{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1034","title":"Aerospace Technology Magnet School, grant","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992"],"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--Finance","Educational planning","Educational law and legislation","Magnet schools","Aviation Education Programs (U.S.)"],"dcterms_title":["Aerospace Technology Magnet School, grant"],"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/1034"],"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":["103 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\n. ., .,,. ,:.- \"  -. . . . . . , , ~ \"\": .\"'~: ..... ,: . ~~-11~1\n~!?'\n. 4:~::~ .,~:-..: ,W,.-.-.:.... -\"\n,. _ _... -\u0026gt;~ _ w-- ~.\n.,.,\n.  . I. ' ! I ' . ..... .. ~ ~. ..~ ~ .. =. /. .: .-~,\n~ .... -, \"':!' \u0026gt;-.. ~ . .f',\"'', , .... ~~ ::=,/ :\"1..  \" I .... . .... , .... , . ,  ,- , ' ,~,   ..  ,.. ' ..: ~ \\ l f  \\:? . : '. -. F~ Jtepatw / VQl. 57, No. 159 / W~eY, Au\nut U. Dl2 (Prol)olfe11f ~  ..... , 3837: . . .. . ' ,\n... - ' ..  !' ' , ,. . ' ,, ... .,, ., I ____ .................. _ .......... . .. .. ... ------------- -  - \"'----- - ------------ : , ~.\n, 1 , ,~ .. .. .... ----- .......... ---  Quality of Project Design The project includes the fdlCl\\Ning topics: A Overview: The Aerospace Techndogy Cunirulum 1. Applied Science and Science Lal:xratay 2. Applied Mathematics 3. Computer Technology and the Computer Tedmdogy Laboratcry 4. Fa-eign Languages 5. Engineering Techndogy 6. Aviation 7. SCANS Know-How 8. Work-Based and Wa-k-Site Learning and Experience B. Aerospace Technology in Grades Seven and Eight (Junior High Level) 1. Content Knowledge in Mathematics 2. Content Knowledge in Science 3. Content Knowledge in Canputer Techndogy 4. The Techndogy Lab 2000 Cunic.ulum Integration Center 5. Infa-matioo and Guidance C Aerospace Technology in Grades Nine and Ten 1. Content Knowledge in Mathematics, Sden~ and Computer Technology 2. Content Knowledge in Engineering Techndogy 3. The Techndogy Lab 2000: Scientific Literacy Center 4. Content Knowledge in Airway Science 5. Workplace Readiness and Industry/ Business Internships D. Instructiooal Approaches and Assessment of Student Performance 1. Learning in Context 2. Product Develq.,ment Teams/Cooperative Learning 3. The Pa-tfdio 4. Perfananc:e-Based Assessment E. Teacher and Student Organizaticn F. Aexible Scheduling G. The Aviation Museum Educatioo Department Docent Program 1. Courses ct Instructicn 2. The Library 3. School Visitaticn Program 4. Planetarium 5. !max Theater The Aerospace Technology Curriculum -----------. Applied Mathematics Aerospace Mathematics (7) Applied Mathematics I (8)  Applied Mathematics II (9) Descriptive Geometry (10 Technical Algebra II ( 11) Quantitative Literacy for Aerospace (12) Technical Algebra I (8) Descriptive Geometry (9) Technical Algebra II (10) Advanced Algebra/ Trigonometry (11) Calculus (12) Aviation Airway Science Intro. AeronauticsA.ab* (9) or General Aviation (9) or Machine Shop Technology (9) Prograrrvning Language (10) or Aircraft Systems Theory (10) or Powerplant Theory \u0026amp; Maintenance (10) Powerplant Theory ( 11) or Electrical Circuit Analysis ( 11) Fortran.Cobol ( 11 ) or Aviation SafetyA.egislation/Air Transportation (11) Private Pilot Cert.A.ab* (12) Powerplant Systems (12) or Air Traffic Control* (12) or Assembler Language \u0026amp; Operating Systems Internship I, II (11, 12) Aerodynamics \u0026amp; Performance (12)  Classes will be instructed in Museum of Aviation History - Computer Technology Integrated Software Applications and Logowriter Robotics (7) Hypercard/Hypermedia and Aerospace Pre-CAD(8) Hi-Tech Presentations (9, 10) Applied Communication (English) (12) I Foreign Language Japanese or Russian or French or Spanish or German Magnet Course Sequences Grades 7-12 Title Ill  Magnet Schools Assistance, Sec. 3003: Statement of Purpose (2)  Courses of instruction to substantially strengthen academic subjects and the tangible/ marketable vocational skills. --- Applied Science Aerospace Science I (7) Aerospace Science II (8) Aerospace Biology (9) Aerospace Physical Science (10) I Chemistry (10) Aerodynamics and Meteorology (11) Physics (11) Descriptive Astronomy \u0026amp; Physical Geology ( 12) Engineering Technology Intro. Concurrent Engineering (9) or Intro. Computer Science (9) Computer-Aided Design Applications (10) or Manufacturing Engineering Technology I, II (10, 11) Electronics Engineering Technology.CAD I, II (10, 11) Advanced Computer-Aided Design Applications ( 11) Programming for Engineering Majors (12) Fabrication Design Projects ( 12) or Mechanical Systems DP (12) or Manufacturing Design Project (12) Internship I, II (11, 12) - .. CATHERINE JOHNSON AND ASSOCIATE ' @J ........ _______ 721111 150/J .lil -J.l.11 .. TO: FROM: Catherine Johnson DATE: 10 f=/J/9.c. ___ Pages, including this cover Special ._ Instructions: 'Drd.C ~2 ~ b\"ci{ I q ll ut O - ftVl ( 1t?t? ' PLEASE CALL 501-371-0331 IF A PROBLEM OCCURS DURING TRANSMISSION. AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY MAGNET PROGRAM FINAL PLANNING SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR NOVEMBER 10, 1992 November 10. 1992 1. Dr. Mac Bernd Gall Quinn 2. Marie Parker 3. Individual Meetings With Curriculum Spooi:ilists 4. Board Work~hop Planning: 5. Cail Ouinn, Sterling Ingram, Estelle, Dianne, Dennis .I.lm.a. 9:00  10:00 am 10:00 - Noon 1 :00  2:00 pm (Dennis Glasgow) 2:00 - 3:00 pm (Dianne Wood) 3:00 - 4:00 pm (Estelle, Dianne, Dennis) 4:00  4:30 pm  Please have material ready November 11 1992 Ilm.e. 6. Judy Harrison, 8:30  9:30 am Jerry Robln~on, Doug Dodds, Lyle Lane SAU-TECH \u0026amp; Henderson University 7. Chuck Stevens 9:45 - 10:45 am 8. Dr. Bernd 12:00 Noon 9. Dr. John Gilmore, 3:00 - 4:00 pm Eddie Branch. UArB 10. Dr. Bernd, Gall Quinn 4:30 - 5:00  Please have draft written agreement ready Pl1cuu100 Board of Education Workshops (See Agenda) New School Planning Modification of lnterdistrict Desegregation Plan Timeline Magnet Program Continuation Magnet School enrollmQnt numbers and student assignment plan Comprehensive plan for recruitment Board Workshop Course Outline Review and Instructional Approach  (I.e. Sciencg For All Americans) Agonda Finali2ing, Handouts Stanford Achievement Performance Objective PISCYSSIPD Articulation Agn,ements  Board of Education Workshop Plannlnc Articulation Agreements Llttle Rock Club Articulation Agreements Finalizing C3oard of Education Workshop AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY MAGNET PROGR/\\M SCHEDULE PAGE TWO H0vemh1u 12 1992 .Ilm.l. 11. Ray Richey . Gail Quinn 8 :30 - 11 :30 am CBM Office 12. Roy Richey, Ed Riddick 1 :00 - 3:30 pm Doug Eaton, Gary 13.Board of Education Workshop November 13, 1992 14. \"Wrapping up loose ends\" morning 01,cuufon Equipment/Software Budget The New School T'ichnology Requirements, etc LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL plSTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION WORKSHOP DRAFT AGENDA NOVEMBER 12, 1992 I. Title Ill - Magnet Schools Gail Quinn II. II I. IV. V. Assistance , P.L. 100-297 (MSAP) .. Stahiment of Purpose, Goals and the American 2000 Strategy  Application Requirements  Uses of Funds Selection Criteria and the Scoring of Applications  Special Consideration (Extra Points) - Recentness of approved Desegregation Plan  Involvement of minority group chlldren  Need for Assistance  Degree of Achievement  Collaborative Efforts LRSD Magnet Project Design and Innovation Group Gall Quinn . Estelle Math. Dianne Woodruff, Dennis GlasijOW, Judy Harrison  SAU Tech, JQrry RobiMon - Henderson State University , U of A Q.t Pina Bluff Representative Program Components  Articulated CourM Se~uences - Applie(l Mathematics and Scienee  Technology Requirements  Artlculatlon Agreements  Staff Training \" Student and Teach Organization Flexible Scheduling M8.isuring Stud8nt Outcomes Relevant to Gail Quinn MSAP Goals Modification of lnterdistrict Desegregation Plan Gall Quinn And Need for Board Aesolution 11.A:HiA P~rkAr Meeting Commitment and Capacity Gail Quinn Requirements for Program Continuation Dr. Mac Bernd tvEM) TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Dr. Mac Bernd Gail Quinn October 29, 1992 Grant Preparation SchGdule and material for Board members and staff review Mac, onclosQd are the new proposed re9ulations (soon to be final) for the US Department of Education Magnet Schools Assistance Program (Title Ill  P.L. 100-207), a tentative Board workshop agenda, and planning schedule for my next visit the week of November 10-13. Please distribute the Federal Register material to Board members and staff indicated on the schodulo for their review prior to the Board presentation. I wilt contact you on Thursday, October 29 to discuss the planning schedule and notification of meetings, Aerospace Technology Magnet Instructional Program Grades 7-12 Elective Elective Integration Core Integration Aerospace Science Applied Airway Mathematics Engineering Science Applied Communication Technology Computer Technology I n t e g r a t i 0 n ...  Technology Lab 2000  SCANS Know-How  TOM  Worksite Leaming Experience  Occupational Certification  Authentic Assessment Aerospace Technology Program Magnet Course Sequence ~ Junior High School Grade7 Aerospace Mathematics* Aerospace Science Integrated Software Applications (.5) Logowriter Robotics* (.5) Grades Applied Mathematics I or Technical Algebra*  Aerospace Science* Hypercard/Hypermedia*  Aerospace Pre-CAD* (.5) Career Development (.5) High School Grade9 Applied Mathematics II or Descriptive Geometry* Aerospace Biology  Intro Aeronautics Lab a Intro. to Computer Science a Intro. to Concurrent Engineering or Machine Shop Technology  Hi-Tech Presentations  Computer Facilities Grade 10  Descriptive Geometry or Technical Algebra II  Aerospace Physical Science or Chemistry Computer-Aided Design Applications or Programming Language I, II or Aircraft Systems Theory or Powerplant Theory \u0026amp; Maintenance  Workplace Readiness (.5) Grade 11 Technical Algebra 11 or Advanced Algebra/ Trigonometry  Aerodynamics (.5) \u0026amp; Meteorology (.5) or Chemistry Japanese, German, Russian, Spanish, or French 1, 2 Manufacturing Engineering Tech.* or Electronics Engineering Technology,CAD* or Advanced Computer-Aided Design Applications or Powerplant Systems or Powerplant Theory or Fortran,Cobol Aviation Safety Legislation/Air Transportation Airway Science or Engineering Technology Internship I (Industry-based) Grade 12  Quantitative Literacy for Aerospace* or Calculus Descriptive Astronomy \u0026amp; Physical Geology  Applied Communications  Japanese or German or Russian or Spanish or French 3, 4 Intro. to Aeronautics Lab \u0026amp; Private Pilot Cert. Air Traffic Control or Electric Circuit Analysis or Programming for Engineering Majors or Fabrication Design Project or Mechanical Systems DP or Manufacturing Design Project or Assembler Language \u0026amp; Operating Systems Airway Science or Engineering Technology Internship II (Industry-based) Aerospace Technology Magnet Program Organization Stengthening the Knowledge of Academic Content and Marketable Technical Skills C A. Academic B. Work-Based C. Worksite D. Information \u0026amp; Instruction Learning Experience  Guidance 0 M  Applied Mathematics  Occupation Specific  Achievement of  Advising Students of Knowledge, Skills, Academic Occupational p  Applied Science Abilities Requirements Opportunities and Career Path at Three 0  Applied  SCANS Workplace  Achievement of Levels Communication Competencies Work-based Learning N Requirements  Occupational  Work Samples \u0026amp; Certification E Written Reports  Airway Science \u0026amp; Engineering  The Postsecondary N Technology Articulated Career Internships Path T  Assessing  Job Descriptions s Performance in the Workplace l Badground lnfmmatia1 A Greater Metrq,olitan Little Rock Greater Little Rock's foor ca.mty Metrq,olitan Statistical area (MSA) is the center cf the secrnd fastest growing region in the United States. Its central location is within 550 miles of fcrty percent of the United States buying pawer and pq,ulatirn. The $1.3 billion dollar Arkansas Navigatirn System, ooe cf the natirn's largest water develq,ment prqects, is a 445 mile waterway prCJ\\/iding year-ro.md access to ports en the Arkansas River frcrn the Mississippi River to Tulsa, Oklahcrna. The 1,500 acre part with its industrial harlxr Fcreign Trade Zrne - 14, and the United States Customs Pert of Entry are an indication d the increasing impcrtance cf Little Rock's linkage to perts wcrldwide. All are in close prodmity to Adams Field, Little Rock's airpcrt. The city's rich mixture cf historic architecture and new devefopment is attracting new residents. Little Rock is seeing grCM'th and revitalization unparalleled in the city's history. Little Rock is en the mCJ\\/e. Fueling this revitalizatioo are the aerospace industries, the Arkansas Aviation Histcrical Society, the Governor's Aera\npace Task Force, and institutirns cf higher educatioo. Sane cf the world's most successful aerospace ccmpanies are located here McDonnell Dooglas, Rohr Inc., Arkansas Aerospace (a subsidiary cf British Aera\npace), Falccn Jet awned by the French-based Aviens Dassaut Brequet Aviation, MidCoast, and Central flying Service. Numeroos private and caporate aircraft dealers such as Aero-Commander, Piper, Beechcraft, and Cessna have facilities at the Little Rock Regienal Airpcrt. Little Rock Airferce Base is hcrne to the largest C-130 aircraft training and airlift facility in the wcrld. A number cf majer educational institutiens serve Little Rock's MS.A By far, the largest cf these is the University cf Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR), enrolling mere than 11,000 students in seventy-five undergraduate and forty-two graduate degree programs induding .Associate, Bachelcr and Masters of Science Degrees in Engineering Technology. The Graduate Institute cf Technology (GIT) hoosed in the new Engineering Technology Center cifers courses in mechanical, ccmputer scien~ electrical and manufacturing engineering. Industries utilize GIT facilities fer advanced research and graduate study. In 1991, the Arkansas Space Grant Censortium, under the leadership cf GIT at UALR, received a foor-year training grant award fran the NASA Natienal Space Grant College and Fellawship program The primary purpose cf the program is to educate and familiarize faa.11ty and undergraduate and graduate students with aerospace fundamentals and NASA's research programs and q,portunities. A seccrtdary oqective is to motivate K-12 students to excel in math and science ca.irses necessary fer entrance into aera\npace programs at the universities and high tech positions in industry. Hendersoo University, in coordinatioo 1 with Central Flying Setvice, Clllducts ooe d the few aviation degree programs in the nation. The University's Department d Aviation pravides   four-year programs in Airway Science Management, Airway Ccmputer Scien~ Professiooal Pilct, and Aircraft Systems Management. The Arkansas Aviatioo Histaical Society serves the entire state as the focal for the involvement d Arkansas' aerospace industries in community affairs, education, and eca1anic development. In 1989, the Society, exerutives of aercspace rompanies, the Little Rocle Schad District, and UALR came together to fam the Aerospace Educaticn Center Campaign Leadership. The unprecedented public/private partnership has planned an Aerospace Education Center. As the architect's drawing illustrates, the Center ccmbines a museum of aviaticn history with an Aercspace Technology c.\n}1- , JI Magnet High School en a 19.8 acre tract at the Little Rod\u0026lt; Regional Airpai ~ adjacent to the main tenninal, Falccn Jet, and Arkansas Aerospace. The facility will a:Ner 200,000 square feet, induding cx:mmrn areas used by bcth the museum and high school such as the library, cafeteria, and theatre/ auditaium The upper level of the museum will functirn as an educational resoorce f cr adult programs, and outreach for schools, state and natienwide throogh a satellite televisirn uplink prcwided by the Arkansas Electric Coc.peratives. The most cx:mprehensive and largest technical and histaical aviatien and aerospace lilrary collecticn outside d the Smithsonian's Natirnal Air and Space Museum was acquired for the Arkansas Museum d Aviaticn Histcry. Virtually every civil and military aircraft, rctocraft, and spaceship designed and ccrtstructed throughoot the world is represented in the cdlection by technical specificaticns, photographs, and histaical descriptive infamatien. There are well ewer 5,000 books, 50,000 joomals, 200,000 phctographs and transparandes, hundreds d rare collecta1:fo items signed by famous pilots and aviatirn personalities, aiginal paintings, scale aircraft models, and unique aircraft parts. The Society has raised over five millicn dollars in gifts and pledges to.vard ccrtstructirn of the aviatioo histay museum The Little Rock School District has hldgeted six million dollars for the constructicn of the Aercspace Technology Magnet High School fran funds apprcwed by voters at a property tax electicn in 1990. The Aercspace Educaticn Center Campaign Leadership believes that Greater Little Rod\u0026lt;'s future rests en the vitality d its puliic educatioo system At all levels of the puliic educaticn system, educators and industry must develq, programs which give students the knowledge and skills that enable them to reach their full eronornic potential. Vv'hile the Center will prepare students for aerospace careers, it will also focus the Central Arkansas ccmmunity rn oommitment to excellence in educaticn. 2 In March 1819, Arkansas became a territcry and the Arkansas Past, the state's first permanent settlement, became its capital. The little French village was sooo deemed unsuitable mainly because cf its location in the Mississippi Valley, far from the center ci the territcry. A year later the legislature moved the capital to Little Roel\u0026lt;. Tcx:iay with a metropolitan area spanning a seventy-mile radius\nGreater Little Rod\u0026lt; MSA is home to over 513,000 people In the last quarter century, the Greater Little Rock MSA has almost doob15 its populatirn - approaching 1,200,000. Today, Ncrth Little Rock, the third ,}. (IY\\, largest canmunity with a population ci 62,000, and Little Rock af'e joined--sy' ~ the Arkansas River in Pulaski Ca.mty. Twenty-seven percent ci the MSA's p,OW,,v' population is under 18 years of age Forty-foor percent of the populatirn is ~la,~ within the 18-44 age range. Accxrding to the 1990 Census, the populatirn was ------percent Black, -------percent white. B. Little Rock Sdlool District The Llttle Rod\u0026lt; Sdlod District, encompassing an area in excess ci 100 square miles, is the largest school district in the state in terms cf enrollment. Enrdlment in the sdiods has increased fran cai .. pupils inq 1-- to 26,055 pupils in January 1992. This increase is expected to continue and result in a total enrdlment of 'by the year 2000. 16,439 pupils cr 64% ci the total district minority enrollment is Black. The percent Black student populaticn exceeds the District 64% average in grades 4-9. The highest percent Black student enrollment is 70% in grade 8. Of the District's fcrty-nine ( 4, schools, thiry-six enrdl pre-kindergarten cr kindergarten throogh grade o students, eight enrdl grades 7-9 students, and five enrdl grades 10-12 students. Educatiooal program/sdiool chcices include elementary Incentive Schools, grade K-12 Interdistfict Magnet Schools, and elementary area schools. Olart A ootlines the number and type ci schod programs. The text below Olart A defines each type of school and the raticnale fcr selecting certain schods for this prqect. 1 3 Cllart A - The Orpli7.aliaial Plan fa litfle Rode Sdmds n = number of schros gie School andlor ucalionProwam Bemmhly, ~es PrH:: or -6 JwiorHi~, s,-ades 1-igh School~ s,-ades 10-1 n n n a) Area SJ'ld Feeder Schools 22 6 3 b) hcenti\\e Schools 7 NIA NIA c) lnteiois~ot MBQnet Schools 6 2 2 d) hterdis~ot Nonmagnet Schools 1 NIA NIA Total 36 8 5 a) Area Schools - The elementary school that is the LRSD school fer where a student lives is called an Area Schad. F.ach Area School feeds into a partirular junicr high and senicr high schod. The instructional program focuses on language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. b) Incentive Schools - Incentive Schros are Pre K-Grade 6 elementary schools located within the immediate davmtown area The percent Black student enrcilment fcr Incentive Schools ranges from 85tl to 97~. These schools receive double financial resources to provide a teac er-student ratio cf 1:20, additional instructional aides, permanent sub.stitute teachers, and. extended day-week-year learning oppcrtunities. An individual learning plan is developed fcr each student based an the district K-6 cxre curriculum Ccmputer-assisted instructirn, a student homework hotline, a parenting skills center, and a program fcr faur-year cids are additional features that distinguish incentive frcm area elementary schools. c) Interdistrict Magnet Schools - As Olart A illustrates, Interdistrict Magnet Schools have been established at all three school levels -elementary, junicr high, and senior high. Althoogh operated by the Little Rock School District, students frcm Ncrth Little Rock School District and Pulaski Co.tnty Special School District (PCSSD) are eligible for enrollment in accord with the desegregation plan. As Olart A illustrates, there are ten Interdistrict Magnet Schools. These schools provide, in addition to the regular care program, coorsework based en a special curricular theme. The desegregatirn section faund on page ---- further desaibe the purpa.e and thematic focus for these schools. Olart A indicates there are 31 area and feeder schools. Some of these area/feeder schools are located in racially isciated areas of the school district. This project will establish a new grade 7-12 interdistrict magn:} 1 cf three junicr high schools, and the new grade 9 - 12 Aerospace Magnet , High School. 4 ( C Each of the three junier high schools exreeds the 64 percent district-wide average fer black students. White students will be recruited from across district lines, primarily fran North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special Schcol Districts to racially balance the three junicr high schcols. The new Aerospace Magnet High School wilt begin magnet program operation fer ninth andtenth graders the secrnd year of the prqect. The grade 9 and 10 1 enrollment will consist ci 600 vduntary student transfers fran this _ - magnet's junicr high enrdlment. This prqect, therefere, will establish the first Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet ca,tinuatioo program in four sea:mdary level schcols consisting ci grades 7-9 the first project year and grades 7-10 the secood prqect year. In sub\nequent non-project years, the Aerospace Technology High School will add grade 11 in 1995-96 and grade 12 in 1996-97 through ncrmal magnet grade level enrollment each year. An Aerospace Techndogy Magnet has been designed in croperatia, with the Aerospace Educatia, Center Campaign Leadership, the University ci Arkansas at Little Rock, and Hendersrn State University to attract this magnet's enrollment ci 1,200 students. Students who attend each ci the four junicr high schcols will also be eligible to participate in the magnet. The tctal grade 7 -10 aerospace magnet enrdlment will be 2,887 pupils. The 1::reakdawn in }o enrollment by schcol level is: Incoming In attendance  4.00 grade 7-9 students  2,187 grade 7-9 students  300 grade 10 students Tc.tat: 2,887 students By the 1996-97 the Aerospace Magnet High School grade 9-12 enrdlment will be at capacity which is 1,200 pupils. The high schcol enrollment ca.1pled with the grade 7-9 junicr high enrdlment means the aerospace magnet has the pctential to serve 3,500 pupils. The magnet enrollment will reduce black isdatirn in three junier high schools. Interdistrict and Intradistrict Desegregatioo Measures 1. Backgroond Infcrmation on the Court Order The only image that sane people have ci Little Rock is the one fcrmed in the Fall ci 1957 when Governer Orval Fauoos defied a federal mandate and tried to use the Arkansas National Guard to keep nine black students fran entering Central High School. In CcXlper vs. Aarrn (1958), the Supreme Coort stated that \"public oppositia, to desegregation of the 5 races, no matter how deeply entrenched, could nct be allowed to interfere with the full realizatioo d the ronstitutiooal rights d black citizens.\" Twenty-fa.tr years later (1982), the Little Rock Schcxi District brooght suit against Naih Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School District, /l ~ claiming that the Coostitution canpelled the consolidation of the three v\\J\\:I districts into one governmental unit. This claim was rejected by the courts in 1985 and again in 1986\nhowever, the coorts held that interdistrict ca1stitutiooal violatioos had cx:a.tred and must be remedied. Over the course of the next three years, varioos remedial orders were entered and further appeals were taken to court. Then, in 1988 and 1989, in a sharp departure from the adversary bitterness that had marked this rontroversy fa- over thirty years\nthe parties, including the Joshua intervenors representing the injured class d black schoolchildren and citizens, LRSD, the Nath Little Rock School District (NLRSD), the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and the State of Arkansas (Arkansas State Board ~tion), agreed to settle th~e case. They submitted to the District Co~rt four JJmprehensive agreements covering bd:h interdistrict anct.,j!)tradistrict desegregatioo measures -- agreements referred to by the parties as the \"settlement plans.\" They also suanitted a separate but related document, called the \"settlement agreement,\" settling the financial liability of the State cf Arkansas. ~ The United States Court of /\\ppeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed~ t judgement on June 27, 1989, and directed the District Court to adjust the ~ between the LRSD and PCSSD, to revise student attendance within each district to reflect the racial canpositioo d the district, to maintain PCSSD's percent black student enrollment within the range cf plus cr minus 25% d the districtwide average of blacks by organizaticnal levels\nand to limit busing, one-way, to forty-five minutes. 2. The LRSD Desegregatioo (Settlement) Plan (1989) The following description is from the reccrd of the United States Court cf Appeals fa- the Eighth Orel.lit: \"Eight d the 31 nm-magnet elementary schcxis will be designated Incentive Schcxis. Initially they will be all black. These schcxis will receive compensatory-educatioo programs and two times the level cf funding for six years. The plan includes a detailed and volumous desaiption of the kinds d programs that would take place at the Incentive Schcxis. A salient featured these sdlools is a maximum effective student-teacher ratio of twenty to one. Twenty-two of the twenty-three remaining elementary sdlcxis will be called Elementary Academies. These schcxis will have prqected student ratios d between 50 and 62 6 Wi.,etlul\u0026lt;u,.., ~ IN~ (ki,t~ ~ percent black. The other elementary school, Romine, would be an interdistrict school. Any white student can elect to attend an Incentive School, and a black student living in an IncentiveSchool attendance area can opt to attend ooe ci the Elementary Academies.\" 3. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan The Interdistrict Desegregation Plan is designed to achieve racial balance in the schools and districts of Little Rock, Nai:h Little Rock, and Pulaski Country Special School District through voluntary movement primarily to magnet programs. The Little Rock Schad District reports quarterly the number and percent ci students enrolled by racial backgroond in each ci the district's 49 schools. The above data is also summarized in terms of ~ the total district (Pre-K-12). The district defines a school \"balanced\" when its percent black student populatioo is between fifty-five to sixty-five percent and the percent white student enrollment is between thirty-five and fcrty-five percent. Interdistrict magnets are used to attract a specific student populatioo frc:rn ootside ci the district and from within the original district to racially balance the school and district. Participation in a magnet is through student/parent chcice. The Magnet Review Cc:rnmittee (MRO, created by the Eight Orcuit Court ri Appeals in September, 1986, oversees the implementation and ope~~moo d the' interdistrict magnet schods. Canprised of representatives frc:rn each ci the three districts, the Committee makes policy rn issues such as magnet enrollment, tr,/msfers, building capacities, and operating funds. /{fov- S-ffj_!f:}\n')6:,/,.,t.v(. The Magnet Educatirnal Team (MET) is the recruitment arm of the MRC, and is responsible fer public infamation and recruitment strategies and activities. In the Little Rock School District, six elementary schools, three junier high schools, and two high schools have magnet programs (refer to 01art A). Six (6) Interdistrict magnets (4 elementary, 2 junier high, 1 senior high) were created in Little Rock in ccmpliance to the 1985 court opinion. Since 1987, five mere interdistrict magnets have been established in the Little Rod\u0026lt; School District. Magnets enhance the district's c:cre a.irriculum The specially designed curria.ila is the \"hook\" fer attracting students across district lines. Individual interdistrict magnet school brochures provide a program description. 01art B summarizes the eleven interdistrict magnets in the LRSD by theme and number ci schools participating at each school level. 7 Cll3lt B - LRSD lnlerdislrid Magnet Pmgaans Theme School Level and # of Schools Elementary Junior High High School 1. Early Education 1 2. Basic Skills 1 3. Basic Skills/Math-Science 2 ~~ 4. Arts 1 ~ 5. Arts and Sciences 1 1 6. International Studies 1 1 1 Subtotal 6 2 2 Total Magnets - 10  This is a PreK magnet housed in an Incentive School. The majority ct LRSD Interdistrict Magent Programs have been in cperatioo since the 1986-87 school year. Magnet enrollment that year was 3,647 pupils. This year it is 6,919 pupils. The number ct pupils enrolled in LRSD individual magnets has increased 53%. The most successful magnets acccrding to c:cmmunity /staff/ student responses and magnet waiting lists are ------------------, -----------------------, -------------------------. (Expand en waiting list.) The Interdistrict Desegregatcn Plan is mere than just magnets. The Pulaski County M-to-M (Majaity to Minority) Transfer allo.vs a student to transfer fran a district and schoo where his/her race is in the majority to a district and schoo where his/her race is in the minority. This means that black students in the LRSD may transfer to schoos in North Little Rcx:k and the Pulaski County Special Schoo Districts, and white students in NLRSD er Pulaski County SSD may transfer to a Little Rock School District school. The Aera\npace Techndogy Magnet will advance the vduntaty desegregatioo etfais ct the Settlement Plans. The district ccmmits that it will \"maintain the facilities en a racially integrated basis into perpetuity.\" (Refer to 2/4/91 Amendment in Appendix.) The Little Rock Schoo District Desegregation Plan, the Pulaski County Special Schad District Permanent Desegregation Plan, the North Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan, and the Interdistrict 8 Desegregatia, Plan hdd excellent premise fcr achieving unitary school systems in these three districts. (Exerpted frcm text of Settlement Plans - refer to Appendix.) 4. The Settlement Agreement The Settlement Agreement provided for payments by the State to the three school districts fer desegregatia, purposes cnly. Under the agreement, the state makes payment to LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD totalling $107,723,175 over the next ten years. The state legislature and the Governcr expended these funds withoot a coort order. Mcreover, the State also agreed to lend LRSD up to $20,000,000 over the next ten years. [  The loans are to be forgiven if by December 31, 2000, the existing gap in achievement between black and white pupils in LRSD has been reduced to ()Jfa~ ~ ~ Cl} p/t' The settlement plans and the settlement agreement do not limit the (1 C ID t District Cwrt's ability to require the creatia, of additional interdistrict '--\"{ 1\nt, schools. They limit cnly hem new schods may be funded. This funding { ~ \\ may indude payments by the State for majcrity-to-minority transfers, but o- ) it may not include the impositioo en the State of a shared the capital casts c:i these new facilities. The aglb::iili:ill does nd: bar 1he crmlim cl additimal interdislrid sdtods\nit simply povides 1hat,, wher1 aeah:d, 1hE:f will nd: be funded in 1he same way as the six stipilalicm magnets. (Refer to entire text c:i Settlement Agreement in Appendix.) The District Cwrt mandated the creatia, c:i the Office of Desegregatia, Mooitoring staffed by a Monitor to supervise compliance t.6 the foor Settlement Plans and the Settlement Agreement. ( wv.1L 9 Il Needs Assesslnent The Little Rock Schcd District, in coojunctioo with Nath Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District, is implementing a ca.trt-monitcred desegregatioo plan ci which magnet programs and M-to-M transfers are a voluntary cptioo to integrate the three individual schcd districts. _J. Although Little Rock has achieved racial balance throogh the creatioo ci __ () 6}I interdi strict magnet programs in once racial] y isolated sch eds, therp/are still --5~ '. -.A schods whose percent black to white enrollment exceed the distri~-45% : H. J1Sf'I\"\"' approved range. The district wants to establish mere across district volunta ~ /k-movement of junior high students to bing racially-isolated schools within the ) r)J balanced range. Acccrding to the 1992 LRSD Enrollment Survey, there are three junior high schools that meet this aiteria Three ci the junicr high schcds have been targeted to attract white students primarily fran school districts ci the Interdistrict (Tri-District) Desegregatioo Plan, ct:her school districts within close proximity ci the Little Rock school districts, and private schools. This plan prcrnct:es desegregatirn. It increases the grade 7-9 white student enrollment at each grade level ci three racially (1:fack)-isolated junior high schcds. The hook to attain this prqect's desegregation goals and objectives is the Aerospace Technology curriculum Since 1900, the United States has becane wealthy and powerful 1:rf expldting the rapid changes taking place in technology, wcrld trade, and the internatiooal political crder. New developments in technology, !ntematirnal competition, demography, and other factcrs have altered the natirn's ecaiomic and social landscape. There will be few jobs for those who lack adequate science/technical knowledge and who cannot read, follow directions, or use mathematics. Higher skill requirements of the economy suggest that schools must impave the preparatirn of the natirn's youth in crder to eroncrnically compete in the global marketplace. This can only be acccrnplished if the schools have excellence in technology educatirn, communications, problem-solving, and scientific and technological literacy. This district believes it is absolutely necessary to help students understand their technological future if they are to functirn as respmsible, productive members ci a competitive society. This district also believes this endeavcr must be a coq::ierative and concentrative effcrt with this area's prime employers, the aerospace/ aviation industry, the State Department ci Educatioo, the University ci Arkansas, and Hendersoo State University. The aerospace technology educatirn magnet has lrng range impact for desegregatirn in the Little Rock School District. First, it involves further voluntary movement ci nm-district white students to prevent the progressive, increasing isolation ci predcrninantly 1:fack junicr high schools. Serond, this prgect has carefully planned fer a nevv racially balanred high schcd. Finally, this district is 10 coofident that the aerospace magnet will attract a new enrollment of 1,300 grade 7-10 students while maintaining the current enrollment. 'I These are the reasons: 1~a-' 1. \"Aerospace Technology\" is a statewide public education and economic development effort in accordance with the Arkansas Aerospace Task Force and its a-eaticn of the Arkansas Aviatioo and Aerospace Cornmissicn throogh passage of State Senate Bill 35. Their missi en is to provide \"the knowledge and skills that will allow students to reach their full ea:manic 2. potential.\" -~l The Stipulaticn and Consent Order of February 1991 amended the LRS~ ~ticn Plan to include the Aerospace Technology :Magnet Sch (s) anumaintenance as racially integrated facilities. 3. 4. The putlic and private rontributicns of funds for up to 6.5 millirn dollars to coostruct the aviation histcry museum which will implement curricular activities during and after magnet schod hoors in coordinatioo with the magnet's specialized curriculum A successful millage campaign apprc,.,ed by voters for six million dollars to ~ coostruct the Aerospace Magnet High Schad. 5. The Aerospace employment need fer a skilled workforce is well known in \"1 Central Arkansas. # specially-trained employees are required to meet new  ccntracts for aira-aft and the employment vacancies listed by the Little Rock Airport Commission. Technology education is addressed in cnnjunctioo with the study of mathematics and physical science. Mere science and mathematics has been ruilt into the existing curriculum The academic and technology-integrated currirulum begins in grade seven to better prepare the minority student fer future employment, cdleg~ and success in finding his/her niche in a tedmdogical society. Because c::J the stroog aerospace industry and university linkage, and the hands-oo problem solving approach used to learn the rurricula, the district fcresees the indusioo c::J some Little Rock elementary schools in the near future. / /--t~ (n Need t The Reduction and Pre,entim cf Minority Group Isolatim /~ '/) fo1 There is a need to estatlish a new interdistric:t magnet at the junier high level to 01 racially balance three schods. An end-c::J-prqec:t enrdlment c::J 2,887 will enatle each c::J the aerospace magnet schools and total magnet enrollment to reflect the district's percent racial avera e. 11 The goal reflected ~ the% black figure in Table 1 is to reduce racial isolatirn ~ increasing the number ci white pupils in three Little Rock junier high schcds. This wi111 1:ring the junier high schcd % black student enrollment mere in line with the district-wide percent black figure cr 64%. TABLE 1 Redice Now Endd Prqed: Kea!iving Sdl\u0026lt;ds 'I. Bin 'I. Bid 1. Ooverdale JH 70.2 60.0 2. Fcrest Heights JH 70.6 60.0 3. Southwest JH 77.0 60.0 The goal reflected ~ the percent black figure in Table 2 is to prevent black groop isolation in the new high schod. This will be accanplished throogh voluntary movement of (1) grade eight and nine pupils from three aera\npace magnet junicr high schools, (2) new M-toM transfers-from NLRSD, PCSSD, an~her school districts not a part ci the ~district Magnet Desegregation P~and (3) LRSD grade 9 pupils provided such movement does net negatively mpact the racial balance cr the sending junicr high school. This will racially balance the new high school in ac:ccrdance with the racial demographics fer the senior high level. TABLE 2 ,,.., f. End d Prqed: Kea!iving Sdl\u0026lt;d Bin 'I, Bladt New High School 70.0 58.0 based rn the % black student enrollment average fer the desegregated sending junior high schools located in the attendance area of the new high school. Plugtan Goal t: To reduce or prevent rad al isolatirn in the Little Rock School District Objective 1.a: By September, 1993, the district will reduce racial isolation throogh recruitment of white students fran oot-cr-district to aerospace magnet programs. The aera\npace magnet program will be balanced when the percent black to white 12 figure is within the 6ef 40% balanced ra11g .Redu\u0026lt;E ~ Minaity ~ Minmty Magnet Sdlod Before After 1. OCNerdale JH 70.2 60.0 2. Ferest Heights JH 70.6 60.0 3. So.lthwest JH 75.0 60.0 Objective 1.b: By September, 1994 the district will racially balance the new high schod through vduntary transfers fran the grade 9 ccntinuing magnet enrdlment and M-to-M transfers. The new high schod will reflect the racial balance ci the district's senior high schools indicated in Olart B: CHART B Magnet SdKJcj New High Schod PreVl!nt ~ Minaity Before 70.0 Need 2a 1: Strengthening the Knowledge ci Academic Cootent Fer the past two decades in America, the low level of academic achievement in our seccndaty schc:xi has spelled disaster for our yooth and fer oor ea:nany. The statistics are alarming: a. Ninety-three percent ci 17-year dds do nd have the capacity to apply mathematical operaticns in a variety of problem settings. An increasing number ci the natirn's students are ill-prepared fer cdlege cnirses or jobs that require technical skills. (Naticnal Assessment of Educational Progress 1988, p.# 2) b Fer generaticns traditirnal prejudices have encouraged mathematics achievement in only a pc:rticn ci the student pcpulaticn - middle class white males. Females and mincriti~with the exceptirn ci Asian-Americans\nWere perceived as bdh \"less capable\" d learning mathematics, and \"needing'' it less. (Mathematics Education - Wellspring ci U.S. Industrial Strength, December 1988.) 13 c. In lxth participation and achievement, American students in science and mathematics are lagging behind previoos years and other ca.mtries. (Science and Engineering lndictors, Natiooal Science Board, 1990.) ct. Only about twenty percent ci 10th graders believe that biology, chemistry, physics, er geanetry are needed to qualify fer their first chace occupatioo. Only twenty-eight percent believe they need algebra. ( Lrngitudinal Survey ci American Yooth, 1988.) e \"Schools must imprave their science instructioo to alla.v the nation to base its ea::nany oo high technology. New programs must be developed and strategies reexamined to achieve the sharp focus required.\" (The Triangle Coalitirn fer Science and Technology Education, 1988.) According to the results ci the National Science Foundatirn's nationwide study, students are not receiving enoogh hands-oo labcratery experience. f. The 1.25 grade-level -equivalent decline in the academic achievement ci high schod seniors la.vered the natioo's productivity by $86 1:illirn in 1987 and will lower it by more than $200 allioo annually by the year 2010 (Joornal ci Currirulum Studies, 1989). Studies demoostrate that canpetence in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and problem solving are strongly related to productivity in almost all jobs. At the histaic \"education summit,\" September 1989, President Bush and the natioo's gaverncrs agreed to six national perfermance goals in educatioo to be achieved by.the year 2000. These two impcrtant goals were among those adcpted: Goal IV - Science and Mathematics U.S. Students will be first in the world in science and mathematics achievement. The pocr standing ci U. 5. students en intematiooal assessments ci mathematics and science achievement is no accident, says a new ASCD task ferce repcrt. It results from systemic problems in the quality ci rurrirulum and instruction in the United States, the unequal cppcrtunities afferded different students, and pervasive rultural beliefs that do little to support high mathematics and science achievement. The ASCD task fcrce repcrt cites four majer factors rontributing to la.v U.S. student achievement in mathematics and science. These are: 1) Relativdy few students take murses that indude high-levd oonl:ent in malhemalic:s and sdence Fewer than half of students take a chemistry er algrel:ra II course and fewer than ooe in five ever take a course in physics, trigonanetry, analysis/precalculus, er calculus. Mcreover, the ,. Assoqation for Supervisioo and Curriculum Devel\u0026lt;\nJ?IDent , Raising Our Sights: lmprroving U.S. Achievement in Mathematics and Scence, December 1991, p. 6 14 widespread tracking of students means many pupils - particularly minorities - are never required to learn high-level ~ntent. 2) Mathematics andsdenre anrimlUID!\\. as well as the tedlo~s and aa w uals linked to them. fail to reflect the llfrontiers d knowledge'\" about how children learn best. U.S. mathematics and science curriculums \"sacrifice depth fer coverage, doo't take advantage d technologies .. .fail to make connectioos amoog the disciplines, and generally ignere the real-life experiences and cognitive development of students.\" In general, students assume a passive role, with teamer talk, textl:xx)ks, and worksheets predcrninating. The Natiooal Center fer Educatioo Statistics study recently documented the percentage c:i 8th graders whose science teamers conducted scientific experiments. Bcth Catholic and private - other religious and nm-religious schools - science teachers surpassed public smcds science teachers en frequency -- \"Once per day, and ooce per week\" -- fer providing experimentaticn in science (Educatioo Week, September 1992). 3) lnslrudiai does nd tdlect the need fer al students to maslEr malenging CXDtent. The training and suppcrt affcrded teachers too c:iten fail to reflect the mallenge c:i delivering high-level content. Teamer preparaticn and inservice suppcrt, class size and teaching load, and teachers' oppcrtunities fer collalxration and decision making all hinder the delivery c:i pctent instruction. 4) OJltural values and olher fadors a:ntn\"bute to the belief that,, fer many slu~ high adnevement in malh and science is not wath striving fa er is unattainable. Exrept fer a small number of high! y mctivated students, many pupils appear to be swayed cy discouraging wltural attitudes tCM1ard math and science prc:iiciency. In additicn, the United States is one of very fe.v industrialized democracies that does net provide stroog incentives (such as better joh\n) to students who do well in tough high school math and science courses. The Naticnal Science Board and the ASCD Panel urged that all students should be required to take math and science a full foor years in grades 9-12. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the Natiooal Science Teachers' Assodatirn, and the American Assodatirn fer the Advancement c:i Science also stated that math and science curriculums should cx:nnect learning to wcrk, integrate principles frcrn the two fields and other disciplines, and take better advantage d technologies. Similarly, grouping students cy ability and tracking should be eliminated. Natirnwide research en tracking suggests that being placed in a 1cm ability track effectively slams the gate on any pa\nsibility that a student can take coorses leading to cdlege (Natirnal Education Lrngitudinal Study c:i 1988). 15 Goal III - Student Achievement and Citizenship American students will leave grades foor, eight, and twelve having demrnstrated ccmpetency in challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, histcry, and geography\nand every schc:ol in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well so they may be prepared fer responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our modem eccnomy. In respcnse to Goal IIL the Secretary ct Latx:r's Canmissicn en Achieving Necessary Skills ( SCANS) issued its initial report, What Werk Reqires of Schools. This repcrt identified a three-part foundatirn - basic skills, thinking skills, and personal qualities - that will be at the heart of job perfamance ooth fer students gcing directly to werk and those planning further educaticn. The SCANS three-part foondation and the ASCD panel's science and curriculum recommendations including mere credit hoors will be ina:rperated into the project design. In March 1992, representatives frcrn the fdlCM'ing Arkansas educaticn and industry groops met to discuss the knCM'ledge and academic competencies that students shoold possess to succeed in preparing fer aerospace/aviaticn careers:  Aerospace industry exerutives  Aerospace Educatirn Center Campaign Leardership  Aviation Historical Society  State Department ci: Educatirn Mathematics and Science Consultants, and the Associate Director fer Instructional Programs in Vocational and Technical Education  FAA Air Traffic Manager  LRSD Superintendent of Schools  UALR Schad ct Science and Engineering Essentially, the magnet will strengthen the academic achievement ct magnet work-bound or college-ln.md students in mathematics, science, techndogy, and canmunicatirn ccmpetencies in coorses equivalent to college preparatcry curriculum. Aditions to rurrent typical fereign language oourse ci:ferings will include Russian, Japanese, and German. The planned magnet program d studies wil11 be based en the Arkansas Plan fer Tech Prep, 2+4+2+2 (February, 1992). Industry representatives pointed oot that \"traditirnal coorses\" in general science and mathematics, gecmetry, algerra, trigrncrnetry, and English do nct emphasize enoogh practical applicatirns ci: content, especially those related to the high-tech \"know-how,\" \"atility-to-do\" required in industry. It is imperative that industry and the public schods werk together to wild strong, relevant science/math/ canmunicatirn/technology stand into the curriculum. Relevant curriculum 16 means the connectedness between wcrk and the magnet's specialized curricula. The magnet program must also articulate co.irse content and a career ladder frcrn LRSD to UALR in Engineering Technology and LRSD to Henderson State University in Aviatim. 1. State ct Arkansas Basic Skills Testing The Arkansas Minimum Performance Testing Program is the mandated state effai fcr reporting the number and percent of grade 3, 6, and 8 students displaying mastery in reading, mathematics, language arts, science, and soda] studies. LRSD minimum perfcrmance testing results for all students and for students categcrized by race (Black and White) dCXl.lment national mathematics and science findings locally, and also confirm the opinion held 1:7.\u0026gt;' industry on content tested. Tatie 3, foond m the opposite page, displays what basic skills are tested in mathematics and science. An analysis of what is tested and hO\\N is indicated in the conducting statements belO\\N Table 3. This information is pcrtrayed to shOIN the need fcr a rigcroos mathematics and science linked program 17 TABLE 3 - The Arkansas Minimum Perfcrmance Testing Program - Grade 8 Basic Skills A. Mathematics Numeration  ldent. whole num. place value  Recog. whole num./word name  Round whole numbers  Recog. dee. word name/std. fm  Compare decimals Whole Numbers  Add whole numbers  Subtract whole numbers  Multiply whole numbers  Divide whole numbers  Solve Reading Problems B. Science . Earth History  Define Earth History terms  Identify evidence which supports theory of plate tectonics Matter and Earth Materials  Identify characteristics of matter, rock types, minerals  Identify particles of nucleus/energy levels of atom  Define pH Earth Processes  Define earth processes terms  Identify agents of erosion 18 Rational Numbers  Change Fraction/equivelent  Add/subtract fractions  Change Fraction to Decimal  Add/subtract decimals  Multiply decimals  Divide dee. by whole number  Write percent as decimal Measurement  Select metric/custom meas  Determine line seg. length Geometry  Identify Shapes  Find perimeter Probability/Statistics  Inter. charts/tables/graphs Meteorology  Define meteorology terms  Identify major cloud types, layers of atmosphere/gases used, air pollutants and their sources, four types of precipitation  Identify weather instruments  Identify lightning causes  Interpret data from a temperature graph Oceanography and Watercycle  Define Oceanography terms  Identify water cycle  Identify causes of water pollution Universe/Astronomy  Define universe/astronomy terms Energy/Natural Resources  Define environmental terms  Identify/classify natural resources as renewable/non-renewable Test items fer science and mathematics reflect knowledge and skills typical of an upper elementary grade program Measurement and geometry is minimal. Testing ci physical science crncepts is limited Test items indicated by the werds recognize, identify, determine, select, define, ask students to recall informatirn, the lowest level cf thinking per Blc:x:m's Taxonomy. mterdistrict and distrct ma ents are, by the year 2000, to leave grade -S- havmg demrnstrated competen'3/ in challenging sugect matter, then this interdistrict magnet must provide the fdlowing:  The applicatirn cf mathematical skills in science throogh a hands-rn industry-relevant program which measures student ootcanes throogh perfermance-based assessment.  Academic c:cntent strengthened by camecting concepts fer earth, life, and physical sciences to engineering tedmdogy and aviatirn, and teaching fer crnceptual understanding.  An instructional approach with 100% utilizatirn d the sd ence process skills and experimental design.  The use cf technology as an instructional tad in crnjunction with canputer simulations and applications fer reccrding and interpreting data. Table 4 repcrts the percentage cf grade 8 students (ct the Aerospace Magnet junier high schools) passing the Arkansas Minimum Perfamance Testing Program by race and gender catagcries as canpared to the percent passing fer all students in the district. TABLE 4 - The Arkansas Minimum Perfcrmance Testing Program - Grade 8 Academic Area Junior High School/District Percent Passing All Students White Students Bl ackStudents SCIENCE Male Female Male Female District  Coverdale JH 64 95 79 70 48  Forest Heights JH 62 83 96 49 53  Southwest JH 46 77 33 46 35 MATHEMATICS District  Cloverdale JH 86 95 89 83 85  Forest Heights JH 80 87 93 70 81  Southwest JH 75 87 76 69 73 19 Results clearly sh(Jl,\\I there is a disparity in mathematics and science performance between white and black students. Major differences in the percent passing rate occur between black and white males in ooth suqect areas, and white and black females in science. The wide race-gender perfamance gap suhstantiates the need to strengthen how science is taught to ensure equal aa:ess t(Jl,\\lard progress in the a:re curriculum 2. Stanford Achievement Test. Eighth Editic\n11 Students in the Little Rock School District also take the Stanford Achievement Test each Spring. Stanford assesses achievement in all crntent areas - Reading, Mathematics, Language, Listening, Science, and Social Science. The Science subtest reflects the natirnal trend in science curriculum tOl,\\lard emphasizing crncepts ci science rather than isolated facts. HOl,\\lever, Stanford uses the traditirnal divisirns - physical science, aological science, and earth/space science as the vehicles fcr testing skills and understanding ci basic cx:mcepts. The prq)(rticns in which the areas of science are represented en the subtest reflect the emphasis each receives natirnally. In mathematics, Stanford has three suqects: Crncepts of Number, Mathematics Computatirn, and Mathematics Applicaticns. Special soores in using Infamation and Thinking Skills are derived from an evaluatirn ci responses students make to items embedded in several subtests such as Mathematic. Applicaticns, Science, Scx:ial Science, Language, and Reading Comprehension. Grade ~ght and nine belOl,\\I nam percentile sa:res for students enrolled in the three magnet junior high schools are sh(Jl,\\ln on the next page in Table 5 fer Mathematics, Science, Using Informatirn, and Thinking Skills. Results are expressed as the percent of students in quartiles rne and two who sa:red at er bel(Jl,\\I a specified percentile sa:re Tctal district percentile sa:res are used as a basis fer a:rnparisrn to individual school results. ~Ju~ ~.