so little measurement and feedback to be found in American businesses?... It certainly is not because the tools aren't available. And that bias against measurement doesn't benefit the frontline employees, it penalizes them. (465) There's room for quality and productivity improvement in every organization-embedded in all sorts of untapped potential. (467) Adequate factual infonnation is the lifeblood of intelligent decision-making. (469) Measurement of Specific Goals Provides These Important Results I I Focus Objectivity Recognition Improvement Motivation Decentralization Commitment On what is important From the comparisons Of what/where to fix Of the right things To improve the score With cohesion/control From this empowerment and reward process J Each result is important to TQM, and you simply won't get them without means to measure, compare, analyze, and feedback to those doing the work. Also, managers must be given means to track performancefor visibility, coherence, and \"control\"-or they won't even consider empowerment. (472) I The leaders of decentralized organizations realize that when you decentralize you also need means of keeping track. Why? Because they know ) ou can bet your boots it will all get better-bul that it won't get better, and stay better, in all places all the time. Thus, you need means to provide detailed, comparative insight so that you can spot problems and trends in their formative stages. I would add these convictions\nWhen performance is measured, it improves. When performance is measured and compared, it improves further. When 19 performance is measure, compared, and appropriately recognized and rewarded, it improves even more-dramatically more. (473) . I have found that employees will welcome measurement, even champion it, when it works to their benefit and not to their detriment. They even quickly grow to prize it if it's designed and structured as their system, and is used primarily for self-improvement, recognition, and reward. Moreover, if being measured is the price exacted for giving them a level of involvement and ownership they never had before, they can understand that. (474) But achieving quality involves a great deal more than the tools you use. It involves finding out what the customers need, how to design goods and services to respond to those needs, and how to produce them using the proper technology. (477) Experience shows if the top leader will break that mold, the entire organization will swing into step, and will do so with increasing vigor and enthusiasm. (491) Deming Cycle\nPlan-Do-Check-Act. By any name it's a useful tool in creating continuing process-product improvement. (521) Epilogue 1. Build your TQM approach, and its principles, on five system pillars\nProductProcess -Organization-Leadership-Commitment. Product is the focal point for organization purpose and achievement. Quality in the product is impossible without quality in the process. Quality in the process is impossible without the right organization. The right organization is meaningless without the proper leadership. Strong, bottom-up commitment is the support pillar for all the rest. Each pillar depends upon the other four, and if one is weak all are. 2. Firmly establish the character and culture of your organization. Develop the overarching principles. Key them to the human spirit. Ensure they are wholly understood and widely practiced-by all. Give them vigor through insistence, persistence, and consistency. Stress ethical conduct, integrity, and courtesy in all endeavors. The principles flow top down but their power must flow bottom up. 3. Use a decentralized, interactive system that integrates all levels. Organize for the new realities. Centralism is a bankrupt approach. Build a decentralized structure on the teams-outputs-product model Replace the I and My mindset usually found with that of WE and OUR. Foster belief in the rich rewards of teamw'ork, and professionalism. Build strong commitment by all to highest quality and productivity. 4. Organization is the central pillarit influences everything else. Create widespread ownership. Decentralize the authority throughout. Combine authority and accountability. Make that unambiguous to all. Eliminate unnecessary layers. Tear down all of the functional walls. Recast the rules. Streamline the paperwork. Shorten the cycle times. Maintain coherence and control with incentive, not author!tananism. 5. Base the structural building blocks on small teams not big functions. Organize by teams for involvement, agility, and an ownership focus. Keep each team at a manageable size. Provide each its own identity. Every team has a product. Identify it. Dignity it. Celebrate it. Form teams of teams. Clearly identify the interfaces between teams. Provide each team ample authority over iLs own part of the product. 206. Onent employee focu.s and activity to their product, not their job. One's job is self-centered. Build a group-centered product mindset. Define each product in terms of its customer, internal or external. Identify each product sub-element. Identify all involved processes. Create process improvement by measurement, analysis, and incentive. Use the product as the focal point, and rallying point for quality. 7. Place the prime leadership focus on the outputs, not the inputs. Inhibit micromanagement of the inputs. Champion output ownership. Develop output goals iteratively with the teams directly involved. Make the goals understandable, relevant, attainable-and wanted. Provide ample incentive for initiative, ingenuity, and innovation. Create strong desire for continuous improvement in every activity. 8. Keep score, assess, and provide timely feedback to one and all. Measure quality and productivity at varied product/process points. Use quantification benchmarks to judge your progress-and needs. Amplify objectivity through broad use of data, facts, and surveys. Use comparison to bring life to the data and to provide relevance. Use goals and scoreboarding to decentralize and create ownership. 9. Know your marketplace inside out and create strong customer linkage. Continually assess your strength and competitiveness in your niche. Be sure your expertise is suitably matched to each of the products. Pay close attention to the business of your business. Stick to it. Create a product-customer linkage. Assure everyone understands it. Ensure that every decision, every action, is keyed to the customer. 10. Provide a climate of quality which promotes pride and professionalism. Mobilize dedication to highest quality in all things, at all times. Pride is the fuel of human accomplishment. Create it. Sustain it. Make continuous renewal and rejuvenation everyone's responsibility. Calibrate your revisions on the level of motivation and enthusiasm. Quality begets quality. Provide the means, tools, and motivation. 11. Base any and all decisions on the inseparability of cost and value. Get every organizational level involved-from the very bottom up. Provide cost data to teams. Instill value consciousness throughout. Be wary of cuts that affect the quality mindset. Don't disable it. The line cuts the costs not the staff, to ensure value sensitivity. Use quality to drive costs down, not savings to drive quality down. 12. Provide detailed, focused training to employees at every level. On-the-job and ad hoc training are key parts, but are only parts. Formal training is vital for proper quality mindset and know-how. Make all training specific on key principles, methods, and goals. Train all employees at every levelincluding at senior levels. Leaders at all levels must be teachers. Leaders create leaders. 13. Give high priority and pay great attention to the communication flow. On key issues augment the hierarchical flow. Go several layers deep. Talk numbers as well as words. Ensure full comprehension throughout. Replace all inhibitions to upward communication with full openness. Provide the requisite means and adequate incentives to make it work. Listening, hearing, and caring are the catalysts which make it thrive. 14. Work unceasingly to instill common purpose from the bottom to the top. Close the classic management and labor gap. Make leadership seamless. Assure the common purpose is keyed to the product, and the customer. Get all of the employees enthused, and fully involved to support it. Stay in touch and in tune with all of the employees all of the time. Instill in all that commitment from all determines success for each. 21 15. Build the commitment through genuine ownership, and shared success. Emphasize the dignity and the worth of each job and every employee. Make wide use of recognition and reward, for individuals and teams. Make involvement real. Provide the opportunity and the incentives. Make ownership real. The test is if they feel it--and apply it. Provide a clear stake in the outcome for everyone. Share success. 16. Above all, build your total quality management on all five pillars. It's not complicated or mysterious. It need not all be done at once. But it requires actionsnot just words. A slogan is not a system. The system isn't difficult to implement. Start with these principles. The very best companies, worldwide, use them to beat the competition. All who use them reap far greater quality, productivity, and success. A holistic TQM system is a proven answer to the new realities of the 9O's. It will hugely benefit any organization whatever its size or its business. 11 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 September 8, 1998 To: Dr. Les Carnine Dr. Kathy Lease Dr. Vic Anderson Dr. Richard Hurley Brady Gadberry Marian Lacey Sadie Mitchell Mark Milhollen Suellen Vann Junious Babbs Dr. Linda Watson Frances Cawthon FROM: SUBJCT: Dr. Bonnie Lesley .'Associate Superintendent for Instruction School Restructuring and TQM In 1992 I wrote the attached article for a Texas ASCD publication. You may find it interesting as we begin to think about the implementation of the Campus Leadership Plan. BAL/adg DOTHEY HEAR WHAT WE SAY? UNDERSTANDING SCHOOL RESTRUCTURING INITIATIVES by Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed. D. Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum Support Services Austin Independent School District Even though educations critics are dismayed at the slow pace of change in schools, we are, in fact, changing at least as rapidly as business organizations as a whole. After all, W. Edwards Deming began teaching the principles of total quality management (TQM) to the Japanese forty years before the first American corporation. Ford Motor Company, invited him to assist in their restructuring in the early 1980s. A decade later-a half century now-most American businesses maintain their old management methods even as their CEOs espouse the need to create new working environments and processes for knowledge workers and even as they continue to lose market share and profits to foreign corporations. Indeed, one of the barriers that schools confront in restructuring is the lingering support for th^ sort and select factory -model school among every communitys power elite. We hear the demand that we change. However, in too many cases, when we start implementing quality principles, we hear even louder, but not that way! Not if it affects my kid! What school leaders need even more than Adopt-A-School programs in this era is for business leaders to help us educate the community-their employees-on the urgency for the transformation of schools, on the understanding that there will be no excellence (quality) without equity, and on the reality that schools, just as businesses, must become more productive or die. Perhaps one reason that the business community is generally so critical of us-and one reason for our acceptance of that criticism-is that neither they nor we have understood that total quality management principles are embedded in every successful school restructuring initiative. Whether the embedding was conscious or intuitive does not matter. What matters is that we in education do the right things and do them right, just as it matters that business do the right things and do them right. As early as the 197O's, when Ron Edmonds first began conducting research on Effective Schools, he was seeking to identify the practices that enabled some schools to be more successful (productive) than others with similar kinds of students. If we look carefully at his identified correlates (and their continuing refinement by Lawrence Lezotte) and then juxtapose them beside Demings 14 principles, we see similarities immediately. Edmonds and Lezotte write about the importance of an instructional focus, collaborative processes, frequent and ongoing monitoring of student progress, effective teaching strategies, instructional leadership, a school climate conducive to teaching and learning, collegiality, high expectations, professional development at the school site, and the involvement of everyone in achieving the school mission. Anyone with a deep understanding of Effective Schools research hears the echoes of Demings exhortations for constancy of purpose, adopting the new philosophy, ending mass inspection, continuous improvement of processes, leadership, eliminating fear, breaking down barriers between staff areas, eliminating slogans and ratings, vigorous programs for organizational development and self-improvement, and putting everyone to work to achieve quality. But we have to know both the TQM principles and the Effective Schools literature to see that they are the same. What happens is that businesspeople lament our ignorance about systems and quality 1 management, and they encourage us to define our customers, engage in processes for continuous improvement, benchmark, and use statistical tools to measure progress toward achieving zero defects. The business worlds vocabulary is foreign to us. It sounds too scientific, too cold for the very complex environment of a classroom of 30 very diverse children with one teacher who must somehow assure their mastery of the curriculum-or at least some of it-when there are so many variables over which she (or he) has little or no control. So the businessperson does not understand that we are attempting to restructure according to quality principles, and we do not understand either. The reality is that all of the major restructuring initiatives are remarkably similar. All involve systemic changes in the guiding theories or beliefs or values, all include the importance of empowerment of teachers through collaborative processes, and the success of all is dependent upon the creation of a true community of learners. Otherwise, as John Champlin says, school-based management may result in a lot of people sitting around sharing ignorance. For instance, Henry Levins Accelerated Schools model focuses on necessary changes in the schools curriculum, instruction, and organization. He emphasizes the importance of unity of purpose, empowerment with responsibility, and building on strengths. The inquiry and planning processes that he teaches reflect his belief in the importance of taking stock or examining data on an ongoing basis and on study, research, piloting, and evaluating. William Glassers Quality Schools are, of course, grounded in his theory regarding the importance of self-responsibility and on the growing imperative that schools be as needs-satisfying as possible since increasing percentages of children do not have their needs met anywhere else. Therefore, he, like Deming, urges us to talk about quality at every opportunity, eliminate fear and coercion, and move toward self-assessment. His theory of lead-management is the collaborative, yet accountable, decision-making that we see in Levins model. We know that both Levin and Glasser are very much familiar with Demings work. The League of Professional Schools, led by Carl Glickman, is a fourth restructuring model that also emphasizes quality principles. Before a school can join the League, the faculty and staff must define its covenant-a statement of beliefs about teaching and learning developed collaboratively and by consensus. The covenant is their constancy of purpose or unity of purpose or grounding theoretical base. They must also write a charter-again collaboratively developed by consensus-that defines their decision-making processes. And, finally, they must commit themselves to critical study. The action research advocated by Glickman equates to Demings insistence on continuous improvement rather than mass inspection at the end of the process, to Edmonds correlate on measurement, to Levins taking stock, and to Glassers self-assessment for quality. A fifth important initiative is Theodore Sizers Coalition of Essential Schools. One of his premises is that the central purpose of schooling is for students to learn to use their minds well. His model focuses on the school level and assumes that the principal and teachers will make decisions and share leadership responsibilities. The Essential Schools staffs participate in continuous, long-term professional development during both the school year and the summer. James Comers developmental model is yet another \\'ariation of the quality theme. The purpose of the school, according to Comer, is to facilitate the childrens cognitive development and the learning of social skills. His collaborative school includes everyone on the staff, parents, and university and/or mental health professionals. Ending the isolation of teachers and forming bonds between university scholars and teachers to create a unity of theory and practice are the goals of his continuous learning program. A seventh approach, more that 20 years old now, is the Outcomes-Driven Developmental Model designed by John Champlin and his colleagues in Johnson City, New York. Champlin knew Glassers work, and he used mastery learning strategies to assure that high expectations became a realitythe purpose. Involvement and collaboration were introduced to create and maintain a healthy organization. And major investments were made from the beginning in training so that the staff would also be empowered by knowledge. Phillip Schlechty has proposed our eighth model, Twenty-First Century Schools. Constancy of purpose for him is values and commitments, and, he says, a major responsibility of leadership is to conceptualize, articulate, and communicate that purpose. Like Deming, he understands that mere involvement or participation by staff is not an end. It is a means by which quicker responses can be made to student needs, and it is the decision-making strategy most likely to produce quality results. Schlechty points out the irony of there being so few schools that organize to develop their staffs for continuous improvement. Ongoing support and training, he says, are an absolute prerequisite for successful change. All eight restructuring models continue to be refined and elaborated upon as our experience with them and the research grows. And the more we learn about how to move toward quality in education, the more our paths may converge with business practices. For instance, Ernst and Young published in 1992 a Best lYactices Report. It identifies conelates, if you will, of quality practices that work best for low-performing companies, for medium-performing companies, and for high-performing companies. Those practices that seem most appropriate for low-and mediumperforming organizations resemble to a high degree the practices-especially the emphasis on training for professional and organizational development- advocated by many reformers. The study also makes clear that benchmarking and abrupt decentralization are only effective in high- performing organizations. (Yet Texas mandates site-based decision-making all at one time for all.) Schlechty recognizes that one of the chief tasks of leaders in a knowledge society is to teach. Our task, then, in not only to teach childrenand their parentsand patrons who are not parentsbut businesspeople as well. We will gain their support and respect if we can help them see how educations leaders have translated the quality management principles for our unique environment. We must also help them-and each othersee that it does not matter whether we subscribe to Edmond and Lezottes Effective Schools, Levins Accelerated Schools, Glassers Quality Schools, Glickmans Professional Schools, Sizers Essential Schools, Comers Developmental Schools, Champlins Outcomes-Driven Schools, or Schlechtys Twenty-First Century Schools. They are all quality models with slight variations, just as business has varying TQM training models. Our pace does appear to be slow. Howex er, five years ago few of us had even heard of TQM or quality schools or accelerated schools. Five years ago, few of us talked about exit outcomes or authentic assessment or interdisciplinary curriculum or brain-based instruction or multiple intelligences. In fact, few of us ever spoke of site-based management or restructuring or flattened hierarchies or customers or empowerment or accountability or capacity-building in the context of schools. We have come a long way quickly. These promising concepts must now be taught to all educators, and we must devote the resources to assure that parents and business people also learn something about them. And somehow we must teach school board members that w'e will never have constancy of purpose unless superintendents can survive much longer than two years in a district and unless decision-making focuses on children, not the politics of adults special interests. We must also teach legislators about quality in education and insist that they stop mandating practices that violate quality management principles and best knowledge about teaching and learning. 3BIBLIOGRAPHY SCHOOL RESTRUCTURING INITIATIVES Accelerating remediation (Jan. 1991). Achieve! An Update on Student Retention Issues. Austin: Texas Research League. Bonstingl, John Jay (1992). Schools of quality: An introduction to Total Quality Management in education. Alexandria, VA\nAssociation for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Champlin, John (1992). Four phases in creating and managing an outcome-based program. Successful schooling for all. Lee Gray and Glenn Hymel, eds. Roseville, MN\n' Network for Outcome-Based Schools. Comer, James (1980). School power: Implications of an intervention project. New York: The Free Press. Conley, David (Feb. 1991). Restructuring schools: Educators adapt to a changing world. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management Cushman, Kathleen (Nov. 1992). What works, what doesnt: Lessons from Essential School reform. Horace. 9: 1-8. Deming. W. Edwards (1986). Out of the crisis. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Edmonds, Ron (1979). A discussion of the literature and issues related to effective schooling. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 170 394. Edmonds, Ron (Oct. 1982). Programs of school improvement: An overview. Educational Leaders^p. 40: 4-11. Ernst and Young (1992). Best practices report: An analysis of management practices that impact performance. Cleveland, OH: American Quality Foundation. Glasser, William (1984). Control theory: A new explanation of how we control our lives. New York\nHarper and Row. Glasser, William (1992). The quality school: Managing students without coercion. New York: Harper Perennial. Glickman, Carl (April 1990). Open accountability for the90s\nBetween the pillars. Educational Leadership. 38-42. Glickman, Carl (May 1991). Pretending not to know what we know. Educational Leadership. 4-9. Glickman, Carl (Sept. 1990). Pushing school reform to a new edge\nThe seven ironies of school empowerment. Phi Delta Kappan. 68-75. Glickman, Carl and Lew Allen, eds. (1991). Lessons from the field: Renewing schools through shared governance and action research. Athens, GA: University of Georgia. 5 Guskey, Thomas (Feb. 1990). Integrating innovations. Edueational Leadership. 11-15. Levin, Henry (Winter 1993). Accelerated visions. Accelerated Schools. 2: 2-3. Levin, Henry (Sept. 1991). Building school capacity for effective teacher empowerment. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Levine, Daniel and Lawrence Lezotte (Mar. 1990). Unusually effective schools. Madison, WI: National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development. Lezotte, Lawrence (Jan./Feb. 1993). Creating effective schools today and tomorrow. The Journal for Quality and Participation. 16: 22-30. Lezotte, Lawrence and Barbara Jacoby (1990). A guide to the school improvement process based on Effective Schools research. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products, Ltd. Munsey, Donna and Patrick McQuillan (Feb. 1993). Preliminary findings from a five-year study of the Coalition of Essential Schools. Phi Delta Kappan. 486-489. Neuroth, Joann (1992). TQM handbook: Applying the Baldrige criteria to schools. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators. Schlechty, Phillip (1990). Schools for the 21st century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass FAiblishers. Sizer, Theodore (Nov. 1989). The Coalition of Essential Schools-A partnership formula for reform. Partnerships in Education Journal. 8-9. Sizer, Theodore (1990). The common principles of the Cocilition of Essential Schools. Providence, RI: Coalition of Essentid Schools. Tri bus, Myron (Jan./Feb. 1993). Quality management in education. The Journal for Quality and Participation. 16: 12-21. Walton. Marv (1986). The Deming management method. New York: The Putnam Publishing Company. 6 12 igOUlSi The LRSD Master Plan Components 1. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan 2. Strategic Plan , 3. Campus Leadership Plan 4 4. NSF Project 5. Title I 6. Smart Start 7. CCOE I I IThe ^^StufP They Have in Common 1. Standards (with emphasis on reading and mathematics) 2. Assessment I I I a 3. Professional development (instructional strategies etc.) 4. Accountability for results I I IK: i I I What Matters Most in Improving Achievement (Restructuring Variables that Work) 1. Caring, positive, safe, orderly, nurturing, risk- free, personalized, culturally sensitive learning environments (classroom and school-wide) 2. High expectations for success--both academics and behavior standards/benchmarks 3. Diverse, enhanced, and personalized instruction and assessment 4. Professional learning community for adults (including site-based, data-driven decision making site-based professional development, action research data analysis, AND collective responsibility for results. 9JiPTS'W.T*a::W?j rwr^ .t sisaBumREBReaasxaB!' Implications for Our Work 1. Elementary Leyel * ONE elementary language arts and ONE mathematics program that include the standards assessment, professional development, and 9 accountability expectations of LRSD, Title I, Smart Start, and NSF (math only). I I IJE. \u0026gt;- BEaa!s53srTOr'H(| I WM COMING SOON (Youll be involved): Hi * * * He * Hi K-5 Standards and Benchmarks by grade level Restructured K-3 and 4-5 curriculum plan Restructured Title I program I Professional development options--? days LRSD assessments to measure progress \u0026lt; I Adoption of an instructional framework New quality indicators of school successI I I 2. Middle Level * Middle school program standards  LRSD standards and benchmarks by course, 6-8 * New curriculum aligned with AR Frameworks: Reading and Writing Workshop, 6-8 Research and Writing Pre-AP, 6-8 Mathematics 6 Science 6 Career Orientation, 7 Arkansas History 7 Social Studies 8 Physical Education and Health 6 Expressions! Write On! 7-8 6-8 III I'll I.mill................. I IIlli II. jiiiii i| I ___I. * I New Pre-AP courses in core * LRSD assessments to measure progress * Professional development options for 7 days * Title I at grade 6 s * Adoption of an instructional framework * New quality indicators of school success I I I IB -aas?. kwaaNll !iRC2rns55wxspw?TrnCT?OTSJraD 3. High School Level * New curriculum standards and benchmarks by course * New courses , Physics I, gr^de 9 Several new electives * New emphasis on increasing numbers of students in Pre-AP and AP levels I I * New graduation requirements and new recommended curriculum  Professional development options for 7 daysL.L -5? MsMM * Adoption of instructional frameworkvery important to support new block scheduling in high schools * New end-of-level assessments * New quality indicators of school success 13 LL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 August 17, 1999 TO: Everyone FROM: Dr. Bonnie LesleSy,b Associate Superintendent, for Instruction SUBJECT: Good Teachers As the children come for a new school year, it is good to remember how very important good teachers are in their lives! Our jobs as administrators are, first, to select the very best ones available. Then we must support their work and both encourage and facilitate their growth and development. I am attaching an essay from Education Week about What Makes a Good Teacher?\" that I think you all will enjoy. I am also attaching a summary of critically important research on How Children Learn. We have paid the fee to reproduce this information, so feel free to make copies for your teachers. We will be using this same research as we develop delivery standards and an instructional framework for the District. Attachments BAL/rcm j i Commentary 34 education WEEK  JANUARY 20,1999 dividual who MW P.rfel.r What Makes A Good Teacher? the classroom. It was the in an extracurricular ac- level of performance that surprised and delighted th ^\"STthird attribute, distinctive character, is the most the tmro ai.i.iiuuv\u0026lt;=, tn the other elusive one, and it gives flavor or t----------- texture to the other This Historian Found 3 Answers-Over and Over Again two. (It is likely 11/ HIV co WUw* ------- , . the attribute that contributes most to memorable teacher.) In al- By Richard P. Traina level of education, there / jec^t What constitutes good teaching. Some years ago, I embarked on an interest- i bU of resetdi in pursuit of an  to ^tllt query. As a historian I deeded e^lore *e autobiographies of P-tTf. ^Thlse lQth and 20th centimes (some 120 oi me \u0026gt; iytn anu __ e enpial. econoinic, tevery question\nmatter being taught. students pil\"che\"^ damental. Where there was ease on the part of the teacher moving around the subject, a dexterity of explanation matter, such that students 1   o ernnd teacher also a memorable teacner.j ui ai- SgSBSSS tragedy overcome, an unabashed passion r subiect ot a way of demonstrating concern for the student (although throwing chalk at^orhugpng a a student are both out- of different social, economic. __mpn and women of dinerent social, , and explication, students could feel the teachers command of the material. That confi- . There was a palpable energy that suffused the competent and caring side of the communication lexicon these days). In any event, there was a palpable energy that suffused the competent and car reteachers whom they valued? dence was a root cause of a students respect for the teacher, opening the teacher, some mark-making quality. teacher. ing teacher, some mark-making quality. I cannot emphasize enough how powerful this combination of attributes was reported autobiographers believed that their hves were changed by such Sachers and professors. K should m to be. The good teacher. I guess memorable teacher. There were I would have to say { three characteristics that were the world differently. in the subject matter,_car^ deeply j^bout student^ deeply ---- These attributes were evi- 'gr^^eS^T^T^el of education or the subject caring character. __________  RichardPdiy^in^dl^^ University in Worcester, Mass. characteristic seemed equally  deeply about each student and about that stu- acTomphshment and growth. In this iMtance it . .. ., I recognizing the student as an in The second caring deeply about dents began with the teacher recojHow Children Learn: What Cognitive Research Tells Us About Effective Instruction Each day, professional fields as diverse as medical science, psychology, and education contribute more to the body of knowledge about how the human brain works. From Piagets research on developmental psychology, to Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, to the use of MRI and PET scans to examine physical brain activity, our knowledge of human cognition is always expanding. Recently, brain-based learning has become the focus of much attentionand some skepticismin the education profession. This overview of what we know about how children learn does not deal vtith the more controversial claims of brain research\nrather, it focusses on how this latest wave of research contributes to the growing body of useful knowledge about human learning and effective instruction. issue ofThe Informed Educator describes the key understandings that have come out of the cognitive research and explores how educators can use these findings to guide curriculum and instruction. Key Findings of the Research on Human Learning In the last few decades, research on human learning has produced a wealth of new information. Many of the conclusions of this research are inconsistent, but that is the nature of our evolving understanding of human learning. When the cognitive researchers take the additional step of applying their findings to make suggestions for practice and instructional strategies, the resource for educators is even richer. However, these strategies should not be viewed as prescriptive\nrather, the entire body of research is a tool to help develop awareness about the complexities of the teaching and learning process. When we look at the many theories that have come out of the cognitive research, what can we say we really know about the way people learn? The following sections highlight some of the key understandings that have gained wide acceptance, and discuss how educators can use these findings to inform teaching and learning. ** The brain searches for meaning. Whatever else we are as human beings, we have an innate desire for meaning, says Parnell (1996, so). Learners of all ages discover meaning by making connections. Recent cognitive research tells us that the need for developing connections is rooted in the basic functioning of the brain itself. An individual brain cell may be connected to 10,000 or more other brain cells. In simphfied terms, each brain cell receives messages from other cells and decides to pass each message along depending on the amount of electrical charge behind the message. When it finds little or no connection, the message may be 2000 Clarendon Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22201  Phone: (703) 243-2100  Fax: (703) 243-5V7I  www.ers.org Copyright  1998, Educational Research Service. Reproduced with permission. \u0026amp; discarded. Every time a person experiencesj some- thing that connects with a previous experience, that experience tends to stick, and something is learned (Parnell 1996). In the classroom, this means that teachers should\n Build curricula around what students already know. If facts are presented as part of a larger picture and associated with past learning, the brain  Provide a great deal of input, allowing the learner to construct patterns. Della Neve, Hart, and Thomas cite sparks as one way to increase input. Sparks are presentations by staff members, people from the community, or students on virtually any topic that is real and of interest (from collecting seashells, to repairing shoes, to making bread). is more likely to remember them (Bruer 1997).  Encourage students to talk about material in an 1 if I i j .V I 1 i I  Create meaning by linking information to real- life experience. IVhen possible, connect information to other personal associations (Jensen 1996).  Give students choices about what they learn so that they can choose what is most relevant to them.  Use meaning-making activities such as journal writing. For example, at the end of each lesson, students may write down what they learned, how the learning relates to what they already know, and how they can use this information in the fii- ture (Sousa 1998).  Embed learning activities in actual productive uses. For instance, students may use their language abilities by making signs for an event or by reading in preparation for a visit by an author.  Use stories, complex themes, and metaphors to link information and understanding.  Create interdisciplinary curricula, or find times when it is possible to address one topic across disciplines. The brain resists assimilating isolated bits of information\nit prefers to integrate information by recognizing and incorporating patterns. Meaning is also created by identifying patterns. The brain resists assimilating isolated bits of information\nit prefers to integrate information by recognizing and incorporating patterns (Caine and Caine 1995\nDella Neve, Hart, and Thomas 1986). What can teachers do in the classroom to take advantage of the brains preference for patterns? unstructured way, discovering on their own how each piece of the puzzle fits into something larger (Jensen 1996). 5* The brain is a complex system. The brain is a system of thoughts, emotions, imagination, and physiology that constantly exchanges information with its environment. As a parallel the brain is able to perform many functions processor, the brain is aoie ro pawuu simultaneously (Caine and Caine 1994). Research by neurologist Harold Chugani explains that a myriad of brain activities are possible because of connectiotis between trillions of neurons, representing potent! pathways that an electrical impulse may travel. mation broken up into small chunks, with supplied answers at every turn, does not take advantage o pathways that an such complexity (Nadis 1993). What are the implica- tions for teaching and learning? Schools should.  Immerse students in complex experience. Rich sensory materialssuch as music, field trips. books, and reproductions of fine artentice comi iplex thinking (National Education tion 1997). -2- Associa-  Avoid imposing artificial time limits on karning. Schedules should reflect the actual time it takes a student to complete a task, while maintaining sense of coherence (Caine and Caine 1995). a  Allow learning to follow its own course. Recog nize that the brain does not always take bgicd steps down one path, but can go down a hundred paths simultaneously. With varied experiences, students make connections and extract patterns, absorbing and retaining a great deal incidentally (Della Neve, Hart, and Thomas 1986).  There are many ways to be intelligent. Intelligence is multifaceted, defjdng measurement on an IQ_test. Howard Gardner originally identified seven basic types of intelligencelinguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic,taucaiionai Kesearcri service interpersonal, and intrapersonal^but he and other researchers acknowledge that there are more (Black 1994).This understanding suggests that teachers should:  Bring different kinds of intelligence to traditional subjects. Whether teachers link music to math or visual art to biology, the key is to tap into the many ways students learn.  Promote self-directed learning, in which students ask researchable questions\nidentify varied resources\nand initiate, implement, and bring closure to a learning activity. Regardless of the focusstudying the nesting habits of local birds or I F -these projects draw on solving a mock crimi numerous intelligences (Campbell 1997).  Teach students about the theory of multiple intelligences, and then ask them to think about which intelligences they use during different activities (Greenhawk 1997),  Provide choices so that students can pursue individual interests using individual strengths.  Allow aU students to express visual, tactile, emotional, and auditory learning preferences in response to multifaceted teaching. f [ ** Learning is an emotional activity. Emotions often serve as a link for retrieving information and enhancing long-term memory. If we recall an event from years ago, most often there is some emotion attached to it (McClanahan 1998). Research indicates that adrenaline, a hormone released by the adrenal gland when emotions are aroused, activates the amygdala, which then sends a message to the rest of the brain: This information is important. Remember it!\" (Paulus 1997,11). The amygdala can also be activated by harsh criticism, sending messages of threat to the rest of the brain\nthe resulting release of chemicals causes the body to fight, flee, or freeze (Jensen 1998). In general, how a person feels in a learning situation determines the amount of attention he or she devotes to it. Students need to have an emotional connection to their work, their peers, and their teachers (Sousa 1998). How can educators use this knowledge to improve instruction? They can:  Create a comfortable, nonthreatening climate. Anything that students might interpret as punitive, critical, or threatening may adversely affect learning (Della Neve, Hart, and Thomas 1986).  Engage students personally through the use of journals, discussion, sharing, and reflection. If there is a significant current event that may have personal meaning for the students, ask them to talk or write about it.  Use theater and dramaideal forums to engage the emotions. In general, how a person feels in a learning situation determines the amount of attention he or she devotes to it. V Learning is a social activity. Learning is heavily influenced by the interaction of the individual with the larger social environment. Our minds respond to interaction with others, in part because these situations often engage emotions, as discussed earlier. What are the implications for the classroom? Teachers can:  Create a classroom atmosphere in which students interact comfortably and see themselves as part of a learning community.  Look for opportunities for students to work in small-group settings.  Use peer tutoring. Metacognitive skills enhance learning. Effective learners do more than acquire knowledge of facts and concepts. They have an awareness of how they are learning and use it to monitor their own thought processes and to change their approach to fit the situation or activity (Bruer 1997). Some researchers argue that teaching thinking skills, learning strategies, problem solving, and creativity can make a difference as fundamental as how the brain itself works (Languis 1998,46). Metacognition involves being aware of ones strengths and weaknesses as a learner. What are the implications for teaching?  Recognize the importance of teaching students metacognitive strategies.  Involve students in discussions of their learning process and problem-solving strategies. By listen- -3- ing to students think out loud, teachers can recognize what specific understanding a student is missing, and then help the student obtain it (Bruer 1997).  Thematic, Integrated Curriculum There are many ways to organize learning around themes. Most of them require more teacher common preparation and effort than the tradition , su ject based curriculum. Yet, cognitive research clearly 1 Si Some researchers argue that \"teaching thinking skills, learning strategies, problem solving, and creativity can make a difference as fundamental as how the brain itself works.  supports the integrative approach. Marlin L Languis, 1998 As Walker writes, While subject-bound education treats students as passive receptacles, requiring them only to feed back fragments of skills and facts given them, integrative education promotes the construction of broad mental programs that require students to use skills and information in new, reahstic contexts (1995,1). Such an approach creates the expectation in students that there are connections to be made\nconnections with upcoming ideas in the same course, wth other courses, and with out-of- school settings (Perkins 1991). This process takes  Early learning is crucial. Brain research indicates that an important window of opportunity for learning occurs in the first few years of life (Seebach 1998\nJensen 1998). For instance, neurologist Harry Chuganis research demonstrates the rapid growth of the auditory cortex, claiming that by the childs first birthday, the auditory cortex is mapped\" (Shore 1997). While educators _ such as John Bruer (1997) take issue with some of the theories developed in the field of infant neuroscience, virtually all researchers do agree that this is an impor- tant time in human development. School leaders can take advantage of this knowl- the readiness of\ndge by finding ways to help increase t-j - - J X children who enter kindergarten. They can reach out families during the preschool years through alliances with local social service agencies, creating pro- to educate parents about the importance of grams to educate parents aoout uic early learning and what parents can do to give their children the best cognitive start (Shore 1997). \"ly learning and what parents Practices Supported by Cognitive Research When one considers the basic principles and understandings discussed above, it is clear that many current instructional approaches are compatible with understanding of how the human brain our current works. Several examples are discussed here. advantage of the minds continual search for meaning. l/Cooperative Learning The term cooperative learning is used to descnbe a variety of instructional strategies are in which students placed in small groups, working together achieve a common to goal (Little Soldier 1994). Much research has suggested that cooperative learning be effective\nour knowledge of cognitive research fillfill the suggests why. Working in groups can can human need for social interaction and can cultivate emotional responses in students. In addition, each students role in contributing to the group and working toward a common goal creates a powe purpose for individual learning (Jensen 1998, 33).  Block Scheduling Longer teaching periods may be conducive to teaching to the complex brain. Teachers have time to introduce a new topic with hooking activities, exciting demonstrations that stimulate questions in each student. More time is available to make connections to teal concerns, leading to higher levels of student motivation (Fitzgerald 1996). Many different instructional approaches can be used in one period, calling on a variety of intelligences. The Learning Cycle Approach This popular approach in science Instruction (exploration, invention, and application) has been demonstrated by research to result in higher content -4-tducationai Kesearcn service ! i I i I i achievement, improved thinking skills, and better attitudes toward science (Gabel 1995,124). Our new understandings of how the mind works help to explain its success. During the first phase of the Leanung Cycle Approach, students explore new materials and ideas vrith minimal guidance, raising questions about the phenomena being explored and identifying patterns of regularitytwo practices that reflect the brains quest for meaiting. In the invention phase, terms and concepts are introduced that explain the patterns discovered in the exploration phase. In the application phase, students apply the terms and concepts to new situations, thus learning to generalize in a broader context, once again nurturing the brains need to construct meaning (Klosowski 1998).  Establish a safe emotional climate where risktaking is the norm, and where students feel that wrong answers are as much a part of learning as right answers. Specific strategies include tapping into the emotional intelligences of the learners and organizing diverse smaU-group work.  Create a rich learning environment, resembling a childrens museum. Use enticing presentations of science equipment, art supplies, or computers to stimulate curiosity. Create mini-environments that facilitate a variety of activities, including one-on-one interactions between students and between the teacher and the student. quiet reflection, and learning centers. Sensory input music, print materials, visually appealing bulletin boardscan also engage the students interest. Teaching Higher-Order Thinking Skills The human brains capacity to act as a parallel processor and function on many levels at once helps to explain why higher-order thinking is an important part of the effective curriculum. Asking thoughtprovoking questions or requiring students to explain their reasoning can encourage learners to make connections between past and new learrting, create new neural pathways, strengthen existing pathways, and increase the likelihood that the new learrting will be consolidated and stored for future retrieval (Sousa 1998). Nummela and Rosengren explain that traditional methods of teaching are similar to giving students a Establish a safe emotional climate where risk-taking is the norm, and where students feel that wrong answers are as much a part of learning as right answers. Robin Fogarty, 1998  Teach the mind-tools and skills of life. These run the gamut from communication skills neces- single route to reach a destination, while teaching methods that take advantage of the brains capacity for complex problem-solving are more similar to giving students a map offering many possible routes to reach a destination. Route learning is quicker, and easier to test, but contains far less information than maps (1998, 85). sary in any social environment to skills needed to program computers. Specific skills might include critical thinking (prioritizing, comparing, and judging)\ncreative thinking (inferring, predicting. and generalizing)\nsocial skills (team leadership and conflict resolution)\ntechnological skills (key- Putting It All Together in the Classroom Research has much to teU. us about how children learn and what instructional methods are most effec- tive. Yet, educators still face the task of constructing UVC. iCL, tuuuaivio ouu ------------------ classroom environments that take advantage of this knowledge. Fogarty (1998) sets forth eight guidelines for the intelligence-friendly classroom. boarding and searching the Internet)\nvisual skills (painting and sculpting)\nand performance arts (dancing and acting).  Develop the skillfulness of the learner. Student skills are developed through mediation, practice, coaching, and rehearsal. Skill development occurs through formal teaching structures, such as direct Instruction, as well as through independent readings and research and through the dialogue of peer coaching and mentoring.  Challenge students with hands-on learning opportunities and lab-like situations, real-life expe- -5-w Educational Research Service i i i [ I ! k t riences that invite the learner to become an integral part of the process.  Involve many facets of intelligence. It is not necessary to include all eight intelligences in every lesson, but teachers might reasonably try to ery lesson, dul leacncrs iiugiii incorporate several different ways of understanding in any given assignment. For example, working on a school newspaper requires that students interview (interpersonal), write (verbal), design and lay out (visual), and critique (logical).  Transfer learning from the public arena to the personal through reflection, making learning meaningful and relevant. Possible tools for reflection include reading-response journals, in which the reader writes a personal, immediate response to what has been read, and learning logs, which record thoughts, comments, and questions prior to or following an experience.  Balance traditional assessment measures with portfolios and performance assessments. In addition to letter grades, use portfolio assessments (on collections of students best work) and performance assessments (on speeches, presentations, plays, concerts, etc.). An Intelligence-Friendly School Environment: Role of the Principal The instruction that goes on in classrooms will be most effective when it is supported by a total school environment, which can be established only with the support of the principal. David Sousa outlines steps take to bring about changes that principals can in school climate that are compatible with cognitive research.  Strive to provide students with a safe, emotionally warm climate in which to learn.  Encourage teachers to take appropriate risks with their curriculum and to challenge students with lessons requiring critical thinking.  Facilitate the development of alternative ways of assessing students that are more reflective of the kinds of meaningfill, multi-faceted learning fostered in intelligence-friendly classrooms.  Provide frequent opportunities for sharing among teachers about ways they have found to join classroom practice to research.  Establish and maintain a staff development program that will keep teachers abreast of current cognitive research. Another key role for the principal is supporting the development of materials for parents of preschool children, such as informational brochures rei\ngarding infant learning, health, and nutrition, and their implications for parenting. Principals are in a unique position to estabhsh partnerships between elementary schools, preschools, and parents to better prepare children for elementary education. Summary Today, we know more than ever about how human beings leam. Our challenge is to change schools to incorporate what we know. The cognitive research has implications not only for curriculum and instruc tion, as discussed in this summary, but also for school organization, assessment, and other important areas of public education. This does not mean taking the new findings of brain research, or neuroscience, so seriously that they curricula. Educational prescribe teaching methods or new theories are often programs based on unproven viewed as gimmicks by both educators and the public. But a healthy skepticism about these findings should not blind us to the fact that they may make a valuable addition to a solid foundation of knowledge about human learning that has been built over the last three decades. The research on human cogmtion provides valuable information that educators can use to develop effective instruction based on the learning needs of students. As Judy Lloyd Yero writes. True brain-compatible education should be an on-going and flexible process of trying to find the most natural and enjoyable approaches to on an increased under- teaclung/learning based standing of the brain/mind (1998,1). -6-cuucawoiiai rsesearcn service 1 1 r I I i si S I II 4 r I i IS References Armstrong, Thomas. 1994. Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. Alexandria, VA\nAssociation for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Black, Susan. 1994. Different Kinds of Smart. TheExec- utive Educator (January 1994)\n24-27. n Bruer, John T. 1994. How Children Learn. The Executive Educator (August 1994)\n32-36. Bruer, John T. 1997. A Science of Learning. The American School Board Journal (February 1997)\n24-27. Caine, Renate Nummela, and Geoffrey Caine. 1994. Making Connections: Teaching and the Human Brain. Reading, MA\nAddison-Wesley. Caine, Renate Nummella, and Geofttey Caine. 1995. Reinventing Schools Through Brain-Based Learning. Educational Leadership (April 1995)\n43-47. Caine, Renate Nummela, and Geoffrey Caine. 1998. How to Think About the Brain. The School Administrator (January 1998)\n12-16. Campbell, Linda. 1997. Variations on a Theme\nHow Teachers Interpret MI Theory. Educational Leadership Kovalik, Susan, and Karen Olsen. 1993. What Is the Best Available Knowledge About How the Human Brain Learns? Quality Outcomes-Drive Education (October 1993)\n13-16. Kovalik, Susan and Karen Olsen. 1994. ITI: The Model. Integrated Thematic Instruction (Third Edition). Kent, WA\nBooks for Educators. Languis, Marhn L. 1998. Using Knowledge of the Brain in Educational Practice. NASSPBulletin (May 1998). 38-47. Litde Soldier, Lee. 1994. Here's How: Cooperative Learning: From Theory to Practice. Alexandria, VA\nNational Association of Elementary School Principals. McClanahan, Anita. 1998. Brain Research Informing Classroom Practices. Early Childhood. Western Oregon University. Online, www.tr.wou.edu/train/ (September 1997)\n14-19. Conant, Beth. 1998. Learning\nWhat Weve Learned.  Online, www.nauticom.net/www/cokids/ articleleaming.html. Della Neve, Charmaine, Leslie A. Hart, and Edgar C. Thomas. 1986. Huge Learning Jumps Show Potency of Brain-Based Instruction. Phi Delta Kappan (October 1986)\n143-148. DiCresce, Amy. 1997. Brain Surges. Online, www.med. wayne.edu/wmp97/brain.htm. Fitzgerald, Ron. 1996. Brain-Compatible Teaching in a Block Schedule. The School Administrator (September 1996)\n20-21, 24. Fogarty, Robin. 1998. The Intelligence-Friendly Classroom. Phi Delta Kappan (May 1998)\n655-657. Gabel, Dorothy. 1995. Chapter 9\nScience. In Handbook cf Research on Improving Student Achievement, Gordon Cawelti, editor. Arlington, VA\nEducational Research Service. Gardner, Howard. 1993. Multiple Intelligences: Theory into Practice. New York\nBasic Books. Greenhawk, Jan. 1997. Multiple Intelligences Meet St^- dards. Educational Leadership (September 1997)\n62- 64. Hoerr, Thomas R. 1997. Frog Ballets and Musical Fractions. Educational Leadership (September 1997)\n43- 46. Jensen, Eric. 1996. Brain-Based Learning. Del Mar, CA\nTurning Point Publishing. Jensen, Eric. 1998. Teaching with the Brain in Mind. Alexandria, VA\n/Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Klosowski, Lyn. 1998. To What Extent Is the SCIS 3 Science Curriculum Compatible with Brain Based Learning? Online. http\n//essc.calumet. purdue.edu/ Activity%20Science%20Research/Research%20HP. spring98/htm. Nadis, Steve. 1993. Kids Brainpower\nUse It or Lose It. Technology Review (November/December 1993)\n19- 20. National Education Association. 1997. Inside Scoop\nThe Latest on How the Brain Works. NEIA Today (April 1997)\n17. Nummela, Renate M. and Tennes M. Rosengren. 1988. The Brains Routes and Maps\nVital Connections In Learning. NASSP Bulletin (April 1988)\n83-86. Parnell, Dale. 1996. Cerebral Context. Vocational Education Journal (March 1996)\n18-21,50. Paulus, Norma. 1997. Students Need Emotional Response to Learn. State Education Leader Vol. 15, No. 1 (Winter 1997)\n11. Perkins, D.N. 1991. Educating for Insight. Educational Leadership (October 1991)\n4-8. Seebach, Linda. 1998. Brain Research Cant Guide Education. Online, www.worldafricarmet.com/hfe/ lifel400.html. Shore, Rima. 1997. Rethinking the Brain: New Insights into Early Development. New York\nFamilies and Work Institute. Sousa, David A. 1998. Brain Research Can Help Principals Reform Secondary Schools. NASSP Bulletin (May 1998)\n21-28. Sylvester, Robert. 1995. A Celebration of Neurons: An Educator's Guide to the Human Brain. Alexandria, VA. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Sylvester, Robert, and Joo-Yun Cho. 1993. What Brain Research Says About Paying Attention. Educational Leadership (December 1992/January 1993)\n71-75. Walker, Dean. 1995. NAESP Research Roundup:Integrative Education. Vol. 12, No. 1. Alexandria, VA\nNational Association of Elementary School Principals. Willis, Scott. 1992.yfSCD Curriculum Update: Teaching _ Thinking. Alexandria, VA\nAssociation for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Yero, Judy Lloyd. 1998. Brain Compatible Learning. Online.www.funderstanding.com/messages/375.html. Young, Andrea C. 1997. Higher-Order Learning and Thinking\nWhat Is It and How Is It Taught? EducationalTechnology (July/August 1997)\n38-41. -7- 11For More Information on Cognitive Research and Instruction More in-depth information about cognitive research and instruction is available from the Educational Research Service in ERS Info-Files. Each Info-File contains 70-100 pages of articles from professional journals, summaries of research studies, and related literature concerning the topic, plus an annotated bibliography that includes an ERIC-CIJE search. Base price per Info-File-. $32.00. ERS Comprehensive subscriber price: $16.00. ERS Individual subscriber price: $24.00. To order, contact Educational Research Service, 2000 Clarendon Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22201. Phone: (800) 791-9308. Fax: (800) 791-9309. Add the greater of $3.50 or 10% of total purchase price for postage and handling. Phone orders accepted with purchase order number or Visa or MasterCard. ERS Info-Files on related topics include:  How Children Learn^Presents current research from neuroscience on how the brain works and the implications for learning, teaching, and curriculum. Articles also address brain-based learning, learning styles, and left/right brain hemisphericity. #IE-0343.  Multiple IntelligencesCovers programs, curricula, teaching methods, and research results applicable to the seven intelligences identified by Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner. #IE-0130. ) 4 The Informed Educator Series Educational Research Service prepares the publications in The Informed Educator series to provide busy education leaders with condse, yet comprehensive overviews of the most current research and information on topics of priority concern in education. Each publication in this series is designed to enable education leadersincluding central-office administrators, prindpals, curriculum spedalists, teachers, and othersto stay up to date on a leading or emerging issue in education, enabling them to make die best dedsions for the children and youth they serve. About ERS Educational Research Service (ERS) is the nonprofit foundation serving the research and information needs of education leaders and the public. ERS provides objective, accurate, and up- to-date research and information for local school and school district decisions. Prepared by the ERS staff, publications in The Informed Educator series are intended to provide an objective, comprehensive summary of research and opinion appearing in the current literature. The inclusion of any specific assertion or opinion here is not intended to imply approval or endorsement by Educational Research Service or any ERS sponsoring organization. ERS, established in 1973, is sponsored by seven national associations of school administrators:  American Association of School Administrators  American Assodation of School Personnel Administrators  Assodation of School Business Offidals  Council of Chief State School Officers  National Assodation of Elementary School Prindpals  National Assodation of Secondary School Prindpals  National School Public Relations Assodation. if 0 5 I *4 Ordering Information: Stock No. 0303. Quantity discounts are available for the purchase of multiple copies of any topic in The Informed Educator series. In addition, school districts may purchase a camera-ready reproducible for any topic in the series, which includes unlimited reproduction rights within the district. For information, contact ERS Member Services Information Center, 2000 Clarendon Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22201. Phone: (800) 791-9308. Fax: (800) 791-9309.14 I S'* K ll l' i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 September 27,1999 I I 'J f ( i. I I TO\nFROM\nSUBJECT\nPrincipals Dr. Bonnie Lesley\nAssociate Superintendent for Instruction School Reform 1 J The evidence continues to emphasize a few essential components for successful school reform. The attached article (provided to me by Mona Briggs) outlines the following six\n1. A strong research-based literacy curriculum HIPPY, ages 3-4 Four-Year-Old Program expansion ELLA, grades K-2 Effective Literacy, grades 3-4 Reading/Writing Workship, grades 5-8 High School Literacy - stay tuned etc. 2. A significant extra help components After-school programs Tutoring and mentoring Title I programs Summer School ALC and ACC Language Arts Plus etc. 3. A focus on smallness Middle school teams . Weve provided high \u0026amp; middle school principals a lot of information etc. I i i il 1 I I i ! i' i i i I i 1 I I i ISchool Reform - Memo September 27,1999 Page Two I I *\n4 A commitment to parental outreach and community building Parent-School Compacts - elementary and middle schools Title 1 Parent Programs Collaborative Action Team (CAT) VIPS Mentors Parent-Teacher Conferences Communities in Schools PIEs Vital Link Child Development Program (grant proposal) PTA Membership CLT inclusion of parents and community etc. d 5. An ongoing, schoolwide program of social skills development Conflict Resolution Peer Mediation Student Handbooks Parent Education Classroom Management training for teachers etc. I 6. A comprehensive, sustained staff development program  Urban Professional Development Initiative, UPDI  NSF training  Literacy training . CLT/Principals/Broker training  Prejudice reduction/cultural diversity training etc. You are encouraged to explore the resources listed in the articles bibliography. BAL/adg Attachments iE/! . . . Risk to Excellence\nPerspec...to Reform a Low-Performing Schhttp'.//www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/At-...sletter/sprmg99/Perspectives.html I prom At-Risk to Excellence - Spring 1999 \u0026lt;5- a 5 Perspectives: What Does It Take to Reform a Low-Performing School? 1 sr I The first in a series of viewpoints on current topics I .y I I I I I This article represents the perspectives of Susan Talley, a research analyst in the National Institute on the Education of At-Risk Students. Susan's work with the Department over many years has focused on educational research and development programs to improve achievement for urban, inner-city students. For the past 6 years, she has provided assistance related to promising research-based practices to key personnel in the District of Columbia Public Schools. The article discusses the six critical elements Susan has concluded must be present in a school reform model to turn around low-performing schools. Three decades of research on school reform has led to the identification of four basic elements that students need from their schools\nrelevant schoolwork, a nurturing and supportive environment, opportunities for academic success, and help with personal problems. Unfortunately, studies of schooling for students at risk of academic failure demonstrate that schools often fail to address the special circumstancesincluding economic, family, community, ethnic, and racial status^that characterize students placed at risk (Natriello, McDill, \u0026amp; Pallas 1990). I I I I i The challenges that low-performing schools must address are substantial. It is not uncommon for 80 percent or more of the students in such schools to be performing significantly below grade level and living in poverty and conditions that are inhospitable to healthy child development. For these schools, a reform model must encompass elements to meet student needs that might not be prevalent in other schools. 7 I e I ( Based on close examination of school reform models funded by this Institute and the research associated with those models, the author conclu\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_746","title":"\"Quarterly Update to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua,'' Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2004-12-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["\"Quarterly Update to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua,'' Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/746"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["342 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua received DEC 1 - 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING December 1,2004 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.l ETAL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS 111 KATHERINE KNIGHT, ETAL., INTERVENORS Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 LRSD QUARTERLY UPDATE TO PPM AND JOSHUA DECEMBER 1.2004 Introduction This is the first quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department which is done in accordance with the District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). The organization of this report is that of the Compliance Remedy: A. B. c. D. E. F. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. ... the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction program. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. PRE must (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants . . and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support. . . [These requirements relate to evaluation products. PRE will address them in future updates.] . . . PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the OD and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board 99 for approval... by December 31, 2004. G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the . . . four step 2 program evaluations . . .during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year ... to ODM and Joshua on December 1, Mar 1, June 1, and September 1.. 99 H. I. J. K, L. [ODMs responsibilities.] [Joshuas responsibilities.] [Four step 2 program evaluations due to the Court October 1, 2005 and four more due October 1,2006.] [Compliance Report due October 15,2006.] [This Compliance Remedy supersedes earlier one.] Page 2 of 2LRSD QUARTERLY UPDATE TO ODM AND JOSHUA DECEMBER 1,2004 Status as of December 1, 2004 A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals LRSD changed PREs position in the organization. Previously in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, PRE now reports directly to the Superintendent. To cany out the 2004 Compliance Remedy, LRSD added three new professionals who have knowledge and experience in assessment, evaluation, and statistical analysis to the PRE team: This action brings the number of PRE staff to seven. As of November 1, 2004, the PRE staff consists of: Karen DeJamette, PhD, Director, began September 27, 2004. Dr. DeJamettes Ph D., from UCLA, is in Education Policy. She has over 10 years experience in the field of educational research. Prior to joining LRSD, Dr. DeJamette evaluated school reform partnerships for Education Development Center and onsite school assessments for Arkansas Department of Education. She served as the executive director of the Arkansas Division of The National Faculty and as Research and Evaluation Director of the Galef Institute, where she focused on the development and implementation of qualitative and quantitative research methodologies to assess public school performance. I I Maurecia Malcolm, MS, Statistician, transferred from Curriculum Coordinator with the Magnet Schools Assistance Program to PRE on October 4, 2004. She earned the Bachelor of Science Degree in Art Education from the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff and the Master of Science Degree in Administration and Supervision from Henderson State University. Ms. Malcolm is currently a Doctoral Candidate at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. While in the doctoral program, Ms. Malcolm has studied Qualitative Research, Advanced Statistics, Advanced Research Methods and Techniques, and Scholarly Writing. Her research interest is in Teacher Efficacy and Student Achievement. Prior to her position as a Curriculum Coordinator, she was an Elementary School Principal with the Camden Fairview School District. As a principal, she was responsible for program initiatives, implementing and developing quality educational plans, program evaluations and assessments, and leadership skills and development. Ms. Malcolm experiences in the field of education have been broad, and she has served in such capacities as strategic planning, technology leadership, effective communication skills, team building, curriculum design, cultural diversity, and desegregation strategies. She is currently a trainer for the Arkansas Leadership Academy Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. During her career Maurecia Malcolm has also served as a classroom teacher. She is currently certified in the areas of Art Education K-12, Elementary and Secondary Administration, and Curriculum Specialist. James C. Wohlleb, MS, Statistician, began his current position October 1, 2004. He earned his masters degree from the University of Texas, where he studied human nutrition, epidemiology, and statistics. His experience has been gained in program evaluation, public and professional health education, research design, and multivariate analysis with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS), Tulane University, Page 3 of 3LRSD QUARTERLY UPDATE TO PPM AND JOSHUA DECEMBER 1,2004 University of Texas, and Baylor College of Medicine. He continues to review behavioral research for the UAMS Institutional Review Board (IRB) and medical research for the Arkansas IRB. While with UAMS, he administered educational programs for a range of groups from lay people in the Arkansas Delta to physicians in Arkansas and in Russia. With Tulane University and UAMS, he developed the Master of Public Health Program for Arkansas. He brings to PRE skills in data collection and management, statistical analysis and interpretation, presentations, and publication. Ed Williams, PhD, Statistical Research Specialist, earned his doctorate from the University of Arkansas in educational research, with an emphasis in vocational rehabilitation and a cognate in special education and a M.Ed. from the University of Arkansas in Rehabilitation Counseling. Dr. Williams is an Arkansas certified teacher in grades 7-12 social studies, a Certified Rehabilitation Counselor, and a Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC). Dr. Williams has conducted applied research at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, Arkansas Children s Hospital, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, and in his current position with the LRSD which he began in 1998. Dr. Williams has experience in student assessment and designing and conducting formative and summative program evaluations, and interpreting and communicating complex data. Dr. Williams developed the Equitable Allocation Worksheet to insure compliance with section 2.9 of the 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Finally, Dr. Williams has made oral presentations at local, state, national, and international conferences and workshops and has a number of peer-reviewed publications. Yvette Dillingham, MA, earned a Master of Arts Degree from the Ohio State University in Special Education K-12 with an emphasis in Deaf Education. Her undergraduate degree is from the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff in Special Education. Mrs. Dillingham is an Arkansas certified teacher in grades K-12 special education, and has elementary principal certification. She was a classroom teacher for four years and has previously worked for the Arkansas Department of Education in the Student Assessment Office as Program Manager. Her duties as Program Manager included coordinating the state's norm- referenced assessment program, and providing in-service to Arkansas public schools on the interpretation of test data and using the data to improve instruction. She has also presented at local and state level conferences and workshops. Other positions held while employed with the Arkansas Department of Education include Program Manager of the state's Home School Office, Public School Program Advisor in Federal Programs and the Professional Licensure OfBce. Mrs. Dillingham currently coordinates the administration of the state- mandated assessments for the Little Rock School District. Irma Shelton, Administrative Assistant for PRE since 1993, has become familiar with all the programs and staff involved in educational programs of the LRSD. Prior to her employment with LRSD, Ms. Shelton owned and operated Truett Shoes, a retail business with revenue in excess of $1 million. Previous experience was with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, as assistant purchasing agent, and in its Mathematics and Statistics Department, as office manager. Page 4 of 4LRSD QUARTERLY UPDATE TO ODM AND JOSHUA DECEMBER 1,2004 Melinda Allen, MA, Testing Assistant, earned a masters degree from Philander Smith College. She started in Curriculum and Instruction in 1973 and became a part of PRE in 2001 as Testing Assistant. She assists with all state-mandated testing. Page 5 of 5LRSD QUARTERLY UPDATE TO ODM AND JOSHUA DECEMBER 1, 2004 B. Devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process. The new PRE team, with Dr. Ross assistance, has developed and shared with ODM and the Joshua Intervenors a program assessment process to be deeply embedded in LRSDs educational operations. A copy of the final draft, Comprehensive Program Assessment Process (IL-Rl), is in Appendix B of this update. C. Hire outside consultant(s) to prepare four formal step 2 evaluations. PRE has begun work with two experts, Dr. Steven M. Ross and Dr. James S. Catterall, to conduct four Step 2 evaluations this year and four more Step 2 evaluations next year. The programs which will be the subject of Step 2 evaluations this year are described in the following section of this report. The qualifications of Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall are set forth below. Steven M. Ross received his doctorate in educational psychology from Pennsylvania State University. He is currently a professor and executive director of the Center for Research in Educational Policy at the University of Memphis and holds the Lillian and Morrie Moss Chair of Excellence in Urban Education. He joined the University of Memphis in 1974 and became a noted lecturer on school programs and evaluation. Dr. Ross has authored six textbooks and more than 115 journal articles about at-risk learners, educational reform, educational technology, computer-based instruction, and individualized instruction. He is the editor of the research section of the Educational Technology Research and Development journal, and a member of the editorial board for two other professional journals. In the 1993, he was the first faculty recipient of the University of Memphis Eminent Faculty Award for teaching, research, and service. He recently testified on school restructuring research before the U. S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and Families and was an invited panelist at U. S. Secretary of Education Rileys national town meeting on educational reform. The Court, acquainted with his evaluation skills and efforts for LRSD, recommended contracting with Dr. Ross to conduct required step-two evaluations. His curriculum vita is in Appendix C. During this first period, Dr. Ross has agreed to help draft an assessment policy, to assist the selection of the eight interventions for step-two evaluations, and to undertake one or more of these step-two evaluations. James S. Catterall, Ph.D., on the faculty at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) in the Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies since 1981, has extensive knowledge and experience with educational program evaluations. Since 1998, Dr. Catterall has chaired the National Technical Advisory Panel for Accountability and Assessment for the Kentucky State Legislative Research Commission. This panel advises the legislature. State Board of Education, and State Commissioner of Education on design and technical quality of Kentucky's multi-faceted annual student testing and Page 6 of 6LRSD quarterly UPDATE TO ODM AND JOSHUA DECEMBER 1,2004 assessment system. In 2003, the State of California appointed him to its Public School Assessment Advisory Committee, where Dr. Catterall also serves with the Technical Design Group. Discussions began in September with Dr. Catterall about comprehensive assessment processes and his conduct of one step-two evaluation this school year. He supports PREs approach and anticipates one or more evaluations during this school year and next. Subsequent updates will more fully describe his participation. D. PRE (1) oversees the preparation of the step-two evaluations, (2) works closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and (3) assists them. In collaboration with Dr. Ross, PRE has selected the following four LRSD interventions for evaluation during the 2004-2005 school year. Design of the evaluations began in November. 