~~f k /1f'1-))__ C ~ 111...1) 20 G R A D E 8 9 8 9 8 9 8 9 Content Area by Quartiles DISTRICT N = 1669 N = 1625 SCHOOLS Cloverdale JH N =214 N = 199 Forest Heights JH N =205 N =210 Southwest JH N = 167 N = 183 TABLE 5 - Stanfcrd Achievement Test Spring 1992 Grades 8 and 9 Percentile Sccres Mathematics Science Usi~lnfo. Percentile score Percentile score Perce I e score 01 02 01 02 01 02 17 35 23 40 22 41 13 29 27 45 28 46 15 28 21 36 17 35 13 23 27 39 26 43 15 31 21 40 20 38 18 30 30 50 31 51 13 23 21 36 20 35 9 21 24 36 26 43 Quartile 2 - 50% c::i students sccred at er below these sccres Quartile 1 - 25% cf students sccred at cr'\u0026lt;-below these sccres Thinklnff Skills Percenti e score 01 02 20 40 23 41 17 34 21 55 15 35 22 43 17 28 20 36 Results indicate, except in rne inst~ that proposed magnet schools have sccres lower than the distrid:i~~ntrast to the Arkansas Minimum Proficiency Testing, students faired better in science than in mathematics. Spring 1992 was the first time the LRSD has given the Stanford Achievement Test. The percentile sccres shcmn in Table 5 will serve as baseline data fer develcping this magnet's student performance objectives in the academics. Need 2a2: The Underrepresentation c:i Mincrities in Science and Math The Congressirnally established Task Fcrce en Wcrnen, Mincrities, and the Handicapped in Science and Technology report, \"Olanging America: The New Face c::i Science and Engineering, N found that Blacks, who oomprise 12% of the U.S. pcpulation, make up just 2% cf all scientists and engineers. The findings are especially 21 unsettling considering changing demographics. Prqectirns indicate that by the year 2000, Blacks and Hispanics canbined will make up 47% of the American students enrdlment. As a result it is imperative that the naticn and local school districts take extraordinary steps to prepare minorities for greater levels d participatioo in scien~ math, and engineering. The Quality Educatirn for Mincrities Plan for improving science and mathematics instructioo nationally calls for quadrupling the number of minority students receiving bachelor's degrees in the sciences and engineering from 17,000 in 1987 to 68,000 by 2000 (Education Week, April 1992). In the Little Rock Schad District 68% of the grade 7-9 enrollment is Black. This is a 7% increase over 1987 figures. LRSD anticipates ca1tinued gains in the number/ percent d Black students. The critical issue of underrepresented minorities, i.e. Blacks, and the need to bing Blacks up to parity in performance and graduaticn rates, and in college enrdlment J is a goal d the LRSD as evidenced in the Pulaski Coun_!y Schg\n\u0026amp;D esegi-egation ~ ~ Case Sett! ement ans and Agreement: - fi.{j\n \"If any d the Incentive Schools remains racially identifiable (80% or more Black) after six years, LRSD has explicitly committed itself to continue providing compensatay and enhancement funding\" (refer to page 4).  \"If at any time between the date of this agreement and December 31, 2000, the c:anpa\nite scores d LRSD Black students (excluding special educatioo students) en a standardized test are 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD white students (excluding special educatioo students), the escrowed funds will be paid to LRSD and any ootstanding loans will be fa-given. The intent is that LRSD will rereive 20 millicn ddlars plus any accrued interest if its goal of increasing student achievement is reached and that the State will be repaid in full amoont d all loans plus interest if the LRSD does nct reach its goal (September 1989).\" * The magnet enrolls 1,571 Black students. Curriculum focuses ai math/science crntent as related to careers in the Aerospace industry. Additiooally, the magnet provides the student with nine (9) career ~tioos articulated to university programs. This magnet was putposefully designed to lay the foondation for later academic performance and interest in math and science related fields. Included in the design is career counseling. Career counseling will stress in the student selfworth, motivatirn, and commitment to accanplish personal goals in learning and in Aerospace career preparation. The schod district, industry, and higher educatioo believe this collaborative effort to devel~ a high tech, marketable skills magnet will cxntribute significantly to raising Black student acheivement in mathematics and science, and to increasing the number d black students receiving associate and bachelor degrees in engineering techndogy and airway science 22 Need 2b Developing Marketable Technical Skills \"America's once-rommandtng lead in the aitical technologies drivjng eccJ1cmic growth and natirnal sea.irity is seiously threatened by f ereign cx:mpetiters,\" the Council rn Competitiveness said in its repert Gaining New Ground: Technolqgy Pricrities fer America's Future. The term High-Tech is used to describe a wide variety d businesses and industry which include: aerospace, canputers and software, telecommunications, electrrnic comprnents, medical technology, instruments fer measuring and cootrolling manufacturing processes, energy, environmental, phctographic, lasers and optical, and data processing services. The Natirnal Center for Advanced Technologies (NCAD of the Aerospace Industries Associatirn (AIA) Key Technologies fer the Year 2000 Program have indentified these high-pricrity technologies:  Computatirnal Science  Sdtware Development  Advanced Metallic Structures  Advanced Composites  Superconductivity  Ultra- Reliable Electrrnic Systems  Artificial Intellegence  Airbreathing Propulsirn  Rocket Propulsion  Optical Information Processing  Advanced Sensors These technologies represent a shared view of U.S. technology requirements. Gitical technologies in Engineering Proouctirn and Electronic Canponents where the United States is falling behind cr will net have a presence are represented in Table 6 on the next page. ,. U.S. Departments of Commerce and Defen~ Wute House Office of Sdeice and Tromology (Refer to Appendix for definitions and list of contributing organizations. 23 TABLE 6: Technologies in Which the United States is Weak, La\ning Badly, or HAS LOST f F.ngineering and Pnxluctiai Tedmdcwes  Design for Manufacturing  Design ci Manufacturing Processes  Flexil::xe Manufacturing  High-Speed Machining  Precisioo Machining and Faming  Integratioo ci Research, I:Rsign, and Manufacturing  Integrated Orcuit Fabricatioo and Test Equipment  Robotics and Autc:mated Equipment  Tctal Quality Management Eedladc:Canp\u0026lt;Dents  Mem0ty Olips  Printed Circuit Board Technology  Optical Infcnnatioo Sterage  Multichip Packaging Systems  Liquid Ctystal Displays  Electro Statics Soorce: Camcil oo Canpetitiveness\npartial listing This infamation has implicatirns fer the need ci this magnet to - teach industrial relevant technology skills in state-of-the-art technology laboratories - place a heavy focus rn the application ci scientific kno.vledge - use engineers and technicians frcrn industry as instructors - provide industry-based learning experiences for students. Students in this magnet are primarily being trained as technicians. Technicians working with automated equipment must be familiar with beth software and hardware used by computers and microprocessers. The development, design, installatioo, calilYation, manufacture, assembly, and fabrication processes using sophisticated equipment, tools, machines, and ccmputers require a combination ci knowledge and skills extending far beyood the simple fail -safe mechanical devices ci a few decades ago The aera\npace industry and its array cf suppliers and sub-ccntracters are among tha\ne that will increasingly require technologically literate entty level werkers. The American Vocatiooal Association (AV A) and the Center fer Occupatiooal 24 Research and I:Rvelq:,ment (CORD) point out that technicians currently being prepared for entry in tancrrow's wcrk fcrce should possess several important characteristics. A few d these are highlighted bela.v because they have ramificatirns on the curriculum described later. 1. A BROAD KNOWLEDGE BASE: They must possess fundamental academic skills in reading, ccrnmunicating, computing, and applied science 2. COMPUTER LITERACY: Many high tech processes are ccmputerized. Thus workers should pa.sess a basic understanding d romputers and their applicatirns in manufacturing and management infamatirn systems. At base, students should have the kna.vledge necessary to access and use microprocesscrs er intelligent romputer terminals using canmerdally available sdtware packages. 3. AWARENESS OF A RAPIDLY CHANGING WORK ENVIRONMENT: Develq:,ments in CAD (ccrnputer aided design) and CAM (computer aided manufacturing) alrng with advances in teleccrnmunicatirns, integrated circuits, laser/ q:,tics and other ccrnputer applicatirns assure that techndogy will continue to grow and expand. Thus, technical wcrkers require a broad base in technical and mathematical kna.vledge so that they can learn new techndogies and assimilate new infamatirn after they are employed. 4. UNDERSTANDING OF A SYSTEMS ORIENTATION: Modern manufacturing techniques are canprised d ccrnplex inter-related systems of electriq:tl, electrcnic, pneumatic, hydraulic, thermal, and optical devices. People who wcrk with such equipment need a broad understanding d such systems. Specialists in each d these fields will still be required, but a grasp d the overall systems d prcxiuc:tirn will be impcrtant. This grasp calls fer an interdisciplinary approach to training. Ji L v-  ~I.,(, \\..A-1 1 l v- v-,,p With the diversity of high technologies, the need fer new courses is great. This l_.,wl ,1r_ will require LRSD to integrate technologies and new rontent into existing courses .) ~\\?, 7 as well as create specialized courses of study. Some examples in this magnet are \u0026gt;(C,.,.V\u0026lt;/ . Computer-aided Design (CAD) Applications, Lego Logo Robotics, High Tech Presentatirns, Airway Science Curriculum, and Quantitative Literacy fer Aerospace Althoogh LRSD has prepared course descriptions and outlines (refer to appendix), additirnal ccntent outlining lalxratcry and design prqects need to be develq:,ed with aera.pace/ aviatirn representatives and the university. Flight and space ccncepts need to be infused into the new science curriculum thus creating the aerospace science course of study. In additirn, course rontent needs to be incxrporated into an assessment design that measures actual student performance In academic and work-based learning requirements. 25 r Need 2c: Emplqyment and Training Needs in the Aerospace Industry Today in oor coontry there is a critical need for highly-skilled state-ct-the-art technicians in the aeraspac:e industry. Acccrding to testimrny by the Arkansas Aerospace Task Ferce, \"The greatest challenge is to create an educated workferce able to rapidly meet the needs ci the-industry. Although there will always be a need fer specialized training, in the Ieng term much can be dene to better prepare students fer employment. Education is our largest investment in Arkansas and that investment prcperly focused can be oor most significant advantage CNer other states.\" This statement parallels the disturl:ing finding of the U.S. Laoor ~partment's Secretary's Commission en Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS): \"Mere than half ct all yoong pecple leave schcd withoot the skills needed fer productive employment. These yoong people will face the bleak prospect ct dead-end job after dead-end job interrupted only by periods ci unemployment\" (Education Wee\u0026lt;, May 1992). Acccrding to the Naticnal Center rn Educaticn and the Eca1crny, the average skill level ci graduates not boond fer cdlege is the functirnal equivalent ct aoout a 7th er 8th grade achievement level. M,st at risk are students in the so-called general and vocational \"tracks.\" Because employers generally aren't interested in the CX)Urses job applicants have taken er the grades they have earned, these students have little incentive to take toogh academic dasses er to earn high marks. As a result, high schcx:i beccrnes a holding tank fer those not gang rn to cdlege. Researchers ~dying the werkferce pant to an crninoos sign: good jobs - the kind that cifer reasonable pay and the cppcrtunity to advance aloog a career ladder - are gradually being shut off to students fresh oot ci school. The most prominant explanation fer such findings is that while the skill and knowledge requirements fer entry and advancement in the werkf erce are rising, graduates are not being prepared to meet increased demands. \"New werkers must be creative and responsible problem solvers and have the skills and attitudes en which employers can ooild,\" ac:ccrding to the SCANS Commission. \"Traditicnal jobs are changing and neo.v jobs are created everyday. High paying, but unskilled jobs are disappearing. What the Cornmissien calls \"high-perfcrmance\" werkplaces are mere flexible and custcrner oriented. Schcds must teach the skills peq,le need to be productive and adaptable werkers.\" A commitment to meet this challenge was adopted in a resolutien by the Board of Directers ct the Oty ci Little Rock to use eccncrnic develcpment funds to develcp an Aerospace Museum and Educatien Center. Resolutirns pertinent to the employment and training need fer this magnet are stated below: Wh~ the city c1 little Rak has maintained an eamanic develqxnenl fund so that the city can enmurage and punch: the mainhnanm d jd:B\nand 26 Whereas cities and stales throughout DD' natiaa am:inue to use funds fer eamanic dew:iq:xueul to parde the aealiai and maintenancE d jdls\nand Whereas, the df through its F.ananic Develq:xaa:nl Rmd made avail.tie S3 rnilliai to faalilale the aeali\u0026lt;n d nue 1han 300 jdJs at Alkansas h1n\npac E: .and Whereas_ dtizens and busines.,gs have j\u0026lt;ined qelher to plan fer an .MNifa::E wauseum and the little Km .Akt\"iMP 1\"edmdogy Magnet Smod (ailectivdy the ABOSifMP Cenla1 as part d the little Km .Aitpml area cxnp~ and Whereas_ the df will benefit and he strengthened by an Ae11t5_1ae Center to enable \u0026lt;Dr dtizens to be trained fer jdJs in the relaled aeu asiae industry which is growing in little Rock.. Two SCANS repc:rts outline the skills students should be taught and what needs to be done to effectively teach them. In additirn to the foundation skills (refer to page 5), there is a set ci five canpetencies that are at the core of job perfamance. Acea-ding to SCANS these will be needed ci all graduates, both the college-bo,md and those directly entering the werkferce. The five werkplace competencies are described below:  Resain::es Employees need to be able to identify, organize, plan, and all~te resources (such as time, mcney, materials and facilities, and human resoorces).  lnh:iperscnal skills.. Employees should be able to werk effectively with others. Examples are the abilities to participate as a member ci a team, teach others new skills, serve clients or rustomers, exercise leadership, negotiate, and werk with diverse people  Informal:iai.. Employees need to be able to acquire, evaluate, interpret, and canmunicate informatirn, as well as to use ccmputers to process information.  Systems. Employees must understand how social, erganizational, and techndogical systems werk and cperate effectively within them They must mc:niter and ccrrect performance, improve the quality ci products and services in existing systems and develcp new er alternative systems.  Tedmdqw. Employees must be able to judge which sets of procedures, tools, er machines, including ccmputers and their programs, will produce the desired results. They must be able to set up and cperate ccmputers and their programming systems as well as maintain and troobleshoot techndogy. 27 The Ccmmissioo's plan as detailed in America's Oloice High Skills cr Low Wages also reccmmends that: All students must meet a natiaial slandd d educalicmal exa!lleDJe by age 16 er som thaeaftei. Sludents passing a series d pedamanoe-based asM\n,smenls that retied: the slandard would receive a Certificate d Initial M.may. Nier receiving the c:ntificm\n. sludents would moa\ne to go to work. enter a a:flege-ptp pog,aa-, er sludy fer a technical er pdessicmal astificale.. In this magnet's prqect design, the SCANS ccmpetendes will be inrorpcrated into the mathematic., science and technical courses of stupy as well as the design for measuring student performance and the attainment d this magnet's program oqectives. The change this magnet envisions will require additiooal resoorces through the funding of this prqect. Amrng the most impcrtant will be investments in curriculum writing, teacher training, technology and instructional material including oomputer-based and multimedia material. To address the employment and technical training needs, Little Rod\u0026lt;'s Aeraspace Campaign Leadership and Industry has turned to LRSD, UALR, and Hendersoo State University to develc:p a better student. With the assistance of the United States Department of Educatioo and the Little Rode Aeraspace Campaign Leadership and industries, LRSD beleives it can provide a state-a-the-art technology-driven Mathematics, Airway Science and Engineering Magnet Program which meets the purpases, pricrities, and special CCJ1sideratioos d the MSAP as well as addresses the national imperative to maintain a wcrldwide ccmpetitive lead in techndogy. Progtan Goal 2 To strengthen the knowledge d Academic Ccntent and to develc:p marketable technical skills d students in project magnet schools. Objective 2.a1: Perfcrmance Assessment: Aerospace Science/ Applied Mathematics Integration By the condusioo d the prqect period at least 80% of the grade 7-12 students enrolled in the magnet school program will have ccmpleted with minimum ccmpetencya the LRSD Performance Based Assessment administered the first week d May. a Minimum ccmpetency will be defined as an average d at least 70% 28 Objective 2.a.2: Performance Assessment By the conlusioo cf the prqect period in 1995, at least 80% of the grade 7-12 students enrolled in the magnet program will sccre at or aoove an established proficiency sccre oo each ct two (2) LRSD/SCANS Know-How Performance Based Assessment repc:rts. The extent to which this objective is met will be determined by teacher reccrds and verified by the site magnet Assistant Principal. aMinimum proficiency will be defined as at least a 2 for each Airway Science and Engineering Techndogy course using the fdlowing scale: Proficiency Level Performance Benchmark 1. Preparatory 2. Werk-ready 3. Intermediate 4. Advanced 5. Specialist Objective 2.~ Pcrtfdio Assessment By the condusicn cf the project period, 80% ci the grade 7-12 students enrdled in the magnet schod program will sccre at er abo,.,e an established oompetencya sccre en each cf foor ( 4) teacher and student selected SCANS Integrated Assignments. One repcrt cr assignment must be selected fran each of the four (4) major areas. The extent to which this objective is met will be determined by teacher records and verified by the site magnet Assistant Principal. aMinimum canpetency will be defined as an average ci at least 2 oo each repcrt using the fdlo.ving scale: 4 Well beyond expectatirns fcr grade level\nextracrdinary. 3 Does better than expectaticns fcr grade level\nc:cmpetent/fluent. 2 At level er average performance fcr grade level\nappears canfcrtable with demands ci prc,ect. 1 Approoching average performance for this grade level\nsome skill/ comprehensicn acquired. 0 Novice\nno evidence of relevant skill/ ccmprehension 29 Computer Technology 1. Word Processing/ Keyboarding - Using proper keyboarding and editing skills to produce documents. 2. Graphic Design: Using the graphic program to produce graphics. 3. Communicaticns: Using speaking, writing, video a- hypermedia to express an idea. 4. Programming: Being able to write a set ci instructicns in the hypermedia or LEGO/ LOGO environments. and Technd CJSY Lab 2000 1. 2. 3. 4. and Aerospace Science 1. Scientific Method - Experimental Design: Given a questicn or a problem, students will fcrmulate a hypcthesis, design an experiment, observe and draw a:nclusions frcm the data 2. Process Skills: Canparing, organizing, categcrizing, relating, inferring, applying. 3. Computer Technology fa- Scientific Purpa\nes: Having a product that reflects the use ci computers, laser discs, VCR's, calatlators, and science equipment. 4. Self-Assessment/Self-Esteem: Student and teacher selected wcrk will be placed in individual student pcrtfdias. and Airway Science 1. 2. 3. 4. 30 or Engineering Techndogy 1. 2. 3. 4. Objective 2.c: Program Effectiveness During June d each prtject year, at least 80% d the parents, students, and teachers will rate the fdlowing items \"effective'' oo a locally developed survey:  breadth d curria.1lum  program quality  parent training  teacher training  use of community resources  program ccntributions to career options  improved student achievement  positive ccntributioo to student career plans 31 Quality of Project Design The project includes the fdlawing topics: A Overview: School, Program and Curriculum Organizaticn 1. The Visicn of the Redesigned Junia- High and High School 2. Teacher and Student Organizatirn 3. Flexil:ie Scheduling 4. SCANS KnCJW-How Integratirn 5. Applied Mathematics, Scienre, and Communication Skills 6. Computer Technology and the Computer Techndogy Laboratcry 7. Engineering Techndogy 8. Airway Science 9. Work-Based and Wcrk-Site Learning and Experience 10. Infcrmaticn and Guidance B. Aerospace Technology in Grades Seven and Eight (Junior High Level) 1. Content Knowledge in Mathematics 2. Content Knowledge in Scienre 3. Content KnCJWledge in Canputer Techndogy 4. The Techndogy Lab 2000 Curriculum Integration Center 5. Career Development C Aerospace Technology in Grades Nine Throogh Twelve (High School) 1. Content Knowledge in Mathematics, Science, Canmunicatirn, and Canputer Techndogy 2. Content Knowledge in Engineering Techndogy 3. The Techndogy Lab 2000: Concurrent Engineering 4. Content Knowledge in Airway Science 5. Workplace Readiness and Industry/ Business Internships D. The Aviatirn Museum Educatia, Department Docent Program 1. Courses d Instructia, 2. The Libraty 3. School Visitatia, Program 4. Planetarium 5. Imax Theater E. Instructirnal Approaches and Assessment of Student Performance 1. Learning in Context 2. Product Development Teams/Cooperative Learning 3. The Pcrtfdio 4. Perfcmance-Based Assessment F. The Staff Training Plan G. The Aviation Museum Educatiooal Resoorre Center fa- Teachers H. The Planning Canpooent to Develcp Aera.pace Technology Magnet Curriculum fer the High Sd1od I. Bringing Students Fran Different Backgroonds Together J. Staff Experience in and Kncmledge d Curriculum Development and Desegregation Strategies K Addressing Educatiooal Needs Appropriate to Students Enrdled L Parental Decisirn-Making and Jnvdvement Each tcpic is described in detail after the CJ11erview to this sectioo. I n t e g r a t i 0 n  Technology Lab2000  SCANS Know-How  TOM  Worksite Leaming Experience  Occupational Certification  Authentic Assessment Aerospace I echnology Program Magnet Course Sequence Junior High School Grade7 Aerospace Mathematics Aerospace Science Japanese, German, Russian, Spanish, or French  Integrated Software Applications (.5)  Logowriter Robotics (.5) Grade8 Applied Mathematics I or Technical Algebra I  Aerospace Science Japanese, German, Russian, Spanish, or French Hypercard/Hypermedia  Aerospace Pre-CAD (.5)  Career Development (.5) High School Grade9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12  Applied Mathematics II  Descriptive Geometry Technical Algebra II  Quantitative Literacy for or Descriptive or Technical Algebra II or Advanced Algebra/ Aerospace or Calculus Geometry Trigonometry  Aerospace Physical  Descriptive Astronomy \u0026amp; Japanese, German, Science or Chemistry  Aerodynamics (.5) \u0026amp; Physical Geology Russian, Spanish, or Meteorology (.5) or French Japanese, German, Physics Applied Communications Russian, Spanish, or Aerospace Biology French Japanese, German, Japanese or German or Russian, Spanish, or Russian or Spanish or Intro Aeronautics/Lab Computer-Aided French French a Design Applications Intro. to Computer or Manufacturing Engineering Private Pilot Cert/Lab Science Manufacturing Tech. II a Engineering or Air Traffic Control Intro. to Concurrent Technology I Electronics Engineering or Engineering a Technology.CAD II Powerplant Systems or Electronic Engineering or or Machine Shop Technology.CAD I Advanced Computer- Aerodynamics + Perf. Technology a Aided Design Applications a a Programming or Programming for  General Aviation Language I, II Aircraft Systems Theory Engineering Majors or or or  Hi-Tech Presentations Aircraft Systems Theory Aircraft Powerplant Theory Fabrication Design or or Project Powerplant Theory Fortran.Cobol or \u0026amp; Maintenance a Mechanical Systems DP Electric Circuit Analysis or  Workplace Readiness Manufacturing Design (.5) Aviation Safety Project Legislation/Air or  Hi-Tech Presentations Transportation Assembler Language \u0026amp; Operating Systems  Airway Science or Engineering Technology Airway Science or Internship I Engineering Technology (Industry-based) Internship II (Industry-based) Little Rock School District Aerospace Technology Magnet Program Prepared by Gail Quinn October 1992 The Little Rock School District's Magnet Schools Assistance grant applicaticn presents a dynamic plan fcr implementation of a grade 7-12 Aerospace Technology Magnet Program in three (3) junior high schcds and the new Aerospace Educatioo Center. The Center comhnes a museum of aviaticn histcry with a grade 7-12 Aerospace Technology School en a 19.8 acre tract at the Little Rock Regicnal Airpcrt adjacent to the main terminal, Falcon Jet, and Arkansas Aerospace. Collabcratively develcped with the Aerospace industriesa\u0026gt; and Campaign Leadershipb\u0026gt;, four universitiesc\u0026gt; and the U.S. Department d Educaticn Federal Aviaticn Adrninistraticn (FAA), this magnet program targets the readying of students fcr immediate employment and/ er postsecondary education in either engineering technology cr airway science. As illustrated belON, students are provided a wide range cl choices fer career develcpment in ooe of nine areas at an entry, technician, cr prciessional level: Aerospace Engineering Technology Aviation Airway Science (FAA)  Manufacturing  Airway Canputer Science  Computer Science  Airway Science Management  Mechanical  Aircraft Maintenance  Electronics  Aircraft Systems  Professional Pild: Majcr Arkansas aerospace employers and the FAA have identified technological occupaticns and the skill base students need for future employment. LRSD has incorpcrated the skill base into a highly integrated program/course sequence ccnsisting d Academic lnstructioo, Work-Based Leaming, Wcrksite Experience, and Information and Gui dance. All magnet students will take a canmon academic ccre of sequenced courses which indude six years d applied mathematics and science (more than required for graduation) keyed to product engineering and flight/space roncepts, two er more years d a language significant to our global canpetitive marketplace such as Japanese er German\nand Applied Canmunication. In canputer netwcrked laboratcries, students will access and control content, applicaticns, and infcrmaticn in the areas d robotics, bio astronautics, systems simulatioo, CAD/ CAM, publishing, wcrd processing, telecommunications, material science, and aerodynamics. Students will produce presentaticn material try importing soond, graphics, digitized phctographs to hypercard er laserdisc stacks cl their CM'n creatioo. In Science, students will conduct hands-on investigations, manipulate scientific instruments, and collect/ analyze data a) Arkansas Aa-ospac~ Rohr Industries, Falcon Jet, Midcoast, Cmtral Hying Service b) tv1embership attached c) Universities of Arkansas at Little Rock and Pine Bluff, Hmderson State University, Southern Arkansas Unive-sity TECH. using the critic.al thinking skills ct observatioo, canmunicating, wmparing, crdeting, c.ategorizing, relating, inferring, and applying. Specialized curricula related to each ct the nine career opticns has been developed to meet oca.tpation specific kno.vledge and emerging techndogy requirements. Students will be trained on the job throogh partidpatioo in industry and airpcrt-based internship programs. All students will be educated to higher levels than ever betcre. The vehicle for occupaticnal certificatirn is achievement ct the U.S. Department of Labcr's SCANS (Secretary's Canmissirn ct Achieving Necessary Skills) five workplace ccrnpetencies, e.g. Resources, Interperscnal Skills, Infcrmation, Systems, and Technology\nand the earning of Certificates ci Initial Mastery (CIM). An assessment system based en SCANS Kno.v-Ho.v and cumulative resume, which reports results, will be the permanent reard ct genuine student attainment of CIM and future employment. In addition, program canpletion in a cnosen oc:cupaticnal majcr will enatle students to receive advance university credit and ca,tinuatirn of the engineering er airway science c.areer track throogh associate ct science and baccalaureate degree programs. As yoo ca,sider the fine merits of this highly cdlaoorative magnet program, please keep in mind the thoosands ct students it will enable to gain state-of-the-art techndogic:al skills, enca.1rage to cootinue their education throogh Artirulaticn Agreements, and to fill key manufacturing and FAA jobs so vital to the future ct this nation to canpete in the wcrld market. Student Progression in the Aerospace Technology Magnet \"Linking the Curricular Path to Work\" Level I - Aerospace Education Center Grades 7-12  Engineering Technology or  Airway Science \u0026amp; Professional Pilot Level II - Advanced \u0026amp; Specialized Training  Southern Arkansas University TECH - Associate of Applied Science Degree and/or Advanced Certificates (one year after Associate Degree) - Aviation Maintenance  UALR - Electronics Engineering Technology - Mechanical Engineering Technology Level Ill - Baccalaureate Programs  UALR - Manufacturing Engineering - Computer Engineering  Henderson State University - Aircraft Systems Management  - Professional Pilot - Airway Science Management - Airway Computer Science Entry-Level Employment  Support Analyst  Quality Analyst  CAD Operator  Hazardous Material Specialist Technical Careers  Associate Engineer  Tool Designer  Quality Technician  Hazardous Material T earn Leader Professional Careers  Production Engineer  Manufacturing Engineer  Liaison Engineer  Design Engineer  Quality Engineer  Environmental Engineer Quality of Project Design The project includes the fdlowing topics: A Oveiview: The Aera\npace Techndogy Currirulum 1. Applied Science and Science Labcratcry 2. Applied Mathematics 3. Computer Technology and the Computer Tedmdogy Laboratcry 4. Fcreign Languages 5. Engineering Techndogy 6. Aviation 7. SCANS Know-HCJN 8. Work-Based and Werk-Site Leaming and Experience B. Aerospace Technology in Grades Seven and Eight (Junior High Level) 1. Content Knowledge in Mathematics 2. Content Knowledge in Science 3. Content l\u0026lt;nCJNledge in Canputer Techndogy 4. The Techndogy Lab 2000 Cunirulum Integration Center 5. Infcrmatioo and Guidance C Aerospace Technology in Grades Nine and Ten 1. Content KnCJNledge in Mathematics, Science, and Computer Technology 2. Content l\u0026lt;nCJNledge in Engineering Techndogy 3. The Techndogy Lab 2000: Scientific Literacy Center 4. Content Knowledge in Airway Science 5. Workplace Readiness and Industry/ Business Internships D. Instructiooal Approaches and Assessment of Student Performance 1. Leaming in Context 2. Product Develcpment Teams/Cooperative Leaming 3. The Pcrtfdio 4. Perfanance-Based Assessment E. Teacher and Student Organizatioo F. Flexible Scheduling G. The Aviatioo Museum Educatioo Department Docent Program 1. Courses d Instructioo 2. The Library 3. School Visitatioo Program 4. Planetarium 5. Imax Theater H. The Staff Training Plan 1 The Aviation Museum Educaticnal Reso..irce Center fer Teachers J. The Planning Canpcnent to Develcp Aerospace Techndogy Magnet Curriculum fer the High School K Bringing Students Fran Different Backgra.mds Together L. Staff Experience in and Knowledge ci Curriculum Development and Clesegregation Strategies M Addressing Educatiooal Needs Appropriate to Students Enrdled N. Parental ~sioo-Making and Involvement Each tcpic is described in detail after the overview to this secticn. A Overview What fdlows is a comprehensive summary ci the Aerospace Technology curridum As sho.vn in the crganizaticnal chart below, the Aerospace Techndogy Magnet is crganized into two occupational program majers of nine career tracks and an interrelated academic and techndogy core of requirements oonsisting of Applied Mathematics and Science, and Canputer Techndogy. The Aerospace Technology Curriculum Elective Elective Integration Core Integration Aviation Applied Engineering  Airway Science Science Technology Airway Computer  Manufacturing Engineering Science Applied Technology Airway Science Mathematics Management * *  Electronics Engineering Aircraft Systems Computer Technology Management Technology  Computer Engineering Aviation Maintenance Technology  Professional Pilot Foreign Language  Mechanical Engineering Technology 2 A structured sequence ci courses has been specifically designed fer each ci the three curricular canponents to enhance participants' prospects for immediate emplayment er continued education following high sch-ool graduation. All magnet students in grades seven through ten will participate in applied mathematics and science, and a::mputer technology roursework each year. This means that magnet students will take one mere year ct math and two more years of science than is required for high schod graduation. All magnet students have the optim of beginning f ereign language instructim in grade 7, 8, er 9 in me language ci their chace. This allOvVs for six years of coocentrated study ct a global language. Magnet students will select either the Aviatim er Engineering Techndogy Occupational Magnet program majer and a career track within the selected occupational area upm entering grade nine. The magnet student will then fdlOIN the specialized coorse sequence throogh grade 12, thereby rompleting the program in his/her cx:cupational program majer. The chart m the cpposite page ootlines the curriculum bf camprnents and grade levels fer the entire grade 7-12 aera\npace magnet. Grade 7-10 coorse sequences wi111 be implemented during the two year MSAP prqect period (1993-95). Grade 10 students will cootinue the curricular path as eleventh graders in 1995-96 and as twelfth graders in 1996-97. The latter two years (1995-97) are not MSAP prqect years fer this particular application, theref er~ rourses intrcx:iuced during these two years will be desaibed in the Canmitment and Capacity section of this application. The magnet's articulated coorse sequences in Mathematics and Science, Aviation, and Engineering Techndogy are designed fer students to romplete in advance some requirements tOvVard receipt ct Federal Aviatirn Administration (FAA) certificates, and/ er Associate ct Applied Science or Bachelor ct Science degrees. 1. Applied Science and Science Labcrata:y Aerospace Science cootent will be presented in coonectirn with its applications in aviation/space, design and production technology, and environment protection. This will be accomplished throogh the recrganization ct the district's science curriculum and the aerrnpace science applications (refer to Appendix) to themes. Themes are ideas that integrate the crncepts of different scientific disciplines. Camecting the impcrtant science cmcepts between existing curriculum and aerospace science with science themes will improve students' al:ility to make more meaningful the relatiooships between science ccncepts and other related disciplines. Amrng the majer themes that will be used are thrne discussed in Science Fer All Americans: * Chapter 11, Common Themes, p. 155. See Appendix. 3  Systems  Constancy  Patterns ct Change  Scale  Model  Evolution Table 1 represents a pattern fer a crntent matrix that will be filled in with crncepts and thematic ideas. Table 1 - A Pattern for a Content Matrix Grade 7 8 9 10 Physical Science General Science Earth Science Life Science Aerospace Science A vlatlorv Product Enviamar1al Space Engineering Issues Unifying Concepts Theme(s) Subconcepts The magnet's science teacher specialists will use the pattern fer a ccntent matrix to design the sccpe and sequence ct the Aerospace Science rurriculum (grades 7-8) Aerospace Biology (grade 9) Aerospace Physical Science (grade 10) in ccnjunction with the district's General Science and Biology curriculum. Building the matrix will require that magnet teacher specialists have a ccncentrated peticxi ct time free from teaching responsibilities. This application asks for curriculum writing time during the summers and after school hours to develop the matrix in collabcratioo with the universities and industry. Implementation of the matrix will be enhanced ~ student investigatioo and experimentatioo in a lalx\u0026gt;ratoty setting. This program also requires a science labcratcry at each magnet site for students to experience hands-oo activities keyed to the matrix. The lab:\u0026gt;ratcry will be set-up to indude scientific equipment and materials, fifteen ccrnputers and canputer interface ooxes, probeware, and software packages that will allo.v students to simulate experienres and use ccmputer utilities (spreadsheet, graphing programs, database, wcrd processing). The district is asking fer magnet program assistance to enable its tiack students and inccming white students to participate together in these specially-designed experiences. The lab will be staffed by a prtject-hired science teacher specialist who will be a member cf ooe of the magnet's Science/Math/TECH instructional teams. This instructiooal team will direct each ci its four teams of 30 magnet students in the labcratcry per the flexible schedule described oo page __ . To determine impcrtant aspects of lalxratory implementatioo major goals have been estaliished. These are student attainment cf: Manipulative and ccmmunicative skills to indude the manipulation of materials and equipment, and the collecticn/organizatioo/canmunication cf information fran labcratcry experiments and activities Ratiooal and creative thinking prcx:esses throogh observing and ca1ducting statistical procedures, through collecting, classifying, and measuring oqects\nthrough indentifying and ccntrdling variables in ca1trolled experiments This goal invdves students in learning the scientific precesses cf observing, ccmmunicating, ccmparing, crganizing, relating, and applying. The district envisioos the follo.ving scenario as to ooe way magnet students will learn in the special science laooratory: The Aerospace science teacher specialist prC1vides an interactive video disc presentation describing gravity as fcrce. Because it is hooked to a ccmputer program, the infcrmatioo on the disk will be acressed in a variety cf ways (e.g., nm-linear). Throughout the viewing cf the video, students will disruss gravity and fcrmulate answers to fellow students' questions alx\u0026gt;ut gravity oo ether planets in our solar system. To prC1vide them with additiooal infcrmatioo, the stuaents will have acx:ess to 1) the Aerospace Educatioo Center films, 2) university programs, and 3) a variety d ether infcrmaticn sources availa}je through satellite canmunicatioos netwcrks. Werking in teams, students will use a variety d ccmputer programs to simulate gravity in various envircnments, logging infcrmation about each envircnment into a spreadsheet using the graphing functicn. They will use a werd processcr to reccrd and analyze their observatirns. Students will use teleccmmunicaticns sdtware to seek advice from a NASA scientist aoout findings fran their simulation studies and the relationship between these simulations and actual NASA expediticns. They will prepare a 1:rief video presentaticn, desaihng their experiences, to help other students understand gravity. The skills to implement videodisc instructicn and authcring programs will be taught in the Integrated Sdtware Applicaticns and Hypermedia canputer rourses. 2. Applied Mathematics As displayed in the Applied Mathematics box of the chart on page ---, all grade 7 magnet students will take Aera\npace :Mathematics. Beginning in grade 8, two course sequence routes are depicted: A Applied Mathematics I (8) Applied :Mathematics II (9) Descriptive Geometry (10) Technical Algetra (11) Quantitative Literacy fer Aerospace (12) ~ Technical Algebra I (8) Descriptive Geanetry (9) Technical Algetra II (10) Advanced Algebra/Trigonanetry (11) Calculus (12) Course sequence A was devised fer learners who have generally an eighth-grade, pre-algetra mathematics canpetency level. Course sequence B captures the student whose perfamance indicates readiness fer algel:ra in grade 8. Beth ca.trses ccntain required ccntent knowledge which is supplemented by engineering er aviation related skills and activities. The engineering and aviaticn applications have been developed with industry and university persrnnel, are relevant to careers emphasized in this program, and are linked to the Aerospace Science and occupational curriculum Coorse content is described en pages __ . 3. Computer Technology and the Computer Technology Laooratory Course ccntent in Integrated Sdtware Applicaticns, Logowriter Robotics, Hypercard/Hypermedia, J\\eraspace Pre-CAD, and Hi-Tech Presentaticn will give students the background of knowledge and skills needed to be competent computer users in the Engineering Technology and Airway Science CCA.Jrsevvork\nin the Technology Lab 2000\nand at the worksite. Ccmputer CCA.Jrse content reflects a sequential program d skill development and task cornplexity involving the learning of sdtware applications, specific programs, and multimedia equipment. To implement the CCA.Jrsework, this magnet program requires a canputer laboratory at the individual magnet sites. Ccmputer coorsework will require ooe cornputer per student in a class. To accanodate the typical grade 7-10 class size, 30 ~dntosh LC Irs, 3 Laserwriter H's and 2 Imagwriter Ir s, Telecanmunications hardware/scttwar~ a Macintosh Quadra file server system, and Appletalk Network (Ethernet) hardware will be needed for each lab. All programs will be stored en the Quadra fileserver. Printers, the Quadra file server, and individual Macintosh computers will be crnnected together into a network system. Via the network, students will ac:ce$ and crntrd cootent, applications, and infamatioo in the areas d systems simulatioo, word processing, Lego LogQ rolxrtics, and puliishing. They will produce their own presentatioo material by importing soond, graphics, digitized phctographs to hypercard or laserdisc stacks d their own c:reatioo, and receive supporting visual imagery oo adjacent video menitors. The local network will allow teachers and students to share files, sdtwar~ and printers. In additioo, classrooms within the school, the foor magnet schools, and the museum will be tied in together to the Prgect Directcr's Office allowing for additional network services like electronic mail and database sharing that will be widely utilized for collaborative projects amoong the Aerospace Magnet Schools. Educational benefits of the Aerospace ~gnet Network include:  Group document editing and management (student and teacher prgects).  Screen sharing giving the Project Director and teacher the capal:ility to view any Macintosh monitor en the network.  Central database fer sdtware documents, and aerospace magnet information.  Calendaring fer magnet and museum events.  Electronic Mail to speed up communicatioo and reduce paper. Hypermedia, Hi-Tech Presentatioo CCA.Jrse hardware requirements indude an Apple One Scanner, Apple CD 150, Videodisc Player, Mac:reccrders, Video recorders, Camccrders, Video Digitizer, Roster Opps Board, and speakers. This hardware will be erganized en teacher and student werkstations. The cornputer curriculum goals and objectives statements found en page ---, and project ootlines located in the appendix illustrate how students will apply knowledge/skills attained within the district and aerospace technology curriculum in multimedia, team projects. The lessoo design and project ootlines spell out the suqect area a:mcepts er skill extensioos, the sdtware program and applicatioo, student team activities, and product. Fer example, 7 students will use ccmputer applicatirns in spreadsheets to answer \"What If?\" questioos, to test hypctheses, and to ca,struct fa-mu las pertaining to mathematical and logical functirns. Students will express ideas via wcrd processing and create simulatioos ci varioos situatioos using hypercard. In progamming, students will produce output in text, graphics, and robct actioos. They will use numeric and variables, arithmetic operates, and design appropriate erra- tapping rootines. Instruction in the canputer coursewa-k and integrated curricular team projects will cane fran a Canputer Tedmdogy Specialist who will be a TECH member ci the Science/ Math/TECH lnstructa- Team Canputer Techndogy Specialists will use a single canputer with a large TV as a demoostratioo device. They will preplan lessons en the canputer and will reccrd the lessa, using the VCR The lessa, will be presented to students to actively invdve them in disrovery learning. Lesson segments may be replayed a- stepped as needed for discussicn and clarificaticn. Video benefits students' conceptual understanding ci mathematics and science applicaticns. Real object or events can be shown fran several angles, perspectives, a-ders ci magnification and pcints ci view, such as flipping and rctating shapes in geanetty. Video animation lessoos and canputer graphics will especially be used to introduce, explain, er reinfa-ce roncepts. Prier lessen planning using the canputer, TV screen, and VCR enable the teacher to better mcnita- and adjust the learning fa students and to give individualized help as needed during the lessoo. The canputer techndogy instructicnal schedule will consist cl eight, 50-60 minute periods that will interface with the magnet block \"flexible\" schedule ootlined on page ---. The romputer lal:xratrny will be cpened fa students to use befa-e schod and at lunch. After schod the romputer lab will be used fer parent education. The Macintosh Product Registry (September 1992) program descriptioos, (in crnsultatioo with expert users), was used to identify software utility programs. All software programs prier to purchase will be previewed by magnet teacher specialists in crnjunction with the Aera\npace Techndogy curriculum. Scitware evaluation forms specially-designed for this prqect will be ccmpleted to document curriculum relevance and prcblern-sdving capablities. 4. Fa-eign Language Japanese, Russian, German, French, and Spanish will be cifered beginning in grade 7. Currently, the rore curriculum for grades seven and eight does net emphasize foreign language. The high school currirulum requires 2 years of the same language The Aera\npace Techndogy Curriculum, thereto-~ is providing students with the cppatunity to start a modem language early to h,M,ulU1i:11\\\nLi.,1 o iyt oou ,1 a u p ::\nec1an1es LRSD Occupational Areas of Focus Computer-Aided Design/Drafting Product Engineering Environmental Quality Assurance Job Descriptions Product Engineering Definition: The Implementation ot all phases of manufacturing  product and tooling design, eost, detail production and operation plans, systems and procedureshnethods, quality a11urance methods, materials and process specificatlons, and problem resolution. Job Description: Production Engineers administer tool and manufacturing practices for a major project and/or product lines. At the technical level emphasis Is on design analysis, performance analysis, systems and procedures reviews, general problem investigation, and materials and prooen Investigations. At the entry lewl, efforts are directed to audit and control support. Entry-level  Support Analyst Technlcal Associate Engineer Profelonal Produc:tlon Engineer  Manufacturing Engineer Uaison Engineer Computer Aided Design Appllcationa Definition: Computer Aided Design applications include the use of advanced computer tools to create the unique geometry of the product as well u special tool use (CAE) to determine the adequacy of that design under specific oonditions. Job Description: CAD~AE Engineers utilize computerized workstations to create unique designs of or associated with product geometry. These staff members are usually skilled design engineers who create the product design In real time on the system. The position for this entry level effort Is related to copying or repeating existing product designs using this same workstation. The operator wiN also be trained In the use ol a CAE tool to perform analysis of design articln and gather critical  design data. All of this work Is under the direction of senior design engineers and submitted to them for approval. Entry~evel  CAD Operator Specialist Technical Protslonal Tool Designer  Design Engineer Quality Asaurance Definition: The degree ot conformance by an Item to governing criteria specifications reflect company or contractual inspection requirements for specific materials, parts, or assemblies. Job Description: To provide manufacturing or engineering support tasks in accordance with customer, company, or government product quality specifications and requirements. Entry-MY91  Quality Analyst Environmental Technical Ouaity Technician ProfNelonal  Quality Engineer Definition: Compliance with Federal, state, local, and company safety, health, and environmental regulations. Job Description: Environmental Engineers assist, In development of environmental protection programs and operations as well u enhancement of employee and management awareness of environmental needs and objectives. They provide llalson for organizational representatives to the community and Industry on environmental activities. Al the technical and entry level efforts are directed to plant-wide hazardous waste handling and associated documentation regarding transporting, storing, containment, cleanup and processing of hazardous wastes. Entylewl Technlcal Protelonal  Hazardous Material Hazardous Environmental Specialist Material Team Engineer Leader enable them to achieve oral and written language fluency and proficiency aver a period ct six years. Magnet foreign language ctferings will be scheduled as part ct the eight class period day crntained within the block schedule An instructer pool will be created among the university magnet partners. This magnet's foreign language teachers will be selected from the pool. 5. Engineering Technology The Engineering Technology occupaticnal program majcr will prepare students for entry into tomorrONs manufacturing engineering environment and postsecnndary programs. As the diagram oo the opposite page illustrates, four demand manufacturing engineering areas and the entty level technical and prctessiooal career path have been identified in rollal:xration with state aera\npace industries: product engineering, CAD, Quality Assurance, and Envircnmental. Additonally, industry has defined job titles and respoosibilities. These are also stated in the diagram The University ct Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) and Salthem Arkasas University TECH have aligned critical occupatioo needs with four engineering technology programs ct study - Mechanical, Manufacturing, Canputer, and Etectrooics. A ccmmcn a:re ct engineering technology courses which permeate these foor programs, and specialized courses pertinent to individual programs have been arranged into grade 9-12 rourse sequences. Students ccmpleting grade 9-12 coorse sequences with a grade ct C er better will receive up to 15 advance credits when crntinuing in one engineering technology program at UALR The Mechanical and Electronics Engineering Technology Programs are two or foor year programs fer which a student may earn either an Associate ct Science or Bachelor ct Science degree Manufacturing Engineering Technology and Computer Engineering Tedmotogy are four-year Baccalaureate programs. Be!ON is a sample f!ON chart based oo the Arkansas Plan for TECH PREP, 2+4+2+2  which displays the Engineering Technology grade 9-12 sequence. The entire course sequence is sho.vn here in relatioo to graduaticn requirements to facilitate canprehensicn of the entire program Pages --- describe crntent kn(M!Jedge fer grades 9 and 10 roursewerk. The Commitment and Capacity sectioo, page ---, explains rontent knowledge fer grades 11 and 12 coorse-vvcrk. Grades 9 10 11 12 The Engineering Technology Flow Chart Courses= 1 unit unless shown as .5 unit m = Aerospace Technology Magnet Academic Core Mechanical, Electronic, Manufacturing Eng. Tech. Math (m) Science (m) World History Intro. to Concurrent Engineering English Physical Ed. (.5) Health (.5) Math (m) Science (m) Computer-Aided Design (CAD) Applications or Government (.5) Manufacturing Eng. Tech. I or Global Studies (.5) Electronics Eng. Tech . ..CAD I English Workplace Readiness (.5) Fine Arts (.5) Math (m) Advanced CAD or Science (m) Manufacturing Eng. Tech. II or American History Electronics Eng. Tech . ..CAD II English Internship I Foreign Language (m) Math (m) Science (m) Fabrication Design Project or Applied Communica Manufacturing Design Project or tion (m) Mechanical Systems Design Project Foreign Language (m) Internship II Speech Elective Computer Eng. Tech. Intro. to Computer Science Computer-Aided De sign Applications Electronics Eng. Tech . ..CAD I Programming for Engineering Majors  Arkansas State Board of Education standards for Accreditation (1984) state that students will take 3 units of sci ence and 2 units of mathematics or 3 units of mathematics and 2 units of science to meet high school graduation re quirements. ID There are three requirements with this coursewcrk: a) Students must take the engineering technology rourses related to their engineering program majcr, i.e. manufacturing, computer, mechanical, electrooics. b) Courses must be taken in the sequence shown oo the flow chart. c) Four units (years) each d mathematics and science are mandated fer attainment of Engineering Technology perfcrmance standards. This magnet will reflect current practices used in industry, including those d emerging technologies. These indude canputer numerical control (CNQ machinery, ccmputer-aided drafting and manufacturing(NCCAD/ NCCAM) software, tooling, robotics systems, printed circuit boad equipment, scanners, and plotters. The goal is fer students to werk in teams and experience real prcx.iuctioo, ooe which requires them to plan for, design, and produce a product, inccrpcrting the elements d quality and envirrnment protectioo. A netwcrked CAD labcratory d 30 Macintosh Quadras, three Laserwriter II printers, three plotters, and two scanners will be set-up in a specially-designed facility that also includes drafting tables with track drafting mechanisms. The manufacturing and electrrnics facilities will each house fifteen (15) netwcrked Macintosh Quadras, 2 Laserwriter printers, a scanner, and an integrated manufacturing cell of NC equipment and robotic systems with ccrnputer link-ups. Additional instructional materials and equipment requirements include industrial measuring instruments, pneumatic and hydraulic canpooents, and mechanisms trainers. Ccntent knowledge is described in the next sectioo. Engineering Technology instructcrs will cane fran the program's university partners, industry, the school district, and the Metropolitan Vocatirnal-Technical Education Center. These instructors will also be assigned to a Math/Science/TECH Instructer Team and will teach classes per the block schedule described on page ---. 6. Aviation The Aviation program majers will be implemented in collabcration with Hendersoo State University, Southern Arkansas University TECH, the Federal Aviaicn Administratioo, and Central Flying Service. There ae five artirulated, curricular paths depicted en page --- and delineated in the grade 9-12 flow chart shown oo the opposite page 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The Aviation Flow Chart Program Major 9 10 11 12 Aviation  General Aviation  Powerplant  Electric Circuit  Powerplant Maintenance  Machine Shop Theory \u0026amp; Analysis Systems and Technology Maintenance Components Airway  Introduction to  Programming  Fortran/Cobol  Assembler Computer Aeronautics + Language Language and Science lab Operating Systems Airway Science  Introduction to  Programming  Aircraft Systems  Air Traffic Control Aeronautics + Language Theory lab Aircaft Systems  Introduction to  Aircraft Systems  Aircraft  Aerodynamics + Aeronautics + Theory Powerplant Performance lab Theory Professional  Introduction to  Aircraft Systems  Aircraft  Private Pilot Pilot Aeronautics + Theory Powerplant Certification \u0026amp; lab Theory lab  All students take the same math, science, cnnputer technology core as the Engineering Technology program students.  Students ccntinue Aviatioo Maintenance curriailar path at Southern Arkansas University- TECH. Coursevvcrk for all other Airway Science and Professiooal Pilot program majcrs cc:ntinue at Hendersoo State University.  All students will take a ooe year Aviatirn course regarding Aviation Safety I Legislati oo / Transportation.  All students will have flight training ccnducted by certificated flight instructcrs under the guidelines ci Federal Aviatioo Regulatioos, parts 141 and 61.  All Aviation coursevvork will be taught at the Museum ci Aviatirn Histaty by Southern Arkansas University TECH and Hendersoo State University instructcrs in cocrdination with Central Flying Service and the Federal Aviatioo Administratirn. lnstructcrs will share the same students as members c:i Math/Science/TECH Instructor teams.  Students will receive advance credits from the two universities for canpleting the Aviatioo Magnet program. Cooditions and stipulations fer advance credit receipt are outlined in Articulatirn Agreements. 12 This program has an infcrmation and guidance component that will be implemented with industry, the universities, and the Aerospace Technology career counselcrs. Through a counseling team made-up d professionals fran each crganization, students will be advised d the eccnomic and educational benefits related to the engineering technology and aviation career path. This will enable students to make sound career decisions about which area to select as a program major. A six week, four hoor summer session will be held at the three magnet juniahigh sch\u0026lt;X\u0026gt;ls in 1994, and in all magnet sites in 1995. Any student attending the Aerospace Magnet site during the regular school year, incaning distict seventh graders to the magnet sites, and out-d-district white students will be targeted fcr Summer Sch\u0026lt;X\u0026gt;l enrollment. Summer magnet site enrollment will be within the 60 (black) - 40 (white) balanced range. Summer magnet enrollees will be required to sign an agreement concurring with attendance stipulatioos. 7. SCANS Know-Ho.v SCANS America 2000 ccmpetendes (as described oo pages 27-28) will be integrated across the Aerospace Technology curriculum and aligned with the Accountability System d measures and standards of performance fcr this magnet program. Students will learn the SCANS Know-How throughout mathematics, science, ccmputer, and occupatiooal content\nand in the more specialized contexts d the technology laboratories and industry-based wcrk. Every student, therefcr~ will canplete the magnet junior high school with an introductirn to wcrkplace Know-How. By age 16, magnet students will attain initial mastery in the SCANS Kno.v-Ho.v and be sufficiently prdident upoo canpleticn d this magnet program in grade 12. The instructional strategy employed fer attaining prdidency is learning ccntent while solving realistic problems. Students and teachers will learn and apply knCM1ledge in real-life situatioos, for exampl~ by participating in this magnet's industry internship program Little Rock School District Aerospace Technology Magnet Program Prepared by Gail Quinn October 1992 Aerospace Technology Magnet Program Organization Stengthenlng the Knowledge of Academic Content and Marketable Technical Skills C A. Academic B. Work-Based C. Worksite D. Information \u0026amp; Instruction Learning Experience Guidance 0 M  Applied Mathematics  Occupation Specific  Achievement of  Advising Students of p Knowledge, Skills, Academic Occupational  Applied Science Abilities Requirements Opportunities and Career Path at Three 0  Applied  SCANS Workplace  Achievement of Levels Communication Competencies Work-based Learning N Requirements  Occupational  Work Samples \u0026amp; Certification E Written Reports  Airway Science \u0026amp; Engineering  The Postsecondary N Technology Articulated Career Internships Path T  Assessing  Job Descriptions s Performance in the Workplace Absilad The Little Rock Schad District's Magnet Schools Assistance grant applicatirn presents a dynamic plan fer implementation of a grade 7-12 Aeraspace Techndogy Magnet Program in three (3) junior high schoos and the new Aerospace Educatirn Center. The Center comtines a museum of aviatirn histcry with a grade 7-12 Aeraspace Technology Schad rn a 19.8 acre tract at the Little Rock Regirnal Airpcrt adjacent to the main terminal, Falca, Jet, and Arkansas Aerospace. Collabcratively develcped with the Aerospace industries!\u0026gt; and Campaign Leadershipb\u0026gt;, frur universitiesc\u0026gt; and the U.S. [)epartment ct Educatirn Federal Aviatirn Administratirn (FAA), this magnet program targets the readying of students fer immediate employment and/ er pa\ntsecondary education in either engineering technology er airway science. As illustrated belCMI, students are prCNided a wide range ct choices fer career develcpment in rne of nine areas at an entry, technician, er prctessirnal level: Aerospace Engineering Technology Aviation Airway Science (FAA)  Manufacturing  Airway Canputer Science  Computer Science  Airway Science Management  Mechanical  Aircraft Maintenance  Electronics  Aircraft Systems  Professirnal Pilot Majer Arkansas aerospace employers and the FAA have identified techndogical occupatirns and the skill base students need for future employment. LRSD has incorperated the skill base into a highly integrated program/ COJrse sequence cx:nsisting ct Academic Instructirn, Work-Based Leaming, Werksite Experience, and Information and Gui dance. All magnet students will take a a:mmrn academic are of sequenced coorses whim indude six years ct applied mathematics and science (mere than required for graduation) keyed to product engineering and flight/space roncepts, two a- more years ct a language significant to our global a:mpetitive marketplace sucn as Japanese er German\nand Applied Canmunication. In a:mputer netwerked laboratcries, students will access and ca,trd oontent, applicatirns, and infa-matirn in the areas ct roootics, bio astronautics, systems simulatirn, CAD/CAM, publishing, werd processing, telec:cmmunicatirns, material science, and aerodynamics. Students will produce presentatirn material by importing srund, graphics, digitized photographs to hypercard er laserdisc stacks ct their o.vn creatirn. In Science, students will cx:nduct hands-on investigatirns, manipulate scientific instruments, and collect/ analyze data a) Arkansas Ae-ospac~ Rohr lrdustries, Falcon Jet, Midcoast, Cmtral Aying Savice b) Membership attached c) Universities of Arkansas at Little Rock and Pine Bluff, Hmderson State University, Southern Arkansas Unive-sity TECH. using the critical thinking skills ct cbservatioo, a:mmunicating, cnmparing, crdering, categorizing, relating, inferring, and applying. Specialized curria.lla related to each d the nine career q,tioos has been developed to meet OC0.1pation specific kno.vledge and emerging techndogy requirements. Students will be trained on the job through partidpatioo in industry and aitpcrt-based internship programs. All students will be educated to higher levels than ever betae. The vehicle for cx:c:upatiaial certificatia, is achievement d the U.S. Department of Lalxr's SCANS (Secretary's Canrnissioo a Achieving Necessary Skills) five workplace a:mpetendes, e.g. Resources, Interpersaial Skills, Infamation, Systems, and Technology\nand the earning of Certificates d Initial Mastery (CIM). An assessment system based oo SCANS Kno.v-Ho.v and cumulative resume, which reports results, will be the permanent reccrd d genuine student attainment of CIM and future employment. In addition, program c:cmpletion in a dla\nen occupatia,al maja will enal:ie students to receive advance university a-edit and ccntinuatia, of the engineering a airway science career track thrwgh ~cx:iate ci science and ba~aureate degree programs. ,A.s you a:nsider the fine merits a this highly cdlaoorative magnet progrcll1\\ please keep in mind the thousands a students it will enable to gain state-of-the-art techndogical skills, encn.trage to ccntinue their education through Articulatia, Agreements, and to fill key manufacturing and FAA jobs so vital to the future d this nation to c:cmpete in the wald market. Student Progression in the Aerospace Technology Magnet \"Linking the Curricular Path to Work\" Level I - Aerospace Education Center Grades 7-12  Engineering Technology or  Airway Science \u0026amp; Professional Pilot Level II - Advanced \u0026amp; Specialized Training  Southern Arkansas University TECH - Associate of Applied Science Degree and/or Advanced Certificates (one year after .. Associate Degree) ....lili... - Aviation Maintenance ...,..  UALR - Electronics Engineering Technology - Mechanical Engineering Technology Level Ill - Baccalaureate Programs  UALR - Manufacturing Engineering - Computer Engineering  Henderson State University - Aircraft Systems Management - Professional Pilot - Airway Science Management - Airway Computer Science Entry-Level Employment  Support Analyst  Quality Analyst  CAD Operator  Hazardous Material Specialist Technical Careers  Associate Engineer  Tool Designer  Quality Technician  Hazardous Material T earn Leader Professional Careers  Production Engineer  Manufacturing Engineer  Liaison Engineer  Design Engineer  Quality Engineer  Environmental Engineer Quality of Project Design The project includes the fdlawing topics: A Overview: The Aera\npace Techndogy Curriculum 1. Applied Science and Science Lalxratay 2. Applied Mathematics 3. Computer Technology and the Computer Tedmdogy Laboratay 4. Fcreign Languages 5. Engineering Techndogy 6. Aviation 7. SCANS Know-HON 8. Work-Based and Werk-Site Leaming and Experience B. Aerospace Technology in Grades Seven and Eight (Junior High Level) 1. Content Knowledge in Mathematics 2. Content Knowledge in Science 3. Content Kna.vledge in Canputer Techndogy 4. The Techndogy Lab 2000 Curriculum Integration Center 5. Infcrmaticn and Guidance C Aerospace Technology in Grades Nine and Ten 1. Content KnONledge in Mathematics, Scien~ and Computer Technology 2. Content KnONledge in Engineering Techndogy 3. The Techndogy Lab 2000: Scientific Literacy Center 4. Content Knowledge in Airway Science 5. Workplace Readiness and Industry/Business Internships D. Instructicnal Approaches and ~essment a Student Performance 1. Leaming in Context 2. Prcxiuct Develcpment Teams/Cooperative Leaming 3. The Pcrtfdio 4. Perfananc:e-Based Assessment E. Teacher and Student Organizatia, F. Flexible Scheduling G. The Aviaticn Museum Educaticn Department Docent Program 1. Courses ci Instructicn 2. The Library 3. School Visitaticn Program 4. Planetarium 5. Imax Theater The Aerospace Technology Curriculum ----------. Applied Mathematica Aerospace Mathematics (7) Applied Mathematics I (8) Technical Algebra I (8)  Applied Mathematics II (9) Descriptive Geometry (9) Descriptive Geometry (10 Technical Algebra II (11) Quantitative Literacy for Aerospace (12) Techlical Algebra II (10) Advanced Algebra/ Trigonometry (11) caJculus (12) Aviation Airway Science Intro. AeronauticsA.ab (9) or General Aviation (9) or Machine Shop Technology (9) Programming Language (10) or Aircraft Systems Theory (10) or Powerplant Theory \u0026amp; Maintenance (10) Powerplant Theory ( 11) or Electrical Circuit Analysis ( 11) Fortran.Cobol (11) or Aviation SafetyA.egislation/Air Transportation (11) Private Pilot CertA.ab (12) ' Powerplant Systems (12) or Air Traffic Control\" (12) or Assembler Language \u0026amp; Operating Systems Internship I, II (11, 12) Aerodynamics \u0026amp; Performance (12)  Classes will be\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_562","title":"Program evaluations, Volume I","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2003-03-14"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluations, Volume I"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/562"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["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":["129 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\nBox 5 LRSD 1) Program Evaluations, March 14, 2003, Volumes I - IVCollection Number $ S O S' Box of Collection Name: OC^ (V\\ Q Coo PelsX ri X z a 2 VOLUME H  P3 \u0026gt; SC X X  RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING J 2 X \u0026gt;, 2 r e o e k/ o e z \u0026gt;6 O O oSOUTHWEST SF.m. PWXiKXM CHARTER SCHOOL EARl.Y LITERACYri ri LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education ri FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: J Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent ^bBonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: October 24, 2002 SUBJECT: Approval of the Charter School Program Evaluation Background Information Dr. Linda Watson and Ms. Krishna Young, former director of the LRSD Charter School, presented to the Board of Education in June 2001 the program evaluation for the Charter School. That report was presented as information, but the Section 2.7.1 Compliance Plan requires that the Board formally approve each of the program evaluations listed on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. The Charter School Program Evaluation was prepared by Dr. Larry McNeal, Professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Serving on the team with him were Dr. Linda Watson, Ms. Krishna Young, and Dr. Ed Williams, members of the LRSD staff. All of the Charter School teachers, grades 3-5, participated in administering the assessments: the Achievement Level Tests at grades 3-5, the SAT9 at grade 5, and the State Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark examinations at grade 4. and the Success for All quarterly assessments in reading. z The program evaluation included not only student achievement data, but also demographic data, student attendance rates, records of suspensions, student grades, and financial costs for the program. S 0p 99 Performance data for the program evaluation were not disaggregated by race. The student body, however, was 87 percent African American. Due primarily to budget constraints, the District eliminated funding for the Charter School in summer 2002 after two years of operation, so this program has now been abandoned. Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve the LRSD Charter School Program Evaluation for 2000-2001. BAL/adg Attachment 1 I  kI k1 ku LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2000 - 2001 ELEMENTARY CHARTER SCHOOL EVALUATION p 9 9 9 9 9 I 2 IJ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHARTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PI \u0026gt; -J \u0026gt; EVALUATION REPORT: 2000-2001 Prepared By Dr. Larry McNeal, Professor University of Arkansas at Little Rock Little Rock, Arkansas e 2 \u0026gt;2, t  ! 0 0 c p 9 9 3 Executive Summary The twentieth centurys influence on school choice is reflected in the introduction of charter schools, school vouchers, magnet schools, academy schools, alternative schools, and a host of other specialty schools that focus on specific and often time unique student groups. The recent interest in school choices can be traced to the Nation At Risk report, which was published by the National Commission on Excellence in Education in 1983. The findings about the poor quality of public education alarmed the American public. The report concluded that America was losing its competitive edge in the global marketplace because of its educational system. The result was the passage of educational reform laws and legislation that promoted standards for students, teachers, and administrators. The American educational system continues to search for programs and services that meet the developmental needs of its students. Charter schools are the latest spin-off to a discontented American public looking for vast improvements in educational practices that will better equip its children with marketable skills. Arkansas has also been influenced by this trend. Arkansas modified its existing charter school law in 1999 (Arkansas Charter School Act of 1999) and as a result the charter school movement in Arkansas took off. The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School opened its doors in the fall of 2000. The charter school offers a nontraditional innovative learning environment for students in the 3,4, and 5 grades. \u0026gt;  Pl \u0026gt; \u0026lt; Mission The missions of the Little Rock School District and the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School are mutually supportive and facilitative of student success. The intent of the missions of both are to provide students with programs and services that fit their educational and developmental needs, as well as prepare them with the knowledge and skills needed to compete in the marketplace. Z P O 9 9 P 9 9 Goal The goal of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is to provide opportunities for students educational and behavioral needs while guiding them to adjust 1 4 their behavior and habits in such a manner that they will become successful, lifelong learners and productive citizens. The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School accomplishes its goal through an alternative learning environment. Description of Need The description of need is an overview of the variables that influence student academic achievement and behavior at the elementary grade level. Collectively, these variables provide a richer understanding of what is happening at the elementary grade level to some students in the Little Rock School District and why it has become increasingly more difficult to educate all children in a regular classroom setting. Poverty and other factors present barriers for many children who reside in the city of ?5 \u0026gt; JC PI \u0026gt; \u0026lt; Little Rock from receiving the educational opportunities critical for their development. The inability to obtain preschool and other early-childhood education programs is evidenced in the Little Rock School Districts Early Childhood Program where an enrollment capacity of some 750 students leaves approximately 1,000 children on the programs waiting list each year. Once behind, children face a significant challenge of catching up in their school career and many of these children become potential school dropouts in later years. In the 1997-1998 school year, 921 students out of 10,628 students at the secondary level dropped out of school. This represents 8.7% of the Little Rock School District secondary student enrollment. Black students accounted for 69% of the dropout population, with black males representing 44% and black females representing 25.1% of the total. During the 1998-1999 school year the dropout rate increased to 9.7%. For many of these students, the barriers that they faced prior to elementary school were so overwhelming that it left them ill prepared for the challenges associated with schooling\ntherefore, less capable to take advantage of the educational opportunities at the secondary level. 9 2 2 \u0026gt; ii Iz* b 9 9 9 s 9 Student performance on standardized tests also served as an indicator of the extent of at-riskness for some students in the Little Rock School District. Scores on standardized tests showed percentile ranks across the District and the racial disparity in academics in all grades and subjects. Standardized test scores in reading for the 1997-1998 school year 2 5 I revealed that overall more than one-third of Little Rock School District students were in the lowest 25% nationally for reading skills, with elementary students at 38%, junior high students at 36% and high school students at 34%. Standardized test scores for the 1998- 1999 school year revealed that overall approximately two-thirds of the students (64% of the fifth grade students tested, 63% of the seventh grade students tested and 70% of the tenth grade students) tested were at or below the 50* percentile. The pattern of low performance on standardized tests can be contributed to several factors with the lack of availability of early childhood education programs and low social development being but two. Children who come to school ready and able to learn usually face fewer educational barriers than students who come to school not ready and able to learn. These students are less capable of performing at the levels necessary to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to take advantage of the opportunities of education. n \u0026gt; \u0026lt; Student success can also be influenced by the composition of the family unit. Family composition is related to income and poverty for youth, with two-parent families generally having greater income than families with only one parent. Students coming from families with higher incomes are usually better prepared at an earlier age for schooling. Nationally, in white families a single parent heads two out of every ten households, while single parents head five out of ten Afincan American households. In the city of Little Rock single parents head about six out of ten Afincan American householders. The majority of whom are single mothers. The relationship between income, poverty and academic success suggests that some students who are attending school in the Little Rock School District may need more support prior to the formal schooling experience and perhaps throughout their educational career in the public school system. Students who experience behavior problems often times are not benefiting as much from the academic aspects of schooling because usually they are removed from the educational setting. The number of students who were long-term suspended and/or expelled from the Little Rock School District increased during the 1992-93 to 1997-98 school years. The District revamped its alternative learning environments during the 1997-98 school year by enlarging the Alternative Learning Center and establishing an Accelerated Learning i ! X9 \u0026gt; z p 9 O o p 9 9 3 6 Center for secondary students. During the 1998-99 school year, the District experienced a decrease in the number of long-term suspensions and a significant decrease in the number of expulsions. At the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year, the District established four elementary alternative classrooms in four of its elementary schools. The fall 2000 opening of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School was a logical progression in the Districts goal to provide for the educational and social needs of all students, especially, those with behavioral problems. The continued development of alternative learning environments is representative of the Districts commitment to providing the proper match between programs and services and students. The needs of some students cannot be met within the regular classroom setting and so alternative learning enviroiunents that focus on academics and behavior modification can ensure that all students receive an education that will prepare them to be lifelong learners and productive members of society. \u0026gt;P5 2 5P!I \u0026gt; Governance Two years of exploration and planning took place prior to the establishment of the charter school by the Little Rock School District Charter School Planning Team. The comprehensive effort included teachers, parents, and community members. The charter school model developed by the team was based on twelve years of research and evaluations by parents and teachers of the Alternative Classroom Experience (ACE) program at Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp. The team reviewed data to determine where the greatest needs exist. After careful review, subcommittees made up of classroom teachers, specialists, parents, and administrators discussed the implementation of various programs and services. For instance, a subcommittee examined the Success For All program while the Mental Health/Parental Involvement Team subcommittee investigated possible programs and services to include parents, families, and the community. Reports from the subcommittees were made to the Planning Team. After careful consideration, the Planning Team delineated issues, concerns, and discussed subsequent proposals. The Planning Team was later changed into an advisory group (Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School Advisory Committee). 4 IZ* P 9 9 9 P 9 9 7 The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School Advisory Committee met periodically to monitor the progress of the school as well as provide assistance and feedback to the charter school principal and staff. Little Rock School District personnel facilitated the planning and advisory process and provided technical assistance and support. District personnel were instrumental in supporting the charter through inservices on proven educational practices, data evaluation, and a review of the Title I plan. They also offered parental involvement suggestions as well as conducted research activities. D Instructional Program The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is located at the Badgett Elementary School. The Little Rock School District Elementary Charter School was modeled on proven methods and strategies used in the Alternative Classroom Experience at Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp. Those strategies include effective early intervention/prevention for academic underachievement, effective early intervention/prevention for socio-behavioral and personal failure, and an aggressive approach to rebuilding community and parent identity and support for public education. In addition to these methods and strategies, other innovations include Success For All, an Extended Day/After School Program, Gifted and Talented Program, Exceptional Children Services Program, Accelerated Reading Program, Read Across America Program, Media Center Program, Awards Programs, Incentive Programs and programming using computer technology, mathematics and science modules, field trips, the residential component located at Pfeifer Camp, music, experiential education, and physical education. Students also wore school uniforms. PI \u0026gt; 2\u0026lt; Pl I z 5 5 \u0026gt;1 21 fl z p 9 O e p 9 9 The charter school has six classrooms staffed with teachers and program assistants to teach each student. A gifted and Ulented teacher, resource teacher, reading specialist, reading tutor, media specialist, music teacher, speech therapist, occupational and physical therapist, counselor, nurse, school examiner, director, secretary, cafeteria personnel, and custodians provide other services. 5 8 I Student Demographics The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School offers a nontraditional innovative learning environment for students in the 3*, 4*, and 5* grades. Students attending the school come from a host of elementary schools in the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District\nhowever, priority admission was given to students cunently enrolled in Baggett Elementary School. Other students were eligible for admission if they were academically functioning one or more grades levels below grade placement\nhad a pattern of recurring absenteeism\nhad poor social and interactive skills (displaying unacceptable patterns of behavior and failure to fit the social environment of the school)\nwere retained one or more grades: and, were from an unstable family structure. 2\u0026gt; P5 % \u0026gt; Once students were selected multiple assessment measures were used to assess them. The assessments included Success For All Baseline Assessment (which is reported in terms of grade level). District Achievement Level Test (RIT Score), State Benchmark Test (4 grade 2000 only) and Teacher Recommendations. The data generated from the assessments facilitated a better understanding of the needs of individual students. i 5X \u0026gt;1 2 Initially, 116 students made application to enrolled in the school\nhowever, 17 students did not attend for various reasons including relocation out of the District, logistics (parents wanting their children to all attend the same school or schools closer to home). program fit (some parents concluded that the program and services offered were not appropriate for their child), and a few students withdraw prior to the start of the 2000- 2001 school year. Ninety-nine students attended the school at some period during the school year of which eighty-seven students completed the school year at the school. z p 0 p 9 9 The demographic data shows that overall the characteristics of the students enrolled were similar to other schools within the District\nhowever, there were significant differences in some aspects. For instance, the school was different than most other elementary schools because of its concentration of students who were academically underachieving and 6 9 I I behaviorally and socially challenged. No other elementary school in the District had an exact similar student population. I I The demographics of this student population are highlighted in Tables 1, 2, and 3. The demographic data examined include racial makeup, grade level, attendance, absenteeism, and discipline. In addition, social economic statue and mobility are discussed. I I Table 1 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS Racial Make Up Black Female White Female Black Male White Male 3rd Grade 4 3 23 1 4th Grade 2 3 24 1 Sth Grade 10 1 23 4 Total 16 7 70 6 Percentage 16% 7% 71% 6% Total Student Count 31 30 38 99 100% \u0026gt; g Pl ? \u0026lt; 3 A review of the data shows that the majority of the students attending the school were black. The majority of the students were black males followed by black females. The number of white females and males attending was about the same. The overall gender and racial make up of the school does not reflect the gender and racial make up of the average elementary school in the Little Rock School District. The above data includes student suspension data. If the suspension data were subtracted from the data, the overall attendance rate would be 94.5%. 2 2 \u0026gt;, pj z p o p 9 9 In addition, an examination of student records shows that an overwhelming majonty of the students in attendance receive reduced or free lunch. Of the students attending the school, 91% receive reduced or free lunch. Again, this percentage is higher than the average elementary school in the District. The combination of gender, race, and reduced or free lunch provides a better understanding of the social-economic status of the student population at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. 7 10   L Part of the criteria for admission to the school was a pattern of recurring absenteeism. On average absenteeism is lower at the elementary school level than at any other grade level\nhowever, the absenteeism rate for students attending the charter school is higher than normal. The attendance history of the student body is presented in Table 2. Table 2 STUDENT ATTENDANCE BY QUARTER Grade Level 3rd Grade 4th Grade Sth Grade__ Qverall Average 1st Quarter 87% 84% 92% 88% 2nd Quarter 94% 83% 87% 88% 3rd 4th Quarter Quarter 84% 92% 89% 88% 83% 85% 82% 83% Average 87% 86% 88% 87% The overall average attendance rate for all grades was 87%, which means that the school had an absenteeism rate of 13%. The attendance percentage is lower than the District elementary school average of 95%. The attendance and absenteeism rates of students in attendance at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School are more similar to the attendance and absenteeism rates of other schools with similar students. In addition, the mobility rate of the school was 14%\nhowever, the adjusted mobility rate was 4%. Mobility can be understood as the relationship between the number of students who started out the school year attending a particular school and the number of students who were still in attendance at that same school at the end of the school year. The number of student transfers and suspensions impacted the mobility rate at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. When the impact of the transfers and suspensions are factored out, the mobility rate declines from 14% to 4%. A major criterion for admission to the school was a history of academic, social and behavior problems. Students attending the school usually had poor social and interactive skills along with imaccepUble patterns of behavior. As a result students who attended the 8 n \u0026gt;2 P3 ft \u0026lt; j: V. i XX \u0026gt;, ! Z p 9 e p9 0 11 school usually had experienced more instances of inappropriate behavior, which resulted in more suspensions than other students. Students with poor social and interactive schools came from all three of the school Districts. Table 3 reflects the disciplinary records of students. Table 3 STUDENT DISCIPLINE Total Number of Suspensions Total Enrollment________________________ Total Number of students with Suspensions Total Number of students with No Suspensions Percentage of student with Suspensions______ Percentage of students with NO suspensions 66 99 37 62 37% 63% P5 \u0026gt; 2 P5 r\n\u0026lt;  When considering the grade level of students being suspended the 3\"* and 4* grades had 13 student receiving suspensions, and the 5* grade had 11 students receiving suspensions. Several of the students had multi-suspensions. In addition, some of the students who were suspended no longer attend the school. The majority of students attending the charter school had no suspensions. Furthermore, it is anticipated that suspensions will decrease in the 2001-2002 school year with the _. cih current 5 grade class leaving and with the 3\"* and 4* grade students returning to an environment that advocates behavior and social management. Student Academic Achievement The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School complies with all mandated state and federal testing, and other assessments based on student needs, which the teacher deems most appropriate. Student performance is measured in part by the same critena as for the rest of the schools in the Little Rock School District. The performance indicators include the Primary Benchmark Exam at Grade 4, Achievement Level Tests at grades 3-5, Success For All. quarterly grades, WRAT (pre 9 12 V 5 \u0026gt;1 2 z p 9 9 9 9 9 Iand post), and SAT 9 at grade 5. These performance indicators are examined in the tables and charts contained in this section. The data presented in Table 4 represents the 1999-2000 school year student literacy achievement as measured by the Primary Benchmark Exam at Grade 4 for current 5* graders at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. Table 4 PRIMARY (GRADE 4) BENCHMARK EXAMINATION FOR LITERACY: SCHOOL YEAR 1999-2000 PREFORMANCE LEVEL _______ BELOW BASIC BASIC PROFICENT ADVANCED PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 86% 7% 7% 0% As illustrated in the table, only 7% of the then 4* grade students were proficient in literacy. The majority of students fall within the below basic range. This can be interpreted, as the overwhelming majority of 4* grade students who entered the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School in the fall of 2000 could not read at grade level. An examination of the results of the 2000-2001 benchmark scores, as presented in Table 5, further illustrates the challenging task of improving student reading achievement. Table 5  PRIMARY (GRADE 4) BENCHMARK EXAMINATION FOR LITERACY: SCHOOL YEAR 2000-2001 PREFORMANCE LEVEL PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS BELOW BASIC 83% BASIC 17% PROFICENT ADVANCED 0% 0% 10 13 Pl P\u0026gt;l 2 Z P 0 c p 9 9 STAFF Staff Title I Staff Residential Component TOTAL Materials \u0026amp; Equipment Computers Classroom equipment/ Furniture Printers Computer Tables Computer Software_______ Cabling________ Server(s) Hubs__________ Classroom supplies Office materials and supplies Repairs of equipment Textbooks Periodicals Audiovisual materials TOTALS CHARTER SCHOOL BUDGET 2000-2001 Proposed 725,000 96,000 821,000 53,100 35,000 7,000 8,500 1,500 20,000 10,000 1,000 2000-2001 Acutal 345,000 71,000 20,000 400 2,000 158,000 89,000 505,000 61,596 34,147 7,000 8,500 1,500 31,176 3,811 26,681 Source of Funds LRSD Title I Provided Provided 174,411 2001-2002 345,000 71,000 ADE Grant ADE 43,000 USDE 62,335 ADE 35,000 LRSD LRSD LRSD ADE 36,000 USDE 43,700 USDE USDE ADE LRSD LRSD LRSD 33,500 449,500 7,000 3,000 5,000 5,700 1,000 5,000 Provided Provided 26,700 Source of Funds LRSD Title I LRSD LRSD USDE LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD 1 14 B \u0026gt; \u0026lt; d PI JB \u0026gt; J i 3 ?) z I* p 9 9 9 P 9 9fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl nn HH fl fl Contractual 2000-2001 Proposed 5,000 2000-2001 Actual 10,000 Staff Development Training \u0026amp; Curriculum/ Improvement Success for All - Staff Development \u0026amp; Materials Travel Dues and Fees Telephone Postage Printing Utilities Maintenance Supplies \u0026amp; Equipment Construction \u0026amp; Repairs Transportation Other Support Services TOTAL GRAND TOTAL 50,000 49,135 40,000 10,000 1,200 500 500 500 30,000 3,500 100,000 (at least) 150,000 346,200 1325,700 9,751 1,000 38 144 Provided Provided 175,000 224,263 S09331 1,188,742 Source of Funds USDE 35,000 USDE 50,000 ADE 40,000 USDE 10,000 USDE LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD 2001-2001 Proposed 50,000 4,700 10,000 2,500 1,200 500 300 500 Provided 3,500 250,000 5,000 328,200 804,400 Source of Funds USDE USDE LRSD USDE LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD NOTE: The above budget included grant funds from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and United States Department of Education (USDE). 1 15 P5 \u0026gt; r 5 Pl XX \u0026gt;1 2 z * p Q9 0 P 9 0 5     The number of students scoring below basic decreased from 86% to 83%. The largest increase occurred in the number of students rated basic. The number increased from 7% to 17%. Overall, the student of students who were rated as proficient readers decreased from 7% to 0%. The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary Schools emphasis on reading has not yet impacted student reading achievement.   The data presented in Table 6 represents the 1999-2000 school year student mathematics achievement as measured by the Primary Benchmark Exam at Grade 4 for current 5*'' graders at the school. As previously mentioned he current 5* graders were not in attendance at the school during the 1999-2000 school year.  ?5 \u0026gt; P5 \u0026lt; Table 6  PRIMARY (GRAPE 4) BENCHMARK EXAMINATION FOR MATHEMATICS^ SCHOOL YEAR 1999-2000 PREFORMANCE LEVEL _____ BELOW BASIC BASIC PROFICENT PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 86% 7% 7% 0% i \u0026gt;1 Seven percent of the then 4* grade students were proficient in mathematics. The overwhelming majority of students fall within the below basic range which indicates that students were not proficient in mathematics at grade level prior to attending the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School in the fall of 2000. An examination of the results of the 2000-2001 benchmark scores, as presented in Table 7, further illustrates the challenging task of improving student mathematics achievement.  P 0 0 P 0 0 t 0 11 16  Table 7  PRIMARY (GRADE 4) BENCHMARK EXAMINATION FOR MATHEMATICS\nSCHOOL YEAR 2000-2001     PREFORMANCE LEVEL ______ BELOW BASIC BASIC PROFICENT ADVANCED PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 96% 0% 4% 0% The number of students scoring below basic increased from 86% to 96%, while the number of students rated basic and proficient decreased 7% to 0% and from 7% to 4% respectfully. Again, the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary Schools emphasis on mathematics has not yet impacted student reading achievement. \u0026gt; g W I   In addition to the benchmark examinations, the Little Rock School District Elementary Charter School has an array of iimovative programs and services to offer students that focus on their academic development. A variety of means exist to measure the effectiveness of those programs, for instance, the grade level reading and mathematics tests. These tests are given in the fall and spring of the year. The grade level achievement tests highlight student progress. They measure students progress over the school year. The reason for measuring the rate of student growth is because it serves as an indicator of how much progress students are making compared to themselves over a defined period of time. I \u0026gt;,  The data are presented in Charts 1 and 2. The data presented compare the growth rate of students in the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School to similar students in the Little Rock School District and nation. In Chart 1 the grade level reading achievement growth rate is presented. Z P o c p 9 9 0 12 17E 14 12 Chart 1 READING ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL TEST FALL 2000 TO SPRING 2001 LU s *r P s  z \u0026lt; 5 UJ S 10 I6.J' i5 1^5 J5.4\n Charter\n District j I National \u0026gt; ft \u0026lt; OJ' 3rd Grade 31- 4 Grade Sth Grade 8 6 4 1 ' ^5 I At the 3* and 4* grade levels, the growth rate exceeds those for students in the Little Rock School District and in the nation. The increases range from 4.2% at 3\"* grade to 2.5% at 4* grade. The growth rate in both cases is significant. At the 5* grade level, the growth rate is equal to those of students in the Little Rock School District and only slightly below the national growth rate for similar students. 2 * 21 In Chart II the grade level mathematics achievement growth rate is presented. The data contained in the chart also indicate that the growth rate for students in the Little Rock * P 9 O Q P o 9 School District Charter Elementary School is either higher or slightly below that of the Little Rock School District and the nation depending on the grade level. 9 13 18E 16 14 12 10 Chart 2 MATH ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL TEST FALL 2000 TO SPRING 2001 111.9 U15| \u0026gt;n 2 P |9 8.7 s O Z. \u0026lt; uS 2 a'  Charter  District  National 0-* JI 10 2 Si 3rd Grade 4th Grade Sth Grade ?! 8 6 4 2 w ( i 1 i + ! I 8 1^11 yi Similar statements can be made about student performance on the mathematics achievement level test. At the 3\"* and 4* grade level the growth rates exceed those for students in the Little Rock School District and in the nation. The increases range from .1% at 3\"* grade to 6.3% at 4* grade. The growth rate at 4* grade is significant. At the 5' grade level, the growth rate is 1% lower than the Little Rock School District and 2% lower the national growth rate for similar students. th p e o e p o 9 The Charter School also used the Success For All program. The program has been used in more than 1000 schools. Benefits are particularly strong for students who are at risk. This is especially the case for those students in the lowest 25th percentile of their class. 1 i 14 19 IM The data contained in Chart 3 show the progress of students at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School during the 2000-2001 school year. Charts SUCCESS FOR ALL READING BY GRADE LEVEL d ! fl u o \u0026lt; UJ u 100%/r 90% ** 80%'*' 70%-*' 60%** 50%-^ AS/? !56%r|  BASELINE ' PI \u0026gt; Pl 40% 30% 20% 10% 132% :24'}^n ir^39?i38% llnl iQ FIRST SECOND IBTHIRD io FINAL A 3 pi third grade FOURTH GRADE FIFTH GRADE The 3\"* grade reading scores have increased each quarter of the school year. The percentage of students reading at grade level in the 3\" grade went from 0% to 56% over the course of the school year. The 4*\" grade reading scores have remained fairly constant with 40% of the students reading at grade level at the beginning and end of the school year The 5* grade reading scores have also increased from 24% to 38% during the same time period. Student reading scores have increased as a result of the Success For All reading program and other such programming activities. Those other activities include a total of 1,776 hours of staff development in such areas as Success For All, active learning with technology, experiential education, Smart Step, and cooperative learning. Student grades are also indictors of achievement. Student report card grades are presented in Charts 4 and 5. In Chart 4 reading grades by grade level and quarter are presented 15 20 I IS \u0026gt; z r  o e p  d d d I _ I I I I X Chart 4 READING SCORES BY GRADE  A 60/ u g H CZ3 b O u o \u0026lt; u CU 50--^' 40 30^ 20 10 J21 14 1616 2( JS11 28 124 1 24' X-  1ST QUARTER READING  2ND QUARTER READING  3rd QUARTER READING '  4th QUARTER READING \u0026gt;n 2 P3 r\u0026lt;\nGRADE The number of students receiving an A and B grade increased at the same time that the number of students receiving a C grade decreased in the 4* quarter. The number of students receiving a D grade also increased. Overall, 2 more students received an A grade by the 4'*' quarter and 31 more students received a B grade by the 4* quarter. The number of students receiving a C grade decreased by 17, while the number receiving a D grade increased by 1 in the 4* quarter. Reading grades have continued to rise with significant improvement occurring in the number of students receiving a B grade along with the decrease in the number of students receiving a C grade. fl I\u0026gt; Si P V- r n e a e u o o 16 2X \u0026lt;3 I I I t 1 B 0 A B C D Math scores have also risen with a significant increase in the percentage of students receiving a B grade. Chart 5 MATHEMATICS SCORES BY GRADE LEVEL 60/   50-^ i43 UJ O  CZ5 o UJ o  UJ U 40-^ 30 i22!\n28 28 20-'\" 120B 10 1321 :23 H3B3 13  FIRST QUARTER MATH B SECOND QUARTER MATH J B THIRD QUARTER MATH i BFOURTH QUARTER MATH\nP5 \u0026gt; g Pl 5C \u0026gt; r: I\n37 I 1 I I 0 1 0  B A c GRADE s X X \u0026gt; F D The percentage of students receiving a B grade has increased over the course of the year, while the number of students receiving an A, C, D or F grade has decreased. Overall, the number of students receiving a B grade increased from 28 in the 1 quarter to 51 in the 4* quarter. The biggest decrease was in the number of students receiving a C grade. That number went from 43 to 23. There were also small decreases in the number of students receiving an A, D, or F grade. The numbers ranged from 2 to 3. The decrease in the number of students receiving an A, C, D, or F grade is offset by the increase in the number of students receiving a B grade. Z P o c p 9 9 \u0026lt; 17 22 Additional data about student performance at the Little Rock School District Charter School can be glanced from results of the Math WRAT assessment. Student performance on this examination is presented in Chart 6. The examination was administered both as a pretest and posttest to students in the 3\"*, 4*, and 5* grades in the fall and spring of the 2000-2001 school year. Chart 6  g \u0026lt;  ou u\u0026gt; \u0026lt; O s oo cU4J a 2 z 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 1 0 MATH WRAT ASSESSMENT 3RD GRADE 4TH GRADE STH GRADE  PRE i I a post\n9 i /i V 2 2 Student performance as measured by WRAT indicates an increase in the average number of correct responses at all three grade levels. In 3\"* grade the average number of correct responses increased by 2.5. In 4* grade the average number of correct responses increased by 1.3. In 5* grade the average number of correct responses increased by 2.6. B z * p e c p e 0 The final academic assessment examined is the Stanford 9 Basic Battery for the 5 grade from fall 2000. As shown in Table 7, the examination provides another view on student performance. The test was administered to 5* grade students shortly after the start of the 2000-2001 school year. B The performance of the 5* graders reflects their prior academic preparation rather than their preparation at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. The 18 23 a students had been attending the school for only several weeks before the test was administered. I 1 Chart 7 a STANFORD 9 NORM REFERENCE TEST NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK BASIC BATTERY STH GRADE FALL 2000 1 a a a a a CZ3 LU Q  H CZ2 LU O LU u u oi u Qb 100 90- 80 10 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ,88 12 OE 0%-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76%-99% QUARTILES The test results show that 88% of the student population performed in the 0 - 25% quartile, while the remaining 12% of the students performed in the 26% - 50% quartile range. Student performance for this group represents past academic preparation efforts. This groups performance should be compared with that of the fall 2001 S* graders who were 4 .* graders during 2000-2001 school year. This kind of comparison would ascertain the affect of the charter school program on 4* grade students during the 2000-2001 school year. Academically, the students at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School have made progress. The arrays of assessments highlight this improvement in 19 24 Pl 2 Pl ft 5/5 I % \u0026gt; 2 7- C C o o t Ia mathematics and reading. The schools success is a measure of the effectiveness of the programs and services provided in the innovative alternative learning environment. Financial The program and services provided during the 2000-2001 school year by the Little Rock School District Elementary Charter School cost $1,182,842 (see attached budget).  fl Even in an otherwise well-conceived and fairly funded charter school the need to purchase textbooks, instructional materials and supplies, computers and equipment as well as provide for the staff development training needs of staff can make it appear to be an expensive venture. Given the singular nature of several of the expenditures, the overall cost of operating the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School should decrease during the remaining years of the charter school contract (see attached budget). W \u0026gt; 2 P5 \u0026gt; ft \u0026lt; fl fl Also, in comparing the start up cost of the charter school to similar schools a more reasonable comparison would be with other elementary schools in the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, or Pulaski County Special School District that have opened within the past three years. Just like in these schools the initial cost is high but tends to decrease over a period of time. Another comparison could be made between other schools in the Little Rock School District that are serving students with special needs such as the magnet or incentive schools. 1 ?! y z ?! 