1. Reading Recovery Program Description: Reading Recovery is one of the eight literacy programs, interventions, and/or models used by various LRSD schools. LRSD funds are used to support the Reading Recovery Program. Currently, Reading Recovery is implemented by seventeen elementary schools: Bale: 82% African-American student population Booker: 53% African-American student population Chicot: 73% African-American student population Dodd: 54% African-American student population Franklin: 96% African-American student population Geyer Springs: 88% African-American student population Gibbs: 53% African-American student population Meadowcliff: 78% African-American student population Mitchell: 96% African-American student population Otter Creek: 60% African-American student population Rightsell: 100% African-American student population Stephens: 95% African-American student population Terry: 53% African-American student population Wakefield: 78% African-American student population Watson: 96% African-American student population Williams: 52% African-American student population Wilson: 89% African-American student population Page 7 of 7LRSD QUARTERLY UPDATE TO ODM AND JOSHUA DECEMBER 1,2004 2. Smart/Thrive Program Description: The Smart/Thrive program was designed as an intervention for 8^- and 9*-grade African-American students who need to gain the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed for success in Algebra 1. This program engages approximately 10 percent of the total African-American student population enrolled in Algebra I classes for the upcoming school year. Last year, the program served 264 students. Participants were offered pre-algebra instruction for two weeks during the summer and 10 Saturdays across the school year. Various local grants have funded this program since 1999. Currently, Smart/Thrive serves students from all eight LRSD middle schools: Cloverdale: 82% African-American student population Dunbar\n61% African-American student population Forest Heights: 77% African-American student population Henderson: 82% African-American student population Mablevale: 81% African-American student population Mann: 52% African-American student population Pulaski Heights: 57% African-American student population Southwest: 94% African-American student population 3. Compass Learning Program Description: Compass Learning is a computer based program that helps to develop skills in reading, writing, and spelling. Compass Learning is designed to help teachers manage student performance, personalize instruction, and connect communities of learners. The theme-based lessons and activities take a cross-curricular approach and offer a real world context for learning. The Compass Management system assessment is either automatic or customizable. A Technology Specialist assists classroom teachers with any technology question or need. Currently, 21 elementary schools, two middle schools, and 1 high school utilize Compass Learning programs: Elementary Schools Bale\n82% African-American student population Booker\n53% African-American student population Brady: 78% African-American student population Carver: 52% African-American student population Chicot: 73% African-American student population Fair Park: 75% African-American student population Fonest Park: 20% African-American student population Franklin: 96% African-American student population Fulbright: 26% African-American student population Geyer Springs: 88% African-American student population Gibbs: 53% African-American student population Mabelvale: 80% African-American student population McDermott\n62% African-American student population Mitchell: 96% African-American student population Otter Creek: 60% African-American student population Page 8 of 8LRSD QUARTERLY UPDATE TO PPM AND JOSHUA DECEMBER 1. 2004 Rightsell: 100% African-American student population Rockefeller: 67% African-American student population Stephens: 95% African-American student population Wakefield: 78% African-American student population Williams: 52% African-American student population Middle Schools: Cloverdale: 82% Afncan-American student population Henderson. 82% African-American student population High School: Accelerated Learning Center (ALC): 92% African-American student population 4. Year-Round Education (YRE) Program Description: Commencing the school year in early August and ending in late June, the YRE calendar shortens the traditional summer vacation to the month of July and observes additional, short vacation periods throughout the school year. Thus, students separate from LRSD curricula for several shorter periods and experience less lengthy interruptions in their education. National research indicates that while YRE costs more, students achieve as well or better than in traditional calendars and exhibit more positive attitudes toward school\nand parents and teachers express satisfaction with it. Currently, five schools operate on YRE calendars: Cloverdale: 77% African-American student population Mablevale: 80% African-American student population Mitchell: 96% African-American student population Stephens: 95% African-American student population Woodruff: 91% African-American student population Page 9 of 9LRSD QUARTERLY UPDATE TO ODM AND JOSHUA DECEMBER 1,2004 The table combines the interventions for evaluation with their sites percentages of African American (AA) students. Sites Accelerated Learning Center Bale Elementary____________ Booker Elementary__________ Brady Elementary___________ Carver Elementary___________ Chicot Elementary___________ Cloverdale Middle__________ Dodd Elementary___________ Dunbar Magnet_____________ Fair Park Elementary________ Forest Heights Middle School Forest Park Elementary______ Franklin Elementary_________ Fulbright Elementary________ Geyer Springs Elementary Gibbs Elementary___________ Henderson Magnet__________ Mabelvale Elementary_______ Mann Magnet______________ McDermott Elementary______ Meadowcliff Elementary_____ Mitchell Elementary_________ Otter Creek Elementary______ Pulaski Heights Middle School Rightsell Elementary________ Rockefeller Elementary______ Southwest Middle__________ Stephens_________________ Terry Elementary___________ Wakefield Elementary_______ Watson Elementary_________ Williams Elementary________ Wilson Elementary_________ Woodruff Elementary_______ Percent AA 92 82 53 78 52 73 82 54 61 75 77 20 96 26 88 53 82 81 52 62 78 96 60 57 100 67 94 95 53 78 96 52 89 91 Reading Recovery Smart/Thrive COMPASS Year-Round Education X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Page 10 of 10 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLRSD QUARTERLY UPDATE TO ODM AND JOSHUA DECEMBER 1,2004 F. Comprehensive program assessment process final draft to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before its presentation to the Board for approval, by December 31,2004 PRE and Dr. Ross have fashioned a comprehensive process to assess LRSD programs for the indefinite future and furnished a final draft to ODM and Joshua more than a month in advance of its expected approval by the LRSD Board of Directors on December 18, 2004. G. PRE will submit its second quarterly report on or before March 1,2005. Page 11 of 11LRSD QUARTERLY UPDATE TO PPM AND JOSHUA DECEMBER 1.2004 Appendices A. Reinvigorated PRE Resumes of PRE Director and Statisticians  Karen DeJamette, Ph D., Director  Maurecia Malcolm, M.S.  James C. Wohlleb, M.S.  Ed Williams, Ph.D. Page 12 of 12LRSD QUARTERLY UPDATE TO ODM AND JOSHUA DECEMBER I, 2004 B. Comprehensive program assessment process O O Comprehensive program assessment process (draft IL-Rl) Evaluation Standards, Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation C. Outside consultants Commitment to LRSD evaluations by Dr. Ross Dr. Steven M. Ross curriculum vitae Dr. James S. Catterall curriculum vitae Page 13 of 13LRSD QUARTERLY UPDATE TO ODM AND JOSHUA DECEMBER 1,2004 Little Rock School District Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Resumes Karen DeJamette, Ph.D., Director Ed Williams, Ph.D. Maurecia Malcolm, M.S. James C. Wohlleb, M.S. Page 14 of 14Dr. Karen DeJarnette 16 McGovern Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: H 501.954.7343 Cell 501.425.3109 Email: dejarn@aol.com WORK HISTORY 2004-current Planning, Research, and Evaluation Director, Little Rock School District, Little Rock, AR 1 am currently serving as Director of Little Rock School District's Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department. I lead a team of 7 staff members and various external consultants to conduct formative assessments and summative evaluations of District-wide and school-specific instructional programs. We also assist District personnel to compile and analyze data for a variety of purposes. 2002-2004 Site Developer, Education Development Center, Newton, MA I served as Site Developer to facilitate comprehensive school reform partnerships in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Specifically, I assisted public school administrators and teachers to build leadership skills, effective teaching practices, and organizational management. I also conducted data analysis and provide formative assessments of organizational change. 1999-2003 Research Associate, DCLA and The Galef Institute, Los Angeles, CA I consulted with UCLA staff and the Galef Institute to conduct formative and summative assessments of Different Ways of Knowing comprehensive school reform partnerships in California, Nebraska, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. 2001-2002 Academic Monitor, Arkansas Department of Education, Little Rock, AR As a consultant to the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), I served as Monitor for schools determined to be in Academic Distress. 1 reported directly to the Director of the ADE and my responsibilities included data analysis to prioritize needs, formative evaluation of professional development and instructional programs, and monitoring school assurance/compliance to Arkansas standards. 1999-2001 Executive Director, The National Eacultv, Pine Bluff, AR My directorship focused on the facilitation of collaborative school reform efforts between The National Faculty, University of AR faculty, various public schools, and State and local educational agencies. Specifically, I was responsible for professional development program design, overseeing implementation of training Page 15 of 15sessions, and conducting formative evaluations of teacher growth using qualitative and quantitative data from teachers and students. 2001 Research and Evaluation Director, The Galef Institute, Los Angeles, CA I served as director of research and evaluation, working with local personnel employed by public schools in 14 states. My responsibilities included contributing to program development, writing grants, monitoring program implementation, data collection, and writing formative and summative evaluation reports of grant-funded programs. 1996-1997 Policy Advisor, Options For Youth Charter Schools, Los Angeles, CA I served as policy advisor for a consortium of four charter schools. My responsibilities included grant development, program development, ensuring alignment with local, state and federal policies, and evaluation of schools. 2002 Educational Consultant, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA I served as a member of a UCLA evaluation team. The team was contracted by various organizations to conduct external summative evaluations of school reform partnerships. I reported directly to Dr. James Catterall, Assistant Dean of the UCLA Graduate School of Education, and performed various research and evaluation tasks. 1992-1993 Assistant Professor, University of Arkansas, Pine Bluff I served as an assistant professor in the art department. My responsibilities included teaching studio and art history classes. I also developed and monitored art education partnerships with local public schools. 1991-1992 Instructor, University of Arkansas, Little Rock I served as an instructor in the art department. My responsibilities included teaching studio and art history classes. 1992-2004 Additional Program Evaluations-Individual Consultant Contracts\nYoung Artists/Young Aspirations (YA/YA) in New Orleans LA St. Francis County Community Development Center in Fonest City, AR Very Special Arts in Atlanta, GA, Tree People in Los Angeles, CA California State Parks in Los Angeles, CA, Arkansas Arts Council in Little Rock, AR Arts and Academics in Helena, AR Page 16 of 16EDUCATION 1993-1997 Ph.D., Education Policy Analysis, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 1989-1991 Columbia University, New York, NY M.F.A., Fine Arts, 1985-1989 B.F.A., Fine Arts, Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, NY 1980 High School Diploma, White Hall School District, White Hall, AR RESEARCH, PUBLICATIONS, AND PRESENTATIONS My research and evaluation interests focus in two areas: 1970 organizational change, and 2) arts-infused learning. school and 2004 1997 The Arts, Language, and Knowing\nStudents Know More Than They Write. (This manuscript is in preparation for publication by Heinemann Press and focuses on the relationship between arts-based teaching and learning and increased academic achievement for adolescent learners.) The Arts, Language, and Knowing\nAn Experimental Study of the Potential of the Visual Arts for Assessing Academic Learning by Language Minority Students. Research study completed in 1997, presented at the American Educational Research Association conference in New York City, 1997. 1996 1997 Visual Expression in the Assessment of Student Learning. The Elementary School Journal, 1999. (DeJamette with James Catterall) Look What I Know: An Investigation of the Utility of the Visual Arts as an Assessment Tool. Research study completed in 1995, presented at the California Education Research Association conference in Lake Tahoe, 1995. Page 17 of 17P.O Box 195035 Little Rock, AR 72219 Home No. (501) 416-7810 (501) 447- 3382 Work No. Maurecia Malcolm Professional Profile  Broad experience in educational leadership, designing, implementing and administering programs for effective schools.  Creative problem solver with ability to drive education improvement, resolve conflict, improve morale and consistently exceed professional growth for improving teaching and learning for all students.  Consultant in areas such as strategic planning, technology leadership, effective communication skills, team building, curriculum design, cultural diversity and desegregation strategies. Trainer for the Arkansas Leadership Academy Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.  Seminar leader for principals and superintendents, providing hands-on technology experience in educational leadership.  Demonstrated strong leadership skills in principalship at the elementary level. Experientially and academically prepared for educational leadership, grades K-12. Education Doctoral Candidate (2002- Present) University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas Major in Educational Administration Dissertation - Teacher Efficacy and Expectations of Student Achievement Master of Science in Education (1992) Henderson State University, Arkadelphia Arkansas Major in Administration and Supervision Bachelor of Science (1985) University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Pine Bluff Arkansas Major in Art Education Page 18 of 18Professional Experience 2001-Present Middle School, Little Rock, AR Cloverdale Magnet Curriculum Coordinator 1999-2001 Camden Fairview Whiteside Elementary, Camden, AR Principal 1996-1999 Camden Fairview Whiteside Elementary, Camden, AR Assistant Principal 1993- 1996 Camden Fairview Junior High, Camden, AR Teacher Art Teacher 1989- 1993 School, Hampton, AR Special Education Hampton High Art Teacher 1988-1989 Arkadelphia Human Development Center, Arkadelphia, AR Institutional Instructor II 1987-1988 Grady High School, Grady, AR Art Teacher Gifted Talent Coordinator Page 19 of 191986- 1987 Chidester Elementary, Chidester, AR Teacher - Sixth Grade Professional Development  Teacher Center Committee Representative, Camden Fairview School District  Smart Start/High Yield Strategies -Teaching  Pathwise Mentoring Training for Principal  Smart Steps to Technology Leadership .n  Gates Grant - \"Grand Gathering  Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference  Step Up To Writing, Writing Primary (Grade 4) Benchmark  Curriculum Designer / EDVision  Coach/Facilitator for Arkansas Leadership Academy  Technology Training - SPSS Software, TAGLIT, ACSIP (Arkansas Consolidated School Improvement Plan), APSCN (Arkansas Public School Network), EDDS (Educational Data Delivery Systems), SEDL (Southwestern Educational Development Laboratory -Active Learning with Technology), NCA (North Central Accreditation), NORMES/E-GUIDE (National Office for Rural Measurement and Evaluation Systems)/ (Enterprise Guide)  Classroom Walk-through  NCLB (No Child Left Behind)  MPH (Measuring Performance Honors)  Teaming  Curriculum Mapping  Block/Master Scheduling/Student Registration/Scheduling Professional Organizations  Arkansas Educational Association/National Educational Association  MSAP (Magnet School Assistance Program)  AAMLE (Arkansas Association for Middle Level Educators) Page 20 of 20I James C. Wohlleb EDUCATION Master of Science (M, S.) University of Texas Health Science Center 1982 Houston, Texas Master of Divinity (M. Div.) Harvard University 1973 Cambridge, Massachusetts f Bachelor of Arts (B. A.) DePauw University 1968 Greencastle, Indiana EXPERIENCE Statistician, Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation LITTLE Rock School District Arkansas 2004 to present Little Rock, Clinical Assistant Professor of Public Health TULANE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER Louisiana 1994 to 2004 New Orl-eans, Assistant Director, Area Health Education Center Program UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES (UAMS) 1991 to 2002 LITTLE Rock, Arkansas Director Delta Health Education Center Arkansas 1991 to 1994 Helena, Assistant to the Director Epidemiologist Arkansas Department of Health 1990 1984 to 1990 LITTLE Rock, Arkansas Research Associate UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK 1984 through 1990 Little Rock, Arkansas Evaluation Consultant Diet Modification Clinic, The Methodist Hospital 1982 to 1984 Houston, Texas Epidemiologist University of Texas School of Public Health 1981 to 1982 Houston, Texas Consultant, Infant Nutrition Center Baylor College of Medicine 1980 Houston, Texas Research Assistant, Human Ecology University of Texas School of Public Health 1978 to 1980 Houston, Texas Administrative Assistant, New England Enzyme Center Tufts University School of Medicine Massachusetts 1976 to 1978 Boston, Research Assistant, Biochemistry and Pharmacologj 1975 to 1976 Page 21 of21Tufts University School of Medicine Massachusetts Boston, Data Analyst Eunice Kennedy Shriver Center for Mental Retardation Massachusetts Boston, 1974 to 1976 Biochemical Technician, Clinical Genetics Childrens Hospital Massachusetts BCJSTON, 1973 to 1975 Research Assistant, Neurosurgery Massachusetts General Hospital Massachusetts 1971 to 1973 Boston, Field Education Assistant Supervisor Harvard University Divinity School Massachusetts 1970 to 1971 Cambridge, Chaplain Assistant Peter Bent Brigham Hospital Massachusetts 1969 to 1970 Boston, Draftsman Detailer Frigidaire Division, General Motors Corporation Ohio 1962 to 1964 Dayton, PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS Wohlleb, J.C., Anderson, A.A., Harvey, S.S., Cranford, C O Introducing an MPH in Arkansas. The Journal of the Arkansas Medical Society, October 2004. Wohlleb, J.C., Anderson, A.A., Jones, J., Harvey, S.S., Cranford, C O : Three approaches to education of public health professionals in Arkansas. American Public Health Association, San Francisco, November 17, 2003. I Wohlleb, J.C., Anderson, A.A., Harvey, S.S., Cranford, C.O.: Cross-boundary graduate education: Arkansas MPH program. American Public Health Association, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, November 12, 2002. Wohlleb, J.C. and Harvey, S.S.: Development of a Regional Master of Public Health Program in an AHEC Program, National AHEC Workshop, Little Rock, Arkansas, April 2002. Wohlleb, J.C.: History of the Arkansas-Volgograd Partnership. Second Russian-American Conference on Tuberculosis, Volgograd Medical Academy, November 2000. Cranford, C.O., Lewis, Y L., Wohlleb, J.C., Ward, H P.: Developing the interdisciplinary- education network. In: Catalysts in Interdisciplinary Education: Innovation by Academic Health Centers. D E Holmes and M. Osterweis, eds. Association of Academic Health Centers, Washington, DC, 1999. Wohlleb, J.C., Harvey, S.S., Cranford, CO, Anderson, A.A : The Master of Public Health Prouramfor Arkansas. The Journal of the Arkansas Medical Society 1997\n94: 155-159. Page 22 of 22Johnson, R. D., Howerton, D.L., Enger, J.M., Wohlleb, J.: Violence prevention: An evaluation of the Prothrow-Stith curriculum. AAAS, February 18, 1995, Atlanta. Elders, M.J., Barnes, A O., Wohlleb, J.C.: Adolescent health: Are we willing to pay the price for inaction? Policy Studies Re view 1994\n13. 177-186. Wohlleb, J., Truax, K., DeAngelis, S.: Primary prevention of oral disease in the Mississippi Delta. American Public Health Association, November 1, 1994, Washington, DC. Easterling, W., Leist, J., Wohlleb, J.: Implementing a statewide continuing education delivery system using the Area Health Education Center model. Alliance for Continuing Medical Education 19th Annual Meeting, February 3, 1994, San Diego Leist, J., and Wohlleb, J.: Effective information dissemination through Area Health Education Center networks. Alliance for Continuing Medical Education 19th Annual Meeting, February 2, 1994, San Diego. Acton, P.A., Farley, T., Freni, L.W., Ilegbodu, V.A., Sniezek, J.E., Wohlleb, J.C.: Traumatic spinal cord injury in Arkansas, 1980 to 1989. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1993\n74:1035-1040. Mattison, D.R., Wohlleb, J., To, T., Lamb, Y., Faitak, S., Brewster, M.A., Walls, R.C., Selevan, S.G.: Pes-ticide concentrations in Arkansas breast milk. Journal of Arkansas Medical Society 1992\n553-557. Wohlleb. J.C., Ricketts, T., Hawes, M.L., Siegel, C., Jenson, K., Herriage, E., Berry, D.: The role of rural hospitals in professional education. American Public Health Association, November 11, 1991, Atlanta. Wohlleb, J.C., Hunter, CF, Blass, B., Kadlubar, F.F., Chu, D.Z.J., Lang, N.P.\nAromatic amine acetyltransferase as a marker for colorectal cancer: Environmental and demographic associations. International Journal of Cancer 1990\n46. 22-30. I. li Thomasson, B., McCluer, S., Hickman, P., Wohlleb, J., Robinette, R. . Epidemiology of traumatic spinal cord injuries in Arkansas. American Public Health Association, October 24, 1989, Chicago. Wohlleb, J.C., Dennis, L., Cunningham, V.A., Eatmon, J.M., Lindburgh, S.: Healthy Beginnings: Prospective evaluation of an 11-county pilot intervention for maternal and infant health services in east Arkansas. American Public Health Association, November 16, 1988, Boston. l To, T., Mattison, D.R., Faitak, S.E., Wohlleb, J.C., Walls, R.C., Brewster, M.A., Selevan, S.G., Hom, R., Lamb, Y.: Arkansas breast milk pesticide concentrations following 1986 dairy product contamination with heptachlor. American Public Health Association, November 16, 1988, Boston. Stehr-Green, P.A., Burse, V W., Wohlleb, J.C.: Persistence of heptachlor in serum of people consuming contaminated dairy products. (Letter) Lancet 1988, 2: 570-571. Stehr-Green, P.A., Farrar, J.A., Burse, V.W., Royce, W.G., Wohlleb, J.C.: A survey of measured levels and dietary sources of selected organochlorine pesticide residues and metabolites in human sera from a rural population. American Journal of Public Health 1988, 78'. 828-830. I' Page 23 of 23Stehr-Green, P.A., Wohlleb, J.C., Royce, W., Head, S.L.: An evaluation of serum pesticide residue level and liver function in persons exposed to dairy products contaminated with heptachlor. Journal of the American Medical Association 1988\n259: 374-377. Wohlleb, J.C.: Heptachlor contamination in Arkansas. Heptachlor Workshop: Heptachlor Contamination of Breast Milk: Health and Scientific Issues. Ferndale, AR, March 25, 1987. Stehr-Green, P.A., Schilling, R.J., Burse, V.W., Steinburg, K.K., Royce, W., Wohlleb, J.C., Donnell, H.D.: Evaluation of persons exposed to dairy products contaminated with heptachlor. (Letter) Journal of the American Medical Association 1986\n256: 3350-3351. Foreyt, J.P., Reeves, R.S., Darnell, L.S., Wohlleb, J.C., Gotto, A.M.: Soup consumption as a behavioral weight loss strategy. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1986\n86: 524-526. Wohlleb, J.C.: Maternal supplementation and postnatal growth: A review. Archives Latino- americanos de Nutricion 1983\n33: 642-648. Wohlleb, J.C., Pollitt, E., Mueller, W.H., Bigelow, R.: The Bacon Chow study: Maternal supplementation and infant growth. Early Human Development, 1983\n9:19-9\\. Green, L.W., Mullen, P.D., Quillian, J., Gordon, R.A., Wohlleb, J.C., Benedict, M.E., Emerson, O.B., Martin, C.E.: Measuring patient drug information transfer: An assessment of the literature. Report prepared for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. University of Texas, Houston, TX, 1983. Reeves, R.S., Foreyt, J.P., Scott, L.W., Mitchell, R.E., Wohlleb, J.C., Gotto, AM.: Effects of a low cholesterol eating plan on plasm lipids: Results of a three-year community study. American Jourttal of Public Health 1983\n73: 873-877. Wohlleb, J.C., Pollitt, E., Mueller, W.H., Bigelow, R.: Maternal supplementation and postnatal growth. Presented at the XII International Congress of Nutrition, August 1981, San Diego. DeMark, W., Wohlleb, J.C., Smith, E.O., Garza, C.. Illness and growth in infants of two socioeconomic groups fed human or artificial milk. Baylor Infant Nutrition Research Institute, Houston, TX, 1981. Mueller, W.H., and Wohlleb, J.C.: Anatomical distribution of subcutaneous fat and its description by multivariate methods: How valid are principal components? American Journal of Physical Anthropology 1981\n54: 25-35. Wohlleb, J.C., and Razavi, L.: Dermatoglyphic laterality, sex chromosome mosaicism, and temporal-lobe epilepsy. In: Dermatoglyphics: An International Perspective,]. Mavalwala, editor. Mouton Publishers, The Hague, 1978. I' Latt, S.A., and Wohlleb, J.C.: Optical studies of the interaction of 33258 Hoechst with DNA, chromatin, and metaphase chromosomes. Chromosoma 1975\n52: 297-302. Razavi, L.M., Reed, T.J.E., Wohlleb, J C.: Descriptive Statistics of Fingerprintsfrom the Files on NYSIIS. Terminal Report, N.I.L.E. Project NI-71-128-G, 1973. Wohlleb, J.C.: Research on prisoners (Letter) New England Journal of Medicine \\973: 289 325. Page 24 of 24SELECTED GRANTS AND CONTRACTS The Master of Public Health Program. Assisi Foundation, Memphis, Tennessee, 2000- 2004. Scholarships for Master of Public Health Program from SHARE and Murphy Foundations, El Dorado, 1999-2001 (with Tulane University) Tuberculosis Project with Volgograd Medical Academy, to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 1999-2001, from Health Research, Inc., Albany, NY (grant from Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health). Arkansas-Volgograd Partnership\nTuberculosis Project, to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 1997-1999, from the American International Health Alliance (contract with US Agency of International Development). Scholarships for Arkansas Master of Public Health Program, Entergy Corporation, 1996- 1997. The Arkansas Master of Public Health Program, to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 1993-2002, from Tulane University Medical Center, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine. Projects in the Mississippi River Delta of four public health graduate students, to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 1992 and 1993, from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Training in HIV and AIDS, to the Delta Health Education Center, 1991-1993, from the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Delta Health Education and Training Center, to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 1990-1995, from US Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration (director for principals Joan Faubion and Charles Cranford). Injury Prevention Program, to the Arkansas Department of Health, 1988-1990, from the US Centers for Disease Control. Attitudes and knowledge about HIV-AIDS in Arkansas ascertained through random-digit dialing, 1988, National Center for Health Statistics. PROFESSIONAL SERVICE ACTIVITIES Instructor, College of Public Health, UAMS, 2002 to present Secretary, Academic Senate, UAMS, 2002 Co-chair, Human Research Advisory Committee for Behavioral Sciences, UAMS, 2002 to present Member, Advisory Board, Pastoral Care and Education Program, UAMS, 2001 to present Member, Human Research Advisory Committee, UAMS, 2000 to 2002 Page 25 of 25Member, Obesity Taskforce, Arkansas Department of Health, 2000 Representative, Institutional Advancement Officers Council, UAMS, 1998 to 2001 Coordinator, Tuberculosis Project, Volgograd Medical Academy, 1997 to 2001 Member, Arkansas State Commission on Child Abuse, Rape, and Domestic Violence and of Rape Committee and Victims of Crime Act Committee, 1996 to 1998 Coordinator of capstone projects. Master of Public Health Program for Arkansas, 1995 to 2003 Member, The U. S. Pharmacopeial Convention, Inc. Patient Education/Consumer Interest Advisory Panel, 1995 to 2000 Editor, UAMS Rural Health Progressive, 1993 to 1998 Administrator, Master of Public Health Program for Arkansas, 1993 to 2003 PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS American Public Health Association, 1978 to present Medical Care Section, Continuing Education Liaison, 2002 to present Arkansas Public Health Association, 1984 to present\nExecutive Committee, 2002 to present Association of Fundraising Professionals, 1995 to 2003 Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE), 1998 to 2002 History of Medicine Associates (Arkansas), 1996 to present\nExecutive Committee, 1999 to 2002 Medical Library Association, Government and Legislation Committee, 1994 to 2002 Medical Library Association South Central Region, 1994 to 2002\npast chair. Research Committee COMMUNITY MEMBERSHIPS Rebsamen Fund Board of Directors, 2003 to present Member, Arkansas Economic Developers, 2002 to present Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma, founding board member, 1998 to 2003 Planned Parenthood of Greater Arkansas, Board of Directors President, 1995 to 1997 American Red Cross Arkansas Chapter Blood Services Committee member, 1987 to 1991 Our House (homeless shelter) founding board member 1988 to 1990 Ozark Mission Project, United Methodist Church, steering committee 1986 to 1989 The Rotary Club of West Little Rock, 1985 to present\nPresident, 1998 to 1999 First United Methodist Church, Little Rock, 1984 to present Contemplative worship music committee chair, 2002 to present Stephen Minister, 2002 to present Missions committee, 1999 to present Representative to the Arkansas Area Russia Initiative, 1998 to present Child Development Center, Budget Committee, 1998 to 1999 Chancel Choir member and teacher, 1984 to present PERSONAL INFORMATION Birth date and place: May 3, 1946, Dayton, Ohio Married to Cynthia Jane Stabler, 1967 to 1977 Daughters Sara Wohlleb and Beth Adel, bom 1970 in Boston, Massachusetts Married to Mary Elizabeth Remmel, 1989 to present 1018 North Arthur, Little Rock, Arkansas 72207-6302 501/680-9244 (mobile), 501/686-2585 (facsimile), wohllebiamesc@aristotle net Interests: Tennis, religion, history, and travel Page 26 of 26F Vita Ed R. Williams, Ph.D. Little Rock School District Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-447-33861 Fax: 501-447-7609! ed.williams@lrsd.org Educational History 1. Doctor of Philosophy 1995 University of Arkansas - Fayetteville, Arkansas Specialty: Vocational Rehabilitation Research and Education 2. Master of Education 1992 University of Arkansas - Fayetteville, Arkansas Specialty: Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor. Deafness and Hard of Hearing 3. Bachelor of Arts 1972 Upper Iowa University - Fayette, Iowa Major: Political Science/Secondary Education Minor: Psychology Certifications Teachers License, #483665503, Social Studies, Grades 7-12, Valid through 12/31/2007 Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC), #P9702006, Valid through 7/1/2006 Certified Rehabilitation Counselor (CRC), #27328, Valid through 3/31/2007 Sign Communication Proficiency Interview (SCPI) rating of intermediate Current Employment Statistical Research Specialist: Little Rock School District, 1998 to present Analyze, interpret, and compile reports using test and other District data. Provide research support, statistical information and interpretation, and disaggregate data. More specifically, authored the evaluation design for the Districts English as a Second Language (ESL) Page 27 of 27 bF Compliance Plan and Charter School. Authored or co-authored the School Board approved evaluation agenda reports. Authored data analysis reports for the Districts Divisions of Curriculum \u0026amp; Instruction, School Services, and Student Assignment. Present workshops to a wide range of audiences on using test results and other data to improve instruction. Assist with various tests administered by the District. Use SPSS, ACCESS, EXCEL, and other specialized software to gather, analyze, and publish data. Implement the assigned portions of the Districts Compliance Remedy order. Previous Public Sector Employment Assistant Professor: University of Arkansas! Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (RTC-311 for Persons who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, 1997-1998 Conducted applied research to enhance employability for persons who are deaf, late deafened, or hard of hearing. Conducted training and dissemination activities to bring project results to key professional and consumer groups. Taught within the Universities graduate programs in rehabilitation counseling and independent living. Project Director: Successful Transition to Employment for Postsecondary Students with Disabilities (STEPS), University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALRl, 1994-1997 Provided career and personal counseling to students. Developed and taught a 4000/senior level career development class. Trained various state agency personal and UALR faculty/staff. Recruited and organized advisory councils. Supervised project marketing and publicity, collected and analyzed evaluation data using SPSS, presented at national and international conferences, and traveled the state to present at various consumer groups. Project Manager: Arkansas Children's Hospital, 1994 Established and maintained field sites for the project: Assessment of Rural Adolescent Alcohol Use. Coordinated: (a) collection dates\n(b) appointments to collect extent data\n(c) data entry\nand (d) data analysis. Consulted: (a) to maintain validity of project\nand (b) to determine predictor variables for project outcomes. Graduate Assistant: University of Arkansas, 1992-1994 Identified, established, and maintained field sites. Collected and analyzed data through developing statistical programs using SPSS. Wrote reports, journal articles and gave conference presentations. Research Associate: Transition Project, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1992-1994 Page 28 of 28Scheduled 112 parent and student interviews statewide. Collected data utilizing a face-to-face interview format. Interviewed parents and students on their perception about the transition process. Entered \u0026amp; analyzed data and wrote progress and final report of findings. Client Advocate: Client Assistance Program (CAP), Little Rock, Arkansas, 1992-1993 Assisted and advocated for individuals with disabilities in their relationships with projects, programs, and facilities providing services under the Rehabilitation Act. In addition, provided clients with information on available services and benefits under the Rehabilitation Act and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Peer Reviewed Grants Planning Dunbar-Hunter, 2004-2005 (2003). Arkansas Humanities Council and the National Endowment for the Humanities. $5,240.00 Mouth of the Cache (2003). Arkansas Heritage Commission. $4,900.00 French Migration into Arkansas (2001). Arkansas Heritage Commission. $1,770.00 Dye Workshop (2000). Arkansas Humanities Council and the National Endowment for the Humanities. $2,500.00 Cultures in Contact (1999). Arkansas Humanities Council and the Rockefeller Foundation. $2,000.00 Dean Shostak: Colonial Musician (1998). Arkansas Humanities Council and the National Endowment for the Humanities. $ 1,500.00 Individuals with Disabilities: Potential, Accommodation \u0026amp; Style (ID:PAS), (1997-2000). U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Postsecondary Education Programs for Individuals with Disabilities, Model Demonstration Projects to Improve the Delivery and Outcomes of Postsecondary Education for Individuals with Disabilities (CFDS No. 84.078C). $403,886.00 Music and Militia (1997). Arkansas Humanities Council and the National Endowment for the Humanities. $2,000.00 Peer Reviewed Publications Roessler, R., Shearin, A., \u0026amp; Williams, E. (2000). Three recommendations to improve transition planning in the lEP. Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 22(2), 31-36. Geyer, P. D. \u0026amp; Williams, E.R. (1999). The role of technical assistance centers in addressing employer concerns about accommodating workers who are deaf or hard of hearing. Labor Law Journal, 50(4), 280-288. Page 29 of 29Williams, E. R. (1998). Essential functions worksheet. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 22(2), 123-128. Williams, E. R. (1998). Developing awareness and sensitivity to communication barriers encountered by people who are deaf or hard of hearing. In S. Totten \u0026amp; C, Johnson (Eds ), Preparing middle level educators: Practicing what we preach. Williams, E. R. (1998). Personal Perspective - Disclosure of a disability during the job interview\nAvoidance of deviance. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 13(1), 75-76.. Williams, E. R., \u0026amp; Akridge, R. L. (1997). Test-retest reliability of the responsible assertion scale (RAS). Vocational Evaluation and Work Adjustment Bulletin, 30(2/3), 44. Williams, E. R. (1997). Work personality profile: Validation within the supported employment environment. Journal of Rehabilitation, 63(2), 26-30. Williams, E. R. (1996). Middle school teacher attitudes towards the placement of students with disabilities. Current Issues in Middle School Education, 5(2), 73-85. Williams, E. R., \u0026amp; Akridge, R. L. (1996). The Responsible Assertion Scale: Development and evaluation of psychometric qualities. Vocational Evaluation and Work Adiustment Bulletin, 29(1), 19-23. Andrew, J., Getch, Y., Bellini, J., \u0026amp; Williams, E. (1996). University support for doctoral education in rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation Education, 10(4), 319-330. Williams, E. R. (1995). Interpersonal problem-solving training: Job maintenance through acquisition of interpersonal problem-solving skills. International Association of Special Education\nEmpowering children with special needs (pp. 36-38). Whitewater, WI: University of Wisconsin-White water. Schriner, K. F., Bellini, J. L., \u0026amp; Williams, E. R. (1995). Implementing IDEA\nlEP meetings in demonstration and nondemonstration sites in a systems chance state. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 14(3). 36-42. Other Publications Boone, S., Watson, D., VanBiervliet, A., McGee, S., Lefebure, H., \u0026amp; Williams, E. (1998). Multimedia job accommodations curriculum for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing: Annual report one. (NIDRR Field Initiated Grant: H133G70104, 1997-2000). Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas RRTC for Persons who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. University of Arkansas Page 30 of 30I Williams, E. R., Tuttle, C, \u0026amp; Dahmen-Jones, D. (1997). STEPS: Equal employment opportunities for people with disabilities class 1CD1. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Williams, E. R. (1996). Validation of a work behavioral rating instrument for people receiving supported employment services (Doctoral dissertation. University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(03), A. Williams, E. R. (1996). How to use the Essential Functions Worksheet. Point of Departure, 2(2), 5. Williams, E. R. (1995). Postsecondary education options and services in the state of Arkansas. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas-Little Rock, Educational and Student Services. Williams, E. R. (1995). Resume assessment and training (RAT). Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas-Little Rock, Education and Student Services. Williams, E. R. (1994). Student evaluation of school-based transition activities. Fayetteville: Arkansas Research and Training Center in Vocational Rehabilitation. Teaching Activities Professor, Rehabilitation Education (RHAB) #5453, Psychological Aspects of Disability, University of Arkansas-Fayetteville, 1998 Adjunct Professor, Rehabilitation Education (RHAB) #5453, Psychological Aspects of Disability, University of Arkansas-Fayetteville, 1997 Adjunct Professor, Teacher Education (TCED) #7337, Life Adjustment for Persons with Severe Disabilities, University of Arkansas-Little Rock, 1997 Instructor, Personal Awareness (PEAW) #4124 Leadership Practicum: Equal Employment Opportunities for People with Disabilities, University of Arkansas-Little Rock, 1995-1997 Instructor, Personal Awareness (PEAW) #1200 First Year Experience, University of Arkansas- Little Rock, 1995-1997 Lecturer, PSYC #3320 Intro to Applied Psychology, and Teacher Education (TCED) #5300 Disability in Peoples Lives, University of Arkansas - Little Rock, 1995 Lecturer, Rehabilitation Education (RHAB) #5433 Medical Aspects of Disability, University of Arkansas, 1994-96 Page 31 of 31 liLecturer, RHAB #3493 Vocational Evaluation, Assessment \u0026amp; Placement, University of Arkansas, 1994-96 Lecturer, Curriculum and Development (CID) #3151 Survey of Exceptionality, University of Arkansas, 1993-1994 Presentations at International, National, and State Conferences Williams, E. R. (1998, July). Get that job: Tips for success in the job interview. Paper presented at the annual Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD), Las Vegas, NV. Williams, E. R. (1998, July). Critical thinking. Invited presentation. College ONE summer orientation program for students who are deaf. University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR. Williams, E. R. \u0026amp; Geyer, P. (1998, July). Who do you call? Ghostbusters! Addressing employer concerns about workplace accommodations. Paper presented at the biennial conference of the National Association of the Deaf (NAD), San Antonio, Texas. Watson, D., Anderson, G., Boone, S. Williams, E. R., \u0026amp; McGee, S. (1998, June). Success in the workplace for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Paper presented at the biennial International Convention of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf (AGB), Little Rock, AR. Geyer, P., \u0026amp; Williams, E. R. (1998, June). Using job-forecasting information when making career decisions. Paper presented at the biennial International Convention of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf (AGB), Little Rock, AR. Williams, E. R. (1998, May). The role of technical assistance centers in addressing employer concerns about accommodating workers who are deaf or hard of hearing. Invited presentation, Kentucky Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, Frankfort, KY. Williams, E. R., \u0026amp; Boone, S. (1997, November). ADA: An overview. Invited class lecture. Orientation to Deaftiess, University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Geyer, P. D., \u0026amp; Williams, E. R. (1997, September). Working in \"Hot Jobs\": A career strategy for adults with disabilities. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Rehabilitation Association (NRA), Tulsa, OK. Williams, E. R. (1996, July). To disclose or not to disclose.... Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD), New Orleans, LA. Page 32 of 32Williams, E. R. (1995, November\n1996, March, September, November). Leadership through chaos. Paper presented at a workshop sponsored by Disability Support Services at UALR on leadership training, Little Rock, AR. Williams, E. R. (1995, October\n1996, March, September). Improving your GPA by maximizing your learning strength. Paper presented at a workshop sponsored by Disability Support Services on learning styles. Little Rock, AR. Williams, E. R., Queller, S., Smelser, A., \u0026amp; Serebrini, R. (1995, October). Supporting students with disabilities in post secondary education. Paper presented at the Transition: Investment in the Future conference. Little Rock, AR. Williams, E. R. (1995, August). Assessing and enhancing the social problem solving skills of deaf adolescents. Paper presented at the fourth biennial conference of the International Association of Special Education, Brighton, England. Williams, E. R., Jones, C., McNamara, M., Koslowski, L., Bhattacharyya, A. (1995, June). Enhancing assertive behavior. Paper presented at the Foundation for Rehabilitation Counseling seminar on Counseling Skills that Facilitate Client Empowerment, Newport Beach, CA. Johnson, V. A., Williams, E. R., \u0026amp; Boone, S. E. (1993, June). Empowering people for interpersonal problem-solving. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Southwest Regional Rehabilitation Association (SRRA), Dallas, TX. Johnson, V. A., Williams, E. R., (1993, June). Get that job: Skills for success in the job interview. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Southwest Regional Rehabilitation Association (SRRA), Dallas, TX. Current Association Membership American Educational Research Association (AERA) Community Service Board member, Arkansas Urban Gardening Educational Resources, Inc., 2002 to present Assistant Scoutmaster, Arkansas School for the Deaf, 1991 to present President, Early Arkansas Reenactors Association, 2001 to present Member, Pulaski Enterprise Council, 1996 to present Volunteer, Dunbar Adult Gardeners, 1998 to present Page 33 of 33Previous Private Sector Employment Owner: Insty-Prints, Little Rock. Arkansas. 1988-1990 Sales calls, sales presentations, customer prospecting, delivery of merchandise and follow-up. Planned production schedules, trained all employees on counter sales techniques, use of all equipment, including desk top publishing and printing press. Ordered all supplies, completed all financial and tax reporting. Financial Planner: IDS Financial Services. Inc.. Little Rock. Arkansas. 1987 Prospected and interviewed clients. Developed financial plans to fit the needs and resources of clients. Developed sales presentations and closings. Responsible for all customer follow-up. Store Manager: K-Mart Corporation. Troy. Michigan. 1972-1986 Trained and supervised 100 employees. Bought merchandise for stores generating $11,000,000 in sales. Acquired expertise in federal and state employment laws. Enacted hiring and disciplinary actions. Conducted bi-annual evaluations of all employees, held weekly and daily organizational meetings. Planned all local sales promotions: (a) newspaper ads, (b) good news promotions and (c) local fund-raising events. Prepared sales, expense budgets and weekly cash audit Page 34 of 34B. Comprehensive Program Assessment Process Comprehensive Program Assessment Process (draft IL-R) Little Rock School District Evaluation Standards Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation Page 35 of 35PROGRAM EVALUATION AGENDA Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to provide guidance to the staff involved in the evaluation of programs required in the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda. They do not necessarily apply to grant-funded programs if the funding source requires other procedures and provides funding for a required evaluation. Criteria for Program Evaluations Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved in its Board-approved Program Evaluation Agenda will be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (See Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards, 2^ Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) Prospective, controlled, suimnative evaluations are at one end of a spectrum of activities that review District operations. Other activities in this continuum include formative and less formal and rigorous evaluations, regular and occasional assessments, and fast or brief snapshots. As rigor and formality diminish along the range of reviews, fewer standards apply. Examples of how the standards apply are found following table, adapted from The Program Evaluation Standards, pages 18 and 19\nChecklist for Applying the Standards The reader should interpret the information provided in this table with reference both to the Standards (cited above) and the peculiar circumstances of given program reviews. Double plus signs (++) indicate that standards are fully addressed. Single pluses (+) mean that the standard is a concern but not necessarily fully addressed, and zeros (0) point to standards not usually applicable. Not all summative evaluation will fully satisfy every standard, and other examples may observe more standards than indicated here. Note, however, that all reviews fully observe human rights and impartial reports. 1 Page 36 of 36Checklist of Evaluation Standards for Examples of Program Reviews ______________standard_______ Ul Stakeholder Identification_________ U2 Evaluator Credibility_____________ U3 Information Scope \u0026amp; Selection U4 Values Identification_____________ U5 Report Clarity _______________ U6 Report Timeliness \u0026amp; Dissemination U7 Evaluation Impact_______________ Fl Practical Procedures_____________ F2 Political Viability_______________ F3 Cost Effectiveness_______________ Pl Service Orientation______________ P2 Formal Agreements______________ P3 Rights of Human Subjects P4 Human Interaction_______________ P5 Complete \u0026amp; Fair Assessment______ P6 Disclosure of Findings___________ P7 Conflict of Interest______________ P8 Fiscal Responsibility_____________ Al Program Documentation_________ A2 Context Analysis_______________ A3 Described Purposes and Procedures A4 Defensible Information Sources AS Valid Information_______________ A6 Reliable Information____________ A7 Systematic Information__________ A8 Analysis of Quantitative Data A9 Analysis of Qualitative Data______ AIO Justified Conclusions___________ Al 1 Impartial Reporting_____________ A12 Meta-evaluation Summative evaluations -H- ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ Page 37 of 37 Informal Assessments -H- 0 + + + 0 + + + + (F + + ++ ++ + V Formative Evaluation Process (School Portfolios) ________0 ________+________ + ________+________ _______++_______ ________+________ ________+________ ________0 ________+________ ________+_______ ________0 ________++_______ ________0 ________+_______ +_______ -I- ________0 ________+_______ -H- + + + + 0 + + ++ \"o' Snapshots 0 0 + 4- + 0 -I- -l-l- 0 + + 0 0 + + \"o 0 + + + + + + +Program Evaluation Procedures The following procedures are established for the evaluation of programs approved by the Board of Education in its annual Program Evaluation Agenda: 1. The Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department will recommend to the Superintendent annually, before the budget for the coming year is proposed, the curriculum/instruction programs for comprehensive program evaluation. The recommendation will include a proposed budget, a description of other required resources, and an action plan for the completion of the reports. Criteria for the proposed agenda are as follows: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. A. Will the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program? B. Will the evaluation be done in time to be useful? C. Will the program be significant enough to merit evaluation? (See Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 5-7.) The Superintendent will recommend to the Board of Education for approval the proposed Program Evaluation Agendawith anticipated costs and an action plan for completion. For each curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated as per the Program Evaluation Agenda, the Director of PRE will establish a staff team with a designated leader to assume responsibility for the production of the report according to the timelines established in the action plan approved by the Board of Education. Each team will include, at a minimum, one or more specialists in the curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated, a statistician, a programmer to assist in data retrieval and disaggregation, and a technical writer. If additional expertise is required, then other staff may be added as necessary. An external consultant with expertise in program evaluation, the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical wnting will be retained as a member of the team. The role of the external consultant may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation. The team leader will establish a calendar of regularly scheduled meetings for the production of the program evaluation. The first meetings will be devoted to the following tasks: Page 38 of 38A. Provide any necessary training on program evaluation that may be required for novice members of the team, including a review of the Boards policy IL and ail of the required criteria and procedures in these regulations, IL-R. 7. B. C. D. E. F. G. Assess the expertise of each team member and make recommendations to the Director of PRE related to any additional assistance that may be required. Write a clear description of the curnculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question, Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students Generate a list of the data required to answer each research question, and assign responsibility for its collection and production. All available and relevant student performance data should be included. (See Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy.) Decide who will be the chief writer of the program evaluation. Plan ways to provide regular progress reports (e.g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to the Superintendents Cabinet) to stakeholders. (See Joellen Killion (2002). Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH. National Staff Development Council (NSDC)\nRobby Champion (Fall 2002). Map Out Evaluation Goals. Journal of Staff Development. 78-79\nThomas R. Guskey (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA\nCorwin Press\nBlaine R. Worthen, James R. Sanders, and Jody L. Fitzpatrick (1997). Participant-Oriented Evaluated Approaches. Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines\n153-169\nBeverly A. Parsons (20021. Evaluative Inquiry: Using Evaluation to Promote Student Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press\nand Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA\nJossey-Bass Publishers.) Subsequent meetings of the program evaluation team are required for the following tasks\nPage 39 of 39I to monitor the completion of assignments\nto collaborate in the interpretation and analysis of data, to pose any necessary new questions to be answered\nto review drafts and provide feedback to the writer\nto formulate recommendations, as required, for program improvement, especially to decide if a recommendation is required to modify or abandon the program if the findings reveal that the program is not being successful for the improvement of African-American achievement\nto assist in final proofreading\nand to write a brief executive summary, highlighting the program evaluation findings and recommendations. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. A near-final copy of the program evaluation must be submitted to the Director of PRE at least one month before the deadline for placing the report on the Boards agenda for review and approval. This time is required for final approval by staff, for final editing to ensure accuracy, and for submission to the Superintendent. When the program evaluation is approved for submission to the Board of Education for review and approval, copies of the Executive Summary and complete report must be made for them, for members of the Cabinet. The program evaluation team will plan its presentation to the Board of Education on the findings and recommendations. The Director of PRE will prepare the cover memorandum to the Board of Education, including all the required background information: A. If program modifications are suggested, the steps that the staff members have taken or will take to implement those modifications. If abandonment of the program is recommended, the steps that will be taken to replace the program with another with more potential for the improvement and remediation of Afiican-American students. B. Names of the administrators who were involved in the program evaluation. C. Name and qualifications of the external expert who served on the evaluation team. D. Grade-level descriptions of the teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth-grade math teachers, all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). When the program evaluation is approved by the Board of Education, the team must arrange to have the Executive Summary and the full report copied and design a plan for communicating the program evaluation findings and recommendations to other stakeholders. This plan must then be submitted to the Director of PRE for approval. Page 40 of 40 AT 13. Each program evaluation team will meet with the Director of PRE after the completion of its work to evaluate the processes and product and to make recommendations for future program evaluations. (See Joellen Killion (2002).  Evaluate the Evaluation. Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. 46,123-124.) I I Approved: [date] Page 41 of 41 fl Evaluation Standards Criteria for Program Evaluations Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved in its Board-approved Program Evaluation Agenda will be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (See Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation,Stand^ds. 2\nEdition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) They are as follows: )Dd Utility Standards The utility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will serve the information needs of intended users. These standards are as follows: Stakeholder identification. People involved in or affected by the evaluation should be identified so that their needs can be addressed. Evaluator credibility. The people conducting the evaluation should be both trustworthy and competent to perform the evaluation so that the evaluation findings achieve maximum credibility and acceptance. Information scope and sequence. Information collected should be broadly selected to address pertinent questions about the program and should be responsive to the needs and interests of clients and other specified stakeholders. Values identification. The perspectives, procedures, and rationale used to interpret the findings should be described carefully so that tiie bases for value judgments are clear. Report clarity. Evaluation reports should describe clearly the program being evaluated, including its context and the purposes, procedures, and findings of the evaluation, so that essential information is provided and understood easily. Report timeliness and dissemination. Significant interim findings and evaluation reports should be disseminated to intended users so that they can be used in a timely fashion. Evaluation impact. Evaluations should be planned, conducted, and reported in ways that encourage follow-through by stakeholders, so that the likelihood that the evaluation will be used is increased. Feasibility Standards Feasibility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal.  Practical procedures. Evaluation procedures should be practical so that the disruption is kept to a minimum while needed information is obtained.  Political viability. The evaluation should be planned and conducted with anticipation of the different positions of various interest groups so that their cooperation may be obtained and so that possible attempts by any of these groups to curtail evaluation operations or to bias or misapply the results can be averted or counteracted.  Cost-effectiveness. The evaluation should be efficient and produce infonnation of sufficient value so that the resources expended can be justified. Page 42 of 42Propriety Standards The propriety standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be conducted legally, ethically, and with due regard for the welfare of those involved in the evaluation, as well as those affected by its results.  Service orientation. Evaluations should be designed to assist organizations to address and effectively serve the needs of the full range of targeted participants.  Formal agreements. Obligations of the formal parties to an evaluation (what is to be done, how, by whom, and when) should be agreed to in writing so that these parties are obligated to adhere to all conditions of the agreement or to formally renegotiate it.  Rights of human subjects. Evaluations should respect human dignity and worth in their interactions with other people associated with an evaluation so that participants are not threatened or harmed.  Complete and fair assessments. The evaluation should be complete and fair in its examination and recording of strengths and weaknesses of the program being evaluated so that strengths can be built upon and problem areas addressed.  Disclosure of findings. The formal parties to an evaluation should ensure that the full set of evaluation findings, along with pertinent limitations, are made accessible to the people affected by the evaluation, as well as any others with expressed legal rights to receive the results.  Conflict of interest. Conflict of interest should be dealt with openly and honestly so that it does not compromise the evaluation processes and results.  Fiscal responsibility. The evaluators allocation and expenditure of resources should reflect sound accountability procedures and be prudent and ethically responsible so that expenditures are accounted for and appropriate. Accuracy Standards , Accuracy standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate information about the features that determine the worth of merit of the program being evaluated. Program documentation. The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately so that it programs is identified clearly. Context analysis. The context in which the program exists should be examined in enough detail so that its likely influences on the program can be identified. Described purposes and procedures. The purposes and procedure of the evaluation should be monitored and described in enough detail so that they can be identified and assessed. Defensible information sources. The sources of information used in a program evaluation should be described in enough detail so that the adequacy of the information can be assessed. or Valid information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the interpretation arrived at is valid for the intended use. Reliable information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or manner that will ensure that the developed and then implemented in a information obtained is sufficiently reliable for the intended use. Systematic information. The information collected, processed, and reported in an evaluation should be review systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Page 43 of 43Analysis of quantitative information. Quantitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of qualitative information. Qualitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Justified conclusions. The conclusions reached in an evaluation should be justified explicitly so that stakeholders can assess them. Impartial reporting. Reporting procedures should guard against distortion caused by personal feelings and biases of any party so the evaluation reports reflect the evaluation findings fairly. Metaevaluation. The evaluation itself should be evaluated formatively and summatively against these and other pertinent standards so that its conduct is appropriately guided, and on completion, stakeholders can closely examine its strengths and weaknesses. Page 44 of 44C. Outside consultants Commitment to LRSD evaluations by Dr. Ross Dr. Steven M. Ross curriculum vitae Dr. James S. Catterall curriculum vitae Page 45 of 45-THEUNiVEFStlYOF MEMPHIS Center tor Researct: in Ediicaticnal Policy A Tennessee Center of Excellence 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340 Office: 901.678.2310 Toll Free: 866.670.6147 Fax\n901.678.4257 www.memphis.edu/crep November 11, 2004 Dr, Karen DeJamette Director, PRE Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 77206 Dear Dr. DeJamette\nreviewed the document entitled, First Quarterly Progress Update, prepared with I have reviewed the document entitled, irsr i^uaneriy riugicss upuaiu, respect to the new Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion, June 30, 2004, add. 64-67). As an evaluation expert and past and present consultant to the Little Rock School District, I am satisfied with its content and endorse it as representing an accurate portrayal of accomplishments to date and a viable plan for addressing the requirements of the Remedy. 1 look forward to working with you, PRE, and other district leaders in completing the evaluation studies described in the document. Please feel free to contact me if any additional information is needed. Sincerely, Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. Faudree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy A Tennessee Board of Regents Institution An Equal Opportunity  Affmative Action University IBRIEF VITA Steven M. Ross 224 Eagle Spring Cove Cordova, TN 38018 PERSONAL DATA____________ Home: (901)755-6654 Office: (901)678-3413 E-Mail: smross@memphis.edu EDUCATION The Pennsylvania State University The Pennsylvania State University The Pennsylvania State University B.A. M.S. PhD. 1969 1972 1974 Undergraduate Major: Graduate Major: Psychology Educational Psychology ________________________PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS________ American Psychological Association American Educational Research Association Mid-South Educational Research Association Association for Educational Communications \u0026amp; Technology International Congress for School Effectiveness and School Improvement Fellow Member Member Member Member Instnjctor Continuing Education Instnjctor Psychology EXPERIENCE Evaluator Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor Senior Researcher Director Mitre Corporation Educational Psychology Educational Psychology Educational Psychology Center for Research in Educational Policy Center for Research in Educational Policy The Pennsylvania State University Lock Haven State College, Lock Haven, PA McLean, Virginia The University of Memphis The University of Memphis The University of Memphis The University of Memphis The University of Memphis COURSES RECENTLY TAUGHT Theories of Learning Individual Differences and Learning Educational Statistics Educational Research Computers in Education Thesis Writing Educational Assessment 1973-1974 Spring Semester 1974 Summer, 1974 1974-1979 1980-1985 1985 - Present 1995-2001 2001 - Present Undergraduate Graduate Undergraduate and Graduate Graduate Undergraduate and Graduate Graduate Graduate________ HONORS AND DISTINCTIONS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. NDEA Fellowship for graduate study at the Pennsylvania State University, 1971-1973. Graduate Student Associate, Southwest Regional Laboratory, Summer, 1971. Distinguished Teaching Service Award, University of Memphis, 1980. Phi Delta Kappa Professional Research Award, Memphis Chapter, 1983. Elected Fellow, Division 15, American Psychological Association, 1986. Visiting Scholar. National Center for Research on Improving Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. University of Michigan, Summer 1987. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1987. Page 46 of 46r i 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Distinguished Teacher Service Award, University of Memphis, 1988. (First eligibility since 1980\nno longer eligible) Memphis State University nominee, CASE Professor of the Year Award, 1989 Superior Performance in University Research (SPUR) Award, University of Memphis, 1990, 1991, 1992 Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1993. Board of Visitors Eminent Faculty Award, University of Memphis (first recipient), 1993 Editor, Educational Technology Research and Development, 1993-present Editorial Board, Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk. 1995-present Editorial Board, Computers and Human Behavior, 1994-present Invited testimony, U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and Families, Committee on Education and the Workforce, June 26, 1998. ___ _ 17. Invited panelist on comprehensive school reform, discussion with Secretary of Education Richard Riley, 18. 19. March 16. 1999. Lillian and Morrie Moss Chair of Excellence in Urban Education, 2001 Provosts Professorship, 2004-2005, The University of Memphis SCHOLARSHIP Publications in Refereed Journals Books Book Chapters Papers Presented at Professional Meetings 122 7 28 224 SELECTED RECENT PUBLICATIONS Ross, S. M., \u0026amp; Smith, L. J. (1998). Improving school achievement and inter-group relations for children placed at risk. European Journal of Intercultural education, 9(2), 141-154. Smith, L. J., Ross, S. M., McNelis, M, Squires, M., and others (1998), The Memphis restructuring initiative. Analysis of activities and outcomes that impact implementation success. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 296-325. Stringfield, S., \u0026amp; Snively, F. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring in multicultural multilingual Datnow, A., Ross, S., , --------=-r-------------- - oazox -nc qkv contexts: Early observations from Sunland County. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 326-357. Ross S. M., Smith, L. J., \u0026amp; Casey, J. P. (1999). \"Bridging the gap\": The effects of the Success For All Program on elementary school reading achievement as a function of student ethnicity and ability level. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10(2), 129-150. Momson, G. R., Ross, S. M., \u0026amp; Kemp, J. E. (2000). Designing effective instruction (3*^ ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan College Publishing. Ross S M Alberg, M., Smith. L., Anderson, R., Bol, L., Dietrich, A., Lowther, D., \u0026amp; Phillipsen, L. I xwww,  O _ _____I____*rUA KAAmrkhie eff\u0026gt;kr\\/ 9f VAar (2000). Using whole-school restructuring to improve Teaching and Change. 7(2), 111-126. 1 I, r\\., UWI, W., IWI   I  - I  educational outcomes: The Memphis story at year 3. Ross, S. M., \u0026amp; Seidel, S. (2000). The introduction to the NEA Teacher Education Initiative. Teachirig and Change, 8, 5-9. Nath LR \u0026amp; Ross S.M. (2001). The influence of a peer tutoring training model for implementing cooperative groupings with elementary students. Educational Technology, Research and Developmerit, (2), 41-56. Ross S M , Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., Stringfield, S., Wang, L. W., \u0026amp; Alberg, M^September 2001). Two- and three-year achievement results from the Memphis Restructuring Initiative. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 12, 323-346. Page 47 of 47 iBol, L., Nunnery. J., Ross S.M. \u0026amp; Alberg, M. (2002). A comparison of Teachers assessment practices in school restructuring^ ' . n i_ z_..1. DIxLz t A\\ models by year of implementation. Journal of Educational Research for Students Placed at RJsk, 7(4), 407- 423. Reynolds, A., Ross, S.M., Rakow, J.H. (2002). Teacher retention, teaching effectiveness, and professional preparation: A comparison of professional development school and non-professional development school graduates. Teaching and Teacher Education. 18, 289-303. Ross, S. M. (2002) (2002). Developing Capacity for Scaling-Up Comprehensive School Reform Models: Aggregate Results for Provider Teams Receiving Capacity-Building Grants (Prepared for OERI). Memphis, TN: The University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy. Ross, S. M. \u0026amp; Hom, R. A. (2002). Introductory Statistics: An Individualized Approach Third Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing. Ross S. M. \u0026amp; Lowther, D. L. (2003). Impacts of the Co-nect school reform design on classroom instruction, school climate, and student achievement in inner-city schools. Journal for Educational Research on Students Placed at Risk, 8(3), 215-246. Ross, S.M Ross, S.M., Stringfield, S., Sanders, W.L., \u0026amp; Wright, S.P. (2003). Inside systemic Elementary school reform: Teacher effects and teacher mobility. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14(1), 73-110. Ross, S. M. \u0026amp; Morrison, G.R. (2003). Experimental research methods. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Education Communications and Technology, 2 Ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ross, S.M., Stringfield, S., Sanders, W.L., \u0026amp; Wright, S.P. (in press). Fourth-year achievement results in the Tennessee value-added assessment system in restructuring schools in an inner-city district. Education Administration Quarterlv. Lowther, D. L., \u0026amp; Ross, S. M. (2003). When each one has one: The influences on teaching strategies and student achievement of using laptops in the classroom. Educational Technology Research and. Development, 51(3), 23-44. Monison, G. R., Ross, S, M., \u0026amp; Kemp, J. E. (2004). Designing Effective Instruction 4*^ Edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley \u0026amp; Sons. Ross, S. M., Nunnery J. A., Goldfeder, E., McDonald, A., Rachor, R., Hornbeck, M., \u0026amp; Fleischman, S. (2004). Using school reform models to improve reading achievement: A longitudinal study of Direct Instruction and Success For All in an urban district. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 9 (4), 357-388. Ross, S. M., Morrison, G., \u0026amp; Lowther, D. L. (in press). Using experimental methods in higher education research. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. McDonald, A.J., Sterbinsky A., Lowther, D., Ross, S.M., Redfield, D., Apodaca, M., \u0026amp; Martelli, S. (in press). Demonstrating comprehensive school reform. A review of two longitudinal studies. The International Journal of Educational Policy, Research and Practice, 4 (4). Ross S.M. \u0026amp; Gil L. (2004) The past and future of comprehensive school reform: Perspectives r\\Ud5, O.IVl., w VII, J I  iw  - --  , from a researcher and practitioner in Christopher T. Cross (Ed.). Putting the Pieces Together, Lessons from CSR Research (pp. 151-174). Washington, DC: NCCSR. -----------------------------------------------------------SUMMARY OF INTERESTS ten years, I ------------------------------- During the past have worked extensively with school districts, both regionally and locally, to develop and Page 48 of 48 I* evaluate programs for improving student achievement. The primary focus of these studies has been schools predominantly serving disadvantaged inner-city minority children. Currently, I am working on the formative and summative evaluation of Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) projects at schools in various states. Additional ongoing research projects are studies of school restructuring designs as they are implemented in Memphis City Schools and other school districts and of professional development schools in seven national sites as part of the NEA Teacher Education Initiative (NEA-TEI). Page 49 of 49 INAME: Catterall CURRICULUM VITAE James S. ADDRESS: 1840 Deerhill Trail Topanga Canyon, CA 90290 (310) 455-2720 University of California Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies Los Angeles, CA 90024 (310) 825-5572\n825-0267 EDUCATION: Ph.D. Educational Policy Analysis/Finance Stanford University, 1982 M.A. Public Policy Analysis University of Minnesota Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, 1973 A.B. Economics (with honors) Princeton University, 1970 EMPLOYMENT: UCLA Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies 1995 to present: Professor of Education (appointed Assistant Professor in 1981) 1996-97 1995- Elected Chair of the Faculty Associate Editor, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, a journal of the American Educational Research Association. 1993-97 Assistant Dean 1 Program leadership and development responsibilities include: Chair, National Technical Advisory Panel for Accountability and Assessment Kentucky State Legislative Research Commission, 1998 to present. This panel advises the KY legislature. State Board of Education, and State Commissioner of Education on the design and technical quality of Kentucky's multi-faceted annual student testing and assessment system. I Appointed member. State of California Public School Assessment Advisory Committee. Also Member of the PSAA Technical Design Group, 2003 to present. UCLA Principals' Leadership Institute. Core faculty member in assessment and statistics for school leaders. Head, Division of Administration, Curriculum and Teaching Studies (1988- 90\n1992-94) 1989 -1991 Elected Chair of the Faculty Page 50 of 50II 1978 to 1980 Courses taught: Organizational Theory and Leadership Policy Analysis in Education\nPolitics of Education Educational Planning and Change Research and statistics for School Leaders Evaluation of Teaching and Learning\nDirector, Center for the Study of Educational Policy, Palo Alto, California. Editor, The School Choice Forum. 1977 to 1980 Institute Fellow, Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance, Stanford University. Ford Foundation Fellow in School Finance, Stanford University. Research and Teaching Assistant, School of Education, Stanford University. Three years teaching economics of education\ntwo years teaching school finance seminar. 1976 to 1977 1973 to 1976 Instructor of mathemabcs, Oregon Episcopal School, Portland, Oregon (1/2 time). Consultant and writer, Oregon state school finance reform project, Salem, Oregon (with Prof. Larry Pierce, Department of Political Science, Univ, of Oregon (1 / 2 time). Principal and Assistant Director, Summer Programs\ninstructor of mathematics (7 through Calculus AB), economics and sociology\nvarsity tennis and girls' basketball coach\nhousemaster. Shattuck School, Faribault, Minnesota. 1972 to 1973 1972 Chief Committee Consultant, Taxation. State of Minnesota House of Representatives, St. Paul, Minnesota. Researcher and writer. State of Minnesota Tax Study Commission. 1970 to 1971 Program Officer, Budget and Fiscal Planning, New Jersey State Department of Higher Education. Page 51 of 51PUBLICATIONS: BOOKS AND MONOGRAPHS \"The Arts and Learning\nNew Opportunihes for Research.\" Washington, DC\nAmerican Educational Research Association / Arts Education Partnership (2004), \"Critical Links: The Arts and Academic and Social Development.\" Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership, National Endowment for the Arts. (2003) \"Champions of Change: The Impact of the Arts on Human Development.\" Washington, DC: The National Endowme. nt for thce, Arts, the 5M acArthur Foundmatioonn,F tFheim GdE Fanudn dfh, pa nAdr ttqh eE Adurtcsa Etiodnucation \"The Partnership, 1999 Kentucky Instructional Results Information System: A Technical Review.\" With W. Mehrens, J. Ryan, G. Flores, and P. Rubin. Frankfort, KY: KY Legislative Research Commission, January 1998. \"An Assessment of Student Content Knowledge in Urban Environmental Issues.\" Lm Angeles, CA: Tree SSSlllCllK VI -------O~ --------------------- , , 1 I*, I A 1100'7 People, Inc. / County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works. April IW/. \"Assessment of the Oak Hill School Curriculum.\" Eugene OR\nOak Hill School. 1996. \"Different Ways of Knowing, Report of the Three-year National Longitudinal Study.\" Los Angeles, CA: The Galef Institute (1995). \"Different Ways of Knowing. 1990-91 Field Test.\" Summary Report of Program Effects on Teachers and Students. Los Angeles, CA: The Galef Institute (1991). \"Discovering What Schools Really Teach. Designing Improved Coursework Indicators/ (With L. .  \u0026lt;r- y-s_______ aL_____ 1 Carba Monica CAl' TnpRAND 11 V V I lal i-zCI IVV13 iwtti ly j v i. a .q ....p  - Mr\u0026gt; McDonnell, L. Burstein, T. Ormseth, and David Moody). Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation, 1990. \"Reducing the High School Dropout Rate in California.\" (With David Stern, Charlotte Alhadeft iand Maureen Ash.) (Berkeley, CA: Institute for Governmental Studies, University of California) 1986 (Research Monograph, 120 pp.). \"Economic Evaluation of Public Programs.\" (Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985. \"Education Vouchers.\" Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation (Fastback Series), 1984. \"Tuition Tax Credits: Fact and Fiction.\" Bloomington, Indiana\nPhi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation (Fastback Series), 1983. -resting in the Nations Schools and Districts\nHow Much? What Kind? To What Ends? At What C^ts?\" (With James Burry, Bruce Choppin, and Donald Dorr-Bremme.) Los Angeles, CA. Center for the Study of Evaluation Report No. 94,1982. 'The Linkages Between Policy and Planning: An Exploratory Study\" Anaheim, CA: Orange County Department of Education, 1982. PUBLISHED POLICY ANALYSES \"Activities to 1P -l-a-n-- -a--n--d- I-m---p-l-e--m---e--n--t -t-h e Re.p or_ting of School Dropout and Retention Indicators.\" Report to the United States Congress, PL 110-297, April 1989. \"Los Angeles Schools and Tomorrow's Workforce\" Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles 21X10,1988. \"Social Capital and the Improvement of Instruction.' Administration and Leadership. 1988. .\" California Commission on Public School Page 52 of 52 I \"School Reforms and School Dropouts in California: Tracking the Linkages California State Department of Education, 1988. \"An Assessment of Audience Needs for School Reform Assessment Information.' United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1988. \"School Dropouts: Policy Prospects.\" Report for the Policy and Planning Center, Appalachia Educational Laboratory, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, United States Department ot Education, 1986. \"Dropping Out of School in the North Central Region of the United States: The Dimensions of The Problem -P , . ! ____inoo n.Ji/n, C'ontral R (Xxinnal F.o VlCStlonsl Based on Available Evidence,\" 1988. Policy Report, North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. \"Dropping Out of School in the North Central Region of the United States: The Costs and Consequences of  * P. . . r_____I. Krx^..i-u Dzat-rmnal PH 11 rafifina1 1 .annratorv. School Leaving,\" 1988. Policy Report North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. \"School Dropouts: Policy Prospects.\" Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory. \"Testing and Excellence in Education: Some Questions About Costs and Benefits.\" (With D L. Baker and ]. L. Herman.) Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation. CSE Report 288,1984. -The Costs of Instructional Information Systems.\" UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation, Evaluation Systems Project Report, 1982. \"Proposition 13: The Campaign, the Vote, and the Immediate After-effects for California Schools,\" with Thomas Thresher, Stanford University, Institute for Research on Educational Finance and -Tuition Governance (IFG) Program Report 79-D5, March 1979. Tax Credits for Schools: A Federal Priority for the 1980's,\" IFG Policy Perspective Stanford University, spring 1981. \"Schools in the Aftermath of Proposition 13: Perspectives, Prospects, and the Impertinence of the School in ine/Miei iiidiii VI 1 I vipvoitiMii xw. a --------- , , , m-ro Voucher Pundits,\" Center for the Study of Educahonal Policy, Program Report, February 1979. \"Passing the Baton at the State Department of Education.\" Education, W, winter 1983. Los Angeles, UCLA Graduate School of Education. SELECTED ARTICLES 'The Costs and Benefits of Large-scale Assessment.\" journal of Education Finance, winter 1989. \"Still Up and Running After All These Years: From Practice to Theory on Sustaining Funded School *  .. I . __ -inna Programs.\" Chicago Policy Review, Winter 2003. Involvement in the Arts and Human Development: General Involvement and Intensive Involvement^in Music and the Theatre Arts.^' Fairfield, CT: The GE Fund and the MacArthur Foundation, The Arts and Learning: Champions of Change Research Reports, 1999. Also forthcoming, Washington, DC: Americans for the Arts Monograph series, fall 1999. The Chicago Arts Partnerships in Education: Summary' of 1993 to 1999 Evaluations? With Lynn A. caRO Aris rdruieisiiivs in i-uueaiivM.. * - . ' , Waldorf. Fairfield, CT: The GE Fund and the MacArthur Foundation, Champions ot Change Research Reports, 1999. \"Does Experience in the Arts 1998. Boost Academic Achievement? A Response to Eisner.\" Art Education, July \"Involvement in the Arts and Success in Secondary School.\" Washington D. C.: Americans for the Arts. Monograph Series V. 1, No. 9, January 1998. \"Risk and Resilience in Student Transitions to High School.\" American lournal of Education, 106/2 (February, 1998), 302-333. Page 53 of 53\"Where excellence and prep^edness meet: Increased course at^r^k students.\" (With n.:\n\"rM^yv7he High School loumab 80/2 (December/January 1997). \"The Emergence of Private Postsecondary Education in the Former Sovi^st Republic of Azerbaijan.\" (with _ . 1 . X i-.i__rAii/'ni-inn S iQMn. .S-b. Raymond McGhee Jr.). International Higher Education, 5,1996, 3-5. \"Making Drama Special: Developing Drama Practice to Meet Special Education Needs.\" (Review Essay). t .r r____I. T^lia/i/ra fi W/1nr/]hf^n - vol. 1(1). 1 TzO. With Sherry Kerr. Research on Drama and Theatre in Education, Vol. IH). 1996. \"Cognition, Community, a. Theater in Education: ' and Assessment\nToward Integrated Inquiry on Drama in Education.\" Drama and ' Contrary Research, John SomeA, Ed., North York, ON, Canada: Captus University Publications, 1996,147-158. and the Arts: A National Endowment for the Arts. \"The Fourth R: The Arts and Learning\" (with Jaye T. Darby). Teachers College Record, 96(2), 1994. \"Marketplace Education Revisited.\" Business and Economic Review, 40(2), Jan-Mar 1994,11-16. \"Theory and Practice of Family Choice m Education: Taking Stock.\" Economics of Education Review 10(2), 1992. \"A Reform Cooled Out: Tests Required for High School Graduation.\" The High School |oum.ab 75(1), 1991 (November). \"Los Angeles Schools and Tomorrow's Work Force.\" Education, 5(5), winter 1990,18-20. \"School Dropouts: Hero Today, Here Tomorrow.\" UCLA |oumal ofEducahon, 4(1), spring 1990. \"Estimates the Costs and Benefits of Large Scale Assessments: Lessons from Recent Research.\" loumalof Educational Finance, 16(1), summer 1990,1-20. \"Standards and School Dropouts: A National Study fjests Required for High School Graduation.\" American lournal of Education, 98(1), November 1989,1-34. \"Contemporary Reforms and the Equality of Educational Opportunity.\" 1 ICl,A lournal of Education, 3(2), spring 1989, 27-36. With and Without High School Diplomas.\" (With D. Stem, I. Paik, \"Labor Market Experience of Teenagers \" a V i Economics of Education Review, 8(3), 1989,233-246. \"A Group Counseling Dropout Prevention Intervention: Some Cauhons on L .. . . t . A_________r* J.,Pocoarrh Intimal. z4(4l lyo? High Schools.\" American Educational Research lournal, 24(4), 1987, 521-540. Isolating Adolescents Within \"A Process Model of Dropping Out of School: Implications for Research, Policy, and Practice.\" The Urb^ Educator, 8(2), Spring/Summer 1987,23-38. \"On The Social Costs of Dropping Out of School.\" 19-30. The High School lournal, 71(1), October-November 1987, 'The Supplv and Demand for Private Education: Raking tte impact of Tuition Tax Credits\" (Review Essay), lournal of Education Finance, fall 1987, 205-215. \"School Completion Indicators for Education Monitoring Systems: The Long Road to Satisfactory School bcnooi statistics.\" The Urban Educator, 8(2), Spnng/Summer 1987, 23-38. \"Vocational Potential.\" (Review Essay) Science, 2(6), 10 April 1987. \"The Effect of Alternative School Programs on (With David Stem.) uul P. on High School Completion and Labor Market Outcomes.\" F.ducational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 8(1), spring 198b. Page 54 of 54\"America's Presbge Schools: Boot camps for Upper class Survivalists or Academic Citadels?\" Review of Educabon 12(3), 1986. \"Proposition 13: Effects on High School Curricula, 1978-1983.\" American lournal of Education, 93(3), May 1985. \"Polibes and Aid to Private Schools.\" Educabonal Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 6(4), winter 1985, 435- 440. \"Notes on the New Politics of Education.\" (With Milbrey W. McLaughlin.) Education and Urban Society, 16(3), May 1984. \"Assessing the Economic Outcomes of Vocational Education.\" Studies in Educational Evaluabon, 10,1984. \"Public and Private SchcKils: Evidence on Tuibon Tax Credits.\" (With Henry Levin.) Sociology of Educabon, 55, April/July, 1982. Kappan Special Report, \"Some Hypotheses on Voucher Plan's Failure to Attract Support from Interest Groups.\" (With Michael W. Kirst.) Phi Delta Kappan, May 1980. \"Here Comes the Voucher-A Trojan Horse?\" California School Boards, March 1979. \"Perspeebve: A Year on the Finance Treadmill.\" California School Boards, March 1979. BOOK CHAPTERS \"Cost Benefit Analysis and Faculty Productivity in Engineering, Science, and Mathematics teaching.\" Chapter in book Assessing Productivity in Higher Education based on ongoing work with Worcester Polytechnic Institute (MA) studying reforms of teaching in introductory engineering classes using group projects, peer mentoring, technology, and reduced use of faculty lecturing. Additional contributors include William Massey and Henry M. Levin (1998). \"California Education Policy for the 21st Century: Betting Heavily on Reduced Class Size.\" (with Marilyn Korostoff, Ed. D.). Chapter in California Policy Options, 1997. Los Angeles, CA\nCalifornia Business Forecast and the UCLA Anderson School of Management. (1997) \"Competency, Certificabon, and Authentic Assessments.\" (With Lynn Winters.) Chapter in H. J. Walberg and W. Steven Barnett (Eds.) Advances in Educabonal Productivity/Cost Analysis for Education Decisions: Methods and Examples. Greenwich, CT\nJAI Press, Inc., 1994. \"The Promise and Prospects of Keeping Students in School.\" (With David Stem). Chapter in J. Simon and D Stipek (Eds.), Exit Age. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991. \"The Educabonally At-Risk Children: Demographics, Consequences, and Policy Prospects.\" (With E, Cota Robles.) Chapter in Henry M. Levin and Robert Polkinghorn (Eds.), Accelerating the Education of At-Risk Students, 1993, Rockefeller Foundation. 'Tomorrow's Workforce: Over Credentialed and Underprepared?\" Chapter in Can California Be Competitive and Caring? Daniel Mitchell and Jane Wildhorn (Eds.), Monograph and Research Series 49, pp. 181-217. UCLA Institute of Industrial Relations, 1989. 'The Politics of Education Reform.\" (With Harry Handler.) Chapter in: From the Campus: Perspectives on the School Reform Movement, S. Cohen and L. Solmon (Eds.), New York: Praeger, 1989, pp. 188- 201. 'Tuition Tax Credits and Issues of Equity.\" Chapter in Public Dollars for Private Schools: The Case of Tuition Tax Credits, Temple University Press, T. James and H. Levin (Eds.), 1983. \"Resource Indicators for Mathematics and Science Indicator Systems\" Indicators for Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation, 1988. \"School Completion and Dropout Measures for Mathematics and Science Indicator Systems.\" Indicators for Mathemabcs, Science, and Technology Education. Santa Monica, CA\nThe RAND Corporation, 1988. Page 55 of 55\"Private School Participation and Public Policy.\" Chapter in Comparing Public and Private Schools, 1. T. James and H. Levin (Eds.), Falmer Press, 1988. \"A Theoretical Model for Examining the Costs of Testing.\" Chapter in Costs of Evaluation, Marvin C. Alkin (Ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1984. \"Fundamental Issues in the Costing of Testing Programs.\" Chapter in Costs of Evaluation, Marvin C. Alkin (Ed.), Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 98. CONSULTANC1E5/ADV15ORY APPOINTMENTS: Expert Witness in judicial cases: Liberties Union vs. CA Secretary of State (Prop. 187,1998). Separation of Church and State vs. State of Iowa (1986). Westminster Christian Academy, CA (1990). American Civil Americans for the vs. Kwak vs. Whillock et al. (San Diego, CA), 2001-2001. Board of Advisors, Performing Tree of Los Angeles. 1999-2004. Board of Advisors, Sage Hill School, Newport Beach, CA 1998- Board of Trustees, Wildwood School, Santa Monica, 1988-91. Lead Designer and Advisory Board Head, Riverside (CA) School of the Performing and Media Arts. 1997- Research Advisor, Davis Foundation Program for the Improvement of Teaching in Engineering and the Applied Sciences, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA. 19%- Member, Advisory Board, The Charter School of Education, California State University at Los Angeles, Alan Mori, Dean, (1997-). Member, Advisory Board: RAND Corporation \"Arts and Public Safety Project,\" Sally Ann Law and David Mac Arthur, Principal Investigators (1997-). Advisor to Project Marte - NASA/JPL collaboration with LA Artist George Yepes and the Lennox CA Schools to create a mural for permanent installation at JPL to commemorate the Pathfinder Project. Evaluation of student science learning. Chair, Research Advisory Board, Annenberg Trust/ Galef Institute National Initiative for the Arts and Learning, $10 million, 1996-2000. Galef Institute, Los Angeles, Senior Advisor. Founding Member, Los Angeles Learning Centers Design Team, New American Schools Development Corporation. Principal Consultant on Education, Los Angeles 2000 Committee, The 2000 Partnership. Consulting writer for California State School Superintendents Wilson Riles and Bill Honig. Consulting writer for U.S. Secretary of Education, Lauro Cavasos (1989). Chair, Final Review Panel, United States Secretary of Education's Field Initiated Studies Program, 1987. Member, U.S. Department of Education Task Force, Educational Data Improvement Project, 1987-88. Page .56 of 56I Appointed Member, Task Force on Instructional Improvement: Panel advising California State School Superintendent Bill Honig on the development of the School Accountability Report Card mandated by Proposition 98, Fall 1988. The RAND Corporation. Consultant under long term contract. Participant in the Design of Education Quality Indicator Prototype Systems. Manuscript reviewer. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Consulting economist on Children at Risk in the Midwest. Technical Assistance Development Systems. Design of cost analysis components of research studies (in support of federally funded early education programs). Wildwood School (Santa Monica, CA). Consultant to the Board of Directors on board policy and practice, evaluation of the school head, and school evaluation. Oak Hill School (Eugene, OR). Consultant to the Board on school curriculum and organization (1996). American Educational Research Association. Louisiana State Department of Education\nFlorida Educational Research Association. Training of evaluators in economic analysis. CIVIC AND VOLUNTEER ACTIVITIES: Member, Board of Trustees, Wildwood School, Santa Monica, CA, 1987-90. Head, Strategic Planning Committee. Member, Board of Trustees, The Keys School, Palo Alto, CA, 1979-81. Music in the Schools: Demonstration and performance in local elementary schools with my daughter (cello and violin). Charter member. The Topanga (CA) Symphony (1982-present)\nmember. The Topanga Brass (1988-present). HONORS: I 2003 2000 1988 1987 1977-81 1977-78 1971 California Arts Council Award, \"Outstanding Arts Educator of the Year. (One of 15 recipients across the State of California.) Named a \"Kentucky Colonel\" by Governor Paul Patton, State of Kentucky (the highest award for public service Kentucky awards for non-citizens involved in Kentucky public affairs. Named as one of the Los Angeles Times \"88 for '88,\" Civic Achievement Award. One of two recipients in the field of higher education. The Susan and Mark Greenfield Award for Applied Research Learning and Achievement. Awarded annually to the UCLA faculty member whose work is judged to have had the most significant influence on educational policy or practice. Ford Foundation Fellow in School Finance, Stanford University School of Education. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare fellow, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota. Omicron Delta Epsilon (national economics honor society). Princeton University. PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES: American Educational Research Association Learning and Human Development Division Arts and Learning Special Interest Group Page 57 of 57i Neuroscience and Learning Special Interest Group American Educational Finance Association ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Birth date: February 20,1948 Family Married to Rebecca Catterall. Children: Lisa, 1973\nHannah, 1984\nand Grady, 1987. Recreational Interests: music (cello, guitar, bass, baritone horn), cooking, cartooning. Tennis, sailing. Page 58 of 58\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_1140","title":"Little Rock School District Compliance Report","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":["2004-03-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Compliance Report"],"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/1140"],"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":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["72 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nIN' THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERIN\"E KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED MAR 1 : 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAIN'TIFF DEFENDANTS IN'TER VENO RS IN'TER VENO RS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLIANCE REPORT Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Compliance Report states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception of Revised Plan  2. 7.1. The Court's Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan 2.7.1. 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD 's Board of Directors (\"Board\") adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD filed the Compliance Plan with the Court on March 14, 2003, as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy. 3. Joshua initially raised concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. The LRSD addressed these concerns in an October 25, 2002 letter to counsel for Joshua, attached hereto Page 1 of 6 as Exhibit A. Joshua invoked the \"Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set for in Revised Plan  8.2, and the Joshua and the LRSD met with Ms. Ann Marshall to facilitate an agreement. The last meeting was February 28, 2003. At that meeting, the LRSD agreed to provide Joshua several documents. The last of these was mailed to Joshua on March 6, 2003. The parties never reached any agreement related to Joshua's concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. Joshua waived any objections to the Board-approved Compliance Plan by failing to present them to the Court as required by Paragraph \"D\" of the Compliance Remedy. 4. The Board-approved Compliance Plan interpreted Paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Compliance Remedy as requiring the LRSD to: (1) continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\n(2) develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\n(3) maintain written records of ( a) the criteria used to evaluate each program, (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs, and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process\nand ( 4) prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. See Compliance Plan, p. 3. 5. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003- 04. Page 2 of 6 To meet this requirement, the LRSD implemented the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment --- -e .,tM it,~ \"? plan. ~W,\u0026lt;1 Pl/AM 6. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to 2. 7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board adopted regulation IL-Rl when it approved the Compliance Plan. Regulation ILRl set forth the written procedures for evaluating the 2.7 programs. 7. Maintain written records of(a) the criteria used to evaluate each program\n(b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. Regulation IL-Rl outlined the criteria to be used to evaluate each program. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD continues to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessmen1. plan. Exhibit B attached hereto identified the members of each team. Exhibits C, D and E document informal modifications of the mathematics, elementary literacy and secondary literacy programs, respectively. 8. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of2003 and are attached hereto as Exhibit F. Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through Page 3 of 6 a National Science Foundation (\"NSF\") grant\nDennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction\nand Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003 and is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 9. The LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the Court's Compliance \u0026lt;f' Remedy by implementation of the Board-approved Compliance Plan. 10. By letter dated January 12, 2004, copies of the comprehensive evaluations were provided to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, and counsel was asked to advise the District of any \"questions or concerns\" about these evaluations. In a fax dated March 8, 2004, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors wrote: I have reviewed your evaluations and find that they are grossly inadequate and incomplete. In addition to that I am still awaiting the evaluations of the other remaining programs which were contemplated by our agreement. Because we have already invoked the process required by the court, I am putting ODM on notice of our position. The LRSD denies that it agreed to prepare evaluations other than those described in the Board- ti' approved Compliance Plan. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits the program evaluations as required by paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD prays that the Court find that the LRSD has substantially complied with Revised Plan  2. 7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy\nthat the LRSD is unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations\nand that it be released from all further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts. Respectfully Submitted, Page 4 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376- Page 5 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on March 12, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 HElSCHEL H. fl.JOA Y (1'22-1\"4) WIWAM tL SlJTTON, P.A. BYI.OH M.. EISEMAN. JL, P.A. JOE D. BELL P.A. JAMES A. BUTT1.Y, P.A. fl.EDERJCX S. URSEllY, P.A OSCAl. E. DAVIS. JL. P.A. JAMES C. CLAll. JL, P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN D!Wl!Y WATSON, P.A. PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill, P.A. LAJ.J.Y 'W. BUllS, P.A. A. WYCll.lFP NISBET, Jl.., P.A. JAMES EDWAJ:D HAIJUS, P.A J. PtoWP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHEU\u0026gt; lUSSE.LL Ill. P.A DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WIWAM THOMAS BAXTEIL P.A. 1.JCHAI.D D. TAYLOa.. P.A. JOSEPH B. KUUT. JI.., P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEH MUllAY, P.A. CHR.ISTOPHER HELLEl. P.A. LAUR.A HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBEI.T S. SHAFER. P.A. WIU.IAM M. GltJFFIN Ill. P.A. MICHAELS. MOOl.E. P.A. DIANE S. MACXEY, , .A. WAL TEI. M. EBEL Ill, P.A UVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WlLLIA.M A. WADDELL JL, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTEl. P.A. I.OBEI.T 8. BEActl JL, P.A. J. UE Bl.OWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAK.ER.. JL. P.A. H.AllY A. LIGHT. P.A SCOTT H. TUCl.ER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. Pl.ICE C. GAkDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONfS, P.A DAVID D. lr'IUON. P.A. JEFPJl.EY H. MOOR.I., P.A. DAVID M. Gll.A.F, P.A. ( By Hand Delivery ) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.frldayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER  00 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3 93 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-21  7 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703..4811 TELEPHONE 470.-HS..2011 FAX 479--ISV52147 2011 HORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 170.-782 211H FAX 170,-7822911 October 25, 2002 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Bank of America Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ( By Hand Delivery) Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 722Ql RE: Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: CAJ..LA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN' C. FENDLEY. Jl.., P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHUSTOPKER LAWSON, P.A FR.AH C. HICKMAN. P.A BETIY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMJTtl P.A. CUfl'OllD W. PLUNKETT, P.A DANIELL. KEIJUNGTON, P.A MARVIN L CHILDEJ..s [.. COLEMAN' WESTBR.OOK.. JR.. ALLISON J. COkHWEU EUEN M. OWENS JASON 8 . HfMDR.EN BRUCE B TIDWELL MICH.A.EL E. r..A.JJaY KEU Y MUR..PKY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCXA Y AU:XANDllA A. In.AH JAY T. TAYLOR M.UTIN A. LUTEN Mr. Steve Jones BRYAN W. DUX.E JOSEPH G NlCHOU ROBUT T. SMITH RY AN A. BOWMAN TIMOTifY C. UEU. T. MICHELU ATOk KAIEN S. HALBERT SAlAH M. COTTON PHJLIP 8. MONTGOMERY lklSTEN S l.JGGINS Al.AH G. BRY A\u0026gt;I LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN lHAYYAM M. !J\u0026gt;DJNGS JOtof F. PEISlllCH AMANDA CA.PPS lOSE Bl.ANDON J. HAU..ISOH o, C'OUNll.l B.S. a.All WJWAM L TEllY WlWAM L PATTON, JR. K. T. LAllUl.E. P.A. JOlffi C. EOfOU. P .A A.D MCAWSTEl JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL so1 .. no-nn FAX 501 .. 24-lSJ.41 fendleyClec.net Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hanson Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 In our letter dated October 11, 2002, we asked the parties to specifically identify in writing any perceived deficiency in the Board-approved Compliance Plan on or before Monday, October 21, 2002. No responses were received on or before that date. However, Mr. Pressman called on October 21, 2002, and advised that Joshua would rely on the comments contained in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002, facsimile. On October 24, 2002, additional comments were received from Mr. Walker. All of Mr. Walker's comments will be addressed in turn. i.. EXHIBIT I A All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page2 October 10, 2002 Facsimile 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as \"implementat[ ed] pursuant to Section 2.7 ... \", which are to be subjected to \"comprehensive program evaluation ... \" Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions/ \"scaffolding\" - areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of African-American students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2.7. Mr. Pressman clarified this concern during our October 21, 2002 telephone conversation. Mr. Pressman explained that Joshua was concerned that interventions designed to assist low achieving students, for example SAIPs, were not being fully implemented and wanted some assurance that the comprehensive program evaluations would assess implementation of these programs. LRSD RESPONSE: On October 24, 2002, the Board approved the Division of Instruction's \"Plan to Support Low-Performing Schools,\" a copy of which is enclosed for your review. Under that plan, the LRSD will conduct curriculum, instruction and classroom management audits at low performing schools. Data gathered through these audits and other monitoring under the plan may be used by a program evaluation team to identify possible causes of poor performance, including poor implementation of interventions such as SAIPs. The LRSD lacks the resources to implement this plan at every school. Approximately 10 schools will receive the full compliment of services outlined in the plan. Those 10 schools will be identified based on the priority system set forth in the plan. 2. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing [before] Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the PreK-2 literacy program was not adequate. The notation on page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation Survey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the LRSD argument (page 11) that the existing evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the Court's remedy. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD considering the PreK-2 literacy evaluation to have been completed pursuant to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Attached are the comments received by the LRSD from Dr. Ross related to that evaluation. As can be seen, Dr. Ross did not advise the LRSD that the evaluation was \"inadequate.\" Moreover, it does not make sense for the LRSD to expend resources to have this evaluation \"completed\" by an outside expert while it also prepares a new, comprehensive evaluation of the same program with the assistance of an outside expert. All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page3 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the court's order regarding the evaluations mentioned at page 148 of the compliance report does not seem to talce account of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD not completing the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report in a manner consistent with IL-RI. As the LRSD understands Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the / District Court simply wants the LRSD to do what it said it did and complete the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. That is what the LRSD intends to do. It is true that those evaluations, even after being completed, may not be model program evaluations as envisioned by IL-Rl. The LRSD decided, however, that the most prudent use of its limited resources would be to focus on the new, comprehensive evaluations of programs designed to improve African-American achievement. 4. We question the period of implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD is willing to agree that any agreement between the LRSD and Joshua related to implementation of the Compliance Remedy will not prejudice Joshua's appeal of the District Court's September 13, 2002, Memorandum Opinion. October 24, 2002 Facsimile 1. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be given to the quality of the data. In the past, LRSD has used results on the [D]RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In adpition, because teachers provided scores for their own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the district's recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-RI that \"Conflict of Interest\" must be avoided. LRSD RESPONSE: Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to use all available data in its evaluations. It will be the responsibility of the evaluation team to weigh the reliability and validity of the available data. The Arkansas Department of Education and national organizations \\ with expertise in early literacy recommend the use of the DRA and Observation Surveys. The J primary purpose of those assessments is to determine whether students are learning the essential components of the reading curriculum. As to the integrity of the data from those assessments, the LRSD monitored student scores year-to-year to discourage teachers from inflating scores in an effort to show improvement. Moreover, the ultimate success of the LRSD's early literacy program will I - All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page4 be judged by performance on the State's Benchmark examinations, rather than the DRA and Observation Surveys. 2. We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the \"team\" process for preparing evaluations, again in the context of\"conflict of interest.\" In order to insure that \"conflict of interest\" is avoided, the \"external consultant\" needs to write the report and control the -context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the \"Program Evaluation Procedures\" do not guarantee that the external expert will have these roles. Of course, if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD rejects the implication that LRSD personnel cannot be trusted to write an honest program evaluation. The LRSD's commitment to improving student achievement is second to none. To fulfill that commitment, it is in the LRSD's best interest to effectively evaluate its Ero grams. The success of the programs and program evaluations will ulhmately be measured by the State's Benchmark evaluations. All evaluation team members will be actively involved in the evaluation process and are expected to provide a check against the self-interest of any one team member. The evaluation team will decide who writes the report based on the expertise of team members. The outside expert will be asked to take to the Superintendent any concerns about the evaluation not being addressed by the evaluation team. The outside expert will also be asked to be present when the evaluation is presented to the Board so that the Board can be advised of any concerns the outside expert may have about the final evaluation. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example, the Board has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performance is below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or a representative sample of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because class members are so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. A satisfactory description by the School Board of the evaluations which it requires the staff to undertake should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation activities in district schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see \"Accuracy Standards,\" para. 2). LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this comment, it is a restatement of the first number paragraph in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002 facsimile, and the LRSD hereby incorporates its response thereto. All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 5 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be particularly directed to achievement of African-American students for the indefinite term, not simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Board's assurance that this is the case. LRSD RESPONSE: The Board's approval ofIL-Rl was not limited to the term of the Compliance Remedy, and at this time, the Board anticipates continuing to evaluate programs pursuant to Policy IL after the term of the Compliance Remedy. Conclusion The LRSD hopes that it has been able to address all of Joshua's concerns. If any party has any questions about the LRSD's responses to Joshua's comments, we ask that those be submitted in writing, and the LRSD will promptly provide a written response. If Joshua continues to have concerns about the LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua should consider this the LRSD's written response to alleged noncompliance in accordance with Revised Plan 8. Pursuant to Revised Plan 8.2.4, Joshua has 15 days ofreceipt of this letter to submit the issue to ODM for facilitation of an agreement. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, cc: Dr. Ken James (via hand-delivery) PROGRAM EVALUATION TEAMS Elementarv Literacy Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy-Team Leader Pat Busbea, Literacy Specialist Judy Teeter, Literacy Specialist Judy Milam,\nLiteracy Specialist Melinda Crone, Literacy Specialist Ann Freeman, Literacy Specialist Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Secondary Literacy Suzi Davis-Director of Secondary English, Team Leader Sarah Schutte, Middle School Literacy Specialist Dr. Karen Broadnax, Supervisor of ESL Eunice Smith, Supervisor, Special Education Dr. Mona Briggs, Safe Schools Grant Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Mathematics and Science Vanessa Cleaver-Team Leader Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Marcelline Carr Beth Clifford Annita Paul Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Don Wold, NSF Program Evaluator Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator ..  EXHIBIT I B Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Elementary Mathematics 2001-02  An item analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 reveals that students perform lowest on the geometry strand. (Note-The State Math Framework and NCTM National Standards for Mathematics contain 5 strands: number sense, geometry, probability and statistics, algebra, and measurement.) The analysis of data from the Benchmark Exam consisted of identifying the strand of each item, ranking the items from highest to lowest, and looking for trends in the data.  Program modifications made based on the low performance on geometry items was:  Train teachers to do item analyses for their own schools.  Work with teachers to discern reasons why students struggled with the specific geometry items (the released items were available for review).  Develop strategies for increasing the focus on geometry in the elementary mathematics curriculum.  School by school analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 (and prior years) revealed different levels of achievement by schools that were demographically similar. Classroom observations in these schools by elementary\\ math/science lead teachers confirmed that the level of implementation of the . ) elementary mathematics curriculum was different from school to school. Schools with a higher level of implementation were having higher student achievement than schools who were not implementing the curriculum at that high level.  A program modification made based on uneven achievement at similar schools was to have principals identify a lead person in their schools to receive intensive and sustained training to serve as a \"coach\" for other teachers (See list of Math Support Personnel for LRSD).  Sara Hogg, UALR Mathematics Specialist, was utilizec'1 to provide monthly \"coaches\" training so that additional implementation support would be available at each school. A variety of types of training has been provided by Ms. Hogg, much of it directed at greater knowledge of strategies for implementing our elementary mathematics curriculum.  Another program modification made as a result of uneven achievement among schools was to begin a process of changing the way professional development for teachers is structured. In the past most professional development for elementary mathematics has been district-led (e.g., all third grade teachers go to a district-led training on the 3rd grade mathematics curriculum). The modification has been to shift more focus on site-based professional development. The \"Lesson Study' and \"Study Group\" approach was begun with elementary mathematics teachers to allow them more responsibility and accountability for their own training needs. ) 2002-03   The same item analysis was completed for 2001-02 4th grade Benchmark Data . Results of this analysis showed that students had gained in the area of geometry . The lowest strands were probability and statistics, measurement, and algebra. Staff and teachers reviewed the LRSD elementary mathematics curriculum to determine if there was a correlation between extend to strand coverage in the curriculum and student performance on those strands on the Benchmark Exam. The curriculum analysis revealed that there were some gaps in the curriculum that likely resulted in low performance on certain items on the exam.    Staff and teachers worked over the summer of 2003 use the Benchmark data to determine the \"big ideas\" or concepts students need to have a deep understanding about in grades K-5. Using several years worth of data, grade level teams of teachers in grades 1-4 (see list of teachers who worked on curriculum revision) ( revised the mathematics standards and benchmarks according to the five strands listed in NCTM Standards and the State Framework. Kindergarten and fifth grade will do similar work during the summer of 2004. Curriculum resources in grades 1-4 were aligned to those standards assessed most frequently on the exam. Supplemental curriculum resources were identified from several sources for use to broaden the scope of the curriculum at certain grade levels. Internet resources, Marilyn Burns and Associates materials, and other materials were identified and compiled into a notebook for use by teachers.  Benchmark results show that district students generally perform less well on the open-response test items compared to the multiple choice items.  Program modifications based on this data were:  Developed packets of open-response items for teachers to use with students.  Trained teachers to score open-response items using a rubric.  Developed and administered District-developed end-of-quarter or end-ofsemester exams that included open-response items.  4 th grade Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark Results over a period of three years caused some schools to be given \"School Improvement\" status by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). Schools in which the total population or one or more sub-populations (white, African-American, Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, Low Socioeconomic Status, and Special Education) did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress as defined by ADE were sanctioned with Year 1, Year 2, or Year 3 School Improvement Status.  A thorough and detailed School Support Audit was done for schools in Year 2 or Year 3 School Improvement. (An attachment explains the school audit process). The schools that were audited were Fair Park, Baseline, Mabelvale Elementary, Wakefield, and Southwest Middle School).  A variety of program modifications were made in schools on School) Improvement as a result of the audit findings.  One major common finding from the audits was that effective questions strategies were not being routinely used in the audited schools. The modification made was to bring in an expert on questioning strategies (Dr. Lee Hannel-author of Highly Effective Questioning: Developing the Seven Steps of Critical Thinking) to 1 ead a workshop for all LRSD principals. 2003-04  All grade level teachers were trained in the use of these new curriculwn resources that were developed by the math staff and teachers during the August, 2003, preschool conference.  Item analyses of the 4th Grade Benchmark Exam showed that the statistics and probability strand was the lowest area for students.  A program modification made was to strengthen concept development in ( probability by added a replacement unit on probability from Marilyn Burns' s materials. Twenty-six primary teachers and coaches and twenty-five intermediate teachers and coaches participated in full-day training on the Marilyn Burns materials.  Three elementary schools on School Improvement Status collaborate to bring in Dr. Hannel to provide training for all teachers in the schools.  Dr. Hannel provided full day training for all elementary principals. (  21 of 24 principals responded that they were interested in having the questioning strategies training for all faculty in their schools.  Additional schools received School Support Audits-Chicot, Bale, Mitchell.  Program Modifications made by selected schools were to hire math coaches to assist with professional development and training related to implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum. r Uneven achievement among schools was evident in the results of the 2002-03 4th Grade Benchmark Exam.  A Program Modification strategy used was to hire Dr. Linda Griffith to check the alignment of the mathematics curriculum, grades K-8, to the State Framework. The results ofthis alignment will include recommendations for improving the alignment in the curriculum. , Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Mathematics 2001-02  Item analyses of 6th , 8th , Algebra L and Geometry Benchmark Data for 2001-02  Continued District-wide end-of-quarter tests for Algebra I - Pre-Calculus  District-wide end-of-module tests for grades 6-8  TI-83 plus calculator training provided for all secondary math teachers  Full implementation of high quality standards-based instruction/materials in math for all students in grades K-12  District leveraged support of professional development for all math teachers by providing funds to pay substitute teachers and stipends for teachers receiYing trninill-g.s -  Lead teachers continued to provide technical assistance inside and outside the classroom by conducting professional development workshops and classroom observations\n Continued partnership with University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) to develop and offer graduate courses based on the needs of the District. The r.l 1 ~ following course was developed and offered during the 2001-02 SY: \\l.Y o Strategies for Teaching Geometry  Developed and distributed pacing guides for secondary mathematics and courses to address the issue of student mobility within the District  High school mathematics courses (Algebra I - Precalculus) were revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks\n The SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) program is an academic student support program for students who will be enrolled in Algebra I the upcoming fall semester. Project THRIVE, the follow-up component of SMART, is a Saturday academy for students currently enrolled in Algebra I. sV These programs are aligned with the State Goals for Algebra I. Algebra I EOC (.,.,IJJVK.l--t results of students who participate in these programs are compared with the overall District results o SMART /Project THRIVE served more than 200 students in Algebra  The agendas for horizontal team meetings (each grade/subject level 6th gradeCalculus) are developed around the results of the benchmark exams. Teachers concentrate on areas of wealmess for students and work on modifications in instructional strategies to improve those areas. In addition, trends and patterns are studied to measure the impact of instructional practices in the classroom.  Implemented instruction in Algebra I through Riverdeep software in all high schools 7 2002-03  Changed format of pre-school conference meeting to involve more teachers doing presentations on standards-based activities\n Purchased Texas Instruments APPs Suite for Algebra I for all middle and high J schools\n Provided training from College Board Pacesetter for Algebra I - Pre-calculus teachers - over 80% of secondary math teachers were trained  Continued District-wide end-of-.s!1arteLtest..for 6th grade - Calculus\n Continued to provide prof'essTo\"nal development for all secondary math teachers on topics including: o Riverdeep Interactive Software o TI-83 plus calculators o UALR Graduate Courses  Strategies for Teaching Algebra  Integrating the Graphing Calculator  Revised and enacted procedures for ensuring that students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and LRSD\n Continued to implement high-quality standards-based instruction for grades 6-12 mathematics\n Continued to hold monthly vertical team meetings for secondary math teachers/ vlt,\n..,  Held horizontal team meetings (one per semester) for each secondary math course\n2003-04  Classroom sets of graphing calculators provided for all Algebra I - Calculus teachers\n Offered UALR graduate course on Using Handheld Technology to Enhance the t1n-vti,,...-/ Mathematics Classroom - used the TI-Navigator system\n Continued vertical and horizontal team meetings including 6th -8th  Workshop by Dr. Linda Griffith for calculus teachers on integrating calculator to teach calculus\n Continued end-of-quarter tests\n 6 th -8 th grade curriculum revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks\nMarcelline Carr and Vanessa Cleaver FY 2002-03 Actions of the LRSD Elementary Literacy Department related to Literacy Program Evaluation The LRSD Elementary Literacy Department continued to provide professional development (ELLA, EFFECTIVE LITERACY, Reading Recovery) to all LRSD schools to support implementation of the LRSD Pre-K-3 Literacy Plan. The Elementary Literacy Department examined the Spring 2002 CRT Literacy data to identify the schools most in need of assistance in the area ofliteracy with particular attention to the academic achievement of African American students and their needs. The data indicated that the writing rogram was the weak comRone_!_lt oft~ literacy instructional prQg[am. The Elementary Literacy Department provided staff development related to writing instruction, and the writing programs in schools were modified to include \"best practices.\" The Spring 2003 CRT Literacy data from several schools reflected the schools' efforts to improve their students' academic achievement in writing. The District used the assessment data to also provide the low performing schools with the opportunity to participate in the LRSD Reading First Project. The project, which is federally funded, provides significant funding to schools to implement research-based instructional strategies. -T-w-el-ve schools chose to participate in the pniiect to begin.in the fall of 2003 . The project requires the sc oo s to o ow an assessment schedule related to program improvement. Because of lack of movement in student achievement in literacy, three schools on school improvement decided to move from the Success for All program to the research-based instruction recommended in Reading First. FY 2003-04 August - December 2003 Response to the Literacy Program Evaluation The Elementary Literacy Department reviewed the literacy program evaluation report developed by Dr. Ross and developed a plan to continue program evaluation in the future which included the following:  Continue the use of focus groups for each of the professional development programs (ELLA, Effective Literacy, Reading Recovery, Literacy Coaches, Success for All) and develop a table of the most and least effective elements. The information from the focus groups will then be used to modify the District's professional development plan.  ( Compare student data from the CRT and District assessments in each school to compare the academic achievement of African-American students with others as related to the instructional program and provide specific professional development based on the identified needs of the students. ...  EXHIBIT ID The staff also reviewed the section of the report related to the most effective and least effective elements of each staff development offered by the District. The following actions were taken to address the weaknesses of the professional development:  Provided additional guided reading materials to all schools to support small group instruction to ensure equitable instruction for all students.  Provided a diverse collection of books to low performing schools to ensure that a variety of texts is available for independent reading.  Modified the testing schedule ( except in Reading Excellence and Reading First schools) to accommodate the need for a more streamlined assessment plan. Literacy Achievement Data Review Dr. Ed Williams met with the Elementary Literacy Department regarding the 2003 Primary Literacy Benchmark Exam with attention to the academic achievement of African American students as compared to other students. Schools most in need were identified and assigned to specific Literacy Specialists who had the task of reviewing the testing data more closely with the assigned schools. The Elementary Literacy Department employed the services of a consultant to discuss with the Literacy Specialists the most effective approach to use with the schools in examinin their data and using it to make ro am modifications or changes. After the consultant's visit, the staff developed a p an or working with the schools. Assistance provided to the schools was varied based on the needs of the school but included inservice on the Primary Benchmark Exam and data analysis. In some schools, the principal and staff had already examined the data and outside assistance was not requested. Results of the data review confirmed that the professional development provided by the Elementary Literacy Department should include heavy emphasis on content ar~a reading.a.nd...writing. In addition to the professional de~being o ere on an ongoing basis to teachers grades 2-4, the Elementary Literacy Department and the Social Studies Department began working collaboratively to provide the training, resources, and materials for 5th grade teachers to integrate reading and social studies instruction. Three training sessions were held in January 2004 to model for teachers how to integrate the two areas. LRSD Reading First Project Schools The Reading First Project Schools have been visited several times during the year (2003-04) by the LSRD Reading First Coordinator, District Literacy Specialists, and the ADE Reading First Technical Assistant. The purpose of the visits is to provide assistance and to monitor the instructional program of the schools. Monitoring was done using a structured observation protocol and assistance was provided to schools in various ways such as the following:  Classroom demonstrations  Classroom observations with post observation conference  Colleague visits to exemplary classrooms  Sessions for problem-solving various aspects of the instructional program L 3 The Reading First Literacy Coaches and classroom teachers administered assessments in addition to those required by the district. In the fall of 2003 kindergarten students were given tl:Je DIBELS letter identification\nfirst grade students were given the letter identification and phoneme segmentation tests\nand the second and third grade students were given the oral reading fluency test. The coaches and classroom teachers used this information to determine students in need of intervention, .and intervention plans were developed for each school. Progress monitoring was conducted on those students considered at risk or some risk in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions and to make needed changes. In January 2004 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification and phoneme segmentation\nfirst grade students were given the DIBELS phoneme segmentation and oral reading~ -, fluency test\nand second and third grade students were given the DIBELS oral reading fluency test. IV\"/ The Developmental Spelling test was also administered to K-3 students in January 2004. / The Literacy Coaches entered all of the LSRD Reading First schools' data and intervention plans into the Arkansas Reading First Data Bank. Pat Busbea and Renee Dawson, Reading First Technical Assistants monitored the data input and the development and implementation of the intervention plans. Because the Reading First Schools are predominantly African American, particular attention is being given to how the students are responding to the intervention and technical assistance is provided to schools when the data indicates it is needed. Professional Development Specialized Training Based on examination of CRT, DRA and Observation Survey data, as well as teacher observation, it was determined that support and services were needed in the following areas of literacy in the lowperforming schools: phonemic awareness/phonics, spelling, oral language, and reading comprehension. Both local and nationally recognized experts in these areas of literacy were contracted to provide l/,W-,e,1.w -\"\"\" professional development to teachers of PreK through Grade 5. ~ Ongoing Professional Development Ongoing professional development in literacy instruction is made available to all PreK - Grade 5 teachers. This professional development, a component of the State Smart Start Initiative, includes: Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) for grades K-2 Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 The LRSD Effective Literacy 5 for grade 5 Pre Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (PreELLA) Pre-Kindergarten. Benchmark Preparation In response to requests from principals of the identified schools, District literacy specialists provided State Benchmark Exam preparation training to the teachers of grades 3-5 focused on the areas of \"Writing On Demand\" and \"Constructed Response\". I 11 Technical Assistance Technical Assistance in Literacy was provided to classroom teachers at the Elementary Schools identified for School Improvement. The focus and the intensity of the assistance were based on the particular needs of each teacher related to instruction during the 2  hour Literacy Block - Reading Workshop, Writing Workshop and Word Study. Reading Specialists visited each classroom in need of assistance to meet with the teacher. The specialist and teacher identified the specific needs from the following areas: Physical Setting/Context for Instruction Explicit Phonics/Spelling/Word Study Literature Circles/Literature Discussion Groups Guided Reading Instruction Shared Reading Shared Writing Strategy-Based Mini Lessons Literacy Corners Teacher Read Aloud Writing Workshop Reading Workshop Independent Reading Benchmark Prep The specialists then addressed the areas identified, including: setting up Literacy Corners, rearranging classrooms, organizing and categorizing reading materials, teaching students in both whole and small group, modeling instructional approaches, demonstrating the use of materials, assessing students and developing instructional plans. Professional books, independent reading books and sets of books for guided reading, as well as organizational materials and center supplies are also provided. 4 C ao.c 1--y:,s Approximately 20 of the schools have employed literacy coaches to help support and accelerate change in literacy instruction to improve the achievement of all students in the area ofliteracy. !y 2001-2002 Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Literacy 1. Teachers attended after school meetings with director to examine data and conduct analysis of scores of ACTAAP tests. 2. English faculty of each school spent a day together with English director and building principal in session devoted to best practices for improvement ofliteracy program. January - March 2002. 3. All building assistant principals at middle school were inserviced by director in literacy program in order to provide for more consistent supervision and coordination by including all administrators in literacy program. 4. Monthly collaboration sessions were held at all middle schools, taking turns hosting, with dedicated topics related to modifying literacy program and practices. 5. Recognizing that secondary teachers have never been trained in the teaching of reading, Dee Bench, consultant from Denver Coalition of Business and Education was employed to lead staff development during summer of '02 for teachers to modify reading strategies and instruction. Four weeks of training took place with achers (approximate! 75 all four core subjects in attendance. This summer inservice was a modification to include all cross curricular teachers in literacy program. 2002-2003 I. Teachers met with director to assist in production of curriculum for writing in order to be able to consistently deliver quality program elements. Evaluation of current practice and -focus on op.timuro results _were goals. Spring - Summer '02. New Writing Curriculum was put into use 02-03. Teachers were inserviced school by school during preschool work days on use of new curriculum. Committee of teachers for curriculum development: Brenda Bankston, Mabelvale Middle School Barbara Brandon, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Sarah Schutte, Cloverdale Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Dr. Rhonda Fowler, Central High School Emily Lewis, Parkview High School Carol Carter, Hall High School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Sandra Nichols, McClellan High School Karen Shofner, McClellan High School 2. Director met with building principals during early morning sessions to introduce new curriculum for purposes of effectively evaluating classroom mstruction and to provide basis for collaborative program evaluation. Fall '02. 3. Analysis of data from all tests and sessions with individual schools to modify areas of emphasis according to areas of need. It was discovered that our students do well on the ...  EXHIBIT l E. mechanics and usage areas..whi)e the writing in content areas i eaker. Strategies were developed to practice and teach these skills. 4. Practice kits were developed by the English office and distributed to every middle school teacher for use in modification ofliteracy program in terms oftest preparation. 5. Consultation with outside expert in reading comprehension for older readers to evaluate next steps and current status oflowest achieving students. Summer '02- '03. (Need for literacy coaches in high school was determined and, as a result, three are now in place at three lowest performing high schools , based on ACT AAP.) 6. Teachers met during summer 2003 to evaluate and modify urriculum producing an amending docwnent. Survey given to all English teachers prior to meeting and results discussed and useful for changes made. Committee to revise English Curriculwn: Wes Zeigler, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Billie Wallace, Parkview High School Beverly Maddox, Henderson Middle School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Louisa Rook, Cloverdale Middle School Carol Carter, Hall High School Joan Bender, ALC Jennifer Moore, Forest Heights Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Cherry Robinson, McClellan High School 7. ESL Supervisor and director met to discuss and evaluate materials as they relate to program's effectiveness for ESL and low-level learners. Materials were purchased for these students as a result. Summer '03. 8. Consultant from Denver Coalition returned for one week of further training in reading instruction strategies for secondary students. 2003-2004 1. Based on being placed on School Improvement list, Associate Superintendent and director met to discuss literacy program at low performing middle school and to write plan for improvement following detailed audit. 2. Director has met with middle school principals and high school principals separately to discuss progress and evaluate future steps for increasing effectiveness of program and greater achievement oflower-achieving students .. September '03. 3. Personnel involved with audit of middle school met with building principal and vice principal to evaluate literacy program and discuss focus for improving student achievement through literacy program. 4. Bi-Monthly meetings to evaluate programs and problems and collaborate on strategies for improvement held with director and high school literacy coaches. Five meetings held, August - October '03. 5. Session was held for disaggregating data - school by school and teacher by teacher - for recent performances on SAT 9 and ACT AAP to evaluate successes and areas and students and teachers needing improvement for high schools. August - September '03. 6. Meeting with department chairs and director to disaggregate data for middle school to evaluate successes and denote areas needing improvement in program. Sept. '03. }  SREB consultant meeting with literacy coaches to evaluate effectiveness oftest ( _ preparation strategies and plan for improvements. Sept. '03. 8. In response to data, sessions have been held at most schools with some or all of faculty in open-ended responses. Teachers have made many modifications to classroom instru~ion based on the experiential sessions involving reading, writing, and scoring with a rubric. 9. Implem~tation ofreading intervention for lowest performing ninth and eighth graders at three high schools and two middle schools began. One middle school uses same intervention for sixth and seventh as well. 10. Information and evaluation session held February 04 for all building principals and key administrators on reading intervention with proposals for expansion of program in 04-05. 11. All middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review workshop structure for literacy program. April - May 04. On-going f' 1. ~r and Middle School Specialist meet often to discuss and evaluate progress, problems, and to set trainings, meetings, and interventions to correct and further progress. Attention to both lowest achievers and highest achievers is focus of discussions. Calendars are aligned and coordinated at these meetings. 2. Director and Middle School Specialist meet after school visits to evaluate implementation of literacy program strategies and content and to determine plans for improvement, especially as it relates to lower-achieving students. Weekly, at least. 3. Director communicates often and as requested to address individual problems in buildings with principals and teachers. 4. Middle School Specialist works intensely with new teachers to improve implementation of curriculum and literacy program. 5. Continue to provide training in preparing teachers in ACT AAP open-ended responses. 6. Middle School Specialist working closely with social studies department in providing literacy best practice training to assist in reading in social studies content.\n7. Participation in faculty meetings by director and specialist to modify program implementation across curriculum. ~-.. 8. Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches in all secondary schools. 9. Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. (In May 04 set date for survey June 04) I 0. Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for hi gh school English teachers Spring 2004. 11 . Department Chairs meet monthly to discuss hurdles, issues, celebrations, and to communicate openly about the literacy programs. These meetings are separate for middle school and high school. These meetings serve as a means of communicating curriculum items, special events, new developments, and reminders to all English teachers from the district office as well as collaboration. Secondary Literacy Evaluation Team January 16, 2004 Suzi Davis, Chair Program Modifications as a Result of Analysis of the CREP Report  Continue to provide training to whole faculties in ACT AAP open-ended responses and rubric scoring. January, February, March, 2004  continue cross-curricular unit development and training in workshops  Communicate with principals on the need for intense support for the literacy program. January, 2004 ~ . Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches for all secondary schools / Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. A date will be set in May for a June meeting to discuss the results of this survey.  All eight middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review the Read/Write Workshop structure. During this inservice, plans will be made for collaborations among schools for next year. April, 2004 ( Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers. Spring 2004 Jl/4 i ct -t IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED MAR 1 1: 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLIANCE REPORT Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Compliance Report states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception of Revised Plan  2.7 .1. The Court's Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan  2. 7 .1 . 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD's Board of Directors (\"Board\") adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD filed the Compliance Plan with the Court on March 14, 2003, as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy. 3. Joshua initially raised concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. The LRSD addressed these concerns in an October 25, 2002 letter to counsel for Joshua, attached hereto Page 1 of 6 as Exhibit A. Joshua invoked the \"Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set for in Revised Plan  8.2, and the Joshua and the LRSD met with Ms. Ann Marshall to facilitate an agreement. The last meeting was February 28, 2003. At that meeting, the LRSD agreed to provide Joshua several documents. The last of these was mailed to Joshua on March 6, 2003. The parties never reached any agreement related to Joshua's concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. Joshua waived any objections to the Board-approved Compliance Plan by failing to present them to the Court as required by Paragraph \"D\" of the Compliance Remedy. 4. The Board-approved Compliance Plan interpreted Paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Compliance Remedy as requiring the LRSD to: (1) continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\n(2) develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\n(3) maintain written records of(a) the criteria used to evaluate each program, (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs, and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process\nand ( 4) prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. See Compliance Plan, p. 3. 5. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003- 04. Page 2 of 6 plan. To meet this requirement, the LRSD implemented the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment 6. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to 2. 7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board adopted regulation IL-Rl when it approved the Compliance Plan. Regulation ILRl set forth the written procedures for evaluating the  2. 7 programs. 7. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program\n(b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. Regulation IL-Rl outlined the criteria to be used to evaluate each program. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD continues to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. Exhibit B attached hereto identified the members of each team. Exhibits C, D and E document informal modifications of the mathematics, elementary literacy and secondary literacy programs, respectively. 8. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of2003 and are attached hereto as Exhibit F. Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through Page 3 of 6 a National Science Foundation (\"NSF\") grant\nDennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction\nand Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003 and is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 9. The LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the Court's Compliance Remedy by implementation of the Board-approved Compliance Plan. 10. By letter dated January 12, 2004, copies of the comprehensive evaluations were provided to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, and counsel was asked to advise the District of any \"questions or concerns\" about these evaluations. In a fax dated March 8, 2004, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors wrote: I have reviewed your evaluations and find that they are grossly inadequate and incomplete. In addition to that I am still awaiting the evaluations of the other remaining programs which were contemplated by our agreement. Because we have already invoked the process required by the court, I am putting ODM on notice of our position. The LRSD denies that it agreed to prepare evaluations other than those described in the Boardapproved Compliance Plan. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits the program evaluations as required by paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD prays that the Court find that the LRSD has substantially complied with Revised Plan  2. 7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy\nthat the LRSD is unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations\nand that it be released from all further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts. Respectfully Submitted, Page 4 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376- Page 5 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on March 12, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol A venue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street , Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 HEJlSCHEL H. FklDAY (1,22-1\"') WILLIAM H. SlTTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR.., P.A. JOE D. BELL P.A. JAMES A. BlTTTI.Y, P.A. PREDERJCX. S. UISEltY, P.A. OSCAI. E. DAVIS. Jk., P.A. JAMES C. CLARI.. JR.., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGOETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill, P.A. LADY W. BUU.S, P.A. A. WYCK.LIPF NISBET, JIL, P.A. JAMES EDWAJlD HAll.lS, P.A. J. PHIWP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill , P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILL.JAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. aJOLUD D. TAYLOI.. P.A. JOSEPH 8 . HUIST, JI. .. , P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MUllAY, P.A. CHRJSTOPHER HELLEIL P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERTS. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill. P.A. MICHAELS. MOOllE, P.A. DIANE S. MACXEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL Ill. P.A. UVIN A. CR.ASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL JL, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. I.OBERT B. BEACH. Jlt., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR., P.A. H.ARJlY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCK.ER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GAkDNER.. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON, P.A. JEFfR.EY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GR.AF, P.A. ( By Hand Delivery ) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www .frldayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703\u0026lt;'811 TELEPHONE 479-GUS.2011 FAX \"79-GU52147 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870.782 28U8 FAX 870-.782 2918 October 25, 2002 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Bank of America Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ( By Hand Delivery) Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: CAJlL.A GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY, Jlt... P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P.A. It.. CHRJSTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. FR.AN C. HICKMAN, P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIELL. HER.JUNGTON, P.A. MAI.VIN L CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOl... JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON 8 . HENDREN BRUCE 8 . TIDWELL MICKA.ELE. ~EY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCOY ALEXANDRA A. lf'll.AH JAY T. TAYLOR MAJlTIN A. ~TEN Mr. Steve Jones BRYAN W. DUE.E JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBEJ.T T. SMITH RY AN A. BOWMAN TIMOTIIY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR UJ..EN S. KALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHlUP B. MONTGOMERY I.RJSTEN S. l.JGGJNS Al...A}r,I G. BIYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN I.HA YY AM M. E.DDl'NGS JOKN f . PEISEJUCH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BJ.ANDON J. HAR.JUSON orcowsv.. B.S. a.All WJWAM L TEllY WlWAM L PATTON, JR. H. T. LAIZELE..l.E. P.A. JOHN C. EOtOLS, P.A. A.D. MCAUJSTU. JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501J70.U2J FAX S012'4SS41 fenclltyQfec.net Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hanson Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 In our letter dated October 11, 2002, we asked the parties to specifically identify in writing any perceived deficiency in the Board-approved Compliance Plan on or before Monday, October 21, 2002. No responses were received on or before that date. However, Mr. Pressman called on October 21, 2002, and advised that Joshua would rely on the comments contained in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002, facsimile. On October 24, 2002, additional comments were received from Mr. Walker. All of Mr. Walker's comments will be addressed in turn. EXHIBIT A ' All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page2 October 10, 2002 Facsimile 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as \"implementat[ ed] pursuant to Section 2.7 ... \", which are to be subjected to \"comprehensive program evaluation ... \" Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions/ \"scaffolding\" - areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of African-American students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2. 7. Mr. Pressman clarified this concern during our October 21, 2002 telephone conversation. Mr. Pressman explained that Joshua was concerned that interventions designed to assist low achieving students, for example SAIPs, were not being fully implemented and wanted some assurance that the comprehensive program evaluations would assess implementation of these programs. LRSD RESPONSE: On October 24, 2002, the Board approved the Division oflnstruction's \"Plan to Support Low-Performing Schools,\" a copy of which is enclosed for your review. Under that plan, the LRSD will conduct curriculum, instruction and classroom management audits at low performing schools. Data gathered through these audits and other monitoring under the plan may be used by a program evaluation team to identify possible causes of poor performance, including poor implementation of interventions such as SAIPs. The LRSD lacks the resources to implement this plan at every school. Approximately 10 schools will receive the full compliment of services outlined in the plan. Those 10 schools will be identified based on the priority system set forth in the plan. 2. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing [before] Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the PreK-2 literacy program was not adequate. The notation on page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation Survey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the LRSD argument (page 11) that the existing evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the Court's remedy. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD considering the PreK-2 literacy evaluation to have been completed pursuant to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Attached are the comments received by the LRSD from Dr. Ross related to that evaluation. As can be seen, Dr. Ross did not advise the LRSD that the evaluation was \"inadequate.\" Moreover, it does not make sense for the LRSD to expend resources to have this evaluation \"completed\" by an outside expert while it also prepares a new, comprehensive evaluation of the same program with the assistance of an outside expert. All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page3 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the court's order regarding the evaluations mentioned at page 148 of the compliance report does not seem to take account of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD not completing the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report in a manner consistent with IL-Rl. As the LRSD understands Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the District Court simply wants the LRSD to do what it said it did and complete the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. That is what the LRSD intends to do. It is true that those evaluations, even after being completed, may not be model program evaluations as envisioned by IL-Rl. The LRSD decided, however, that the most prudent use of its limited resources would be to focus on the new, comprehensive evaluations of programs designed to improve African-American achievement. 4. We question the period of implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD is willing to agree that any agreement between the LRSD and Joshua related to implementation of the Compliance Remedy will not prejudice Joshua's appeal of the District Court's September 13, 2002, Memorandum Opinion. October 24, 2002 Facsimile 1. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be given to the quality of the data. In the past, LRSD has used results on the [D]RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In addition, because teachers provided scores for their own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the district's recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-RI that \"Conflict of Interest\" must be avoided. LRSD RESPONSE: Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to use all available data in its evaluations. It will be the responsibility of the evaluation team to weigh the reliability and validity of the available data. The Arkansas Department of Education and national organizations with expertise in early literacy recommend the use of the DRA and Observation Surveys. The primary purpose of those assessments is to determine whether students are learning the essential components of the reading curriculum. As to the integrity of the data from those assessments, the LRSD monitored student scores year-to-year to discourage teachers from inflating scores in an effort to show improvement. Moreover, the ultimate success of the LRSD's early literacy program will All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page4 be judged by performance on the State's Benchmark examinations, rather than the DRA and Observation SUIVeys. 2. We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the \"team\" process for preparing evaluations, again in the context of\"conflict of interest.\" In order to insure that \"conflict of interest\" is avoided, the \"external consultant\" needs to write the report and control the -context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the ''Program Evaluation Procedures\" do not guarantee that the external expert will have these roles. Of course, if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD rejects the implication that LRSD personnel cannot be trusted to write an honest program evaluation. The LRSD's commitment to improving student achievement is second to none. To fulfill that commitment, it is in the LRSD's best interest to effectively evaluate its programs. The success of the programs and program evaluations will ultimately be measured by the State's Benchmark evaluations. All evaluation team members will be actively involved in the evaluation process and are expected to provide a check against the self-interest of any one team member. The evaluation team will decide who writes the report based on the expertise of team members. The outside expert will be asked to take to the Superintendent any concerns about the evaluation not being addressed by the evaluation team. The outside expert will also be asked to be present when the evaluation is presented to the Board so that the Board can be advised of any concerns the outside expert may have about the final evaluation. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example, the Board has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performance is below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or a representative sample of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because class members are so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. A satisfactory description by the School Board of the evaluations which it requires the staff to undertake should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation activities in district schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see \"Accuracy Standards,\" para. 2). LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this comment, it is a restatement of the first number paragraph in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002 facsimile, and the LRSD hereby incorporates its response thereto. All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 5 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be particularly directed to achievement of African-American students for the indefinite term, not simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Board's assurance that this is the case. LRSD RESPONSE: The Board's approval ofIL-Rl was not limited to the term of the Compliance Remedy, and at this time, the Board anticipates continuing to evaluate programs pursuant to Policy IL after the term of the Compliance Remedy. Conclusion The LRSD hopes that it has been able to address all of Joshua's concerns. If any party has any questions about the LRSD's responses to Joshua's comments, we ask that those be submitted in writing, and the LRSD will promptly provide a written response. If Joshua continues to have concerns about the LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua should consider this the LRSD's written response to alleged noncompliance in accordance with Revised Plan 8. Pursuant to Revised Plan 8.2.4, Joshua has 15 days ofreceipt of this letter to submit the issue to ODM for facilitation of an agreement. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, cc: Dr. Ken James (via hand-delivery) PROGRAM EVALUATION TEAMS Elementary Literacy Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy-Team Leader Pat Busbea, Literacy Specialist Judy Teeter, Literacy Specialist Judy Milam,, Literacy Specialist Melinda Crone, Literacy Specialist Ann Freeman, Literacy Specialist Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Secondary Literacy Suzi Davis-Director of Secondary English, Team Leader Sarah Schutte, Middle School Literacy Specialist Dr. Karen Broadnax, Supervisor of ESL Eunice Smith, Supervisor, Special Education Dr. Mona Briggs, Safe Schools Grant Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Mathematics and Science Vanessa Cleaver-Team Leader Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Marcelline Carr Beth Clifford Annita Paul Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Don Wold, NSF Program Evaluator Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator ..  EXHIBIT I B Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Elementary Mathematics 2001-02  An item analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 reveals that students perform lowest on the geometry strand. (Note-The State Math Framework and NCTM National Standards for Mathematics contain 5 strands: number sense, geometry, probability and statistics, algebra, and measurement.) The analysis of data from the Benchmark Exam consisted of identifying the strand of each item, ranking the items from highest to lowest, and looking for trends in the data.  Program modifications made based on the low performance on geometry items was:  Train teachers to do item analyses for their own schools.  Work with teachers to discern reasons why students struggled with the specific geometry items (the released items were available for review).  Develop strategies for increasing the focus on geometry in the elementary mathematics curriculum.  School by school analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 (and prior years) revealed different levels of achievement by schools that were demographically similar. Classroom observations in these schools by elementary math/science lead teachers confirmed that the level of implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum was different from school to school. Schools with a higher level of implementation were having higher student achievement than schools who were not implementing the curriculum at that high level.  A program modification made based on uneven achievement at similar schools was to have principals identify a lead person in their schools to receive intensive and sustained training to serve as a \"coach\" for other teachers (See list of Math Support Personnel for LRSD).  Sara Hogg, UALR Mathematics Specialist, was utilized to provide monthly \"coaches\" training so that additional implementation support would be available at each school. A variety of types of training has been provided by Ms. Hogg, much of it directed at greater knowledge of strategies for implementing our elementary mathematics curriculum.  Another program modification made ac\na result of uneven achievement among schools was to begin a process of changing the way professional development for teachers is structured. In the past most professional development for elementary mathematics has been district-led (e.g., all third grade teachers go to a district-led training on the 3rd grade mathematics curriculum). The modification has been to shift more focus on site-based professional development. The \"Lesson Study\" and \"Study Group\" approach was begun with elementary mathematics teachers to allow them more responsibility and accountability for their own training needs. ~ EXHIBIT l~ 2002-03      The same item analysis was completed for 2001-02 4th grade Benchmark Data . Results ofthis analysis showed that students had gained in the area of geometry . The lowest strands were probability and statistics, measurement, and algebra. Staff and teachers reviewed the LRSD elementary mathematics curriculum to determine if there was a correlation between extend to strand coverage in the curriculum and student performance on those strands on the Benchmark Exam. The curriculum analysis revealed that there were some gaps in the curriculum that likely resulted in low performance on certain items on the exam. Staff and teachers worked over the summer of 2003 use the Benchmark data to determine the \"big ideas\" or concepts students need to have a deep understanding about in grades K-5. Using several years worth of data, grade level teams of teachers in grades 1-4 (see list of teachers who worked on curriculum revision) revised the mathematics standards and benchmarks according to the five strands listed in NCTM Standards and the State Framework. Kindergarten and fifth grade will do similar work during the summer of 2004. Curriculum resources in grades 1-4 were aligned to those standards assessed most frequently on the exam. Supplemental curriculum resources were identified from several sources for use to broaden the scope of the curriculum at certain grade levels. Internet resources, Marilyn Burns and Associates materials, and other materials were identified and compiled into a notebook for use by teachers.  Bench.mark results show that district students generally perform less well on the open-response test items compared to the multiple choice items.  Program modifications based on this data were:  Developed packets of open-response items for teachers to use with students.  Trained teachers to score open-response items using a rubric.  Developed and administered District-developed end-of-quarter or end-ofsemester exams that included open-response items.  4th grade Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark Results over a period of three years caused some schools to be given \"School Improvement\" status by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). Schools in which the total population or one or more sub-populations (white, African-American, Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, Low Socioeconomic Status, and Special Education) did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress as defined by ADE were sanctioned with Year 1, Year 2, or Year 3 School Improvement Status.  A thorough and detailed School Support Audit was done for schools in Year 2 or Year 3 School Improvement. (An attachment explains the school audit process). The schools that were audited were Fair Park, Baseline, Mabelvale Elementary, Wakefield, and Southwest Middle School).  A variety of program modifications were made in schools on School Improvement as a result of the audit findings.  One major common finding from the audits was that effective questions strategies were not being routinely used in the audited schools. The modification made was to bring in an expert on questioning strategies (Dr. Lee Hannel- author of Highly Effective Questioning: Developing the Seven Steps of Critical Thinking) to lead a workshop for all LRSD principals. 2003-04  All grade level teachers were trained in the use of these new curriculum resources that were developed by the math staff and teachers during the August, 2003, preschool conference.  Item analyses of the 4th Grade Benchmark Exam showed that the statistics and probability strand was the lowest area for students.  A program modification made was to strengthen concept development in probability by added a replacement unit on probability from Marilyn Burns's materials. Twenty-six primary teachers and coaches and twenty-five intermediate teachers and coaches participated in full-day training on the Marilyn Burns materials.  Three elementary schools on School Improvement Status collaborate to bring in Dr. Hannel to provide training for all teachers in the schools.  Dr. Hannel provided full day training for all elementary principals.  21 of 24 principals responded that they were interested in having the questioning strategies training for all faculty in their schools.  Additional schools received School Support Audits-Chicot, Bale, Mitchell.  Program Modifications made by selected schools were to hire math coaches to assist with professional development and training related to implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum.  Uneven achievement among schools was evident in the results of the 2002-03 4th Grade Benchmark Exam.  A Program Modification strategy used was to hire Dr. Linda Griffith to check the alignment of the mathematics curriculum, grades K-8, to the State Framework. The results of this alignment will include recommendations for improving the alignment in the curriculum. Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Mathematics 2001-02  Item analyses of 61\\ 8th , Algebra I, and Geometry Benchmark Data for 2001-02  Continued District-wide end-of-quarter tests for Algebra I - Pre-Calculus  District-wide end-of-module tests for grades 6-8  TI-83 plus calculator training provided for all secondary math teachers  Full implementation of high quality standards-based instruction/materials in math for all students in grades K-12  District leveraged support of professional development for all math teachers by providing funds to pay substitute teachers and stipends for teachers receiving trainings  Lead teachers continued to provide technical assistance inside and outside the classroom by conducting professional development workshops and classroom observations\n Continued partnership with University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) to develop and offer graduate courses based on the needs of the District. The following course was developed and offered during the 2001-02 SY: o Strategies for Teaching Geometry  Developed and distributed pacing guides for secondary mathematics and courses to address the issue of student mobility within the District  High school mathematics courses (Algebra I - Precalculus) were revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks\n The SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) program is an academic student support program for students who will be enrolled in Algebra I the upcoming fall semester. Project THRIVE, the follow-up component of SMART, is a Saturday academy for students currently enrolled in Algebra I. These programs are aligned with the State Goals for Algebra I. Algebra I EOC results of students who participate in these programs are compared with the overall District results o SMART /Project THRIVE served more than 200 students in Algebra  The agendas for horizontal team meetings ( each grade/subject level 6th grade - Calculus) are developed around the results of the benchmark exams. Teachers concentrate on areas of weakness for students and work on modifications in instructional strategies to improve those areas. In addition, trends and patterns are studied to measure the impact of instructional practices in the classroom.  Implemented instruction in Algebra I through Riverdeep software in all high schools 2002-03  Changed format of pre-school conference meeting to involve more teachers doing presentations on standards-based activities\n Purchased Texas Instruments APPs Suite for Algebra I for all middle and high schools\n Provided training from College Board Pacesetter for Algebra I - Pre-calculus teachers - over 80% of secondary math teachers were trained  Continued District-wide end-of-quarter test for 6th grade - Calculus\n Continued to provide professional development for all secondary math teachers on topics including: o Riverdeep Interactive Software o TI-83 plus calculators o UALR Graduate Courses  Strategies for Teaching Algebra  Integrating the Graphing Calculator  Revised and enacted procedures for ensuring that students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and LRSD\n Continued to implement high-quality standards-based instruction for grades 6-12 mathematics\n Continued to hold monthly vertical team meetings for secondary math teachers  Held horizontal team meetings ( one per semester) for each secondary math course\n2003-04  Classroom sets of graphing calculators provided for all Algebra I - Calculus teachers\n Offered UALR graduate course on Using Handheld Technology to Enhance the Mathematics Classroom - used the TI-Navigator system\n Continued vertical and horizontal team meetings including 6th -8th  Workshop by Dr. Linda Griffith for calculus teachers on integrating calculator to teach calculus\n Continued end-of-quarter tests\n 6th -8th grade curriculum revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks\nMarcelline Carr and Vanessa Cleaver FY 2002-03 Actions of the LRSD Elementary Literacy Department related to Literacy Program Evaluation The LRSD Elementary Literacy Department continued to provide professional development (ELLA, EFFECTIVE LITERACY, Reading Recovery) to all LRSD schools to support implementation of the LRSD Pre-K-3 Literacy Plan. The Elementary Literacy Department examined the Spring 2002 CRT Literacy data to identify the schools most in need of assistance in the area ofliteracy with particular attention to the academic achievement of African American students and their needs. The data indicated that the writing program was the weak component of the literacy instructional program. The Elementary Literacy Department provided staff development related to writing instruction, and the writing programs in schools were modified to include \"best practices.\" The Spring 2003 CRT Literacy data from several schools reflected the schools' efforts to improve their students' academic achievement in writing. The District used the assessment data to also provide the low performing schools with the opportunity to participate in the LRSD Reading First Project. The project, which is federally funded, provides significant funding to schools to implement research-based instructional strategies. Twelve schools chose to participate in the project to begin in the fall of 2003 . The project requires the schools to follow an assessment schedule related to program improvement. Because of lack of movement in student achievement in literacy, three schools on school improvement decided to move from the Success for All program to the research-based instruction recommended in Reading First. FY 2003-04 August - December 2003 Response to the Literacy Program Evaluation The Elementary Literacy Department reviewed the literacy program evaluation report developed by Dr. Ross and developed a plan to continue program evaluation in the future which included the following:  Continue the use of focus groups for each of the professional development programs (ELLA, Effective Literacy, Reading Recovery, Literacy Coaches, Success for All) and develop a table of the most and least effective elements. The information from the focus groups will then be used to modify the District's professional development plan.  Compare student data from the CRT and District assessments in each school to compare the academic achievement of African-American students with others as related to the instructional program and provide specific professional development based on the identified needs of the students. ..  EXHIBIT ID The staff also reviewed the section of the report related to the most effective and least effective elements of each staff development offered by the District. The following actions were taken to address the weaknesses of the professional development:  Provided additional guided reading materials to all schools to support small group instruction to ensure equitable instruction for all students.  Provided a diverse collection of books to low performing schools to ensure that a variety of texts is available for independent reading.  Modified the testing schedule ( except in Reading Excellence and Reading First schools) to accommodate the need for a more streamlined assessment plan. Literacy Achievement Data Review Dr. Ed Williams met with the Elementary Literacy Department regarding the 2003 Primary Literacy Benchmark Exam with attention to the academic achievement of African American students as compared to other students. Schools most in need were identified and assigned to specific Literacy Specialists who had the task of reviewing the testing data more closely with the assigned schools. The Elementary Literacy Department employed the services of a consultant to discuss with the Literacy Specialists the most effective approach to use with the schools in examining their data and using it to make program modifications or changes. After the consultant's visit, the staff developed a plan for working with the schools. Assistance provided to the schools was varied based on the needs of the school but included inservice on the Primary Benchmark Exam and data analysis. In some schools, the principal and staff had already examined the data and outside assistance was not requested. Results of the data review confirmed that the professional development provided by the Elementary Literacy Department should include heavy emphasis on content area reading and writing. In addition to the professional development being offered on an ongoing basis to teachers grades 2-4, the Elementary Literacy Department and the Social Studies Department began working collaboratively to provide the training, resources, and materials for 5th grade teachers to integrate reading and social studies instruction. Three training sessions were held in January 2004 to model for teachers how to integrate the two areas. LRSD Reading First Project Schools The Reading First Project Schools have been visited several times during the year (2003-04) by the LSRD Reading First Coordinator, District Literacy Specialists, and the ADE Reading First Technical Assistant. The purpose of the visits is to provide assistance and to monitor the instructional program of the schools. Monitoring was done using a structured observation protocol and assistance was provided to schools in various ways such as the following:  Classroom demonstrations  Classroom observations with post observation conference  Colleague visits to exemplary classrooms  Sessions for problem-solving various aspects of the instructional program L 3 The Reading First Literacy Coaches and classroom teachers administered assessments in addition to those required by the district. In the fall of 2003 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification\nfirst grade students were given the letter identification and phoneme segmentation tests\nand the second and third grade students were given the oral reading fluency test. The coaches and classroom teachers used this information to determine students in need of intervention, and intervention plans were developed for each school. Progress monitoring was conducted on those students considered at risk or some risk in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions and to make needed changes. In January 2004 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification and phoneme segmentation\nfirst grade students were given the DIBELS phoneme segmentation and oral reading fluency test\nand second and third grade students were given the DIBELS oral reading fluency test. The Developmental Spelling test was also administered to K-3 students in January 2004. The Literacy Coaches entered all of the LSRD Reading First schools' data and intervention plans into the Arkansas Reading First Data Bank. Pat Busbea and Renee Dawson, Reading First Technical Assistants monitored the data input and the development and implementation of the intervention plans. Because the Reading First Schools are predominantly African American, particular attention is being given to how the students are responding to the intervention and technical assistance is provided to schools wh\u0026lt;\nn the data indicates it is needed. Professional Development Specialized Training Based on examination of CRT, DRA and Observation Survey data, as well as teacher observation, it was determined that support and services were needed in the following areas of literacy in the lowperforming schools: phonemic awareness/phonics, spelling, oral language, and reading comprehension. Both local and nationally recognized experts in these areas of literacy were contracted to provide professional development to teachers of PreK through Grade 5. Ongoing Professional Development Ongoing professional development in literacy instruction is made available to all PreK - Grade 5 teachers. This professional development, a component of the State Smart Start Initiative, includes: Early Literacy Leaming in Arkansas (ELLA) for grades K-2 Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 The LRSD Effective Literacy 5 for grade 5 Pre Early Literacy Leaming in Arkansas (PreELLA) Pre-Kindergarten. Benchmark Preparation In response to requests from principals of the identified schools, District literacy specialists provided State Benchmark Exam preparation training to the teachers of grades 3-5 focused on the areas of \"Writing On Demand\" and \"Constructed Response\". Technical Assistance Technical Assistance in Literacy was provided to classroom teachers at the Elementary Schools identified for School Improvement. The focus and the intensity of the assistance were based on the particular needs of each teacher related to instruction during the 2  hour Literacy Block - Reading Workshop, Writing Workshop and Word Study. Reading Specialists visited each classroom in need of assistance to meet with the teacher. The specialist and teacher identified the specific needs from the following areas: Physical Setting/Context for Instruction Explicit Phonics/Spelling/Word Study Literature Circles/Literature Discussion Groups Guided Reading Instruction Shared Reading Shared Writing Strategy-Based Mini Lessons Literacy Comers Teacher Read Aloud Writing Workshop Reading Workshop Independent Reading Benchmark Prep The specialists then addressed the areas identified, including: setting up Literacy Comers, rearranging classrooms, organizing and categorizing reading materials, teaching students in both whole and small group, modeling instructional approaches, demonstrating the use of materials, assessing students and developing instructional plans. Professional books, independent reading books and sets of books for guided reading, as well as organizational materials and center supplies are also provided. Approximately 20 of the schools have employed literacy coaches to help support and accelerate change in literacy instruction to improve the achievement of all students in the area of literacy. 4 2001-2002 Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Literacy 1. Teachers attended after school meetings with director to examine data and conduct analysis of scores of ACT AAP tests. 2. English faculty of each school spent a day together with English director and building principal in session devoted to best practices for improvement ofliteracy program. January - March 2002. 3. All building assistant principals at middle school were inserviced by director in literacy program in order to provide for more consistent supervision and coordination by including all administrators in literacy program. 4. Monthly collaboration sessions were held at all middle schools, talcing turns hosting, with dedicated topics related to modifying literacy program and practices. 5. Recognizing that secondary teachers have never been trained in the teaching of reading, Dee Bench, consultant from Denver Coalition of Business and Education was employed to lead staff development during summer of '02 for teachers to modify reading strategies and instruction. Four weeks of training took place with teachers (approximately 75) from all four core subjects in attendance. This summer inservice was a modification to include all cross curricular teachers in literacy program. 2002-2003 1. Teachers met with director to assist in production of curriculum for writing in order to be able to consistently deliver quality program elements. Evaluation of current practice and focus on optimum results were goals. Spring - Summer '02. New Writing Curriculum was put into use 02-03. Teachers were inserviced school by school during preschool work days on use of new curriculum. Committee of teachers for curriculum development: Brenda Bankston, Mabelvale Middle School Barbara Brandon, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Sarah Schutte, Cloverdale Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Dr. Rhonda Fowler, Central High School Emily Lewis, Parkview High School Carol Carter, Hall High School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Sandra Nichols, McClellan High School Karen Shofner, McClellan High School 2. Director met with building principals during early morning sessions to introduce new curriculum for purposes of effectively evaluating classroom instruction and to provide basis for collaborative program evaluation. Fall '02. 3. Analysis of data from all tests and sessions with individual schools to modify areas of emphasis according to areas of need. It was discovered that our students do well on the ~  EXHIBIT f f_ mechanics and usage areas while the writing in content areas is weaker. Strategies were developed to practice and teach these skills. 4. Practice kits were developed by the English office and distributed to every middle school teacher for use in modification of literacy program in terms of test preparation. 5. Consultation with outside expert in reading comprehension for older readers to evaluate next steps and current status oflowest achieving students. Summer '02- '03. (Need for literacy coaches in high school was determined and, as a result, three are now in place at three lowest performing high schools, based on ACTAAP.) 6. Teachers met during summer 2003 to evaluate and modify urriculum producing an amending document. Survey given to all English teachers prior to meeting and results discussed and useful for changes made. Committee to revise English Curriculum: Wes Zeigler, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Billie Wallace, Parkview High School Beverly Maddox, Henderson Middle School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Louisa Rook, Cloverdale Middle School Carol Carter, Hall High School Joan Bender, ALC Jennifer Moore, Forest Heights Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Cherry Robinson, McClellan High School 7. ESL Supervisor and director met to discuss and evaluate materials as they relate to program's effectiveness for ESL and low-level learners. Materials were purchased for these students as a result. Summer '03. 8. Consultant from Denver Coalition returned for one week of further training in reading instruction strategies for secondary students. 2003-2004 1. Based on being placed on School Improvement list, Associate Superintendent and director met to discuss literacy program at low performing middle school and to write plan for improvement following detailed audit. 2. Director has met with middle school principals and high school principals separately to discuss progress and evaluate future steps for increasing effectiveness of program and greater achievement of lower-achieving students.. September '03. 3. Personnel involved with audit of middle school met with building principal and vice principal to evaluate literacy program and discuss focus for improving student achievement through literacy program. 4. Bi-Monthly meetings to evaluate programs and problems and collaborate on strategies for improvement held with director and high school literacy coaches. Five meetings held, August - October '03. 5. Session was held for disaggregating data - school by school and teacher by teacher - for recent performances on SAT 9 and ACT AAP to evaluate successes and areas and students and teachers needing improvement for high schools. August - September '03 . 6. Meeting with department chairs and director to disaggregate data for middle school to evaluate successes and denote areas needing improvement in program. Sept. '03. 7. SREB consultant meeting with literacy coaches to evaluate effectiveness oftest preparation strategies and plan for improvements. Sept. '03. 8. In response to data, sessions have been held at most schools with some or all of faculty in open-ended responses. Teachers have made many modifications to classroom instruction based on the experiential sessions involving reading, writing, and scoring with a rubric. 9. Implem~tation of reading intervention for lowest performing ninth and eighth graders at three high schools and two middle schools began. One middle school uses same intervention for sixth and seventh as well. 10. Information and evaluation session held February 04 for all building principals and key administrators on reading intervention with proposals for expansion of program in 04-05. 11. All middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review workshop structure for literacy program. April- May 04. On-going 1. Director and Middle School Specialist meet often to discuss and evaluate progress, problems, and to set trainings, meetings, and interventions to correct and further progress. Attention to both lowest achievers and highest achievers is focus of discussions. Calendars are aligned and coordinated at these meetings. 2. Director and Middle School Specialist meet after school visits to evaluate implementation of literacy program strategies and content and to determine plans for improvement, especially as it relates to lower-achieving students. Weekly, at least. 3. Director communicates often and as requested to address individual problems in buildings with principals and teachers. 4. Middle School Specialist works intensely with new teachers to improve implementation of curriculum and literacy program. 5. Continue to provide training in preparing teachers in ACTAAP open-ended responses. 6. Middle School Specialist working closely with social studies department in providing literacy best practice training to assist in reading in social studies content. 7. Participation in faculty meetings by director and specialist to modify program implementation across curriculum. 8. Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches in all secondary schools. 9. Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. (In May 04 set date for survey June 04) 10. Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers Spring 2004. 11 . Department Chairs meet monthly to discuss hurdles, issues, celebrations, and to communicate openly about the literacy programs. These meetings are separate for middle school and high school. These meetings serve as a means of communicating curriculum items, special events, new developments, and reminders to all English teachers from the district office as well as collaboration. Secondary Literacy Evaluation Team January 16, 2004 Suzi Davis, Chair Prograqi Modifications as a Result of Analysis of the CREP Report  Continue to provide training to whole faculties in ACT AAP open-ended responses and rubric scoring. January, February, March, 2004  Continue cross-curricular unit development and training in workshops  Communicate with principals on the need for intense support for the literacy program. January,2004  Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches for all secondary schools  Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. A date will be set in May for a June meeting to discuss the results of this survey.  All eight middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review the Read/Write Workshop structure. During this inservice, plans will be made for collaborations among schools for next year. April, 2004  Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers. Spring 2004 CREP Center for Research in Educational Por~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION Steven M. Ross John Nunnery Lana Smith Aaron McDonald Allan Sterb1nsky Center for Research In Educational Policy Un1vers1ty of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 November 2003 ~  EXHIBIT I E Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation Executive Summary The present report provides the results from a study of the different literacy programs used in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). After expending substantial effort and resources to improve the reacting ability of students in the district, administrators at LRSD wanted to examine the effectiveness of the clifferent programs used within the district for literacy instruction. To facilitate this examination, the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) at The University of Memphis was employed to provide an independent, third party evaluation. The evaluation methodology and data analysis were oriented around the following research questions: 1. What are teacher perceptions of and reactions to the different literacy programs? 2. After controlling for gender, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, and prior achievement, clid African American students exhibit similar levels of academic achievement as other students? 3. What proportion of the variance in 2003 literacy achievement was uniquely attributable to whether students were African American? 4. What was the trend in the achievement of African American students on the Literacy Benchmark examination from 2001 to 2003? 5. Were differences in achievement gains between African American students and other students similar at different grade levels and for clifferent test instruments? 6. Was there a relationship between the literacy program implemented at the elementary schools, school composition variables (i.e., school poverty and percentage of African American students enrolled), and the achievement of African American students? Method The evaluation design was based on both quantitative student achievement data as well as qualitative data from K-12 faculty members who are responsible for literacy instruction. The primary data sources were (a) a questionnaire completed by teachers, (b) focus groups conducted with faculty members representing different literacy programs in the district, and (c) student achievement data including the Literacy Benchmark scale score, SAT-9 Reading subscale score, and the SAT-9 Language subscale score. During the 2002-2003 school year, two CREP researchers conducted seven focus groups at the Neighborhood Resource Center using a structured interview guide. Each focus group was approximately one-hour in duration. Teachers signed a permission form to be interviewed and were given assurance that their comments would be confidential and anonymous. The sessions were audiotape-recorded and supplemented with the researchers' hand-written notes. The Literacy Program Teacher Questionnaires were printed and shipped to LRSD personnel. The district staff members clisseminated the questionnaires to the individual schools along with instructions for completing and returning the forms to the district. After the district staff received the completed forms, they were sent to CREP for analysis. Similarly, district Pagel of 47 personnel assembled the student achievement data into an electronic format. The data files were then sent to CREP researchers for analysis. The focus group and surveys were analyzed thematically and descriptively, respectively. A synthesis was then developed to highlight findings by literacy program and grade level (e.g., elementary and secondary) as provided by the district. The achievement methodology and analysis is discussed in the achievement section below. Results Teacher Focus Groups and Literacy Program Teacher Questionnaire A synthesis of themes and related findings from the seven focus groups and teacher questionnaire is provided in \"bulleted\" format for a concise overview. The reader is encouraged to examine the full report for detailed findings. Most Effective Program Elements (Elementary)  Professional development (PD) when received  New materials  Emergent literacy/readiness skills for Kindergarten  Positive impact on student writing  Literacy Coaches (in RR program)  Providing instruction at students' level Most Effective Program Elements (Secondary)  Positive Impact on student writing  Paired reading (instructional strategy)  Portfolios and interactive journals Least Effective Program Elements (Elementary)  Inconsistent implementation across and within schools  Texts not aligned with SAT-9  Some leveled texts and vocabulary are not appropriate  Transient student population is problematic  Parent/community involvement is not at desired levels Least Effective Program Elements (Secondary)  Gaps in training that is offered to teachers  Lack of consistency in literacy instruction and programs (across and within schools)  Lack of teacher support from non-literacy subject areas  Parent/community involvement is not at desired levels Teacher support for the Programs (Elementary)  Level of support varies across schools (and within schools) Page 2 of 47  Support for ELLA and Effective Literacy is high because the\n- fit well with what teachers were already doing or moving toward anyway  SFA is most polarized (love or hate the program) Teacher support (Secondary)  Generally positive attitudes, but not much support from non-literacy teachers District support (Elementary)  Lack of consistency for teachers to attend training (substitutes\navailability of training)  District provides materials, but could also use teacher aides in the classroom District support (Secondary)  Literacy coaches would be beneficial  Need to use district time set aside for inservices to plan a more comprehensive literacy approach Professional Development (Elementary)  Quality of professional development received has been mixed, but teachers are generally positive  Literacy Coach (providing leadership and training) has been beneficial  General consensus that there is a lack of ongoing training (or opportunity to attend recommended/mandated number of days) Professional Development (Secondary)  Quality of professional development received has been mixed  Would like more training  Teachers do not see training sessions as tying together. Not sure what \"big picture\" literacy plan is Classroom Changes (Elementary)  Positive impact on Kindergarten students  More emphasis on student writing  Students are learning reading strategies  There has been some return to traditional instructional practices Classroom Changes (Secondary)  More cooperative learning (with mixed results)  Special Education teachers assist students in classes (instead of pullout program) Impact on Students (Elementary)  Learned better cooperation skills  Increased confidence in reading  Students are learning reading strategies Page 3 of 47 Impact on Students (Secondary)  There is some increased motivation to read  Assessments and leveled readers are creating more success and confidence for students  Students are writing more often Impact on Teachers (Elementary)  Negative impact on time and stamina  Additional instructional strategies and materials have been beneficial  Increased sharing of ideas Impact on Teachers (Secondary)  Increased sharing of strategies  Focus on bringing lower performing students to proficiency level  High school teachers had lower levels of agreement on all survey items (comparatively) Student Achievement Data The primary purpose of research focus was to examine the achievement of African American students in reading and language arts in the Little Rock School District. The five achievement oriented research questions (#2 - #5 above) were used to guide the methodology and analyses. Methodology Subjects of the study included all students enrolled in grades 3 to 11 in the Little Rock School District during the 2002-2003 school year for whom 2003 Literacy Benchmark or 2003 SAT-9 scores were available. This included a total of 11,934 students, of whom 23.4% were Caucasian, 68.2% were African-American, and 48.5% were certified as eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Three measures were used to assess literacy: the Literacy Benchmark scale score (Grades 4, 6, and 8), and the SAT-9 Reading subscale score, and SAT-9 Language subscale score (both Grades 5, 7, and 10). Analyses District-wide achievement effects. The basic analytic model used to gauge district-wide achievement effects was a 2 (free lunch status) X 2 (gender) X 2 (African-American, nonAfrican American) analysis of variance (ANOVA). This basic model was adapted to each grade level to reflect: (a) the availability of achievement data from the prior year, in which case a 2 X 2 X 2 analysis of covariance (ANCOV A) was used\n(b) the specific 2003 outcome data that were available at each grade level (either Literacy Benchmark scores or SAT9 scores)\nand (c) the number of outcome variables. School composition and program effects. For elementary schools, information was available regarding specific literacy programs being implemented in the schools. For 5th grade, a two level hierarchical linear model (HLM) was performed to examine relationships between Page 4 of 47 school composition factors (aggregate poverty, mean achievement at pretest. and percentage African American enrollment), school literacy programs, and student achievement. Longitudinal cohort performance on Benchmark Examinations. For fourth and eighth grades, three consecutive years of Literacy Benchmark Performance Level data were available. The percentage of African American students scoring in Below Basic, Basic, Proficient. and Advanced categories was computed for each year from 2001 to 2003 to provide a basis for examining overall trends in performance across time. Elementary Level Results Below, conclusions and results based on analyses performed on fourth and fifth grade data are presented by research question. After controlling for gender, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, and prior achievement, did African American students exhibit similar levels of academic achievement as other students?  African American students had substantially lower absolute performance than did other students.  The academic gains on literacy tests were lower for African American students than for other students. What proportion of the variance in 2003 literacy achievement was uniquely attributable to whether students were African American?  Although there was a significant relationship between African American status and student achievement, the proportion of variance in academic performance attributable to African American status was very low-4.6% for fourth grade, and 5.7% for fifth grade. What was the trend in the achievement of African American students on the Literacy Benchmark examination from 2001 to 2003?  The performance of African American fourth grade students on the Benchmark Literacy examination improved dramatically between 2001 and 2003, with nearly half performing at a \"Below Basic\" level in 2001, compared to only one-fifth in 2003. Was there a relationship between the literacy program implemented at the school, school composition variables, and the achievement of African American students?  No significant relationship was observed between the type of literacy program implemented and the achievement of African American students.  The percentage of African American students enrolled in a school did not predict overall achievement or the achievement of African American students.  School poverty, as measured by the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, had a negative effect on the achievement gains of students. Page 5 of 47 Secondary Level Results The secondary conclusions and results by research question are as follows: After controlling for gender, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, and prior achievement. did African American students exhibit similar levels of academic achievement as other students?  The absolute level of achievement of African American students was substantially lower than that of other students of similar gender and free lunch eligibility status.  Generally, the gains in academic achievement of African American students were similar to those of other students in grades 6 to 11. What proportion of the variance in 2003 literacy achievement was uniquely attributable to whether students were African American?  When data on prior achievement were available, the proportion of variance in 2003 achievement attributable to African American status was quite low at the secondary level, ranging from 0% to 5%. What was the trend in the achievement of African American students on the Literacy Benchmark examination from 2001 to 2003?  The performance of African American 8th graders on the Literacy Benchmark exam improved substantially and consistently between 2001 and 2003, with the percentage scoring \"Below Basic\" dropping from 48.5% to 34.5%, and the percentage scoring \"Proficient\" increasing from 14.9% to 23.9%. Were differences in achievement gains between African American students and other students similar at different grade levels and for different test instruments?  From the 5th to the 8th grade cohort, the achievement gains of African American students became more similar to those of other students, and for some subgroups surpassed those of other students in 8th grade.  The gap in achievement gains was greater on the SAT9 than on the Literacy Benchmark examination. Presumably, the Literacy Benchmark examination is more closely aligned to the mandated curriculum than is the SAT9, which is intentionally designed to be insensitive to curricular differences. Summary and Conclusions The Little Rock School District is commended for the emphasis given to increasing literacy in all schools in the district and not just those in the lowest performing strata. The state and local initiatives in literacy for early learners, including ELLA and Effective Literacy, are well grounded in current research of best practice. In addition, the Reading Recovery and Success for All models are among the best researched and proven programs in the nation for lower-performing students. Impressions from interviews and survey data, however, are that Page 6 of 47 these programs are often perceived as separate and discrete entities instead of integral to a district comprehensive literacy program. Teachers describe themselves or their schools as \"doing\" ELLA or Success for All and only the certified tutors 'doing\"' Reading Recovery. Middle and high school teachers' comments seemed to indicate that they also did not perceive themselves as being involved in a literacy plan beyond the traditional roles they have had as English teachers. Thus, it is recommended that the district's plan, or \"big picture\" of literacy, be developed and presented to teachers in a format that communicates how each program. school. grade level, and teacher contributes to and accomplishes literacy goals. The professional development in basic literacy has been well received and represents an enormous accomplishment for the district. Management and delivery of the professional development, however, needs to be made more consistent and available to teachers. The primary concerns voiced by teachers were scheduling problems, inadequate space and availability of training for the numbers of teachers needing to be trained, retraining for teachers who change grade levels, training for new teachers, and obtaining qualified substitutes for teachers while they attend training. The impressions of professional development communicated by upper grade teachers and those who were not implementing special \"programs\" were that professional development has been minimal, targeted to current \"hot\" topics (e.g., portfolios), and inconsistent in quality. Teachers' perceptions of the impact of literacy programs were extremely mixed. Writing and composition were literacy areas that all teachers agreed had been emphasized and improved in their schools and classrooms as a consequence of literacy initiatives in the district. Some of the positive comments relative to ELLA had more to do with the materials teachers had received as a part of the training than the new ideas they had been provided. During the focus groups, the most impressive level of agreement that teachers voiced was by teachers who had Reading Recovery teachers as Literacy Coaches in their schools. The concept of highly trained Literacy Coaches being placed in and available to all elementary schools is a national issue presently and it is recommended that the district find ways to support this concept not only in elementary schools with large at-risk populations, but in all schools in the district. Regarding student achievement, substantial differences exist in the overall achievement of African American students and other students in LRSD. However, the differences in academic gains tend to be smaller at higher grade levels. The three-year trend in Literacy Benchmark scores shows substantial, sustained improvement in the academic achievement of African American students between 2001 and 2003. African American status of the student, as well as the percentage of African American students enrolled in a school, explain only small amounts of variance in student outcomes compared to prior achievement. No\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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\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_1638","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellants","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 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["1997-01-17"],"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","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Employee rights"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellants"],"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/1638"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["223 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.  EDWARD L. WRIGHT ( 1903- 1977) ROBERTS. LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A . SCOTT. JR. JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER. JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVIO M . POWELL ROGER A . GLASGOW C . DOUGLAS BUFORO. JR. PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS. JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M . SAMUEL JONES ru JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N . M. NORTON EDGAR J . TYLER CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER . .IR . CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER SAMMYE L. TAYLOR WALTER E. MAY ANNA HIRAI GIBSON GREGORY T. JONES H . KEITH MORRISON Ms. Ann Brown ODM WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS ATTO RNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501l 376-9442 OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY BEVERLY BASSETT SCHAFFER M. TODD WOOD January 16, 1997 201 E. Little Markham, Suite 510 Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: PACT'S Appeal of the Strike Ruling Dear Ann: BETTINA E. B ROWNSTEIN W ALTER MCSPADDEN ROGER 0 . ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIM BERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR. H ARRY S . HURST . .IR. TROY A . PRICE PATRICIA A . SIEVERS JAMES M . MOODY. JR. KATHRYN A . PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W . K ENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS FRED M . PERKINS Ill WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY M. ROBINSON BETSY MEACHAM AINSLEY H . LANG KYLE R. WILSON DONS. McKINNEY MICHELE L . SIMMONS KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH CFFlGE OF DESEGREGATl01J MmllTORiNG I thought you might be interested in reviewing PACT's opening brief on the strike issues pending in the Eighth Circuit . The PCSSD response is due on or about February 7, 1997 . MSJ/jhs Enclosure Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS \u003c\\~:~. -- / M. Shmuel Jones, III ( / ------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 96-3841 Katherine Knight, et .5!.L_, Appellants, RECEIVED JAN 1 7 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING v. Pulaski County Special School District, Appellee. On Appeal From the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas BRIEF OF APPELLANTS ROBERT H. CHANIN VIRGINIA A. SEITZ JONATHAN D. HACKER Bredhoff \u0026 Kaiser, ?.L .L . C. 1000 Connec';:icut Ave., N.W . Suite 1300 Washington, D.C ; 2003 6 (202) 833-9340 RICHARD W. ROACHELL Roachell Law Firm 504 Lyon Building 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-5550 Ark. Bar No. 78132 Counsel for Appellants I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 96-3841 Katherine Knight, et .aL.., Appellants, v. Pulaski County Special School District, Appellee. On Appeal From the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas BRIEF OF APPELLANTS ROBERT H. CHANIN VIRGINIA A. SEITZ JONATHAN D. HACKER Bredhoff \u0026 Kaiser, P.L.L.C. 1000 Connecticut Ave., N.W. suite 1300 Washington, D.C. 20036 {202} 833-9340 RICHARD W. ROACHELL Roachell Law Firm 504 Lyon Building 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 (501} 375-5550 Ark. Bar No. 78132 Counsel for Appellants I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY OF CASE AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT Pursuant to its jurisdiction to monitor implementation of a consent decree designed to desegregate schools in the appellee Pulaski county Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\") and certain surrounding school districts, the district court entertained a request by PCSSD to enjoin a strike by its teachers that took place when collective bargaining between PCSSD and the teachers' exclusive representative, the Pulaski County Association of Classroom Teachers (\"PACT\") -- represented in this case by appellants Katherine Knight, rt g_L,_ -- broke down. The court below issued its preliminary injunction five days after an Arkansas state court, in a case brought by parents of several PCSSD students, had ruled that the strike could continue because the state law prerequisites for preliminary injunctive relief had not been met. Because of the complex history of this case -- and the important federal and state law issues raised by this appeal plaintiffs believe that oral argument will be of assistance to this Court. Plaintiffs ask that they be allowed 30 minutes for oral argument. ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF CASE AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT .. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. STATEMENT OF ISSUE STATEMENT OF CASE AND STATEMENT OF FACTS A. B. c. The Underlying Constitutional Violation .. The 1992 Consent Decree .. The 1996 Teachers' Strike. 1. 2. The state court Proceeding The District Court Proceeding SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. ARGUMENT A. B. CONCLUSION The District Court Erred in Issuing the Injunction Because It Was Not Designed (1) To Enforce the Terms of the 1992 Consent Decree, or (2) To Effect a Valid Modification of the 1992 Consent Decree 1. Enforcing the Terms of the 1992 Consent Decree ..... . 2. Modifying the 1992 Consent Decree Dataphase Systems. Inc. v. C.L. systems. Inc. Does Not Provide the Proper Framework for Ruling on PCSSD's Request for an Injunction; Even Assuming, Arguendo, That It Does, the District Court's Injunction Does Not Meet the Dataphase Criteria ..... 1. Application of Dataphase 2. The Dataphase Criteria iii ii 1 2 2 3 5 8 9 10 18 20 20 20 29 37 37 38 46 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Alexander v. Britt, 89 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 1996) American Trucking Ass'ns. Inc. v. Gray. 657 S.W.2d 207 (Ark. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appeal of Little Rock Sch. Dist., 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991) ........... . Berger v. Heckler, 771 F~2d 1556 (2d Cir. 1985) Boatmen's First Nat'l Bank v. Kansas Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys., 57 F.3d 638 (8th Cir. 1995) ..... Dataphase Sys . Inc. v. C.L. Sys . Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) .............. . EEOC v. Local 40. Int'l Ass'n of Bridge Workers, 76 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 1996) .... Finney v. Arkansas Bd. of Corrections, 505 F.2d 194 ( 8th Cir. 197 4) . . . . Firefighters Local 1784 v. Stotts, 467 U.S. 561 (1984) Harley-Davidson. Inc. v. Morris, 19 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 1994) ............ . Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1342 (3d Cir. 1995) ..... Hughes v. United States, 342 U.S. 353 (1952) Johnson v. Robinson, 987 F.2d 1043 (4th cir. 1993} Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 114 s . ct . 16 7 3 ( 19 9 4 ) . . . . Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Knight, 725 F.2d 690 (8th Cir. 1983) . . . . . ... Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Martin, No. 87-4537 (Ark. Ch. Ct. Sept. 28, 1987) .... Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 584 F. Supp. 328 (E.D. Ark. 1984) iv 30 9 14, 17 23 38,39 42 passim 22 38 19 23 23 22 19,22 33 1 3 25 3,11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 738 F.2d 82 (8th Cir. 1984) ... Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996) Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 597 F. Supp. 1220 (E.D. Ark. 1984) Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985) Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) .... Little Rock Sch. Dist v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 839 F.2d 1296 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 869 (1988) .... Mahers v. Hedgepeth, 32 F.3d 1273 (8th Cir. 1994) Oliver v. Kalamazoo Bd. of Educ., 706 F.2d 757 (6th Cir. 1983) .... Paccar Fin. Corp. v. Hummell, 606 S.W.2d 384 (Ark. Ct. App. 1980) ..... People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Sch. Dist. No. 205, 961 F.2d 1335 (7th Cir. 1992) Picon v. Morris, 933 F.2d 660 (8th Cir. 1991) Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) ......... , Smith v. American Trucking Ass'n, Inc., 781 S.W.2d 3 (Ark. 1989) .... United States v. Armour \u0026 Co., 402 U.S. 673 (1971) United States v. Atlantic Ref. Co., 360 U.S. 19 (1959) United States v. City of Chicago, 978 F.2d 325 (7th Cir. 1992) ................. . United States v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 998 F.2d 1001 (2d Cir. 1993) United States v. Knote, 29 F.3d 1297 (8th Cir. 1994) V 4 29 4 4,5 19,31 passim 2,11 35 2, 22- 31 9 31 19 2,30 9 2,22 29 22 32 23 26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I United states v. O'Rourke, 943 F.2d 180 (2d Cir. 1991) United states v. Western Elec. Co., 8~4 F.2d 430 (D.C. Cir. 1990) .............. . Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909 (6th Cir. 1983) STATUTES AND RULES 28 u.s.c.  1292 (a) (1) 28 u.s.c.  1331 Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 (a) Fed. R. civ. P. 60(b) Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) . Ark. Code Ann.  6-17-1001 (Michie 1995) vi 23 19,23 33,34 22 1 1 38 30 38 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 96-3841 Katherine Knight, et al., Appellants, v. Pulaski County Special School District, Appel lee. BRIEF OF APPELLANTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Susan Webber Wright, D.J.) had jurisdiction over the underlying school desegregation case pursuant to 28 u.s.c.  1331, and it had jurisdiction over the instant proceeding pursuant to its continuing authority to monitor implementation of the consent decree entered in said case. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1376, 1384 (8th Cir. 1990). See also Kokkonen v . Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, , 114 s. ct. 1673, 1677 (1994). This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal from the district court's order granting PCSSD's motion to enjoin the teachers' strike pursuant to 28 u.s.c. S 1292(a) (1). The District Court's order was formally entered on october 2, 1996, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 and appellants Katherine Knight, et al., filed a timely notice of appeal on October 27, 1996. STATEMENT OF ISSUE Whether the district court erred in abrogating appellants' state-law right to continue the teachers' strike, inasmuch as the court's injunction was not designed (1) to enforce the terms of the consent decree, or (2) to effect a valid modification of the consent decree. The four cases most apposite to this issue are: United states v. Armour \u0026 Co., 402 U.S. 673 (1971) Mahers v. Hedgepeth, 32 F.3d 1273, 1275 (8th Cir. 1994) Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 393 (1992) Little Rock Sch. Dist v. Pulaski County Soecial Sch. Dist. No. 1, 839 F.2d 1296 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 869 (1988) STATEMENT OF CASE AND STATEMENT OF FACTS Although only a few recent developments are directly relevant to this appeal, the appeal inevitably is bound up with the complex and continuing 14-year effort to desegregate PCSSD and certain surrounding school districts. Accordingly, in order to provide a context for analysis, it is necessary to review -albeit briefly -- the history of this case. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 A. The Underlying Constitutional Violation This case began in 1982, when the predominantly black Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") filed a complaint in the United states District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Alleging interdistrict constitutional violations, LRSD contended that meaningful school desegregation could be achieved only by consolidating LRSD and the two predominantly white surrounding school districts -- i.e., PCSSD and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") -- into a single county-wide school district. Shortly after the case was filed, a group of black students and their parents, on behalf of all black students in the three school districts, intervened as plaintiffs -- i.e., the Joshua intervenors. Several teachers in the three affected school districts, PACT, and the counterpart teacher associations in LRSD and NLRSD moved to intervene in order to protect the teachers' state-law contractual and statutory rights - i.e., the Knight intervenors. The district court denied their motion, and this Court affirmed, noting that the district court intended to bifurcate the litigation into a liability and a remedy stage, and \"[t]he interests that appellants seek to protect relate to the remedy stage.\" 725 F.2d 690 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam), quoted in 738 F.2d 82, 83 (8th Cir. 1984). After the district court entered a judgment of liability against PCSSD and NLRSD, see 584 F. Supp. 328 (E.D. Ark. 1984), the Knight intervenors renewed their motion, but the district I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 court again denied intervention. On appeal, however, this Court reversed, holding that the Knight intervenors had shown that \"the disposition of the action 'may as a practical matter' impair their interests,\" and it directed the lower court to grant the motion to intervene. 738 F.2d at 84 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) (2)) . 1 The district court then turned to the question of remedy, and, after additional hearings, ordered consolidation of the three school districts into a single county-wide school district. See 597 F. Supp. 1220 (E.D. Ark. 1984). Defendants appealed from both the liability and remedy judgments. This Court, sitting en bane, affirmed the lower court's judgment of liability, but ruled that the interdistrict remedy \"exceed(ed) the scope of the violations.