2 2 \u0026gt; 2 Conclusion Virtually all charter schools have had to overcome obstacles during development and implemenUtion. The barriers range from lack of start-up funds, lack of planning time, inadequate operating funds, inadequate facilities, state or local board opposition, internal conflicts, hiring staff, acquiring enough students, determining the right mix of programs and services, accountability requirements, and community opposition. While not all of the barriers apply to the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School, some did. They include barriers associated with sharing a building, acquiring enough students, and meeting accountability standards. In addition, to the biggest challenge of them all pi z p 9 0 P 9 9 / 20 25a which was meeting the needs of all of the students who were academically, socially, and behaviorally challenged through the right mix of programs and services. The ability of an organization to respond to these bamers can be somewhat quantified by examining student demographic data, student academic data, staff commitment to program goals, and stakeholders satisfaction. The demographic data indicates a student a a population that is highly challenged academically, socially, and behaviorally. The impact of this challenge is felt in the areas of student attendance, mobility, and discipline. The school can positively impact attendance and discipline, however, its ability to impact mobility is questionable. a a The academic data also illustrates a population that produces mixed results. Pre and post student achievement scores range from above average to below average. The school has the capacity to positively impact student achievement with its array of programs and services. The issue of matching students with the right program may still need to be refined. a P5 \u0026gt; P5 ft \u0026lt; I ifi Another way of quantifying the organizations ability to respond is by examining the diligent and commitment of staff to the goals of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. The closer the alignment of diligent and commitment to goals the better the chance that the needs of all students will be met. The numerous hours devoted to staff development and volunteerism is an indicator of the staffs diligent and commitment to students. JO 2 \u0026gt; a Still another way to quantify the affect of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is through the impact that it has on stakeholders. Those stakeholders are the parents, children, teachers, and staff of the school. Stakeholder satisfaction is crucial to the overall success of the program. The overall impact of the charter school to stakeholders can best be summarized by the responses attained from a survey given earlier in the school year to parents, students, and staff and from the comments of parents at the end of the school year. Stakeholders developed consensus on the importance of curriculum, instruction, sUff development, and parental involvement. These items were a z r c c e p 9 0 21 26a key elements in the program and related directly to successful student outcomes. The stakeholders felt these items would provide the foundation for long-term success.  a In closing, the overall impact of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is apparent not so much in the data presented but in the comment of one parent who perhaps speaks for all stakeholders. She comments, The benefits that my child received from being in the program can not be understated. He is better as a result of being at the charter school. a a \u0026gt; 2 r 5 P5 \u0026gt; \u0026lt; a a Vi 3 4 fl fl n 2 ?! 2 z r c p 9 9 a a 22 27EARLY LITERACY 1 Lisa 7 i J J '3 fl LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206  fl TO: Board of Education fl FROM: PREPARED BY: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ^^onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Pat Price, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy DATE: October 24, 2002 SUBJECT: Early Literacy Program Evaluations fl fl Background The Board of Education approved in its 1999-2000 program evaluation agenda the Early Literacy program, which began implementation in fall 1999. During July and August 2000 the Assistant Superintendent of PRE presented to the Board drafts of this evaluation, which the Board tabled in August 2000 pending completion. That early draft was never completed and was not again submitted to the Board of Education for review and approval. ys 23 I j: ri 2  During summer 2001 Dr. Bonnie Lesley, on behalf of the Early Literacy Program Evaluation team (Pat Price, Pat Busbea, Ann Freeman, Ed Williams, Ken Savage, Anita Gilliam, and Sharon Kiilsgaard) presented a completed 204-page program evaluation: Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District (1999-2000 and 2000-2001). This report was presented for information, but our Section 2.7.1 Compliance Plan now requires that all program evaluations be presented for Board acceptance and approval. z* p c p 9O Dr. Steve Ross of the University of Memphis had served as an external consultant to the team. He read both a near-complete draft and made several suggestions for its improvement, which were incorporated into the final draft. He also read the final draft and responded. 1, All grades K-2 teachers administered the assessments, both fall and spring, in all three years, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002. All elementary principals supervised both the fall and spring administrations of the Developmental Reading Assessment and the Observation Surveys and the Achievement Level Tests at grade 2. Central office Elementary Literacy staff conducted the training for the assessments, collected the answer documents, and participated in the analysis of data: Patricia Price, Pat Busbea, Judy Milam, Judy Teeter, Kris Huffman, and Ann Freeman. Both Dr. Ed Williams and 28 f D Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Two II II Ken Savage assisted in the production and analysis of score reports. Anita Gilliam and Sharon Kiilsgaard assisted in checking the data tables for accuracy and in preparing the final reports. Copies of this program evaluation were provided to Mr. John Walker, to Ms. Ann Marshall at ODM, and to all elementary principals and elementary literacy staff. Executive summaries, including the program evaluation recommendations, were sent to all K-2 teachers with a cover memorandum congratulating them on their successes. The program evaluation was comprehensive, including the following:  an introduction\n a chapter on the literacy program design and its relationship to the Districts Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\n a description of all of the K-2 assessments used to measure student progress\n a chapter aligning the program with national research studies on effective early literacy programs\n numerous tables displaying the data in several different ways, disaggregated by grade level and race\n an analysis of the results (based on student performance data)\n an analysis of additional data relating to achievement gap among schools and the impact of professional development on student achievement:  a chapter on findingsanswers to the six research questions originally posed\n a bibliography: and  tables of school-level data on each assessment for the two-year period. An important chapter of the program evaluation relating to Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was the one on findings. Research Question 2 was as follows: Is the new program effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? The discussion filled pages 81-96. The following paragraph includes the criteria that were used to determine effectiveness.\" To determine the effectiveness of the new program in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students, the District used the performance results of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment. The basic criterion established in determining program effectiveness for black students was that black student achievement would have to improve and then that growth over the two-year period of the programs implementation would need to be equal to, but preferably greater than, the growth of non-black students, (p. 81) II II n n H B n n n n H n 29I - 7 1 i Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Three I The report included a detailed analysis of all available data: I I I - I The following findings based on Observation Survey, Developmental Reading Assessment, and Achievement Level Test results make it possible to conclude that the new early literacy program has so far been effective in improving and remediating the reading achievement of African American students, as well as all students. It is unusual in any District to find gains by both blacks and non-blacks over a two-year period on eight different measurements, as this study finds. Again, however, experts on program implementation advise that it takes approximately five years to determine program effectiveness, so this year 2 study at best establishes baseline and early trend data for comparisons in future years, (pp. 82-83) In this sections conclusions, the program evaluation included not only a summary of findings as they relate to the achievement gap, but also how they compare to the findings in recent national research on reading achievement among African American and white students: The results of two years of changes in the LRSD policies, programs, and procedures in grades PreK-2 indicate that both black and non-black children in the Little Rock School District are learning to read independently by grade 3 (see Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan). The findings and analyses in this report indicate trends in the opposite direction of the national research findings cited above and of scores of other similar studies. Instead of black students growing at slower rates than non-blacks, in most of the measurements the LRSD results indicate higher rates of growth of black students than non-blacks. Instead of the gap widening between grades 1 and 2 as it does in national studies, it narrows significantly in the LRSD by every one of the eight measures (fve sub-tests of the Observation Survey, the Developmental Reading Assessment, and two sub-tests of the Achievement Level Test), (p. 94) 3 fl fl i \u0026gt; {fl z p 9 e p 0 0  Pages 107-113 included recommendations for improvement in instruction, parent involvement, interventions, and professional development. Five schools were identified for improvement since they were the lowest performing schools in at least two of the three grades tested. Recommendations for the next program evaluation were also included. These recommendations were all considered by the program staff and by school-level staff and many were immediately implemented, as well as others identified in formative evaluations during year 3. The major recommendations made to principals for program improvement included (1) ensuring that all teachers are fully trained and are implementing the District program\nand (2) adding Reading Recovery and literacy coaches wherever possible, since both of these actions in some schools had resulted in higher achievement. / I 30B Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Four B B At the end of 2001-02 the staff decided that another comprehensive study was not necessary so early in the programs implementation (year 3). They, therefore, presented to the Board of Education in June 2002 an update that included all the 2001- 02 scores on the Observation Surveys and Developmental Reading Assessment, along with a summary of analysis of performance, especially comparisons of African American student achievement with other students. Those findings not only confirmed the findings of the 1999-2001 study, but the results were even stronger in year 3. At the end of year 3. African American students scores were at least 90 percent of other student scores on all five measures of the Observation Survey by the end of grade 2. In other words, the achievement gap was either closed on these measurements or almost closed, given the standard of 90 percent as an acceptable ratio. On the Developmental Reading Assessment, the most difficult of the measurements, the black to non-black ratio grew from 35 percent at the beginning of kindergarten in fall 1999 to 82 percent at the end of grade 2 in 2002. Deeper analysis also revealed that although many African American children from poverty were not learning to read in grade 1, they did successfully learn to read in grade 2, so they will most likely reach the goal of independent reading by grade 3, even though they began far behind their peers. Interestingly, the growth of other students generally exceeded African American student growth on the DRA in grade 1, but African American growth exceeded other student growth in grade 2. Copies of the program evaluation and the update are attached for Board members review. Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve, as submitted, the following: Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District. 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Update on the Implementation of the PreK-2 Literacy Program, Little Rock School District, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02 BAUadg Attachments B B B B B B B B n nnn H 31 i: k:t It-  Ir b-' b- Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Presented to the Board of Education Little Rock School District October 2001 I fl 9 2 \u0026gt;2 Ir b^ pj z r p G G G y G G I Prepared by Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley Dr. Ed Williams Patricia Price Pat Busbea Ann Freeman Ken Savage Anita Gilliam Sharon Kiilsgaard 1 I 32 p I i p Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 s Section I: Introduction I I 1 d i 1 Introduction During March 2000 the Little Rock School District provided to the Board of Education, the federal court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and administrators an Interim Compliance Report, which included a status report on the implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program (pp. 93-105) relating to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP). In August 2000 the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) office provided to the Board and staff a draft copy of a program evaluation for the first year of implementation of the K-2 Literacy Program. At least two subsequent drafts were developed as more data became available, but these were not presented to the Board of Educationjust discussed among staff members.  An implementation update was provided to the Board in January 2001 by the curriculum staff, on the status of program implementation and including an analysis of available data, along with an outline of next steps. Then in March 2001 the staff provided a summary evaluation in the Compliance Report (pp. 72-93) relating to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan that was filed with the federal court and provided to members of the Board of Education. 3 d 5 5 fl fl I \u0026gt; The Board of Education approved on second reading in March 2001 a new policy on program evaluation. Policy IL: Evaluation oflnstructional Programs requires that the staff evaluate the instructional programs designated by the Board of Education in their annual approval of the program evaluation agenda. Each evaluation is to provide valuable insights into how programs arc operating, the extent to which they are serving the intended purpose of increasing student achievement, the strengths and weaknesses, the cost-effectiveness, and directions for the future. In August 1999, 2000, and 2001, the Board of Education included the PreK-2 literacy program on its approved research agenda for the following year. P c p 9 0 An interim program evaluation was provided to the Board of Education in June 2001, the first analysis of the scores on the Developmental Reading Assessment in grades K-2 for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. At that time the scores were reported as the percent of students at each grade level, by race, who met the standard for readiness, the level that would predict success at the next grade level (level 2 at kindergarten\nlevel 16 at grade 1\nand level 24 at grade 2). Copies of that report, plus the summary and the slides were immediately sent via e-mail to principals to use in their own analysis and to provide to J 1 33 I' I' (' I. I' 1 E. Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, Highlights of Grades K-2 Results: Developmental Reading Assessment, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, and a copy of the slides for the June 2001 presentation to the Board of Education n I I B B B B B n n n 34 I ' Table of Contents Section I: Introduction Introduction Research Questions Methodology Outline of Program Evaluation Sections Outline of Appendices 1-6 1-2 3 3-5 5-6 6 I Section II: Background on Program Design Background on Program Requirements: Design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Background on Program Requirements: LRSD Strategic Plan Background on Program Requirements: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan 7-13 7-8 8 8-13  Section III: The Assessments The Assessments: Observation Survey The Assessments: Developmental Reading Assessment Defimtion of Readiness vs. Proficiency Reliability and Validity: National Study Reliability and Validity: LRSD Study Developmental Appropriateness of Testing Instruments The Assessments: Achievement Level Tests in Reading and Language Usage 14-25 14-15 15-21 16-19 19-20 20-21 21-23 23-25 V: I JC I Section IV: Alignment with National Research on Early Literacy 26-29 Section V: Description of Tables Table 1: Kindergarten, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 2: Kindergarten, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 3: Grade 1,1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 4: Grade 1,2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 5: Grade 2,1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 30-42 31 31 32 33 33 35 [fl r G C\u0026gt; c p 9 9 I I I Table 6\nGrade 2,2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 7\nCohort 1, Kindergarten Fall 1999 and Grade 1 Spring 2001 Table 8\nCohort 2, Grade 1 Fall 1999 and Grade 2 Spring 2001 Table 9: Grades K-2,1999-2000, Fall to Spring Performance, All Students Table 10: Grades K-2,2000-01, Fall to Spring Performance, All Students Table 11: Percent of Maximum Scores, Kindergarten Black Students Table 12: Percent of Maximum Scores, Kindergarten Non-Black Students Table 13: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 All Students Table 14: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 Black Students Table 15: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 Non-Black Students Table 16: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 All Students Table 17: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 Black Students Table 18: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 Non-Black Students Table 19: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 All Students Table 20: Cohort 1All Students, Kindergarten Fall 1999 and Grade 1 Spring 2001 Table 21: Cohort 2All Students, Grade 1 Fall 1999 and Grade 2 Spring 2001 Table 22: Percent Readiness, DRA, Black and Non-Black Students Table 23: Percent Readiness, DRA, All Students Table 24: Grade 2 Reading, ALT, Black and Non-Black Comparisons Table 25: Grade 2 Reading, ALT, All Students Table 26: Grade 2 Language Usage, ALT, Black and Non-Black Comparisons Table 27: Grade 2 Language Usage, ALT, All Students 34 35 35 36 37 37 38 38 38 38 39 39 39 39 40 40 41 41 41 42 42 42 36 i- I i 3 Section VI: Analysis of Results, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Letter Identification Word Test Concepts about Print Writing Vocabulary Hearing and Recording Sounds Developmental Reading Assessment 43-67 43-46 47-51 52-54 55-59 60-63 64-67 f Section VII: Additional Data Achievement Gap Among Schools Impact of Professional Development 68-71 68-70 70-71 I I Section VIII: Program Evaluation Findings and Recommendations for Improvement Research Question 1^Program Effectiveness Research Question 2Achievement Disparities Research Question 3Professional Development Research Question 4Four Literacy Models Research Question 5^Program Strengths and Weaknesses Research Question 6Cost Effectiveness Recommendations for Improvement Instruction Parent Involvement Interventions Professional Development Schools Identified for Improvement Year 3 Program Evaluation 72-113 72-80 81-96 96-100 100-103 103-105 105-106 106- 107-109 109-110 110-112 112 112 112-113 ( pl V! pl 9 IB2 \u0026gt; Section IX: Bibliography 114-116 Section X: School-Level Data Letter Identification, Kindergarten Word Test, Kindergarten Concepts about Print, Kindergarten Writing Vocabulary, Kindergarten 117-205 119-122 123-126 127-130 131-134 135-138 pj z r p 0 c Hearing and Recording Sounds, Kindergarten Developmental Reading Assessment, Kindergarten 139-142 Letter Identification, Grade 1 Word Test, Grade 1 Concepts about Print, Grade 1 Writing Vocabulary, Grade 1 Hearing and Recording Sounds, Grade 1 143-146 147-150 151-154 155-158 159-162 I 37 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grade 1 163-166 Word Test, Grade 2 Writing Vocabulary, Grade 2 Hearing and Recording Sounds, Grade 2 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grade 2 167-170 171-174 175-178 179-182 Cohort 1^Letter Identification, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1Word Test, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1Concepts about Print, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1Writing Vocabulary, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1Hearing and Recording Sounds, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1^Developmental Reading Assessment, Black and Non-Black 183 184 185 186 187 188 Cohort 2Word Test, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2Writing Vocabulary, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2^Hearing and Recording Sounds, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2^Developmental Reading Assessment, Black and Non-Black 189 190 191 192 Percent Readiness, Developmental Reading Assessment, K-2 Percent Readiness, DRA, Rank Order, K-2 Percent Readiness, DRA, Black and Non-Black 193-195 196-198 199-201 ! Grade 2 ALT, ReadingAll Students Grade 2 ALT, Reading, Black and Non-Black Grade 2, ALT, Language Usage, All Students Grade 2, ALT, Language Usage, Black and Non-Black 202 203 204 205 Appendices A. B. C. D. PrcK-3 Literacy Program Plan Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plans March 2000 Interim Compliance Report Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plans March 2001 Compliance Report Presentation to the Board of Education, January 2000 (update on program implementation and early results) 38 I teachers and parents. (See Appendix E.) Elementary principals used these materials in their August 2001 preschool inservice sessions. I I This Year 2 Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District builds on the information provided in all earlier reports. It is intended to meet the requirements specified in Policy IL for the 2000-01 school year, as well as to fulfill the requirements in Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan. The grade levels evaluated include only grades kindergarten through grade 2. Another report will include grades 3 through 5. I I The curriculum staff received from PRE on July 19,2001, the report on the mean scores for K-2 students on both the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment for 2000-01. Achievement Level Test data were available earlier, but they had not yet been disaggregated by race. This program evaluation, therefore, differs from, but builds upon, the evaluation report that was presented to the Board of Education in June. It includes a much more detailed analysis of data\nit includes the results of the five sub-tests of the Observation Survey\nand it includes the average performance scores for each school on each sub-test^not just the percent of students meeting the standard. It also includes the results of the grade 2 Achievement Level Tests in reading and language usage. The new data permit the staff to calculate and analyze the scores in a different way (mean performance vs. percent readiness), and they permit the calculation of a black to non-black student ratio so that the degree to which the achievement gap in narrowed can be measured, as well as how the gap has changed over the two years of program implementation. One caution in comparing the 1999-2000 and 2000-01 pre-test scores on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment is that some schools did not complete their fall testing by the deadline in 1999 and so their pre-test scores were higher than they would have been had the testing been done in a timely manner. There were instances when there were several weeks difference in the test date, so this variance would affect the pre-test scores. The kindergarten pre-test scores in fall 2000, for instance, were generally lower than those for fall 1999, for both black and non-black students. These differences do not necessarily indicate that this past years kindergarten class was that much weaker than the one the year beforeespecially when this past years end-of-year scores were higher than the previous classs end-of-year scores. The third and fourth tests administered are the Achievement Level Tests in reading and language usage that are given in spring of grade 2. Those scores, combined with the results of the Observation Survey and the DevelopmenUl Reading Assessment, enable the District to assess the effectiveness of the early literacy program in LRSD, including its impact on the improvement of the academic achievement of Afiican American children. 2 39 3 1 fl dX V. fl *I pzl pr c 0 ep 0 8 r* 1 Research Questions Using the obligations set forth in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP), the Boards Strategic Plan, and the Boards Policy IL, the following research questions were estabhshed to guide this study: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Are the new curriculum standards/benchmarks, instructional strategies, and materials effective in teaching primary grade students how to read independently and understand words on a page? (See Section 5.2.1a of RDEP and Strategy 2 of the Strategic Plan.) Is the new program effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? (See Section 2.7 of RDEP.) Is there a relationship between teacher participation in professional development and student achievement? (See Policy IL expectation to examine cost effectiveness and Strategy 7 of the Strategic Plan.) Is there evidence of success in each of the four Uteracy models in useEarly Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) only\nELLA and Reading Recovery\nSuccess for All\nand Direct Instruction? (See Section 2.7 of RDEP.) What are the programs strengths and weaknesses? (See Policy IL.) Is the program cost effective? (See Policy IL and Strategy 3 of the Strategic Plan.) Methodology An interdisciplinary team was assembled to prepare the program evaluation for the PreK- 2 literacy program for Year 2. Several staff members provided assistance and support in the construction of 27 separate tables of district-level data to display not only the mean scores for each sub-test, by race and for all students, on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, but also to display the percent who scored at or above the readiness level on the Developmental Reading Assessment and the median RIT score on the sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests. Calculations were verified three times by separate staff members to ensure the highest possible degree of accuracy. Among the calculations that were made to assist in the analysis of data were numbers of points of growth from fall to spring for each of the two years, spring to spring, and fall of one grade to spring of the following grade (for a two-year growth). Black to non-black ratios were calculated to determine the degree to which black students were attaining essential knowledge and skill at the same level as non-black students. Growth ratios were also determined^the degree to which growth in a given year by black students was at the same level or higher than that of non-black students. The percent of growth for one year of instruction and then two years of instruction in the program was calculated for each level and each sub-test, although these calculations were not used in the section on findings or in the recommendations made for improvement. And, finally, the mean 3 40i I  score on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment was divided by the maximum possible score to determine the average percent for each score. An additional table was constructed to display the achievement gap between/among schools for each sub-test at each grade level. i The Districts statistician conducted three statistical studies that informed the study: one of the average number of days of teacher participation in professional development on the implementation of ELLA, by program model, and another of descriptive statistics between teacher participation in professional development on ELLA implementation and student achievement. A third study was conducted to determine the validity of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment in relationship to the Achievement Level Tests. fI 5 Finally, 87 tables of school-level data were constructed to add to the study and to provide the critical information for school-level staff members to conduct their own analyses at the school level.   Throughout the writing of this report individual staff members, both program staff and assessment specialists, were interviewed and queried in order to clarify issues of program implementation, testing administration, instructional procedures, and data interpretation. Their assistance was invaluable. The research studies which guided the initial design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan were again reviewedespecially the research on the identification of prerequisite knowledge and skills that children must acquire on their pathway to learning to read. These findings were once again mapped with the implementation plan for LRSD, as well as the assessment instruments to ensure ongoing alignment. Serendipitously, the National Center for Education Statistics published a report in July 2001 entitled Educational Achievement and Black-White Ineoualitv. which proved to be very helpful in interpreting Little Rock results in a national context, and which is cited in this program evaluation, along with other external studies. Multiple strategies to analyze the data were employed so as to establish as thoroughly and comprehensively as possible a basis for determining the programs quality. The detailed analysis is found in Section VI. No attempt was made in this study to analyze the results for limited-English proficient children since that program is evaluated separately. It is important to note, however, that the scores of limited-English proficient students are included in each schools results. The District requires them to take the tests so their progress in learning English, as well as in learning to read, may be monitored. And, finally, credible research studies were consulted, as were informed staff, in the determination of recommendations for improvement or determining next steps in becoming even more effective. 4 41 J I fl 4 CZ! fl 2 s 2 ?5 Z e P 0 0 \u0026lt; Before the program evaluation was published, it was reviewed by many individuals, including Dr. Steve Ross of the University of Memphis, and groups, including the Early Literacy program staff, PRE staff representatives, and School Services staff. The District is grateful to all who offered feedback and suggestions for the improvement of this report. To the best of the writers ability, the suggestions for improvement were incorporated into the draft. Others were added to recommendations for the Year 3 study. Outline of Program Evaluation Sections This report is organized into ten sections: 1. Section I includes the Introduction, as well as a delineation of the Research Questions for the study and a description of the methodologies employed. 2. Section n provides background information on the program design and its relationship to the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation Plan. 3. Section HI describes the selection of appropriate assessments for grades K-2 and the processes by which readiness standards were established for each grade level for the Developmental Reading Assessment. It also includes information on national and local validation studies of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, as compared to the Achievement Level Test. 4. The literacy plans design in relationship to the findings in national research studies on early literacy is described in Section IV. This section also includes an alignment of the research with the assessments selected by the District. 5. Three major sections on data analysis follow. Section V is a description of each of the tables that was constructed from the data reports to assist the writers of this report and its readers in analyzing the results on the eight measurements: the five sub-tests on the Observation Survey (OS)\nthe Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA)\nand the reading and language usage sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs). 6. Section VI is a detailed analysis of the data in each table and a comparison of 1999-2000 and 2000-01 data, by race. 7. Additional data are provided in Section VII on the achievement gap among schools and on some statistical studies that were conducted relating to program effectiveness and the relationship between teacher participation in professional development and the achievement of their students. 8. Following the data analysis is Section VIH that summarizes the program strengths and weaknesses and specifies the implications for instruction, with specific recommendations for improvements in 2001-2002. 5 414 1 9. Section IX is the Bibliography for the study. 10. Section X includes 87 tables of school-level data. Those interested in individual school performance or comparisons are encouraged to use the model in this report for data analysis at the District level to conduct similar analyses at the school level. Behind Section X are appendices A-E for more background and further reference: A. PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan e B. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plans March 2000 Interim Compliance Report I C. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plans March 2001 Compliance Report D. Presentation to the Board of Education, January 2000 (update on program implementation and early results) E. Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, Highlights of Grades K-2 Results: Developmental Reading Assessment, 1999-2000 and 2000-01, and a copy of the slides for June 2001 presentation to the Board of Education 6 z 0 5 ?! *5 43 4 I \u0026gt; J r C e p o e 4II. Background on Program Design Background on Program Requirements: Design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program During early fall 1998 a committee was formed in the Division of Instruction of the Little Rock School District to design a new elementary literacy program, with an emphasis on the primary grades of PreK-3. The processes and ultimate design of that plan are described in the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan in Appendix A. All elementary schools in the Little Rock School District are expected to teach the same curriculum standards and grade-level benchmarks, regardless of the instructional strategies and/or materials that are selected according to the various implementation models. Twenty-seven of the Districts 35 schools are implementing the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) instructional strategies that are the content of the professional development program for PreK-2 teachers. This model was developed through a collaborative effort that included the Reading Recovery Training Center at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, the Arkansas Reading Recovery teacher leaders, and the Arkansas Department of Education. Nine schools are implementing the Reading Recovery program, a first-grade intervention, developed by Marie Clay. Seven schools are implementing the Success for All model that was developed at Johns Hopkins University. Little Rock schools receive their training for this program from the University of Memphis. Both ELLA and Success for All training are designed fixjm the same research base on early literacy\nthey differ in implementation strategies and materials. One school is implementing Direct Instruction through an approved waiver from the District program. Both the Success for All schools and the Direct Instruction school are supplementing their programs, in some cases, with ELLA strategies for greater effectiveness. According to Busbea (2000), In ELLA the importance of helping students feel like readers and writers on the first day of school is stressed. In order to achieve such a goal, teachers must provide students with the needed materials and opportunities for literacy activities. A balanced literacy approach is used to give students these opportunities. The children are engaged in whole text, but they are given formal instruction based on their strengths and needs (30-31). The literacy components taught in the ELLA professional development program, again according to Busbea, are as follows:  Read aloud.  Shared reading.  Guided reading.  Familiar reading.  Modeled writing or shared writing.  Interactive writing. I 7 441 Writing aloud. Revising and editing. Independent writing and conferencing. Phonetic skills. Classroom management. r Each school is required to dedicate a two and one-half hour block of uninterrupted time daily for literacy instruction. :9 3 ' Background on Program Requirements: LRSD Strategic Plan The District adopted its Strategic Plan in 1996, and it was updated in fall 1998. Three of the eleven strategies were important in the development of the PreK-2 Literacy Program Plan:  Strategy 2: In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. Strategy 3: We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the Sd'' percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving District standards in the core curriculum. I z 0 .*) z3 Strategy 7: We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan. Background on Program Requirements: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan The charge to the design committee of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan included three major sections of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan that was approved by the federal court in February 1998: Section 2.7, Section 2.7.1, and Section 5.2.1. The first of these sections (2.7) establishes the obligation to improve the achievement of students, especially those who are African American. I\u0026gt; 2 Section 2.7: LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African- American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. zr ec 0P 9 0 On January 21,1998, Mr. John Walker, on behalf of the Joshua Intervenors, signed an agreement with the Little Rock School District that was filed with the federal court, which included the following statement: \u0026lt; With regard to the achievement disparity, the January 16 Revised Plan recognizes that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement is by improving African-American achievement (2). 9 8 45 To that end and to address the obligation in Section 2.7, the staff made a conscious decision to emphasize designed to improve... the academic achievement of African- American students, rather than to remediate that achievement, given the failure of most remediation efforts not only in Little Rock, but across the country. This is not to say that the District abandoned its remediation efforts. It did not. Re-teaching, tutoring, Title I programs, computer-assisted instruction, inter-sessions in the Extended Year schools, after-school programs, summer school, and Reading Recovery (first-grade intervention in some schools) continued as much as ever, but as supplemental to the efforts going on in every classroom to prevent as much failure as possible, rather than try to correct failure after it had occurred. These remediation efforts are documented in the schools School Improvement Plans and their Title I Plans. And, of course, the Success for All program implemented in seven LRSD elementary schools and Direct Instruction at Washington Magnet can be described as both preventative and remedial in nature. This decision to emphasize prevention of failure vs. remediation is supported in the published work of the National Research Council, Preventing Reading Difficulties Among Young Children (1998)\nthe research in scores of studies sponsored by the International Reading Association\nand from Marie Clay, who developed the Reading Recovery program. The National Research Council concluded in their massive study the following: The majority of reading problems faced by todays adolescents and adults are the results of problems that might have been avoided or resolved in their early childhood years. It is imperative that steps be taken to ensure that children overcome these obstacles during the primary grades (5). Marie Clay writes the following\nTeachers and parents of 11- to 16-year olds often believe that schools have done nothing for the reading difficulties of the young people they are concerned about. Yet the older child has probably been the focus of a whole sequence of well-intentioned efforts to help, each of which has done little for the child. This does not mean that children do not sometimes succeed with a brilliant teacher, a fantastic teacher-child relationship, a hard-working parent-child team. What it does mean is that the efforts often fail (15). Dorothy Strickland makes a similar finding: Historically, educators focused their attention on remediation, allowing children to fail before help was given. The importance of intervening early and effectively is well established among educators and social service providers (325). I t She explains that  the cycle of failure often starts early in a childs school career and that there is a near 90% chance that a child who is a poor reader at the end of grade 1 will remain a poor reader at the end of grade 4. Therefore, as the child continues to experience failure and defeat, he/she becomes likely to drop out of school (326). Also, 9 - 46 I' r she states that supplementary remedial programs such as Title I and replacement programs that substitute for regular, in-class instruction have had mixed results over the years (326). She concludes: sr* Those who have turned their attention to early intervention state that it is ultimately less costly than years of remediation, less costly than retention, and less costly to students self-esteem. This final point may be the most compelling of all because the savings in human suffering and humiliation is incalculable. Teachers in remedial programs often observe that students who feel they are failures firequently give up and stop trying to learn despite adequate instructional opportunities (326). Linda Dom (1998), Reading Recovery Teacher Leader Trainer and developer of the Arkansas Early Literacy and Literacy Coach model, and her colleagues French and Jones explain this shift in understanding about teaching as follows: i I7 Recently, Linda asked a group of teachers in a college course how they taught reading to their lowest achieving children. From their responses, it was clear that their theory was a deficit one guided by their concern about how much the children did not know. Traditionally, we have tested children to identify their weak areas and then designed instruction based on what they do not know. This theory of learning is in direct opposition to what research tells us about how the brain acquires information and then organizes related information into larger networks. 0 I ... instruction that is based on inadequate background is grounded in a deficit model, which may force young learners to rely on low-level processes (24-25). 9 I 3 In their summary of Chapter 1, they wrote: Prevention of reading problems must begin in the early grades. If children are not reading on grade level by the end of third grade, their chance of success in later years is minimal. One significant characteristic of problem readers is their lack of literacy experiences during their preschool years. Schools must compensate by providing the children with rich literacy classroom programs and supplemental literacy services that focus on early intervention (15). z p c c c p 0 0 In other words, those who persist in insisting on remediation of learning as the primary emphasis for the lowest-achieving children doom those children to lessons that never get beyond the rote memorization of basic information, and those children will never have an opportunity to understand anything well, much less apply higher-order thinking skills. Dom, si si (1998) urge teachers, therefore, to identify the strengths of young children and use this information as the basis for designing rich learning experiences that emphasize problem-solving (p. 25). In these ways, schools can prevent failure. I 10 47 It should be noted that the District sees its HIPPY and expansive pre-kindergarten program as a part of its overall prevention-of-failure efforts. (See Compliance Report of March 2001, pp. 72-73, for a break-down of the 1312 youngsters involved in early childhood education during 2000-01.) The second section fiom the Revised Plan (2.7.1) requires the District to conduct annual assessments of English language arts and mathematics in order to determine their effectiveness in improving the achievement of Afiican American studentsand then to take appropriate action if the program is not effective by either modifying the programs implementation or replacing it. Section 2.7A: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African- American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. ! Prior to fall 1999 there was not in place a reading assessment (except the eight-week assessments in the Success for All schools) that measured student progress in their acquisition of leaming-to-read skills in the early grades. For a time the SAT9 was administered in grades 2-3, but it was not used to drive instructional practice as much as it was used to identify students for the gifted/talented program. The Literacy Benchmark examination required by the State of Arkansas in grade 4 was the first formal assessment of whether students could read independently. The design committee believed strongly that to comply with the Revised Plan and also, importantly, to be able to diagnose potential reading difficulties, as well as to identify progress and growth of individual students, classrooms, schools, and the District, an annual assessment would be required. The District could not afford to wait until grade 4 to find out whether every student had learned to read independently, a goal established in the Revised Plan. After a review of the available literacy assessments for young children and after consulting with the experts involved in the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) professional development program and with specialists at the Arkansas Department of Education, District staff decided to adopt two sets of measurements-the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement developed by Marie M. Clay and the Developmental Reading Assessment developed by Joetta Beaver. Subsequently, because of a need to have a measurement for the identification of students for the grade 3 gifted/talented program, the Achievement Level Test developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association in collaboration with LRSD teacher teams was added to the assessment plan for grade 2. The results of these data would be the primary basis for evaluating program effectiveness. 11 48 i The third section (5.2.1) of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan establishes several curriculum, instruction, professional development, assessment, and parental involvement obligations\n[ I 1 IIf Readim/Lansuaee Arts Section 5.2.1: Primary Grades. LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through third grade: a. b. c, d. e. g-h. i. j-k. I. Establish as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a page\nFocus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences\nPromote thematic instruction\nIdentify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills\nMonitor the appropriateness of teaching/leaming materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms\nEstablish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction\nMonitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\nProvideparents/guardians with better information about their childs academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students\nProvide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, andfirst grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences\nTrain teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms\nUse the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day\nand Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. Rather than repeat in this program evaluation the information provided in a number of earlier reports, the relevant pages from those earlier reports are included in the appendices. The document in Appendix E entitled Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan includes the following list of initiatives that have been implemented from the PreK-3 plan and which require emphasis (pp. 2-3): 12 49 7 0 3 fl 3 CZ! fl 2 2 z r p c a c p 9 9 9 Title I programming was restructured and aligned with the Districts program. A moratorium was placed on adding any new supplemental reading/ language arts programs. Some programs in previous use were abandoned. A waiver was granted to Washington Magnet to keep its Direct Instruction program. Cumculum standards, instructional strategies, instructional materials, assessments, and professional development were tightly aligned. Each school established a sacred, uninterrupted, two and one-half hour daily block for the teaching of reading/language arts. A new English-as-a-Second Language program was implemented that is also tightly aligned with the Districts general education program. New assessments that are developmentally appropriate and aligned with the curriculum and instructional program were implemented. Animated Literacy, a phonemic awareness program, was implemented in kindergarten. Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) was implemented in grades K-2, with Pre-ELLA added in fall 2000 for prekindergarten students. More than $35O,(XX) was expended in the purchase of reading and other cumculum support materials during the past two years. 9 A committee has almost completed work on a new elementary report card. Most primary teachers experienced a minimum of one week of ELLA training, with follow-ups as necessary and appropriate (See Compliance fiSgOU in Appendix C for lists of professional development sessions.) The Parent-School Compact was revised, and the Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) was developed and implemented. The Parent Program was restructured in May 2000. An ESL Parent Coordinator was employed in spring 2001. 13 50 f 3 in. The Assessments 1 ' - -Jg h H I I i Marie Clay makes the point repeatedly in her book, An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (1993), that no one observation task is satisfactory on its own when one needs to make important instructional decisions for children (p. 20). She would find strong support from Grant Wiggins, who is a national expert in assessment. In his book, Assessing Student Performance: Exploring the Purpose and Limits of Testing (1993), Wiggins wrote: One test signifies nothing, let us emphatically repeat, but five or six tests signify something. And that is so true that one might almost say, It matters very little what the tests are so long as they are numerous (13). In the Little Rock School District, the tests are numerous. The Assessments: Observation Survey Below is siunmary information about what the five sub-tests in the Observation Survey measure. Letter Identification This sub-test answers the following questions: What letters does the child know? Which letters can he/she identify? All letters, lower and upper case, are tested. The observation includes an analysis of the childs preferred mode of identifying letters\nthe letters a child confuses\nand the unknown letters. (Clay, p. 43) The maximum score is 54. This test is administered in grades K-1. 5 I ?! V. Word Test The student is tested over the most fi-equently occurring words in whatever basic reading texts are being used. Scores on this measure are useful in determining a childs readiness to read. (Clay, p. 53) The maximum score is 20. This test is administered in grades K-2. Concepts about Print This sub-test (5-10 minutes) includes testing whether the student knows the front of the book, that the print (not the picture) tells the story, that there are letters, that are clusters of letters called words, that there are first letters and last letters in words, that you can choose upper or lower case letters, that spaces are there for a reason, and that different punctuation marks have meanings. Scores on this measure have proven to be a sensitive indicator of behaviors that support reading acquisition. (Clay, p. 47) The maximum score is 24. This test is administered in grades K-1. Writing Vocabulary The student is asked to write down in ten minutes all the words he/she knows how to write, starting with his/her own name and making a personal list of words 14 51 9 I {fl z r p c p 0 9he/she has managed to learn. There is no maximum score. This test is administered in grades K-2. Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words The teacher asks the child to record a dictated sentence. The childs performance is scored by counting the childs representation of the sounds (phonemes) by letters (graphemes). The maximum score is 37 at grades K-1 and is 64 at grade 2. This test is administered in grades K-2. The Assessments: Developmental Reading Assessment The Developmental Reading Assessment is a one-on-one assessment of reading skills primarily accuracy of oral reading and comprehension through reading and re-telling of narrative stories. The assessment consists of stories that increase in difficulty. Factors which contribute to the gradient of difficulty of the stories include the number of words on a page, complexity of vocabulary, length of the stories, degree of support from the pictures, as well as complexity of sentence and story structure. The assessment formats are as follows: Levels A-2 (Kindergarten Grade Level), 7-8 minutes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Teacher selects book Teacher introduces text Teacher reads one or two pages Child points and reads rest of story\nteacher takes running record Teacher asks print questions Teacher asks preference questions Levels 3-16 (First Grade Level), 10-15 minutes 1. Teacher selects book 2. Teacher introduces text 3. Child looks at pictures\ntells what is happening 4. 5. 6. 7. Child reads story aloud\nteacher takes running record Child retells story Teacher asks response questions Teacher asks preference questions Levels 18-44 (Second Grade Level), 15-20 minutes 1. Teacher selects range of three texts 2. Child previews and chooses one 3. Teacher introduces text 4, 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Child reads first 2-4 paragraphs aloud Child predicts what will happen in story Child reads complete story silently in another location Child retells story Teacher asks response questions Child reads selected portion of text\nteacher takes ruruiing record 15 52r 10. Teacher asks preference questions 11. Teachers asks one or two inference questions (Levels 28-44). 3 3 Readiness levels for the Little Rock School District have been established as follows:  KindergartenLevel 2  Grade 1Level 16\nand  Grade 2Level 24. 4e 5 The explanation below (developed in summer 2000) on Definition of Readiness vs. Proficiency is a delineation of the Districts efforts to define appropriate cut scores for each grade level so that a determination could be made of the percent of students who are achieving a standard of readiness for success at the next grade level. I' I Definition of Readiness vs. Proficiency The Arkansas Department of Education has defined performance at four levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced for the Benchmark examinations that are administered at grades 4, 6, and 8 and the end-of-level examinations for designated high school courses. Proficient is the performance standard that all students should achieve. The ADE definition follows: Proficient students demonstrate solid academic performance for the grade tested and are well-prepared for the next level of schooling. They can use Arkansas established reading, writing, and mathematics skills and knowledge to solve problems and complete tasks on their own. Students can tie ideas together and explain the ways their ideas are coimected. The Developmental Reading Assessment allows teachers to assess reading levels of students through a one-on-one test reading conference between teacher and student. Teachers observe student performance during the test, make notes on reading behaviors, and score the performance as they go along. V! 2J 5 fl fl I\u0026gt; 2 r I The desire was to establish appropriate cut points that would define proficient performance. To gauge which level is equivalent to how Arkansas defines proficiency, the staff used national reading standards for each grade level as defined in Reading and Writing Grade bv Grade: Primary Literacy Standards from Kindergarten through Third Grade (New Standards Primary Literacy Committee, National Center on Education and the Economy and the University of Pittsburgh, 1999). The staff then identified the DRA level that corresponds to that specific performance. Standards and DRA equivalents by grade level follow: fl z r p c e p 9 0 f I 16 53 Grade Level Kindergarten Grade I I I Grade 2 Reading Standards Children at the end of kindergarten should understand that every word in a text says something specific. They can demonstrate this competence by reading Level B books that they have not seen before, but that have been previewed for them, attending to each word in sequence and gening most of them correct. By the end of the year, we expect first-grade students to be able to\nread Level 16 books that they have not seen before, but that have been previewed for them, with 90 percent or bener accuracy of word recognition (self-correction allowed). When they read aloud, we expect first graders to sound like they know what they are reading. Fluent readers may pause occasionally to wo^ out difficult passages. By the end of the year, we expect first-grade students to be able to independently read aloud from Level I books that have been previewed for them, using intonation, pauses and emphasis that signal the structure of the sentence and the meaning of the text. By the end of the year, we expect second-grade students to be able to independently read aloud unfamiliar Level 24 books with 90 percent or bener accuracy of word recognition (selfcorrection allowed). DRA Level_______________________________________ Assessment texts A through 2 consist of a repeated word or sentence panem with natural language structures. The simple illustrations include animals and objects familiar to primary children and highly support the text. One or two lines of text appear on the left page and are large and well spaced so that children can point as they read. The number of words in the texts ranges fiom ten to thirty-six._______________________ Assessment texts 16 through 28 are stories with beginnings, middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content begins to move beyond children's personal experiences and builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with natural language. Some description of characters and setting is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of difficulty. Assessment texts 16 through 28 are stones with beginnings, middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content begins to move beyond children's personal experiences and builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with natural language. Some description of characters and sening is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of difficulty.___________________________________________ The staff also considered the work of others who use the DRA in their determination of appropriate cut points to define proficiency at each grade level. Several sUtes and many school districts have adopted the DRA for early literacy assessment. One example is the chart establishing proficiency levels developed by the East Baton Rouge Parish School System in Louisiana. They have determined that On Grade Level is defined by a kindergarten students performance at levels 1,2 on the DRA\ngrade 1 is levels 16,18\nand grade 2 is levels 24,28. Above Grade Level is defined as levels 3-14 at kindergarten\nlevels 20-28 at grade 1\nand levels 30-38 at grade 2. In Lindsay, California, the Approaching Proficiency levels are defined similarly: level 2 at kindergarten\nlevels 10-12 at gr^e 1\nand level 24 at grade 2. 17 54 3 5^^ IS fl 1 I 4 A program evaluation conducted by the Austin, Texas, Independent School District indicates that the Grade Level performance on the DRA was defined level 2 at kindergarten\nlevel 16 at grade 1\nand levels 24-28 at grade 2. as The State of Ohio defined Success Indicators for reading for each grade level. These can be compared to the national standards developed by the National Center for Education and the Economy: At the end of kindergarten, children should be able to write in a left to right/top to bottom manner, have a firm grasp of letters and their sounds, and recognize a few simple words. By the end of first grade, students should be using and integrating phonics and reading strategies as they read, writing simple stories, reading independently, and demonstrating comprehension of stories through drawing, writing, discussion, and dramatization. By the end of second grade, students should be reading silently for extended periods and reading orally with appropriate use of punctuation. They should demonstrate that they can gather information by reading, predict how stories will end, compare and contrast story elements, sequence evens from a story, retell a story, and relate what they read to their lives. The State of Connecticut uses the Developmental Reading Assessment as a part of their state accountability system in grades 1-3. Grade 1 students who perform at or below level 10 and grade 2 students who perform at or below level 16 at the end of the year are identified as substantially deficient. Such students then receive a personal or individual reading plan that outlines additional instructional support and monitors student progresssimilar to the Districts Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP). Although Connecticut does not identify grade-level proficiency levels, they have established the literacy standard for LEP students to exist the bilingual program: at kindergarten the student must perform at level 2\nat grade 1 level 16\nand at grade 2 level 28. Vermont, likewise, uses the DRA in their state assessment program and has established similar levels of proficiency. 7- 9 5 I Vi 9 I \u0026gt; i Joetta Beaver, the developer of the Developmental Reading Assessment (published by Celebration Press in 1997), suggests that districts should define proficiency levels so that students performing below those levels receive necessary interventions and remediation. Her recommended proficiency levels are levels 1-2 for kindergarten\nlevels 16-18 at grade 1\nand levels 24-28 at grade 2. All these efforts to define proficiency are either exactly aligned with the decisions made by LRSD sUff or are very close. 18 55 pi y\nr 9 C P 9 9 \u0026lt;Given, however, the difficulty of establishing with confidence an equivalent defimtion of proficiency that would predict achievement on the grade 4 Benchmark examination. District staff members have made the decision to use what in their best judgment are the appropriate cut scores (based on all the research cited), but to use the term Readiness to define the desired perfonnance. VA/MAM T\\a\u0026gt;A_^A 1_____1x* Ma When the District has multiple years of data and when the 1999-2000 kindergarten students take the Grade 4 Benchmark examination in spring 2004 then the staff can do some stotistical calculations that will enable the District set cut scores that reliably predict Proficient performance on the grade 4 Benchmark. to I 1 I I Reliability and Validity: National Study The development of the Developmental Reading Assessment began in 1988 by a team of teacher-researchers. According to the national validation study, the purpose of the assessment was to guide teachers ongoing observations of student progress over time withm a hterature-based reading program (p. 2). Over the next six years ere were numerous revisions in response to teacher feedback. In spnng 1996 the first formal validation study was conducted. Seventy-eight teachers fi-om various parts of the United States and Canada participated, (p. 3) The results of the study were very positive, and where the correlations were not as strong as they possibly could be, revisions to the instrument were made to strengthen validity. In summary, the I Iz A W M TAI Am. t* M M  . _ 1 - J ..._________ * M - * DRA was found to be a valid assessment. Teachers found it very helpful in  deterluirung individual students instructional text reading level\n describing his/her performance as a reader\nselecting appropriate interventions and/or focus for instruction\nand identifying students who may be reading below proficiency (11). A reliability study of the Developmental Reading Assessment was conducted in spring 1999 by Dr. E. Jane Williams. In this study eighty-seven teachers from ten states participated. All had prior experience in administering the DRA. The findings were at both the inter-rater reliability and the internal consistency of the test were strong to very strong (6). The construct validity of the DRA was also established through an additional study. Construct vahdity ensures that the test measures what was intended that it measure. The statistics for this study were done using DRA individual student scores compared to individual scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. They correlated positively, and for the ITBS Total Readmg subscale, very positively. The conclusion, then, was that the DRA validly measures a childs ability to decode and understand/comprehend what he/she has read (6). Of importance to the LRSD was another conclusion to this study: It should be noted that a major purpose of the DRA is to help guide instruction. Ninety-eight percent of the teachers and raters agreed or strongly agreed to the 4 s a 19 56I-I I .\u0026lt; I statement that the information gained about the reader during the DRA conference helped them better identify things that the child needed to do or learn next ( 9). 5 3 \u0026lt; d It was the intent of the design committee and is the intent of the curriculum staff that the multiple assessments selected for grades K-2 be used to drive instructionfor the data gathered from those assessments to be used to assist teachers in deciding what to do next for each individual child. LRSD embraces the joint position statement of the International Reading Association and the National Association for the Education of Yoimg Children that was adopted in 1998: [ Throughout these critical years accurate assessment of childrens knowledge, skills, and dispositions in reading and writing will help teachers better match instruction with how and what children are learning. However, early reading and writing cannot be measured as a set of narrowly defined skills on standardized tests. These measures often are not rehable or valid indicators of what children can do in typical practice, nor are they sensitive to language variation, culture, or the experience of young children. Rather, a sound assessment should be anchored in real-life writing and reading tasks... and should support individualized diagnosis needed to help young children continue to progress in reading and writing (20). i Reliability and Validity: LRSD Study The following correlational matrix constructed by the Districts statistician in spring 2001 displays the relationships between the scores on the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs) and the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment scores. 9 3 I ?! ?! CorrelatioBal Matrix* Spring 2001 ALT Reading RTF, ALT Reading Goal RTTi, Olmrvation Survey, and DRA Scores e I\u0026gt; Goal 1: Word Meaniog Goal 2: Literal Comprebeu SMB Goal 3: Goal 4: Interpretive Evaluative Compreheo Coapreben Observation Survey: Word Test SIM sion Observation Survey: Writing Vocabulary Observation Survey: Dictation DRA Reading RTF Skore Goal 1: Word Meaning Goal 2: Literal Comprehension 0.937 0.940 0.839 0.922 0.805 0.823 0.917 0.815 0.822 0.280 0.255 0.223 0.467 0.438 0.418 0.638 0.602 0.577 0.788 0.733 0.12A Goal 3: Interpretive Comprehension Goal 4: Evaluative Comprehension Observation Survey: Word Test Observation Survey: Writing Vocabulary ObMrvatiM Survey: Dictation__________ 0.795 0.199 0.207 0.410 0.413 0.276 0.535 0.574 0.351 0.442 0.696 0.719 0.360 0.478 0.683 P c p 9 9 AU conclahons arc significant at the .05 level \u0026lt; N's range from 1577 to 1684 While all the relationships are significant at the .05 level, some relationships are stronger than others. All of the ALT scores relate strongly to the DRA, with values of .696 to 20 57 .788. Only Hearing and Recording Sounds (Dictation) on the Observation Survey has value above .50-.683. Also, within the Observation Survey correlational values are a lower. The staff anticipated this result since the Observation Survey measures leaming- how-to-read skills, and the Developmental Reading Assessment measures more difficult comprehension skills. The large sample size gives power to this matrix and contributes to significance at apparent low correlational values. 1 The statistician subsequently ran a statistical test called Cronbachs Alpha, which is a reliability test for internal consistency of an assessment. Reliability is a measure of a tests stability\nthat is, if one gives the same test more than once, a reliable test would produce a similar or same result. A test with an acceptable Alpha indicates that the variability in scores is a result of the test taker, while a low Alpha indicates that the variability in scores is a result of a poorly designed or inconsistent test. A test with an Alpha of .60 and greater is usually considered to be internally consistent. The Alpha coefficients for the Observation Survey and the DevelopmenUl Reading Assessment for both fall and spring administrations are as follows: 1 Fall K Grade 1 Grade 2 .63 .66 .74 Spring .85 .62 .65 Therefore, both the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment appear to have stability and are internally consistent. The Alpha for the spring grade 2 Achievement Level Test is .97. What these data are indicating is that the Developmental Reading Assessment is a valid and reliable test The lower correlation values of the Observation Survey are more likely a product of these tests measuring pre-reading knowledge and skills, as opposed to the reading comprehension skills measured on the grade 2 Achievement Level Test Developmental Appropriateness of Testing Instruments Both the sub-tests on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment are admimstered one-on-one by the classroom teacher to the student. The teacher scores the students performance, based upon rubrics and scoring instructions provided to the teacher in a mandated training session and in writing. The teacher then bubbles in on each childs answer sheet his/her level of performance and sends those answer sheets to the Director of Early Literacy for processing and the compilation of scoring reports. One caution, therefore, in interpreting the data is that the teacher has scored his/her own students performance, and bias may be possible. The District has conducted a procedure to verify the accuracy of the spring scoresthose most likely to be influenced by bias. Students spring scores are matched with their fall scores the following year, and then if there is a wide discrepancy, that score can be flagged. When there is a pattern of significantly higher spring scores from one teacher than the next years fall scores, then an investigation must be conducted. One school with suspiciously high spring scores was flagged for review in fall 2000. However, when 21 58* 5 the match of scores was run, the staff found absolutely no evidence of cheating. The fall 2000 scores were closely in line with those of the previous spring, even though the children in the fall were in several different schools, and there were more than seven teachers administering the fall tests. The steff also has collected some anecdotal evidence that a few teachers may, in fact, be under-reporting student achievement rather than overreporting, due to their own low expectations. I a 3  To avoid even the appearance of bias, some would recommend that the District use a standardized examination with individual students writing their own answers and then the answer sheets scored by machine. The problem with this approach is that the results would likely be even more questionable than the ones produced through one-on-one testing. Experts in early literacy and in early education have developed strongly stated positions against the use of standardized tests for young children, ages 3 through 8. For example, a position statement, Learning to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children, was issued in 1998 by the International Reading Association (IRA) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). The section on assessment follows: 1  Group-administered, multiple-choice standardized achievement tests in reading and wnting skills should not be used before third grade or preferably even before fourth grade. The younger the child, the more difhcult it is to obtain valid and reliable indices of his or her development and learning using one-time test administrations. Standardized testing has a legitimate function, but on its own it tends to lead to standardized teachingone approach fits allthe opposite of the kind of individualized diagnosis and teaching that is needed to help young children continue to progress in reading and writing (11). A 1987 position paper by NAEYC, Standardized Testing of Young Children 3 Through 8 Years of Age, is even more explicit: Young children are not good test takers. The younger the child, the more inappropriate paper-and-pencil, large group test administrations become. Standards for administration of tests require that reasonable comfort be provided to the test taker (AERA, APA, \u0026amp; NCME, 1985). Such a standard must be broadly interpreted when applied to young children. Too often, standardized tests are administered to children in large groups, in unfamiliar environments, by strange people, perhaps during the first few days of school or under other stressful conditions. During such test administrations, children are asked to perform unfamiliar tasks, for no reason that they can understand. For test results to be valid, tests are best administered to children individually in familiar, comfortable circumstances by adults whom the child has come to know and trust and who are also qualified to administer the tests (5). In conclusion, therefore, the staff made the determination that the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment met all the criteria for selecting good assessment instruments for the children in K-2 classrooms. They were closely aligned 22 59 c 3 I fl 3 cz: fl flI\u0026gt; Z j* C c p e 0 4 }| with the curriculum and teaching strategies that were to be used by teachers\nthey measured the leaming-to-read skills that were essential for children becoming independent readers\nthey provided teachers with necessary diagnostic and sununative dau\nthey were developmentally appropriate\ntheir administration procedures met test administration standards for young children\nand their results were much likely to be valid and reliable than if a standardized test was used. The Assessments: Achievement Level Tests in Readmg and Language Usage The Achievement Level Test (ALT) at grade 2 in reading and language usage was first administered in spring 2000. The ALTs are a series of tests that are aligned with the Little Rock School District curriculum and the Arkansas state standards. Because the scores are along one continuum over the grade levels, they allow staff and others who are interested to calculate the amount of growth for individual students, classrooms, schools, and the District as a whole fi-om year to year. With the ALTs, students take tests at a level that matches their current achievement level. The test should be challenging, but neither too difficult nor too easy. Because the tests match the achievement level of the student, teachers receive accurate information that helps them to monitor each students academic growth. ALTs are not timed, and they take about one hour per subject for most students. The District scores the ALTs, and the results are returned to the schools as quickly as possible, sometimes within 48 hours. Any retesting that is necessary is completed, so school reports carmot be printed until all testing is finished, and district reports cannot be completed until all schools finish their testing. Reports are also produced for parents, teachers, and administrators. Once a student has been through two administrations of the ALTs, a trend report is produced for parents that allows them to monitor the growth of their child compared to the growth of the District and the growth of the national group that takes the test. Student progress is reported in a scale score called the Rasch Unit (RTT). It is an equal interval measure. It can be compared to measuring a childs physical growth in inches and then comparing it to an expected growth chart. The test measures achievement growth with a RIT scale and compares the growth to an expected national growth chart. By monitoring the growth of students, staff can pinpoint areas where individual students might need extra help or attention. District staff and Campus Leadership Teams use the information to make data-driven decisions about school improvement plans, curriculum and instructional changes, and professional development needs. The scores are also used in program evaluations. There are four goals/standards that are measured on the reading sub-test: 1. Word Meaning A. Phonetic skills B. Context clues C. Synonyms, antonyms, homonyms D. Component structure (prefix, suffix, origin, roots) E. Multiple meanings 23 604 I 2. 3. I I 4. Literal Comprehension A. Recall/identify significant details B. Identify main idea C. Locate information D. Follow directions E. Sequence details Interpretive Comprehension A. Inference B. Identify cause and effect C. Authors purpose D. Prediction E. Summarize F. Identify literacy elements (character, plot, setting, theme, etc.) Evaluative Comprehension I A. B. C. D. E. Evaluate conclusions, validity (supporting context) Identify fact and opinion Identify literary techniques (figurative language, mood, tone, etc.) Distinguish text forms Identify bias, stereotypes. 1 Three goals/standards are tested on the Language Usage sub-test: 1. Writing Process A. B. C. D. E. F. Prewriting skills Drafting and revising- Editing/proofreading Choosing appropnate format Sentence choice appropriate to purpose Paragraph skills (topic and concluding sentences, indenting, etc.) z 93 fl W! fl 9 I \u0026gt;s 2 2. 3. Grammar and Usage A. Sentence patterns B. Phrases and clauses C. Noun forms D. Verb usage: tenses, irregular verbs, subject-verb agreement E. Adjective forms F. Adverb forms G. Pronoun forms H. Pronoun-antecedent agreement I. Negative forms Mechanics A. End punctuation B. Commas C. Apostrophes D. Enclosing punctuation E. Titles F. Beginning capitalization G. Proper nouns and adjectives pi r p c p 90 24 61 H. Capital I The staff made a deliberate decision to delay the use of this formal, group-administered test until the end of second grade. Even then, many teachers, principals, central office staff, and parents question its usefulness in measuring leaming-to-read skills and knowledge. The data are included in this program evaluation because they exist and because they provide another measurement of student achievement that may be used to inform decision-making about the program. I 25 62I IV. Alignment with National Research on Early Literacy Background on the Context: National Research on Early Literacy A publication of the National Research Council (1998), Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, is nationally recognized, and it was used to a high degree in the design of the LRSD PreK-2 literacy program. Below is a short summary of the reports recommendations for early learners: Prekindergarten: Preschool programs ... should be designed to provide optimal support for cognitive, language, and social development, within this broad focus. However, ample attention should be paid to skills that are known to predict future reading achievement, especially those for which a causal role has been demonstrated. 1 Kindergarten: Kindergarten instruction should be designed to stimulate verbal interaction\nto enrich childrens vocabularies\nto encourage talk about books\nto provide practice with the sound structure of words\nto develop knowledge about print, including the production and recognition of letters\nand to generate familiarity with the basic purposes and mechanisms of reading. Beginning readers need explicit instruction and practice that lead to an appreciation that spoken words are made up of smaller units of sounds, familiarity with spelling-sound correspondences and common spelling conventions and their use in identifying printed words, sight recognition of fi'equent words, and independent reading, including reading aloud. Fluency should be promoted through practice with a wide variety of well- written and engaging tests at the childs own comfortable reading level. ^5 2 I pl (/) pl \u0026gt; 2 Children who have started to read independently, typically second graders and above, should be encouraged to sound out and confirm the identities of visually unfamiliar words they encounter in the course of reading meaningful texts, recognizing words primarily through attention to their letter-sound relationships. Although context and pictures can be used as a tool to monitor word recognition, children should not be taught to use them to substitute for information provided by the letters in the word. z r p p e a  Because the ability to obtain meaning from print depends so strongly on the development of word recognition accuracy and reading fluency, both of the latter should be regularly assessed in the classroom, permitting timely and effective instructional response when difficulty or delay is apparent. Beginning in the earliest grades, instruction should promote comprehension by actively building linguistic and conceptual knowledge fl 26 63in a rich variety of domains, as well as through direct instruction about comprehension strategies such as summarizing the main idea, predicting events and outcomes of upcoming texts, drawing inferences, and monitoring for coherence and misunderstandings. This instruction can take place while adults read to students or when students read themselves. Once children learn some letters, they should be encouraged to write them, to use them to begin writing words or parts of words, and to use words to begin writing sentences. Instruction should be designed with the und\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1740","title":"District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion in Limine, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and supplementary materials from plaintiff and Joshua intervenors.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2002-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","School administrators","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion in Limine, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and supplementary materials from plaintiff and Joshua intervenors."],"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/1740"],"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":["88 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\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, order; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion in Limine; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Little Rock School District (LRSD); District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' witness list; District Court, Joshua intervenors' supplemental witness list; District Court, transcript and order; District Court, plaintiff's revised witness list for the July 22, 2002, hearing; District Court, letter-order; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for reconsideration; District Court, order and clarification of order; District Court, plaintiff's witness list for the July 22 hearing as revised July 23, 2002; District Court, order and clarification of order; District Court, plaintiff's motion to strike; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion to strike; 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.    AO 72A (Rev.8/82) ECEIVED JUL -8 2002 OFF!CF. OF EGREGATIOH MONITORING u.sfo,{b~cRRT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO\"fltffERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL Q 1 2002 LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Pending is Plaintiffs Motion for a Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing. For the time being, Plaintiff's request for a protective Order against Joshua, or anyone acting on their behalf, is GRANTED. The deadline for exchanging exhibits and witnesses was set on May 15, 2002, for June 21 , 2002. At the request of lawyers for LRSD and Joshua, the deadline was orally extended until 5:00 p.m. on Monday, June 24, 2002. It appears, from the documents attached to Plaintiffs Motion, that Joshua's FOI request was submitted on June 26, two days after the deadline for exchanging exhibits and the names of witnesses. Even assuming the FOI can be used in addition to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by a party to litigation, it appears quite certain that this request was not timely. It is my impression, from a quick review of the law, that the great weight of authority precludes a party from using the FOi as a supplement to the discovery rules of the Federal Rules 6 1 1 A072A {Rev.8/82) of Civil Procedure; but, be that as it may, this particular request appears to be manifestly out of time. I note in passing that many, if not most, of the documents requested in the FOI request are not pertinent to the three remaining issues in this case. Accordingly, the LRSD is relieved of any duty to respond to the FOI request by Joshua. If Joshua wants a hearing on this issue, it should file a response to Plaintiff's Motion forthwith, and request a hearing--if such a request is made, a hearing will be set as soon as practicable. IT IS SO ORDERED. DA TED this I 9-:f day of July, 2002. UNITED sT ATESDISTc JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE 1/V!Tb:(oE 58 AND/OR~7~ F9R CP r,;, , ~ ..,___ GY _ - - '\" _ f_t:___ I -2- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKJ COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE RELEVANCE GENERALLY RECEIVED JUL - 8 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS The LRSD moves to exclude all evidence and testimony of noncompliance with the Revised Plan that was not brought to the attention of the entire LRSD Board of Directors pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401 , 402 and 403 . The ultimate issue before this Court is whether noncompliance with the Revised Plan casts doubt on the Board's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. See Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197, 1199 (8th Cir. 1998). Noncompliance that the Board knew nothing about has no bearing on this issue and is irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Section 1983 Liability Standard The issue before this Court is analogous to the issue of whether a governmental entity may be held liable under 42 U.S.C.  1983 for the unconstitutional conduct of its employees. Respondeat superior is not a permissible theory for holding a governmental entity liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Instead, a governmental entity is liable under 1983 when \"a policy, statement, ordinance, regulation or decision officially adopted and promulgated - by that body's officers\" can be causally related to the allegedly unconstitutional conduct of its employees. Id. Liability may also be based on \"constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to governmental custom even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body's official decision-making channels.\" Id. at 690- 91, 98 S.Ct. 2018. See Ryan v. Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis, 96 F.3d 1076, 1084 (8th Cir.1996). In Ware v. Jackson County, 150 F.3d 873 (8th Cir.1998), the Eighth Circuit explained that: Official policy involves 'a deliberate choice to follow a course of action * * * made from among various alternatives' by an official who [is determined by state law to have] the final authority to establish governmental policy.\" Jane Doe A, 901 F.2d at 645. Alternatively, \"custom or usage\" is demonstrated by: (1) The existence of a continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of unconstitutional misconduct by the governmental entity's employees; (2) Deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of such conduct by the governmental entity's policymaking officials after notice to the officials of that misconduct; and (3) Th[ e] plaintiff['s] injur[y] by acts pursuant to the governmental entity's custom, i.e., (proof] that the custom was the moving force behind the constitutional violation. Ware, 150 F.3d at 880 (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied). \"(I]naction or laxness can constitute government custom if it is permanent and well settled.\" Tilson v. Forrest City Police Dept., 28 F.3d 802, 807 (8th Cir.1994) (citation omitted). - \"Such a government custom of laxness or inaction must be the moving force behind the constitutional violation.\" Id. \"To establish a city's liability based on its failure to prevent misconduct by employees, the plaintiff must show that city officials bad knowledge of prior incidents of police misconduct and deliberately failed to take remedial action.\" Andrews v. Fowler, 98 F.3d 1069, 1075 (8th Cir.1996) (emphasis supplied). In the context of the present case, the Board is the \"final authority\" in making District policy. During the term of the Revised Plan, the Board adopted and/or re-adopted clear, unambiguous policies indicating its intent to comply with the Revised Plan, federal civil rights statutes and the Constitution. See CX 719. Thus, to cast doubt on the Board's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future, Joshua must establish a \"custom or practice\" of failing to remedy noncompliance with the Revised Plan. This requires that Joshua show \"that [the Board] had knowledge of prior incidents of [noncompliance] and deliberately failed to take remedial 2 action.\" Andrews, 98 F.3d at 1075. Accordingly, incidents of noncompliance of which the Board did not have knowledge are irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Joshua may argue that the District failed to adequately train or supervise its employees who were violating the Revised Plan. It is true that a governmental body may also be held accountable under certain circumstances based on a failure to adequately train and supervise employees. City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S . 378, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989). In Andrews, the Eighth Circuit summarized these circumstances related to a city police force. The court stated: A city also may be liable for deficient policies regarding hiring and training police officers where (1) the city's hiring and training practices are inadequate; (2) the city was deliberately indifferent to the rights of others in adopting them, such that the failure to train reflects a deliberate or conscious choice by a municipality; and (3) an alleged deficiency in the city's hiring or training procedures actually caused the plaintiffs injury. It is necessary to show \"that in light of the duties assigned to specific officers or employees the need for more or different training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need.\" In other words, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the city \"had notice that its procedures were inadequate and likely to result in a violation of constitutional rights.\" Andrews, 98 F.3d at 1076 (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied). In the context of the present case, Joshua must establish that the Board \"had notice that its procedures were inadequate and likely to result in a violation of [the Revised Plan.].\" Id. It is simple common sense that the Board cannot be on \"notice that its procedures were inadequate\" if the Board was unaware of the noncompliance resulting from the alleged procedural inadequacy. Therefore, Joshua must at a minimum show that the Board had knowledge of noncompliance with the Revised Plan in order to cast doubt on the Board's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. The Revised Plan Requiring Joshua to show, at a minimum, that the Board had knowledge of noncompliance about which they complain is consistent with the Revised Plan. As a part of the 3 Revised Plan, Joshua and the LRSD agreed to a process for raising and resolving compliance issues. Revised Plan  8 outlined a three step process for resolving compliance issues. First, the issue would be brought to the attention of the District. If the parties were unable to reach an agreement, the issue would be submitted to ODM for facilitation. Finally, the issue would be presented to the Court for resolution. During the term of the Revised Plan, all compliance issues raised by Joshua were resolved without the need for facilitation by ODM or resolution by the Court. See Final Report, p. 166. Consistent with Revised Plan  8, the Board expected Joshua to bring to its attention any substantial compliance issues. To facilitate Joshua's monitoring of the District's compliance, the Board agreed in advance to pay Joshua to monitor the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan, and Joshua billed the LRSD for monitoring the LRSD's Compliance. See Exhibits 7 and 8 to Plaintiffs Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. Therefore, Joshua cannot be heard to complain that requiring it to show that the Board had knowledge of noncompliance is inconsistent with the Revised Plan. Conclusion The parties knew there would be compliance issues, and for that reason, agreed to Revised Plan 8. Thus, real question before this Court is not whether there was noncompliance, but how the Board responded to noncompliance. The Board had no opportunity to respond to noncompliance of which it was unaware. Thus, noncompliance that was not brought to the Board's attention is irrelevant and should be excluded pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402 and 403 . 4 Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501 - 011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by mail on July 2, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (via hand-delivery) Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank 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 5 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 A072A (Rev.8/82) I O!INO~ NOl!VU3YD3S3Q d030WO zooz s- 1nr u.fo!k~QAr ... , :\\ ;~l'\\~U ::JJi \\i :.il .J :I g EASn fiN Ol6i/ii1CT MH\u0026lt;AN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL O 2 z SA EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 002 LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JUL - 8 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On July 1, 2002, I entered an Order (docket no. 3611) granting LRSD's request for a protective order to the extent that LRSD was relieved of its duty to respond to Joshua's FOI requests, which appeared to be untimely under the May 15, 2002 Scheduling Order (docket no. 3600). However, I permitted Joshua's counsel the opportunity to file a written response to LRSD's Motion for Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing and to request a hearing ifhe deemed it necessary. This morning, I received Joshua's counsel's July 1, 2002 letter, a copy of which is attached to this Order. In that letter, Joshua's counsel requests me to rescind my July 1 Order, allow him an opportunity to file a written response to LRSD's Motion, and \"then allow either party to request a hearing.\" This Order responds to the various points raised by Joshua's counsel in his July 1 letter. First, my July 1 Order admittedly was entered in \"haste\" because LRSD's motion papers declared an \"emergency\" and made it clear that July 1, 2002, was the deadline for it to produce A072A {Rev.8/82) documents pursuant to Joshua's FOI requests. Furthermore, in LRSD's Brief in Support of Motion for Protective Order and Emergency Hearing, its counsel pointed out that Ark. Code Ann.  25-19-104 provides a \"potential criminal penalty (of thirty days in jail) which could flow from the LRSD's failure to respond within three days [to Joshua's FOI requests] .\" This time of year, jails in Arkansas are particularly uncomfortable. Therefore, I hastened to enter my Order before 5 :00 p.m. on July 1, lest I place someone in jeopardy of being hauled off in chains. I want to assure counsel for Joshua that, in entering that Order, I was not \"vexed\" with counsel--somewhat or otherwise. I appreciate counsel for Joshua clarifying that the FOi requests were filed in connection with his ongoing monitoring ofLRSD under the 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (the \"Revised Plan\"). This important point apparently was not communicated to LRSD, which understandably construed the FOI requests as seeking documents that Joshua intended to use in connection with the upcoming evidentiary hearing which commences on July 22, 2002. J.n LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 , 1386 (8th Cir. 1990), Judge Arnold made it clear that, in approving the 1989 global settlement of this case, the Court placed \"a great deal of weight\" on the fact that \"the parties have all agreed to continued monitoring,\" which the Court found to be \"essential.\" Likewise, Exhibit B to the Revised Plan makes it clear that Joshua's counsel will continue his monitoring of the LRSD's implementation of its desegregation obligations. By clarifying that Joshua is seeking the documents described in its FOI requests in connection with its continuing monitoring duties, and not for use in the July 22 hearing, I believe counsel should be able to work out a satisfactory schedule for the production of the requested documents. As an aside, I believe that counsel for both sides have more than enough to do in preparing for the -2- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) upcoming five days of evidentiary hearings beginning on July 22, and should not to have to concern themselves with the collection and production of a large volume of documents related to Joshua 's ongoing monitoring function. It appears to me the production of those documents can and should be delayed until after the completion of the evidentiary hearings that begin in less than three weeks. In conclusion, my July 1 Order will remain in effect until after the evidentiary hearing unless counsel for Joshua can convince me that there is a need for the production of the documents described in the FOI requests before the July 22 hearing. Counsel for Joshua is allowed until and including July 8, 2002, to file a response to LRSD's Motion for Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing. LRSD can submit a short reply by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 11 , 2002. Thereafter, if either party requests a hearing on that Motion, the Court will likely conduct one. IT IS SO ORDE~,- DATED this 1 ~ day of July, 2002. W~R-~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT mDGE -3- JUL . 1.2002 5:55PM JOHN W WALKER PA JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. JOH.,.~ W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Honorable Judge William R Wilson United States District Judge 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock. AR 72201 ATToRNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY L1TrLE RoCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsinule - 604-5149 July 1, 2002 Re: Case No. 4:82CV0866WRW/JTR LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wtlson: NO .521 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 liEND81!SOl'I RoAD Ltmz Rocr, ~ 72210 l'HON\u0026amp;: (501) 372-3425  J\u0026lt;'AX (501) 372-3428 r.!MA!r..: mchonry,i@awbGll.not - I received your order dated July 1, 2002 after 5:30 p.m. when I returned to the office from a trial before the Honorable George Howard, Jr., USA v. Dennis Wtlliams and Joe Bryant I am surprised that the Court ruled on the matter before I had an opportunity to reply to it. I note, however, that the Court provides that opportunity to reply post hoc by the filing of a motion and requesting a hearing. The apparent premise of the Order is that the requested FOIA documents are intended for use at the trial on July 22, 2002. Moreover, the Court seems so_mewhat vexed ~el. I believe the Court would not be ~ were I to have had a reasonable time in which to respond and to make the follo'Wing explanation. Joshua has been monitoring the District's record of compliance since the entry of the original Decree. In that role, we constantly receive concerns from class members about race related matters in each of the three Districts. We first seek to get the District's infonnation by letter. When that fails, we make a request under FOIA. The District usually responds to our letter requests unless a hearing like the one set for July 22 is approaching. Our monitoring was contemplated by the 8th Circuit and the Settlement Agreements herein. The Court has not been involved with respect to our monitoring unless the District claimed some prejudice in its trial preparation. BetWeen 1998 and June 2001, there was not a single hearing before the Court on any matter involving LRSD that was initiated by Joshua Furthermore, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua have obtained information from the District in the same manner for years. The Court has reacted in haste to a matter which is not, and will not be before it. The reaction is seen in the Court's conclusion that the requested information \"appears quite certainn to JUL. 1.2002 5:55PM JOHN W WALKER PA NO.521 P.3/3 be \"not timely\". The Court seems persuaded that we did not meet the deadline for exchanging exlnoits and names of witnesses. We each did so. Mr. Heller's office delivered bis exhibits to us at the close of business on June 24, 2002 and we returned our witness list and exhibits to Mr. Heller by his own courier. We agree with the Court's comments that the requests are pot pertinent to the three rernainine issues in this case as the case relates to the District's compliance as of March 15, 2001. That does not mean, however, that Joshua's monitoring ended upon the filing of the report by the District on March 15, 2001. For the foregoing reasons, I request the Court to simply rescind its Order, afford us a reasonable reply time and then allow either party an opportunity to request a hearing thereon.. In that way, the burden of proof would be upon the moving party on the issue rather than having Joshua in the position ofbeing the moving party. For the information of the Court and the other parties, a criminal jury trial in which I am counsel before Judge Howard is expected to last at least through July 8, 2002. Thank you for your attention to this matter. JWW:js cc: All Counsel of Record Clerk of the Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL 8 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of AD E's Project Management Tool for June 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General DENNIS R. HANSEN,# 97225 Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2586 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dennis R. Hansen, certify that on July 2, 2002, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Attorney at Law P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Lt~ Dennis R. Hansen 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 June 28, 2002 Based on the information available at)v1ay j _t 2002,;frie ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 01/02, iUbj'eb(to periodic adJustrr.i'knis: 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. A072A (Rev.8/82) ECEIVED JUL - 8 2002 OFFICE OF ESEGREGATION MONITORING FIL~e EAS ~ S. 1~~ RT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT T RN'2Ji 1 ~NSA EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL - 5 2002 LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS On July 3, 2002, LRSD filed a Motion in Limine and Supporting Memorandum Brief arguing that: (1) because Joshua's witness list fails to comply with the Court's May 15, 2002 Order, Joshua should be required, on or before 5 :30 p.m. on July 10, 2002, to identify the date and time each of their witnesses will be called, to identify the issues on which each witness is expected to testify and to provide a detailed statement of the witnesses' expected testimony on each issue; (2) certain Joshua exhibits should be excluded because they have not been provided to LRSD as required by the Court's May 15 Order; (3) Joshua should not be allowed to call Sadie Mitchell and Junious Babb, because, in earlier evidentiary hearings, Joshua's counsel has called and examined both of them on student achievement, guidance counseling, and advanced placement courses; (4) various Joshua exhibits should be excluded because, on their face, they do not directly relate to the three remaining issues of advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities; (5) any testimony from Jim Mosby and Jody Carter related to their recent removal as principals of Southwest Middle School and McClellan High 6 1 6 A072A (Rev.8/82) School should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 401 , 402, and 403; (6) Joshua's failure to identify any witnesses or exhibits for use in their \"thirty minutes of true rebuttal\" prevents them from presenting any rebuttal testimony at 8:30 a.m. on July 22, 2002; and (7) Joshua Exhibits 767- 776 and 791 should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 801-804, 401-403, and 901. The schedule for LRSD and Joshua submitting their exhibits and witness lists to the Court on July 9 and the commencement of evidentiary hearings on July 22 necessitates an expedited response from Joshua to LRSD's Motion in Limine. Therefore, Joshua must file their response to LRSD's Motion in Limine no later than 2:00 p.m. on Monday, July 8, 2002, and serve other counsel by fax at or before that time. Thereafter, the Court will promptly decide the merits of LRSD's Motion in Limine. Since time is of the essence, this Order will be faxed to counsel of record as soon as it is entered. IT IS SO ORDERED. 11f DA TED this f day of July, 2002. UNITED STATESDlSTRIC DG THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 7~ ON 7/6/0'6 gy_O-c~,-_=-_..~,a.-- -2- ---- -- RECEIVED .- - -- 'JUL 1 O 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING - . ; /:JLt:::,o .. - E.A.s,f;p. Dtsr g;;;. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT QOURT Noisr~;g~ uRr EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL OB KA.ivsAs WESTERN_DIVISION JAMs W 2002 By:  MccoR MACK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.I , ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE LRSD 1. Joshua Intervenors ' Witness List , CLERK p.1,,1\u0026lt;,\u0026lt;Dl.A ,,...._.u. F [f::RK DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors maintain that their witness list generally parallels the list submitted by the LRSD, by identifying the topics of witness testimony. For example, the LRSD can maintain that the summary of the testimony of Dr. Leslie (for 6 hours) \"provide[s] a detailed statement of the witnesses' expected testimony on each issue\" only on a \"tongue in cheek\" basis.  The Joshua Intervenors face two problems in preparing a witness list, which the LRSD does not face. The LRSD has ready access to all of its witnesses, who are its employees. In contrast, none of Intervenors ' witnesses are employees.1 Moreover, at least 11 oflntervenors' witnesses are subject to the direction of the LRSD. These are witnesses number 1-3, 5, 7, 14-15, 18-19, 23, and 26 on the Intervenors ' list. Nevertheless, the Joshua Intervenors will submit a supplemental witness list by 5 :00 p.m. on 1Doctors Roberts and Ross are experts designated by Intervenors. -1- July 10, 2002. 