\" 778 F.2d 404, The \"interests\" in question derived primarily from the collective bargaining agreements between the teacher associations and the school districts. Recognizing that consolidation of the three school districts was a possible remedy for the unconstitutional segregation, this Court commented as follows: Those who have a contract with existing entities have an interest in the continued existence of those entities. It may be true that the successor school district (assuming consolidation is ultimately ordered) will choose to bargain collectively with the (teachers), but there can be no assurance of that fact. In addition, even if a successor district does agree to bargain collectively with appellants, there is no assurance that whatever contract will then be agreed on will be as favorable to appellants' members as the present agreements are. 738 F.2d at 84. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5 434 (8th Cir. 1985). Opining that the district court's remedy violated principles of federal court respect for local autonomy in the educational process, see .i_g_._, this Court remanded for entry of remedial orders consistent with a set of guidelines set forth in its opinion. See id. at 434-36. B. The 1992 Consent Decree During 1987, the district court issued a series of remedial orders that abrogated state-law rights of the Knight intervenors, including, inter alia, orders that altered negotiated teacher assignment systems. The Knight intervenors appealed, contending that the district court exceeded the scope of its remedial authority because the remedial orders were not properly connected to the underlying constitutional violation. This Court agreed: The remedial authority of the District Court empowers it to alter or, in the extreme case, abrogate a collective bargaining agreement which perpetuates segregation or impedes a desegregation plan. The agreements between a school district and a teachers organization, however, must be permitted to stand if they do not adversely impinge on these constitutionally mandated remedies. Any modification or abrogation can only be made after an evidentiary hearing and upon a finding that the change is essential to the desegregation remedy. 839 F.2d 1296, 1314-15 (8th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). This Court added that \"the authority of a federal court to alter or modify collective bargaining contracts in school desegregation cases must be based on a finding that the alteration or modification is necessary to further the effort to integrate the schools in question.\" lg_._ at 1316 (emphasis added). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6 Finally, after further piecemeal implementation and appeals of various court-ordered remedies, the parties entered into intense negotiations in an effort to develop an agreed-upon plan to remedy the unconstitutional segregation. In 1990, \"in a sharp departure from the adversary bitterness that had marked this controversy,\" all of the parties voluntarily agreed to a \"comprehensive and complicated\" series of plans. 921 F.2d 1371, 1376, 1384 (8th Cir. 1990). This series included a separate desegregation plan for each of the three school districts involved in the litigation, and a financial agreement with .the state, pursuant to which the state was obligated to provide funding for certain desegregation programs. The parties submitted the agreed-upon plans to the district court for approval, but the court rejected the plans, and \"purported to modify them and to order the unwilling parties to put them into effect as modified.\" .I.9...._ at 1376. This Court reversed, explaining that the district court had failed to credit sufficiently the voluntary, negotiated nature, of the agreed-upon plans: The law strongly favors settlements. Courts should hospitably receive them. This may be especially true in the present context -- a protracted, highly divisive, even bitter litigation, any lasting solution to which necessarily depends on the good faith and cooperation of all the parties, especially the defendants. As a practical matter, a remedy that everyone agrees to is a lot more likely to succeed than one to which the defendants must be dragged kicking and screaming. Id. at 1383. In rejecting the district court's proposed \"modifications\" of the agreed-upon plans, this Court stressed the I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7 need for courts to defer to the expressed will of the parties as reflected in a settlement: \"Because settlement of a class action, like settlement of any litigation, is basically a bargained exchange between the litigants, the judiciary's role is properly limited to the minimum necessary to protect the interests of the class and the public. Judges should not substitute their own judgment as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel.\" In addition, courts are generally without authority to require parties to comply with a \"settlement\" different from their own agreement. Id. at 1388 (quoting Armstrong v. Board of Sch. Directors, 616 F.2d 305, 315 (7th Cir. 1980)). Accordingly, this Court directed the district court to approve the four separate settlement plans that had been agreed to by the parties. Id. at 1394. On remand, these plans were incorporated into a consent decree that was finalized on April 29, 1992 ( 11 1992 consent decree\") (JA 34). 2 Among the programs established for PCSSD by the 1992 consent decree is a system of student assignment designed to achieve at least 20% black enrollment in all PCSSD schools. 1992 consent decree at 84 (JA 119). This system depends on a number of variables, including initial student assignments and voluntary transfers of students among PCSSD schools. Id. at 81-84 (JA 116- 19). The system also calls for voluntary transfers of black students from LRSD to PCSSD, and voluntary transfers of white students from PCSSD to LRSD. Id. at 83 (JA 118). The 1992 2 Although only the PCSSD plan is directly relevant for purposes of this appeal, and only that plan is included in the Joint Appendix, see JA 34, references in this brief are to the 1992 consent decree. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 consent decree indicates that Pesso has had little difficulty attracting black students from LRSO, and that the principal focus should be to encourage white students to transfer from Pesso to LRSO. Id. (\"Pesso will continue to encourage its students to exercise interdistrict M-to-M [.L.Jh, majority-to-minority) transfers to LRSO. Efforts directed toward M-to-M transfers from LRSO have already been successful.\" (emphasis added)). In addition to the provisions designed to remedy segregation in Pesso, the Knight intervenors received a specific assurance that the recognized collective bargaining process for Pesso teachers would not be displaced. Thus, the 1992 consent decree provides for an Office of Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, who, inter alia, must \"negotiate as representative for the (School] Board a master agreement with certified personnel.\" Id. at 21 (JA 56). The decree does not include any limitations on the capacity of PACT or the Pesso teachers to exercise their rights under state law to resolve disputes arising during the collective bargaining process. c. The 1996 Teachers' strike The instant dispute has its genesis in negotiations between PACT and PCSSO for a successor to the collective bargaining agreement that was scheduled to expire on June 20, 1996. Among other proposals, PACT sought a salary increase for the teachers that it contended was necessary to comply with a recently-enacted state minimum teacher salary law. Ark. Code Ann. S 6-17-1001 (Michie 1995) (\"Act 917\"). PCSSD rejected the proposal, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9 asserting that it was not obligated to comply with Act 917, because this might require PCSSD to divert money from desegregation programs, thereby breaching its obligations under the 1992 consent decree. Negotiations on this and other matters proved unsuccessful, and the teachers -- under PACT's direction -- went on strike on August 19, 1996. 1. The state Court Proceeding on August 22, 1996, Mike Wilson and several other parents of PCSSD students (\"Wilson\") filed suit in Pulaski County Chancery court seeking a temporary restraining order -- on state-law grounds -- directing PACT to terminate the strike. The state court held a hearing on August 23, and issued its ruling the same day. Wilson v. Pulaski Ass'n of Classroom Teachers, No. IJ96- 5788, slip op. (Ark. Ch. Ct. Aug. 23, 1996) (JA 430). The chancery court denied Wilson's request for a temporary restraining order, finding that plaintiffs had not satisfied the state-law prerequisites for the granting of such relief: specifically, they had failed to demonstrate that the strike was \"clearly illegal\" under Arkansas law, see id. at 4 (JA 434), and that the students or PCSSD were suffering \"irreparable harm\" at the time of the hearing, id. at 8 (JA 438) . 3 With regard to the 3 Under Arkansas law, plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctive relief must prove both that they are likely to succeed on the merits, and that they will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of such relief. See Smith v. American Trucking Ass'n, Inc., 781 S.W.2d 3, 4 (Ark. 1989); American Trucking Ass'ns. Inc. v. Gray, 657 S.W.2d 207, 208 (Ark. 1983); Paccar Fin. Corp. v. Hummell, 606 S.W.2d 384, 385 (Ark. ct. App. 1980). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 latter point, the court noted that lost school days could still easily be made up, and that all other concerns expressed by plaintiffs were, at that early date, totally speculative. Id. at 6-8 (JA 436-38). The court indicated that it would revisit the question of irreparable harm if the strike did not end shortly, by \"setting a hearing on September 19th[, 1996] at 8:30.\" Id. at 9 (JA 439) . 4 Although several of the plaintiffs in Wilson, as well as their attorneys, were in contact with PCSSD representatives before and during the state court proceeding, Transcript of August 29, 1996 Hearing (\"Tr.\") at 220-21 (JA 360-61), PCSSD was not a party to the case. PACT attempted to join PCSSD as a necessary party (JA 444), but both the plaintiffs (JA 448) and PCSSD opposed the motion, Tr. at 196 (JA 336), and it was denied. 2. The District Court Proceeding On August 24, 1996, the day after the chancery court denied Wilson's request for injunctive relief, PCSSD filed a motion in the district court -- based upon the court's continuing jurisdiction over the implementation of the 1992 consent decree 4 Wilson has appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court, and this appeal is now pending. The only point on appeal, however, is the chancery court's ruling on the likelihood of success on the merits; no appeal was taken from its determination that the strike was not causing irreparable harm. As Wilson put it in the brief that was filed with the state supreme court, \"[i]t is from the chancery court's denial of the injunction requested based on the illegality of the strike from which Wilson appeals. Wilson is not appealing the court's decision with respect to irreparable harm.\" Exhibit D to PCSSD Motion to Stay the Appeal at 3. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 seeking to enjoin the teachers' strike (JA 410). In support of the requested injunction, PCSSD argued that the 1992 consent decree could not be implemented if \"the schools are not open.\" PCSSD Brief In Support of Its Motion Seeking Equitable Relief (\"PCSSD Trial Br.\") at 7 (JA 419). Although the primary beneficiaries of the 1992 consent decree are the black students in PCSSD, 5 PCSSD did not consult with the Joshua intervenors before filing their motion in the court below. Tr. at 211 (JA 351). And, in fact, the Joshua intervenors opposed PCSSD's motion. Tr. at 16 (JA 156). On August 29, 1996, the district court held a hearing on PCSSD's motion. Four witnesses testified: Deen Minton, President of PACT; Linda Pondexter, President of the Little Rock/ School District Board of Directors and former President of PACT;j Sandra Roy, Executive Director of PACT; and Bobby Lester, PCSSD Superintendent of Schools. There was no dispute about the fact that all of the schools in PCSSD were in operation, notwithstanding the strike. Minton, Pondexter and Roy all asserted that a nonnegotiated end to the strike, such as by an injunction, would have a significant negative impact on teacher morale, which in turn would adversely affect implementation of the 1992 consent decree. Tr. at 132-34 (JA 272-74); Tr. at 231- 5 See 839 F.2d at 1303 (\"The right most prominently involved [in this litigation) is the right to a public education free of racial discrimination.\"); 584 F. Supp. 328, 347 (E.D. Ark. 1984) (finding constitutional violation in part because ''there is no indication that [black students] will be treated fairly or with openness and inclusiveness\" in PCSSD). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 12 32 (JA 371-72); Tr. at 252-53 (JA 392-93). Lester, the only witness supporting the PCSSD motion, did not dispute this assertion. Tr. at 161, 164 (JA 301, 303-04). Lester testified that, in his opinion, the students who transferred from LRSD to PCSSD might be less likely to stay at PCSSD because of the strike, but he was unable to produce any PCSSD attendance records or other evidence to support this opinion. Tr. at 216-17 (JA 356-57). Before specifically ruling on PCSSD's request for an injunction, the court below issued several orders designed to improve PACT/PCSSD labor relations. First, the court stated that PACT's bargaining demand for a teacher salary increase did not fully account for PCSSD's financial obligations under the 1992 consent decree: [I)t was apparent to me, listening to the testimony of PACT members that they are focused on their rights under Arkansas law, instead of the District's multiple obligations under federal law, as well as under state law. And keep in mind, I'm not doing this tonight, I'm not saying this as -- I'm not ruling this way right now, but keep in mind at times this Court has superseded state law. I have that authority as a federal judge, to require that a party actually not follow state law. Order at 6 (attached as Addendum to Appellants' Brief). The court then observed that: Mistrust between the parties in this case is evident. There is certainly a lot of bad feelings, which is not good for the future of either this District or the success of the overall settlement decree. Complications to the funding formula have added to this feeling of ill-will and uncertainty. And I hope in a year or two all of these uncertainties with respect to the funding formula will be I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 13 resolved. But still, there has been a lot of damage done between the parties, and this is not a time of good feeling. Id. at 7. For these reasons, the district court directed PACT and PCSSD to establish a \"Labor Relations Committee, with representatives from each side, [which) will make recommendations to the Union and to the Board, and if necessary to this Court, with respect to their relations with each other. In other words, how to talk to each other and how to build back an era of trust.\" Id. at 7-8. The court also ordered \"the Labor Relations Committee to develop some sort of education program for PACT members, so that they can understand the District's [budget) predicament.\" Id. at 8. Finally, asserting the authority to interpret and enforce the collective bargaining agreement, the court ordered the parties to mediate their differences in accordance with the impasse procedure contained in the agreement. Id. at 9-10. The district court then turned to PCSSD's request for an injunction. Notwithstanding PCSSD's argument that the strike should be enjoined simply to facilitate implementation of the 1992 consent decree, the court applied the criteria for a preliminary injunction set forth by this Court in Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981): (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the moving party; (2) the balance of that harm against the interests of the other parties; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 14 The court below based its discussion of irreparable harm on the testimony of PCSSD Superintendent Lester: [T]he testimony of Bobby Lester indicates that the District will suffer from having to make up school days, from the sparse attendance of regular teachers, from the absence of students, and from the threat of losing students, including interdistrict students. The interdistrict part of the plan is a crucial element of this plan. The Eighth Circuit has so ruled, and that is not the District Court's ruling, that is the Eighth Circuit's. Id. at 11-12. The court therefore found that there is a threat of irreparable harm to the District, and further [found] there is a threat of irreparable harm to the overall success of the settlement decree. Judge Arnold, once again, of the Eighth Circuit, has said \"Stability is important to the success of this decree.\" And there are very few things more destabilizing than a teacher's strike. I've witnessed all the interest in this case today, the emotions, the news coverage, which I cannot take judicial notice of, but there has certainly been -- we cannot say that the situation has been stable. Id. at 12-13. 6 6 Judge Arnold has never written, in any published opinion of which we are aware, the words ascribed to him by the district court. The closest he has come was in an opinion issued on November 14, 1991, in which this Court directed the lower court to permit certain modifications to an earlier version of the 1992 consent decree. See 949 F.2d 253, 257 (8th Cir. 1991). In permitting these changes, this Court, through Judge Arnold, noted that the district court must proceed cautiously, because the public deserved stability in the terms of the decree: The 1989 settlement is a benchmark. Although changes can be made, the District Court and we must take into account the potential for confusion, even chaos, that constant change creates. The parties and the public deserve a period of stability. Changes in details, or at the margin, will not seriously interfere with this goal. Changes of greater significance, however, may well do so, and that fact must be taken fully into account when such changes are proposed and considered. Id. at 257. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 15 The district court turned next to PCSSD's likelihood of success on the merits. Although PCSSD's claim was that the strike was prohibited by the 1992 consent decree, the court did not address the likelihood of PCSSD's success as to that claim. Instead, the court dealt with this criterion on the basis of two state-law questions. The first question involved PACT's contention during collective bargaining that PCSSD was obligated to increase teachers' salaries in accordance with Act 917, the new state minimum salary law. PCSSD, on the other hand, had taken the position that it was not required to comply with Act 917, because to do so might make it difficult for PCSSD to meet certain obligations under the 1992 consent decree. 7 The district court treated the merits aspect of the request for a federal injnction as turning on the eventual outcome of the dispute over Act 917: it ruled that \"the District has carried its burden of showing that more likely "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1663","title":"Court Filings: District Court, affidavit of John W. Walker","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":["Walker, John W."],"dc_date":["1995-11-21"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Economic aspects","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, affidavit of John W. Walker"],"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/1663"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["37 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Walker, John W."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,, I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. LR-C-82-866 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W. WALKER STATE OF ARKANSAS ) )ss. COUNTY OF LONOKE ) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENOR$ INTERVENOR$ Come now the affiant, JOHN W. WALKER, who submits the following affidavit under oath: A. Educational and Professional Qualifications 1. I graduated from Arkansas AM\u0026N College in Pine Bluff, Arkansas in 1958 with a major in Sociology. In 1960, I was awarded a John Hay Whitney Opportunity Fellowship which I used to obtain a Master's Degree from New York University in Education (Human Relations) in 1961. In 1961, I enrolled in the Yale University Law School from which I received my law degree in 1964. At Yale Law School, in 1964, I was a finalist in the Thunnan Arnold Appellate Moot Court Competition. I have studied further at Fisk University (the Race Relations Institute) and at many legal training seminars which focused upon the subject of civil rights law in particular. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. In 1964, I was admitted to practice before the Bar of Arkansas. Subsequently, I was admitted to, and still practice before, the United States Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth, Fifth, Eleventh, and Tenth Circuits, the United States District Court, Western District of Texas, and the United States District Court, Eastern and Western District of Arkansas. 3. I completed a legal training internship in New York City with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) in September, 1965. In 1965, I opened a private general law practice in Little Rock which emphasized civil rights law. In 1968, Norman Chachkin (now of the LDF) and I opened one of the first integrated law firms in the South. That law firm has continued to be operated on an integrated basis since that time although it has undergone several name changes. My own work continues to emphasize civil rights legal activity. 4. I hold membership in the American and National Bar Associations, and the W. Harold Flowers and Pulaski County Bar Associations. From 1976 to 1982, I was a member of the Arkansas Board of Examiners. I have served as a member of the Federal Rules Advisory Committee of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. I am a member of the Board of Directors of the LDF in New York. 5. The following is a partial listing of major cases where I have been lead counsel: Employment Paxton v Union National Bank, 688 F. 2d. 522, 574 (8th Cir. 1982); Maney v Brinkley Municipal Water Works, 802 F 2d. 1073, 1076 (8th Cir. 1986); Rogers 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I v International Paper Co., 423 U.S. 809 (1975); Powell v Georgia Pacific Paper Company, Civ. Nos. 73-C-1 and E.D. 73-C-3 (Ark. 1993); Williams v Anderson, 562 F 2d. 1081 (8th Cir. 1977); Clark v Mann, 562 F 2d. 1104 (8th Cir. 1977); Parham v Southwestern Bell, 433 F 2d. 421 (8th Cir. 1970); Robinson v Klassen, Civ. No LR-C-73-301 (E.D. Ark. 1981); McFadden v Arkansas State Hospital, Civ. No. LR-C-78-153 (E.D. 1989; 1994); Taylor v Jones, 653 F 2d. 1193 (8th Cir. 1981); Hollowell v Gravett, Civ. No. LR-C-86-600 (E.D. Ark. 1989); and Perryman v Johnson Products, 698 F 2d. 1138 (11th Cir. 1983); Hollowell and Day v. Randy Johnson, E.D. Ark., October 30, 1995 .. Education Clark v Board of Education, 705 F 2d. 265 (8th Cir. 1983); Dowell v Oklahoma City Board of Education, 890 F 2d 1483 (10th Cir. 1989); Arvizu v Board of Education of Waco, Texas, 296 F 2d. 1309 (5th Cir. 1974); Kemp v Beasley, 389 F 2d. 178 (8th Cir. 1972); Raney v Board of Education of Gould, Arkansas, 381 F.2d 252 (8th Cir. 1967); Kelley v Altheimer, 378 F 2d. 483 (8th Cir. 1967); Little Rock School District v Pulaski County Special School District , 839 F 2d. 1296 (8th Cir. 1987), cert den., 102 L. Ed. 2d. 146 (1988); Smith v Board of Education of Morrilton, 365 F 2d. 770 (8th Cir. 1966); and Sherpell v. Humnoke School Dist. No. 5.; Rusk v. The Stuttgart School District,_ F.Supp. _, E.D. Ark. (1994). Housing 3 I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Williams v Matthews, 499 F. 2d. 819 (1974). Criminal Justice Winters v Beck, 407 F 2d. 125 (8th Cir. 1969). Public Accommodations Daniel v Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969). Voting Rights Sherpell v Humnoke, __ F.2d. __ (8th Cir. 1989); Harvell v Ladd, 978 F. 2d. 226 (8th Cir. 1992); Harvell v Ladd, __ F. 3d. __ (8th Cir. 1994); Williams v City of Texarkana. __ F. 3d. ___ (8th Cir. 1994). 6. I have served as Chairman of the Board of the Arkansas Opportunities industrialization Center (OIC), the Center for Law and Education (Cambridge, Mass.). and the Leadership Roundtable (Little Rock, Arkansas). In 1968, I was a member of the Arkansas Constitutional Revision Study Commission. In the early 1970's, I was a member of the Land Use Study Commission of the Southern Governors Conference. I have served as a member of the Supreme Court Committee on Legal Education. I have spoken or lectured at several annual meetings of the National Bar Association; the American Bar Association; other bar associations; many public colleges and many high schools regarding many subjects but primarily upon the subject of Civil Rights Law. I have also received numerous awards for my representation of civil rights causes and cases. B. Prior Work in School Desegregation Litigation in Pulaski County 7. I have a very large amount of experience concerning issues of racial discrimination and segregation in the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I school systems. My activities began in 1965 with the preparatory work and the filing of Clark v. Board of Education of Little Rock, in which I was lead counsel. This case was a successor to Cooper v Aaron which had become inactive. Desegregation litigation concerning the North Little Rock Schools, in which I was also lead counsel, was initiated in 1967 in the Graves case. The Clark case was very active through 1982, when the case of Little Rock School District v Pulaski County Special School District was filed. There were many appeals in Clark. I also became involved in desegregation litigation in the Pulaski County Special School District in approximately 1969 in the Zinamon case which was settled. The North Little Rock case also involved considerable time through the early 1980's. The level of activity in Zinaman did not approach that of the other two cases. I filed for black citizens a motion to intervene in LRSD v PCSSD, which was pressed, and denie~ j'fler the district court ruled on behalf of the LRSD regarding liability. On appeal, the Court of Appeals recognized the right of the Joshua intervenors to represent the black parent and students in the three districts. This led to the renewal of my active role in school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County, which has continued to the present. C. 8. Involvement in This Case I was an active participant throughout the negotiations in 1988 and 1989, which produced the five agreements and the settlement of this case. 9. I have done some work on this case, in its post-judgment phase, on the majority of days since June, 1990. My work has included, inter alia, the following activities: 5  I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,, I I I I , (a) negotiating a series of modifications to the agreements which resolved this case, with the revised agreements denominated by the parties the \"May 1991 Plan\"; (b) negotiating a series of stipulations to resolve issues arising in the postjudgment phase of this case; (c) preparing for, attending, and participating (by argument, as well as crossexamination and presentation of witnesses), in approximately 55 hearings scheduled by the court (not including the hearings concerning the return of Arkansas officials as defendants and the election case); ( d) raising in the hearings many significant issues not raised by other parties; (e) calling problems/issues to the attention of the attorneys for the defendants and school officials, in each of the three districts, on many occasions; (f) meeting with counsel and school officials, with ODM representatives present at times, to gather information, to present concerns, and to seek to resolve issues regarding compliance with and modification of the court-approved agreements; (g) responding to proposals for plan modification in accordance with the courtapproved procedure (see Pulaski County Plan, at 104-05); (h) attending community meetings to brief the plaintiff class on the agreements, to answer questions and to discuss particular issues, and, generally, to secure the views of the class members on the direction of the case; (i) informing ODM of the concerns of the Joshua lntervenors and responding 6 I I I I ,, I I I .I I I I I I I I I I I to questions posed by ODM personnel; 0) overseeing the work of Ms. Joy Springer, members of my firm, and other persons who have represented the Joshua lntervenors in the post-judgment phase of this case; (k) overseeing the work of Ms. Springer and the other members of the Joshua monitoring team who prepared and disseminated to the parties, ODM, the Court and the public for a period of three school years, three lengthy reports setting forth findings and recommendations regarding the three school districts; (I) assisting individual class members - by responding to inquiries and more formal representation - who were experiencing problems regarding discipline, placement, and other matters; also assisting school district staff members who were experiencing problems; (m) studying the large volume of correspondence, pleadings, reports, court orders, and other documents generated in the post-judgment phase of this case, as well as internal memoranda prepared by Ms. Springer for my use; (n) determining the need for particular correspondence and pleadings and their content; ( o) drafting correspondence and pleadings; (p) speaking in public forums to support the desegregation plan; and (q) resisting efforts to undermine the plan and to diminish the constitutional rights involved. 7 I 1 I I I I l1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 10. The documentation of my work and that of Ms. Springer for the post-settlement period shows a very considerable emphasis on assisting individual class members and school staff. This emphasis is a result of my many years of experience in this type of litigation, as well as the experiences of others, discussed in articles and when counsel litigating these kinds of cases convene. It has been recognized that what have been termed \"second generation school desegregation problems\" have often worked to defeat the improved educational opportunities for black youth, which are the goal of school desegregation. We have, therefore, worked to apply provisions of the plans to particular instances of discipline, program placement, grading practices, participation in extracurricular activities, hostile faculty and staff attitudes, and adverse treatment of staff. It is our goal that each time we work in a particular school, we not only help the class member ( or staff member) involved, but also help to educate the school staff to be more sensitive to those we represent in the future. 11. It is apparent from our time records that much of the work which we have had to do in the post-settlement period has been attributable to the inadequate implementation of the Court-approved settlements, particularly by the Little Rock School District. The Court has often recognized these compliance problems. See, for example, the Court's 8- page written statement of March 19, 1993, identifying many problems and areas of noncompliance; see also; Tr., March 29, 1993, at 17 (\"[The LRSD Board] must be driven by this plan. The plan has to drive their actions and that has not been happening clearly.\"); at 19-20 (\"But [the LRSD defendants] drag their feet, and they don't have a plan in place to focus and they don't have a process in place to focus on what needs to be done to fulfill their obligations and I have waited long enough and I'm tired of waiting.\"); 8 I 1- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Tr., June 7, 1994 ('Well, saying that you can do this and saying that you will do it is not going to be enough in this courtroom any more. You're going to have to say specifically in some detail what you will do, when you'll do it, whom you'll contact and what have you.\"); Tr., June 29, 1994, at 54-62 (court notes inadequacies in LRSD, in budgeting practices, program evaluation, communication with the Joshua lntervenors, and community involvement). 12. We saw the settlement agreements in their totality as designed to promote desegregation, much stronger educational outcomes for black pupils, and real efforts to eliminate harsh practices affecting black youth. We perceived these agreements to require actions bespeaking the equality of all citizens. We anticipated good faith, competent implementation of the agreements. However, we have often been disappointed. We have, therefore, used every available advocacy technique, in an effort to hold the defendants to the agreements which they made, to improve their performances. We provided three detailed monitoring reports to the systems. Our goals included strengthening cooperation and helping the defendants to identify the barrirs to full equality for black students. We offered models to produce effective results in the Incentive Schools. We have taken the lead, in dealing with the State, to protect (and increase) the financial resources available to the districts. We have been conscientious in terms of preparation for and participation in the budget (and other) hearings. We have sought to promote improved budgeting practices and to prevent the waste of resouces. We have opposed harmful budget cuts. We have emphasized that considerations of equity and equality in the provisions of resources require that some new facilities be opened in the black community ( opposing the pattern of merely closing schools in our class members' neighborhoods). The intervening class does not accept \"one way'' remedies - and we 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1, I I I I t I have made that point. We have addressed issues concerning staff hiring and placement, transportation, participation in extracurricular activities, and many others. Ms. Springer and I have been available to assist class members day after day, as evidenced to our affidavits. This description and others in my affidavit are, of course, only a brief description of our efforts and accomplishments. D. My Hours In the Post-Settlement Phase of This Case 13. The attachment to this Affidavit contains 97 pages, documenting my work in the post-judgment phase of this case. While the identification of my work is the product of a reconstruction of my efforts, I am confident that it is accurate. This is so because a variety of sources, containing overlapping information, including my memory, as well as records and court documentation were used to identify particular tasks. The identification of 1,798 hours, approximately 6.4 hours per week, is very conservative. I am certain that my actual time on this case greatly exceeded the number of hours claimed. 14. One basis for my confidence that the time claimed for me is conservative is a comparison of this time with the time for which counsel for the LRSD, the NLRSD, and the PCSSD have been paid in the post-settlement period . Analyses performed in my office, utilizing documents secured by invoking the State Freedom of Information Act, show the hours worked by opposing counsel to be as follows: LRSD NLRSD PCSSD 1995 (1-8/95) 1995 (1/4/95) 1995 (March) 1029.5 hrs. \"230.75 hrs. \"29.8 hrs.  128.7 per mo. *57.7 per mo. 10 I I' I I 'I I II I 1 I I I I I ' I I I f I 1994 1994 1994 (6-19/94) *1774.3 hrs. *668.75 hrs. *148.4 hrs. *147.9 per mo. *55.7 per mo. Note: Other bl/,. show ,,.yment for WOiie throughout the period since December 1990, but not the hours claimed. 1993 (8 mo.) 1993 *1465.5 hrs. *55.0 per mo. *122.1 per mo. (1-2, 7-12/90) 1992 1992 (11 mo.) *1256.5 hrs. 555.75 hrs. *104.7 per mo. 50.5 per mo. 1991 1991 (10 mo.) *1529 hrs. 814.25 hrs. *127.4 per mo. 81.4 per mo. 1990 (4-12/90) 1990 (5 mo.) *206.75 hrs. 372.5 hrs. 74.5 per mo. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL 7261.55 hrs. 3301.8 hours Incomplete While this time does include some time which we have excluded in the current motion - for example, the time involved in seeking to require state officials to comply with the settlement agreement - it is to be noted that my work is directed to all of the school 11 I I J I -1 I, I ' I I I' I I I , , , I I I districts to a greater extent than counsel representing each district, E. The Reasonable Hourly Rate and Related Matters 15. The following factors establish, I believe, that the rate sought for my work in the post-settlement phase of this case, $250.00 per hour, is a reasonable rate: (a) I was described by Circuit Judge Richard Arnold in Taylor v. Jones as a member of the bar of the ''first rank.\" In 1995, in an order awarding attorneys' fees, Judge George Howard, Jr. of this Court wrote: ''The Court notes that Walker is one of the most preeminent civil rights attorneys in the State.\" See McFadden v. Arkansas State Hospital, C.A. No. LR-C-78-153, at 3. (b) I have very extensive experience in school desegregation litigation, both generally and in Pulaski County, as detailed in paragraphs 1 through 7 of this Affidavit. (c) I regularly charge fee paying clients $250.00 per hour when they are able to pay that rate. In most of the cases in which I have represented prevailing parties, I have settled my fee requests with the losing party at my regular rate in order to avoid the additional cost of litigating and preparing fee petitions. (d) On September 7, 1994, John Haley of the firm of Arnold, Grobmyer \u0026 Haley signed an Affidavit for use in the case of Leapheart v. City of Morrilton and Carl Gipson, C.A LR-C-91~96. Mr. Haley stated that his rate for \"a practice consisting mostly of commercial, corporate and bankruptcy law'' was then $225.00 per hour. He supported that rate for my work in Leapheart, which was for the period from October 12, 1992 through September 13, 1994 as \"consistent with fees charged 12 I 1' J I I I I I 1 I I I 'I I' I :I I by (him) and other attorneys in Central Arkansas with similar lengths of practice, standing, expertise, and ability'' (at 1-2). (e) I was awarded $175.00 per hour for work in the McFadden case, concerning employment discrimination, by Judge Howard in 1989. In the 1995 Order in McFadden to which I have referred, Judge Howard increased the rate for my work to $225.00 per hour (at 3). This year, in Ashford v. City of Hamburg. El Dorado No. 93-1032, I was awarded $225.00 per hour by the Honorable Harry Barnes. In that case, involving police brutality, Attorney John Hall reviewed my affidavit and time record for the defendant and agreed that $225.00 per hour was a reasonable hourly rate for my services. (f) The publication Arkansas Business sets forth in its November 13, 1995 issue, the results of a survey of 12 Little Rock law firms regarding their \"hourly fee range[s].\" Of 10 firms willing to furnish information, one identified a top rate of $250.00 hour, i.e., Jack, Lyon and Jones, and two identified top rates of $225.00 per hour. See Attachment Two to this Affidavit. (g) The counsel for the school districts have been paid regularly throughout the post-settlement period. In contrast, any comprehensive award to our firm will be delayed. (h) The volume of the work in this case and the unpredictable demands on my time have limited my ability to represent fee paying clients. (i) We seek the vast majority of the amount sought from the LRSD. Granting the requested rate would, hopefully, provide an inducement for those defendants 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I i 1 I I I l , , I, ' t i I I t I t I I to improve the poor quality of the district's compliance with the Court-approved settlements, about which the Court has frequently commented. 16. It is the practice in this market to bill a fee-paying client separately for the time worked by a paralegal. Our firm currently bills fee-paying clients $50.00 per hour for the work of Joy Charles Springer, given the level of her experience and the quality of her work. It is also worth noting that the assignment of considerable work to Ms. Charles, in this case, greatly reduces the defendants' liability for fees. 17. I have expended more than $150,000.00 in out-of-pocket monitoring costs over the course of this Settlement Decree. This includes time for Ms. Springer and the others who assisted with the undertaking. Her time is not separatelyclaimed except byher affidavit and time statement. Monitors Clementine Rouse (now deceased), Evelyn Jackson, Delores Sykes and Kirke Heman, are former school teachers in schools within this county. Debbie Parker is a former paralegal for Woodson Walker \u0026 Associates in Little Rock. She is a graduate of UALR. LaRhonda Pondexter is a graduate of Hendrix College. Pondexter and Parker worked frull-time in monitoring and in writing the report filed by Joshua herein. To my knowledge, both live outside the city; hence we only claim the actual payments made to them for reimbursement. The claim for monitors, except for Springer does not include their 1995 receipts (i.e., payments which I made to them for monitoring work). I expressly reserve the right to make a later claim for this time and/or expense. I seek reimbursement for the time and expense as verified by Ramsey Eddington, C.P.A. in the amount of $96,812.81. 18. Our motion seeks an apportionment of the award of fees and costs among 14 I I I I J I I t 'I j '' I I t 'l f t I the school districts as follows: Little Rock School District (75 to 85), Pulaski County Special School District (15 to 20 percent), and North Little Rock School District (5 to 10 percent) (total to be 100 percent). This reflects my assessment of the time spent litigating against the three systems, including reviewing information and filings, and their relative culpability. E. The Negotiation of and the Content of the Settlement Agreement 19. In the years 1988 and 1989, I represented the Joshua lntervenors in a series of negotiation sessions with counsel for the other parties which ended with the five agreements ultimately approved by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and this court. These agreements set forth desegregation plans for the LR, NLR, and PCSSD systems, an interdistrict plan, and the financial commitments of the state. Other participants in these discussions were counsel for the parties: Herschel Friday, Chris Heller and, Jerry Malone, for the LR school district; Alston Jennings and Sam Jones for the PCSSD,\" and Steve Jones and Phil Lyon, for the NLRSD; Walter Smiley, a local businessman, and Skip Rutherford, also a local businessman who was then a member of the Board of LRSD. 20. In the course of the discussions we addressed relief of benefit to the Joshua lntervenors and other students, which had definite financial implications for the districts and the state. The participants recognized explicitly, that in order to arrive at a meaningful desegregation plan, it had to clearly be undertaken in an arms length matter. We therefore separated those discussions from any discussion of an amount to compensate LDF and Joshua counsel for their time and expenses in litigating school desegregation issues 15 I ~ \\ J I I I' ''I I l ' ,, I I , , I I I through the years until the conclusion of the settlement itself. 21. Paragraph IV.B. of the settlement was agreed upon before we reached a substantive discussion of the topic of fees and costs. It does not refer to those subjects. There was no discussion of fees and costs in the context of this provision. This paragraph deals in its entirety with \"issues which have been raised, or could have been raised, in this Litigation . . . \" as of the time of the settlement discussions. This did not include a fee request for the monitoring phase of the case, the parameters of which could not be known at the time of the settlement discussions. 22. Paragraph V of the agreement on the state's liability reflects the parties' settlement of the issue of attorneys' fees and costs for LDF and Joshua counsel. It is limited to compensation for the work through the preparation of the settlement. It does not by its terms address fees for the monitoring period. Moreover, in the context of discussions regarding this paragraph, no one took the position either that the fee settlement included compensation for the monitoring period, or that Joshua and/or LDF counsel were precluded from securing fees for any part of the monitoring period. I have read the foregoing statements and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information. 16 ., -I I ) ,, , I' t fl I I J' \\ i I I ,'t , , I SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 2 / day of November, 1995. MY COMMI. SION EXPIRES: ''/ /1 \"a'.' ~ NOTARY PUBLIC 17 I ,, I ! , , , , I I I t I l , , \\ I I. t r -I I I John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 In reference to: Little Rock School District, et al. v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al.; Lorene Joshua, et. al.; Katherine Knight, et al. (lntervenors); NO. LR-C-82-866 DATE 02/18/90 02/26/90 03/12/90 03/12/90 03/21/90 06/28/90 ACTIVITY STATEMENT OF JOHN W. WALKER 1990 ACTIVITY HOURS Talked to Mayor Smith about Reville's letter .3 Attended two school suspension hearings .5 Tim Montgomery preparation, consultation, re: hearing for 03/13/90 1.0 Met with Arma Hart, re: Incentive Schools and dictated letter to her 3.5 Spoke with Pat Scarborough about Central High problem regarding Magnet School; spoke with Herts about one race result in student elections . 75 Talked to C. Heller re: loan approval motion; signed motion; reviewed settlement agreement prior to signing; talked to Wiley Branton about agreement .8 SUBTOTAL 6.85 Activity Statement John W. Walker 1 I I I I , , I I I t., l 1 \\ I I I r \\I I I DATE 01/03/91 01/04/91 01/05/91 01/06/91 01/08/91 01/09/91 01/10/91 01/11/91 01/13/91 01/14/91 01/15/91 01/16/91 01/17/91 01/18/91 ACTIVITY HOURS 1991 Began implementation discussions with counsel Discussions with counsel continued 2.5 3.1 Meeting with office staff re: ways to assist in implementing plan and helping districts identifying problem areas 3.0 Continued meetings re: office monitoring and implementation assistance 1.0 Plan for and meetings with district counsel re: desegregation implementation 6.2 Plan for and meetings with district counsel re: desegregation implementation 7 .1 Plan for and meetings with district counsel re: desegregation implementation 8.0 Plan for and meeting with sam Jones re: desegregation implementation 4.0 Received mandate from 8th Circuit .1 Discussions with counsel about plan changes; conference with Springer re: Joshua monitoring instrument 6.1 Conference with Heller regarding plan modifications, Incentive School - Aerospace School 5.3 Conference with Steele and Heller re: plan implementation; review of plan 4.4 Reviewed extended day provisions of plan; talked with Steele, Jennings, Heller 2.4 Read Order denying motions for reconsideration .1 Activity Statement - John W. Walker 2 I t I I' f, I I t t, 1 t \\l I I I I t I, DATE 011/22/91 01/23/91 01/24/91 01/24/91 01/24/91 01/25/91 01/25/91 01/25/91 01/26/91 01/26/91 01/28/91 01/28/91 01/29/91 ACTIVITY HOURS Read part of Tri-District Plan; read part of LRSD Aerospace Magnet Plan; conference with Heller 3.5 Read 20 pages of Aerospace Magnet Proposal; conference with Heller and Steele 2.5 Prepare for Little Rock Hearing before Judge Wright on Aerospace Magnet School; conference with Heller and Paulson 3.2 Consideration of Magnet School Proposal; received fax from C. Heller regarding proposed stipulation; conferences with C. Heller; no agreement reached 1.2 Read letter to court from Burl lntervenors Prepared for Hearing before Judge Wright Preparation for and hearing before Judge Wright on Aerospace .2 1.1 Magnet School 3.0 Conference with Chris Heller about plan for the next day .3 Began review of QOM curriculum audit 1.2 Waited at Holiday Inn for Chris Heller who didn't show; read 40 pages of magnet application . 7 Met with Dr. Steele and Chris Heller about 2.0 gpa rule and Aerospace Magnet; telephone conferences with Heller and Jennings re: scholarship incentive 4.0 Called Dr. L.A. Davis to discuss his employment as expert, re: critique of Aerospace Magnet and to work with Angela Sewell to try to strengthen plan; Davis agreed to work for $45.00 per hour or $300.00 per seven hour day. He is to start at once; sent proposal to Pine Bluff by Vincent Maxwell; district is to reimburse costs; conferences with counsel 2.8 Obtained Little Rock Aerospace Project support - Mahlon Martin of Rockefeller Foundation; Dick Hulbert, Central Flying Service writings in support; conference with Heller; met with Activity Statement - John W. Walker 3 l ., , l ' , , I I \\ :I, t I' II I I I f I I I DATE 01/30/91 01/30/91 01/30/91 01/31/91 02/01/91 02/02/91 02/03/91 02/04/91 02/04/91 02/04/91 02/07/91 ACTIVI1Y HOURS ministers re: plan Spoke with Chris Heller by phone, re: Aerospace Magnet; telephone conference with L.A. Davis, re: Aerospace Magnet and met with Committee and Dr. A. Sewell who agreed to work for $45.00 per hour or $300.00 per seven hour day. He is to 4.0 start at once; Sent proposal by Vincent Maxwell 4.5 Met with Dr. Davis, re: Little Rock proposals for Aerospace Magnet; began revising and drafting formal document 6.5 Order granting motion of Knight lntervenors for order to substitute class representatives .1 Continued to work on Aerospace Magnet issue; conferred with C. Heller, Dr. Steele, and parents, as well as expert Lawrence Davis; additional drafting and editing of proposal 11.5 Drafting, editing and redrafting plan for Aerospace Magnet for finalization for filing with Judge; conference with Heller, Springer, et al. 6.0 Four telephone conferences with C. Heller; telephone conference with Dick Hulbert, re: revising Aerospace Magnet School settlement; revising same with Mark B. 2.5 Preparation 2.1 Returned Chris Heller's call regarding settlement approval; conference with Hulbert, preparation 3.1 Worked with Chris Heller, Richard Roachell and J.S. on Aerospace proposal 2.0 Read Stipulation \u0026 Consent Order finding that the LRSD's desegregation plan is modified to include the Aerospace Technology Magnet School; spoke with C. Heller, and district officials .5 Conferences with counsel re: stipulation and extended day problems 1.5 Activity Statement - John W. Walker 4 I - I , . I 'I I I I I , , t \\I '' I I, t l DATE 02/09/91 02/11/91 02/12/91 02/13/91 02/13/91 02/19/91 02/21/91 02/22/91 02/25/91 02/26/91 02/26/91 02/26/91 02/26/91 02/28/91 ACTIVITY HOURS Reviewed PCSSD's First Quarter Status Report for 1990-91 \u0026 Special Report concerning the J.C. Cook Elementary School .6 Reviewed Order granting motion of Burl lntervenors .1 Reaching agreement and entering Stipulation, filed by Joshua lntervenors, LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD \u0026 Knight lntervenors, for approval of substituting Bonnie Brown in place of Sara Matthews Facen as class representative .4 Reviewed Order granting stipulation of parties re: class representatives .1 Read Stipulation \u0026 Consent Order concerning Washington and four other topics .6 Reviewed Affidavit of Richard N. Hulbert re: Aerospace Magnet School .2 Read letter to Stephen Jones re: concerns on memo with appearances of plagiarism and racism; attended school board meeting 2.2 Read State's letter to court re: funding payments from Dept. of Educ. to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring .2 Conference with Joshua monitoring team members to discuss monitoring LRSD schools 1.5 Review of letter from Sharon Street to Judge Wright .3 Received and reviewed letter to Chris Heller from Sam Jones; letter to Sam Jones .2 Review of letter from Sharon Street to Judge Wright .3 Received \u0026 reviewed letter to Chris Heller from Sam Jones; letter to Sam Jones .4 Read Order finding that the State is obligated under the terms of the settlement agreement to continue funding the ODM .1 Activity Statement - John W. Walker 5 1- 1 I I I ' II I I t i t I f '' f' I t 1 DATE 03/01/91 03/05/91 03/06/91 03/15/91 03/15/91 03/17/91 03/18/91 03/18/91 03/19/91 03/20/91 03/21/91 03/21/91 03/25/91 03/26/91 ACTIVITY HOURS Conference with Jennings, Matthis re: Incentive Schools 1.1 Meeting about plan m "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_490","title":"Incentive Schools: ''Economic and Market Assessment for the Goals Policy Program for the City of Little Rock,''","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":["Tischler \u0026 Associates, Inc."],"dc_date":["1992-02"],"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","Municipal government"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: ''Economic and Market Assessment for the Goals Policy Program for the City of Little Rock,''"],"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/490"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["9 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nr It Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, Inc. 4701 Sangamore Road Suite N210 Bethesda. MD 20816 (301) 320-6900 Fax: (301)320-4860 I  i 211 S. Manhattan Pl. Suite 3 Los Angeles, CA 90004 (213) 382-4800 Fax: (213) 382-4858 i 145 Columbia St.. West Suite IB Waterloo. ONT. N2L 3L2 (519) 888-7437 Fax: (519)888-6382 (800) 424-4318 Economic and Market Assessment for the Goals Policy Program for the City of Little Rock February, 1992 Prepared by: Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, Inc. Fiscal Impact Analysis Capital Facility Analysis Impact Fee Systems iwth Policy Planning Economic and Market Analysis MONIES. FISCALS \u0026amp; CRIM Fiscal impact systems tailored (or each community II II Table of Contents n II II n n n Section I Executive Summary.............................. PURPOSE ............................................................................................ ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT Employment........................................................................ Population ........................................................................... Age and Sex Characteristics.................................... Racial Distribution . . ................................................. Personal Income............................................................ Housing Characteristics ........................................... Retail Trade Profile..................................................... DEVELOPMENT TRENDS............................................... Housing Market Trends........................................... Retail Development Trends ................................. Office Space Development Trends.................... Other Employment and Development............. DEVELOPMENT ISSUES.................................................. Prevailing Development Trends........................... Opportunities and Constraints.............................. I-l I-l I-l 1-2 1-2 1-6 1-6 1-9 1-9 1-9 I-IO I-IO I-ll I-ll 1-12 1-13 1-13 1-14 Section EL Economic and Demographic Context............ ILA.EMPLOYMENT......................................................................................... 1.General MSA Employment Trends........................................ 2.Projected Employment by Sector and County................. n.B.POPULATION PROJECTIONS .................................................. l.MSA Population and Household Projections ................. 2.Population and Household Projections by County . . . 3.Projccted Population Changes for Little Rock Vicinity ILC.RACE, AGE, AND SEX CHARACTERISTICS.............. l.Age and Sex Characteristics........................................................ 2.Racial Distribution ............................................................................ ILDJNCOME, HOUSING, RETAIL TRADE.............................. 1.Household Income ............................................................................ 2.Housing Characteristics.................................................................. 3.Retail Trade Profile............................................................................ 1 n-1 n-i n-2 n-4 n-ii n-ii n-13 n-18 n-26 n-26 n-28 n-34 n-34 n-41 n-44 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. IncI Table of Contents (Ccntinued) I Section EQ Development Trends.................................... in.A.HOUSING MARKET TRENDS........................................... 1.Residential Sales Activity ..................................................... 2.Residcntial Building Permits .............................................. 3.Projected Households and New Housing.................... in.B.RETAIL DEVELOPMENT TRENDS.............................. l.Retail Sales Trends: 1982-1987 ....................................... 2.Retail Development Trends ................................................. 3.Projected Retail Market Support .................................... 4.Development and Employment Potential................. in.C.OFFICE SPACE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS . . . 1.Market Inventories .................................................................. 2.0ffice Space Market Demand ........................................ in.D.OTHER EMPLOYMENT AND DEVELOPMENT 1.Medical Employment ............................................................ 2.Warehouse Space...................................................................... 3.Transportation, Construction, Utilities....................... I I I I Section IV Development Issues .............................. IV.A PREVAILING DEVELOPMENT TRENDS IV.B OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS Opportunities ...................................................................... Constraints............................................................................ in-1 in-1 m-i in-3 in-8 m-io III-11 ni-14 in-16 in-19 in-20 in-20 in-25 ni-30 in-30 ni-30 in-32 IV-1 IV-1 IV-4 IV-5 IV-6 ! I I 1 I I ii I Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, 1 1II II List of Tables II II Table S-1 Table S-2 Table S-3 Table S-4 Projected Employment Change Pulaski County\n1990-2010 .. . . Components of Population Change\n1980-1990 ........................................ Population Changes by Analysis Area\n1980-2010 ................................. Racial Distribution\n1980 and 1990 ..................................................................... 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-7 II II II II II Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 General MSA Employment Trends.............................................. Projected Employment by Sector and County.................... MSA Population And Households Projections.................... Components of Population Change\n1980-1990 ................. Projected Population' and Households by County . . . . Population Change By Analysis Area\n1990-2010 . . . . Age, Sex and Racial Distribution ................................................. Racial Distribution\n1980 and 1990 ............................................. Pulaski County Personal Income by Source\n1980-1986 Personal Household Income by Analysis Area\n1980 . . Characteristics of Housing Units\n1980 ................................... Housing Starts 1960-1985 .................................................................... Retail Sales Distribution....................................................................... n-3 n-6 n-12 11-14 n-16 n-19 n-27 n-29 11-35 n-36 n-42 11-43 n-45 11 II II n B Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Residential Sales Activity\n1990-1991 in-2 Little Rock Area Residential Building Permits\n1989-1991 .... I1I-5 Projected Change in Number of Households . .. Retail Sales\n1982 \u0026amp; 1987 .................................................. MSA Retail Development Trends................................. Projected Retail Market Support................................ OfTice Market Summary\nFall 1991 .......................... Office Space Inventory........................................................... Office Occupancy and Rent Rates ............................. Distribution of Rentable Office Space Inventory Projected Office Space Market Support............. Pulaski County Warehouse Space............................. in-9 in-12 in-15 in-17 in-21 in-22 in-24 in-26 in-28 in-31 iii Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. IncList of Exhibits Exhibit S-1 Exhibit S-2 Projected Population Change Map\n1990-2010 Non-White Numeric Change Map\n1980-1990 1-5 1-8  I k Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 ' Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 Exhibit 18 Exhibit 19 Exhibit 20 MSA Labor Force and Employment........................................ Projected Employment Growth .................................................. Regional Employment Distribution........................................... Population, Households \u0026amp; Employment\n1980-2010 . . Projected Population and Households by County . . . Projected Population Change 1980-2010 ............................. Population Change Map - Pulaski County\n1980-1990 n-3 n-8 n-10 n-12 11-17 n-19 n-22 I Population Change Map - Little Rock Vicinity\n1980-1990 .... 11-23 Projected Population Map - Little Rock Vicinity\n2010 n-24 Population Change Map - Little Rock Vicinity\n1990-2010 .... 11-25 Non-White Racial Distribution Map\n1980 .......................... Non-White Racial Distribution Map\n1990 ........................ Non-White Racial Numeric Change Map\n1980-1990 . Non-White Racial Percentage Change Map\n1980-1990 Pulaski County 1980 Median Houseliold Income Map n-30 n-31 n-32 n-33 n-37 Little Rock Vicinity 1980 Median Household Income Map . . . 11-38 Central Area 1980 Household Income Below $10,000 Central Area 1980 Household Income Over $35,000 Housing Starts 1960-1985 ............................................................... Retail Sales Capture ......................................................................... n-39 n-40 n-43 n-47 I I I  I Exhibit 21 Exhibit 22 Exhibit 23 Exhibit 24 Exhibit 25 Exhibit 26 Residential Sales Activity........................................................ Number of Residential Permits Map\n1989-1991 . Average Value per Residential Permit\n1989-1991 Retail Sales Trends\n1982 - 1987 . . ................................. Retail Development Trends 1987-1990 . ................... Office Space Trends - Available (Vacant) S.F. . . in-4 m-6 in-7 in-13 in-15 in-24 I    I I iv Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. Iri II II II B Section I Executive Summary II PURPOSE The City of Little Rock has undertaken preparation of a Growth Policy Plan as part of fl an overall initiative aimed al directing growth and development for the 1990 s and beyond. This effort is being made at an important time in the citys development history. nj A significant amount of new development is occurring on the outer edges of the city, and in the adjoining counties. While a major-pan of this \"new development is occurring HI II II II r II f n within city boundaries, older, core-area pans of the city are experiencing population loss and commercial disinvestment. This Markel and Economic Assessment establishes an underlying \"fact base\" of imponant economic, demographic, and development trend data which can be used in all subsequent analytical effons. Following this Executive Summary. Section II provides a review of basic demographic and economic trends and projections. Section Id comments on the development outlook for each major sector of activity, including housing development, retail market support, office space development, and related trends in employment and complementary development Finally, Section IV addresses the significance of the statistical analyses, and frames issues for discussion in funire tasks. II IB ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT Section II of this report contains overview assessments of key economic and demographic trends. Significant observations from this assessment are summarized as follows.  I-l Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. Inc II Employment During the 1980s, total non-agricultural wage and salary employment in the region increased by 51,500 jobs, an average of 5,150 per year (The region, or MSA, is defined as Pulaski, Saline, Faulkner and Lonoke Counties.) The services sector, which includes medical activities, was responsible for all net growth in the region s employment. TA anticipates a lower increase in employment for about the fust half of this decade and then a recovery so that the total increment of growth through the year 2010 will be consistent with the trends during the 1980s. M  Within the region, Pulaski County will continue to be the dominant location of employment for the region. The Countys share will decrease slightly from nearly 83 percent to 79 percent by 2010. While the rest of the region will increase by about 28,000 jobs over the next 20 years (about 1,400 new jobs per. year), Pulaski County employment will increase by about 69,000 jobs over the same time period (about 3,500 per year). While manufacturing jobs in the County will decrease, TA projects several categories will increase in the following manner between 1990 - 2010. H H Table S-1 Projected Employment Change Pulaski County\n1990 - 2010 I I  Industrial Category Projected Increase Percent Increase I Manufacturing Transp. \u0026amp; Utilities Trade Finance, Insurance \u0026amp; Real Estate Services Government -6,000 6,000 15,000 5,000 42,500 6,000 (26.9%) 43.6% 29.1% 40.0% 78.3% 20.5%  Total: 69,000 35.6% I  Population  Jobs have a strong relationship to population. The jobs per household in the region increased from 1.104 in 1980 to 1.197 in 1990, an 8 percent increase over 10 years. As 1-2 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. irj\n^II II discussed in the text, the ratio is projected to increase to 1.282 jobs per household as of 2,000 and 1.257 by 2010 (an increase of 13 percent from 1990). II indicates the components of metropolitan population change from 1980 - II The table below . 1990 The population increased more in Saline County as in Pulaski County. More teUing is that after accounting Cnnntv actuallv exnerienced a loss of nearly 23,000 in population (6.7 percent of it County actually experienced a loss of nearly 23,000 well as Faulkner County than for natural increase, Pulaski population) in out-migration. Of this loss. Little Rock accounted for 67 percent, with an estimated net out-migration of over 15,400 based on 1980 city boundaries. II Table S-2 Components of Population Change II II 1990 Population | 1980 Populationj MSA Total 513,117 474,468 Pulaski County Little Rock Balance Saline County Faulkner County Lonoke County 156.282* 158.915 193.378* 181.682 64,183 53.161 60,006 46.192 39.268 34.518 II Change 80-90 II II II Percent of Total Births Deaths Natural Increase Net Migration Est Households* Nous: 38.649 100.0% 80.292 39.790 40.502 -1,853 -700 -2.633 -6.8% 11.696 30.3% 11,022 28.5% 13.814 35.7% 4,750 12.3% 24.393 11.598 12.795 -15,428 -7,078 36,590 17,399 19.181 -7,485 -1,588 7.276 3.894 3.382 7,640, 2,888 6.710 3.660 3.050 10,764 4,070 5.323 3.239 2.084 2,666 1,008 1990 Little Rock population adjusted downwards from 1990 Census ntmbCT of 175,795 fw annexations occurring between 1980 and 1990. Areas annexed by Lttde R^ ov account for 19.513 persons. Data above includes these persons m the Balance of County category, permitting a comparison to consistent 19M city boundaries. Source: U.S.Ceiisus MSA and county-total births and deaths as estimated by Arkansas Bureau of Vit^ Stausucs and Division of Demographic Rese^ch. UALR. Alloc^ion -d Lillie Rock and Planning. balance of Pulaski County provided by Department of Neighborhoods and on MSA-wide average household Estimated household net migration calculated by TA, based ____ size, averaged between 1980 and 1990. Group quarters populauon assumed not to contribute significantly to migration. 1-3 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. ln\u0026lt; n n n  1 3 3 ]From 1990 - 2010, the metropolitan population is expected to increase by about 86,550\nPulaski will increase by about 18,000\nSaline will increase by 26,650\nand Faulkner s population will rise by 29,650. Lonoke Countys population increase will be about 5,000. The population change within the Little Rock analysis area indicates that the city has experienced losses from 1980 - 1990 in all areas except northwest, west and far west. TA projects this to continue from 1990 - 2010 unless there are intervention strategies. The changes are shown in Table S-3 while the 1990 - 2010 change is shown on the map on the next page. The westward population movement within and outside of the city is likely to negatively affect housing and nonresidential development within the other parts of the city. Il I Table S-3 Population Change By Analysis Area\n1980-2010 1980 Actual 1990 2000 Projected 2010 Pulaski County 340,597 349,660 350,497 367,664 Percent Change 80-*90 90-00 OO-IO 2.7% 0.2% 4.9% Little Rock Vicinity 194,421 192,192 184,542 186,042 -1.1% -4.0% 0.8%  Downtown Central Blast Northwest Midtown Southwest West Far West 2,439 16,063 18,007 47,830 36,973 39,757 18,478 14,874 1,777 12,892 15,035 49,944 31389 36,414 18,811 25,930 1,277 9,642 12,035 51,444 24,739 32,664 18,811 33,930 1,027 7,892 10,035 53,444 18,739 29,164 19,811 45,930 -27.1% -19.7% -16.5% 4.4% -15.1% -8.4% 1.8% 74.3% -28.1% -253% -20.0% 3.0% -21.2% -10.3% 0.0% 30.9% -19.6% -18.1% -16.6% 3.9% -243% -10.7% 5.3% 35.4% I I Balance Of Pulaski County 146,176 157,468 165,955 181,622 7.7% 5.4% 9.4% I 1-4 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. In'Projected Population Change 1990 Little Rock Vicinity 2010 Fl 20000 (Z n o \u0026gt; (/I (A 8 0) \u0026lt;0 Midtown iwe-j Soulhwc9 J 5000 0 -6000 -12650 Age and Sex Characteristics The age and sex characteristics of Pulaski County indicate that the population as a whole is aging. This is consistent with national trends as the \"baby boom\" generation advances into middle age. In 1980, Pulaski County population between the ages of 35-59 years, and 60 years and above comprised 25 percent and 13.7 percent of the population respectively. By 1990, the 35-59 age group had grown to 30 percent, and the 60 and over group had increased to 15.3 percent of total county population. As of 1990, Black children and teenagers comprised a higher-ihan-average percentage of these age groups in Pulaski County compared to the total population. While the county as a whole has approximately 35% Black population. Black female children and teenagers through age 19 comprise 37.4 percent, and Black male children and teenagers comprise 44.1 percent of this age bracket. Of particular note has been the apparent out-migration of younger white children from Pulaski County. As of 1980, Pulaski County had 36,253 white children of 0 to 9 years of age. However, ten years later in 1990, this same population group, now aged 10-19 years, was only 29,359, a decline of 6,894, or about 19 percent of the corresponding 1980 population group. By contrast, Black children have maintained their relative total between 1980 and 1990. As of 1980, Black children aged 0-9 years were 19,237. As of 1990, the corresponding age group, now 10-19 years old, was nearly the same at 19,034. Racial Distribution Racially, Little Rock remained about one-third non-white from 1980 - 1990 (31.4 percent and 34.7 percent respectively). The city showed a decrease of about 8,000 white and an H increase of almost 6,000 non-white during this period. As reflected in the map on the following page, there were decreases in white population in all subareas except the northwest and far west. There were decreases in nonwhite population in the downtown, central, east and midtown areas. The three greatest decreases in white population occuned in the southwest (9,000), midtown (4,100) and west (3,200). The only area of increase exceeding 1,000 was the far west (10,300). The three greatest areas of nonwhite decrease were the cast (2,300), central (2,150), and midtown (1,400). The areas increasing more than 1,000 in nonwhite population were southwest (6,200), west (3,500), and northwest (1,400). The figures indicate a net loss of white and nonwhite in the downtown, central, east and midtown areas. The biggest swing in racial distribution occurred in the southwest between white and nonwhite. The above figures indicate that the eastern part of the city is losing population while only the far west is experiencing significant increases, primarily of whites. It is assumed that the loss in white population in the city is a major factor in the demand for housing outside the city. 1-6 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. INon-White Racial Change\n1980 - 1990 Change I n Isjon-White Numeric Population By Area 6222 ion 2 0 \u0026gt; vi in 8 y s 3 n 'iXo/n. \u0026lt;) 1500 0 -1500 -2298 1980 analysis AREA Downtown Central East Northwest Midtown Southwest West Total Population White 2,439 1,214 16,063 18,007 47,830 36,973 39,757 18,478 3,573 7,301 45,685 14,039 34,481 13,444 V, r\u0026gt; (D Far West 14,874 13,707 Tables-4 Racial Distribution 1980 and 1990 by Study Area Non- White 1^25 12,490 10,706 2,145 22,934 5,277 5,034 1,167 1990 Percent Non- White 50.2% 77.8% 59.5% 43% '62.0% 13.3% 273% 7.8% Total Population White Non- White Percent Non- White Change in Percent 1980-90 1,777 752 1,025 57.7% 7J% 12,892 15,035 49,944 31,389 36,414 18,811 25,930 2,552 6,627 46,388 9,927 24,915 10,259 2A.0Q\\ 10,340 80.2% 2.4% 8.408 3,556 21,462 11,499 8,552 1'929 55.9% 7.1% 68.4% 31.6% 45.5% -l.A% -33% 2.6% 63% 183% 183% -0.4% Po \u0026gt; (/\u0026gt; 1/1 8 s f? VI STUDY AREA TOTAL i\nU.S, 194,421 133,444 60378 31.4% 192,192 125,421 66,771 34.7% 3.4% nsus\nTischler \u0026amp; Assoc. Inc.II Personal Income II II II II II U.S. Census data as of 1990 for personal income has yet to be released as of this writing. The observations noted below relate to 1980 census dau. As of 1980, personal income distribution indicated a pattern of affluence for particular areas, with much of the rest of the immediate Little Rock vicinity having very low personal incomes. Of note is the relative affluence of the northwest and far west areas compared to the rest of Little Rock. As of 1980, these areas had 23 and 29 percent of their households respectively with incomes of $35,000 or more, compared to no higher than 8.6 percent for any other area. 1980 Median household incomes were $21,059 for the northwest area and $24,817 for the far west area, with no other area higher than $17,290. Concentration of low-income households was, naturally, a reverse pattern of affluence. Between 76 and 80 percent of all households in the downtown and central city areas had incomes less than $10,000 in 1980. II Housing Characteristics II II From 1980 to 1990, vacant housing units in Pulaski County increased from 6.2 percent to 9.5 percent of the total housing stock. This is in contrast to the adjoining three counties for which vacancy rates either remained about the same, or in fact declined over this same period. Rental units in Pulaski County have narrowly increased their share of total occupied units during the 1980s, growing from 37.6 percent in 1980 to 39.7 percent in 1990. A similar, marginal increase in housing units with Black householders was experienced over this same period, increasing from 20.0 percent in 1980 to 22.0 percent in 1990. As of 1990, the median owner-occupied housing value was $61,300 and the median monthly rent for rental units was $303 for all of Pulaski County. Housing starts data has been estimated for both Pulaski and Saline Counties over a period from 1960 to 1985, based in part on secondary dau sources for unincorporated areas where no building permits arc issued. This dau indicates that for the 25 year period from 1960 to 1985, multi-family housing starts comprised over 43 percent of the two countytotal. This proportion is much higher than the proportion of multi-family building permits issued by the City of Little Rock over the most recent three years. Realtors and developers have also indicated that the Little Rock area is very strongly oriented to single-family housing, and that very little in the way of multi-family housing has been initiated within Little Rock in recent years. Retail Trade Profile As of 1989, total sales for Little Rock esublishments were estimated at S1.95 billion, with an additional $1.29 billion estimated for the balance of Pulaski County, combining for total county-wide sales of $3.24 bilbon. Sales in each of the other three MSA counties 1-9 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. Inc M n n 0 kwere dramatically low'cr at $242 million, $325 million, and $135 million for Saline, Faulkner and Lonoke Counties respectively. These sales estimates indicate that Little Rock establishments accounted for nearly half (49.5 percent) of total regional sales, with the balance of the county (i.c. North Little Rock and adjoining areas) accounting for nearly one third (32.6 percent) of the regional total. While Little Rock is therefore capturing the greatest share, establishments in the northern pan of the county arc capturing a sales share which is much higher than this areas share of regional population. This can be attributed to several of the regions larger retail centers and areas being located in the nonhern pan of the county, and that these locations tend to seiA'e as \"intercepts\" to some degree for the Faulkner County market funher to the nonh.  1 Comparing the sales from establishments within each jurisdiction to the expenditures from the same jurisdiction indicates whether sales are being \"imported\" or \"exported\". Overall, sales for establishments in Little Rock are estimated as being equivalent to about 116 percent of expenditures from city residents, thus indicating that a significant increment of sales is coming from residents living outside of the city. Little Rocks sales are consistently higher than expenditures from the citys residents for each category, with the one very notable exception of general merchandise. For this category, stores within the , city are capturing only 74 percent of the expenditures generated by city residents. These sales arc being captured by stores in the Nonh Little Rock area which is estimated as having a market capture equal to 174 percent of the expenditures generated just from within this area. The overall observation from this data is that retailing in Linle Rock generally enjoys good competitive positioning and is able to command a significant share of the regions sales and expenditures. DEVELOPMENT TRENDS Section HI of this report provides market assessments and projections of demand for major sectors of future development The findings of these analyses are summarized as follows. Housing Market Trends Analyses provided in Section HI in the report results in the projected changes in the number of households shown in Table S-4. This projection indicates that five of the eight analysis areas may experience a net loss of households over the next ten years, if current prevailing trends continue without alteration. The northwest, west and far west areas are shown as experiencing a net gain of 5,099 households, absorbing outmigration from the eastern portions of the city, as well as attracting new-arrivals to the region. While Pulaski County is indicated as increasing by 6,183 households over the next 10 years, most of this will occur outside of the city, such as in Maumelle and other I-IO Tischler \u0026amp; Associales. IniII north-county communities. The city as a whole is shown as experiencing a net loss of 521 households over the next 10 years. II II The predominance of the western areas, and the type of housing being developed in these areas suggests that the growth anticipated in these areas will continue to be strongly oriented to single-family-detached development. Very little multi-family development may occur within the city, although some may be constructed in the north county communities. n II The projections seen in Table S-4 indicate that only three areas, west, northwest and far west, arc anticipated as having any positive net growth in the number of households through the rest of the decade. Based on building permit data over recent years and our own survey of the market areas, TA believes new housing development in these areas will be strongly, if not exclusively, oriented to single-family-detached units. II Retail Development Trends n M The retail sales projections provided in Section III for the year 2000 indicate total sales of just over $2.0 billion for Little Rock retailers. Within this total, the four largest store categories arc projected as automotive ($500 million), general merchandise ($380 million), food stores ($375 million), and eating and drinking establishments ($244 million). II n n These projections of future sales support indicate market support for between 463,0CX) and 514,000 square feet of new retail development within the city of Little Rock through the year 2(X)0. Some portion of this projected growth has probably already been absorbed by retail development which may have already occurred within the city since 1987. Total additional retail employment for Little Rock is estimated at 1,533 new jobs added within the city between 1987 and 1990. II Office Space Development Trends II  B Between 1984 and 1987, a tremendous increment of office space was added to the inventory of office space in both outlying and downtown locations. The downtown inventory increased from 2.7 million square feet in 1984 to 4.0 million square feet, a gain of 1.3 million, during this period. No significant expansion has occurred in the downtown area since 1986, however. The suburban area also increased by 1.0 million square feet between 1984 and 1986. For the subsequent four years, expansion continued at a modest pace, gaining an additional 873,000 square feet, or about 218,000 square feet per year. Since 1987, the suburban office markets have begun to recover. Downtown, however, has not yet absorbed this additional inventory, and the amount of vacant space is roughly the same today as it was five-to-six years ago. I-ll Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. ln\u0026lt;The analyses of office space market support indicate that occupied floor area in downtown is expected to increase from 3.36 million square feet as of 1990 to 3.44 million by 1995, and 3.61 million by 2000. This represents total increase over 1990 of nearly 252,000 occupied square feet in the downtown market area. Should this occur in the absence of any new significant development, it would have the effect of increasing occupancy rates to a more desirable level of 84.3 percent (16.7 percent vacancy). The related implication of this projection is that no new additional multi-tenant office development will likely be demanded by the marketplace within downtown in the immediate future. These projections assume no change in status for existing State agency offices. At the same time, occupied space in the suburban market area is shown as increasing from 3.0 million square feet at present to 4.45 million square feet by 2000, a gain of 1.48 million square feet. If a 10 percent vacancy level is deemed acceptable, then total suburban space inventory could expand'to4.94 million square feet by 2000, and increase of 1.2 million square feet over the 1990 inventory. Total city-wide occupied office space is projected as increasing by 1.866 million square feet between 1990 and 2000, attaining 8.63 million square feet of occupied space by the ' end of the decade. The citys share of total office employment growth would be about 5,500 new office jobs city-wide, growing from 29,000 estimated as of 1990 to 34,500 by 2000. Other Employment and Development Medical Employment Discussions with officials of the areas major hospitals has determined that some moderate scale expansions are in the final planning stages. These might bring approximately l,00U - 1,500 new medical facility jobs during the 199Os. Wholesale Trade, Warehousing and Distribution Wholesale trade employment in Pulaski County is estimated at 15,500, and is projected to increase by about 1,800 workers county-wide by the year 2000. If this were to be distributed in proportion to the occupied floor area of the countys warehouse space, then 60 percent of the expected increase, or about 1,080 jobs might be accommodated within Little Rock. While the city may gain roughly 1,000 wholesale trade workers, the current vacancy rate in die citys warehouse space inventory and the inventory tax situation indicates to us that no expansion of warehouse development is imminent. 