2. Asserted Failure to Provide Exhibits The LRSD complains about the failure to provide exhibits identified by the numbers 793, 794, 799, 800 and 801. Each exhibit is an LRSD document(s) . . Some are voluminous. By this objection, the LRSD is simply seeking to frustrate the Joshua Intervenors' effort to present the position of the class in a reasonable manner. Exhibit 801, \"LRSD Quarterly Status Reports,\" was the subject of testimony during the earlier hearings. These reports contain information regarding enrollment in advanced courses, as well as the extent to which students succeed. 3. Testimony by Sadie Mitchell and Junious Babbs These associate superintendents served on the LRSD compliance committee during the implementation of the revised plan and have had responsibility for the areas of guidance counseling and extracurricular activities. LRSD plans to offer lengthy testimony by Ms. Mitchell (two hours). The Joshua Intervenors, in contrast, propose to question each administrator for approximately 10 minutes. In this light, it is appropriate to allow Joshua Intervenors to proceed with the testimony, with the LRSD having the right to object to a question as repetitive. 4. Various Exhibits Assertedly Not Relevant to Issues to be Heard The exhibits deal with the following issues: advance placement: 754, 801-802 guidance and counseling: 780, 786-789 extracurricular activities: 746 (lumped statistics), 771, 773 , 775 rebuttal: 743,747,749, 750,755 , 757,758,759,760,762,763 , 764,779, 785 will not be offered: 752, 756, 761, 777, 778, 779, 782, 783 , 784 -2- 5. Testimony from Jim Mosbv and Jodv Carter The Joshua Intervenors do not plan to question Messrs. Mosby and Carter regarding \"their recent removal as principals.\" 6. Rebuttal The Joshua Intervenors will present rebuttal testimony by ODM Monitors Ann Marshall and Gene Jones. They will address the LRSD's testimony at the earlier hearing, which asserted compliance with Section 2. 7 .1 of the revised plan. 7. Joshua Exhibits 767-776. 791 These letters written by Ms. Springer are offered to show notice to the district of various problems. Counsel for Joshua Intervenors intends to explore at the hearing what if any investigation and other responsive actions were undertaken by the LRSD, after receipt of the letters. The LRSD pledged to implement programs, policies and procedures to insure non-discriminatory access to extracurricular activities. Its administrators ' responses to the letters is therefore relevant. The Joshua Intervenors should have the opportunity to seek the authentication of pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit 791 , dealing with guidance, by the testimony of Junious Babbs and Sadie Mitchell. 8. Relevance Generally The LRSD's efforts \"to exclude all evidence and testimony of noncompliance with the Revised Plan that was not brought to the attention of the entire LRSD Board of Directors ... \" [Motion in Limine at 3] and to rely on Section 1983 entity liability standards [Memorandum Brief in Support of Plaintiffs Motion in Limine] is flawed. These gambits ignore the law of the case, and, more particularly, multiple promises, throughout the plan, to implement various activities without regard to whether or not non-compliance was called to the attention of the Board. See, e.g., Revised ,., -.)- Plan Sections 2.5, 2.7, 2.7.1, 2.12.1, 6, and 11. As emphasized in Joshua Intervenors ' response of May 30, 2002, the Court of Appeals has held and reiterated that the terms of settlement agreements in this case provide the standards for measuring the performance of the school districts, here the LRSD. [Memorandum at 47] The Revised Plan does not identify Section 1983 entity liability principles as the standard for evaluating compliance with its terms. Rather, it calls, inter alia, for adoption of various programs, policies, and procedures, their implementation, and monitoring to identify problems and provide a basis for remedial actions. School Board members are not LRSD employees, their commitment is for less than full-time. Manifestly, the plan envisions implementation activities by administrators and other - elements of the work force, without qualification in terms of notice to the school board. Joshua Intervenors ' proof will be consistent with this fran1ework. There will likely be questioning on the adoption of programs, policies, and procedures (largely the domain of the school board). There will be questioning of implementation, or the lack thereof (largely the domain offulltime employees). The effort to exclude evidence, wholesale, is without merit. Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respectfully submitted, John -W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 JQHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) -4- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has/been senTby fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel ofrecord, on this ,?~ day of l-,, 1,  ----:-2002: -r:;:-- 'I // I Mr. Clay Fendley Mr. Dennis l'l. H en  FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Office of the Attorney General 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 323 Center Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 Tower Building Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 I / Joen W. Walker -5- J VHl'i W WHLKt.t-\u0026lt; t-' H N0 . 571 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: July 8, 2002 To: Ms. Ann Brawn Marshall Fax: 371-0100 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. Sender: Jolm W. Walker P. l/6 YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ _ (including cover sheer)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-3758'\u0026gt;\" The information conr.a.ined uu:his fucsimile message is atto111ey privileged and confidential information intended only fur the use of the individual or entity named aoove. !f the reader of this m~sagc is not the intended recipient, or me emp1oyee or agent responsible to deliver it fo the inrended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communicttion Is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. R CEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTu.folb~cPuRT EASTERN DISTRICT OF AR.KANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JUL 0 9 2002 J L 11 2002 OFFICE OF OESEG EGATION MONITORING A072A (Rev.8/82) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Earlier today, United States Magistrate Judge Tom Ray conducted a hearing to receive the parties ' pre-marked exhibits, exhibit lists, witness lists, and witness statements as provided for in paragraph 5 of my May 15, 2002 Scheduling Order. In addition, at my request, Judge Ray also addressed several housekeeping matters associated with the hearing that I have scheduled for 8 :30 a.m. on Friday, July 12, 2002, on LRSD's Motion In Limine. I have now reviewed the transcript of the hearing before Judge Ray, and want to reiterate several points covered during that hearing. First, the evidentiary hearing that is scheduled to commence before me at 8:30 a.m. on July 22, 2002, is limited to testimony and other evidence relevant to LRSD's alleged failure to substantially comply with its obligations in three specific areas of the Revised Plan: (1) advanced placement courses ( 2.6 and 2.6.2); (2) extracurricular activities ( 2.6); and (3) guidance A072A (Rev.8/82) counseling ( 2.6.1 and 2.11.1 ). The only other evidence the Court will receive during the July 22 hearing will be limited to: (a) LRSD's obligation of good faith( 2.1), but only as that obligation specifically relates to these three things: advanced placement courses, extracurricular activities, and guidance counseling; and (b) LRSD's obligations regarding African-American students' achievement ( 2.7), but only as that obligation specifically relates to these three things: advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities. 1 Second, after reviewing Joshua's witness list and witness statements, it appears to me that some or all of the anticipated testimony of a number of their witnesses falls outside the scope of the July 22 evidentiary hearing, as defined above, and as defined earlier by Judge Wright, and by my Order of May 9. I assume these potential problems will be cured by the supplemental witness lists and statements that Joshua and LRSD will file by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. In connection with those supplemental witness lists and statements, I expect both sides to comply fully with each and every requirement of paragraph 3 of my May 15 Scheduling Order. Third, I want to reiterate that I will be continuing the practice followed by Judge Wright of allocating and keeping time for each side during the July 22 hearing. As my May 15 Scheduling Order makes clear, Joshua and LRSD are each allocated twenty hours to present their cases. Each side should keep this overall time constraint in mind in calling and examining their witnesses. Absent compelling circumstances, I do not intend to give either side more than their allocated twenty hours. 11 am mindful that Joshua also will be allowed thirty minutes at the beginning of the July 22 hearing to call Ann Marshall and Gene Jones as rebuttal witnesses on the three issues tried to conclusion during the earlier evidentiary hearings before Judge Wright: (1) good faith; (2) African-American student achievement; and (3) student discipline. -2- A072A (Rev.8/82) Finally, I have reviewed the so-called \"rebuttal exhibits\" that Joshua intends to introduce during the rebuttal testimony of Ann Marshall and Gene Jones. Many of these rebuttal exhibits appear to be documents that were available and could have, and, if they wanted them in evidence, should have, been introduced by Joshua in their case in chief. During the July 12 hearing, Joshua's counsel should be prepared to address how those exhibits constitute true rebuttal documents. The lawyers for the parties, especially the lawyers for LRSD and Joshua, should have someone watching their fax machines commencing no later than 8:30 a.m. this Thursday, July 11. It is possible that I will enter an Order early Thursday morning in response to filings made by these parties Wednesday afternoon. The Order may require additional work before the hearing scheduled for 8:30 a.m. this Friday, July12. IT IS SO ORDERED#. DATED this qr aay of July, 2002. UNITED STATES DISTRIC'i'JUDGE -3- FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Arkansas JAester,'1 Division Telephone 501-604-5140 Fax Number 501-604-5149 TO: Chris Heller \u0026amp; Clay Fendley Sam Jones . 376-2147 376-9442 3i5-1027 221-3331 374-4187 682- 2591 371-0100 Stevejones Richard Roachell John Walker Dennis Hanson Anne Marshaii DATE: There are _\"f.J pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. Z:0/10 3rnrl MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge Wm. R. Wiison, J; U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Ro,..,~ \"R 7,,0, ~,, I \"-\"-J ~ ,, t RECEIVED JUL 1 5 2002  OFFICEOF ESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTNO.l, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JOSHUA INTERVENORS' WITNESS LIST DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors submit their witness list in response to the Court's several directives regarding these matters. Joshua is presenting below a summary of the testimony in some detail of each witness it will call on direct. Joshua is presenting a table of the name of each witness, the expected time each witness will take on direct examination and the approximate time of the appearance of each witness. The times of the appearances of each witness are presented taking into account an equal an1ount of cross examination time by the plaintiff. Possible times for lunch breaks are included. In presenting the matter in this manner, we do not intend to offend the Court by suggesting the exact times of breaks and/or for lunch, nor do wish to offend the Court by presenting this document in this fashion. The manner in which we present it will provide the Court and the parties a timeline of expected testimonial events and provide easy and ready reference to each forthcoming event. We expect our case in chief to be approximately 11 hours (660 minutes). We expect to use the remaining time for either cross examination or for rebuttal (up to two hours). -1- SADIE MITCHELL: The issues Sadie Mitchell will address are extra-curricular activities and guidance counseling. Her respective testimony is that Joshua raised issues of disparate treatment with respect to extra-curricular activities for which she or some subordinate made responses. She will address examples such as discrimination in 9th grade athletics, band, scouts, choir, mock trial, quiz bowl, cheerleaders and the activities wherein participation by race is reflected in the various student yearbooks. She will also address the complaints regarding student honors and efforts to improve minority paiiicipation in AP and honors type activities particularly at Central and Hall High Schools. She will also relate to the inadequacy of data collection regarding extra-cunicular activities and the decision to aggregate rather than disaggregate activity data. She will confirm that aggregation of the data presents a false picture of activity participation in the respective schools which include all the secondary schools. She will also address the failme rates in advanced placement courses as reflected in the Quarterly Reports previously discussed before Judge Wright. JUNIOUS BABBS: Junious Babbs will address the identification of particular athletic programs and other activities with limited African American participation and plans for remediation, review of each school's annual guidance report to identify areas of limited service to African American students such as a) course enrollment facilitating access to stronger higher education opportunities; b) access to financial aid; and c) course enrollment to help to facilitate graduation. He will also address his investigation into the participation and inequities thereof of minority students in AP courses and the passing and failure rates related thereto. MS. SHARON BROOKS: Ms. Sharon Brooks will testify regarding her placement of -2- elementary school African American boys without utilization of counseling services for a period of two months. She will address failure to provide a teacher and a counselor for those boys, whom she separated from the girls. DR. MICHAEL FAUCETTE: Dr. Michael Faucette, a teacher at Central High School, will discuss in detail the problems with the administration of advanced placement courses, the racial effect of the placements, the manner in which the placements are made, how the placements tend to favor one group of children over another, the problems with scheduling and how those scheduling decisions interact with other decisions of placement and counseling; participation in extra-curricular activities; the favor given to white students at Central high School; the disparate effect of AP courses with respect to teaching, awards, and other oppo1iunities; and he will discuss the issue of the District's good faith compliance. MS. PAM MERCER: Ms. Pam Mercer, an African American parent, will discuss the District's good faith establishment and administration of AP courses at Central High School, the exclusion of African American students therefrom, the privileges extended by AP teachers and activities sponsors to white students, counseling of students for placement in AP courses and the racial atmosphere which exists within AP classes. She will discuss her membership on the Activities Advisory Board for the school district and her dissatisfaction with its efforts. CRYSTAL MERCER: Crystal Mercer will discuss her dissatisfaction with guidance counseling services with respect to the following areas: access to financial aid and course enrollment facilitating access to stronger higher educational oppo1iunities. JASON MERCER: Jason Mercer will discuss his dissatisfaction with the District's efforts to ensure more African American student participation in AP courses. He will also discuss content ., -.)- of Exhibit 797. D.J. THAMES and A VIS THAMES: D.J. Thames, student at Fair High School and Avis Thames, his mother. Their testimony will cover their dissatisfaction with the District's efforts to ensure fair participation in extra-curricular activities such as football. ROMONA HORTON: RomonaHorton,parentof students at Central High School and Forest Heights Jr. High School will testify regarding her dissatisfaction with the District's efforts to encourage her children's participation and retention in Pre AP and AP courses at their respective schools. She will also testify regarding her dissatisfaction with counseling services with respect to her children's success in the classes, access to financial aid and course emollment facilitating access to stronger higher educational opportunities. In addition to testimony regarding dissatisfaction with her children's participation in AP, she will also address the use of racial slurs by an AP teacher. She will also discuss the District's response to her complaints. JODIE CARTER: Jodie Carter will discuss special problems with AP classes in the school district as a whole and at McClellan High School in particular. He will specifically relate to the manner in which courses are constituted at the various schools. The problem with staffing the classes and in filling the classes at the various schools. He will discuss his understanding of guidance counseling as it relates to AP placement, participation in extra-curricular activities and the District's good faith. He will specifically relate to problems that he has observed regarding school board members' support of AP classes, guidance counseling and extra-curricular activities. He will discuss the issue ofracial placement and how the counseling system has worked in his observation at the school district over time. This necessarily will include the varying levels of support provided by the central administration with respect to AP courses, guidance counseling and extra-curricular -4- activities at McClellan in comparison to Parkview and Central High School. MS. DOROTHY MCDONALD: Ms. Dorothy McDonald will discuss counseling in general and at McClellan High School in particular. She will discuss the way counseling has a more negative impact on African Americans than white students at McClellan High School and as she understands it to be at other schools based upon her meetings with JoEvelyn Elston and other persons who oversee and administer the other counseling progran1s. MS. CASSANDRA NORMAN: Ms. Cassandra Norman, Principal at J.A. Fair High School will discuss counseling services, placement in pre AP and AP classes at both the middle and Jr. High school and high school and how those courses differ from similar courses at Central and Parkview High Schools. She will discuss AP class sizes, expenditures, teacher turnover and the support of school administrators for her school with respect to these issues. She will address issues regarding counseling within Fair and the problems with a counselor that she had whodid not address the issues in equitable way regarding African American students. CHRIS PAYNE: Chris Payne a former student at J.A. Fair High School will discuss race discrimination in extra-curricular activities. His efforts to participate in the Quiz Bowl at Fair, counseling that he received at Fair while he was there, and the fact that he did not feel that he was fairly treated with respect to those subjects. MR. KENNETH MOORE: Mr. Kenneth Moore will discuss extra-curricular activities, counseling and good faith compliance. His testimony will relate to his experiences at Hall and Fair High Schools and how counseling works at those schools to the detriment of African American students with respect to their participation in extra-curricular activities and with respect to their AP type placements. -5- MR. RAY GILLESPIE: Mr. Ray Gillespie will discuss his role with respect to overseeing the athletic extra-curricular programs and activities and assisting in the monitoring of school programs at the direction of Les Carnine to ostensibly assure eliminating racial discrimination. He will testify regarding the lack of suppo1i that he received in his efforts to achieve equity and his conclusion that African American students and staff are treated differently with respect to these subject areas in comparison to similarly situated white persons. MR. JIMMY MOSBY: Mr. Jimmy Mosby will discuss guidance counseling, extra-curricular activities and pre AP courses during his tenure at Hall High School and at Southwest Middle School. He will address the District's lack of support with respect to pre AP and cow1seling. MS. SUE STRICKLAND: Ms. Sue Strickland will address guidance and counseling programs, AP courses, class sizes of AP courses, pupil teacher ratio, criteria for placement into the programs or the lack thereof or the rationale therefore and the board's good faith. Ms. Strickland will also address the lack of truthfulness by Superintendent Carnine with respect to communication with the school board. DR. KA THERINE MITCHELL: Dr. Katherine Mitchell will address guidance and counseling programs, AP courses, class sizes of AP courses, pupil teacher ratio, criteria for placement into the programs or the lack thereof or the rationale therefore and the board's good faith. DR. MICHAEL DAUGHTERY: Dr.Michael Daughtery will address guidance and counseling programs, AP courses, class sizes of AP courses, pupil teacher ratio, criteria for placement into the programs or the lack thereof or the rationale therefore and the board's good faith. He will discuss his efforts to understand the necessity for relating counseling to AP and pre AP placement, monitoring counseling programs and AP programs and his efforts to have AP programs -6- to become more inclusive for minority students. He will discuss how students can be expected to succeed in AP courses in middle and high schools if they haven't been taught and properly counseled in the earlier grades. DR. TERRENCE ROBERTS: Dr. Tenence Roberts is a District Consultant regarding desegregation activities. He will address the necessity for there to be a correlation between guidance counseling and placement in AP courses. He will discuss the manner in which he has been used by the District to train teachers with respect to these subjects in particular and other subjects in general in Little Rock. Counsel is endeavoring to have him available on either July 23 rd or July 24th . He lives in California and travel arrangements have not been made. DR. STEVEN ROSS: Dr. Steven Ross will testify about the District's good faith compliance, AP courses. He will also discuss the need for criteria for placement and whether all students may be qualified in the absence of standards for placement in AP courses without earlier foundations and specific training. MS. ETHEL DUNBAR: Ms. Ethel Dunbar, Principal at Franklin Elementary School will discuss elementary good faith compliance, gifted and talented courses, guidance cotmseling and the assistance received with respect to these issues from the Division of Instruction. REBUTTAL Name Date of Testimony Approximate Time Minutes Ann Marshall 7/22/02 8:30 - 9:00 a.m. 15 Gene Jones 7/22/02 15 -7- DIRECT EXAMINATION Name Date of Testimony Approximate Time Minutes Sadie Mitchell 7/22/02 9:30 a.m. 30 Junious Babbs 7/22/02 10:30 a.m. 30 Sharon Brooks 7/22/02 11 :30 a.m. 15 7/22/02 Lunch 12-1:00 p.m. 60 Dr. Michael Faucette 7/22/02 1:00 p.m. 90 Pam Mercer 7/22/02 4:00 p.m. 30 Crystal Mercer 7/22/02 5: 00 p.m. 10 Jason Mercer 7/22/02 5:20 p.m. 15 D .J. Thames/ A vis Thames 7/22/02 6:30 p.m. 15 Romona Horton 7/23/02 8:30 a.m. 30 Jodie Carter 7/23/02 9:30 a.m 120 7/23/02 Lunch 12- 1 :00 p.m. 60 Dorothy McDonald 7/23/02 2:30 p.m. 15 Cassandra Norman 7/23/02 3:00 p.m. 45 Chris Payne 7/23/02 4:30 p.m. 10 Kenneth Moore 7/23/02 4:50 p.m. 15 Ray Gillespie 7/23/02 5:20 p.m. 15 Jimmy Mosby 7/24/02 8:30 a.m. 15 Sue Strickland 7/24/02 9:00 a.m. 10 Dr. Katherine Mitchell 7/24/02 9:20 a.m. 10 Dr. Michael Daughtery 7/24/02 9:40 a.m. 30 Dr. Terrence Roberts 7/24/02 10:40 a.m. 30 -8- Dr. Steven Ross 7/24/02 Ms. Ethel Dunbar 7/24/02 Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781 ) 862-1955 11 :40 a.m. 1:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,,,-,, Jdhn W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 vJOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) -9- 30 30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this 10th day of July, 2002: Mr. Clay Fendley FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 I . ,,('(;~~--/:.,/ J,ohn W. Walker . RiCEIVED JUL 1 5 2002 OFACEOF - SEGREGATION MONITORING J:JL 1 O 2~:;, JAMES W r, :,..c .. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO   .- ., -ORMACK, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. 1v1RS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA lNTERVENORS' SUPPLEMENT AL WITNESS LIST PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS Joshua filed its Witness List earlier today. Inadvertently omitted was the name of Ms. Pat Watson, Counselor at Hall High School. Her name is being submitted as a witness who will address the District 's counseling programs, her instructions as to how they are to be implemented and how they are in fact implemented at Hall High School. She will address the counseling role for placement into Pre-AP, AP and Honors courses and she will relate to the counseling with respect to scholarships and other opportunities as well as course enrollment . Her testimony will take approximately 15 minutes. We urge to allow us to use her testimony on either the 23 rd or 241h if we are making substantial progress and have additional time we have not used in our case and chief. Otherwise her testimony will that of Ms. Ethel Dunbar on July 24th at approximately 3:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robert Pressman - MA Bar No. 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1 955 \"'John W o.-64046 JOHNW. WALKER, PA 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been sent to all counsel of record via United States mail postage prepaid on 1~10'11 ~-ay of ~uly , 2092. \\ Ml , ! I ' / -~ / \";c' L}/ -' / . ~ /Ar~-;/ tz~-tt i \\, RECEIVED FILED U,S, DISTRICT COURT EASTE~N DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1,2 2002 IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT JUL 1 0 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. , 4:82CV00866-WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1., et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Attached is a copy of the transcript of the telephone conference held yesterday afternoon. The directions in this transcript are the orders of the Court. - ord.LRSDI IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of July, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE VV!TH RULE 58 AND/OR 7~ FRCP oN_!Jd__O-Od::'BY -,~~----'-~=-  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, V . No. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Little Rock, Arkansas July 9, 2002 4:45 P.M. Defendants, MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., APPEARANCES: Intervenors. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM R. WILSON United States District Judge. For the Plaintiff: CHRISTOPHER J. HELLER, ESQ. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 For the Defendant: (No appearance. ) Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 1 For Joshua Intervenors: ROBERT PRESSMAN, ESQ. John Walker, P.A. 2 1723 Broadway 3 4 Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Proceedings reported by machine stenography; transcript 5 prepared by computer . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 2 1 2 P R O C E E D I N G S THE COURT: All right, we're having a telephone 3 3 conference hearing this afternoon on the record in Little Rock 4 School District against Pulaski County, et al. It's 5 LR-C-82-866. This conference is regarding a letter that was 6 just hand delivered to me dated July 9 from Mr. Walker and Mr. 7 Pressman. It shows a copy to Mr. Heller. I am going to 8 notify by letter in the morning other lawyers of this 9 telephone conference so that they can order a transcript of 10 this hearing if they want to from Ms. Fant. But in any event, 11 I want to address this letter, and I will just start with the 12 first paragraph. Apparently Joshua got Exhibits 793 and 801 13 over to Judge Ray's courtroom deputy, Ms. Swanson, this 14 afternoon as was directed by Judge Ray this morning. By the 15 way, Judge Ray is here in my conference room. But I 16 understand there are other exhibits that have not been brought 17 over for marking, which are 794, 799 and 800 and I'm puzzled. 18 What's the problem with them, Mr. Pressman? 19 MR. PRESSMAN: One of the exhibits is five 20 yearbooks, and we were told that we could pick up the year- 21 books at five different high schools. 22 23 THE COURT: Okay. MR. PRESSMAN: And take them away to copy. And Mr. 24 Walker wasn't here. I didn't know how to handle that. 25 THE COURT: Okay, I will give you -- 794 and 799 and Carolyn s. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 800 I will give you until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow to do what's 2 necessary to have them delivered to Ms. Swanson by 2:00 p.m. 3 All right, are there other exhibits that we need to 4 address? 5 6 7 8 9 10 MR. PRESSMAN: No, I don't think so. THE COURT: All right, let's look at paragraph 1 of the letter; that he and Judge Wilson are apprised of the following position: \"One, we want to reserve for rebuttal that part of our 20 hours which we do not utilize in our case in chief.\" I'll, of course, allow you to reserve a certain 4 11 amount of time for rebuttal. I will remind you again that I'm 12 big on true rebuttal, not just more evidence that could have 13 been introduced during your case in chief. And I wouldn't 14 allow you, for example, to put on five hours of testimony and 15 reserve 15. What do you want? About an hour or two hours for 16 rebuttal, Mr. Pressman? 17 MR. PRESSMAN: That was -- that was -- that's what 18 Mr. Walker told me. He has handled this. 19 THE COURT: Is Mr. Walker there with you? 20 21 22 23 MR. PRESSMAN: No, he's at the courthouse. THE COURT: Well, I will give you two hours for rebuttal and you notify me by 2:00 p .m. tomorrow by fax -Judge Ray and me both by fax and the other parties if you want 24 more than two hours reserved for rebuttal. I'm not inclined 25 to reserve much more than that, but I will give you an Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 opportunity to address that. If you haven't addressed it by 2:00 p.m., I will assume that two hours is satisfactory with you. Now the next sentence in paragraph 1 I find quite disturbing. It says, and I quote: \"We'll attempt to provide a more specific response regarding rebuttal time in our supplemental document regarding our witnesses.\" Now, I entered this order in May directing the identity of witnesses and detailed statements with respect to 5 10 what they were going to say, and that order was not met. The 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 requirements of that order were not met. Judge Ray today extended that until 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. As I understand, Mr. Walker was in the courtroom part of the time, at least, but I'm not sure I understand what \"attempt\" -- why you use \"attempt\" rather than say \"we will comply.\" If you will look  at the title of that document that I entered back in May or those two documents, the word \"Order\" is there, not 18 suggestion. 19 And so would you address .that, what the problem is 20 with that, not getting that detailed statement or just 21 attempting to do it? 22 23 24 25 MR. PRESSMAN: I have not been involved in the development of the facts regarding these three areas. I was asked to do this hearing because Mr. Walker was not available. THE COURT: Well, of course, he knew well in advance Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 of the trial before Judge Howard he was going to have it and he's had since May to meet those directions. You need to get him tonight and tell him that I'm going to take a very dim look at an attempt rather than a full compliance by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. Will you pass that message on to him specifically? MR. PRESSMAN: Yes. THE COURT: All right, I appreciate it very much. In paragraph number 2, I'm going to solve that 9  problem real quickly. Just assume that the other side will 10 take as long for cross-examination as you take for direct and 11 we'll worry about whether I ask questions or not. That won't 12 13 14 15 count against you, of course, so that should make it very easy. Any problems with that? MR. PRESSMAN: I will just we'll comply. I just 16 wish to say that I think that attorneys -- it's proper to 17 inform the Court if you feel that the Court's orders are 18 unreasonable, and that was the reaction that we had to these 19 orders about timing. 20 21 THE COURT: What's unreasonable about it? MR. PRESSMAN: Because these things just can't be, 22 you know, determined with that degree of precision. 6 23 24 25 THE COURT: Well, you know, of course, judges across the country are doing this regularly. I know one judge from -- district judge in Chicago who is now in the last couple of Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 years been promoted to the Seventh Circuit who runs two stop 2 watches, and they count objections against your time if you 3 don't win them, so I don't think that's unreasonable at all. 4 So I'm directing that you comply with it . And, like I say, 5 just give your time for direct examination and assume the 6 other side is going to take the exact same amount of time for 7 cross so you can calculate it. 8 Now I will say this, and I hesitate to say it 9 because I don't want to sound like I will give too much 7 10 leeway. You have a total amount of time here so if you want to 11 go 30 minutes on a witness that you estimated at 20 and take 12 13 14 it off another witness, that's all right. The total amount of time, that is the main thing. However, I'm not going to allow taking much more than your estimated time because what will 15 happen we'll get down to the end and you say, \"I have the most 16 crucial witness I've got in the whole case and I don't have 17 any time to put them on . \" So you'll have to stick pretty 18 close to your projected time . So that issue has been 19 resolved. 20 On the next page, the last page, the second page: 21 \"Last, we want to again point out we do not have the same 22 ability as the LRSD to control the order in which our 23 witnesses will appear. We are not dealing with persons who 24 25 are our employees.\" I'll cure the problem right now. Subpoena your witnesses for 8:15 on July the 22nd. Have them Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 all there . I will get them in the courtroom, swear them in, 2 and tell them to either stay at the courthouse or be where 8 3 they can be reached by telephone so you can get them there. I 4 will take that burden off your back, Mr. Pressman. 5 Hello? 6 7 8 9 10 11 fees? 12 13 MR. PRESSMAN: Yes. THE COURT: Doesn't that solve it? MR. PRESSMAN: Okay . Yes, it solves it. THE COURT: All right. MR. PRESSMAN: I guess we have to pay them witness THE COURT: I would assume. It's very unlikely -- if the exhibits are not over 14 here by 2 : 00 p . m. tomorrow that we have designated, it's very 15 unlikely I will allow their use at the trial. 16 Are there any other issues that we can resolve at 17 this point? If not, I'm going to sign off. 18 19 Honor. 20 21 MR. HELLER: We haven't seen that letter, Your THE COURT: Who's speaking? MR. HELLER: I'm sorry. This is Chris Heller. But 22 it sounds like the issues have been covered and we certainly 23 don't have any other issues at this point. 24 25 THE COURT: All right. How about you, Mr . Pressman? MR. PRESSMAN: No, I don't have any other issues, Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 9 1 but I think that Your Honor's approach doesn't account for the 2 3 4 5 6 7 different kind of practice that Mr. Walker has from a large law firm that has a school system as a client. THE COURT: In what respect does it not account for it. What specifically? MR. PRESSMAN: Because there aren't the same resources available. Mr. Walker is a unique resource in 8 Arkansas. People are constantly calling him from all over the 9 10 11 12 13 14 state every day about their civil rights problems. His time is called upon from scores of different directions. He has a lot of pressures on his time. He does the best he can within that context, and it's not as easy to comply with these kinds of directives for him as it is for a large law firm. THE COURT: Well, you know, I practiced for many 15 years as a solo practitioner in a small firm and judges 16 imposed these burdens on me regularly, and I just figured that 17 I had to double up. Of course, I was a mere street lawyer, 18 but I would suspect I probably got as much or half as much 19 again number of phone calls as Mr. Walker gets during the day, 20 so he's had since May to do this. This is a major trial. I 21 don't believe he has a more major trial. You are here, so it 22 23 24 looks to me like, Mr. Pressman, since you're one of the counsel of record you may need to stay hooked in here real tight and make sure the deadlines are met. I want you to 25 convey this to Mr. Walker very distinctly. I am not going to Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 10 1 treat him differently than I treat other lawyers. Lawyers in 2 big firms -- I happen to have had the happy experience of 3 being in a big firm myself for over two and a half years in 4 the litigation department, and the lawyers are -- each one has 5 an extremely busy practice. Now we all have a tendency when 6 we are not in one of the big firms to say, \"Oh, they've got a 7 hundred or 80 lawyers up there,\" but unfortunately each of the 8 80 or 70 lawyers has -- they are as busy as a solo 9 practitioner. They have their own solo practice, in effect. 10 I have been there, done that, and I used to get, \"You're at a 11 big firm. You\"ve got five partners that can do this, that or 12 the other.\" So I am distinctly unimpressed with that 13 position. I appreciate your expressing it and I'm glad you 14 did because it gives me an opportunity to make it clear that 15 I'm going to hold Mr. Walker to the same standard that I'm 16 going to hold the lawyers representing the other parties. 17 Everybody is going to be treated equally. 18 Is there anything else that we can bring up? I will 19 be happy to hear anything else; an objection, a complaint, 20 whatever else. I'm in a rulifying and commenting mood. 21 MR. HELLER: Your Honor, we don't have anything. 22 THE COURT: Mr. Pressman? 23 MR. PRESSMAN: No. I mean, I just basically 24 disagree with your positions but that's -- you're the Judge. 25 THE COURT: Mr. Pressman, you know, at least half of Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 11 1 the lawyers in every case I have disagree with my position and 2 that's one of the wonderful reasons that we have an Eighth 3 Circuit in case I don't do right. But I do appreciate your 4 comments. I take them into consideration. I just I don't 5 agree with your position and particularly not that I should 6 treat Mr. Walker differently than I should another lawyer. I 7 would consider that a very, very bad thing if I did that to 8 any lawyer . 9 All right. There being nothing else that I hear 10 from the lawyers, I want to thank you all for taking this call 11 on short notice and you go have a good evening to the extent 12 you can after my rulings. 13 MR. HELLER: Thank you, Your Honor. 14 MR. PRESSMAN: All right . Thanks. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (At 5:00 p.m., the above-entitled proceedings were adjourned. ) C E R T I F I C A T E I, Carolyn S. Fant, Official Court Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of proceedings in ~e above-ent Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKl COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF'S REVISED WITNESS LIST FOR THE JULY 22, 2002 HEARING RECEIVED JUL 1 l 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") hereby identifies the following witnesses to be called at the July 22 , 2002 hearing and provides a detailed statement of their expected testimon y: 1. Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Dr. Lesley will testify on Wednesday, July 24, 2002, from I :00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan 2.6 (as it relates to advanced placement courses) and Revised Plan  2.6.1 and 2.6.2. Dr. Lesley is the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction for the District. Dr. Lesley will testify that the District's efforts to increase African-American enrollment in advanced placement courses and to ensure their success in those courses begins as soon as they enter the District. In this regard, Dr. Lesley will review the latest results from the K-2 reading assessments (the third year of the program 's implementation and the third year of testing data); describe a recent study Page I of 8 conducted by a team in her Division on the academic effects of participation by AfricanAmerican students in the District's pre-kindergarten program for students now in grades K-8 versus the scores of African-American students who did not participate; describe the new grants that have been awarded to several elementary schools to support their school improvement efforts, especially in reading/writing literacy; discuss the results of the State Benchmark examinations for grades 4, 6, and 8 (if available by the hearing date); discuss the District's new writing curriculum for PreK-12 (which will be ready by the time school starts in fall 2002), its goals related to improved student achievement at all levels, and how it is aligned with the State's curriculum standards and the knowledge/skills required to perform well on the ACT. Dr. Lesley will also discuss efforts undertaken by the District specifically at the secondary level and the results achieved by the District so far. In particular, she will summarize the results of two studies related to the District 's advanced courses at the secondary level; discuss the section on \"Advanced Placement Courses\" on p. 36 of the Compliance Report of March 2001-the summary of activities that resulted in the improved enrollments; describe the District's partnership with the Southern Regional Education Board in the implementation of the \"High Schools that Work\" framework for high school reform, especially the emphasis on all students taking a rigorous program of study, including college preparatory courses in the core areas; describe the trend/research for high schools to admit more and more non-traditional students to advanced courses and the benefits derived from those changes in practice, including improved test results, improved ACT scores, improved performance in college, etc.; review the NAACP's \"Call for Action in Education,\" and compare the NAACP's recommendations to the District's efforts; and describe a study that she conducted on class size at the middle and high school Page 2 of 8 - - ---- levels, including the percentage of small classes that are advanced classes and the percentage of African-Americans who were enrolled in all classes under 20. Dr. Lesley will also update her testimony from November 2001 related to how she sees the District continuing to improve in the next several years. The District's efforts must also be consistent with the requirements of the new federal \"No Child Left Behind\" legislation. Accordingly, Dr. Lesley will explain the District's plan for implementing these new requirements and responding to the new accountability requirements, including the support for low-performing schools. During her testimony, Dr. Lesley will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. Lesley may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 2. Dr. Marian Lacey. Dr. Lacey will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from 10:00 a.m. until 11 :00 a.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan 2.6 (as it relates to extracurricular activities) and Revised Plan 2.6.3. Dr. Lacey is the Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools for the District. Dr. Lacey will testify that the Board adopted policies JB, JBA, JBA-R, JJ, JJ-R, JJIA, JJIB, JJIB-Rl, JJIB-R2, and JJIB-R3 in order to comply with Revised Plan  2.6; that the District increased participation in extracurricular activities 76 percent in the 1998-99 school year and another 26 percent in the 1999-2000 school years; that 62 percent of African-American students participated in extracurricular activities during the 1999-2000 school year; that the number of African-American students participating in co-curricular activities increased 9 percent in the 1998-99 school year and an additional 30 percent in the I 999-2000 school year; that a 1999-2000 parent survey indicated that 90 percent of African-American parents and 93 percent of African-American teachers thought that activities Page 3 of 8 were open to all students; that the SIP program has helped increase African-American participation in activities; that transportation is provided for all extracurricular activities; that the Activities Advisory Board has begun functioning; that the District has hired Danny Fletcher, an African-American, as Fine Arts Director; and that she is not aware of any barriers to participation by African-Americans in extracurricular activities. During her testimony, Dr. Lacey will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. Lacey may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 3. Jo Evelyn Elston. Ms. Elston will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from I :00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan  2.11 and 2.11.1 . Ms. Elston is Director of Pupil Services for the District. She will testify that during the term of the Revised Plan the District adopted policies JB, JBA and JLD; that counselors assist students with their educational, social, personal and career development; that each school conducts a needs assessment every three years and develops a school-based guidance plan; that the District has developed a comprehensive guidance program plan for both the elementary and secondary level; that counselors prepare monthly reports on their progress in implementing the guidance plan; that counselors are to keep a daily log of students counseled; that counselors have been instructed to encourage students to take pre-AP and AP courses; that counselors have attempted to ensure equity in honors, awards and scholarships; that counselors regularly prepare newsletters to notify students of scholarsh.ip opportunities, ACT preparation courses, etc.; that counselors provide all students with a written graduation plan; that secondary counselors prepare annual reports; that her office monitors both the monthly reports and annual reports prepared by counselors; that the Page 4 of 8 data on enrollment in pre-AP and AP courses, scholarships and honor graduates suggests that the counselors are doing a good job; that a 1999-2000 parent survey indicates that counselors are doing a good job; that the Safe School Health Students grant has allowed the Pupil Services Department to provide additional services to students; and that she is not aware of any systemic racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services. During her testimony, Ms. Elston will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Ms. Elston may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 4. Sadie Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell will testify from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 25, 2002, regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan  2.6, 2.6 .2, 2. 6.3, 2.11 and 2.11 .1. Ms. Mitchell is the Associate Superintendent for School Services for the - District. She will testify that the District has adopted the Total Quality Management philosophy and the principles underlying that philosophy; that the District has been awarded Quality Interest Award and Quality Commitment Award; that Campus Leadership Teams play an important role in school improvement; that the District has provided extensive training to make Campus Leadership Teams successful; that each school develops a school improvement plan each year, focusing on improving achievement in literacy and math; and that an important part of the District's strategy for improving achievement of African-American students is encouraging more African-American student to enroll in more rigorous academic courses. During her testimony, Ms. Mitchell will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even ifno longer monitored by the Court. Ms. Mitchell may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. Page 5 of 8 5. Dr. Ken James. Dr. James will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from 5:00 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. regarding the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. James is the current Superintendent of the District and has held that position for one year. Dr. James will testify that he supports and intends to follow District policies which require compliance with the Constitution and federal civil rights statutes. Dr. James will also discuss the District's partnership with the Southern Regional Education Board, its implementation of the \"High Schools that Work\" framework for high school reform and the importance of students taking a rigorous program of study. Dr. James may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua lntervenors during their case. 6. Baker Kurrus. Mr. Kurrus will testify on Friday, July 26, 2002, from 9:00 a.m. - until 10:00 a.m. regarding the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Mr. Kurrus is President of the District's Board of Directors. Mr. Kurrus will testify that the Board adopted and/or re-adopted policies during the term of the Revised Plan requiring compliance with the Revised Plan, Constitution and federal civil rights statutes; that every policy was adopted after being read at a prior Board meeting; that the Board fully expected the administration to comply with its policies requiring compliance with the Revised Plan; that the administration reported to the Board that it was complying with the Revised Plan; that a representative of the Joshua Intervenors was permitted to address the Board whenever requested; that in the 1998-1999 school year, the Board had 23 meetings and no representative of the Joshua lntervenors addressed the Board; that during the 1999-2000 school year, the Board had 20 meetings and a representative of the Joshua Intervenors appeared on July Page 6 of 8 22, 1999 and November 10, 1999; that at the July 22, 1999 meeting, attorney John Walker raised only general concerns; that the Board understood that the Superintendent worked with the Joshua Intervenors to address those concerns; that on November 10, 1999, attorney John Walker appeared to support parents and community members opposed to the closing of Mitchell Elementary School; that the Board agreed not to close Mitchell Elementary School; that during the 2000-2001 school year, the Board had 27 meetings, and the minutes reflect that Joy Springer appeared on behalfofthe Joshua Intervenors on January 25, 2001; that on that date Ms. Springer stated that improvements had been made, that there were still some issues to be addressed and that the Joshua Intervenors were hoping to work with administrators and the Board to address those issues; that the Board understood that the administration attempted to work with the Joshua lntervenors to resolve those issues; that the Board expected the Joshua Intervenors to raise in a - timely manner any compliance issues which could jeopardize the District obtaining unitary status, either with the Board or pursuant to Revised Plan  8; that the Board agreed to pay the Joshua Intervenors in advance to ensure Joshua's ability to monitor the District's compliance; that Joshua billed the District for monitoring, and the District paid those bills; that the Board never had any evidence presented to it that the District had not substantially complied with the Revised Plan; and that the Board adopted the Covenant to demonstrate and memorialize its good faith commitment to the Revised Plan and the Constitution in the future. Mr. Kurrus may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. Page 7 of 8 Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY!fjflzt1~- C. Fendley,Jr. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by U.S. mail or as otherwise indicated on July 10, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. I 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (hand-delivery) Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 F \\HOME\\FENDLEY\\l..RSD 2001 \\dcs-uniwy-wimcss-list- 7-22-02-revised.wpd Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 J~\u0026lt;=.F'endCley, fr -~ Page 8 of 8 RECEIVED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS u r-:,S~ll; RRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 JUL 1 5 2002 OfFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 BILL WILSON JUDGE Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Clay Fendley Facsimile (501) 604-5149 July 11, 2002 LETTER-ORDER BY FAX Mr. John Walker 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Samuel Jones, Ill 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell 11 800 Pleasant Ridge Road Little Rock, AR 72222 Mr. Dennis Hansen 111 Center Street, Suite l 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School, et al. 4:82CV00866 Dear Counsel: The filings yesterday appear to meet most of the requirements of paragraph 3 of the May 15 order. Joshua does need to file -- today -- a detailed statement of the expected testimony of their two rebuttal witnesses. It appears that Joshua has provided the exhibits referenced in LRSD's Motion in Limine. Joshua's filing of July 8 indicates that the testimony of Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Babbs will not be duplicative -- and the questioning of each witness will only be for ten minutes. It appears that Joshua has removed some of the \"rebuttal\" exhibits listed earlier. I will take a look-see at the other exhibits at the hearing which commences at 8:30 in the morning, unless LRSD concedes that Joshua's response renders those remaining relevant for rebuttal. LRSD v. Pulaski County School District July 11, 2002 Page Two Joshua indicates, in its July 8 pleading, that it does not intend to question Messrs. Mosby and Carter regarding their recent removal as principals. As long as the questioning of these two witnesses (as well as all the other witnesses) relates only to the three remaining issues, there should be no problem. Back to Joshua's two rebuttal witnesses. LRSD argues that they can't provide true rebuttal testimony, but I cannot rule on this point until I see the detailed summary of their expected testimony -- which, as noted above -- must be filed today. Turning now to Joshua Exhibit 767-776, 791 (Ms. Springer's letters). First off, let me state that I will not apply Monell in this case. That 1978 case, involving a Section 1983 complaint, is not applicable in school desegregation cases, in my view. The LRSD's objection to my ruling on this point is denied, and its exception is saved. I now quote from Joshua's July 8 filing with respect to these exhibits: The Joshua intervener should have the opportunity to seek the authentication of pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit 791, dealing with guidance, by the testimony of Junious Babbs and Sadie Mitchell . I will have to be more fully advised in the premises, during the hearing in the morning, as to the exact meaning of the above-quoted paragraph. Joshua's July 8 filing also indicates that these exhibits are offered to show \"notice.