1-12 Tischler \u0026amp; Associales. III Transportation, Construction, Utilities II II Growth in transportation and utility employment is projected to be approximately 2,000 jobs county-wide between 1990 and 2000. A substantial majority of this job growth may be administratively based within Little Rock, but is likely to be physically allocated more to the developing suburban portions of the county. By the very nature of this employment, few building-type, tax-ratable developments are likely to be associated with this employment growth. II II County-wide construction employment is forecast as declining slightly by 250 jobs between 1990 and 2000. This is deemed likely as more construction activity becomes oriented to the adjoining surrounding counties. No significant direct development impacts (i.e demand for additional offices, warehouses, etc.) arc anticipated from thisrmoderatc-constmetion employment. II n n DEVELOPMENT ISSUES Section IV of this report discusses overall development issues which have emerged from this assessment of economic and market trends. These are summarized as follows\nII Prevailing Development Trends n n The regions environment, quality of life, existing base of modem and technologically oriented industries, and relatively lower labor costs will all tend to keep the Little Rock region competitive for future economic growth. n The three counties adjoining Pulaski County are. already assuming a more significant role in the regions economy, and this trend will likely become even more pronounced in some sectors over the next twenty years. II  Pulaski County itself appears to be in the midst of a major, continuing, and long term suburbanization trend. A substantial part of this \"suburban\" development is in fact falling within city limits, and the city is thus still capturing and retaining this tax base. Prevailing suburbanization trends are characterized by a gradual east-to-west movement. Downtown and adjoining residential areas are now on the eastern edge of this gradual retreat, and these areas are exhibiting disinvestment and in some cases, abandonment. As residential builders continue to add inventory in surrounding counties and in outlying parts of Pulaski County, intown housing is likely to decline. Total 1-13 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, inrexisting inventory and inventory growth has provided a sufficient margin so that alternative choices are available. And, given perceptions as to crime, quality of public education, and the trend of jobs moving towards the outer edge of the city, the alternatives are becoming increasingly popular. Also contributing to the availability of choices is the expressway system and relative case of driving. Between 1984 and 1987, a tremendous increment of office space was added to the inventory of office space in both outlying and downtown locations. Since 1987, the suburban office markets have begun to recover. Downtown, however, has not yet absorbed this additional inventory, and the amount of vacant space is roughly the same today as it was five-to-six years ago. Retailing in Little Rock has generally maintained its relative competitive position, with only a modest erosion of market share. The primary source of competition is from the northern part of Pulaski County which is positioned to intercept the growing middle class residential market emerging in Faulkner County. Downtown has retained its role as a white collar employment center. However, even this role is being diminished as more financial, insurance and real estate operations move to the west. Another potential pressure is the possibility of consolidating state governmental administrative functions to new facilities outside of the downtown coipmercial core. Opportunities and Constraints Some of the more significant opportunities and constraints affecting development and growth for Little Rock identified from this assessment include the following: Opportunities 1. 2. Much of the citys fiinge commercial development is within the city limits, thus capmring this tax-ratable development. The city can continue to reinforce these locations as viable development nodes to capture and/or retain businesses which might otherwise locate outside of the city. An investigation may be desirable to determine if a consolidated administrative complex for State agency facilities could be created and located so as to reinforce the downtown area. Rather than passively waiting for a \"negative\" event to occur, a pro-active and cooperative approach may be able to address the needs of both downtown and the Sute administration. 1-14 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. Ini3.  Despite the recent defeat of the \"Diamond 2000\" initiative, the conceptual goal of encouraging downtown vitality is basically correct. An opportunity may exist to fonnulate an improved package of destination /attraction elements with a revised funding approach which might depend less on direct public financial support.  4. I The disinvestment which has occurred in some central city neighborhood areas needs to be firmly addressed. Short-term depressions in market prices may provide an enire for renewal, if such efforts are strategically reinforced with a set of clear, single-purpose policies and action programs. I Constraints  1.  Prevailing suburbanization trends will be difficult to alter to any substantial degree by any unilateral actions by the City of Little Rock. The City may be constrained to simply making the best out of a relatively constant economic base. 2.    The most significant constraints related to the viability of the core areas of Little Rock may have nothing to do with physical planning initiatives. Our interviews and review of prevailing conditions have identified perceptions of lower quality public education and higher crime rates in the core areas to be important factors contributing to current out-migration trends. Targeting sustained initiatives to significantly improve conditions in these two areas should be seen as a strategic measure to reinforce the fundamental economic viability of the city.  3. The continuing development of outlying planned communities is very much a factor in demand and support for quality housing environments for central city neighborhoods. The citys policies for residential i neighborhood reinforcement needs to recognize the continuing expansion of these communities.  4.  Finally, a general constraint, in our opinion, is the lack of an overall strategic vision. Reactive approaches, which try to respond to a wide array of interest and requests are frequently too dispersed and too minimal to have major corrective impacts. If more concentrated, more effective, and better funded initiatives could be implemented on just a few key projects, resources would be concentrated and have greater impact. An organized, goal-setting process has been delineated as a parallel effort to this statistical assessment, and can be a key element in articulating such a strategic vision. The absence of a clear set of priorities is, in our opinion, a significant constraint to efforts for future improvement. 1-15 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, incSection 11 Economic and Demographic Context This section reviews various economic and demographic statistics to establish a data base for identifying and evaluating long term development trends. This includes a summary of data made available from local governmental agencies, including the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, Metroplan, and U.S. Census Data, but also includes analyses and projections by TA. These assessments represent our best professional judgement of the probably development future assuming no substantive intervention by governmental agencies, or pronounced changes in market conditions. The analyses which follow focus initially on employment. We have taken this as a -starting point in that the nature and locations of jobs tend to focus overall development patterns. The quality, quantity, and type of jobs affect income and labor force characteristics. At a regional or county level, the location of jobs also tends to act as a significant determinant for residential migration patterns. The assessment of employment is followed by analyses of population and household trends, which are then further described in terms of demographic characteristics. ILA. . EMPLOYMENT Employment is taken as a starting point in assessing long term trends. Employment tends to set the overall volume and pace of development. Should household formation exceed employment by a significant margin over an extended period, persons will tend to move to seek other opportunities. Employment further indicates the level of money being processed by a regional economy, and indirectly sets market size parameters for dependent sectors such as retail and retail-services. The chans on the following pages first examine the total volume of employment for the region as a whole, and then makes allocations to counties, and then to sub-areas in the Il-l Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, Inl I immediate Little Rock vicinity. A similar process is conducted for projecting population and households. 1. General MSA Employment Trends Table 1 and Exhibit 1 show employment trends for the Little Rock - North Little Rock MSA for 1980 through 1990'. This employment is further allocated to non- agricultural wage and salary employment, and within this, \"goods producing\" and \"services producing\" allocations are made. These first data indicate a gradual pace of growth during the mid-to-late 198Os, following a period of stagnation in the first years of the decade. Between 1980 and 1983, total non-agricultural wage and salary employment increased by less than 3,000 jobs, and had actually declined marginally until 1982. Since 1983, total non-agricultural wage and salary employment has increased from 204,500 to 253,100 by 1990. This represents an increase of 48,600 jobs over 7 years (averaging 6,942 per year). For the entire decade, total non-agricultural wage and salary employment increased by 51,500 jobs, averaging 5,150 new jobs a year. Goods-related production (primarily manufacturing and other product-oriented sectors) has very slowly, but consistently, declined over this time, which is in keeping with national economic trends. Between 1980 and 1990, goods producing employment declined by 4,500 jobs, from 48,800 to 44,300, a contraction of about nine percent from 1980. Services employment (in this context, comprising the balance of non-goods-related employment) has significantly exceeded the decline in goods related employment, and is responsible for all net growth in the regions employment. This, too, is consistent with national economic trends. Services related employment increased by 56,000 jobs from 152,800 in 1980 to 208,800 in 1990, an average of 5,600 per year. Increases were particularly strong between 1986 and 1989 during which service-related employment was increasing at a rate of nearly 7,000 jobs a year. ' The Lillie Rock - North Lillie Rock Meiropoliian Siaiisiical Area (MSA) is comprised of Pulaski, Saline, Faulkner and Lonoke Counties. 11-2 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. InTable 1 General MSA Employment Trends  Labor Force Non-Ag Wage \u0026amp; Sal Emplmnt Goods Producing Services Producing 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 * 1991 229,450 236,600 237,400 239,225 242,575 246,400 252,800 257,100 262,400 268,975 268,750 267,214 201.600 200,300 198,000 204.500 214.200 221.200 225.200 229.600 237,600 245,200 253,100 256,000 48,800 46.900 43.300 43.300 45,400 45,800 44,300 43,300 43,300 43,400 44,300 44,200 152,800 153,400 154,700 161.200 168.800 175,400 180,900 186,300 194,300 201,800 208,800 211,800 I I MSA Labor Force and Employment 1980- 1990 \u0026lt;/3 o  (/) 3 O 6 280 r 260' 240' 220' 200' 180' 160' 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 T A T * SGoods Empl. 0Services Empl. Labor Force Note: * 1991 Daia is average thru 6rsl nine months Source\nArkansas Employment Security Dept. Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. li\nI I 2. Projected Employment by Sector and County I I Table 2 shows TAs projections of future employment by major industrial sector and by county. The data shown here arc for \"covered\" employment (included in the States workmens compensation system) which is a slightly different base than seen in the first charts. (For example, total covered employment is estimated at 233,921 in 1990, vs. 253,100 for \"all\" non-agricultural wage and salary employment seen in the previous tables.) I I The projections seen here arc a result of a \"boiiom-up, top-down\" process. This procedure first examined growth rates by evaluating mathematical trend lines of employment in each sector and in each county, and extends the rates of growth for future increments of 1990-1995, 1995-2000, and 2000-2010. a a a a I The future rates of employment growth used in this analysis reflect TAs evaluation of general economic conditions for the Little Rock region and the industrial sectors represented here. We believe that, compared to many other metropolitan regions nationwide, Little Rock is very competitive. Chief among its assets is a skilled and relatively moderate cost labor force, a base of communications, transportation, and consumer-oriented industries which are positioned well for new expansion in the 199Os and beyond, and a very attractive natural environment. Even so, the current national economic downturn will undoubtedly affect economic growth in Little Rock over the short term, but these effects should be relatively moderate, and the area should be poised for full recovery thereafter. Based on this overall evaluation, rates of growth were varied slightly to represent overall economic conditions for the respective sectors, and the context of each sector within each county. Generally, growth rates were a a anticipated to be modest over the next five years, but then recovering so that the total increment of growth through the year 2010 would be consistent with the trends experienced over the last ten years. The 198Os decade is therefore taken as a model of the areas growth potential at a very general level, having experienced both modest growth in the first few years, with accelerating growth for the last seven years. a a The next part of the process examined shift-shares by county and by sector, examining the allocation each county might capture of future growth. Total employment was projected forward based on annual growth rates in the manner described above. This total employment was then distributed by industrial sector for each projection year, and then by county for each sector. The percentage distribution factors used were selected so as to be consistent with the ten-year trend experienced from 1980 to 1990, both by industrial sector and by county share. For example, a shift from a 20 percent to a 22 percent share over ten years would mathematically lead to a projected share of 24 percent for ten years in the future. Professional judgement was used to assure that the indicated mathematical II-4 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. Incprojection was in fact appropriate and logical for each combination of industrial sector and county. This process resulted in two alternative preliminary sets of projecrions for each sector and county: one based on individual growth rates for each sector and county (bottom-up) and another based on allocations from an overall total (top- down). A series of reconciliation adjustments were then applied to the individual sector/county growth rates. These adjustments were made so that both the pace of growth for each sector, and the shift-share of employment by sector and county would be internally consistent, and consistent with both long term trends seen historically, and TAs general assessment of the overall economic outlook for each major sector and county. The reconciliation process thus provides a \"check-and- balance\" recognizing both future potential and historical patterns of growth. The results of this process are shown in Table 2 which shows projected future employment for each major industrial sector and by county within the MSA region. Selected key trends are funher depicted in a series of graphs in Exhibits 2 and 3. Several significant observations can be drawn from these projections:  Services are expected to continue to be the major area of economic expansion, growing at an average rate of 2,042 jobs per year between 1990 and 2000 throughout the MSA. The data indicates that services has just surpassed trade as the largest major sector as of 1990. By 2010, the two largest employment sectors are expected to be services with 112,208 and trade with 84,138 jobs. I I I Pulaski County will continue to be the dominant location of employment for the region, although its share of total employment may decline from nearly 83 percent of the regional total employment at present to just over 79 percent by 2010. Services and Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (F.I.R.E.) are expected to retain a strong presence within Pulaski County. These two sectors, together, are projected to increase by 19,500 jobs between 1990 and 2000, and an additional 28,500 jobs over the following ten years. By 2010, Pulaski County is expected to still provide over 86 percent of a region- wide services employment and close to 88 percent of all F.I.R.E. employment. If current trends continue, Pulaski and Saline Counties may lose 4,5CX) manufacturing jobs over the next ten years, and an additional 1,750 manufacturing jobs over the subsequent ten years. These losses may possibly be partially offset by a net gain of 3,250 manufacturing jobs in Faulkner County. I I I II-5 I Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. ITable 2 PROJECTED EHPLOYMEHI BY SECOR AND COUNIY 1980  20,0 1980 1905 Projected Employment Total Change Share o( HSA Total 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 80-'90 '90-'00 00 10 1980 1990 2000 2010 in O (b PP J\u0026gt; (/\u0026gt; U) O Q O) (b in  PULASKI COUNTY Manufacturing Construction Trans, t, Util. Trade F.I.R.E Servicea Coverrment Other SALINE COUNTY Manufacturing Construction Trans. 6 Util. Trade f.I.R.E Services Coverrment Other FAULKNER COUNTY Manufacturing C\u0026lt;xistructl\u0026lt;xi Trans. I Util. Trade F.I.R.E Services Coverrment Other LOKOKE COUNTY Kanufacturlng Conatructlon Trans, t Util. Trade f.I.R.E Services Goverrment Other TOTAL HSA Manufacturing Construction Trans. 6 Ut11. Trade f.I.R.E Servicea Coverrment Other 155,666 26,700 0,766 11,307 60,013 11,166 30,936 26,533 337 170,616 23,337 9,613 11,600 66,659 13,150 39,007 27,061 309 193,666 22,316 8,447 13,751 51,635 13,766 56,267 29,265 281 202,166 19,016 7,967 14,251 54,135 14,246 61,747 29,745 261 218,916 260,791 18,314 8,197 15,751 57,635 15,746 71,767 31,265 281 17,316 0,322 17,751 62,135 17,696 06,267 33,265 281 262,666 16,314 0,447 19,751 66,635 19,246 96,74 7 35,245 201 37,820 (6,396) (319) 2,566 11,622 2,500 25,311 2,712 (56) 25,250 (4,000) (250) 2,000 6,000 2,000 17,500 2,000 0 63.750 (2.000) 250 6.000 9.000 3.500 25.000 6,000 0 83.4X 71.OX 02.7X 96.5X 07.6X 93. OX 89.9X 79.2X 32.7X 82.8X 81.6X 67.5X 78.8X 9A.0X 86.6X 92.6X 88.5X 78.,X 37.3X 61.5X 76.5X 91.7X 82.5X 91.2X 87.BX 76.9X 58.5X 79.6X 56.OX 68.2X 88.SX 79.2X 87.6X 66.2X 75.6X 38.5X 11,104 3,995 732 0 1,810 290 1,076 2,746 447 13,633 6,681 851 60B 2,534 267 1,762 3,076 54 5,915 2,214 250 0 1,294 187 648 1,129 193 186,698 37,598 10,599 11,795 65,659 11,910 36,622 33,686 1,031 10,112 2,399 639 0 2,412 353 ,1,349 2,606 354 12,198 2,662 720 616 3,176 352 1,901 3,061 132 12,660 1,962 770 516 3,551 352 2,151 3,061 107 16^390 1,962 965 816 6,301 652 2,526 3,311 107 16,998 2,067 1,195 1,189 5,301 577 3,026 3,536 107 19,598 2,192 1,645 1,566 6,301 702 3,526 3,761 107 1,096 (1,553) (12) 616 1,358 62 025 315 (315) 2,200 (500) 225 600 1,125 100 625 250 (25) 5,200 250 500 750 2,000 250 1,000 650 , 0 6.OX 10.6X 6.9X O.OX 6.OX 2.6X 3.IX 8.2X 63.6X 5.2X 7.4X 6.7X 2.OX 5.2X 2.4X 3.IX 0.2X 17.5X 5.6X 6.5X 8.6X 6.7X 6.2X 2.6X 3.IX 8.2X 16.7X 5.9X 7.5X 11.7X 7.OX 7.5X 3.2X 3.IX O.OX 16.7X 16,535 5,792 1,140 424 3,122 603 2,294 3,207 73 20,572 6,222 1,208 659 6,363 658 6,059 3,735 88 21,997 6,597 1,308 659 6,593 658 6,559 3,935 68 26,672 7,672 1,558 559 5,593 708 6,059 6,635 08 32,022 8,672 1,758 686 6,663 1,083 8,059 5,035 83 37,572 9.472 1,950 009 0,093 1,650 10,059 5,635 08 6,939 1,561 357 51 1,809 191 2,297 659 36 5,900 1,250 350 100 1,250 250 2,000 700 0 11,100 2,000 600 250 2,500 750 6,000 1,200  0 7.3X 12.5X 6.OX 3.5X 5.5X 2.2X 5.IX 9.2X 5.2X 8.6X 18.BX 11.3X 3.IX 7.IX 3.IX 6.6X 10.OX 11.7X 9.9X 25.IX 14.IX 1.3X 8.OX 4.IX 7.tX 10.9X 12.IX 11.6X 31.3X 15.8X i.bX 9.6X 6.6X 9.OX 12.OX 12.IX 6,523 2,306 250 0 1,562 216 839 1,183 189 7,485 2,200 338 0 1,909 285 1,076 1,424 253 7,460 2,000 208 0 2,009 285 1,176 1,449 253 8,360 2,050 338 50 2,309 360 1,376 1,626 255 9,635 2,150 638 125 2,709 660 1,626 1,876 253 10,910 2,250 538 200 3,109 560 1,876 2,126 253 1,570 (14) B8 0 615 98 428 295 60 075 (150) 0 50 600 75 300 200 0 2,550 200 200 150 800 200 500 500 0 3.2X 5.9X 2.6X O.OX 2.BX 1.6X 1.9X 3.6X 18.7X 3.2X 6.6X 3.2X O.OX 3.IX 1.9X 1.8X 3.OX 33.6X 3.IX 6.9X 3.IX 0.3X 3.3X 2.IX 1.7X 6.OX 34.7X 3.3X 7.4X 4.3X 0.9X 3.7X 2.5X 1.7X 4.5X 34.7X 203,786 233,921 33,034 11,642 11,024 53,735 14,120 43,569 34,137 925 33,178 10,713 16,626 61,063 16,041 61,203 37,465 754 266,071 30,353 10,313 15,226 66,208 15,341 69,633 30,190 729 260,146 299,446 ---- 30,003 29,770 11,030 17,176 69,030 17,266 01,700 60,615 729 11,713 19,769 76,908 19,616 96,958 63,690 729 330,746 30.220 12,380 22,326 04,130 21,966 112,200 46,765 729 47,623 (4,620) 116 2,629 15,604 2,931 26,061 3,901 (277) 34,225 (3.400) 325 2,550 0,775 2.425 20,625 3,150 (25) 62,600 450 1,350 5,150 14,300 4,700 30,500 6,150 0 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox 100.ox ,00.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox Inc.Exhibit 2 Discussion The data from Table 2, as illustrated in Exhibit 2, indicates that employment is expected to continue growing for Pulaski County. The most significant growth is shown as occurring in the trade and services sectors. Trade is expected to increase from 51,635 as of 1990 to 66,635 in 2010. Over this same twenty-year period, services are projected as increasing by 42,400 jobs, from 54,247 to 96,747. Manufacturing is expected to decline within Pulaski County by 6,000 jobs, although about half of these losses may be offset by moderate gains in Faulkner County, and subsequent gains after 2000 in Saline and Lonoke Counties. Trade (including wholesale and retail) and services will continue to comprise the largest employment segments for all counties. Pulaski County is expected to retain most of its present share of services and F.I.R.E. employment. This is seen as continuing the present status of the immediate Little Rock vicinity, including both downtown and the 1-430 corridor, as the dominant financial and services employment center in the region. Employment gains are also expected in the adjoining three counties of the MSA region. F.I.R.E. employment is expected to increase (significantly in percentage terms) in Faulkner County as suburban residential development activity and related financial and real estate services respond to this trend. If prevailing trends continue, Faulkner County is expected to increase employment at a significantly faster pace than Saline County. Manufacturing will tend to stabilize and even modestly increase after 2000 in the surrounding counties. Increases in trade and services, similar to those anticipated for Pulaski County, will also occur in the adjoining counties. Trade is projected as increasing by a total of 8,075 jobs for all three counties between 1990 and 2010, and services may grow by 8,425 jobs over this same period. Total employment outside of Pulaski County in the MSA is shown as increasing by nearly 28,000, from 40,258 in 1990 to 68,080 in 2010, a relative growth of nearly 70 percent over twenty years. In contrast, Pulaski county employment is estimated to increase by 69,000 jobs over this same period. 11-7 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. II II n II II II n n II II II II II a aExhibit 2 Projected Employment Growth IQ Pulaski County With ihe exception of manufacturing, Pulaski County is expected to continue to experience employment growth for the forseeable future. Approximately 42,500 new jobs are expected in scn'iccs and 15,000 additional jobs arc expected in trade (both wholesale and retail) over the next 20 years through the year 2010, Manufacturing, is statistically projected to decline by an additional 6,000 jobs over this same period. DB IQ nH H fl Balance of MSA Employment growth in the balance of the MSA, however is expected to occur at a higher relative pace. As in Pulaski County, most of the increase is expected in trade and services which is expected to grow by 16,500 jobs between 1990 and 2010 outside of Pulaski County. In terms of total employment, the balance of the region is expected to increase by 27,800 jobs from 1990 to 2010. H H Sounx: AHun\u0026amp;ti Employment Security Dept.*. Tuchler AitooAiei. Inc. Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, Ir Exhibit 3 Discussion At present, the three adjoining counties account for only 17.2 percent of the regions employment, but arc projected as accounting for between 26 and 30 percent of future employment growth between 1990 and 2010. This will result in a relative shift of some proportion of employment from Pulaski County to the adjoining three counties. The relative amount of this shift is foreseen as being very minimal in the financial and services sectors, but may be more pronounced in the manufacturing, construction and trade sectors. Exhibit 3 depicts these trends in three selected key sectors. With manufacturing employment declining in Pulaski County, but stabilizing and even increasing in surrounding counties after 2000, Pulaskis share of manufacturing employment is expected to decrease from 67.3 percent to 54.0 percent of the regional total by 2010. The greatest offsetting increase in manufacturing, assuming a continuation of prevailing trends, will occur in Faulkner County, which should increase its share of regional manufacturing employment from 18.8 percent as of 1990 to 31.3 percent by 2010. Pulaski County should remain competitive with surrounding counties in services, generally maintaining its present share, between 86 and 88 percent of the regional total. Regional increases in this sector should distribute geographically in roughly the same proportion as the existing employment, resulting in a only modest changes in geographic distribution. Pulaski Countys share of trade employment is expected to decline moderately from about 85 percent at present to just over 79 percent by 2010. This can be attributed to retail trade following population growth in the adjoining counties, and wholesale trade preferring outlying locations which may not be subject to an inventory tax. 11-9 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. li II II n I! II II n II II II  aII II Exhibit 3 Regional Employment Distribution Employment is expected to grow by a greater percentage in the surrounding counties of the MSA than in Pulaski County. Faulkner County is expected to experience the greatest increase in relative share of emplojincnt within the region. Trends in three key sectors are shown below. Manufacturing  PROJECTED MAXUFACTURJNG EMPLOYMENT Pulaski Countys share of manufacturing emplojinent is expected to decline from 67.3% to 54.0% between 1990 and 2010. Faulkner Countys share is expected to increase from 18.8% to 31.3% over this same period.  Services I fl fl fl 100% 90% S0% 70% 60% S0% PROJECTED SERXnCES EMPLOYMENT 1910 1915 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 gPuluU QStUae BLosoke Pulaski County will continue to be the predominent location for services employment, declining only slightly from 88.5% to 86,2% from 1990 to 2010.  fl Trade fl 100% 90% to% 70% 60% 50% PROJECTED TRAM EMPLOYMENT Sourec: Ai^x Employmoii Seoirity Dq*-\nTucWtf A Aixoeitti. Ine. Piitaelri County is expected to experience a decline in relative share of trade employment from 84.6% to 79.2% between 1990 and 2010. Over this same time, Faulkner County is projected to increase from 7.1% to 9.6%, and Saline County is expected to increase from 5.2% to 7.5% of areas total trade emplojTtienL Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. Inc II II.B. POPULATION PROJECTIONS TA has made a series of population and household projections for the region, Pulaski County, and Little Rock through the year 2010. We have done this so as to show that trends experienced within the immediate Little Rock Vicinity are in fact but a sub-part of broader regional trends towards substantial suburbanization. Our process starts with regional totals, based on ratios to projected employment, and then refines these totals so as to estimate how the immediate Little Rock vicinity will function within these broader trends. II II II II 1, MSA Population and Household Projections II Table 3 and the related chart on the following page presents MS A-wide projections of population and households. II In making these projections, we anticipate that long term trends will continue in terms of the relationship between jobs and households. That is, if jobs were to grow significantly faster than households and population, in-migration would occur as persons from other areas sought employment opportunities in the Little Rock region. Alternatively, if households and population were to increase more than employment over an extended time, out-migration would likely occur. II II The ratio between jobs and households has not been constant in the past, and has not been assumed to be constant in the future. The far right column in Table 4 shows the historical trend in this ratio from 1.104 jobs per household 1980 gradually increasing to 1.197 jobs per household as of 1990. Several factors have contributed to this increase, including an increasing frequency of two-income households, mdividuals working part-time at second jobs, and adult children remaining with their primary household during and after completing education. This ratio has then been projected forward through the year 2010, extending along a consistent rate of change as seen over the last decade. These projections therefore illustrate the likely relationships if currently prevailing trends continue without significant intervention or alteration. As seen in the far right column of Table 3, this ratio is projected as 1.282 jobs per household as of 2000, and 1.357 jobs per household by 2010. II II II n n These ratios arc then applied to the projected total regional employment, as derived from Table 2, to produce projections of households for the years 1995, 2000 and 2010. Households are a focal point in this analysis, in that employment, house purchasing and relocation decisions tend to operate at the household level. As seen in Table 3, this calculation of the jobs/household ratio against projected   II-ll Tischler \u0026amp; Associates.Table 3 MSA Population And Households Projections 1980 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995 2000 2010 MSA Population (1) 474,468 497,409 500,198 502,646 505,228- 507,858 510,528 513,117 522,490 532,408 599,667 MSA Households (2) 168,943 182,913 185,005 186,992 189,053- 191,156 193,300 195,437 199,745 209,177 243,749 Avg, Hshld Size 2.78 2.69 2.67 2.66 2.64 2.63 2.61 2.60 2.55 2.48 2.40 Covered Employment 186.498 197,461 203,786 207,878 211,405 219,207 227,010 233,921 244,071 268,146 330,746 Jobs/Hshld Ratio 1.1039 1.0795 1.1015 1.1117 1.1182 1.1467 1.1744 1.1969 1.2219 1.2819 1.3569 Noles: (1) Adjusted from Metroplan data, based on 1990 Census, expansion of MSA in 1984, and change in Meiroplan csiimating methodology for intermediate years between 1980 and 1990 Census data. (2) Based on U.S. Census for 1980 and 1990. Intermediate years based on MSA population estimates and estimated average household size. Exhibit 4 Population, Households \u0026amp; Employment MSA Totals\n1980-2010 650 600 Actual Projected S'  3 O  550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 ------- e- 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010  Population -I- Households O Employment  Source\nMeiroplan\nU.S. Ceniui\nAik. Emp. Sec. Dept\nTiichlci \u0026amp; Attodiut, Inc. Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. In MSA-wide employment indicates 209,177 households as of 2000, and 243,749 households as of 2010. Average household size has been declining nationwide, as well as in the Little Rock area. The historical decline in household size is shown in the center column in Table 3, and has been projected forward through 2010 based generally on this rate of change with some mitigation anticipated. The mitigation represents our judgement that with the \"baby-boom\" generation now at prime child-bearing ages, and with emerging trends of adult children remaining in households and constraints in housing affordability, household sizes will not be declining as rapidly in the future as they have in the past, and in certain locations and sectors, may even increase. As seen in the center column of Table 3, average household size throughout the MSA has contracted from 2.78 in 1980 to 2.60 in 1990. Based on the factors cited above, household size is projected as declining to 2.48 by 2000, and to 2.40 by 2010. Total population has been projected based on the estimated number of households (based on employment ratios) and projected household size^ The left column in Table 3 indicates region-wide population projected as growing from 513,117 in 1990 to 532.408 by 2000 and 599,667 by 2010. The results of this process may also be seen in the accompanying graph. This shows a slight slowing of household and population growth at present, with an increased pace of growth beyond 1995 and 2000. The total trend from 1980 to 2010 is comparable in pace to the ten-year trend from 1980 to 1990, averaging approximately 4,000 population growth annually throughout the region. As seen at the bottom of Table 3, and at the right side of the graph in Exhibit 4, total regional population is expected to reach about 600,000 persons by 2010, with nearly 244,000 households and over 330,000 jobs in \"covered\" wage and salary employment. 2. Population and Household Projections by County With the total future growth for the region estimated in the previous table, the next step is to determine how much of this growth will likely occur in Pulaski County, and then to estimate the geographic distribution patterns within the immediate Little Rock study area.  l fl fl fl  The projected population figures shown in Table 3 further allow for group quarters population. Group quarters population has increased very slightly from 1980 to 1990. 11-13   Tischler \u0026amp; Associates.II II II At the county level, it is useful to first consider the components of population change. These wpre calculated by Metroplan in its May/June 1991 newsletter, and are summarized below. II Table 4 Components of Population Change MSA Total Pulaski County Little Rock' Balance' Saline County Faulkner County Lonoke County II 1990 Population' 513,117 156,282* 193,378* 64,183 60,006 39,268 1980 Population 474,468 158.915\n 181,682. 53,161 46,192 34,518 Change 80-90 Percent of Total 38,649 100.0% -2,633 -6.8% 11,696 30.3% 11,022 28.5% 13,814 35.7% 4,750 12.3% II II II II Births 80,292 24,393 36,590 7,276 6,710 5,323 Deaths 39,790 11,598 17,399 3,894 3,660 3,239 Natural Increase Net Migration EsL Households* Notes: 40,502 12,795 19,181 3,382 3,050 2,084 1,853 -15,428 7,485 7,640 10,764 2,666 700 7,078 1,588 2,888 4,070 1,008 1990 LitUe Rock population adjusted dowTiwards from 1990 Census number of 175,795 for annexations occurring between 1980 and 1990. Areas annexed by Little Rock over this period account for 19,513 persons. Data above includes these persons in the \"Balance of County\" category, permitting a comparison to consistent 19^ city boundaries. M d 1 II J Source: U.S.Census 3 d MSA and county-total births and deaths as esimaied by Arkansas Bureau of Vital Statistics and Division of Demographic Research, UALR. Allocation of births and deaths between Little Rock and balance of Pulaski County provided by Department of Neighborhoods and Planning. d Estimated household net migration calculated by TA, based on MSA-wide average household size, averaged between 1980 and 1990. Group quarters population assumed not to contribute significantly to migration. d 11-14 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, inc feII The data above indicates that all of the regions net growth in population and households is attributed to natural increase from within the region, and that the MSA actually lost 1,853 population, roughly equivalent to 7(X) households, from net migration. By county, however, this trend is even more pronounced. After accounting for natural increase, Pulaski County actually experienced a loss of nearly 23,000 population in out-migration. Most of this, 15,428 persons is estimated to have come from within 1980 Little Rock city boundries. The remainder, 7,485 persons, is estimated to have come from the Balance of Pulaski County. This is roughly equivalent to nearly 8,700 households leaving Pulaski County with about 8,000 households moving into the adjoining counties. Of further note is that net in-migration for Faulkner County (10,764 population) was about 41 percent more than Saline County (7,640), further indicating Faulkner as the fastest growing county in the Little Rock region. II II Projections of future population growth have been estimated by TA for each county through 2010, and these may be seen in Table 5 on the following page. These projections are based on \"bottom-up, top-down\" process similar to that used for employment projections. That is, each countys growth rate was calculated forward, and then compared to an alternative projection based on a shift-share of regional totals. Adjustments were then made so that both growth rates and percentage allocations were internally consistent, and consistent with the 1980- 1990 overall trends and the MSA-wide projections as estimated in Table 3. Group quarters population was assumed to increase modestly in proportion to 1980-90 changes, and trends in the decline in average household size were assumed to decline, although not as rapidly as has been experienced over the last decade. II II fl n B  B Table 5 displays net population and household growth. This reflects the combined effects of natural increase, household formation, and net migration. Table 5 shows that Pulaski County is expected to increase in both population and households over the next twenty years, although at a modest pace. Population is expected to grow from 349,660 in 1990 to 367,664 by 2010, an increase of just over 18,000 over 20 years. This overall pace, averaging 900 population growth annually, is virtually the same rate of growth as experienced from 1980 to 1990. From the pattern seen in components of population change data, all of this growth will likely be the result of natural increase with net out-migration still occurring. The adjoining counties are expected to experience much greater increases in population and households, particularly Faulkner County. Of the total MSA-wide net population growth of 86,550 projected between 1990 and 2010, 79.2 percent, or 68,548 is expected to occur in the adjoining counties, increasing the total population in the adjoining counties to about 232,000 persons. This rate of growth, just over 3,400 persons per year, is about 3.8 times the average rate of increase anticipated for Pulaski County. By the year 2010, Pulaski County is expected to comprise 61.3 percent of the regions population, down from 68.1 percent as of 1990 and 71.8 percent as of 1980. 11-15 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. III II II Table 5 Projected Population and Households By County 1980 - 2010 1980 1990 2000 2010 Number Prcnt Number Prcnt Number Prcnt Number Prcnt II II If n 0 0 Total MSA Population Households Net Growth Population Households Pulaski Population Households Net Growth Population Households Saline Population Households Net Growth Population Households Faulkner Population Households Net Growth Population Households 474.468 100% 168,943 100% 513,117 100% 195,437 100% 532,408 100% 209,177 100% 599,667' 100% 243,749 100% 340,597 713% 124,516 73.7% 53,161 ' 11.2% 17,572 ' .4%* 46,192 9.1%'- 15.485 r9.2%'. 38,649 , 100%' 26,494 100% 349,660 68.1% 137,209 70,2% 9,063 23.4% 12,693 47.9% 64.183 123%' 23,037 113% 11,022'283%'' 5.465'20.6%' 60.006'..U.7%\n21.325\ni019%\n13.814 35.7%\n5.840 225% 19,291 - 100% 13,740 300% 67,260 100% 34,572 , 100% ! 350,497 -65.8%. 143,392 68.6% 367,664 613% 158,085 645% 837 43% 6,183 Js.0% 17,166'253% 14,693 423% 71,390 \u0026gt;13.4%' 25.922 2,885 '2L0%* 68,061 42.8%'\n24,622 j 11^%^ 8,055 :413%-^ 3,297 '24^%\n' 90,853 153% 33,528,13.8% 19,463 285% 7,606 22.0% 89.658  155% 33,266 116%  21,597 r 32.1% 8.643  25.0% Lonoke Population Households 34,518 7.3% 11,370 6.7% 39,268 7.7% 13,866. 7.1% 42,460 8.0%' 15.240 13^' 51,493 18,870 8.6% 7.7% Net Growth Population Households 4,750 323% 2,496 9.4%' 1,374 ' 7.1%- 1,374 10.0%- 3,630 5.4% 3,630.103% Source: U.S. Census\nTischler \u0026amp; Associaies, Inc. Tischler \u0026amp; Associates Inc hExhibit 5 Projected Population and Households By County 1980 - 2010  I Population Growth By County Net increase in population for Pulaski County is expected to be relatively modcsL Numerical growth projected for both Saline and Faulkner Counties wUl be significantly more than Pulaski. I II I I Percent of MS A Total With net household and populadon growth occuring at a faster relative pace in Faulkner and Saline Counties. Pulaski Countys share of MSA total population will decline. I 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% I I I I Scunx: U3. Cenixu\nTiichief A AiiodMcj, Inc, Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, ir^    These trends in net population growth are further depicted in the graphs in Exhibit 5, which show population growth and population distribution by county through 2010. As seen in this graph and in Table 5, most of the projected net population growth is expected to occur in Faulkner County, increasing from 60,006 in 1990 to 89,658 by 2010, a total net growth of about 29,650 persons. Saline County is anticipated as increasing by a similar amount, 26,670 persons, over this same period, from 64,183 persons as of 1990 to 90,853 by 2010. 3.  Projected Population Changes for Little Rock Vicinity With population changes estimated for all of Pulaski County, we have further attempted to determine the likely- geographic.distribution of population within Pulaski County, particularly focussing on the immediate Little Rock vicinity.  Changes in population between 1980 and 1990 have been examined by census tract for all of Pulaski County. These data have been further summed for eight analysis areas comprising the Little Rock vicinity. These changes may be seen in the two left columns in Table 6, and in the first two of the following maps. I  M I M We have then illustrated the effects of what would likely occur if these statistical trends would continue for the next twenty years without significant intervention. This process has looked at the rates of change for each of the analysis areas, and the trend shift-share allocations over time. The respective growth rates for each area were adjusted to be consistent with the overall county-wide projection established in the previous tables, and with the trend in allocated shares of population by area over time. The result of this process can be seen in the projections of population for the years 2000 and 2010. We emphasize that this is a statistical process which extends historical trends, and docs not necessarily recognize any specific announced development plans or possible future land use policies within any given area. As seen in Table 6, only the far west, west, and northwest areas are anticipated M as having a positive population change between now and 2010, with all other areas of the Little Rock vicinity losing population. The balance of the county, comprising mainly the rural west and the \"north-of-river\" portions, is expected to increase by 21,154 persons between 1990 and 2010. The eight analysis areas comprising the immediate Little Rock vicinity arc shown actually losing population from 192,192 in 1990 to 184,542 by 2000 but recovering slightly to 186,042 by 2010. n-18 tischler \u0026amp; Associates, inTable 6 Population Change By Analysis Area\n1980-2010 1980 Actual 1990 2000 Projected 2010 Pulaski County 340,597 349,660 350,497 367,664 Percent Change *80-90 90-00 OO-IO 2.7% 0.2% 4.9% Little Rock Vicinity 194,421 192,192 184,542 186,042 -1.1% -4.0% 0.8% Do^^ntoM'n Central East Northwest Midtown Southwest West Far West 2,439 16,063' 18,007 47,830 36,973 39,757 18,478 14,874 1,777 12.892-  15,035 49,944 31,389 36,414 18,811 25,930 1,277 9,642  12,035 51.444 24,739 32,664 18,811 33,930 1,027 7,892 10,035 53,444 18,739 29,164 19,811 45,930 -27.1% -19.7% -16.5% 4.4% -15.1% -8.4% 1.8% 74.3% -28.1% -25.2% -20.0% 3.0% -21.2% -10.3% 0.0% 30.9% -19.6% -18.1% -16.6% 3.9% -24.3% -10.7% 5.3% 35.4% Balance Of Pulaski County 146,176 157,468 165,955 181,622 7.7% 5.4% 9.4% Source: U.S. Centur\nTudJtr \u0026amp; Anociuej. Inc. Tischler \u0026amp;_Associates. h I a  a a The most pronounced growth is foreseen in the far west and northwest analysis areas. Population growth in just these two areas is projected to be 23,500 persons between 1990 and 2010. This further indicates that the remainder of Little Rock may loose 29,650 population over this same twenty-year period. The graph accompanying Table 6 shows population changes for the remaining six analysis areas, the combined total for just the far west and the northwest areas, and the balance of Pulaski County. This chan illustrates the effect of continuation of the pronounced suburban migration which has been occurring in the Little Rock area. These trends are also depicted in the following series of maps\na. b. c. Pulaski County Population Change by Census Tract\n1980 - 1990 Numeric changes in population which have occurred between 1980 and 1990 are shown for every census tract county-wide. The two lowest ranked shadings in this map show population loss, while the two higher ranked shadings indicate net population gain. In addition to the far-west Little Rock areas, the Maumelle and the far northeastern portion of the county are shown as experiencing the greatest population growth, between 2,000 and 9,044 persons in any given census tract. Little Rock Vicinity Population Change 1980 - 1990 This map is a sub-set of the prior map, showing actual numeric change in population for each of eight analysis areas comprising the immediate Little Rock vicinity. This map shows a dramatic loss of population between 3,000 and 5,585 persons for the central, midtown, and souwest portions of the city, and population declines of up to 3,000 persons for downtown and the eastern areas. Population growth, between 0 and 2,500 persons occurred in the west and northwest areas, while total population growth of up to 11,056 persons occurred in the far west area- Projected Population for Little Rock Vicinity\n2010 This maps shows the projected in-place population which may be anticipated as of 2010, reflecting a continuation of prevailing trends. Downtown and the central city area are shown as having less than 10,000 population, while the cast, midtown and west areas arc shown as having between 10,000 and 25,000 population each. As of 2010, the northwest and far west areas arc indicated as having between 40,000 and 53,444 population. 11-20 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, tnc kd. Projected Population Change, Little Rock Vicinity\n1990 - 2010 The last map of this series indicates the increment of population change projected between 1990 and 2010. As in the second map, significant population losses are expected in the downtown, midtown, central and southwest portions of the city, while gains of 0 to 5,000 population are expected in the west and northwest areas, and up to 20,000 are foreseen for the far west area. I I I 11-21 I Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, In,Popo lotion Change 1980 - 1990 Pulaski County Census Tracts (/) n zr rt) C* \u0026gt; tn UI O O co' a\u0026gt; (/t  9044 2000 0 -500 -1699 Population Change 1980 - Little Rock Vicinity 1990 (/) n 5 Qo \u0026gt; \u0026lt;/ \u0026lt;Z) O o O) (D 2500 Fj Mldlown 0 -3000 -5584 1 1056 Southw6sI Projected Population 2010 Little Rock Vicinity twMown jntrol 53444 40000 25000 10000 n * 2 po \u0026gt; (/) 8 OJ (?  n 1027 FProjected Population Change Little Rock Vicinity 1990 2010 20000 5000 in o zr 2 c tn 8 Q) V) 3 Midtown 0 -6000 -12650 Fl SoulhweaI I     fl fl ILC. RACE, AGE, AND SEX CHARACTERISTICS Beyond ihe quantities of population and households are primary descriptive characteristics, including consideration of age, sex, racial distribution. The following data reviews changes which have occurred in these characteristics over the 1980-1990 decade. 1. Age and Sex Characteristics Table 7 shows race, age and sex distributions for Pulaski County as of 1980, 1990 and the changes which have occurred over this period. These data indicate that the population as a whole is aging. This is consistent with national trends as the \"baby boom\" generation advances into middle age. In 1980, Pulaski County population between the ages of 35-59 years, and 60 years and above comprised 25 percent and 13.7 percent of the population respectively. By 1990, the 35-59 age group had grown to 30 percent, and the 60 and over group had increased to 15.3 percent of total county population. As of 1990, Black children and teenagers comprised a higher-than-average percentage of these age groups in Pulaski County compared to the total population. While the county as a whole has approximately 35% Black population. Black female children and teenagers through age 19 comprise 37.4 percent, and Black male children and teenagers comprise 44.1 percent of this age bracket. Of particular note has been the apparent out-migration of younger white children (and their families) from Pulaski County. As of 1980, Pulaski County had 36,253 white children of 0 to 9 years of age. However, ten years later in 1990, this same population group, now aged 10-19 years, was only 29,359, a decline of 6,894, or about 19 percent of the corresponding 1980 population group. By contrast, Black children have maintained their relative total between 1980 and 1990. As of 1980, Black children aged 0-9 years were 19,237. As of 1990, the corresponding age group, now 10-19 years old, was nearly the same at 19,034. This may be seen as another indication of the out-migration trends discussed earlier for the population as a whole. It is probably also indicative of the perception of lower quality of schools in Pulaski County and Little Rock, as white families with school age children have moved to other jurisdictions. n-26 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. IrMale Co o 5 (?n \u0026gt; \u0026lt;/\u0026gt; tn 8 Q) S tn Tabic 7 Age by Sex and Race Pulaski County\n1980 \u0026amp; 1990 Numeric Distribution 1980 1990 1980 Female Male Female Male Percent Distribution Female Male 1990 Female Total Population Under 5 yn Yean 5-9 Yean 10-19 Yean 20-34 Yean 35-60 Yean 60-74 Yean 75 + White Population Under 5 yn Yean 5-9 Yean 10-19 Yean 20-34 Yean 35-60 Yean 60-74 Yean 75 + Black Population Under 5 yn Yean 5-9 Yean 10-19 Yean 20-34 Yean 35-60 Yean 60-74 Yean 75 -e Other Races Under 5 yn Yean 5-9 Yean 10-19 Yean 20-34 Yean 35-60 Yean 60-74 Yean 75 -e 162,475 14,611 14,158 27,475 46,819 40374 14394 4,454 178,138 13,680 13,959 27,442 50,487 44,730 19,110 8,730 166,462 13,421 13358 25,065. 43,684 49,865 15,685 5,485 183,198 12,965 12,648 24,081 46363 54.466 20,972 11302 100.0% 9.0% 8.7% 16.9% 28.8% 25.0% 8.8% 2.7% 100.0% 7.7% 7.8% 15.4% 28.3% 25.1% 10.7% 4.9% 100.0% 8.1% 8.0% 15.1% 263% 30.0% 9.4% 33% 100,0% 7.1% 6.9% 13.1% 25.4% 29.7% 11.4% 63% 122,628 9,420 9319 19,048 35,834 34,105 11356 3346 132,069 8,483 9,031 18,866 36,988 36368 15384 7,049 121,513 8,758 8337 15,075 32,607 39,417 13,135 4384 131,041 8.406 7,781 14384 32,740 41,402 17,109 9319 100.0% 7.7% 7.6% 15.5% 29.2% 27.8% 9.47. 2.77. 100.0% 6.4% 6.8% 14.3% 28.0% 273% 11.6% 5.3% 100.0% 73% 6.8% 12.4% 26.8% 32.4% 10.8% 33% 100.0% 6.4% 5.9% 10.9% 25.0% 31.6% 13.1% 7.1% 37,804 4,967 4,618 7,968 10309 6,077 2,680 1,085 43,603 4,941 4,711 8338 12,499 7,936 3,638 1,640 42,737 4,475 4,797 9356 10,497 9,781 2,448 1,183 49,463 4344 4,647 9,478 12,966 12,170 3,707 2,151 100.0% 13.1% 12.2% 21.1% 27.3% 16.1% 7.1% 2.9% 100.0% 113% 10.8% 18.9% 28.7% 183% 83% 3.8% 100.0% 103% 113% 234% 24.6% 239% 5.7% 2.8% 100.0% 8.8% 9.4% 193% 263% 24.6% 73% 43% 2,043 224 221 459 676 392 58 23 2,466 256 217 338 1,000 526 88 41 2,212 188 224 434 580 667 102 18 2,694 215 220 319 857 894 156 32 100.0% 11.0% 10.8% 235% 33.1% 19.2% 2.8% 1.1% 100.0% 10.4% 8.8% 13.7% 40.6% 21.3% 3.6% 1.7% 100.0% 83% 10.1% 19.6% 263% 30.1% 4.6% 0.8% 100.0% 8.0% 83% 11.9% 31.8% 333% 5.8% 13% Cenim: MctroptnI 2. Racial Distribution Table 8 examines racial distribution for analysis areas comprising the immediate Little Rock vicinity. As of the 1990 census, just over one-third of the entire Little Rock Area population was non-white. All but two of the analysis areas were at I I I  least 31 percent non-white, and four of the eight analysis areas had non-white majority populations. This comparison of 1980 and 1990 census data shows that non-white population has increased significantly in the southwest and western sectors, with the percent of non-white population increasing by over 18 percentage points in both of these areas. As of 1990, the midtown and central areas had 68.4 and 80.2 percent non-white population respectively. The lowest non-white population was just over seven percent in the northwest and far west areas. In both the far west and the eastern areas, the proponion of non-white population actually declined slightly, while increasing in all other areas. Of further note is the dramatic contrast between the areas of lowest concentration (nonhwest and far west) and all other areas which have at least 31 percent non-white population. I Changes in racial distribution are funher depicted in a series of maps. These show, in order: fl fl a. b. c. d. Percent Non-White Population as of 1980 Percent Non-White Populauon as of 1990 Numeric change in Non-White Population, 1980-1990 Change in the Non-White Population Percent, 1980-1990 Example: fl a change of 20 percent to 30 percent white population is shown as a net change of plus-10 percentage points. fl fl fl These maps and dau indicate that non-white population is also following the general east-to-west. movement of general population, although to date it is primarily focussed towards the west and southwest sectors rather than the far west As with total population, non-white population is declining and vacating the eastern portions of the Little Rock vicinity, including the east, central, midtown and downtown sectors, and moving into the west and southwest sectors. The result has been a marked increase in the proportion of non-white population in the west and southwest areas. The northwest and far west areas remain predominantly oriented to white population. fl 11-28 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, inr1980 ANALYSIS AREA Downtown Central East Northwest Midtown Southwest West Total Population White 2,439 1,214 16,063 18,007 47,830 36,973 39,757 18,478 3,573 7301 45,685 14,039 34.481 13,444 \u0026lt;/, o 2 rt\u0026gt; Far West 14,874 13.707 Table 8 Racial Distribution 1980 andl990 by Study Area Non- White 1,225 12,490 10,706 2,145 ' 22,934 . 5377 5,034 1.167 1990 Percent Non- White 50.2% 77.8% 59.5% 4.5% 62.0% 13.3% 27.2% 7.8% Total Popul.Ttion White Non- White Percent Non- Whitc Change in Percent 1980-90 1,777 12.892 15,035 49,944 31.389 36,414 18,811 25,930 752 1,025 57.7% 73% 2,552 6,627 46,388 9,927 24,915 10,259 24.001 10,340 80.2% 2.4% 8,408 3,556 21,462 11,499 8,552 1,929 55.9% 7.1% 68.4% 31.6% 45.5% 7.4% -33% 2.6% 63% 183% 183% -0.4% C \u0026gt; (/) (/\u0026gt; o o S) CD (/) STUDY AREA TOTAL 194,421 133,444 60,978 31.4% 192,192 125,421 66,771 34.7% 3.4% 'qutcc: U.S. Census\nTischler \u0026amp; Assoc. Inc.Non-White Racial Distribution\n1980 Percent Non-White Population By Area \u0026lt;Z) O \u0026gt; VI oO oi (T) tn  o NorIhweaI Fir West 78 60 30 10 5 J I Non-Wh i t e Roc i a I Distribution\nPercent Non-White Population By 1990 Area . 80 NorIhweaI FAr Wes I +own' 60 30 10 n G) \u0026gt; i/i O n Q) (D f/t 7Non-White Racial Change\n1980 - 1990 Change in Non-White Numeric Population By Area )n I r o I rz East 6222 1500 -1500 o 2 c c\u0026gt;/) \u0026lt;/\u0026gt; Q a 63 o tn  a -2298 O ' 5y 0 J Non-White Racial Change\n1980 - 1990 Change in Non-White Population Percentage By Area () Fir Wes I wn- I y V Eos t 18 10 5 0 (Z) O \u0026gt; O O 0) W  -4I II.D. INCOME, HOUSING, RETAIL TRADE 1. Household Income Table 9 displays data compiled by Metroplan as to the source of personal income for residents of Pulaski County from 1981 through 1986. This data confirms the trend data seen in the earlier discussion of employment, in that under earnings by industry, the services sector is the single largest source of personal income within the region, and is growing faster than any other sector. This is consistent with trends in many other pans of the country. Table 10 displays ihe distribution of personal household income by analysis area within the immediate Little Rock vicinity. Of note is the relative affluence of the northwest and far west areas compared'to the rest of Little Rock. As of 1980, these areas had 23 and 29 percent of their households respectively with incomes of S35,000 or more, compared to no higher than 8.6 percent for any other area. 1980 Median household incomes were $21,059 for the northwest area and $24,817 for the far west area, with no other area higher than $17,290. Concentration of low-income households was, naturally, a reverse pattern of affluence. Between 76 and 80 percent of all households in the downtown and central city areas had incomes less than $10,000 in 1980. fl fl 11-34 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. InTable 9 Personal Income For Pulaski County By Major Sources\n1981-1986 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Personal Income by Place of Residence Total Personal Income Nonfarm Personal Income Farm Income 3,583,443 3,574,112 9,331 3,816229 3,810237 5,992 4,115,434 4,111,466 3,968 4,425,573 4,418,193 7.380 4,785,672 4,776,861 8,811 5,0924 5,0892'C-v 3,345 V Population (Thousands) 2/ Per Capita Personal Income (Dollars) 343.1 510,444 345.3 511,050 347.6 511,839 350.9 512,613 353.7 513,530 356.3 514292 Derivation Of Total Personal Income Total Earnings By Place Of Work Less\nPersonal Coni. For Social Insur. 3/ Plus: Residence Adjustment 5/ Equals: Net Earnings By Place Of Residence Plus: Dividends, Interest and Rent 5/ 6/ Plus: Transfer Paymenis 3.145.850 184.358 (382,294) 2,579,198 480,920 523,325 3,363,664 205,515 (426,652) 2,731,497 516,951 567,781 3.673.001 226.886 (479.827) 2.966.288 537.938 611208 3,990 241 246,428 (533,969) 3,209,844 591,479 624,250 4,325,898 280,123 (589,304) 3,456,471 648,684 680,517 4,614,072 302,736  (613,707j 3,697,629 683.974 710.970 I I I Earnings by Place of Work Components of Earnings Wages and Salaries Other Labor Income Proprietors Income 7/ Farm 5/ ' Nonfarm 2,676,807 248,556 220,487 7229 213,258 2,868,238 280,774 214,652 3,571 211,081 3,121,890 307,261 243,850 1,633 242,217 3,389,461 319,130 281,650 5,083 276,567 3,670,770 336,913 318215 6,482 311,733 3,912,893 352201 348,978  l,001*' 347,977 I Earnings by Industry Farm Nonfarm Private Ag.Sc' .J^orestiy.2ish..And Other 8/ Mining Construction Manufacturing Non-durable Goods Durable Goods Transportation Wholesale Trad\nRetail Trade Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Services Government and Government Enterprises Federal, Civilian Military State and Local 9,331 3,136,519 2,474264 7,663 14,099 200,574 456,797 197,929 258,868. 349,384 272,152 324,673 239464 609458 662255 177279 108,347 376,629 5,992 3,357,672 2,636,057 8,199 14,470 203,494 446,605 201,765 244,840 371418 285,365 340,442 279,018 686,946 721,615 187,818 123.394 410,403 3,968 3,669,033 2,902,035 9,848 14,652 215,740 473470 211426 262244 399434 305,063 381,902 337,068 764,858 766,998 202,163 129240 434,895 7,380 3,982,861 3,141,939 10444 14,007 246,472 505,764 226,611 279,153 425,527 346,317 405,524 349,726 838,058 840,922 222,729 141,925 476268 8,811 4,317,087 3,404,310 9,341 16,422 266,019 514,777 230,881 283,896 455210 370408 439,861 401465 930,807 912,777 235,703 150,314 526,760 3.345 4,610,7 3,648,1 II 10,951 16,472 521,\\9- 241.707 285,48 493,18 381,692 467,43' 457,831 1,019,69\"' 962208 23821* 153,9d* 569441   (D) Not tbowu tc avoid diiclosure of ccofidcntiaJ infonnaocn. 1/1981-86 Baaed co 1972 SIC 2/ U.S. Bureau of the Ccoiua Eatimaict 3/ Penonal Cooiribuucnt for Social Ini. are included in eaminti by type and jnduiuy but excluded frem perional income. 5/ 1978-83 Fann Pro. \u0026amp; Rental Income and Rcridenee Adj. reflect reviiico which have not been made for petvioui yeara. 6/ Includca the C,. jilal Coniumptioo Adj. for Rental Incrxnc of Peraoni. 77 Includci the Inventory Valuation and Capital Coniumpdoo Adjuitmenti. 8/ Other - Wagea and Salariei cd U.S. Reaidoju working for International organiiationi in the U3. a a Sounx: Lcxad Area Pereonil Income, Volume A  Southeait Retion, 1981-1986\nU.S. DeptruneiU of Conunenx. Bureau of Economic Analyiix\nJuly. 1988. Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. IdI Table 10 Personal Household Income by Analysis Area\n1980 I Total ANALYSIS - Nilin, of. Under AREA Hshlds- $5,000 $5,000 to $7,499 $7,500 to $9,999 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 to to to to $14,999 $19,999 $24,999 $34,999 DoxsTitown 1,274- 323 245 173 273 145 44 53 Central ^,459 1,914 914 926 1,177 635 399 233 East 5,694 1,259 631 623 1,102 665 584 585 Northwest 21,026, 1,323 1,033 1,444 3,243 2,943 2,486 3,752 Midtown 2,451 1,322 1,375 2,637 1,963 1,251 1,184 Southwest '' (4,660 1,219 1,108 1,498 2,594 2.103 2,237 2,319 West  7.017 777 463 574 1,167 1,151 1,057 \\.221 Far West 377 191 293 566 515 525 1,012 S3S,000 $50,000 to $49,999 194 181 2,597 345 788 490 790 and ' Higher 18 64 2,205 Median $8^496 $8,583 $31i514 $21,059 120 ' $12,228 194 111 621 $16,684 $17,290 $24317 n 12,648 7r  V , 4,896, 0 Percent Distribution Downtown Central East Northwest Midtown Southwest West Far West 100.0% 25.4% 100.0% 29.6% 100.0% 22.1% 100.0% 6.3% 100.0% 19.4% 100.0% 8.3% 100.0% 11.1% 100.0% 7.7% 19.2% 14.2% 11.1% 4.9% 13.6% 14.3% 10.9% 6.9% 10.5% 10.9% 7.6% 6.6% 3.9% 10.2% 8.2% 6.0% 21.4% 18.2% 19.4% 15.4% 20.8% 17.7% 16.6% 11.6% 11.4% 9.8% 11.7% 14.0% 15.5% 18.4% 16.4% 10.5% 3.5% 6.2% 10.3% 11.8% 9.9% 15.3% 15.1% 10.7% 4.2% 3.6% 10.3% 17.8% 9.4% 15.8% 17.5% 20.7% 0.0% 3.0% 3.2% 12.4% 2.7% 5.4% 7.0% 16.1% 1.4% 1.0% 1.1% 10.5% 0.9% 1.3% 1.6% 12.8% Cumulative Percent fl Downtown Central East Northwest Midtown Southwest West Far West 25.4% 29.6% 22.1% 6.3% 19.4% 8.3% 11.1% 7.7% 44.6% 43.8% 33.2% 11.2% 29.8% 15.9% 17.7% 11.6% 58.2% 58.1% 44.1% 18.1% 40.7% 26.1% 25.9% 17.6% 79.6% 76.3% 63.5% 33.5% 61.6% 43.8% 42.5% 29.1% 91.0% 86.2% 75.2% 47.5% 77.1% 62.2% 58.9% 39.7% 94.4% 92.4% 85.4% 59.3% 87.0% 77.5% 73.9% 50.4% 98.6% 96.0% 95.7% 77.2% 96.3% 93.3% 91.4% 71.1% 98.6% 99.0% 98.9% 89.5% 99.1% 98.7% 98.4% 87.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Souree: U.S. Ccnjuj. 1960\nTiidJcr \u0026amp; Aiioc., Inc. Tischiet \u0026amp; Associales. in ICentral Area 1980 Median Household Income Ch 24817 (/\u0026gt; o Q C* \u0026gt; i/i Q n Q V  Fj dttnlown inlrol 15000 10000 8496 i I 20000 Centro I Percent Areo 1980 Housenuiu Income of Households with $10,000 Household Income or Less 58 Northwest () 45 Fir West 51 (/ o 2 c*\u0026gt; \u0026gt; (/) (n O g 0) Q (Z)  30 20 18 J Central Area 1980 HousehoId Income Percent of Households with $35,000 Income or More Fl ---------- Midtown C I own\njnlrol idy V 28.9 20.0 10.0 5.0 1 (?\u0026gt; n 2 c* \u0026gt; Vi O ow V) Eosl 1 . 4   2. Housing Characteristics A summary of housing tenure and occupancy data is presented in Table 11. This data lists tenure type (seasonal, owner occupancy, rental occupancy) and racial occupancy by tenure for each county of the MSA as of the 1980 and 1990 census. I I  f From 1980 to 1990, vacant housing units in Pulaski County increased from 6.2 percent to 9.5 percent of the total housing stock. This is in contrast to the adjoining three counties for which vacancy rates either remained about the same, or in fact declined over this same period. Rental units in Pulaski County have narrowly increased their share of total occupied units during the 1980s, growing from 37.6 percent in 1980 to 39.7 percent in 1990. A similar, marginal increase in the portion of rental units was also experienced in the three adjoining counties, each increasing between one-half to nearly two percentage points.  I H In Pulaski County, a small increase the proportion of housing units with Black householders was experienced over this same period, increasing from 20.0 percent in 1980 to 22.0 percent in 1990. This is the highest proponion of any of the MSA counties. Black householders actually declined slightly in Lonoke County, and increased from 1,024 (6.6 percent) to 1,506 (7.1 percent) in Faulkner County. Saline County has remained predominently oriented to white householders at 97.6 percent, with only 364 Black householders county-wide as of 1990. As of 1990, the median owner-occupied housing value was S61,300 and the median monthly rent for rental units was $303 for all of Pulaski County. These values were the highest of the MSA Counties. Median ownership values for Saline County were $59,000, and were $55,400 for Faulkner County as of 1990. Table 12 summarizes a tabulation of housing starts compiled by Metroplan, It should be noted that for H covering both Pulaski and SaEne Counties. unincorporated areas, no building permit data was avaEable, and indirect data sources (such as U.S. Postal data and uEEty company data) have been used to estimate housing starts. These data indicate that for the 25 year period from 1960 H to 1985, multi-family housing starts comprised over 43 percent of the two countytotal. As will be seen later in Section HI, this proportion is much higher than the proportion of multi-family building permits issued by the City of Little Rock over the most recent three years. Realtors and developers have also indicated that the Little Rock areas is very strongly oriented to single-family housing, and that very little in the way of multi family housing has been initiated within Little Rock in recent years. 11-41 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. IncTOTAL HOUSING UNITS Vacant Housing Units Table 11 Characteristics Of Housing Units\n1980 \u0026amp; 1990 Pulaski Saline , 1-aulkncr Lonoke 1980 1990 1980 1990 1980 1990 1980 1990 132,810 151,538 18,854 24,602 16,814 23,397 12,442 15,009 Vacant, Seasonal \u0026amp; Migragory Units 8,294 6.2% 131 14,329 9.5% 275 1,282 6.8% 100 1,56.5 6.4% 171 1,32.5 7.9% '72 2,072 8.9% 424 1,034 8.3% n 1,14,3 7.6% 77 OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS 124,516 100.0% 137,209 100.0% 17,572 100.0% 23,037 100.0% 15,489 100.0% 21,325 100.0% 11,408 100.0% 13,866 100.0% TENURE CHARACTERSITICS While Householder 98,348 79.0% f 105,475 76.9% .\n' 17,142 97.6% 22,494 97.6% 14,38.3 92.9% 19,638 92.1% 10,173 89\n2%\n12,668 91.4% Black Householder 24,871 20.0^ 30,245 22\n09^^'. 334 1.9% 364 1.6% 1,024 6.6% 1,506 7.1% 1,17.3 10.3% 1,107 8.0% Other Races 1,297 1.0%,\n. 1,489 .1.1%4C\" 96 0.5% 179 0.8% 82 0.5% 181 0.8% 62 0J% 91 0.7% Owner Occupied 77,678\n62.4% 82,772 .60.3%\n' 14,244 81.1% 18,563 80.6% 11,220 72.4% 15,027 70.5% 8,564 75.1% 10,319 : 74.4% Renter Occupied V! o 3\" 5 c*\u0026gt; \u0026gt; v\u0026gt; O n 5 (V (/) 46,838 3 j.6% 54,437 39.7%\n3,328 18.9% 4,474 19.4% 4,269 27.6% 6,298 29.5% 2,844 24.9% 3,547 25.6% VALUE AND RENT Median Value Median Contract Rent $40,100 $174 $61,300 $30.3 $37,100 $130 $59,000 $241 $37,100 $139 $55,400 $247 $33,200 $106 $52,700 $217 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the CensusTable 12 Housing Starts*, 19601985 Pulaski and Saline Counties Total Starts Single Family Starts Prcnt Multi-Family Starts Prcnt 1960 1961 1962 196.3 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 197.3 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Total\n1,011 1,212 2372 2,427 2,653 3,690 1,885 2,020 1,712 1,591 3,144 4,708 4,35.3 4,117 2,258 1,776 2390 2,685 2,645 2,810 1,949 1,341 2337 3,908 3,936 3,091 68,221 928 1,085 1,749 1,858 1,922 1,814 1,141 1,178 1,299 ' 1,122 1,321 1,986 2,067 1,718 1,384 1,587 1,84,3 1,998 1,808 2,0.37 1,27.3 607 488 1,282 1,471 91.8% 893% 73.7% 76.6% 72.4% 49.2% 60.5% 583% 75.9% 70.5% 42.0% 42.2% 473% 41.7% 613% 89.4% 77.1% 74.4% 68.4% 723% 653% 453% 192% 32.8% 37.4% 50.1% 83 127 62.3 569 7.31 1,876 744 842 413 469 1,823 2,722 2,286 2,399 874 189 547 687 8.37 77.3 676 734 2,049 2,626 2,465 1,542 8.2 10.5 263 23.4 27.6 50.8 .39.5 41.7 24.1 293 58.0 57.8 523 583 38.7 10.6 22.9 25.6 31.6 273 .34.7 54.7 80.8 672 62.6 49.9 38,515 56^% 29,706 43^ Metroplan estimates for incorporated and unincorporated areas. Source: Metroplan Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, Ini 3. Retail Trade Profile II I The most recent profile data for retailing may be drawn from Sales and Marketing Magazine. (U.S. Census of Retail Trade data is only available through 1987.) Estimated retail sales as of 1989 arc shown in Table 13 for the MSA region, for each county, and specifically for Little Rock. All dollar figures shown in Table 13 are expressed in thousands of 1989 year values. The top half of Table 13 shows the estimated sales, and the percentage distribution of these sales for establishments by jurisdiction. I I As of 1989, total sales for Little Rock establishments were estimated at SI.95 billion, with an additional $1.29 billion estimated for the balance of Pulaski County, combining for total county-wide sales of $3.24 billion. Sales in each of the other three MSA counties were dramatically lower at $242 million, $325 million, and $135 million for Saline, Faulkner and Lonoke Counties respectively. These sales estimates indicate that Little Rock establishments accounted for nearly half (49.5 percent) of total regional sales, with the balance of the county (i.e. North Little Rock and adjoining areas) accounting for nearly one third (32.6 percent) of the regional total. While Little Rock is therefore capturing the greatest share, establishments in the northern part of the county are capturing a sales share which is much higher than this areas share of regional population. This can be attributed to several of the regions larger retail centers being located in the northern part of the county, and that these locations tend to serve as \"intercepts\" to some degree for the Faulkner County market further to the nonh. Another factor highlighting this condition is that while Little Rock establishments captured about half of the regions sales overall, general merchandise stores in Little Rock (i.e. depanment stores, mass merchandise stores) in Little Rock accounted for less than one-third of the regional total for this category, with north-county establishments accounting for over half (56.2 percent) of these sales.    I    The bottom half of this table estimates market capture, or market penetration. Estimated market demand is calculated by pro-rating total sales in proportion to personal income, indicated as \"Effective Buying Income\". This indicates what the residents of each jurisdiction are likely to spend, regardless of the location of stores. That is, if expenditures are made in proportion to the supply of buying income in each jurisdiction, then residents of Little Rock would be expected to have generated $1.68 billion in market demand. Residents of the rest of Pulaski County are estimated to have generated $1.27 billion in estimated demand as of 1989, with residents of the three adjoining counties generating nearly $1.0 billion together. Comparing the sales from establishments within each jurisdiction to the expenditures from the same jurisdiction indicates whether sales are being \"imported\" or \"exported\". Overall, sales for esublishments in Little Rock are estimated as being equivalent to about 116 percent of expenditures from city residents, thus indicating that a significant increment of sales is coining from visitors or residents living outside of the city.    IW4 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. I' a Table 1.3 Retail Sales Distribution (Dollar values in $000s) MSA Effective Buying Income $6,277,292 % Distribution 100.0% Pulaski Total Little Rock $4,708,747 $2,683,822 75.0% 42.8% Balance $2,024,925 32.3% Saline $590,377 9.4% Faulkner $645,074 103% Lonoke $333,094 5.3% I TOTAL SALES Food Stores Eat \u0026amp; Drink Gen Mdse Fumy Api. Automotive Drug AU Other SALES CAPTURE Total Sales Food Stores Eat \u0026amp; Drink Gen Mdse Fumy Api. Automotive Drug All Other $3,944,461 723,295 .345376 610,018 180,043 1,006,480 78,700 1,000,549 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% $3,241,219 $1,954,152 540,208 289,878 5.36,.350 153,180 843300 58,601 819,702 329,73.3 193,440 193,440 107,218 504,447 37,850 588,024 $1,287,067 210,475 96,438 342,910 45,962 338,85.3 20,751 231,678 $242,300 68,001 16,306 25,385 8,880 65,026 7,138 51,564 $325,186 73,540 .31,851 34,65.3 14,515 66,520 7,400 96,707 $135,756 41,546 7341 1.3,6.30 3,468 .31,6.34 5,561 .32,576 82.2% 74.7% 8.3.9% 87.9% 85.1% 83.8% 743% 81.9% 49.5% 45.6% 56.0% 31.7% 59.6% 50.1% 48.1% 58.8% 32.6% 29.1% 27.9% 56.2% 25.5% 33.7% 26.4% 232% 6.1% 9.4% 4.7% 4.2% 4.9% 63% 9.1% 53% 8.2% 10.2% 9.2% 5.7% 8.1% 6.6% 9.4% 9.7% 3.4% 5.7% 2.1% 23% 1.9% 3.1% 7.1% 33% ESTIMATED DEMAND Total Sales Food Stores Eat \u0026amp; Drink Gen Mdse Fumy Api. Automotive Dmg AU Other $3,944,461 723,295 345376 610,018 180,043 1,006,480 78,700 1,000349 $2,958,835 542361 259,075 457389 135,055 754,985 59,035 750336 $1,686,433 309,241 147,664 260,810 76,976 430315 33,648 427,779 $1,272,402 233320 111,411 196,779 58,078 324,670 25387 322,756 $370,975 68,026 32,482 57372 16,933 94,659 7,402 94,101 $405,345 74328 35,492 62,687 18302 103,429 8,087 102,820 $209306 38380 18327 32370 9354 53,407 4,176 53,092 market CAPTURE Total Sales Food Stores Eat \u0026amp; Drink Gen Mdse Fumy Api. Automotive Drug All Other 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1093% 99.6% 111.9% 1173% 113.4% 111.7% 993% 1093% 115.9% 106.6% 131.0% 74.2% 1393% 1173% 1123% 1373% 1013% 903% 86.6% 1743% 79.1% 104.4% 81.7% 71.8% 653% 100.0% 503% 443% 52.4% 68.7% 96.4% 54.8% 803% 98.9% 89.7% 553% 783% 643% 913% 94.1% 64.9% 1083% 40.1% 42.1% 363% 593% 1333% 61.4% Source: 1990 Sales \u0026amp; Marketing Magazine\nTischler \u0026amp; Associates, Inc. Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, inI Saline, Faulkner and Lonoke counties, however, are shown as having sales equal to only 65.3, 80.2, and 64.9 percent of their residents expenditures respectively, thus indicating that a margin of sales are being lost to establishments in other jurisdictions, in this case, Little Rock and norther Pulaski County.  Little Rocks sales are consistently higher than expenditures from the citys residents for each category, with the one very notable exception of general merchandise. For this category, stores within the city are capturing only 74 percent of the expenditures generated by city residents. These sales are being captured by stores in the North Little Rock area which is estimated has having a market capture equal to 174 percent of the expenditures generated just from within this area. I I  These rates of sales capture and market expenditure capture are further depicted graphically in Exhibit 20. I The overall observation from this data is that retailing in Little Rock generally enjoys good competitive positioning and is able to command a significant share of the regions sales and expenditures. However, a very obvious departure from this overall picture is in regards to department stores and mass merchandise stores, as noted above.  I I I     11-46 Tischler \u0026amp; Associaies. Inc IExhibit 20 Retail Sales Capture Sales Capture This chart shows sales for Little Rock esublishments as a percent of toul sales for Pulaski County, and the MSA region. Types of stores capturing the largest share of sales include furniture, furnish-ngs and appliance stores, and eating and drinking esublishments. General merchandise (department) stores have a very low share, capturing only .36 % of county sales and 32 % of MSA sales. Little Rock Sales Cipture City Sales as % of Region. Couoty Sales so% 70% 60% 50% 30% 20% 10%e d 0% % of Region % of County Food \u0026amp; Drug SS Eat \u0026amp; Drink ^3 Gen Mdse Hum. i Applnc Automotive Other Markel Penetration The chart below shows sales for Little Rock establishments as a percent of the estimated total expenditures generated by residents throughout the MSA, and in just the county and city. Figures above 100% indicate sales in excess of local resident demand, attracting expenditures from surrounding areas. Again, general merchandise lags far below other types of establishments. Little Rock Market Penetration City Sales as % of Market Demand I 150% r 140%  130% ' 120% 110% 100% 90% S0% 70% 60% 50% 40% X)% 20% 10% 0% Regional Demand County Demand City Demand XX X [ S Food \u0026amp; Drug S Ell \u0026amp; Drink EOenMdie S Furn. \u0026amp; Apploe 1^ AulODOtive 1^ Other Souree\n1990 Sales \u0026amp; Markeiing Magaiinc\nTischler \u0026amp; Associates, Inc. Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. Inc I Section HI Development Trends I The previous section has laid a foundation of general background data depicting economic and demographic conditions and trends. In this section, we will review current trends in development, and will make generalized projections as to development quantities in several major sectors. II I I in.A. HOUSING MARKET TRENDS A general assessment of housing market conditions and trends has been completed and is presented in this section. This begins with a review of recent sales and construction activity, and then projections are made as to likely future demand within the immediate Little Rock area. H H II 1. Residential Sales Activity I Table 14 presents summary indicators of recent activity in home sales for the Little Rock area, and immediately adjoining areas. This data is based on summary statistics for the first nine months in both 1990 and 1991 from the Central Arkansas Multiple Listing Service. The nature of this data is strongly oriented to sales of existing homes, although some new homes, particularly in the areas of new developing communities, may be included. I I The data in Table 14 show about the same level of activity in both 1990 and 1991, with total unit sales in the first nine months of each year at just under 1,500 closed sales. For both years, the areas with the highest activity were the far west and northwest areas, with more than 500 sales each in both years. The next most active area was southwest, with roughly half this level of sales, 282 in 1990 and 217 in 1981. No other area had more than 100 sales.   For all of Little Rock, reported closing (sales) prices were about 3.5 percent higher in 1991, at $93,969, than in 1990, averaging then at $90,801. The highest average sales prices were reported in the far west area, indicated at nearly $125,000 in 1991. Only one other area, northwest, had average prices close to $100,000 ($98,848). Much lower average prices were reported in all other areas, with the downtown/central city area, southwest and west all indicating prices close to $50,000 and two areas, cast and midtown indicating very low average reported  I III-l Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. ILillie Rock Downtown/Cenlral City East \u0026amp; Airport Midtown Northwest, Hillcrest Southwest West Far West Soulhwesl Corridor Bryanl Benton Otter Creek North Pulaski County Table 14 Residential Sales Activity\n1990-1991 Number of Sales 1990 1991 1,472 1,481 Average Selling 1990 $90,801 Price 1991 $93,969 % of Listing Price Received Avg. Days of Listing Time 1990 1991 1990 1991 94.4% 94.2% 131.8 132.6 33 7 56 50,3 282 59 532 41 9 46 531 217 92 545 47,462 23,342 33,346 96,622 50,090 50,072 121,017 53,307 . 26,101 26,460 98,848 49,1.5,5 47,626 124,759 90.4% 91.9% 91.8% 93.9% 95.1% 95.6% 94.9% 93.8% 99.2% 88.8% 92.8% 95.4% 95.1% 95.4% 181.7 129.7 134.9 1203 140.6 150.4 132.7 20L,5 177.1 161.1 138.8 141.9 12.3.2 116.3 379 388 $66,410 $68,457 95.3% 95.7% 119.7 130.1 18,3 167 29 182 161 45 67,081 61,942 87,90.5 67,398 64,87,3 85,562 95.2% 95.5% 94.3% 96.0% 95.5% . 95.6% 112.6 114.9 192.7 128.1 138.9 106.7 1,238 1,261 $70,998 $70,768 95.1% 95.0% 115.6 127.8  wi o 2 ffo \u0026gt; tn (/\u0026gt; O g Q\u0026gt; to North Lillie Rock Maumcllc/Cryslal Hills Jacksonvillc/Cabot Sherwood Source: Central Arkansas MLS 347 267 422 202 379 299 376 207 79,744 73,349 61,36,5 72,993 75,131 74,54.5 60,264 76,401 94,1% 95.8% 95.5% 95.3% 94.0% 95.2% 95.9% 94.8% 128.6 126.7 103.3 104.5 137.5 128.7 116.7 128.7 II prices near $26,000. With the exception of midtown at 88 percent, most areas within the city indicated receiving selling prices in the mid-90 percent range of their listing prices. (This may not necessarily account for seller-authorized reductions in listing prices.) II The far west and west areas had the shortest average listing times in 1991 of 116 and 123 days respectively. At the other end of the scale was downtown/central city with an average 201 day listing period. I I The unit sales volumes and average prices seen in Table 14 are also graphically represented in Exhibit 21. This exhibit clearly shows the margin by which both the number and the value of home sales in the far west and northwest areas surpass all other areas of the city. 2. II H Residential Building Permits Resideniial building permits have been summed for the past three years, 1989 through 1991, and allocated to the eight analysis areas defined for this study. The results of this tabulation are shown in Table 15 on the following page, as well as in the subsequent two map exhibits. n I Over the last three years, a total of 870 single family building permits were issued by the City of Little Rock, an average of 290 per year. This contrasts sharply with the total of 6 duplex (attached unit) permits, and one multi-family permit (not shown on the table) granted over this same period. Over 65 percent of the residential permits were for sites in the far west area. Only the west (at 145) and the northwest (at 90) had any significant level of activity. Average building cost values as reported on the permit applications were generally consistent with the values seen in the realtor sales activities. The far west area had an average building cost of close to $130,000. The northwest area was the next highest, at $155,620. No other area had an average cost higher than $60,000, and two areas, midtowq and central city, had average costs less than $40,000. n n n n The concentration of building activity and the orientation of higher values to the western portion of Little Rock can also be seen in the maps shown in Exhibits 22 and 23. Exhibit 22 shows the number of permits in ranges of 0-10, 10-100, 100- 150, and higher than 150, which in this case, refers only to the 568 units permitted in the far west area. Exhibit 23 funher relates average costs to location within the city. Here, again, the downtown, central, east and midtown areas are shown as having very low unit costs, all averaging less than $51,224, while higher values are found in the western sectors. The west and southwest area are shown with average costs between $51,224 and $59,874, with the nonhwest and far west areas having costs between $59,874 and $155,620. n a a III-3 Tischler \u0026amp; Associales. In* 1Unit Volume Exhibit 21 Residential Sales Activity Number of Home Sales Units Sold TTirough MLS I Average Sales Price Source: Central Arkansas NtLS Tischler \u0026amp; Associales. Inc Table 15 Little Rock Area Residential Building Permits\n1989 - 1991 ANALYSIS AREA ClfVViTDE' AvgJPennit  \u0026gt; DOTVNTOWN Avg7Permit CENTRAL AvgyPennit EAST Avg7Permit MIDTOWN Avg7Perm!( NORTHWEST AvgJPermit 4VESt\u0026lt; -i -I Avgz'Permit SOUTHWEST AvgJPennit FAR33'EST Xvg7Prmll F Duplex Res. No. Total Vai Single Fam. Res. No. Agg Vai 6 0 2, ' 1 3 0 0\n$245300 , $40333 so $0 , ' $80.000 $40,000 $25,000 $25,000 $140,000 $4^,667 870 0 7 7 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 \"w* Ts :5X^ zy'J 90 ji* A $99^jr87 $I14,76fi so SO $230,090 $32370 $384,790 $54,970 $307,190 $38399 $14,005,810 $155,620 45 S'5\u0026lt;58^ % Source: Lisle Rock Dcpu of Keishboihoods St Planning\nTischler \u0026amp; Assoc., Inc. t$8.681^^ \u0026gt; SS9.874 $2300325 $55361 s^s'zM              Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, In aLittle Rock Area Building Permits 19891991 Number of Residential Permits 568 Fj /dJo/n. 150 lown jnlrol i lly \u0026lt;5- 100 10 o rr 2 \u0026gt; (Z) V) O a  Cast 0 I tn o Q Qo \u0026gt; tn tn O o O) Q tn Little Rock Area Building Permits 1989-1991 Average Value per Res i dent i a I Permit, Fl I own Mill nWAJT ZZ Zv/owm jnlrol ilfe 155620 59874 51224. 54454 03. Projected Households and New Housing Demand Both the data from realtor sales, and the data from new residential building permits quantify several factors, which are widely recognized throughout the community: The far west and nonhwest areas are preferred by far in terms of number of new units\nThe residential values in the far west and northwest areas are significantly higher than any other ponion of the city, and\nThe eastern and core areas arc experiencing only very nominal, if any, residential-construction-aetivity,'and have average values which are severely depressed, compared to the rest of the city. In assessing how future housing demand may operate over the next ten years, we have examined both the permit and sale activity, as well as longer term trends in population and household movement, as previously seen in Section H. To assess potential future demand, we have drawn on the population projections by analysis area, as seen previously in Table 6, Section n, and have applied average household sizes to the population data from that data to estimate the implied changes in the number of households. For 1985, the average household sizes varied from 1.6 in the downtown area, to 3.2 in the far west area, and were set so as to be consistent with the household size data adopted earlier for Tables 5 and 6 in Section n. Applying individual household size data to the projected population changes for each area from Section II results in the projected changes in the number of households shown in Table 16. This projection indicates that five of the eight analysis areas may experience a net loss of households over the next ten years, if current prevailing trends continue without alteration. The northwest, west and far west areas are shown as experiencing a net gain of 5,099 households, absorbing outmigration from the eastern portions of the city, as well as attracting new-arrivals to the region. While Pulaski County is indicated as increasing by 6,183 households over the next 10 years, most of this will occur outside of the city, such as in Maumelle and other north-county communities. The city as a whole is shown as experiencing a net loss of 521 households over the next 10 years. in-8 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. Inc  Table 16 Projected Change in Number of Households  1990 2000 Change ^90-00 Average Per Year Pulaski County 137,209 143,392 6,183 618.3 Little Rock Vicinity 78,369 77,849 . . (521) (52.1) Dountown 1,185 982 (202) (20.2) Central 7,162 6,026 (1,136) (113.6) East 9,397 8,023 (1374) (137.4) Northwest 18,498 20,174 1,676 167.6      Midtown 14,268 11,780 (2,487) (248.7) Southwest 13,487 13,066 (421) (42.1)  West 6,270 6,487 216 21.6 Far West 8,103 11310 3,207 320.7 Balance Of Pulaski County 58,840 65,543 6,703 6703 Source: Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, Inc. Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. Inf   I I a  This projection indicates that, should trends continue as they have over the prior decade, the western portion of the city will continue to experience growth and expansion, while eastern portions of the city will likely see even more disinvestment, high rental vacancy rates, and outright abandonment more than has occurred to date. The predominance of the western areas, and the type of housing being developed in these areas, suggests that the growth anticipated in these areas will continue to be strongly oriented to single-family-detached development. Very little multifamily development may occur within the city, although some may be constructed in the north county communities. I I The average sales values from realtor listings shown previously in Table 14 tend to be weighted b.y a .significant.number of older properties. New development values typically are higher than resale values, and can be significantly higher if new \"product\" is being introduced at a much higher level of amenity than the existing base. This seems to be the case, for example, in the northwest area. By contrast, the building permit data seen in Table 15 focusses on the most recent new construction, but also tends to understate current total values in that these costs include additions and panical improvements, and do not include land costs or indirect (\"soft\") costs associated with the development process. The projections seen in Table 16 indicate that only three areas, west, northwest and far west, are anticipated as having any postive net growth in the number of households through the rest of the decade. Based on building permit data over recent years and our own survey of the market areas, TA believes new housing development in these areas will be strongly, if not exclusively oriented to singlefamily-detached units. Allowing for land and indirect costs, and based on the average building permit values seen in Table 15, TA anticipates that future new housing unit market values for the three areas projected to have net housing growth will tend to range as follows: Area Average Market Values West Far West Northwest S 60,000 - S 80,000 S150,000 - 5170,000 5185,000 - 5200,000 I m.B. RETAIL DEVELOPMENT TRENDS Retail sales and retail development has enjoyed relatively good occupancies and sales through at least 1990, contrary to many other metropolitan areas. Sales, relative to 111-10 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. Inc  regional total income, is comparatively high, suggesting that some importation of sales from beyond the four-county MSA region is occurring. As reviewed briefly in Section n. Little Rock has maintained a generally competitive position in retailing. The two primary retail areas in the county are west-central Little Rock, and the north county mall locations. With plans now indefinite for proposed mall developments along 1-430, some slight further erosion in market share may continue for the next ten years, although growth in market size should be sufficient to compensate for this. This part of the report looks more closely at retail sales trends, and provides a general projection of the potential for further retail development within the city. 1.  H Retail Sales Trends: 1982-1987 Retail sales data for 1982 and 1987 (the latest available data from the Census of Retail Trade) are shown in Table 17 for the MSA region, Pulaski County, and Little Rock. The sales data in Table 17 are expressed in thousands of current dollar values, that is, the amounts reported as collected as of the respective year. On a current dollar basis, total sales for Little Rock establishments increased from   $1.13 billion in 1982 to $1.59 billion in 1987. As of 1987, the three highest I sales categories by store type were automotive ($406 million), general merchandise ($406 million), and food stores ($256 million). I To more accurately portray a trend in the 1982 and 1987 sales levels, it is first necessary to convert these current dollar values to constant dollars. This has been done, based on the consumer price index (CPI) for the southern region of the United States. This calculation results in the trends seen in the top graph of Exhib\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eTischler \u0026amp; Associates, Inc.\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_730","title":"Unitary status","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":["2002/2007"],"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","School management and organization","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Unitary status"],"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/730"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["70 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nr IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. received DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. MAY 3 0 2002 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Opposition to the LRSD's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status This memorandum responds to the LRSD's \"Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status,\" filed on March 15, 2001. Introduction During the 1997-98 school year, representatives of the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD completed the proposed \"[LRSD] Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.\" They then filed a joint motion seeking its approval by the court on January 21, 1998. On April 10, 1998, the court (Judge Susan Webber Wright) approved the revised plan. The plan provided for three-year term assuming a substantial_and good faith compliance with its terms. [Sections 2.1, 9, and 11] The plan further provided for \"[t]he 1997-98 school year and the first semester of the 199899 school year [to] E^, 977 Ark E.^, Sturgis v. Skosos, ,977 S.W.2d 217, 223 (Ark. 1998) (interpret contract not by emphasizing one clause to the exclusion of others, \"but from the entire context of the agreement\"). 1 ibe a transition period in preparation for implementation of [the] Revised plan.\" [Section 10] Section 11 of the revised plan provides, in part: \"In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating_the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan\" (emphasis added). The LRSD submitted an Interim Compliance Report on March 15, 2000 (cited as March 2000 report at ) and a Compliance Report on March 15, 2001 (cited as March 2001 report at ), On June 25, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed n an [OJpposition to [the] Little Rock School District's Compliance Report. II The court (Judge Wright) conducted 5 1-2 days of hearings concerning the LRSD's effort to secure release from court supervision [i.e. . on July 5-6, 2001, August 1-2, 2001, and November 19-20, 2001). Thereafter, on March 15, 2002, the LRSD filed its motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status. This memorandum responds to the LRSD motion, with regard to the subjects addressed in the hearings conducted by Judge Wright: Revised Plan Sections 2.1 (general requirement of good faith compliance)\n2.5-2.5.4 (student discipline)\n2.7 (academic achievement)\n2.7.1 (program evaluation)\n2.12.2 (general 3 2 See Tr., 8-2-01, at 890, 3-9 (comment by Judge Wright on the limited information on student discipline set forth in the March 2001 report). 3 While Section 2.7.1 refers to program assessment. assessment and evaluation the terms at times, used interchangeably. [Tr. , 11-19-01, 13-17 (Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley)] This memorandum shows, in detail, that LRSD acted on the premise that Section 2.7.1 addressed program evaluation. until. at 242, are, in 2requirement of activities \"for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate\")\nto 6.7 (generally applicable LRSD 6.0 Compliance program). This memorandum also addresses the obligation of the LRSD to narrow the racial achievement gap, as required by the \"Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989.\" See revised plan, Section l(a.)\nTr., 7-6-01, at 378, 21-24 (recognition of obligation by former Superintendent Les Gamine)\nTr. , 11-20-01, at 564, 1-4 (recognition of obligation by Associate Superintendent Leslie). It is necessary to consider in connection with the LRSD motion and this response that the Joshua Intervenors' have the opportunity to submit some additional evidence. See Order by Judge William R. Wilson, May 9, 2002 at 13 (30 minutes of rebuttal), at 14 (during additional hearings, Joshua Intervenors may offer certain evidence bearing upon \"good faith obligations\" and \"the academic achievement of African-American students\"). Subsequent to the filing of the LRSD motion. this court scheduled a hearing in July 2002 on several issues. Order, May 9, 2002, at 14. Intervenors, therefore. do not respond to LRSD's argument that as to issues other than those addressed here, \"the LRSD should be granted unitary status and released from court supervision without further evidentiary hearings.\" [LRSD Mem.- the hearings, it faced the task of defending its performance in this sphere. See, e^^, Sturgis v. Skokos, supra. 977 S.W.2d at 223 (\"If there is an ambiguity, a court will accord considerable weight to the construction the parties themselves give to it, evidenced by subsequent statements, acts and conduct.\" [citation omitted]) 3Brief, at 34] This memorandum begins with a summary of the evidence. The summary, in the form of proposed findings of fact, encompasses the issues addressed here by the Joshua Intervenors: Student Discipline (at 4-19), Improving and Remediating Academic Achievement of African-American Students (at 19-36), Racial Disparities in Achievement (at 37-40), and Program Evaluation (at 40-46). An argument relying upon the factual summaries follows (at 47). The argument is not lengthy, the court's principal task seemingly being the examination of the facts in the light of concept of \"substantial compliance. Intervenors' factual presentation shows in each instance why substantial compliance is lacking, in the light of the concept of substantial compliance advanced. Results on the Arkansas Benchmark Examinations are set forth as an appendix. Summary of the Evidence I Student Discipline A- The Relevant Provisions of the Revised Plan (1.) The provisions of the revised plan relevant to the matter of student discipline are the following. 2.5. LRSD shall implement programs, procedures designed to ensure that there is discrimination with regard to school discipline. policies and \\or no racial a 2.5.1. The LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set 4 Intervenors dispute, in the argument, suggestion [e.,^, Mem.-Brief at 2, 34] that termination of jurisdiction would be appropriate if this court found substantial noncompliance, but somehow also was without doubt as to the system's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. Substantial compliance and future fealty to the Constitution are, in fact, separate components of the exit formula. 2, LRSD's repetitive termination as 4forth in the Student Rights and responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all equitable manner. students are disciplined in fair and 2.5.2. LRSD shall purge students' discipline records after the fifth and eighth grades of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. 2.5.3. LRSD shall establish the position of \"ombudsman\" the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities: ensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race based mistreatment achieve equitable solutions. and attempting to 2.5.4 LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. 2.12.2. LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. SECTION 6: LRSD Compliance Program. LRSD shall implement a desegregation compliance program which shall include the following components: 6.1. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance\n6.2. Oversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by the superintendent\na * * *  * * 6.3. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to employees\n6.4. Utilization of monitoring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance\n.... 6.6. Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through appropriate- disciplinary mechanisms, including the discipline of individuals responsible for compliance and individuals responsible for any failure to report noncompliance\nand for compliance failure to 5 I\u0026amp;.1. After has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. noncompliance B. The LRSD Interim Compliance Report (March 15, 20001 (2.) The LRSD \"Interim Compliance Report\" (March 15, 2000) discusses the five sections of the revised plan, which focus on student discipline, at pages 13-17. (a) The text concerning Section 2.5 addresses: adoption of policies (a general policy on non-discrimination and policies on discipline records)\nrevision of student handbooks\ncreation of \"an online student discipline reporting system for each school building . . .\"\nstaff development\na decrease in suspensions and expulsions in the LRSD\nthe sampling of parent, student, community and teacher attitudes on safety and order in the schools\nand expansion of the number of alternative learning sites, [at 13-15] (b) The text concerning Section 2.5.1 (on the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook) addresses: the adoption of general district standards on racial disparities in programs and activities and student rights and responsibilities\ndirecting principals to comply with the handbook\ninforming students and parents of standards\nand employing the ombudsman, [at 15] (c) The text concerning Section 2.5.2 (purging students' discipline records) addresses: adoption of standards\nin-service training\nand implementation by the Assistant Superintendent for School Discipline (Dr. Linda Watson), [at 15] (d) the text concerning Section 2.5.3 (the ombudsman) 6addresses: the filling of the position in February 1999 (half-way through the first year of the plan)\nestablishment of goals for the ombudsman's work, including \"[i]nvestigat[ing] parent and student complaints of alleged race-based mistreatment and . . . work[ing] to achieve equitable solutions\"\nincreasing community awareness of the ombudsman and monthly reports on his work, [at 15-16] (e) the text concerning Section 2.5.4 (behavior modification plans for students) addresses: the general process for developing such plans and an exit process for students eligible to return to a home school from the ft Alternative Learning Center.\" [at 16-17] The totality of the text on behavior modification plans is follows: as Students who exhibit frequent misbehavior have their cases refereed to the schools' Pupil Services Team. The team is comprised of the building administration, the students' teacher, the counselor, the parents and any specialists deemed necessary. The team develops a behavior modification plan warranted, [at 16] as (3.) The March 2000 Interim Compliance Report omits coverage of Section 2.12.2 (investigating causes of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies). [See report at 82-86] (4.) The portion of the March 2000 Interim Compliance Report concerning Plan Sections 6.0 through 6.7 (general desegregation compliance program) does not discuss school discipline, [at 127-29] C. The LRSD \"Compliance Report\" (March 15, 2001] (5.) The LRSD \"Compliance Report\" (March 15, 2001) discusses the five sections of the revised plan, discipline, at pages 24-26. which focus on school 7(a) The text concerning Section 2.5 addresses: decreases in the numbers of suspensions and expulsion system-wide and for black and white students\nthe decrease in the number of students committing offenses\nthe sampling of community and teacher attitudes on school issues (positive views on safety and pupils' feelings on \"belonging at schools\"), [at 24-25] The report also includes this text [at 24]: The number of African-American students suspended decreased 20 percent consistent with the overall reduction in disciplinary sanctions. The proportion of suspensions issued to African- American students remained in the neighborhood of 85 percent. The Report describes no particular action directed at the continuing racial disparity. (b) The text concerning Section 2.5.1 (on the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook) addresses: school board approval of general district standards on racial disparities in programs and activities and student rights and responsibilities. [at 25] (c) The text concerning Section 2.5.2 (purging students' discipline records) addresses: asserted compliance with this provision by school principals and the \"Student Hearing Office.\" [at 25] (d) The text concerning Section 2.5.3 (the ombudsman) addresses [at 25-26]: training received by the ombudsman\nsteps taken to increase public awareness of the ombudsman's services\na and description of the ombudsman's activities, which reads as follows: Efforts to raise public awareness of the ombudsman appear to have been successful. In the last year, the ombudsman has been contacted by over 250 parents or students and provided 8services related to over 450 incidents. the In addition, ombudsman has implemented intervention activities at Badgett Elementary and McClellan High School designed to assist African-American males who demonstrate unacceptable behavior. Efforts are underway to expand these activities to include other schools. (e) The text concerning Section 2.5.4 (behavior modification plans for students) contains only a general description of the asserted process for developing such plans. Contrary to other instances, there is no reference to a school board policy or the numbers of students and schools involved, [at 26] (6.) The part of the March 2001 Compliance Report addressing Section 2.12.2 (investigating causes of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing needed remedies) contains only six lines of text. This text cites the school board's adoption of the general policy on racial disparities in programs and activities and then provides in part: \"In implementing its obligations under the revised plan, the District has addressed racial disparities in . . . discipline (Section 2.5) . . 165] (7.) The March 2001 Compliance Report omits mention of Plan . \" [at Sections 6.0 through 6.7 (general desegregation compliance program), which had been discussed in only a cursory fashion in the March 2000 report (see paragraph 4 above), [at i-iii] 5 Section 11 of the revised plan for the LRSD provided for release of court jurisdiction \"provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in [the] Revised plan, added: \"In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with Fthel It It [thel Revised Plan\" (emphasis added). 9D. The Evidence Presented to the Court (8.) The LRSD March 2000 and March 2001 reports and Dr. Linda Watson's testimony stressed reduction in the overall number of suspensions and expulsions. [March 2000, at 13-14\nMarch 2001, at 24\nTr., 11-19-01, at 48, 13-21\nat 55, 22 to 56, 15\nat 83, 14-21 (Dr. Watson)] 6 However, the data set forth in CX 743, introduced by LRSD, revealed that in 2000-2001, the third year of the plan, while white student suspensions\\expulsions continued to drop (69 fewer. 11.2 percent lower than 1999-2000), black student suspensions\\expulsions increased in that school year (496 more. 12.3 percent higher than 1999-2000). [CX 743 (\"Discipline Suspension Index by Year\")] (9.) While asserting that suspensions and expulsions decreased in number, the LRSD acknowledged that racial disparity continued. [March 2001 report, at 24)\nWatson testimony, 11-19-01, at 83, 21\nat 113, 14 to 114, 1\nCX 743] 14- (10.) The LRSD reports in March of 2000 [at 13-15] and 2001 [at 24-25] presented no data showing discipline by school. The 6 In LRSD's affirmative presentation in presentation, LRSD identified Dr. Linda Watson as responsible for implementation of Sections 2.5, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, and 2.5.4 of the revised plan. [Tr. at 25, 16-19] 11-19-01, 2000, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) issued a report titled Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District, it sets forth data by school, by sex and race, on the students subjected to one or suspensions. This allowed the LRSD to identify the extent of representation of black students in discipline in a meaningful manner, and to single out schools with atypical disparities. See Appendix at 5. The LRSD chose to ignore the ODM report. See para. 19, infra. On June 14, number of more over- 10reports set forth no data by sex and race [id.], with the omission of data on disciplining of black males being particularly significant [Tr., 8-2-01, at 892, 5-9 (Associate Superintendent Sadie Mitchell)\nTr., 11-19-01, at 124, 4-14\nat 132, 12-24 (Dr. Watson)\nCX 583, at 125 (ODM report noting black males' being suspended \"at significantly higher rates than any other subgroup\")\nsee also Tr., 8-2-01, at 890, 23 to 891, 13 (Judge Wright)] (11.) The discipline process at the school level involves referrals of students by teachers and imposition of sanctions by administrators. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 151, 155] (12.) The March 2000 and 2001 LRSD reports show no evidence of the development of criteria to identify schools, teachers or administrators involved in atypical racial disparities in discipline [e^^, departing from system averages, or in the case of a teacher or administrator in a particular school, departing from the pattern for colleagues in that school). [March 2000 report, at 13-15\nMarch 2001 report, at 24-25] Assistant Superintendent Watson identified no such criteria in her testimony on November 19, 2001. (13.) The LRSD has the ability, by computer, to identify particular teachers, vice principals, and principals. whose referrals or sanctions evidence atypical racial disparities. This has not been done systematically, if at all. [Tr. , 11-19-01, at 123, 7-16\n128, 6-18\n149, 10 to 150, 25\n155, 7-12\n161, 4-13]] (14.) After acknowledging the absence of such disaggregation of data. Dr. Linda Watson testified as follows: Q Okay. So, it wouldn't be possible to correct it, if it was not disaggregated and in writing, would it? 11A. I guess not sir. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 149, 23-25] (15.) Dr. Watson testified as follows: that are helping Q. All right. Is there a group within the District or made up teachers, administrators, support staff, liiaL aj-t\niifcij.pj.ng to identify and to be responsible for correcting the disparate impact, discipline in the District? A. Not to my knowledge. [Tr. 11-19-01, at 162, 18-23] (16. ) Dr. Watson agreed that she \"[has] not prepared a monitoring report with respect to disparities in discipline.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 114, 4-7] Asked \"[d]id you make a written analysis of discipline data to reveal any potentially systemic problems,\" Dr. Watson testified, \"No sir.\" [Tr. , 11-19-01, at 142, 8-10] Asked whether former Superintendent Les Carnine or Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs had II prepare[d] a causation analysis of discipline disparities,\" Dr. Watson testified. II Not to my knowledge no, sir.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 130, 1-4] Faced with the question, \"[s]o, there are no plans by which to reduce disparate impact of black students?,\" Dr. Watson, the person responsible for implementation of the discipline sections of the revised plan, testified: \"Not, to my knowledge.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, 135, 6-8\nsee also id. at 112, 9-17] (17.) Dr. Watson testified as follows: Q. Have you made any recommendations regarding how to address the gross over representation of black boys, in the disciplinary process? A. No, I have not. Q. Have you not publicly stated that there needs to be some because more attention devoted to dealing with this problem, apparently there is a fear factor associated with black boys? A. Yes. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 132, 12-20] 12(18.) The following testimony of Dr. Watson is particularly significant in view of LRSD's acknowledgement of continuing racial disparities in school discipline and her own recognition of the particular issue regarding black male students. Q. Other than what you have told me, what is the Little Rock School district doing to  and what you told Mr. Walker, what is the Little Rock School District doing, in addition, to correct the disparity based upon race? A. I can't say that we are looking at it based on race. We are looking at the number of suspensions. We are trying to offer programs that African-American students, as well as other students, to participate in. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 163, emphasis added] 16-25\n(19.) The Office of Desegregation Monitoring distributed on June 14, 2000 a report titled Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District. [CX 583] This report set forth discipline statistics by race, by school, for the school years 1993-94 through 1998-99, including the numbers of student in each school receiving one or more sanctions. The report also contained seven recommendations. [CX 583, at 127] Dr. Watson testified as follows regarding the ODM report. Q. Now, did you ever meet with the ODM after the ODM issued its report for the purpose of either better understanding their recommendations or for seeking ways to implement their recommendations? A. No, I did not, but I sure wanted to. Q. Why didn't you? 8 The data by student, by race, allows a comparison of the proportions of black and white students in a school receiving suspension or expulsion as a form of discipline. The comparisons in the individual schools can then be compared to those of other schools, allowing identification of schools with atypical disparities. of 13we A- Because I took  once the report came out, we discussed it in the cabinet, and it was the decision at that time that would not respond or do anything. Q. That's right. Dr. Carnine told you not to meet with them didn't he. A. At that time, yes he did. Q. I see. A. That was the decision that came from cabinet, going to address the issues. we were not emphasis added] [Tr., 11-19-01, at 177, 11-25\n(20. ) Dr. Watson testified as follows regarding behavior modification plans. Q. [Y]ou have indicated that you have responsibility under 2.5.4 for creating Behavior Modification Plans, is that correct? 2.5.4 is A. Yes, I did say that. Q. How many such plans did you develop each year? A. I couldn't say how many I developed. Q. You never had  you do not have a report, which documents the number you have developed? A. No sir, I do not. Q. What is the evidence to show that it was actually done? A. In cases that I heard in student hearings, when we needed to do Behavior Modification Plans, there were times that we stopped and did the plans there in the office. Q. I see. A. There were times that I referred them back to the schools. Pupil Services Team, to do Behavior Modification Plans. Q. I see. Do you agree with this statement? The district does not have any document compiling the total number of Behavior Modification Plans or the race or gender of students for whom Behavior Modification Plans have been prepared? A. I agree. I do not have the numbers. 14Q. All right. Do you agree with this statement? The District does not have nay document entitled, \"Monitoring Report of Behavior Modification Plans.\" A. I would agree.[Tr., 11-19-01, at 135, 9 to 136, 12] (21.) The testimony revealed that Dr. Watson had a vast array of responsibilities, more than one person could reasonably be expected to accomplish. The evidence also reveals that Dr. Watson, an \"assistant superintendent,\" sought additional personnel, that her plea did not bear fruit, and that additional personnel were needed to address racial disparity in discipline in individual schools. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 114, 4 to 119, 8\nsee also id. at 142, 25 to 146, 23 (example of type of effort needed to work with one school)]. E. Findings Concerning Overall Compliance with the Plan (22. ) Section 2.5 of the revised plan is devoid of any statement that the reguisite \"programs, policies and\\or procedures\" to be \"implement[ed]\" pursuant to this section are limited to those set forth in Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, and 2.5.4. of the plan. Ms. Linda Watson's affirmative testimony presented by LRSD was not limited to the subject matter of these four sections. [jELSi, Tr. , 11-19-01, at 27-30] The text of Sections 2.12.2, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, and 6.7 of the revised plan show that these sections are relevant to the subject of racial disparities in school discipline. Moreover, the text of these sections contains no indication that their content as to the discipline sphere can be satisfied merely by the fulfillment of the reguirements of Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3 , and 2.5.4. of the plan (assuming that LRSD substantially 15complied with each of these sections). (23.) There is no predicate for the court to find a lack of substantial compliance with Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.3 of the revised plan. However, the record does establish lack of a substantial compliance with Sections 2.5 and 2.5.4. (24.) The record establishes a lack of substantial compliance with Section 2.5 for the following reasons. (a) The LRSD report of March 2000 [at 13, 15] and the testimony of Dr. Linda Watson [Tr., 11-91-01, at 27-28] identified LRSD Policies AC, ACB, JB and JBA as steps implementing Section 2.5 of the revised plan. [CX 719 (cited standards)] However, these standards merely restate the LRSD's existing obligation to comply with the Egual Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d- d(4)(a) (barring racial discrimination in programs receiving federal financial assistance). Moreover, these standards do not even mention disciplining of students. [CX 719] (b) Dr. Watson's outlines for training of principals omitted the matter of disparate discipline generally and discipline of black males [CX 672-76\nTr. , 11-19-01 at 122, 14 to 123, 6], despite awareness of these issues. See paras. 9, 10. (c) The LRSD was aware of continuing racial disparities in the imposition of school discipline generally and in particular with  LRSD regulation JBA-R implements policy JBA. It is noteworthy that this regulation addresses explicitly each school's obligations to insure nondiscrimination in \"programs and activities,\" ..... JBA. __ with three required strategies, but does not mention discipline. [CX 719] 16regard to black male students. See paras. 9, 10. The system had the capability by computer of identifying schools with atypical racial disparities in discipline\nthe system also had the capability of identifying teachers whose referrals and administrators whose discipline actions were marked by atypical racial disparity. See paras. 9 \u0026amp; n. 6, 13. The LRSD did not implement any programs, policies and\\or procedures geared specifically to such schools personnel. See paras. 12-18. or (25.) The LRSD's discussions of \"behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior\" [Section 2.5.4], and other evidence on this topic, show mere lip service to the concept, rather than \"work[ing] with students and their parents to develop\" such plans. See paras. 2(e), 5(e), 20\ncompare paras. 5(d) and 5(e) (in the March 2001 report, discussion of the ombudsman contains statistics on parent contacts and matters worked on, while coverage of behavior modification plans is limited to general description of process for developing plans). (26.) LRSD's failure to comply with Section 2.12.2 as applied to discipline is obvious. The system was aware of racial disparity and had the capability of isolating schools and staff with atypical problems. The system did not investigate the matter\nand, therefore, could not develop remedies. The system did not commit sufficient personnel to the issue. See paras. 9, 10, 12-18. Indeed, Dr. Linda Watson, the official responsible for compliance with the discipline sections of the plan [Tr., 11-19-01, at 25, the system's major witness on the topic, testified: ' 16-19], and \"I can't say 17 that we are looking at it [discipline issue] based on race.\" [Tr., 11-19-01 at 163, 21-25] (27.) Similarly, LRSD's failure to comply with Part 6 of the revised plan (\"LRSD Compliance Program\"), as applied to discipline. is obvious. Again, LRSD was aware of the general pattern of discipline disparity, and the particular issue about black male students. The system did not adopt standards to identify schools and staff with atypical discipline patterns. It did not analyze available data based upon such standards. It did not inform staff of such standards and procedures. It did not enforce such standards, or require remedial actions to address problems identified. Neither the superintendent, nor his designees oversaw compliance with any such standards and procedures. See Sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, and 6.7 and paras. 9, 10, 12-18, 21. (28.) Finally, LRSD's performance with respect to student discipline does not evidence substantial compliance with its agreement to \"in good faith exercise its best efforts . . to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the LRSD. . It [Section 2.1] The evidence supporting this conclusion includes the following, [i] The district did not commit adequate personnel to the issue of discipline. See para. 21. [ii] Despite knowledge of the continuing racial disparity in discipline, the system, did not study the causes, or identify and follow-up on schools and personnel with atypical disparate patterns. See paras. 9, 10, 12- 18. [iii] Dr. Watson testified, as noted, that \"I can't say that we 18 Iare looking at it [discipline issue] based on race.\" See para. 18. [iv] Upon receipt of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring report on school discipline in June 2000, the decision of the superintendent and his cabinet was \"at that time . . . we would not respond or do anything\"\n\" . . we were not going to address the issues. II See para. 19. II. Improving and Remediating Academic Achievement of African- American Students_________ A. The Relevant Provisions of the Revised Plan (29.) The provisions of the revised plan relevant to the subject of improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students are the following. 2.7. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and\\or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this revised plan. 2.7.1. LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve AfricanAmerican achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the implemented or replacing the program. program is * * * 2.12.2. LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. ft ft ft SECTION 6: LRSD Compliance Program. LRSD shall implement a desegregation compliance which shall include the following components: program 196.1. Compliance and procedures capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance\nstandards reasonably 6.2. Oversight of compliance with such standards procedures by the superintendent\nand 6.3. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to employees\n6.4. Utilization of monitoring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance\n.... 6.6. Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through appropriate disciplinary mechanisms, including the individuals responsible for compliance individuals responsible for any failure to report noncompliance\nand discipline of any to and 6.7. After has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. noncompliance been to B. The Shortcomings in the Educations Afforded Black Students and the Standards Adopted to Address the Problem______ (30.) Two aspects of Section 2.7 of the revised plan are particularly noteworthy. First. The LRSD obligation is not limited to \"design[ing]\" programs and other initiatives\nrather, the initiatives must also be implementPed.\" [See Tr., 8-1-01, at 686- 87 (Leslie)] Second. The programs and other initiatives \"[include] but [are] not limited to [those in] Section 5 of [the] revised plan.\" (31.) Dr. Leslie Carnine became Superintendent of the LRSD effective with the 1997-98 school year. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 341-42] During testimony on November 19, 2001, when he had served for four years. Dr. Carnine provided the following overview. if you and Mr. Walker, when we put the new plan together, if will_remember, and in fact  if i can find the document, L.d I think we might be able to present it, but I said at the time 20that it was my statement to you that I firmly believed that if we remediated the education of black students and made a real effort,where I_felt that it had been missing, that by that very remediation effort of increasing their achievement, we would help to, in fact minimize the disparity between black and white achievement. Now, that statement is the one that I have made continuously over the past four years, I have said nothing f erent, not that I am not  I am certainly concerned about that disparity issue. It has been my life's work. But my point is the only way you can do it is not worry about the disparity, but let's just teach kids. And I didn't feel that we were doing that good a job. I think we are doing a better job now. Are we where we need to be? Not absolutely, but we are getting there. . 51\nemphasis added] . . [At 450- (32.) During the 1998-99 school year, year one of the new plan, LRSD staff under the direction of Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley, who joined the staff at the end of June 1998 [Tr. 8- 1-01, at 670, 18-19], undertook a comprehensive review of the educational program, including students' test scores. This review yielded, ultimately, the view that the curriculum for grades K-12 in language arts (including literacy), mathematics, science and social studies needed to be replaced. [March 2000 report, Tr., 11-20-01, at 550, 10-14] at 45\n(33. ) The review of programs during 1998-99 examined the development of early literacy skills in the light of results for LRSD students on the Arkansas Grade 4 Benchmark Examination (Spring 1998 and Spring 1999)^ and the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT 9) 10 Arkansas has adopted curriculum frameworks for language arts, mathematics and other subjects. For each framework, there are benchmarks, identifying, in grade level bands, knowledge and skills which it is hoped students will master. districts mathematics to give benchmark in grades four and examinations The State requires local eight. in These literacy and instruments are 21(Grade 3, Fall 1998). 11 On the state-mandated examination, 42 percent of LRSD students performed at the lowest level (\"Below Basic\") and only 30 percent of students at the levels deemed acceptable. Significantly, \"[f]ifty-three percent of African- American grade 4 students performed at the 'Below Basic' level, compared to 20 percent of white students.\" The results for grade 3 on the nationally normed SAT 9 reading test were consistent. \"In both cases only approximately 30 percent of LRSD students performed at the 'Proficient' or 'Advanced' levels . . , again indicating that far too few students are becoming good readers by grade 3.\" [CX 703, Doc. 1 at 12-13] (34.) The federal educational program known as tl Title I\" originated in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. It provides financial assistance to local school districts to support help for low achieving students. The March 2000 report noted LRSD's receipt of $4.2 million in Title I funds, annually. designed to show a student's level of mastery of benchmarks appropriate to the students' grade level. The results are reported in terms of four levels (below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced). The State's goal is that all students reach at least the level of proficient. [March 2001 report, at 56\nTr. , 8-1-01, at 692, 18 to 694, 9\n\"[LRSD] Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status, Tab 5, at 9] basic, proficient II March 15, 2002, at 56. For a description of the SAT 9, see the March 2001 report. The exhibit did not discuss SAT 9 scores by race. The record contains SAT 9 reading scores by race for grade 5 for 1998-99 (but not grade 3 scores). On \"total reading\" the average percentile score for black LRSD fifth grade students was 27 and that for LRSD white students 69. [CX 741] 22Almost all LRSD schools received some Title I funds in recent years. \"The goal of Title I is to provide supports so that all children can achieve the rigorous curriculum content standards established by the State and the [local] District.\" [March 2000 report at 47, 68\nsee 20 U.S.C. Sec. 2701] (35.) The review of instructional programs during 1998-99 encompassed Title programs. The March 2000 interim report I described some of the findings as follows: An analysis of performance data found that most Title I schools had not been meeting their improvement goals. The stafffound_that part of the problem was the absence of or lack of consistent delivery of District-established literacy and math curriculum. These problems were corrected through the new Pre-K Literacy Plan and the new NSF mathematics curriculum. Another part of the problem was the lack of alignmentbetween the Title I programs and the regular curricula in literacy and mathematics. [At 68\nemphasis added] Dr. Leslie provided consistent testimony about the findings of the review. [Tr. , 81-01-01, at 700-02 (noting use of \"pull out programs\" which \"even result in the child missing the instruction on the things that are going to be tested\")] (36.) Testimony by Dr. Lesley revealed the consequences for Title I participants, disproportionately black youth [Tr., 8-1-01, at 702], of the lack of alignment of the content of the Title I program \"and the regular curricula in literacy and mathematics.\" are  . . . Alignment is absolutely critical, particularly in an urban school district, because alignment means that you are going to test kids over, that you have given them a chance to learn that, that you have got that included in the curriculum. And so without alignment, poor kids in particular suffer the most, because there may not be an opportunity for them to get that knowledge and skill anywhere else. . . . [Tr. 11-19-01 at 199-200] ' (37.) The perverse and ironic impact of the content of the 23 ITitle I program on LRSD's black students has been substantial. The program is longstanding f i.e . . originated in 1965) and in the relevant time frame has supported activities in almost all Little Rock schools. The low scores of LRSD's black middle school and high school students on the state benchmark and the SAT 9 tests are no doubt due, in part, to their isolation from important parts of the curriculum by Title I programs (which were supposed to help them attain the knowledge and skills which LRSD identified as important for all students). (38.) Dr. Lesley also identified general problems in the math curriculum, prior to its revision. \"The old curriculum really focused on two strands of the [State] standards, and now we have a curriculum that encompasses all six strands, which include such things like statistics and problem solving and geometry and algebra, even for young children. So, that has been a big change for teachers.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 272, 6-11] (39.) The information gleaned about the content of the educational program and student outcomes on standardized tests led the LRSD leadership to conclude that a complete overhaul of the educational program was necessary. [CX 703, Doc.l at 12-13] This overhaul involved many areas. For example, the March 2000 report described the changes needed to implement the PreK-3 literacy plan. alone, as follows: \"The plan required restructured schools and school days, alignment of special programs with general education, new standards-based curriculum, appropriate pedagogy (instruction) , materials, and assessments, high-quality and intensive professional 24development, effective interventions, and parent involvement.\" [At 97] The restructuring also involved mathematics, science and social studies curricula. See para. 32\nsee also Dr. Leslie's testimony regarding the magnitude of the attempt to completely overhaul the educational program. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 198, 23 to 207,12] (40.) In the March 2000 and March 2001 reports, the LRSD identified many policies, practices and procedures. some general and some specific, as designed to fulfill the obligation which it assumed in Section 2.7 of the revised plan. Sub-paragraphs (a)-(e) describe central elements of the LRSD commitments. (a) \"The District developed in 1997-98 and 1998-99 comprehensive curriculum content standards, plus grade-level and course benchmarks in K-12 English language arts. mathematics, science, and social studies. In addition. curriculum maps were constructed for each area to ensure that the LRSD standards were aligned with the state's curriculum frameworks and assessments.\" [March 2000 report, at 45\nTr., 11-20-01, at 513, 17-21] (b) Staff members developed during 1998-99 and the directors approved in June 1999 a PreK-3 literacy plan. Board of The March 2000 report stated that II PreK-3 literacy is a major, if not the major priority of LRSD.\" \"The plan required restructured schools and school days, alignment of special programs with general education, new standard based curriculum, appropriate pedagogy (instruction), materials, and assessments, high-quality and intensive professional development. effective interventions, and parent involvement. [March 2000 report, at 96-99\nsee also id. at 2590 [assessment to \"[identify] [students] for early interventions\"] (c) The March 2001 report states: ..... Implementation of standards-based, instruction in mathematics and science, intensive and sustained professional development for teachers, and multiple assessment measures have been put in place to ensure improvement. New standards-based curricula in mathematics in grades K-8 and in science for grades 1-9 have been adopted. The curricula for other grade levels are being adapted locally to reflect a standards-based, inquiry-centered approach. The number of K-12 mathematics teachers who received training and materials to fully implement the new mathematics program increased from 215 teachers in the 1999-2000 school year to 515 teachers during the 2000-2001 school year. The number of K-12 science teachers who received training and materials to fully implement the new science program increased from 50 teachers in the 1999-2000 school year to 243 teachers during the 2000-2001 school year. Another 108 mathematics teachers inquiry-based intensive and 453 science teachers began implementing part of the standards-based program during 2000-2001. All teachers in mathematics and science are scheduled to fully implement the standards-based program during the 2001-02 school year. [At 115] 453 (d) Dr. Leslie testified that \"interventions\" for students whose achievement is not at the standards deemed desirable is vitally important part of the new literacy proqram. [Tr., 8-1-01, at 679,14 to 681, 15] Interventions (and remediation) are a point of emphasis in the LRSD reports of March 2000 and 2001 and in policies adopted by the LRSD Board of Directors to which they refer (summarized in next paragraph). This emphasis is in keeping with Section 2.7 of the revised plan which requires designing and implementing actions \"to improve and remediate the academic a achievement of African-American students. . . \" (emphasis added). (e) The LRSD adopted the following relevant standards. X3 See March 2000 report at 43, report at 51-52, 62, 64, 125-26. 44, 47, 48, 49\nMarch 2001 26(i) The Board of Education adopted Policy IHBDA (\"Remedial Instruction\") on July 22, 1999, after year one of the plan. It requires \"the district and each school\" to make \"comprehensive and aggressive early intervention efforts, especially in PreK-3 reading and mathematics, with continuing support through complementary remediation efforts on an as-needed basis to promote and sustain the standard levels of achievement.\" \"Intervention\\remediation efforts of the Little Rock School District will be comprised of a broad range of alternatives . . I* [CX 719, Policy IHBA] ( ii) The Board approved Regulation IHBDA-R tl Intervention\\remediation\") on October 21, 1999, after the start of year two of the plan. It provides, in part: Assistance will be provided for any student who is performing below the standard levels of achievement in the areas of mathematics and reading\\language arts. Intervention\\remedial programs include reteaching, tutoring, extended-day programs, Saturday programs, summer school, and special courses offered within the school day in addition to the core instruction. Program designs may differ from school to school, depending upon funding sources, needs of students, and decisions made by the Campus Leadership Team. [CX 719, Reg. IHBDA-R] (iii) The School Board approved Regulation IHBDA-R2 (\"Student Academic Improvement Plan\" (SAIP)) on August 24, 2000, after year two of the plan, in compliance with Act 999 of 1999. It requires teachers tl of English language arts and mathematics\" at each level to prepare individual SAIPs for \"each student who [i] is not performing on grade level (K-4)\n[ii] is not 'proficient' on any part of the state's benchmark examinations - primary (grade 4), intermediate (grade 6), middle school (grade 8)\nand [iii] is not scoring 'proficient' on End-of-Course examinations in literacy. 27geometry, and\\or algebra.\" IV School and individual teachers are encouraged to develop plans for additional students who, in their judgment, reguire remediation or intervention.\" The regulation further provides: student's The Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) will document a student's achievement through District-adopted assessment tools, consideration of personalized education services (special education, English-as a- Second language. Title I, gifted_ programs, etc.) identification of areas of need^ specific skills to improve, strategies that will be implemented (see IHBDA-R), and progress. [CX 719, Reg. IHBDA-R] etc. ) C. Deficiencies in Implementation Establishing a Lack of Substantial Compliance with Secs. 2.7.1, 2.12.2 \u0026amp; Part 6.0 (41.) The content of paragraphs (42) through (57) supra shows that the deficiencies in implementation of the Section 2.7 activities identified by the LRSD are such that a finding of substantial compliance with Section 2.7 is not warranted. The LRSD's failure to substantially comply with Section 2.12.2 and Part 6 of the revised plan, as to the area of academic achievement, also apparent. is (42.) The LRSD Board of Directors approved the PreK-3 Literacy plan in June 1999, after year one of the revised plan. [March 2000 report, at 99] (43.) Teachers did not receive \"their copies of the new curriculum documents\" until \"August 1999\" the start of the school year (and the start of the second year of the revised plan). [March 2000 report at 45] \"All teachers did not begin the [1999- 2000] year with the training to implement the new curriculum, teaching strategies, and materials. Training occurred throughout 28 the year, and some teachers were not trained at all in 1999-2000.\" [March 2001 report, at 91] (44.) LRSD has emphasized that the training and retaining of teachers is a vitally important component of the new educational programs. (a) Dr. Leslie testified as follows: It [professional development] is probably the most important thing that we have done, and we've spent all of our treasury on that. A great deal of time, a great deal of energy, a great deal of money, trying to be sure that every teacher has at least a minimum level of training in several areas, because one of the things that was overwhelming about the plan and its implementation is that  particularly for elementary teachers, is that they had to learn new curriculum, they had to learn new materials, they had to learn new instructional strategies, and many of them had to change some belief systems, in order to make it work. over, much. And so, it takes more than a one workshop approach to get 311 that done. It has to be followed up over and over and And so, that is one reason we have emphasized it so The Board has allocated every dime they could to that effort over the last three years. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 207 13 to 208, 8] (b) The importance of teacher training was described as follows in the \"Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001\" (October 2001) by Dr. Lesley and other LRSD staff. The most expensive - and the most important - piece of the cost of any program implementation designed to improve student achievement is always the cost of professional development. . . . 'In study after study, it is the quality o: . , it is the quality of the teacher not variation in curriculum materials that is identified as the critical factor in effective instruction. That is not to say that materials are wholly unimportant, but that investing in teacher development has a better result than 14 This document appears at Tab 4 of the \"[LRSD] Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitarv Status.\" 29investing in curriculum materials.'. . . [At 96] (45.) Nevertheless, the II Year 2 Evaluation\" above identified serious shortcomings in the teacher training needed to implement the Pre-K-3 literacy program. The report states that 12 days of \"Ella training\"have been offered to K-2 teachers during the last two years. [At 97] It then sets forth a table, by school, showing the amounts of training for K-2 teachers. The average number of days per school is 4.65 across all levels. Moreover, in 15 of the 35 schools listed, the average number of days is 2.4 or fewer days. [At 98] The report states: From the table above, one can infer that implementation is, in general still at a low level since the number of days of ELLA training experienced by teachers is 4.65 of the 12 possible days available. Kindergarten teachers have the highest level participation, then grade 1 and then grade 2. Kindergarten, probably not coincidentally, is the highest performing grade level. [At 98] (46.) The LRSD employed lead teachers in the areas of math and science to promote the change from the traditional math and science curriculum to the new curriculum. Among other things, the lead teachers used an observation form to assess \"the implementation level and quality of implementation of the teachers\\schools in their cluster.\" LRSD reported the survey results for 1999-2000 in the March 2001 report. The report explains implementation codes as follows: \"3 - fully implementing standards-based\n2 - partially implementing standards based\n1 - minimally implementing standards based, 0 - not implementing standards based.\" The average score for 33 sites was 2.2. However, there were 10 scores of 1.8 or lower. The report explains scores for quality of implementation as 30follows: II 4 - excellent\n3 - good\n2 - fair\n1 - poor.\" The average score for quality of implementation was 2.6 for 3 2 sites. The report characterizes the results as follows: The District's average implementation score was 2.2, which represents a beginning shift from partial implementation to full implementation of a standards-based curriculum. The District's average quality score was 2.6, which represents trend toward quality instruction in math and science. Based on a the data provided, the District is in an active transition and the quality from the traditional curriculum to standards-based curriculum in both quality of implementation and the quality of implementation. See March 15, 2001 report at 122-24 (reports for elementary schools and middle schools only). (47.) The LRSD has also reported on the implementation of the new math and science curricula for the 2000-01 school year. Based upon reports by lead teachers, the average implementation score was 2.4 (on a scale of 0 to 3) and the average quality of implementation score 2.7 (on a scale of 1 to 4). Unlike 1999-2000, in 2000 01 LRSD reported only district averages and not scores by school. [ See \"Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement - Annual Progress Report for 2000-2001,\" Tab 5 to LRSD memorandum brief previously cited] (48.) The LRSD did not implement the new social studies curriculum until 2001-02, after year three of the plan. [Tr., 11-20-01, at 427, 2-3\ncompare para. 40(a) above] Indeed, Dr. Leslie seemingly testified at one point that the entire new curriculum was implemented for the first time in the \"Fall of 2000\" [Tr., 11-20-01, at 518, 22-25], rather than in the Fall of 1999. Compare para. 43. 31 I(49.) The October 2001 report on the Pre-K-3 literacy program after year two, previously cited, states that the study \"does not include  32examination of the different forms of interventions . II [Tab 4, at 83] Paralleling this admission, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Lesley, and Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent for School Services, could not provide concrete information on the implementation of SAIPs, or other interventions for students requiring additional assistance to satisfy learning standards (see para. 40(e)). [Tr., 8-1-01, at 609, 18 to 611, 23 (Mitchell)\nat 679, 18 to 684, 4 and 736, 17 to 739, 18 (Dr. Lesley)] It is obvious from test results that black students are more likely to need interventions. See para. 33. (50.) As part of the new Pre-K-3 literacy curriculum. LRSD teachers have administered in the Fall and the Spring in grades K-2 the tl Developmental Reading Assessment.\" The results have varied sharply from school to school and even within the same school from year to year. Dr. Leslie attributed these variations to \"the degree to which teachers had implemented the new curriculum.\" [Tr., 8-1-01, at 731, 21 to 732, 2] (51. ) LRSD staff have recognized that there has been insufficient monitoring of classrooms to evaluate whether PreK-3 literacy curriculum is actually being implemented. the new Lack of a monitoring plan through classroom observations document the level of implementation is a problem, weakness not only resulted in a late identification of implementation in some cases, but it was also a weakness in evaluating the consistency of program implementation. to This poor See Mem. Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of 32Unitary Status (March 15, 2002), Tab 4, at 105. (52.) As noted, the LRSD is required to administer, each year in April, state Benchmark Examinations in literacy and mathematics to fourth and eighth graders. The State's goal is that all students reach the levels of proficient or advanced on each examination. which measure mastery of knowledge and skills. identified as important for each student to master. Results by race for the school years 1998-1999, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001 appear in the appendix, infra\nsee also note 10, para. 33, supra (description of Benchmark Examinations). (53.) On August 1, 2001, Dr. Lesley testified, in part, about the 1998-99 benchmark results in math and literacy for black fourth graders (administered in April 1999). Only 8 percent of these black youth attained the levels of proficient\\advanced in math and only 20 percent in literacy. Dr. Lesley's testimony included the following content. Q. Now, in terms of the 1998-'99 results for Little Rock black students in the fourth grade on math, proficient or advanced, is that right? eight percent were A. Let me look, check for sure. In '98-99, American students were eight proficient. yes. African- Q. Eight percent, okay, proficient. A. At or above proficient. Q. Correct. So that's basically one out of 12 of the students who have been tested, is that right, roughly? A. Eight percent, uh-huh. Q. Now, you regarded that as a serious problem, correct? A. Certainly. 33Q.-.An\u0026lt;^ a maior part of your explanation for that result is fcb.at thosestpdentg,__in terms of the curriculum they had received,had not_ been exposed to what you call many of the strands of the benchmarks for math, right? A. Yes. Q. For students to show mastery on a test like that, they need to be exposed to the material, right? A. Absolutely. Q. Now, in terms of black fourth graders in the literacy, percent were proficient or advanced, is that right? 20 A. I want to check and make sure I don't misrepresent. In '98- '99, yes, 20 percent. Q. Did you see that as a serious problem? A. Of course. Q, And do you think that, again, that part of the reason for that_was that the curriculum those students had coveredmany_of the strands in the state benchmarks literacy? had not for A. Yes. added] J_ [Tr., 9-1-01, at 694, 8 to 695, 21\nemphasis (54.) As noted, state benchmark exam results are also available for 1999-00 and 2000-01 (year three of the new plan). The results for 1999-2000 show some improvement. However, in 2000-01 (April 2001 test), the proportions of LRSD black youth attaining the levels of proficient\\advanced were  4th grade literacy 19%\n4th grade math 14%\n8th grade literacy 18%\nand 8th grade math only 4%! See tables infra in appendix. These results are on a par with the results for 1998-99, which evidenced to Dr. Lesley that black youth had not been exposed to curricula covering all of the grade- appropriate strands in the state curriculum frameworks. To be fair to the LRSD, no child will have had five years of exposure to the 34new curricula (if it is implemented) until those children tested in 2003-04 (April 2004).^ (55.) The results on the April 2001 State Benchmark Examinations and the other evidence reveal that LRSD had not implemented for the black students tested: (a) a curriculum marked by alignment with the state benchmarks\n(b) teaching by teachers with the training which LRSD identified as an essential part of its program pursuant to Section 2.7\nor (c) the interventions for students experiencing difficulties, also identified by LRSD as an essential facet of its program for compliance with Section 2.7. (56.) Scores on State Benchmark Examinations as of April 1999 for African-American students evidenced a situation where they had not been exposed to the content of the curriculum. See para. 53. The longstanding, massive Title I program was organized in a manner detracting from, rather than. as required by federal law, contributing to low-achieving students (disproportionately black) mastery of system instructional goals for all pupils. See paras. 34-37. The LRSD identified the need for a complete overhaul of the K-12 educational program in core courses, with implementation not commencing until year two of the plan. See paras. 32, 39, 40(a). The overhaul required change in many aspects of system operation. There were shortcomings in teacher in-service training, a pivotal area, as well as in implementation of the new math and science curricula. See paras. 43-47. There was admittedly no systematic 15 A student in kindergarten in 1999-2000, who makes normal progress, will reach the fourth grade and take the grade four benchmark examinations in April of the 2003-04 school year. 35 review of actual implementation of interventions for those students not doing well, another area of high importance, particularly for African-American youth given their achievement levels. See para. 49. Results of State Benchmark Examinations administered in April 2001 again established the lack of delivery of curriculum to African-American students. See para. 54. Finally, the SAT 9 tests for 2001 evidenced some backsliding in terms of addressing racial disparities in achievement. See para. 61(b), infra (SAT 9 results). (57. ) In light of the condition of education for black students in the LRSD at the outset of the revised plan, the program changes which the LRSD identified as necessary, and the lack of implementation of key facets of those changes (as shown by evidence about those initiatives and test results), the court finds that the LRSD did not substantially comply with the obligation which it assumed in Section 2.7 of the revised plan to implement certain programs, policies and\\or procedures. (58.) There was also a lack of substantial compliance in this area with Sections 2.12.2 and Sections 6.1 6.7, generally applicable elements of the revised plan. The LRSD did not adopt, and therefore could not follow-up on. \"compliance standards\" [Section 6.1]. [Tr., 8-1-01, at 671, 21 to 675, 6 (Dr. Lesley)] The LRSD was of the view that it need not address the racial gap in achievement, as such\nthe staff therefore did not seek to devise a remedy directed to decreasing this \"racial [disparity]\" as such. violating Section 2.12.2 of the revised plan. See Part III of this memorandum, infra. 36Ill Racial Disparities in Achievement (59.) The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides for the continuation in force of \"The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989.\" [Section l(a.)] Testifying after being superintendent of schools for four years. Dr. Les Carnine agreed that he understood that the agreement with the State required the LRSD to narrow the achievement gap between black and white students. [Tr., 7-6-01, at 378, 21-24] See also at 378, 2-7 [\"Mr. Walker: Well, Your Honor, let me say this. We have the State agreement - The Court (Judge Wright) That's a settlement agreement, that's correct. about the achievement disparities, about reducing that, that's true.\"]\nTr., 11-20-01, at 564, 1-4 (Dr. Leslie).^ (60.) The LRSD did not II [develop] any particular program by which to remediate achievement disparity between African-American students and other students. . . \" during Dr. Carnine's tenure as superintendent. [Tr., 7-6-01, at 374, 25 to 375, 1-4 (Dr. Carnine)\nTr. , 8-1-01, at 622, 18 to 623, 9 (Associate Superintendent Mitchell)\nsee also Tr. 7-6-01, at 375, 14 to 379, 18 (Dr. Carnine)] (61.) The results of the State Benchmark Examinations and the Stanford Achievement Test show. at best. continuing massive disparities in achievement between black and white students and, at See also CX 594, at 11 [\"The achievement gap between African American and other students is always an issue of concern in the Little Rock School District. A major emphasis in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan is the significant narrowing and eventual elimination of that gap.\"] 37 worst, increasing disparities during the term of the revised plan. (a) On the Benchmark Examinations: [i] the proportion of fourth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in literacy has exceeded the like proportions for black students by 3.1 times (1998-99), 2.2 times (1999-2000), and 3.3 times (2000-01)\n[ii] the proportion of fourth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in mathematics has exceeded the like proportions for black students by 6.6 times (1998-99), 4.1 times (1999-2000), and 3.7 times (2000-01)\n[iii] the proportion of eighth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in literacy exceeded the like proportion for black students by 4.1 times (2000-01)\nand [iv] the proportion of eighth grade white students attaining the proficient advanced levels in mathematics exceeded the like proportion for black students by 10.3 times (2000-01). See appendix infra. (b) Results on the nationally normed SAT 9 test for LRSD students for the period 199697 through 200102 seemingly reflect an increase in the achievement gap. Twenty-one comparisons are possible in the data which covers grades 5, 7, and 10. The following comparisons are for the first (1996-97) and last (2001- 02) years of the six year period, [i] The gap between the average percentile scores of black and white youth increased in 20 of 21 instances\n[ii] over the six years, the average percentile scores for black students increased in 6 instances, remained the same in 6 instances, and declined in 9 instances\n[iii] over the six years, the average percentile scores for white students increased in 17 38 I iinstances, remained the same in 2 instances, and declined in 2 instances. [C 741, at 1] (62.) The LRSD has administered the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) in the Fall and Spring in grades K-2 beginning in 1999-2000. The LRSD maintains that the results show a narrowing of the achievement gap in reading.[E.g. . Tr., 11-20-01, at 409, 21 to 410, 4] However, test results on the DRA depend on a classroom teacher's judgments on his\\her students' abilities to read and to comprehend a series of progressively more difficult reading selections. In the spring, the teacher is in part judging her\\his own performance. The LRSD has recognized this issue: \"One caution, therefore, interpreting the data is that the teacher has scored his\\her own students' performance, and bias may be possible.\" [Year Two Report on the PreK-3 reading program. Tab 4 at 21] There is yet to be like progress, if any progress, on either the State Benchmark Examination or the SAT 9. See also Tr., 8-1-01, at 721, 12 to 726, 12 (lack of a predicate for LRSD to use DRA to evaluate achievement gap by race)] (63.) The LRSD has acknowledged problems prior to the effort to completely overhaul the K-12 program, which would harm black students disproportionately and exacerbate the achievement gap. The LRSD curriculum did not cover various strands of the State benchmarks. The Title I program emphasized \"pull out programs\" which isolated participants, disproportionately black. from the mainstream curriculum. See paragraphs 31, 34-38, 53-54. (64.) The LRSD has not substantially complied with its 39 iobligation under Section 2.7 of the revised plan to implement the activities which it identified \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students . , II See paragraphs 41-55. (65.) The LRSD has not provided a predicate to end court jurisdiction with regard to its voluntary undertaking \"to narrow\" the achievement gap between black and white students. IV. Program Evaluation (66.) Three aspects of Section 2.7.1 (quoted above at page 19) are noteworthy. First. In the first sentence and the second sentence, the words \"assess\" and \"assessment\" refer to programs (rather than to assessment of students). Second. The assessment obligation is not limited to the programs described in Part 5 of the revised plan, but instead pertains to those \"implemented n pursuant to Section 2.7 . .  which as noted is not confined to the programs in Part of the plan. Third. The assessment 5 obligation is annual in nature. (67.) Asked during the hearing on November 19, 2001, \"to discuss the difference between an assessment and an evaluation,\" Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley began by testifying \"[w]ell, I think part of the confusion has been that we have sometimes used those terms interchangeably . . .\" [Tr., at 242, 13-17] The evidence shows that prior to the hearings on whether or not LRSD had attained unitary status, the LRSD had indicated repeatedly, by its actions. that compliance with Section 2.7.1 required the carrying out of program evaluations. Indeed, Dr. Lesley agreed with 40this proposition, when called as witness by the Joshua a Intervenors. The relevant evidence is summarized in sub-paragraphs (a) to (e). (a) LRSD issued a \"Compliance Plan for the LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\" on June 10, 1999. The text concerning Section 2.7.1. identified relevant \"Board Policies\" to include those on \"Testing Programs\" and \"Program Evaluation.\" The text on \"Procedures (Regulations, Administrative Directives, Handbooks, etc.\") relevant to Section 2.7.1 provided as follows: 1. Program Evaluation Agenda - in progress 2. Title I Restructuring Plan provides for Title I evaluation 3. National Science Foundation Project provides for program evaluation 4. Application for waiver includes an evaluation design from State or District rules 5. In progress: second-year evaluation of Success for All Thus, as seen, every sub-paragraph referred to \"evaluation.\" [See CX 544, at 11-12] (b) In a June 1999 position paper on the PreK-3 literacy program LRSD staff wrote: PreK-3 Literacy Program evaluation. ----------------------- In keeping with the obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the District shall employ with Title I funding a program evaluator, who shall annually report on the level of effectiveness of the innovations in this PreK-3 Literacy Plan. [CX 703, Doc. 1, at 44\nemphasis added] See also Tr., 11-19-01, at 278, 19-21 (Dr. Leslie). (c) The material in the March 2000 interim compliance report addressing Section 2.7.1 refers to \"[i]mprovements in the assessment of academic programs.\" [At 51] It also cites. inter 41alia, the \"Program Evaluation Plan\" [at 51], a draft policy on \"Curriculum Evaluation\" [at 52], and \"[t]he 1999-2000 program evaluation agenda . ,  approved by the Board of Education in August 1999.\" [At 53] (d) The material in the March 2001 compliance report addressing Section 2.7.1 is headed \"Program Evaluation\" which is repeated at a later point in the discussion.  a title The text (page 148 of the report) includes at least nine other references to fl evaluation.\" (e) During her testimony on August 1, 2001, Dr. Leslie agreed that the District had interpreted 2.7.1, which does not use the word evaluation. as nevertheless raising the topic of program evaluation. [Tr., 8-1-01, at 705, 24 to 707, 12\nsee also Tr. , 8-2-01, at 843 , 7-15 (Judge Wright noting that LRSD voluntarily undertook . . . obligation to have program evaluations of the programs that are designed to enhance African-American achievement\"] (68.) The LRSD took a different tact in seeking to defend its implementation of Section 2.7.1, at the hearing on November 19, 2001. Dr. Lesley cited testing of students and other \" assessment\" activities as satisfying Section 2.7.1. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 242, 18- 22\n243 , 6 to 249, 14\nsee also at 253, 22 to 254, 6 (colloquy between Judge Wright and LRSD counsel)]^ The content of paragraphs Dr. Lesley distinguished such assessment a \"proqram evaluation.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 242, 23 to 243, 5] She described a program evaluation as \"more long term\" [at 242, 23]  a feature congruent with the reference in Section 2.7.1 to an activity \"after each year . . . .\"in contrast, her discussion of \"assessment\" as from 23] fl In contrast, her discussion of \"assessment\" 42(a) through (h) supra provide the likely explanation for the LRSD's seeking to defend its performance by discussion of assessment rather than evaluation. The deficiencies in evaluation activities have been such that a finding of substantial compliance with Section 2.7.1 is not warranted. (a) The LRSD Board of Directors did not \"[adopt\"] its Policy IL on \"Evaluation of Instructional Programs\" until March 22, 2001 near the end of year three of plan implementation. [CX 575] As noted, Section 2.7.1 refers to assessments (evaluations) \"after each year.\" The LRSD \"voluntarily undertook [this] obligation.\" (b) The LRSD Planning, Research and Evaluation unit (PRE) presented evaluation documents covering four areas to the Board of Education in August 2000. The documents concerned the PreK-3 literacy program, the implementation of middle schools (including the effectiveness of new curriculum in English language arts and science), the effectiveness of the ESL program and the national Science Foundation project components. The Board of Education tabled the consideration of these documents because they were incomplete and there were no recommendations. [Tr., 7-6-01, at 362, 24 to 365, at 389, 18 to 392, 18\nat 400, 16 to 401, 22 23\n(Superintendent Carnine)] During the three year period of the plan, the LRSD recognized that it did not have the capability, interencompassing teachers \"us[ing] the data that they have available on a daily basis to decide what to do next for one chid, for a group of children or for the whole class\" [at 245, 12-20] was incongruent with the provision in 2.7.1. 43nally, to prepare the required evaluations. [Tr., 7-6-01, at 400, 2-19 (Dr. Carnine)\nTr. , 8-2-01, at 710, 3 to 713, 21 (Dr. Lesley)\nat 829, 20 to 831, 6\nTr., 11-20-01, at 334, 496, 3 (Dr. Lesley)] 5-14\nat 495, 16 to (c) The versions of the evaluation of the implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program prepared during the three-year period were drafts. [CX 577, Tr. , 7-6-01, at 418, 17-23 (Dr. at 1\nCarnine)\nTr., 8-1-01, at 709, 3 to 710, 8 (Dr. Lesley)\nTr., li20 01, at 321, 21 to 322, 22\nat 472, 25 to 473, 8 (Dr. Lesley)] (d) The versions of the evaluation of the implementation of the new mathematics and science curricula prepared during the three-year period were drafts. [CX 577, at 1\nTr. , 7-6-01, at 398, 1 to 399, 9\nat 418, 17-23 (Dr. Carnine)\nTr., 8-2-01, at 829, 20 to 831, 6\nTr., 11-20-01, at 473, 25 to 476, 14 (Dr. Lesley)] (e) The version of the evaluation of the implementation of the new middle school program prepared during the three-year period was a draft. [CX 577, at 1] (f) The LRSD did not conduct during the three-year period an evaluation of the implementation of the several policies requiring interventions\\remediation for students performing below para. 49. par. See (g) The LRSD identified the summer school program as an important component of its effort \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students\" [Section 2.7]. [March 2000 report, at 47\nMarch 2001 report, at 62, 125-26] In its March 2001 report, LRSD asserted that \"PRE has evaluated\" the 44\"Summer School [Program].\" [At 148] However, the evaluation of the summer school program for \"Summer School 2000\" was only in draft form as of April 5, 2001 and July 17, 2001. [CX 721\nTr., 8-1-01, at 645, 12 to 652, 12 (Assoc. Superintendent Mitchell)\nTr., 11-20-01, at 357, 1 to 358, 8] (h) In the March 15, 2001 report the LRSD asserted that \"PRE has evaluated . . . [11] programs . . II [At 148] This assertion is misleading. [aa] The \"Extended Years Report\" existed in draft form as of July 13, 2001\nthere is a version of the report dated September 28, 2001. [CX 720] [bb] The LRSD presented only drafts of the \"Summer School\" report. [CX 721] [cc] There is an evaluation of the \"Hippy Program\" dated July 1999. [CX 722] [dd] The report on the \"Charter School\" is dated June 25, 2001\nit was written by an external consultant. [CX 723] [ee] The report on \"Campus Leadership Teams\" contains survey data dated May 11, 2001 and lists of participants, without further discussion. [CX 724] [ff ] There is an evaluation of the ESL program dated * October 30, 2000. [CX 725] [gg] There is a draft evaluation on the \"Lyceum Scholars Program at Philander Smith College\" dated September 22, 2000. [CX 726] 45[hh] With regard to the \"Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program,\" there is a request for data from an external source and some data, not an evaluation. [CX 727\nTr., 11-20-01, at 361, 17 to 362, 5] [ii] With regard to \"Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary),\" there is collection of information provided by the \"Site Facilitator\" on November 1, 2001, not an evaluation. [CX 728\nTr., 11-20-01, at 362, 7-17] [jj] With regard to \"Collaborative Action Team (CAT),\" there is a collection of survey data and some comments, of anonymous authorship. dated November 6, 2001. [CX 729\nTr., 11-20-01, at 363, 10-24] [kk] Regarding \"Vital Link,\" there is a brief. a undated evaluation of anonymous authorship. [CX 730] (67.) The LRSD did not substantially comply with the program evaluation obligation which it voluntarily assumed by virtue of Section 2.7.1. The LRSD did not evaluate the academic programs which it implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year to determine their effectiveness in improving African-American achievement and to use the results to make program changes. Indeed, it has not fulfilled this agreement after three years. In fact, the LRSD tacitly acknowledged its failure by seeking to recast the nature of its obligation during the hearings. 46Argument A. Introduction and the Standard for Substantial Compliance In this matter, the court is called upon to \"[apply] the terms of a contract between [two of] the parties ...\" [LRSD v, PCSSD, 11, 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Sth Cir. 1996)]  the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. \"Because this case has been settled, the settlement agreement becomes, in a sense, a particularization of federal law applicable to these parties.\" Knight v. Pulaski County Special School District. 112 F.3d 953, 955 (Sth Cir. 1997). Put another way, \"the terms of the settlement agreement became the law of the case.\" Little Rock School District V. Pulaskui County Special School District. No. 96-2047, Slip Opinion, Dec. 15, 1997, at 6. In sum. this court is called upon to apply the parties' agreement in the form of the revised plan, which left in place among other things \"The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989.\" [Section l(a.)] The revised plan identifies the standards which this court is to apply to determine, for example, whether the LRSD fulfilled its obligations regarding student discipline and program evaluation. and whether it is entitled to a \"release from court supervision.\" That other systems face less onerous criteria^ is irrelevant. LRSD is held to the obligations which it \"voluntarily undertook\" [see Tr., 8-2-01, at 843, 7-15 (Judge Wright referring to \"obligation to have program evaluations\")\nthey form \"the law of [this] case.\" 18 See LRSD Me.-Brief, at 18-19, 28. 47Construed as an entirety [see n. 1 at 1, supra 1 . the terms of the agreement support the construction that the court's jurisdiction continues as to an area in which a party meets its burden of proof of showing \"that LRSD has [not] substantially complied with its obligations set forth in [the] Revised Plan.\" [Section 11] In this light, a principal task for this court is to define the term \"[substantial compliance].\" The opinion in Cody v. Hillard. 139 F.3d 1197 (Sth Cir. 1998) provides guidance on this topic. 19 There, the district court had dissolved a consent decree, merely asserting in a conclusory manner that \"the defendants have conscientiously and in good faith complied substantially with its terms.\" [At 1199] In explaining the inadequacy of the district court's terse ruling, the appellate court wrote, in part: . . . . The record indicates that there have been failures in the past to comply with the decree and supplemental orders, and that there are still at least some violations of the decree. The district judge's order does not give us enough information to determine whether he ignored the evidence of past and present violations or whether he violations inconsequential in considered any the context of substantial compliance. If the conditions Powitz complained of constitute violations of the consent decree. exercise violations noncompliance its I were discretion I serious and to in the district court must determining whether those enough to constitute substantial cast doubt compliance with the Constitution. . added] on defendants' future . . [At 1199\nemphasis The Cody court focuses on two related matter. These are. first, whether any violations are \"inconsequential\" in the light of 19 Cody is, however, largely distinguishable\n\"[t]he decree did not state the time of its duration.\" consent 1198. See 139 F.3d at 48the parties' overall performance and, second, whether the particular violations, given their subject matter, involve \"serious\" natters. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit twice addressed the meaning of \"substantial compliance\" in the context of appeals from judgments of civil contempt. See Fortin v. Com'r of Mass. Dept. of Public Welfare, 692 F.2d 790 (1982) and Morales-Feliciano V. Parole Bd. of Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 887 F. 2d 1 (1989) (Judge Breyer). These decisions are also helpful. In Fortin, the court wrote [692 F.2d at 795]: . 'substantiality' must depend Finally, no particular percentage of compliance can be a safe-harbor figure, transferable from one context to another. Like ^reasonableness,' . . . 'substantiality' must depend on the circumstances of each case, including the nature of the interest at stake and the degree to which non-compliance affects that interest. In the present case, the interest at stake - entitlement to subsistence-level benefits - is great . . ., making the consequences of failure to comply quite serious. The district court properly weighed the seriousness of the harm . . - in considering the substantiality of the Department's compliance. . . . [citations omitted] The court also considered the duration of noncompliance. Id. at 796. The Morales-Feliciano court followed the Fortin standard. See 887 F.2d at 4-5. Intervenors next apply these standards to the facts. The argument shows that all of the shortcomings cited in the Intervenors' factual presentation involve substantial noncompliance. Because all areas of noncompliance impinge on and harm the education of youth, an interest of great importance [see Fortin and Morales-Feliciano, supra], Intervenors address that matter once at the conclusion of the argument. 49B. Student Discipline In this case involving racial discrimination in public education, the person responsible for compliance with the discipline sections of the plan testified: \"I can't say that we are looking at it based on See para. 18. Dr. Watson's description of inaction concerning discipline was entirely race.\" consistent with her admission. See paras. 12-17. The violation of Section 2.5 was \"serious. II Cody, supra. The system argues that the revised plan \"did not require the LRSD to reduce the discipline disparity.\" [At 28] However, it did require actions \"designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline . . It [ Sec. 2.5\nemphasis added] Compliance would necessarily require scrutiny of disparity to determine whether it originated in discrimination in any schools. In any event, the LRSD plainly assumed this obligation in Section 2.12.2. See para. 26. Lastly, there are also obvious and serious violations of Section 2.1 (good faith efforts) and Part 6 (compliance program). See paras. 27-28. The LRSD merely accepted disparate discipline as a fact of lif e. That tact may be open to other school systems. See LRSD Mem. -Brief, at 28. However, the LRSD pledged to implement the revised plan in good faith. The plan became, therefore. \"the law of this case.\" The failure to implement the provisions of Section 2.5.4 (behavior modification plans) can not be dismissed as \"inconsequential.\" The March 2001 report listed 4,274 suspensions 50of black pupils in 1999-2000. [At 24] There was a need for such plans\nthe LRSD merely gave \"lip service\" to the concept. Para. 25. C- Improving and Remediating the Achievement of Black Students The LRSD pledged not only to design, but also to implement actions \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students.\" [Section 2.7] 11 [T]he circumstances of [this] case ...\" [Fortin, supra] highlight the centrality of this pledge. The evidence shows that at the time that the parties drafted the revised plan and its implementation began, LRSD polices and practices isolated black students, disproportionately, from the curriculum content LRSD identified as important for all students. This practice included the operation of the Title I program a mode of operation diametrically opposed to the requirements federal law. See paras. 31-38, 53. of The LRSD determined, essentially, that it needed to replace its curriculum and that this step would fulfil its Section 2.7 obligation to the plaintiff class. Intervenors factual presentation shows that implementation fell short in areas deemed significant by LRSD (training of teachers for the new literacy curriculum. implementation of the new math-science and social studies curricula. provision of interventions to students [mostly black youth] not performing well. and monitoring of classrooms. See paras. 32, 43 51. Indeed, State Benchmark Examination results in April 2001 revealed that the vast majority of black pupils in grades 4 and 8 continued to show signs of isolation from the curriculum content deemed essential by the State and the LRSD in 51 math and language arts. See paras. 52-55. These shortcomings in compliance obviously involved \"serious\" and not \"inconsequential\" matters. Cody, supra. D. Racial Disparities in Achievement Former Superintendent Carnine, Associate Superintendent Lesley, and Judge Wright recognized the continuing requirement of an effort to narrow the achievement gap between black and white students. See paragraph 59. LRSD did not argue during the hearing that it could not narrow the achievement gap. It argued that its Section 2.7 activities would do so  and that it was doing so in the area of early grade literacy. See Tr., 7-6-01, at 375, 379, 18 (Dr. Carnine)\nsee para. 62. 14 to The LRSD did not develop any particular program designed to remedy achievement disparity between black and white pupils [see para. 60]\nthere have been, as noted, serious shortcomings in its implementation of the strategies to overhaul the educational program, K-12, which were to improve black achievement. The results of State benchmark and SAT 9 testing provide evidence that the educations of countless African-American students in the system have been tainted by isolation from the mainstream curriculum. See paras. 53-54, 61. The LRSD had promised in the prior plan to deal with achievement disparity. [At para. B] Manifestly, 1. a curriculum isolating black students from core content was not the way to make progress in this sphere. The failures to address the achievement gap, as such, and to implement major parts of the reforms encompassed in Section 2.7 are 52\"serious\" shortcomings. E. Program Evaluation The LRSD elected voluntarily to make a major commitment which it understood to involve program evaluation until such time as it determined that it could not show substantial compliance with Section 2.7.1, as so construed. Para. 67. The commitment encompasses not only evaluating the programs designed to benefit black students' achievement \"after each year,\" but also making changes if programs prove to be ineffective. Section 2.7.1. The LRSD seeks to defend its performance in this area by arguing that Section 2.7.1 required something less than a program evaluation. [LRSD Mem.-Brief, at 22-23] Intervenors have addressed this point. LRSD also contends that Intervenors' focus is on a set of evaluations, which the system had identified on page 148 of its March 2001 report. [LRSD Mem.-Brief, at 20] LRSD asserts: \"The evaluations were introduced as Court's Exhibits 720-730.\" [Id., at 21] Our response is two-fold. First. Intervenors's focus is on the LRSD's failure to complete, even in the threeyear period. program evaluations of central features of the LRSD program to implement Section 2.7. See paras. 68. Second. The content of paragraph 68(h) shows that the assertion that the page 148 \"evaluations were introduced\" is vast overstatement. The evaluations were to be an integral part of the LRSD effort to provide programs to improve and remediate the achievement of African-American students. The default here is \"serious,\" not 53inconsequential\" in the overall scheme of things. Cody, supra. F. The Setting in which Noncompliance Occurred \"In the present case, the interest at stake - [education] - is great . . . , making the consequences of failure to comply quite serious.\" Fortin,_supra. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized the importance of education in the contexts of racially discriminatory school systems [Brown V. Board of Education. 347 U.S. 483, 492-93 (1954)] and school suspensions [Goss v. Lopez. 419 U.S. 565, 576 (1975)]. See also Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 256 (Sth Cir. 1991) (in identifying \"those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and to which no retreat should be approved,\" court notes \"the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races\"). States and local districts identify benchmarks in areas such as literacy and mathematics so that they can graduate youth prepared to enter postsecondary programs and later participate in all of life's callings and positive experiences. The noncompliance cited by intervenors continues to threaten these ends. The setting in which noncompliance has occurred adds to its substantiality. Conclusion The Joshua Intervenors bargained for. and secured by the district court's approval of the revised plan, the right to three years of substantial compliance with its terms. The appropriate remedy for substantial noncompliance in the areas addressed in this memorandum is compensatory relief in the form of a three year 54period of actual substantial compliance in those areas (and any other areas identified as ancillary to the areas marked by violations). See Miener v. Missouri. 800 F.2d 749 (Sth Cir. 1986)\nPihl V-_Massachusetts Dept, of Ed.. 9 F.3d 184 (1st Cir. 1993)\nLester H. v. Gilhool, 916 F.2d 865 (3rd. Cir. 1990), cert, denied, 111 S.Ct. 1317 (1991)\nJefferson County Board of Education V. Breen, 853 F.2d 853 (11th Cir. 1988). The same criteria concerning ultimate termination of the court's role should apply to the fresh three-year period. Finally, the LRSD suggestion [Mem.-Brief at 2] that the court could terminate its role despite finding of substantial a noncompliance should be rejected. The Cody opinion (at 1199) contains this language. citing the Supreme Court decision in Dowell: \"if district court finds that defendant operating in compliance with Constitution and unlikely to return to 'its former ways,' purposes of injunction have been achieved\" (emphasis added). This identifies a two-part standard. In any event, the LRSD agreed to make substantial compliance the test for the end of a court role and is bound by that choice. .'VX/' xR^pectfully .submitted, oecttully Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass. 405900 ,Aohn W. Walker ^ohn W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 55Arkansas Benchmark Examination 4th Grade Literacy Note: See footnote 10 (description of Benchmark Examinations) Black Students 1998-99 [4-99] 1999-00 [4-00] 2000-01 [4-01] Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced 52% 36% 49% 28% 80% 70% 81% 34% 32% 20% 29% 19% 0% 20% 30% 19% 1% 0% White Students 1998-99 [4-99] 1999-00 [4-00] 2000-01 [4-01] Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced 17% 10% 14% 21% 38% 58% 62% 4% 23% 33% 60% 66% 6% 23% 37% 56% 7% 63% Appendix 1Arkansas Benchmark Examination 4th Grade Mathematics Note: See footnote 10 (description of Benchmark Examinations) Black Students 1998-99 [4-99] 1999-00 [4-00] 2000-01 [4-01] Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced 74% 91% 17% 6% 2% 69% 85% 16% 10% 69% 17% 8% 8% 5% 15% 6% 86% 14% White Students 1998-99 [4-99] 1999-00 [4-00] 2000-01 [4-01] Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced 24% 24% 25% 23% 28% 25% 47% 40% 48% 16% 21% 23% 21% 53% 40% 61% 31% 52% Appendix 2Arkansas Benchmark Examination 8th Grade Literacy Note: See footnote 10 (description of Benchmark Examinations) Black Students Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced 1998-99 [4-99] 1999-00 [4-00] 2000-01 [4-01] 43% 39% 82% 17% 1% 18% White Students Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced 1998-99 [4-99] 1999-00 [4-00] 2000-01 [4-01] 8% 19% 27% 51% 22% 73% Appendix 3Arkansas Benchmark Examination 8th Grade Mathematics Note: See footnote 10 [description of Benchmark Examinations) Black Students Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced 1998-99 [4-99] 1999-00 [4-00] 2000-01 [4-01] 75% 21% 4% 0% 96% 4% White Students Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced 1998-99 [4-99] 1999-00 [4-00] 2000-01 [4-01] 25% 34% 59% 31% 10% 41% Appendix 4The Extent of the Racial Disparity in Discipline by School, Race, and Sex in 1998-99 The Extent Black Male Suspensions Per 100 Students Exceed White Male Suspensions Per 100 Students The Extent Black Female Suspensions Per 100 Students Exceed White Female Suspensions Per 100 Students Junior High Schools Cloverdale Dunbar Forrest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 1.23 2.05 1.56 1.64 1.39 2.07 3.00 0.79 1.53 2.71 2.18 1 to 1 1.11 2.80 7.00 0.71 Total 1.83 2.40 Senior High Schools Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview 2.00 1.50 1.65 2.25 1.13 3.50 1.27 2.44 1.17 0.67 Total 1.83 1.71 Source\nODM Report, June 2000, at 90-120 Appendix 5 ICERTIFICATE OF SERVICF. This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this day of May, 2002. Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, P.A. 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 1. fehifW.ap RECEIVED FILED us DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL J 8 2002 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL J 6 2002 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866-WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. Let al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al ORDER JAME! 0 c DEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Attached is a transcript of the hearing held Friday, last (July 12). Since time is short (the evidentiary hearing will commence next Monday, July 22), this transcript, rather than a detailed. separate order, is adopted as the order of the court (court solecisms and all). IT IS SO ORDERED this I ri* day of July, 2002. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITFH RULE 58 AND/OR 7^ RCP ON BY.  1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, V . PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.. Intervenors. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.. Intervenors. No. 4:82CV00866WRW Friday, July 12, 2002 Little Rock, Arkansas 8:30 a.m. 12 13 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLITkM R. WILSON, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 APPEARANCES: 15 On Behalf of Little Rock School District: 16 17 18 19 MR. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, Attorney at Law MR. JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR., Attorney at Law Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 20 On Behalf of Pulaski County Special School District: 21 22 MR. M. S7H4UEL JONES, III, Attorney at Law Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank Building 23 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 24 25 [Continued] Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter1 2 APPEARANCES CONTINUED: 2 On Behalf of North Little Rock School District: 3 4 5 MR. STEPHEN W. JONES, Attorney at Law MR. GUY W. MURPHY, JR., Attorney at Law Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 6 7 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 On Behalf of the Joshua Inteirvenors: 10 11 MR. JOHN W, WALKER, Attorney at Law MR. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206\nand ROBERT PRESSMAN, Attorney at Law 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts 02421 8 9 12 On Behalf of the Knight Intervenors: 13 14 MR. RICHARD W. ROACHELL, Attorney at Law Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 15 16 17 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 RECEIVED 18 JUL J 8 2002 19 OFFICE OF 0KE6REGATI0N MONITORING 20 21 22 Proceedings reported by machine stenography and displayed in realtime\ntranscript prepared utilizing computer-aided transcription. 23 24 25 Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 11 3 (Proceeding at 8:30 a.m., as follows:) 2 THE COURT: We're here this morning for a short 3 hearing in the Little Rock School District against the Pulaski 4 5 County Special School, et al. It's Case No. LR-C-82-866. I 10 might first introduce counsel and the people present to Ms. Christy Conrad. Would you stand up, please, ma'am? She is my new lawyer on this case, commenced to work this morning. case. She will be the law clerk especially assigned to this That's Ms. Christy Conrad. We might start with Mr. Walker. I got my letter off late 6 7 8 9 11 yesterday, and if you don't mind outlining for me briefly what 12 13 your two rebuttal witnesses will say. Ms. Marshall go ahead. If you don't mind, come to the lectern. When we start 14 the trial next week, week after next, we'll have mikes on the 15 table, but I don't have them now. 16 MR. WALKER: Your Honor, my I inquire whether you 17 received my letter? Apparently our letters -- 18 THE COURT: I did get a letter from you. I've got it 19 right here, as a matter of fact. I don't believe it addressed 20 that issue. If it did, I overlooked it. Like I say, my letter 21 got out later than I thought. 22 MR. WALKER: Your Honor, it does attempt to address 23 it on page 2, paragraph four, sub six. 24 25 THE COURT: Paragraph four? MR. WALKER: Sub six, the bottom of the second page. Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter1 It begins, 4 \"Plaintiff suggests that if not\" 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 THE COURT: All right. Let me read that. I do have this letter, and I've read it. That's another one of my lawyers. We're all working on this case, and she needs to be able to hear us back in chambers, and she has just announced, Mr. Walker, she couldn't hear you. So both of us need to speak right into the mike. 10 11 12 13 MR. WALKER: THE COURT: sir. I have read that. Can you be a little more specific with us? MR. WALKER: Dr. Lesley in her testimony indicated that the evaluation process was not flawed. in part because it was it involved the ODM, Mr. Gene Jones specifically. and Yes, 9 14 Ms. Ann Marshall to some extent. And she submitted an exhibit 15 that relates to or was attempting to relate to the 16 participation of the ODM, in order to demonstrate that 17 involvement. We wanted to establish what ODM's role was and 18 also the fact that ODM at all times through Mr. Jones had 19 expressed difficulty and problems with the evaluation approach 20 that was being used by the district and the lack of 21 evaluations. 22 THE COURT: And Ms. Marshall and Gene Jones are both 23 going to address that issue? 24 25 MR. WALKER: There were two separate points where -- which differ. Ms. Marshall can only relate to an exhibit that Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter1 5 Dr. Lesley introduced where she made reference to, if I 2 understand to be correct, where she made reference to the 3 comments and the like that had been made about in criticism or 4 critique of a document which she had prepared, and it would be 5 our intention to show that that was misrepresentative of the 6 involvement of ODM. 7 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 8 MR. WALKER: And the other will be Mr. Gene Jones, 9 and Mr. Jones was sometimes invited to some of the sessions 10 that dealt with the subject. And his -- the way his 11 participation was presented, we would address, and also the 12 comments and the like that he made or his obse3rvations from the 13 perspective from which he sits we thought would be useful to 14 the Court in explaining the overall evaluation. The ODM was 15 supposed to have a special role in relationship to the whole 16 process, and we would like to at least take that time to put 17 that in. 18 THE COURT: All right. I'll hear from Mr. Heller, 19 see if he continues his objection in view of that. 20 21 MR. HELLER: Good morning, your Honor. We do continue our objection. Mr. Walker didn't identify any of the 22 exhibits he's talking about. Dr. Lesley's testimony, which. as 23 we've said, could have been anticipated in its entirety because 24 it didn't concern anything other than the compliance reports 25 which were filed by the district, her testimony regarding ODM Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter1 6 10 was minimal. As I recall, all she did was point out that an ODM monitoring report which is in the record did not require anything other than what Dr. Lesley was doing. in the record. That report is Mr. Walker had a chance to question Dr. Lesley about it, and there shouldn't be any issue about that. With regard to Mr. Jones, all that was said about him was that he was a participant in several meetings. I think that's undisputed. Dr. Lesley didn't say that she thought Mr. Jones' position on a particular issue would be X or Y. The only thing in the record that I recall is that Mr. Jones participated in a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 meeting, and I think that's undisputed. 12 With respect to Mr. Walker's comment about Mr. Jones' 13 perspective would be helpful on the evaluation process, which 14 really, as the Court is aware, was a requirement for 15 16 assessments rather than evaluations, that's something that clearly could have been presented in Mr. Walker's case in 17 18 chief, if he believed that someone from ODM had a perspective about the assessment process that was important, because 19 Mr. Walker knew that's exactly what Dr. Lesley was going to 20 testify about. 21 THE COURT: Let me say this before you leave the 22 lectern, if you will, because I may ask you another question: 23 I generally take a pretty dim view of rebuttal evidence because 24 I've found that most of it -- I've found in practice over the 25 years that most of it is not true rebuttal. And I point that Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter1 7 10 11 out in some of my letters or orders, and, as a matter of fact. in my standard scheduling order or letter with that scheduling order, one or the other, I point out that rebuttal witnesses must be identified if known. Well, that's almost by definition that if they're known, they're not rebuttal witnesses. always had a hard time with that. So I've But this case was tried by Judge Wright, the first roughly half of evidentiary hearing on the issues before the Court now. She did reserve 30 minutes' rebuttal time. Truthfully, I'm inclined to agree that this doesn't sound like rebuttal, but out of an abundance of caution. since it's only 30 minutes. I'm 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 going to allow these witnesses to be called, with these 13 requirements: Number one, I'm going to require Mr. Walker to 14 identify the documents -- are you prepared to do that now. 15 Mr. Walker, exhibits, or would you rather do this by a pleading 16 in the next -- by, say, Monday afternoon? 17 18 19 20 you 21 MR. WALKER: THE COURT: MR. WALKER: THE COURT: A letter, your Honor. All right. Then by 4 p. m. Monday. Your Honor, before you finish, could Let me finish, and then I'm going to let 22 you have the floor again, Mr. Walker. 23 24 MR. WALKER: All right. Thank you. THE COURT: By 4 p.m. Monday, identify the exhibits 25 that you plan to address with Jones or Marshall. Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Number two, Mr. Heller, if you want to -- you can interview these people, I assume. If you can't interview them. I'll allow you to take a telephone deposition of them next week to prepare you to meet this rebuttal testimony. If you want to do that, notify Mr. Walker and me by 11 a.m. Monday, if you want to take their depositions as opposed to interviewing them. All right. If you don't have any other comments. 8 9 Mr. Heller, Mr. Walker looks like he's going to swell up and burst if he doesn't get to say something else on this. 10 MR. HELLER: There is just one thing, your Honor. I 11 think it's at least implicit in all of the orders, but we'll 12 13 certainly have an opportunity for cross-examination. I'm not sure how that counts against our time in the overall process. 14 but 15 THE COURT: I'm going to be somewhere between Judge 16 Woods and Judge Eisele on timing. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. HELLER: I think we'll have plenty left from our 20 hours, even if the cross-examination counts against THE COURT: All right. us. MR. WALKER: Well, your Honor, I have no objection to them interviewing these people, but Ms. Brown has always -- and the ODM, for the Court's benefit, has always taken the position that it's available to speak with either or both of the parties about any matter that they are related to. THE COURT: It looks to me like, Mr. Walker, you've Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter9 1 2 3 4 just won. Are you piling on now? MR. WALKER: No, sir. No, sir. All I'm saying -- no. sir. All I'm saying is that it's not an order that's necessary. I mean, they have that as a standing -- that's been 5 longstanding in the district, as long as the ODM has been in 6 the process. 7 THE COURT: I'm going to enter the order even if it's 8 pure surplusage. 9 MR. WALKER: All right. Now, with respect to the 10 testimony, we will provide that. 11 12 13 14 15 THE COURT: MR. WALKER: THE COURT: MR. WALKER: THE COURT: You mean the exhibits? The exhibits. Right. Your Honor, by way of background -- Let me -- I want to change that. If you 16 want to depose them, I don't think you would, Mr. Heller, but 17 if you do, let me know by -- let Mr. Walker and me know by 9 or 18 9:30, by 9:30 Tuesday morning, because you may not know until 19 you see the exhibits. 20 Go ahead, Mr. Walker. 21 MR. WALKER: Your Honor, I hate to say this. The 22 Court -- you indicated you were going to follow much of Judge 23 24 25 Wright's process that she followed. She steadfastly refused to allow us to depose the ODM, which was part of her staff. as she said it, because that would, in effect. in a way be like Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter1 2 10 deposing an arm of the Court. And I would ask that the Court not enter an order requiring depositions but allowing instead 3 for them to just have the interviews. 4 Once you start doing that, then 5 THE COURT: You know, that's a pretty good point. 6 Let me hear from Mr. Heller on that. 7 10 11 aware, MR. WALKER: MR. HELLER: Okay. Your Honor, as I'm sure the Court is we raised an issue with Judge Wright concerning the role of the monitors in this case. THE COURT: Let me say something on that, and I'll 8 9 12 try not to interrupt you too much, but I probably won't do a 13 14 very good job since I have -- I'm a type A. When I assumed the case, I met with Ms. -- or was assigned the case. I met with 15 Ms. Marshall, and we exchanged pleasantries right after I was 16 17 appointed. We did not talk about the substance of the case in any way. After that, after thinking about it and after 18 reviewing the file some and seeing what had been discussed. I 19 asked a member of my staff to contact Ms. Marshall and advise 20 her that all of our communications would be in writing. And I 21 have had no further conversations with her, do not intend to. 22 Everything will be in writing. And I can't imagine that I 23 wouldn't share the -- whatever writings I send to her or she 24 sends to me with counsel. So there will be no - just out of 25 an abundance of caution -- and I see the ODM as a fact- Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter11 1 gathering institution, and I'm going to use ODM in a different 2 way than Judge Wright used the ODM, although I'm not 3 criticizing or passing judgment on the way she used it. 4 But if 10 11 12 13 14 that helps you, that's I hope it does. But at any rate. that will be the relationship. MR. HELLER: And I think, your Honor, that addresses Mr. Walker's argument, because our position with Judge Wright IS , the monitor's office is either more like a law clerk and cannot be deposed but can't testify either, or more of a fact gatherer and not so closely related to the Court that testimony would be prohibited. And Judge Wright allowed us to take Ann Marshall's deposition. her testimony. We've done it once in anticipation of So your ruling is entirely consistent with what Judge Wright had previously ordered. And in any event, I can 5 6 7 8 9 15 say right now that if interviews can be arranged, I won't be 16 17 asking for a deposition. I will be perfectly satisfied with an interview. But only in the event that we couldn't reach an 18 agreement about arranging an interview -- 19 20 THE COURT: Let me ask you this, Mr. Heller: Assuming you wanted to discuss conversations. you or 21 Mr. Walker, either one, that Ms. Marshall had had with Judge 22 Wright, I don't see how that would be relevant now that I'm the 23 trier of fact. So that's something that I want to avoid being 24 delved into if a deposition is allowed. 25 MR. HELLER: I agree that would not be relevant. Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter1 2 3 4 5 6 12 again. shot. THE COURT: All right. Well, I'm going to flip-flop Y'all are going to give me a nervous breakdown. MR. WALKER: THE COURT: Don't do it yet. All right. I'll give Mr. Walker one last MR. WALKER: This is not a subject that I asked that 7 should be dealt with perhaps today. 8 9 I think that the Court of Appeals was very clear about what it wanted monitoring to do. There was a special concurrence from Judge Wollman in the -- 10 11 THE COURT: I'm familiar with that concurrence. MR. WALKER: -- that anticipated that monitoring 12 would be conducted in a certain manner, and the manner that it 13 was being conducted has, in effect, been approved by the Court 14 of Appeals. Now, if it's to be changed, then I would certainly 15 think that the Court ought to at least invite the positions of 16 the parties in writing and a brief on the subject so that we -- 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: MR. WALKER: On what subject? On the subject of the way the monitors should react or act with the Court. Recall in this situation. your Honor, there is a situation where once when Little Rock came to court and demonstrated that it was not aware of all the employees they had, even the total number and what they were doing and things like that. Judge Wright then gave the  office a function that was to do an investigation and to do things, and then she had hearings on those things. The Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter1 13 role of the monitor is distinctly different from that of 2 a party where orders are given and things --so what we'd like to 3 4 do is at least preserve that. In the field of desegregation 10 11 12 law, monitors me to do. THE COURT: MR. WALKER: I'm not understanding what you're asking I'm asking that you do nothing to change the way that that office operates. Because if you say that you're going to - THE COURT: I'm not changing the way, as far as I know. MR. WALKER: Even if you communicate with them and 5 6 7 8 9 13 communicate with them each time in writing, I think that that's 14 not something that should be necessarily -- 15 16 is saved. THE COURT: Your objection is noted. Your exception You can file a motion for reconsideration if you 17 want to, but I've made my mind up on that at this point, and 18 you can file a motion and -- but don't do it with a great deal 19 20 21 of optimism. But feel free to do it. MR. WALKER: Here's the reason I raise the issue THE COURT: I've decided on that issue, Mr. Walker. 22 Put whatever objection you have in your motion for 23 24 25 reconsideration. We need to move on to some other issues. MR. WALKER: Half a minute, please? THE COURT: Yes. Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter I I I14 1 MR. WALKER: We have the matter of -- the ruling here 2 necessarily has to apply to the other districts as well. 3 THE COURT\nAbsolutely. 4 MR. WALKER: We have the matters of Pulaski County 5 that are still pending. There is no motion before the Court. 6 7 The role of the monitor there would seem to be being limited by the Court's ruling now because -- 8 10 11 12 13 14 THE COURT: MR. WALKER: THE COURT: Put that in your motion. All right, your Honor. Thank you. All right. All right. I want to remind the parties, I've said it several times in writing, and Judge Wright said it, but I want to remind you at the outset of that, we have three discrete issues left, and one of them is advanced placement courses, another is extracurricular activities. the 9 15 third is guidance and counseling. And then, of course, we have 16 good faith, but only as good faith applies to those one, two. 17 three things that I just mentioned. And we have academic 18 achievement on the table, but only as it relates to those 19 three one, two, three issues. As Mr. Walker just noted. 20 this applies to both sides with equal force. 21 Now, as I have read the transcript, the issues tried to 22 23 conclusion, and I emphasize the phrase \"to conclusion. II by Judge Wright were lack of good faith under Section 2.1\ntwo. 24 25 improving African-American achievement, lack of good faith by the Little Rock School District\nand, three, student Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter1 2 15 discipline. Now, those issues are closed. They've been tried to conclusion, save and except the 30 minutes for rebuttal 3 which we will start the hearing a week from Monday with. 4 All right. Now, I want to turn to Mr. Pendley's letter 5 which was in response to the letter I got out about one o'clock 6 yesterday. Let me find Mr. Pendley's letter. It's dated July 7 11. 8 Now, on the first page, there's a reference to Joshua's 9 witness list and a reference to Ms. Sharon Brooks. 10 It appears to me that Mr. Walker's testimony would go to student 11 discipline there. If that's true, I think it would be 12 appropriate to object at the trial, but I don't know that I 13 14 need to deal with it now. If anybody thinks I do. I'll hear from you. But if it does go to student discipline. I'm likely 15 to exclude it at the trial. 16 17 18 MR. WALKER: THE COURT: MR. WALKER: Your Honor, may I be heard? You may. Some of these matters overlap. A matter 19 that may be related to student discipline may also relate to 20 counseling. And I would say in this situation, the discipline 21 part of this 22 23 THE COURT: Related to guidance and counseling? MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. And the first part of it. 24 where students collectively are punished for ringing an alarm 25 by putting them in a room with an aide for two months where Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter10 16 there's no record of the discipline appears to be disciplinary. But at the same time, it certainly goes to the educational experience and the need for there to have been at least some counseling with respect to what those -- the educational needs of those children were and how they were being addressed. we say that it has two purposes. The first, on discipline, So though, has to relate -- you remember, you've seen the records. They have disciplinary records showing students who are suspended for this, this, and this. Normal discipline relations, those kinds of things. But putting kids in a room 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 where they -- where there's no record of it clearly is 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 discipline. but it is also something else. THE COURT: I'm going to think about that issue. inclined to think that I'm relates directly to discipline, but I'll think about it and we'll take it up at the trial. Mr. Heller address it right now, briefly. MR. HELLER: I'll let if he wishes to. Thank you, your Honor. I would just like to point out that at the last hearing, Mr. Walker argued that this was a discipline issue, and he presented evidence about it and argued about it and argued precisely what he just 21 told the Court, that this is - this situation, he alleges. was 22 a way to avoid the recorded discipline statistics but was 23 nonetheless discipline. I think it's going to be easy for him 24 to say anytime something happened to any student at any time in 25 the district, whether it relates to academic achievement or Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter10 11 17 some issue that's already been litigated, oh, by the way, they missed some counseling or could have been counseled otherwise. But I don't think that draws it into the scope of any legitimate objection he might have about guidance and counseling. THE COURT: this issue. Mr. Walker, you're on the downside of If you want to submit a trial brief to me to try to get me in a right frame of mind, in your view, by trial day. do a -- and this applies to either side. If you want to do another trial brief, get it to me by noon Wednesday of next week. By noon Wednesday. And I will guarantee you I will -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 if it's not too long, I will have read your brief and your 13 citations of authorities. if you will avoid string cites. On 14 string cites, I read only the first one and sometimes the 15 second one. 16 17 18 19 Now we come to exhibits not directly related. some of them have been withdrawn and so forth, but right. Let's go to No. 746. MR. HELLER: And I think all Your Honor, there was one other witness 20 mentioned in Mr. Pendley's letter, and that's Ethel Dunbar. 21 THE COURT: Yes. I don't believe that it' s Yes. 22 my opinion, and, again, you can put this in the trial brief. 23 24 Mr. Walker, if you think I am wrong-headed on this issue, that what it looks like what Ethel Dunbar would testify to goes 25 to the gifted and talented issue, as far as I'm concerned. 1 I Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter t1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 That's not on the table. If you want to persuade me otherwise, you can put it in the trial brief. Let's go to the exhibits now. 746. I'm having a hard time reading my -- what is 746, Mr. Walker? Why don't you just hand me a copy of it so I can look at it? MR. WALKER: Your Honor THE COURT: can hand me? MR. HELLER: THE COURT: annotations on there. MR. HELLER: THE COURT: MR. WALKER: a copy of it. THE COURT: Does the school district have Yes, your Honor. a copy you If you've got any of your inked I don't want to see them. I've got a circle and an underline. I promise not to accept your emphasis. Your Honor, we have given you our copy, I just don't have it out here with me. and I just -- I need to look at something. MR. WALKER: MR. PENDLEY: MR. HELLER: is merely highlighted. MR. WALKER: THE COURT: sure. MR. HELLER: This one has been Here you go. We'll give you Mr. Pendley's copy, which Is this the new number given by your -- I think this is the old number. I'm not That's correct, your Honor. Our Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter19 1 objections use the old numbers. 2 3 over. THE COURT: 746 . All right. I'm working my way Mr. Walker, if you'll approach the lectern. Are you 4 telling me you don't have a copy either, Mr. Walker? 5 MR. WALKER: No, no. We have a copy, but we have 6 taken the old exhibits -- after your courtroom deputy told us 7 the new numbers, we changed them. 8 THE COURT: Okay. I'll give you time to get your sea 9 legs. 10 MR. WALKER: What is now 747 was 746. I don't 11 understand the objection. 12 13 THE COURT: All right. I'll have him state his objection then. Mr. Heller -- why don't you stand aside. 14 Mr. Walker, and let him state his objection. 15 16 MR. WALKER: All right. MR. HELLER: Your Honor, our objection is that 17 Exhibit 746, using the old number, relates to ALT testing and 18 not to any of the issues before the Court for next week. 19 MR. WALKER: Your Honor, if you look at that exhibit. 20 we're looking at the way the district has referred to the 21 numbers that are related -- I don't see anything in 746 in the 22 middle of the page which happens to be -- and I stand to be 23 corrected, the e-mail from Babbs to Kathy Lease. 24 25 THE COURT: You're going to have to -- I'm computer illiterate, Mr. Walker. You're going to have to quote the Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 language. I can't tell on e-mails from who to what unless it's written on there. MR. WALKER: Mr. Babbs, your Honor, is the person responsible for monitoring desegregation compliance. THE COURT: MR. WALKER: THE COURT: MR. WALKER: And he sent something to Kathy Lease. It apparently comes from Babbs to Lease. Right. And the third paragraph says, \"It would be appropriate to list current data that is available. Be reminded that when writing materials for our report submission. we will include district-wide numbers. We may not be there yet, but this will help serve as an indicator of established baseline information from which we will jump off.\" Now, this relates to, your Honor, the data that relates to pre-AP and AP courses, along with some other data, but it will be related to testimony regarding advanced placement. will be related to extracurricular activities. It also So you'11 understand the concept, when you've got two black schools. McClellan and Fair, for all practical purposes, when you lump the extracurricular participation from those schools with the other schools, it gives a picture of real inclusivity. If you take it out. it may not. When you lump the -- when you do a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 23 lumping process, we're saying that it gives a false picture. 24 There was an intent here. and this goes -- this is an 25 intent, it goes to good faith, an intent to make a presentation Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter1 21 of a reality that did not exist. 2 3 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Heller? 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. HELLER: Your Honor, Mr. Walker's explanation shows why this exhibit should be excluded. When we objected to their response was that it was related to extracurricular activities. Now the first thing that he said was that it's related to advanced placement and pre-advanced placement. not related to any of those things. and the compilation of documents. It' s It's related to testing It doesn't have anything specifically to do with any of the issues before the Court. Mr. Walker has now given the Court two different explanations of how it relates, none of which can be shown from the face of the exhibit. THE COURT: All right. I don't believe I need briefs on this one. forthwith. I will do a letter order ruling on that Mark No. 746 down and remind me so I don't -- with the other issues involved so I get right on it. I think it's already been noted, but I want to re-note it. It's now 747 under the new numbering system. All right. 754 . MR. WALKER: THE COURT: MR. WALKER: Mr. Walker, will you comment on 754? Yes, sir. Which now is what? It should be 755, if I'm not mistaken. MR. PRESSMAN: Same number. 4 5 6 7 8 9 it, Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22 THE\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":8,"next_page":9,"prev_page":7,"total_pages":27,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":84,"total_count":319,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":8},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":5},{"value":"learning modules","hits":1},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":292},{"value":"Sound","hits":20},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":13},{"value":"StillImage","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":41},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":21},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":16},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":6},{"value":"Bushman Court Reporting","hits":4},{"value":"Bell, Lorenzo, 1925-2001","hits":2},{"value":"Brown, Myers; Johnson, Ahnekii","hits":2},{"value":"Joshua Intervenors","hits":2},{"value":"Pulaski County Special School District","hits":2},{"value":"William Gordon Associates","hits":2},{"value":"Abernathy, Juanita, 1929-","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":254},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":210},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":166},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":127},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":105},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":88},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","hits":74},{"value":"School integration","hits":65},{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":64},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":64},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":52}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":6},{"value":"Kennedy, John F. (John Fitzgerald), 1917-1963","hits":3},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":3},{"value":"Abernathy, Ralph, 1926-1990","hits":2},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":2},{"value":"Bond, Julian, 1940-2015","hits":2},{"value":"Shuttlesworth, Fred L., 1922-2011","hits":2},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":2},{"value":"Abernathy, Juanita, 1929-","hits":1},{"value":"Barnes, Billy E. (Billy Ebert), 1931-2018","hits":1},{"value":"Barnett, Ross R. (Ross Robert), 1898-1987","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":7},{"value":"Abernathy, Ralph, 1926-1990","hits":2},{"value":"Bond, Julian, 1940-2015","hits":2},{"value":"Kennedy, John F. (John Fitzgerald), 1917-1963","hits":2},{"value":"Shuttlesworth, Fred L., 1922-2011","hits":2},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":2},{"value":"Abernathy, Juanita, 1929-","hits":1},{"value":"Barnes, Billy E. (Billy Ebert), 1931-2018","hits":1},{"value":"Barnett, Ross R. (Ross Robert), 1898-1987","hits":1},{"value":"Bell, Griffin B., 1918-2009","hits":1},{"value":"Borders, William Holmes, 1905-1993","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":6},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":2},{"value":"Integration of Clemson University","hits":2},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":2},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":2},{"value":"Brown versus Board of Education","hits":1},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":1},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":1},{"value":"Montgomery Bus Boycott","hits":1},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":263},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":257},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":249},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":233},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":9},{"value":"United States, Southern States, 33.346678, -84.119434","hits":5},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 33.8498, 84.4383","hits":4},{"value":"United States, North Carolina, Guilford County, Greensboro, 36.07264, -79.79198","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":258},{"value":"Georgia","hits":15},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":10},{"value":"Alabama","hits":9},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":5},{"value":"","hits":4},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":3},{"value":"Florida","hits":3},{"value":"Illinois","hits":3},{"value":"Louisiana","hits":3},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"2000","hits":73},{"value":"1999","hits":69},{"value":"2001","hits":67},{"value":"2002","hits":65},{"value":"1996","hits":62},{"value":"1994","hits":58},{"value":"1995","hits":58},{"value":"1997","hits":55},{"value":"1992","hits":53},{"value":"1993","hits":53},{"value":"1998","hits":53},{"value":"2003","hits":46},{"value":"1991","hits":44},{"value":"2004","hits":43},{"value":"2006","hits":34},{"value":"2005","hits":32},{"value":"1990","hits":24},{"value":"1989","hits":19},{"value":"2007","hits":14},{"value":"2013","hits":14},{"value":"2008","hits":11},{"value":"2014","hits":11},{"value":"1980","hits":10},{"value":"2010","hits":10},{"value":"2012","hits":10},{"value":"2016","hits":10},{"value":"1983","hits":9},{"value":"1984","hits":9},{"value":"2009","hits":9},{"value":"2011","hits":9},{"value":"2015","hits":9},{"value":"2017","hits":9},{"value":"2018","hits":9},{"value":"1975","hits":8},{"value":"1978","hits":8},{"value":"1988","hits":8},{"value":"1967","hits":7},{"value":"1970","hits":7},{"value":"1974","hits":7},{"value":"1977","hits":7},{"value":"1979","hits":7},{"value":"1981","hits":7},{"value":"1982","hits":7},{"value":"1985","hits":7},{"value":"1986","hits":7},{"value":"1960","hits":6},{"value":"1962","hits":6},{"value":"1964","hits":6},{"value":"1965","hits":6},{"value":"1968","hits":6},{"value":"1971","hits":6},{"value":"1972","hits":6},{"value":"1973","hits":6},{"value":"1976","hits":6},{"value":"1987","hits":6},{"value":"2019","hits":6},{"value":"1959","hits":5},{"value":"1961","hits":5},{"value":"1966","hits":5},{"value":"1969","hits":5},{"value":"2022","hits":5},{"value":"1945","hits":4},{"value":"1950","hits":4},{"value":"1951","hits":4},{"value":"1952","hits":4},{"value":"1953","hits":4},{"value":"1954","hits":4},{"value":"1955","hits":4},{"value":"1956","hits":4},{"value":"1957","hits":4},{"value":"1958","hits":4},{"value":"1963","hits":4},{"value":"2020","hits":4},{"value":"2021","hits":4},{"value":"1900","hits":3},{"value":"1901","hits":3},{"value":"1902","hits":3},{"value":"1903","hits":3},{"value":"1904","hits":3},{"value":"1905","hits":3},{"value":"1906","hits":3},{"value":"1907","hits":3},{"value":"1908","hits":3},{"value":"1909","hits":3},{"value":"1910","hits":3},{"value":"1911","hits":3},{"value":"1912","hits":3},{"value":"1913","hits":3},{"value":"1914","hits":3},{"value":"1915","hits":3},{"value":"1916","hits":3},{"value":"1917","hits":3},{"value":"1918","hits":3},{"value":"1919","hits":3},{"value":"1920","hits":3},{"value":"1921","hits":3},{"value":"1922","hits":3},{"value":"1923","hits":3},{"value":"1924","hits":3},{"value":"1925","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1860","max":"2033","count":1494,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":143},{"value":"filing","hits":63},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":18},{"value":"reports","hits":18},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":14},{"value":"transcripts","hits":13},{"value":"correspondence","hits":12},{"value":"sound recordings","hits":12},{"value":"lesson plans","hits":8},{"value":"photographs","hits":8},{"value":"web sites","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":263},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":31},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":10},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":6},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":4},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":255},{"value":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","hits":7},{"value":"Teaching with Historic Places","hits":6},{"value":"John Burrison Georgia Folklore Archives Collection","hits":4},{"value":"Historical Manuscripts and Photographs","hits":3},{"value":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","hits":3},{"value":"Alabama History Education Materials","hits":2},{"value":"Augusta Baker papers, 1911-1998","hits":2},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Audio Collection","hits":2},{"value":"Civil Rights Clippings from Guilford College Publications","hits":2},{"value":"Civil Rights Papers","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":257},{"value":"Atlanta History Center","hits":8},{"value":"University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)","hits":7},{"value":"United States. National Park Service","hits":6},{"value":"University of Southern Mississippi. Libraries","hits":3},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":2},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":2},{"value":"Guilford College. Library","hits":2},{"value":"Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance","hits":2},{"value":"John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum","hits":2},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":311},{"value":"Collection","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":312},{"value":"true","hits":7}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}