\" I assume that this means that Joshua is not offering them to prove truth of the contents. If this is correct, it removes the statements from the definition of hearsay, and I must turn to the question of whether \"notice\", in this manner, is admissible, and, if so, under what theory. In view of my ruling, above, on Monell, I see no reason to go further with respect to LRSD's \"relevance generally.\" I can't put my finger on the objection right now, but, as I recall, LRSD objected to Joshua's designation of LRSD's exhibits as Joshua's exhibits too. If I recall the objection correctly, it is overruled, and LRSD's exception is saved. While courthouse lore is often contrary to established law, it has been the practice of trial lawyers in this state, since the mind of man and woman runneth not to the contrary, to designate the other party's exhibits as their own. LRSD contends (again, as I recall it) that this designation is contrary to some provision in the May LRSD v. Pulaski County School District July 11, 2002 Page Three l 5 order. If that order prohibited this specific designation, I'm going to ignore that particular portion of the order (in this context). If there are other issues that should be addressed in the morning, I would be much obliged if the parties would send Judge Ray and me a fax today identifying those issues. Thank you. ci!il~ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. cc: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray Original to the Clerk of the Court RECEIVED 9N1110llNOW NOllYD3\\193S30 JUL 1 s 2002 United States District Court ~033wo --::aor--______EA_ ST_ER_N_ __ DlSTIU~rr _ ARI\u0026lt;ANSAS ZOOZ 8 1 1nr - OFACEOF T TTT: r: Rnr'f(Fcltm~~SION rnE ii.R~Ilg~~OM~E~~cr EAST~r1f.Pc1STAICT ARK'lTNSAs ~~~jl:I JUL 1\"' 1 2002 LASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et a!.MES W McCORMACK, CLERK CASE NIBvffiER: 4 : 82CV008, ,_..,.,. 1--:- . B~: DEP. C[ERKI --  TnO~L'\\S R..~Y Christopner Eelle:::-, et al. Sam Jones, et a1. u!v\" 9, ?QQ? \\ ~a'fi,1.yn Fant \\ FsF Swapsol! . - - x~ 7-~-i;: - ' :x ~~b ~ I I ::x '/ Yip I I ex 'JtP \\ \\ \\ I \\ ~ 4S \\ \\ \\ I \\ I ex 1 5,) I ( I I I ex '757 I l I I I ex 153 I \\ I I I 1 cxt~ I ) \\ \\ \\ ~,si; I I I I . . $:~~;ot;;,ff'g;_\\vc.~ ~o' l~-r1'14\"~ ~ Tu-14-eo r ~ ~ -/2, ~ ~-a {~ ~qo) (-~ ~ 0'1-;;;i...q-ot ~ _,, ~\u0026lt;;J.\u0026amp;,.._ . hw--,.._-ft ~ H-% tL,v/., ~,~-t ~7-.J.-O ;,' . /07) I t-~ ~ I I - I le -oo ~~ ~ ~ 'To \\~~ I c;__ - mi:iJ_ cue~ 03 -01 -o 1 0 . 1-l T ~ 0-,ui_ /14 w....;t cf.d_-fa, C:3-07-D( (l.f:/)..'i/11-f .f'(i/4 ; I It,, ::..n,._d.J.. clLW D 7-b--ul (rfJr.ri - -le l liJ(),\\J. (h.ti_ - ~ ~ D7-11p-ot {. g~ 1 (-r,,..\u0026amp;.l I.,~ o\u0026lt;o-~g--01 c,:o\u0026lt;:sa..-f'r\u0026lt;- F H~ ~ -fc o-r,J2.-n4,..;,2 ,~ ~ ~I ( P. tq;;\u0026gt;. tL.d /q 3 \\ u cv ~ :J ;o United States District Court ________E_ AS_TE_RN __ DtSTIUCT OF --:::-=:ARKAN==-~SA~S _______ I T TTTJ 'C' Barz DIVISION [T ROCK SCF.OOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECL~L SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NlJ11BER: 4: 8 2CVOO! J:-iHO~L\u0026gt;\\S RAY I ..._,...Ch:-   11 al  1-- r1.stopne= J::ie_ er, et . Sam jones, et al . .!u!v' 9, 2002 l.aTI,1yn Fant I w;; Swapson ex 7 rsr; '!- '1-0 ~ -~ cl.t:rfu- oq-.).q-oo ~ ~ ~ ~ / K~ -~ IU:P~ ;;Jboo-O~ CR _57) I I ~ -riutJ- d,i.,# 10 - 3-00 ~ ~, e~ ~ ~ k - ~ ~ -'Alt ~1--~ ( A @J I 0 l I\\ I I I I ( - h\\._~  Q -I~ ~ I 3 - if I  I rJ.-.,J. Ca:~ c.~ 1q ') I .f\\ - ;.. United States District Court -----------=EA:..:..::.S.;::.;:TE=RN_ __ DtSTIUCT OF ARKANSAS  I TTTT ,:- Rory --;:;D~[V~IS~I07-;\"N~-------- [T ROCK SCP.COL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE IBJMBER: 4: 82CVOOl T\"\"'nfmL-\\S RAY 1-- 1-- Chriscophe-:- Eeller, et al. Sam Jones, et: al. Ju!v\" 9, 2002 \\t'arcilyn Fane \\ :acf'\"\" 5 . . . . - -   ~--~v  wapson \\cx'Y7(p \\ \\ \\ \\ \\~ ~ Ofv-07-06 ~ ~ il\u0026gt;~1  ex 117 I I I I 1e~ /k ~:;;~-OI United States District Court -----= ______ E_AS_TE_R_N __ D1STR.ICT OF -~ARK.!~!\\N:7SA~S ______ _ - I TTTJ ,:- :gnrx DIVISION ITTLE ROCK SCROOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE N\"'illvffiER: 4: 82CVOO! Ju!v\" 9, 2002 I \\ \\ ex 1ero  I I ...-.... ......... Christopher Eeller, et al. I. t:\"a'fp1 yn F an_t I,__ Kathv s~apson I I I I (-;y...r,i,__,t ~ 09-3o-CO - ~ c=r-c..,, __ -/TJ ~ -ak h{Jz;,/.4- t..,\\ ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \\ \\ I I I I \\ I ~  1 - ~~ Ct4\u0026lt;M..e. - I ~v-Q_ e,o ~d-'7t j ~ ~ 68-04--Cfq ~ ~ rn~ I] United States District Court ~-------E_A_ST_ER_N ___ D1Sn.ICT OF --=::-::ARK.!::::!\\N:::-:S-;-A_S ______ _ - I TTTT -c- pnry DIVISION .ITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I. 'ULASKI COUNTY SPECL~L SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. , rnfmL~S RAY I I ........, __ Christopher Eeller, et al. mtv\" 9, 2002 \\.t\"a'fl\u0026gt;1.yn Fant I I I I I I I I EXHIBIT LIST CASE NIBvIBER: 4: 82CVOQ. ~  I . I United States District Court ________ EA_ST_ER_N __ D!STRICT OF_~ARKAN==SA;.:;....S ______ _ - I TT.,..J\"\" :gnrK D[VISION ~ITTLE ROCK SCP.COL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NillvIBER: 4: 82CV0C 1:--THOK!\\.S RAY \\ 'chr'i';;opher Heller, e't al. \\ 7a:j;nes, et: al. ex \u0026lt;lO / I I I -pG.A.k~..J ~ ~ ~ ~1~ I l ~, 7_;);).-:,btl~ 7-~-557'6 United States District Court ___. ,..___ _____EA _S_TE_RN __ DlSTRlCT OF --=-::-ARKAN~_;;,.;.SA~S _______ - I TTTJ, ROCK DIVISION CTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NUMBER: 4: s2cvooc T\"\"'fiim-L'\\S RAY \\ 'chr':i';;opher Heller, et al. I ~-~nes, et al. J,....u .1. \" 'v\" 9, 2002 1--\"+ F 1---  1.,ar.9.1.yn an~ Kathv \u0026lt;;wapson ex?; / 3 ~-1-0;).. J!.P.W f-lciB.,Zv().(.d' -~ =-t-14 -t-u~1 9~J~ooo (,--;;i ct- 01qq1,;1. -j-T) /-;).f-0111,;iq. I I J/.d-,0--0 ro ;1.1esc/~ ~ t -c) -DICfl :\u0026gt;.~ I -)f-ol C/ '1~) I I rf..R.. SJ) ~~\"--\" ~~\"'\u0026lt;..LO- t/-l';;l - !'119- 'd{JO() {1--~-K-o/CjCJQ;, ~ /~)(-cJ/19(:;q) 1 I I I I 1:- ~ \"'4'.P / '\\,U,VTI\\J/ ~t:\u0026lt;19 _ g 17 \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ P~~vt- ~Cll.Ad   1 I I I . l ~-4 . iqqq(l-~-DI . United States District Court ~-------EA_ST_E_RN ___ DIS'TRICT OF _-::-:-:'-ARKAN~-:-:-SA_S ______ _ - I TTTT -c- BOrK DIVISION LTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NUMBER: 4:s2cvoo1: J:-iHOI:La\\S RA.Y I ~i-;;opher Heller, et al. I ~-'j;nes, et al. Ju!v' 9, 2002 l.ra'fp1.yn Fant I w~ Swapsop United States District Court __________EA_ ST_E_RN_ __ DISTIUCT OF -~ARK.!~~~SA_S_ _______ - I TTTJ i:- BOrK DIVISION :TTLE ROCK SCP.COL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST JLASKI COUNTY SPECL~L SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NlJrvfBER: 4:82CV008 Ju!v\" 9, 2002 \\ :C-a~'lyn Fan~ I w~ Swanson ex Mo I \\ex '6ltq \\ ~~ i;-D I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I \\ \\ I I I I I I 11--R..SD ~Z\u0026gt; -ot ~~ ~ e  (1-:).\u0026lt;;i\"'-oJo3~ --fo f-:\u0026gt;-f-6)031./7) l'J'l'L . :/S~ Ct -:\u0026gt;-i ..... Q d-0 iJL/::;;. 71\u0026gt; I- d-\u0026lt;t-Od-() c.;9) United States District Court __________EA_ ST_ER_N_ __ DlSTRlCT OF --=::=:ARKAN~~SA~S _______ - r TTT'J ,:- B/\"\\rT\u0026lt;\" D1VISION ITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST lTLASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE N\"'U1v1BER: 4: 82CV001: r:-'fRO!:-LA.S RAY I 'chr'i';;opher Heller, et al. I s:;j';;'nes, ec al. .ru!v' 9, 2002 l.'.Ca'fp1.y:n F~n.t I FsF Swanson ~ sr;;-\\ ~g, I ! ! I I Im vT ~..-. DI ( t -- -;;;.. f_ o){Jb{i.  --/-\u0026lt;iJ /-\";;).f-c~O\u0026amp;:J/';;}. I 1, '\\ I~ ~  ~ P~ \\ c?.06 r - ').Do ::i. (r --;}. F '-0 ::i. o~ 'gC/7zJ I-';) ?-o~t) 77;) ex g Go I I . I 1~ ~ -  ,~ ~o~ ex '6l, ( \\ ) \\ \\ \\ \\ ~ tJ HD -1 f ' b -~;;J- 6'/-3'{ -r,, 7~ ';,;;). _,;11d 1 \\ ( \\ \\ \\ \\ t\u0026lt;.. itL,tr ~ vth~::2. ( 1 cx ~ (,)- \\ . I ~J;;;ff:LI 1 g ..-- l-0, ~ (7- -;; - [;l/l/D lD 7 - ;;;-;;) - X q, 6 3 I . / I I I I ~ ' 7  ~If!!_ ( c).COC  i~4 I \\ I I I 1~ ~7-~-m1/fe7-?2-w1J United States District Court --------E-ASTE-RN ---DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS I TTII 't\" BOrK DIVISION [T~ ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al . CASE NUMJ3ER: 4: 82CVOOE .i-:-firo-t-Lt\\.S RAY \\ 'chr'i;;opher Heller, et: al.. \\ ~~nes, et al. Ju!v' 9, 2002 luTI,1yn F.ant I wF Swapson I I I -I I I I I I .. - I I \\ I I I I I I I ex I I I I I I I I -I I I I I I I I I I I  I I I I I RECEIVED - JUL 2 .. 2 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING u.fo lbf cPuRT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO~ERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JUL 1 8 2002 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: ----~D::-:E\"\"'P.\"\"\"c\"\"\"'Le=A-R LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTER VEN ORS KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTER VEN ORS ORDER 1. My May 15, 2002 Order read, in part, as follows: 4. In addition to exchanging exhibit lists, each party must exchange pre-marked exhibits on or before June 21 , 2002. Any exhibit that is not pre-marked and exchanged on or before June 21 , 2002, will not be received into evidence during the July 22 hearing, absent highly unusual circumstances. (Emphasis added.) 2. In a letter dated July 16, 2002, Mr. Walker enclosed seven proposed rebuttal exhibits. I will deal with them one by one. 3. CX 599 has been previously identified by Joshua and, absent a specific objection, will be admitted. 4. A Bonnie Lesley July 27, 2001 e-mail to Ms. Anne Brown (Marshall) was not - - - - - ----- - - - - -- - - - - - identified and marked prior to the June 21 deadline, and will be excluded. 5. A copy of the cover sheet for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, which is entitled \"Report on the Little Rock School District's Preparations for Implementation of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan,\" dated August 11, 1999. I assume, but do not know, that Joshua plans to introduce the entire report, although nothing but the cover sheet was provided in the letter. In any event, it violates the deadline set forth above and will be excluded. 6. Ms. Bonnie Lesley's February 21, 2000 letter to Ms. Anne Brown regarding \"recent LRSD publications.\" It will be excluded for the same reason.  7. A letter dated April 13, 2000, from Ms. Anne S. Brown to Dr. Bonnie Lesley acknowledging receipt of Ms. Lesley's February 21 , 2000 letter and attachments. It will be excluded. 8. Ann Brown's April 25,200 memo to Bonnie Lesley regarding \"feedback on LRSD Curriculum Documents.\" It will be excluded. 9. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring's October 26, 1999 \"Achievement Disparity Between The Races In The Little Rock School District.\" This will be excluded. 10. In the last paragraph beginning on the first page of Mr. Heller's July 17 letter, he requests that Mr. Walker be required to identify, by page and line number, the testimony of Dr. Lesley, which renders the rebuttal testimony of Ms. Marshall and Mr. Jones necessary. This is a fair request, and I normally would require it if time were not so short. I do note that Mr. Walker has only thirty minutes, total, for rebuttal. 11 . In the first full paragraph of Mr. Heller's letter dated July 17, 2002, which begins, \"in its Motion in Limine ... \" LRSD objects to the reading into evidence portions of the -2- depositions of certain Board members. With the exception of Dr. Karen Mitchell's testimony at lines 13-23 on page 27, all of remaining designated deposition testimony relates exclusively to the issues of academic achievement and program evaluations which are not among the issues which will be addressed during the hearing beginning on July 22. The objection is sustained. 12. In view of the sustaining of the objection, in the next preceding paragraph, the remainder of Mr. Heller's letter is moot. IT IS so ORDERErH DATED this / B day of July, 2002. -3- THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WlTf: ~UL7 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP ' 7//9/tJ~ ~ 07/18/2002 11:16 5016045149 PAGE 02 RECEJVED JUL 2 -2 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FILJ:D : U.S. DISTRl~COURT  EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1 8 2002 STATE OF ARKANSAS JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENEME----=..,,_.,.;._ oJiliP~ Deputy Attorney G\u0026lt;m~l Civil Department Direct dial: (BOI) 682,2586 Mark Pryor Attorney General R~~tr,s July 17, 2002 ... _,,~ The Honorable William R. Wilson . J. a~j (U?\"'w:U;_ ~1:~~ Jr. United States District Court ~nO ~~~ '(/ uE.t. ~~sx;~~~~g~e 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 11) : ~ Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. Case No. 4:82CV0866WRW/JTR Dear Judge Wilson: oiC  ~ \"f!:11-(0)- eneral, counsel for the Arkansas Department of Education in the above-referenced matter, es ec y request that we be excus from the final evidentiary hearing on the Little Rock School Distnct s otlon or m ary tatus set to begin on Monday, July 22, 2002. The presentation of evidence by Joshua and the Little Rock School District on the remaining issues does not appear to require our attendance at the hearing and we do not intend to examine witnesses or otherwise participate. Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing. c=~~ DENNIS R. HANSEN Deputy Attorney General DRH/km cc: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. SamuelJones,III Mr. Richard W. Roachell Mr. John Walker Ms. Ann Marshall Mr. Steve Jones Original to the Clerk of the Court 323 Center Street  Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-8084 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Q :\\Civi1\\DenniaHldeeeg\\2002\\Con-espondcnce\\judgeltt07-l 7 .doc JUL.19.2002 10:36AM Ja-!N W W~KER P A N0.732 P.2 na:\\;flVEu - JUL 2 2 2002 OFFIC~ OF n ,:.:( .l! '/1\"~\"  \"\" I~IO NITORING JOffNW. WAt,Klm . SHAWN CH1LD8 Honorable William R. Wilson United States District Jlldge 600 W. Capitol Suite 149 Little Rock. AR 12201 JoHNW. WALKER,P.A. u Ff LS::D .s. DISTR1\u0026lt;!'rcou M:TOBNXT kt LAW EASTERN DISTRICT RT 1723 B'RoADWAY ARKAN SAS Lrm\u0026amp;Rocx,ARKANSAB 72206 JUL 1 9 2002 TELEPS'ONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 814-4187 JA_M~~q5M , Sy, -,~~aw;..~,~C~LERK~ . T MOcHFECNORUYN PiE.AL. , _ DONNAJ. ~y VI.a Facsbnile: 604--5149 July 19, 2002  8210 HIMl'l!SON BoAD 14:rrt,\u0026amp; Roc:x. ~ 7l!l!l0 PROm: (501) 11n-3426  Fax (501) 372,M28 EliWl-~bell.net 7 l -- ct_..\u0026lt;!L ,. h , . ~))4 \"~ f l)f il)UI-~  ~ dra'I' ~lA lA'L  ~ \u0026lt;J r ) i: CA V\\11 L  _A _1t ,i.,VII\\ ~ ,-A,1/~p ))\\f I , ~,t.\u0026amp;_ ~;;-.;, ,, u9--1 ) _,d.Jfo/'f .A ~ !-+Iv'' \u0026gt;;f/i u C~----aJfl--\\ ~f~i,ll 1 ~l ..,_;;,a,Lv--' i),L{ . ~{' ~'':' 1:,,t--\u0026amp; 1#..\"' v-.\u0026lt;1-Y,~J:v ~1,\u0026lt;, I ,. -~--;\";j))}-tL ffed: ,e-. Y:,. i,..1L '10   1i '\\ tJ,'.Jl.-.- if J?,1 ,uA-a.t.--.;(,~{# ~ '?r.,,/,'P-\" v\" Ct ~ 1'.-c11~u~ Dear Judge Wilsoll! \\,Vw-,.-v' .,/4A, J;-{,t,Jul- \\,~A.A. ~t.U: '  IJ\"'\"t/' One of the witnesses that we listed Ms. Ethel Dunbar~ Principal of Franklin ElementarY  , pit.Q.,,( School has been subpoenaed for the 8,30. July 22, 2002 hearing as directed by the Court. She ;,(c.' (J)l)-M has called me to ask excuse from being present at 8:30 due to State Department of Education }- business at that time. She is scheduled to appear 8$ a witness on Wednesday. I see no probleui n~ L\\. in haVing hor appear on Wednesday other th8n your order. Toe District, l llll1 sure, will alao C'- \"')'. want her exoused if it is also possible. I am therefore writing to request tha1 she be allowed to ., v\"  l..f report on Wedneoda}' momlng, July 24, 2002. ralh\u0026lt;:r than July 22. 2002. ~, \"\"'; Thank you for whatever consideration you may give regarding this request. JWW:lp cc; Honorable J, Thomas Ray Mr, Chris Heller Ms, Ethel Dun.bar 10/10 39'i1d 51,rs RECEIVED JUL 2 2 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 BILL WILSON JUDGE Mr. Dennis Hansen Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 July 19, 2002 BY FAX FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1 9 2002 ~~~~ RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School, et al. 4:82CV00866WRW / JTR Dear Mr. Hansen: You may be excused from next week's evidentiary hearing in this case a t - your discretion. cc: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray All Counsel of Record Original to the Clerk Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. RECEIVED Fii ;:~ u ~--.. , EAsrMRsN ?;,ftt1ff co URT ' ARKANSAS f JUL 3 0 2002 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . JUL 1 r 2~n2 l a_ OFFICEOF 90ESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTE~I;:~c6ii s~NS~:MES w. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO.-4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.I, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DEP CLE~K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to reconsider its Order of July 18, 2002 which was faxed to us at the end of the business day, yesterday, July 18, 2002. On the day before, July 1 7, 2002, plaintiffs counsel filed a letter with the Comi by fax, also at the end of the business day, wherein counsel made several objections citing authority for one. The Joshua Intervenors were not afforded an opportunity to respond prior to the Court's Order. The Joshua Intervenors, therefore, object to the Court's entry of an Order on a disputed matter without their having been afforded a reasonable response time to the plaintiffs motion. We note that there are only 30 minutes of rebuttal testimony and evidence at issue here. Joshua notes that the positions of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) have been considered vital in the previous deliberations during fact finding proceedings. In the past, the Court Itself has invited the ODM to state its findings on matters which it had monitored. That has been the established procedure in this case for its duration. Joshua counsel acknowledges that the transition from one judge to another will result in some changes in the administration of a case; but Joshua believes that it is fundamental that the role of the ODM be preserved not only in operation but in presentation of the facts which it learns during its monitoring. Joshua proceeds now to address the reasons for the motion herein. 1) Joshua communication with Ms. Ann Marshall before June 21 , 2002 and even since then has been difficult due to personal circumstances of Ms. Marshall. Ms. Marshall's personal situation constitutes \"highly unusual circumstances.\" 2) The Leslie e-mail of July 27, 2001 to Ms. Marshall is a document which the Distiict has had for some time. There is no unfair prejudice to the plaintiff for it to be used by Ms. Marshall during her testimony. We submit that the Court's ruling should be reconsidered because it simply identifies ODM documents. 3) The Court excludes the ODM \"Report on the Little Rock School Districts Preparation for Implementation of its Revised Desegregation and Education Report.\" We note that this report is already a pait of the Court's record. It was filed when it was prepared. Please note the file mark of August 1 1, 1999. The cover sheet was submitted simply for reference by Joshua because the Court already has the entire report. I presume, but apologize for presuming, that the Court was aware that this report was already a pait of the record. [See Par. 5, infra.] 4) The Bonnie Leslie letter of February 21 , 2000 has also been excluded by the Court. We object to the Court's ruling for the reason, supra. The District contends that ODM participated in the evaluations that it made. The letter of February 21, 2000 shows that Leslie invited \"feedback for improvement\" or questions regarding the certain curriculum documents rather than for \"evaluations.\" We request that we at least be allowed to proffer the document with a note that Ms. Marshall may surely testify about the contents therein. 5) The Court excluded the ODM Report of August 26, 1999. This, too, has been filed as a matter of record in this case since August 26, 1999. It is not a new exhibit. The Court has had this exhibit before it now for almost three years. I ask the Court to reconsider its exclusionary ruling because the effect of it is to remove an admitted document from the record. [Underlining added for emphasis.] 6) Finally, with respect to the identified testimony of school board members, the Court precludes all but the testimony of Dr. Mitchell at lines 13-27 on p. 27. We feel that the Court should reconsider this ruling because an issue of good faith is also raised with respect to the issues which were before the Court in the first proceeding. For example, Dr. Carnine testified regarding the subjects in issue. His credibility was a clear issue. Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Strickland were asked questions regarding Dr. Carnine's truthfulness to them as board members. We are entitled to show that either they did not consider him credible or that they would falsify a response themselves rather than give a statement of their experiences with Carnine regarding Carnine's truthfulness. Carnine's truthfulness goes to the District's good faith and to the integrity of the evidence recited in the reports prepared under Carnine's supervision in March of 2000 and 2001. Also, please note, Judge Wilson, that the school board members depositions were taken after we had basically concluded our case on those issues before the Court. We could not have presented it during our case-in-chief because it was not then available. Furthermore, the depositions were before the Court as exhibits before the June 21, 2002 deadline for filing exhibits. The cited lines relate to the issue of good faith with respect to good faith, discipline, student achievement and program evaluations. In conclusion, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to reconsider its Order and to modify it accordingly. Joshua also requests that if the Court is inclined to make an instantaneous ruling on a motion by the District that the Cow1 afford Joshua reasonable time to respond before entering an Order. Robert Pressman, Mass Bar 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 . r, AR Bar No. 64046 ' JOHNW. WALK.ER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Rickey Hicks, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 3 7 4-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoin/ ~.ha been \"},:,lf and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel ofrecord, on this day of I  , 2002: I Mr. Clay Fendley Mr. Dennis R. Hansen FRlDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Office of the Attorney General 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 323 Center Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 Tower Building Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones \\\\TRJGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 rvir. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 JUL 2 2 2002 A OFACEOF  DESEGREGATION MONITORING UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * .I)ISTRICTNO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * * * * * * 4:82CV00866 ORDER u.fo1{fm~cRRr EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1 :e 2002 i;,~~-1-r I have reviewed Joshua's motion for reconsideration of the July 18, 2002 order excluding - certain documents Joshua recently identified as exhibits for use with their rebuttal witnesses. First, Joshua points out that the Court entered its order without allowing Joshua an opportunity to respond to LRSD's letter requesting the exclusion of those exhibits. While the Court normally allows opposing counsel an opportunity to respond to an issue before ruling, in this case Joshua had clearly violated the Court's May 15, 2002 Scheduling Order that explicitly required Joshua to identify all exhibits they intended to use during the July 22, 2002 hearing -- on or before June 21 , 2002. In light of that undisputed fact, which was the basis for my exclusion of those proposed exhibits, I saw ( and see) no reason for allowing Joshua an opportunity to respond. Second, Joshua points out that a number of the documents have previously been filed in the record. I was fully aware of that fact at the time I entered my order. However, merely because a - --- - - - - - ---- - ---- document has been filed in the record does not excuse Joshua from complying with the May 15 Scheduling Order. It explicitly required them to pre-mark and exchange with opposing counselall exhibits that it intended to use during the July 22 hearing. Under Joshua's interpretation of the May 15 Scheduling Order, they would be permitted to use, as rebuttal exhibits, any of the thousands upon thousands of documents that have been filed in this case during the last two or three years without identifying and exchange those documents with opposing counsel (marked as exhibits) -- as required by this order. Finally, in connection with the excluded deposition testimony, Joshua has construed the remaining issue of \"good faith\" in far too broad a context. The only good faith issue that remains to be tried in this case is LRSD's substantial compliance with its obligations regarding extracurricular activities, advance placement courses, and guidance counseling. To the extent that Joshua desired to use this deposition testimony, which was known to them before the conclusion of the November 19, 2001 hearing, Joshua should have submitted that testimony as part of its case in chief. Since the trial date is upon us, if either side files a motion, at this late hour, an instantaneous ruling is likely if the motion or request is patently meritorious, as it was in this case. For both parties: The chute is about to open -- get your best hold. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 19th day of July, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE o';~9J~J.~; ~~~,o:~ 2 U/f!i;{ [~ U. S. DISTRICT JU~~ UNITED STATES MAGISTRA TE JUDGE J 600 WEST CAPITOL R  THOMAS RAY , OOM 149 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PHONE: (501) 604-5230 FAX: (501) 604-5237 FACSIMILE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 2 2 2002 RECEIVED JUL 2 3 2002 omcEoF DESEGREGATION MONITORING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE J. THOMAS RAY 600 WEST CAPITOL, ROOM 149 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PHONE: (501) 604-5230 FAX: (501) 604-5237 FACSIMILE FROM: \\,..I ~ ,_r\\ - ~ '\\! N't\\ . \\'\\. ~ ' :s Q(\\ FAX No: ~7 4 - L\\ \\ 'o7 / \"3 7lo-2\\47 DA7E: ~ \"'-\\Q 2\\/ 200 2 RECEIVED JUL 2 3 2002 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE: ~ ~\\~ '2..2. \\\\~r\\\"A \\..~bb \"' ~ '-s s.:h  No. Ac. ezcv O0 7 _ 2. 7 - D L-- J s,~ PAGES: {ji_JJ,/\\. ~~: } ~vn1.12 J N-'/;\" ~ ,zf:;u- lf!J,V; O-A,J) ~I\\ 1), ~ /_,M-.(,;_p f-t\u0026amp;.w-J!{ 1M.e_ u,_/,,c6i (\\_ ~~ i~!J)_ 1 ~ ,vy\u0026amp;,.~r (a~ tt%/J  ,~A.Vi.,i,\"-'i.t..J J,f.#.,T waf k lJ.bl} tf--l-L/v4J / ,u. ' ~ 1 ,y-JrJ-i {}/wv1.-' 06V1.,l7f-fQ1::;1 . ri 1~. ~ l\u0026lt;.c ~i!l l,vll~ X C : \\../.C1' / ~ 4--(/--r,~ f\u0026lt;-J-,t 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE J. THOMAS RAY 600 WEST CAPITOL, ROOM 149 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PHONE: (501) 604-5230 FAX: (501) 604-5237 FACSIMILE RECEIVED FROM: 'N~-\"- 'v-J :\\s ~ JUL 2 3 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING -FAX ;:.o, 0\\ 4- 4\\~7 / ~llo-Z I '\\7 RE: ~ ::--~ - ?~;- F\"!L %fR1 g,srR,~ D IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO~T ,srR,cr ~/!:J EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSA~. JUL 2 3 2i sAs WESTERN DIVISION s;MEs w M 'OJ2  ccoRMAc K, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PL V. LR-C-82-866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS LIST FOR THE JULY 22, 2002 HEARING AS REVISED JULY 23, 2002 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") hereby identifies the following witnesses to be called at the July 22, 2002 hearing and provides a detailed statement of their expected testimony: 1. Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Dr. Lesley will testify on Wednesday, July 24, 2002, from I :00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan  2.6 (as it relates to advanced placement courses) and Revised Plan  2.6.1 and 2.6.2. Dr. Lesley is the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction for the District. Dr. Lesley will testify that the District's efforts to increase African-American emollment in advanced placement courses and to ensure their success in those courses begins as soon as they enter the District. In this regard, Dr. Lesley will review the latest results from the K-2 reading assessments (the third year of the program's implementation and the third year of testing data); describe a recent study conducted by Page 1 of 7 a team in her Division on the academic effects of participation by African-American students in the District's pre-kindergarten program for students now in grades K-8 versus the scores of AfricanAmerican students who did not participate; discuss the District's new writing curriculum for PreK- 12 (which will be ready by the time school starts in fall 2002), its goals related to improved student achievement at all levels, and how it is aligned with the State's curriculum standards and the knowledge/skills required to perform well on the ACT. Dr. Lesley will also discuss efforts undertaken by the District specifically at the secondary level and the results achieved by the District so far. In particular, she will summarize the results of two studies related to the District's advanced courses at the secondary level; discuss the section on \"Advanced Placement Courses\" on p. 36 of the Compliance Report of March 2001 - the summary of activities that resulted in the improved enrollments; especially the emphasis on all students taking a rigorous program of study, including college preparatory courses in the core areas; describe the trend/research for high schools to admit more and more non-traditional students to advanced courses and the benefits derived from those changes in practice, including improved test results, improved ACT scores, improved performance in college, etc.; review the NAACP's \"Call for Action in Education,\" and compare the NAACP's recommendations to the District's efforts; and describe a study that she conducted on class size at the middle and high school levels, including the percentage of small classes that are advanced classes and the percentage of African-Americans who were enrolled in all classes under 20. During her testimony, Dr. Lesley will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. Lesley may also offer other testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. Page 2 of 7 2. Dr. Marian Lacey. Dr. Lacey will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from 10:00 a.m. until 11 :00 a.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan  2.6 (as it relates to extracurricular activities) and Revised Plan  2.6.3. Dr. Lacey is the Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools for the District. Dr. Lacey will testify that the Board adopted policies JB, IBA, IBA-R, JJ, JJ-R, JJIA, JJIB, JJIB-Rl , JJIB-R2, and JJIB-R3 in order to comply with Revised Plan  2.6; that the District increased participation in extracurricular activities 76 percent in the 1998-99 school year and another 26 percent in the 1999-2000 school years; that 62 percent of AfricanAmerican students participated in extracurricular activities during the 1999-2000 school year; that the number of African-American students participating in co-curricular activities increased 9 percent in the 1998-99 school year and an additional 30 percent in the 1999-2000 school year; that a 1999- 2000 parent survey indicated that 90 percent of African-American parents and 93 percent of African- - American teachers thought that activities were open to all students; that the SIP program has helped increase African-American participation in activities; that transportation is provided for all extracurricular activities; that the District has hired Danny Fletcher, an African-American, as Fine Arts Director; and that she is not aware of any barriers to participation by African-Americans in extracurricular activities. During her testimony, Dr. Lacey will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. Lacey may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 3. Jo Evelyn Elston. Ms. Elston will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from 1 :00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan  2.11 and 2.11.1 . Ms. Elston is Director of Pupil Services for the District. She will testify that during the term of the Revised Plan the District adopted policies JB, IBA and JLD; that counselors assist students with Page 3 of 7 their educational, social, personal and career development; that each school conducts a needs assessment every three years and develops a school-based guidance plan; that the District has developed a comprehensive guidance program plan for both the elementary and secondary level; that counselors prepare monthly reports on their progress in implementing the guidance plan; that counselors are to keep a daily log of students counseled; that counselors have been instructed to encourage students to take pre-AP and AP courses; that counselors have attempted to ensure equity in honors, awards and scholarships; that counselors regularly prepare newsletters to notify students of scholarship opportunities, ACT preparation courses, etc.; that counselors provide all students with a written graduation plan; that secondary counselors prepare annual reports; that her office monitors both the monthly reports and annual reports prepared by counselors; that the data on enrollment in pre-AP and AP courses, scholarships and honor graduates suggests that the counselors are doing a - good job; that a 1999-2000 parent survey indicates that counselors are doing a good job; that the Safe School Health Students grant has allowed the Pupil Services Department to provide additional services to students; and that she is not aware of any systemic racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services. During her testimony, Ms. Elston will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Ms. Elston may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 4. Sadie Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell will testify from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 25, 2002, regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan  2.6, 2.6.2, 2.6.3, 2.11 and 2.11. 1. Ms. Mitchell is the Associate Superintendent for School Services for the District. Ms. Page 4 of 7 Mitchell may offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 5. Baker Kurrus. Mr. Kurrus will testify on Friday, July 26, 2002, from 9:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m. regarding the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Mr. Kurrus is President of the District's Board of Directors. Mr. Kurrus will testify that the Board adopted and/or re-adopted policies during the term of the Revised Plan requiring compliance with the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement courses, that every policy was adopted after being read at a prior Board meeting; that the Board fully expected the administration to comply with its policies requiring compliance with the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement courses; that the administration reported to the Board that it was complying with the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement courses; that a representative of the Joshua Jntervenors was permitted to address the Board whenever requested; that in the 1998-1999 school year, the Board had 23 meetings and no representative of the Joshua Jntervenors addressed the Board; that during the 1999-2000 school year, the Board had 20 meetings and a representative of the Joshua Jntervenors appeared on July 22, 1999 and November 10, 1999; that at the July 22, 1999 meeting, attorney John Walker raised only general concerns; that the Board understood that the Superintendent worked with the Joshua Intervenors to address those concerns; that on November 10, 1999, attorney John Walker appeared to support parents and community members opposed to the closing of Mitchell Elementary School; that the Board agreed not to close Mitchell Elementary School; that during the 2000-2001 school year, the Board had 27 meetings, and the minutes reflect Page 5 of 7 that Joy Springer appeared on behalf of the Joshua Intervenors on January 25, 2001; that on that date Ms. Springer stated that improvements had been made, that there were still some issues to be addressed and that the Joshua Intervenors were hoping to work with administrators and the Board to address those issues; that the Board understood that the administration attempted to work with the Joshua Intervenors to resolve those issues; that the Board expected the Joshua Intervenors to raise in a timely manner any compliance issues which could jeopardize the District obtaining unitary status, either with the Board or pursuant to Revised Plan  8; that the Board agreed to pay the Joshua Intervenors in advance to ensure Joshua's ability to monitor the District's compliance; that Joshua billed the District for monitoring, and the District paid those bills; that the Board never had any evidence presented to it that the District had not substantially complied with the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement - courses; and that the Board adopted the Covenant to demonstrate and memorialize its good faith commitment to the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement courses and the Constitution in the future. Mr. Kurrus may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. Respectfully    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_330","title":"Compliance court filings","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":["2002/2006"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School administrators","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court filings"],"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/330"],"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":["347 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\n6: da vvu \u0026gt; John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS December 22, 2002 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. PA. DONNA J. McHENRY  8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F.ax (501) 372-3428 Emul: mcheni'yd@swbell.net Michael E. Gans, Clerk U.S. Court of Appeals 111 South 10th Street St. Louis, MO 63102 Room 24.329 RECEIVED DEC 2 6 2002 Re: 02-3867 Little Rock School District V . Joshua Intervenors OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Mr. Gans, This letter addresses several issues in connection with this appeal. Transcripts All transcripts needed for this appeal earlier for counsel's use in the District Court. had been prepared Method of Preparation of Appendix The parties will submit separate appendices. Designation of Record (Appellant) Joshua Intervenors' designation is attached to this letter. Statement of Issues (Appellant) Joshua Intervenors' statement of issues letter. is attached to this cc Chris Keller (LRSD) other counsel of record in the District Court Appeal No. Q2-3867 Little Rock School Dist. V . Joshua Intervenors date Joshua Intervenors' Designation of the Record (1.) docket entries for the period from January 1, 1998 to (2.) Exhibits 543 to 872 (end of list} (all exhibits are marked court exhibits) (3. ) Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, March, 1989 (As Revised September 18, 1989) (4.) Joshua Opposition to Little Rock Compliance Report, 6-25- 01 (5. ) Order, 8-20-01 (6. ) Order 10-3-01 (7. ) Response by LRSD, 10-5-01 (8.) Order, 10-17-01 (item 3521) (9. ) Order, 11-13-01 (10.) Order, 11-13-Oi (11.) Order, 12-12-01 (12.) LRSD, Motion, Memorandum, and Statement of Facts Not in Dispute, 3-15-02 (13.) Order, 5-7-02 (14.) Order, 5-9-02 (15.) Order, 5-15-02 (16.) Joshua Intervenors' Opposition, 5-30-02 (17.) Order, 9-12-02 (18.) Order, 10-11-02 (19.) Order, 11-12-02(20.) Jotice of Appeal, 11-12-02 (21.) transcripts Substantive Hearings 7-5-01 7-6-01 8-1-01 8-2-01 11-19-01 11-20-01 7-22-02 7-23-02 7-24-02 Hearings on Procedural Matters 6-29-01 7-9-01 8-17-01 11-13-01 12-11-01 (22.) The Memorandum Opinion and Judgment, 9-13-02 and Order 10-11-02Appeal No. 02-3867 Little Rock School Dist. Joshua Intervenors V . Joshua Intervenors' Designation of Issues (1.) whether some of the District Court's findings of substantial compliance with the Revised Plan were induced by legal error in construing the Plan? (2. ) whether the district court made clearly erroneous findings of fact regarding student discipline, steps to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African American students, participation in extracurricular activities and advanced and enriched courses, guidance and counseling services, and plan compliance at Central High School? (3.) whether the Revised Plan required that the LRSD show progress in eliminating the racial achievement gap in order to establish substantial compliance with the Plan? (4.) whether in the course of assessing the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan the District Court failed to employ monitoring by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) in the manner required by this Court in 1990? (5.) whether the District Court erred in holding the Joshua Intervenors to the requirement that they exhaust the Plan compliance remedies before they could contend that the LRSD did not substantially comply with a requirement of the Plan? (6.) whether the District Court erred in imposing anevidentiary burden on the Joshua Intervenors regarding the Joshua monitoring activities prior to March 15, 2001? Ir\"' received JAN 1 0 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN 0 7 2003 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION By:. DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS NOTICE OF APPEAL The Joshua Intervenors give notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 3(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure with respect to Honorable William R. Wilson Jr.s order and the corresponding judgment, both entered herein on December 20, 2002. Respectfully submitted. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 ^n W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 Rickey H. Hicks Attorney At Law 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, AR 72207 501-663-9900 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 received JAN 29 20D3 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS January 28, 2003 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENBY. P.A. DONNA J. McHenry 8210 Henderson Ro.w Little Rock, Ark.ws.^ 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F. (501) 372-3428 Email\nmcheiiiyd@swbell.net Michael E. Gans, Clerk U.S. Court of Appeals 111 South IO* Street - Room 24.329 St. Louis, MO 63102 Re: 03-1147 Little Rock School District v. Joshua Intervenors Dear Mr. Gans: This letter addresses several issues in connection with this appeal. Transcripts All transcripts needed for this appeal were prepared earlier for counsels use in the District Court. Method of Preparation of Appendix The parties will submit separate appendices. Designation of Record (Appellant) Joshua Intervenors designation is attached to this letter. Statement of Issues f Appellant) Joshua Intervenors statement of issues is attached to this letter ,, --Sincerely I John W. Walker JWW:js cc\nChris Heller Other Counsel of Record Appeal No. 03-1147 Little Rock School District v. Joshua Intervenors Joshua Intervenors Designation of the Record (1) LRSD Petition for Writ of Mandamus, 8-22-87 (2) LRSD Brief In Support of Petition for Writ of Mandamus, 8-24-87 (3) Letter from William R. Wilson, Jr. to Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9-8-87 (4) Response of the Honorable Henry Woods, United Sates District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to Petition for Writ of Mandamus (5) Motion for Hearing Regarding Relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the Present Proceedings, 10-29-02 (6) Order Denying Motion for Hearing Regarding Relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the Present Proceedings, 10-29-02 (7) Order, 11-12-02 (8) Motion for Recusal of District Judge and for Vacating of Orders, Ruling and Judgments, 11-25-02 (9) Memorandum from Hon. William R. Wilson, Jr. to Counsel, 11-26-02 (10) [LRSDs] Plaintiff s Response to Joshua Intervenors Motion for Vacating of Orders and Recusal, 11 -26-02 (11) Order, 12-20-02Appeal No. 03-1147 Little Rock School District v. Joshua Intervenors Joshua Intervenors Designation of Issues (I) Whether the District Court erred by holding that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(b)(2) did not require its recusal, in the light of his honor earlier appearance in the case as counsel while in private practice? (2) Whether the District Court erred by holding that it was not required to vacate the orders, opinions and judgments entered subsequent to its receiving this reassignment?United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Nos. 02-3867EA, 03-1147EA Little Rock School District, Appellee, V. Alexa Armstrong\nKarlos Armstrong\nKhayyam Davis\nAlvin Hudson, Tatia Hudson, Lorene Joshua\nLeslie Joshua\nStacy Joshua\nWayne Joshua\nSarah Facen\nDerrick Miles\nJanice Miles\nJohn M. Miles\nNAACP\nJoyce Person\nBrian Taylor\nHilton Taylor\nParsha Taylor\nRobert Willingham\nand Tonya Willingham, Appellants. ' * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RECEIVED -3 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 7 Submitted: September 11, 2003 Filed: March 2, 2004 Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. !This case consolidates two appeals, both arising from the Little Rock School District's request for unitary status. First, the Joshua Intervenors' appeal from the District Court's^ denial of their Motion for Recusal of District Judge and Vacating of Orders, Rulings, and Judgments. We review a district court's denial of recusal for abuse of discretion. See In IS Hale, 980 F.2d 1176, 1178 (8th Cir. 1992)\nUnited States y. Walker, 920 F.2d 513, 516 (Sth Cir. 1990). We conclude that Judge Wilsons representation of Judge Henry Woods at a much earlier stage of the case. and on far different issues, did not involve the same \"matter in controversy\" for purposes of 28 U.S.C.  455(b)(2)\nthus, we affirm the denial of the Joshua Intervenors' Motion for Recusal. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting the Little Rock School District (LRSD) partial unitary status. The Joshua Intervenors assert\n(1) that the District Court erred by not requiring and considering additional reports from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM)\nand (2) that the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was erroneous. We hold that the District Court did not err by failing to require new written reports from the ODM, and that the District Court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous\nthus, we affirm the grant of partial unitary status. Because the facts relevant to each issue on appeal are different, we address them separately. In Part I, we address the issue of disqualification. In Part II. ., we address whether the District Court should have required new written reports from the 'This group of school children and parents are, as a practical matter, the plaintiffs in the case at its present juncture. The Little Rock School District, which actually initiated the case in appeal. 1982, is effectively the defendant for purposes of this The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the m n, A -.1_________  Eastern District of Arkansas. -2-March 9, 2004 LETTER-ORDER Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Clay Fendley 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Floachell 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road Little Rock, AR 72222 Mr. Samuel Jones, III 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker 1723 South Broadway LittIWIock, AR 72206 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr^S^hnis Hansen 1^1 Ce^r Street, Suite 1200 Llle Rock, AR 72201 Re\nLittle Rock School Districi 4:82CV00866 . Pul jTounty Special School, et al. Dear Counsel: As you know the September 11, lemorandum Order requires that the LRSD file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with the obligations under 2.7.1 on or 15 fien, Joshua, or any other party, has thirty days (until April 15, 2004) within which to file objections to LRSD report. This missive is simply to notify all counsel that a request for any extension will likely be denied. If there are objections, they will be heard on April 26 and 27, 2004. Cordially, Wm, R, Wilson, Jr. cc: Original: The Honorable Thomas Ray Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM Mr. James W. McCormack, Clerk March 5, 2004IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. NOS. 02-3867 03-1147 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE BRIEF AND RELATED MATERIALS CiA cuIuIl. received MAR -7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING APPELLEE DEFENDANTS APPELLANTS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for an order extending the time for the filing of their consolidated brief, addendum and appendix for 14 days (with corresponding adjustments to the other element's of the schedule). The basis for this motion is as follows: Joshua Intervenors lead counsel John W. Walker began a trial, as defense counsel in Case No. CR 00:40, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, before the Honorable George Howard, Jr. on March 3, 2003. It appears that this trial will not conclude until March 14, 2003. Preparation for this trial and the trial have prevented lead counsel from working with co-counsel Robert Pressman, as well as Norman Chachkin, to complete the consolidated brief. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court grant the requested extension.Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respectfully submitted, Jmxn W~Walker, ARBar No. 64046 /OHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501)663-9900 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent bv fax and U.S. Mail, postage GdayofJIW^,2003: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Ai'kansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 415 North McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas hhn W.^Walker(2^-- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION received MAR 1\n2004 desegregation monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l.ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS 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 I substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), with the exception of Revised Plan  2.7.1. The Courts Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan  2.7.1. 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSDs Board of Directors (Board) adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Courts 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 Courts 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 6as 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 Joshuas 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 Afiican-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 Afiican-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 6To meet this requirement, the LRSD implemented the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan. 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 IL- R1 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 Districts elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of 2003 and are attached hereto as Exhibit F. Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through I i Page 3 of 6a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant\nDenrus 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 Courts 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 Board- approved Compliance Plan. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits the program evaluations as required by paragraphs A and B of the Courts 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. I Respectfully Submitted, Page 4 of 6LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2OM---------- BYT Christopher Heller Page 5 of 6CERTIFICATE 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\nMr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 I Christodner Heller I Page 6 of 6 Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (im-IPM) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR. P.A JOE D. BELL P.A JAMES A 8UTTRY. P.A FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A OSCAR B. DAVIS. JR. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK JR. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A PAUL B. BENHAM IIL P.A LARRY W. BURKS. P.A A WYCKUFF NISBET. JR. P.A IAMBS EDWARD HARJUS. P.A I. PKILUP MALCOM. P.A 'AMES M. SIMPSON. P.A AMES U. SAXTON. P.A . SHEPHERD RUSSELL IIL P A. XJNALD H. BACON. P.A VILUAM THOMAS BAXTER P.A LICHARD D. 1A.YLOK. P.A OSBPH B. HURST, JR. P.A ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.^ CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A MICHAELS. MOORE. P,A DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A WALTER M. EBEL 111. P.A. KEVIN CRASS. P.A WILLIAM A. WADDELL JR. P.A SCOTT J. LANCASTER P.A ROBERT B. BEACH. JR. P.A J. LEE BROWN. P.A JAMES C BAJCER JJL. P.A HARRY LIOHT. Pu SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A  UY ALTON WADE. P.A PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A DAVID M. ORAF. P.A ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.frldayfinn.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 342S MORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703*4811 TELEPHONE 470-895-2011 FAX 470-895-2147 CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A JOHN C. FINDLEY. JR. P.A JONANN EUZABETH CONICUO. P.A R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A CLIFFORD PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L CHILDERS K COLEMAN WESTBROOK JR ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL . KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH r. MCKA'f ALEXANDRA A JAY T. TAYLOR IFRAH MARTIN A. KASTEN 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-782-2898 FAX 870-782-2918 BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH C. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR Karen s. halbert SARAH M. COTTON PfflUP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MnCHAM SLOAN KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN P. PEISEJUCH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BRANDON J. HARRISON OP COUNKL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L TERRY WILLIAM L PATTON. JR H.T. f JOHN C ECHOLS. P.A. AD. MCALLISTER October 25,2002 JOHN C. FENOLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL SOI*370-3323 FAX 981.244-334*1 landlayQfac.ntt ( By Hand Delivery ) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Bank of America Bldg. 200 West Cqjitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 ( By Hand Delivery ) Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hanson Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE\nCompliance Remedy Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: In our letter dated October 11,2002, we asked the parties to specifically identify in writing myperceived deficiency m the Board-approved Compliance Plan on or before Monday, October 21 9? October^ 1 n onno ^^^sed that Joshua would rely on the comments contained in Mr. Walkers October In ^2?? October 24, 2002, additional comments were received from Mr. Walker All of Mr. Walkers comments will be addressed in turn. - EXHIBIT AAll Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25,2002 Page 2 October 10, 2002 Facsimile 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as implementatfed] 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 evaluations would assess implementation of these programs. program LI^D RESPONSfr On October 24,2002, the Board approved the Division ofinstructions Plan P^gSchools,acopy ofwhichis enclosed for your review. Under that plan, the LRSD will conduct cumculum, instruction and classroom management audits at lowperfor^g schools. Data gathered through these audits and other monitoring under the plan may be proi^am evaluation team to identify possible causes of poor performance, includine used by a implementation of interventions such n * Tr. - - ---------------------- as SAIPs. The LRSD lacks the resources to implement this lx,-. --------ivDUluvcb LU uiipicnieni uus plm at every^hool 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. to a iscussion pnor to his testimony in the hearing [before] Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to mdicate that the existing evaluation of the PreK-2 literacy program was not ^equate. The notation on page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation S^ey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the f evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the Courts remedy. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD considermg toe PreK-2 literacy evaluation to have been completed pursuant to Paragraph C of the omphmce Remedy. Attached are toe comments received by toe LRSD from Dr. Ross related that evaluation. As can be seen. Dr. Ross did not advise toe LRSD that toe evaluation , sense for toe LRSD to expend resources to have this evaluation completed by an outside expert while it also prepares to was of the same program with the assistance of an outside expert. anew, comprehensive evaluation iAll Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25,2002 Page 3 3. ^eLRSDdiscussionaboutsatisIyingthecourtsorderregardingtheevaluationsmentioned h comphance report does not seem to take account of e material provided wninh OT\u0026gt; -.-.I__J.'___  which describes an adequate evaluation. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this completing the evaluations identified on statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD not page 148 of the Final Compliance Report in a manngr District Court simply wants the LRSD to do what understands Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy^ the it said it did and complete the evaluations program evaluations as most prudent use of its limited true that those evaluations, even after being completed, may not be model envisioned by IL-Rl. The LRSD decided, however, that the iXTvrAfri^ to focus on the new, comprehensive evaluations' of programs desi^edto improve Afiican-Amencan achievement. 4. We question the period of implementation of a remedy which the therefore, the LRSD schedule. court has identified and, S'\" between the LRSD Joshua related to implementation of the Compliance Remedy will the District Courts September 13,2002, Memorandum Opinion and not prejudice Joshuas appeal of October 24. 2002 Facsimile I I 1 I 1. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be data. In the past, LRSD has used results on given to the quality of e the [D]RA and the Observation Survey in ways ^-twithtepurposesofthoseinsmunen^^ ^res fothen- oto students, the past use made of the data was in conflict withthe dislticfs ^oS  R=8ulation IL-Rl that Conflict of Interest\" must be use all available data in its evaluations. . . . .. ^^^^^^P^gP^^^^ComplianceRemedyrequirestheLRSDtoiva:\nava\niauic m Its It will be the responsibility of the evaluation team to weigh the reliabilitv and ahdity of the available data. The Arkansas Department of Education ZZis .O dcennme whete smdenm are learning dre essential T curriculum. As to the integrity of the data from those LRSD monitored student scores assessments, the to show improvement. Moreover, the ultimate year-to-year to discourage teachers from inflating scores in an effort success of the LRSDs early literacy program willAll Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25,2002 Page 4 be judged by performance on the States Benchmark examinations, rather than the DRA Observation Surveys. 2. and We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the team process for prep^g evaluations, again in the context of conflict of interest. In order to insure that conflict of mterest is avoided, the external consultant needs to write the report and control the -context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the Procedures do not guarantee that the external expert wiU 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 Program Evaluation personnel cannot be trusted to wnte an honest program evaluation. The LRSDs commitment to improving student achievement IS second to none. To fulfiU that commitment, it is in the LRSDs best interest to effectively evaluate ite progr^s.. The success of the programs and program evaluations will ultimately be measured by the State s Benchmark evaluations. All evaluation team members wiU be actively mvolved in the evaluation process and are expected to provide a check against the self-interest of any one teammember. The evaluation team WiU decide who writes the report basedon the expertise team members will be actively of te^ members. The outside expert will be asked to take to the Superintendent any concerns about the evaluation not bemg 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 ^d 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 of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because . :so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory class members are performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. the whose A satisfactory description by e School Board of the evaluations which i, requires tire sufflo uud^e shortir^rZ mrplementation o(rentediatiort activities in district schools is to receive This is surely an important contextual factor (see Accuracy careful consideration. Standards, para. 2). LRSD RESPONSE\nAs the LRSD understands this comment, it is a restatement of the first number ?eZS ftere^ ** incorporates itsAll Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25,2002 Page 5 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed partcularly directed to achievement of African-American students for the indefinite not simply for the penod necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Boards assurance that this is the case. LRSD RESPONSE: The Boards approval of IL-Rl was to be term, not limited to the term of the Compliance LL aner tne term nt the ' IL after the of Compliance Remedy, Conclusion The LRSD hopes that it has been able to address all of Joshua: o address aU of Joshuas concerns. If any party has y questions a^ut Ae LRSDs responses to Joshuas comments, we ask that those be submitted m wntmg, and the LRSD will nmmntlv _________ j\u0026gt;uuuuiiea writing, promptly provide a written response. LRSDs Compliance Plan, Joshua should noncompliance in accordance with Revised Plan  8- to Revised Plan  8.2.4, Joshua has 15 days of receipt of this letter to submit the issue to ODM for facilitation of an agreement. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, ohn C. Fendley, Jr. John 'endley, cc\nDr. Ken James (via hand-delivery)Elementary Literacy PROGRAM EVALUATION TEAMS Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary LiteracyTeam Leader Pat Busbea, Literacy Specialist Judy Teeter, Literacy Specialist Judy Milam,, Literacy Specialist Mehnda Crone, Literacy Specialist Ann Freeman, Literacy Specialist Dr. Ed Wilhams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Secondary Literacy Suzi DavisDirector of Secondary English, Team Leader Sarah Schutte, Middle School Literacy Speciahst Dr. Karen Broadnax, Supervisor of ESL Eumce 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 CleayerTeam Leader Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction I Marcelhne Carr Beth Clifford Annita Paul Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Don Wold, NSF Program Evaluator Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator EXHIBITProgram Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Elementary Mathematics 2001-02  An item analysis of 4* Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 -----------1 reveals that students geometry strand. (Note-Tne State Math Framework and NCTM National Standards for Mathematics contain 5 strands: number sense. geon^try, probability and statistics, algebra, and measurement.) The analysis of data from the Benchmark Exam consisted of identifying the strand of each item rankmg the items from highest to lowest, and looking for trends in the data. w^^^ O! the low performance on geometry items \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Train teachers to do item analyses for their own schools. Work with teachers to discern reasons why students struggled with the \u0026gt; specific geometry items (the released items were O- available for review). Develop strategies for mcreasing the focus on geometry in the elementary TTlnPm2)tlPC cnmnnbfTM mathematics curriculum. School by school analysis of 4 Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 (and prior years) revealed different levels of achievement by schools that demographic^ly similar. Classroom observations in these schools by elementary math/science lead teachers confirmed that the level of implementation of the cumculum was different from school to school. Schools with a mgner level of implementation were having higher student achievement man schools who were not imnlementino- tbp ('iirrienhim ot t i__i were 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 and sustained training to serve as receive intensive Support Personnel for LRSD). a coach for other teachers (See list of Math  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 elementary mathematics curriculum. our Another program modification made as a result of uneven achievement schools was to begin a -------among process ofchanging the way professional development for ....  o J p* wxwwoiwxxttl Ul/ V VlUUlilCIll IO_ teachers is stmctured. In the past most professional development for elementary ma\u0026amp;ematics has-been district-led (e.g., all third grade teachers go to a district-led trai^gon theS grade mathematics curriculum). The modification has been shift more focus on site-based professional development. The Lesson Study and Study Group approach was begun with elementary mathematics teachers allow them more responsibility and accountability for their own training needs to to - exhibit2002-03  pie same item analysis was completed for 2001-02 4* grade Benchmark Data. Tu analysis showed that students had gained in the area of geometry Tn6 InUZAcf ___________V-VJV..______J The lowest strands were probability and statistics, XXXV, XU,.,,, audiius were proDaoility 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 ose strands on the Benchmark Exam, ^e cumculum analysis revealed that there were some gaps in the curriculum that likely resulted m low performance on certain items on the exam. Staff and teachers worked over the summer of 2003 use the Benchmark data to determme the big ideas or concepts students need to have a deen nnHrfitanHiT,n . - concepts students need to have a deep understanding about m ^ades 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 State Framework. Kindergarten and fifth grade ^11 do siimlar work during the summer of2004. Curriculum resources in grades 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 cumculum at certain grade levels. Maril^ Bums and Associates materials, and other materials compiled into a notebook for use by teachers. Internet resources, were identified and Benchmark results show that district students generally perform less well open-response test items compared to the multiple choice items. * Program modifications based on this data were\n\u0026gt; Developed packets of open-response items for teachers students. \u0026gt; Trained teachers to on the to use with score open-response items using a rubric. i --------------CLXLlL/llV. \u0026gt; Developed and administered District-developed end-of-quarter semester exams that included open-response items. or end-of- 4 grade Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark Results over a period of three ye^s 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, Afidcan-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 not Year 2, or Year 3 School Improvement Status. * i detailed School Support Audit was done for schools in Year 2 or Year 3 School Improvement. (An attachment explains the school audit process) Ihe schools that were audited were Fair Park. Baseline.  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 las to brmg in an expert on questioning strategies (Dr. Lee Hannelauthor of HighlyEffective 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, school conference. pre-  Item analyses of the 4* Grade Benchmark Exam showed that the statistics and probability strand was the lowest area for students. s  A program modification made was to strengthen concept development in probabihty by added a replacement unit on probability fi-om Marilyn Bumss materials. Twenty-six primary teachers and coaches and twenty-five intermediate teachers and coaches participated in full-day training on the Marilyn Bums materials.  Three elementary schools on School Improvement Status collaborate to bring in Dr. Hannel to provide training for all teachers in the schools. * 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 AuditsChicot, 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 4 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 6*, 8*, Algebra I, and Geometry Benchmark Data for 2001 . end-of-quarter tests for Algebra I - Pre-Calculus Uistnct-wide end-of-module tests for grades 6-8 calculator training provided for aU secondary math teachers * \u0026amp;r stazdards-based inabucdon/materiala in nndh teachers -02  District leveraged support of professional development for all math ux piuicbsionai aeveiopment for aU math teachers bv ^vrdmg funds to pay substitute teachers and stipends for teachers rec^ trainings  ^ad teach^ continued to provide technical assistance inside and outside the assroom by conductmg professional development workshops observations\nand classroom devd^n Umversity of Arkansas ac Litdc Rock develop and offer graduate courses based on the needs of the District The followmg course was developed and offered during the 2001 o Stratcsies for Tftflr.hino- at Little Rock (UALR) to Strategies Teaching Geometry -02 SY: distributed pacing guides for secondary mathematics and to address the issue of student mobility within the District  High school mathem Atics (---------'  courses courses (Algebra I - Precalculus) were revised to reflect a closer ahgnment with the national and state standards  The SMART (Summer Mathematii and fiameworks\nICS Sl^T, IS a Saturday academy for students currently enroUed in Algebra I These progr^ sr. ahgned wi the State Goals for Algebra I. ^Xl EQC \"ho participate in these programs are companaJ with if overall District results o SMART /Project THRIVE served more than 200 students in Algebra Calculus) are developed around the results of the benchmark concentrate on areas of weakness for students and work exams. Teachers on modifications in sturhed to measure the impact of instructional practices in the classroom SS? in all high odlUOlS o are 2002-03 Changed format of pre-school conference meeting to involve more teachers doinv presentations on standards-based activities  JST\" \u0026lt; high 1 Provided training from College Board Pacesetter for Algebra I - Pre-calculus teachers - over 80% of secondary math teachers were train eH  Continued District-wide end-of-quarter test for 6 grade - Calculus\n Continued to provide professional development for aU secondary mkth teachers on topics mcluding: o o Riverdeep Interactive Software 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\nContinued 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 6 Wo^hop by Dr. Linda Griffith for calculus teachers on integrating calculator to teach calculus\nth -8  Continued end-of-quarter tests\n, th ' f X to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks\nMarcelline Carr and Vanessa CleaverFY 2002-03 Actions of the LRSD Elementary Literacy Department related to Literacy Program Evaluation Elementary Literacy Department continued n-wvidv p. literacy, Reading Recovery) to all LRSD schools LRSD Pre-K-3 Literacy Plan. to provide professional development (ELLA, to support implementation of the Ihnnk examined the Spring 2002 CRT Literacy data to identify the schools most m need of assistance m the area of literacv with nartiniUr ____ of ^simnce in the area of literacy with particular attention to the academic achievement of Aft can Amencan students and their needs. The data indicated that the writinn program was the weak component of the literacy instructional ~ Department provided staff development related to writing instruction. program. The Elementary Literacy - and the writing programs in schools were modified to include best practices. Ihe Spring 2003 CRT L^'a 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 oppo^mty to participate in the LRSD Reading First Project. The project, which is federally funded funding to schools to implement research-based instructional strategies Twelw cJhon ?? n  Project to begin in the fall of2003. The project requi^s the schools to follow an assessment schedule related to program improvement.^Because of lack of movement m smdent ^j-vem^t ,ools on school improvement decided to move 1 program to the research-based instruction recommended in Reading First. with the an from the Success for All FY 2003-04 August - December 2003 Response to the Literacy Program Evaluation Department reviewed the literacy program evaluation report developed by folln^ina developed a plan to continue program evaluation in the future which included the following\ngroups for each of the professional development ^LLA EflFeimve Literacy, Reading Recovery, Literacy Coaches, Success programs develop a table of the most and least effective elements. for All) and The information fi-om the XU A M, , . ------------------------------------ wawxxxwxxLQ. A lie lluul uiauon iToin rne focus groups will then be used to modify the Districts professional development plan Compare student data from the CRT and District asscssr/.v.\n. h. .aJ ' African-American students with others as related to the instru^onal program and provide specific professional development based Identified needs of the students. assessments in each school to compare on the EXHIBIT JX_T^e 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\n Provided additional guided reading materials to all schools to support small groun 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 Willies met with the Elementary Literacy Department regarding the 2003 Primary Literacy Rftnnnmflrir hyqtti o++an+i/\u0026gt;n j___i____v _ . Benchmark Exam with attention to the academic achievement of African American , , ---------- - J students \u0026amp;s 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. ^e Elernentaiy 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 consultants 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 pnncipal and staff had already examined the data and outside assistance was not requested. on the Results of the data review confirmed that the professional development provided by the Elementary Llteracv DenartmAnt chmilrl in^lnzlA kAntp*. ____ Literacy Department should include heavy emphasis on addition to the professional development being offered content area reading and writing. In on an ongoing basis to teachers grades 2-4, T?! T  -------------- uaois LU Lcduiicis Hraaes z-h the Elementary Literacy Department and the Social Studies Department began working collaboratively to provide the training, resources, and materials for 5\"* grade teachers to integrate readmg and social studies mstruction. Three training sessions were held in January 2004 to model for teachers how to integrate the two areas. LRSD Reading First Project Schools Project Schools have been visited several times during the year (2003-04) bv the LSRD Readmg First Coor^ator, District Literacy Specialists, and the ADE Reading First Technical Assistant. J^e purpose of the visits is to provide assistance and to monitor the instructional program of the schools. Momtoring 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 program3 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, first 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 Tannary 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 Afncan Amencan, 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 w determined that support and services were needed in the following areas of literacy in the low- performing schools\nphonemic awareness/phonics, spelling, oral language and reading comprehension. Both local and nationally recognized experts in these areas of literacy were contracted to provide nmtAccinntjl *____1_______wnwv 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 to 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 \u0026gt;9I f. 4 Technical Assistance Literacy was provided to classroom teachers at the Elementary Schools id^ified for School Improvement. The focus and the intensity of the assistance were based on the instruction during the 2 /a 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 fi-om the following Physical Setting/Context for Instruction Explicit Phonics/Spelling/Word Study Literature Circles/Literature Discussion Groups Guided Reading Instruction Shared Reading Shared Writing areas\nStrategy-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 organrring and categorizing reading materials, teaching students in both  group modehng instmcUonal approaches, demonstrating the use of materials ^^ssing students and developmg mstmctional plans. Professional books, independent reading are als^^^^^ organizational materials and center supplies use of materials, employed literacy coaches to help support and accelerate change in literacy instruction to improve the achievement of all students in the area of literacy. iProgram Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Literacy 2001-2002 1. 2. English faculty of each school 3. All building assistant principals at middle school program in order to provide for more------  were inserviced by director in literacv XXX tu proviae lor more consistent supervision and coordination hv including all administrators in literacy program. coordination by 4. Monthly collaboration sessions were held at all miHriix. i * i  with n 1 ,  ' -----------utcu Liaiu Dee Bench, consultant fi-om Denver Coalition of Business to lead staff development during s..n,n, Education was employed md instiuction^ Four weeks of training took place with tochers' an four core subjects m attendance. This summer of02 for teachers to modify reading strategies (approximately 75) fi-om 2002-2003 . Evaluation of current practice and able to consistently dXw quSty pro^^^^eTX\"^ for writing in order to be focus on optimum results were goals Spring - Summer 02 N w ^nd Committee of teachers for curriculum development\nBrenda 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 Shofiier, McClellan High School morning sessions to introduce 2. Director met with building principals during early morning sessions tn introH,, b^sX for purposes of effectively evaluating classroom instruction and to SoX basis for collaborative program evaluation. Fall 02. 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 theA 4. 5. 6. mechanics and usage areas while the writing in content areas is weaker Strategies developed to practice and teach these skills. English office and distributed to ever, mid   noMcation of literacy program in tenns of test preparat  nexTstfJ^ \"7'^ comprehension for older riders next steps and current status of lowest achieving students. Summer literacy coaches m high school was determined and, a .co ' ' three lowest performing high schools , based on ACTAAP ) Teachers met during summer 2003 to evaluate and modify umculum producing an to all English teachers pnor to meeting and results discussed and useful for changes made. Committee Wes Zeigler, Southwest Middle School were to every middle school to evaluate 02-03. (Need for as a result, three are now in place to revise English Curriculum: 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, these students as a result. Summer 03. 8. Consultant from Denver Coalition returned for instruction strategies for secondary students. Materials were purchased for one week of further training in reading 2003-2004 1. Based on being placed on School Improvement list. Associate Superintendent director met to discuss literacy program at low perfonning middle school and plan for improvement following detailed audit. 2. Director has met with middle school principals and high! ' ' discuss progress and evaluate future steps for increasing effectiveness nf ^eater achievement of lower-achieving students.. September03 and to write school principals separately to at 3. Personnel involved with audit of middle school met with building principal and vice princpal ,0 evaluate literacy progratp and dtscuss focus achievemf*nt thrnimk IfaroA,,_______  j\u0026gt;tLiucni achievement through literacy program. 4. Bi-Monthly meetings to evaluate programs and problems and collaborate -- t--------iUlU COIJ improvement held with director and high school literacy coaches. on strategies for August-October03. Five meetings held, 5. Session was held for disaggregating data - school by school recent performances on SAT 9 and ACTAAP and teacher by teacher - for to evaluate successes and areas and students and teachers needing improvement for high schools03.6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Meeting with department chairs and director to disaggregate data for midHU cnho i ev^te successes and denote areas needing imptovS''X\"S SREB consultant meetmg with literacy coaches to evaluate effectiveness of test preparation strategies and plan for improvements. Sept. 03. In response to data, sessions have been held open-ended responses. Teachers have made to at most schools with some or all of faculty in many modifications to classroom instruction xi_ . . , . ------*Ax**xxj ixivuiiiuiiuuns co Classroom mstmrtn on the expenential sessions involving reading, writing, and scoring with a rubric * thr^S intervention for lowest performing ninth andlighth graders at high schools and two middle schools began. One middle school intervention for sixth and seventh as well. uses same tafoimafion and evaluation session held February 04 for all building principals and kev admimsfrators on reading intervention with proposals for c ' 11. All middle schools have committed expansion of program in 04-05 to a day long mservice for their English teachers to review workshop structure for literacy program. April - May 04. On-going 1. 2. 3. Director and Middle School Specialist meet often to discuss and evaluate problems, and to set trainings, meetings, and interventions to correct and further progress Attention to bo\u0026amp; lowest achievers and highest achievers is focus of discussions Calendars are ahgned and coordinated at these meetings. Director and Middle School Specialist of literacy program strategies and progress, meet after school visits to evaluate implementation  ,, . , - content and to determine plans for improvement especially as it relates to lower-achieving students. Weekly at least --------------------O -viwixvo. rr tCM y ai icaSt. Director commumcates often and as requested to address individual problems in buildmgs with principals and teachers. prooiems in 4. Middle School Specialist works intensely with of curriculum and literacy program. 5. Continue to provide training in new teachers to improve implementation preparing teachers in ACTAAP open-ended 6. Middle School Specialist working closely with social studies dep'anment  1 PartSn?tr^ practice framing to assist in reading in social studies content. /. Participation in faculty meetings by director and implementation across curriculum. responses. department in providing specialist to modify program 8. tacrease 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 Ml   SpriSoM\" \"S\" EtSlisIt teachers 11. Department Chairs meet monthly to discuss hurdles, ioou commumcate openly about the literacy programs. These middle school and high school. These meetings ----- cumculum iteiK, special evenu, new developments, and reminders teachers from the distnct office as well as collaboration----------------------- issues, celebrations, and to meetings are separate for serve as a means of communicatingSecondary 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 ACTAAP open-ended responses and T_ _____________T7_1.___ r M 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 j f   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 ReadAVrite 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 2004IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF FILING PROGRAM EVALUATIONS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH C OF THE COURTS COMPLIANCE REMEDY Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by the Courts Order of September 13, 2002 states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), with the exception Revised Plan  2.7.1. The Courts Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan  2.7.1. Paragraph C. of the Compliance Remedy stated\nLRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all pro^am evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs.1. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD Board of Directors adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Courts Compliance Remedy. A copy of the Compliance Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. As to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD concluded that the following evaluations had already been completed as required by Paragraph C and only needed to be submitted to the Board for approval: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, English-as-a-Second Language, Southwest Middle Schools SEDL Program and Collaborative Action Team. The Charter School and Early Literacy evaluations were approved by the Board on October 24, 2002. The Southwest Middle Schools SEDL Program, 2000 and 2001 ESL and Collaborative Action Team evaluations were approved by the Board on November 21, 2002. The Math and Science and the 2002 ESL evaluations were approved by the Board December 19, 2002. These evaluations are bound together in volumes I and II attached. on 4. The LRSD concluded that the following evaluations needed to be completed by an outside expert before being submitted to the Board for approval\nExtended Year Schools, Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (CLT), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. The LRSD sought guidance from Dr. Steven Ross, a desegregation and education expert approved by Joshua. Dr. Ross prepared, Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District, attached hereto as Exhibit B. The LRSD subsequently contracted with experts, including Dr. Ross, to complete the evaluations in accordance with Dr. Ross guidelines. The Onward to Excellence, CLT, Vital Link and HIPPY evaluations were approved by the Board on February 13, 2003. The Lyceum Scholars Program, Elementary Summer School, Extended Year Education were approved by the Board on February 27, 2003. These evaluations are bound together in volumes III and IV attached. 2WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits to the Court program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report as required by Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY: Christopher 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 14, 2003: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Collette D. Honorable Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201 e. istopher F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001Vdes-unitary-Marchl 5-2003.wpd 3 Little Rock School District Compliance Plan Revised Plan  2.7.1 Approved by the Board on October 10, 2002 : exhibit I 5 I AB. C. F. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year\n(b) the results of the aimual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the assessment process {e.g., all fourth grade math teachers\nall eighth grade English teachers, etc.). LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly^ or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. * * * On or before March 15, 2004, LRSD must file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1. Any party, including Joshua, who wishes to challenge LRSDs substantial compliance with  2.7.1, as specified above, may file objections with the court on or before April 15, 2004. Thereafter, I will decide whether the LRSD has substantially complied with  2.7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy, and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. ^The Court is clearly referring to Dr. John Nunnery. 2Board-Approved Compliance Plan On October 10, 2002, the Board adopted this Compliance Plan to meet the requirements of the District Courts Compliance Remedy. Pursuant to this Compliance Plan, the LRSD will: 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\n2. 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\n3. 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\n4. 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 Afiican-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program\nand 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. Each element of the Compliance Plan is discussed in more detail below. 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04. The LRSD will implement the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan. The 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan calls for the administration of the following student assessments in English language arts and mathematics: Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Observation Surveys (5) Developmental Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (5) Development Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (3) 3Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 7-10 Grades 9-11 Grade 10 Grade 11 Development Reading Assessment Norm-referenced test to be identified for gifted/talented screening Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination End-of Course Algebra I examination End-of Course Geometry examination SAT9 Total Battery End-of-Level Literacy examination All of these assessments are administered in the spring. Consequently, the final student assessment before March 15, 2004, will be administered in the spring of 2003. 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board approved IL-Rl in conjunction with approving this Compliance Plan. IL-Rl sets forth the written procedures for evaluating the  2.7 programs. 3. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program\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. IL-Rl mandates that the criteria used to formally evaluate a program be identified as the research questions to be answered, the first of which will be, Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of Afncan- American students?. Recommended program modifications and the members of the evaluation team are routinely included in formal evaluations. The Compliance Committee originally proposed IL-R2 to cover informal evaluations not 4The District Courts Compliance Remedy On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter Opinion) finding that the Little Rock School District (LRSD) had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), with the exception Revised Plan  2.7.1. Section 2.7.1 provided: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7* 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 Afncan-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. The District Courts Opinion set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy to be implemented by the LRSD. The Opinion first stated: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2.7.1, it must remain under court supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it: (a) demonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under 2.7 in improving the academic achievement of Afncan-American students\nand (b) prepares the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and uses those evaluations as part of the program assessment procedure contemplated by  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. The Opinion then outlined the details of the Compliance Remedy as follows: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under  2.7 to improve the academic achievement of Afncan-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. 'Revised Plan  2.7 provided, LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. 1covered by IL-R2, However, the administration decided that IL-R2 was unnecessary and would be redundant of information to be included in the evaluations prepared pursuant to IL-Rl. Rather than a separate written record, the program description in evaluations prepared pursuant to IL-Rl will include a description of program modifications made during each year of implementation satisfying the requirements of Paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD will continue to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. 4, Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The District will prepare the following new, comprehensive evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science. Each evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Rl and will incorporate all available student assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. These evaluations will be submitted to the District Court on or before March 15, 2004. 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. The following evaluations will be submitted for Board approval without additional work: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, ESL, Southwest Middle Schools SEDL Program and CAT. If approved by the Board, they will be submitted to the District Court on or before March 14, 2003. The following evaluations will be completed by an outside expert and then be submitted for Board approval: Extended Year Schools, Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (CLTs), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. These evaluations will be completed as follows\nExtended Year Schools. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Middle School Implementation. An outside expert will be retained to rewrite the report 5and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing data. Elementary Summer School. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. HIPPY. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. CLTs. An outside expert will be retained to review the CLT survey data and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing survey data. Lyceum Scholars Program. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Onward to Excellence. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Vital Link. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. 6Action Plan Timeline The Compliance Plan will be implemented in accordance with the following timeline. B it 1, Place 2002-03 Program Evaluation Agenda on the Boards agenda for review and approval. 2. Place on Board agenda for approval two previously presented program evaluations (early literacy, and charter school). 3. Place on Board agenda for approval the evaluations of Southwest Middle Schools SEDL program and the Collaborative Action Team (also conducted by SEDL). 4. Place on Board agenda for approval the previously presented ESL program evaluations for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, plus the new evaluation for 2001-02. 5. Place on Board agenda for approval the three previously presented program evaluations for the NSF-funded CPMSA program, plus the new Year 4 report for 2001-2002. 6. Issue Request for Proposals (RFPs) from available external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148. October 24, 2002 October 24, 2002 November 2002 November 2002 December 2002 Mid-October 2002 Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Linda Watson Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Karen Broadnax Bonnie Lesley Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Bonnie Lesley Darral Paradis 7\"UtetiSBiK\" 7. Form a screening team to determine recommendations to the Superintendent for designating external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148._____________________ 8. Select and negotiate consulting contracts with designated external experts. 9. Assign appropriate staff to each external expert to provide needed information, data, access to program staff, etc. 10. Monitor the work to ensure timely completion. 11. As each paper is completed and ready for circulation, send copies to ODM and Joshua for their review and comments. 12. As each paper is completed, place on the Boards agenda the item to be reviewed and approved. 13. Write Interim Compliance Report relating to programs on page 148 to be completed. 14. Establish staff teams for each of the three programs on the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda to be completed for 2002-2003 (Elementary Literacy, Secondary Literacy, and K- 12 Mathematics/ Science). J, Late October 2002 Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002February 2003 December 2002February 2003 December 2002February 2003 March 15, 2003 March 1, 2003 Ken James Compliance Team Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bormie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Ken James Boimie Lesley Attorneys Compliance Committee Bonnie Lesley 81^. TrLviitiiYTT* ir ...... 15. Publish RFPs to identify external experts to serve on each of the two staff teams for the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda (K-12 mathematics/science external experts are provided by NSF). 16. Establish consulting contracts with the two external experts required for the Elementary Literacy and Secondary Literacy program evaluations. 17. Train each program evaluation team, including the external expert, on the requirements of the approved Compliance Plan and IL-R. 18. Monitor the completion of the work on all three program evaluations required in the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda. 19. Send copies of the completed Elementary Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 20. Complete the evaluation of the Elementary Literacy program and place on the Boards agenda for approval. March 1, 2003 Late March 2003 May 2003 MayOctober 2003 With October 2003 Board agenda packet October board meeting, 2003 Bonnie Lesley Darral Paradis Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Pat Price 9'! ISnicalirc-    I W3J\nj I fOTjstihTPf.i \u0026amp;' I 21. Send copies of the Secondary Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 22. Complete the evaluation of the Secondary Literacy program and place on the Boards agenda for approval. 23. Send copies of the completed CPMSA program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 24. Complete the five-year evaluation of the CPMSA project (science and mathematics) and place on the Boards agenda for approval. 25. Write Section 2.7.1 Final Compliance Report for federal court and file with Court. With November 2003 Board agenda packets November board meeting, 2003 With December 2003 Board agenda packet December board meeting, 2003 March 15,2004 10 Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Pat Price Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Ken James Attorneys Compliance Team1 Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in Little Rock School District Prepared by Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. The present guidelines are based on my review of the Revised Compliance Plan, the LRSD standards for program evaluation, and evaluation report drafts and associated materials related to the eight programs identified as requiring final evaluation reports. My analysis of this material, combined with my experiences as an educational researcher and familiarity with the Joshua case as it affected LRSD, was influenced by the following assumptions:  Invalid or questionable evaluation results can be much more detrimental than helpful to efforts to improve educational practices, and should not be disseminated without strong cautions and qualifications. Accordingly, studies that lack proper controls against bias or contamination from extraneous factors (e.g., differential sampling, history, diffusion of treatments) have limited value for guiding policies.  Program evaluations that focus predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data have reduced value due to inability to determine the nature of the treatment. The study will also fail to inform policymakers about the practicality of the program, how it was used and reacted to by stakeholders, or whether and/or how it needs to be improved to impact at- risk learners.  Evaluations of programs that have been discontinued in the district are of much less interest relative to ones that are presently being implemented or informing ongoing practices.  To raise the achievement of African American students in LRSD, attempting to resuscitate existing studies that have insufficient data available, limited relevance to current practices, or require substantial time and resources with little promise of yielding useful information for policy decisions would be less productive than employing the lessons learned from the prior evaluation work to support high quality and informative future studies. One such lesson is that the LRSD research department (formerly PRE) was understaffed to perform evaluations of the quality and quantity needed. Based on the above assumptions, I will recommend below a basic strategy for the third-party evaluators to use in preparing the eight identified evaluations for approval by the school board. Four of the evaluations concern programs that are no longer in use by LRSD and have limited or no relevance to programmatic decisions (Lyceum Scholars, Elementary Level Summer Schools, Vital Link, and Onward to Excellence). Of the remaining four evaluations, two have limited available data (Middle School Transition and Campus Leadership Teams) that, even with supplementary analyses, would not permit confident (valid) decisions to be made about program effectiveness : exhibit 32 in general or about African American student achievement resulting from program participation. A seventh evaluation (Extended Year Education) could possibly yield informative evidence about an ongoing program, but to be sufficiently refined would require time and resources extending significantly beyond the current conditions for project completion. An eighth evaluation (HIPPY) also deals with an ongoing program, but unlike the others could possibly provide useful evidence through revisions completed within the available time frame. Accordingly, the HIPPY report is currently being rewritten by Dr. Ed Williams from LRSD. The suggested plan for the third-party evaluators is presented below followed by a brief review of each evaluation. A. B. C. D. Submit the current evaluation report as an attachment to a supplemental document as described in B-D. The supplement should begin with an expanded description of the program, its goals, and its history in LRSD. It should then describe the evaluation methodology and summarize and interpret the key findings. Most importantly, the supplement should discuss the limitations (and any strengths where indicated) of the evaluation with regard to: (a) informing current practices in LRSD\n(b) using appropriate methodology\nand (c) addressing student achievement effects, especially in reference to African American students. Finally, the supplement should present suggestions for conducting stronger studies of similar programs in future evaluation studies. 1. Middle School Transition (Moore) This evaluation is in near-completed form and needs mostly editing and expansion. Because the middle school program is current and continuing, this evaluation study can be useful (mostly for guiding professional development and implementation improvement) for informing district strategies. The achievement results are fairly minimal and uninformative, but at the time of the evaluation (1999-2000), only baseline data existed. Thus, aside from providing additional description of the results (the tables and the narrative are sparse) and a more meaningful interpretation of trends (especially with regard to Afiican American vs. Caucasian students), there is probably little more that needs to be done for this essentially baseline time period. The survey data appear to be reasonably analyzed and reported, but the interpretation and discussion should be extended to provide more meaningful conclusions and recommendations. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section.3 2. Lyceum Scholars (McNeal) The Lyceum Scholars High School Program, which was evaluated in 1998-99 and 1999- 2000, is no longer being implemented in LRSD. The latter consideration, coupled with the obvious limitations of the evaluation design with regard to rigor, depth, and meaningfulness of the data, substantially reduce the value of the study and the need for devoting more than minimal resources to it, beyond perhaps a supplemental summary and explanation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 3. Elementary Level Summer School (McNeal) Similar to the Lyceum Scholars High School Program (#2 above), the Elementary Level Summer School program is no longer being implemented in LRSD. In addition, the evaluation study conducted in the summer of 2001 is limited in its design and methodology. Among the major concerns are the lack of: (a) implementation data to describe the program strategies and the degree to which they were actually used by teachers, (b) an adequate control group or norms to which the achievement scores of summer school students could be compared, and (c) qualitative data to describe the experiences of students and teachers in the program. Due to differential sampling the multiple tables provided are neither overly meaningful nor informative regarding the progress of summer school students in general and African American summer school students in particular. Seemingly, there is little useful information to be gained for informing future policies by investing substantive resources in revamping the study. While more suitable control samples might be established using archival data, the absence of implementation assessments would still make the treatment essentially unknown. Therefore, suggestions similar to those made for the Lyceum Scholars program are also offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 4. Vital Link (Ross) The Vital Link program, designed to provide students with on-the-job experiences, was offered to 394 middle school students in the summer of 1999. Because the program was of very limited duration (only one week) and is not focused on either academic curriculum or learning strategies, it is highly xmlikely to have affected students academic achievement. Although such a program would still potentially serve a useful purpose for fostering student motivation to achieve and complete school, it is no longer being implemented in LRSD. Further, the evaluation study conducted was so limited (a brief post-test only, closed-ended survey) that the policy implications of the results are minimal and even potentially misleading if derived. Therefore, suggestions similar to 4 those made for the Lyceum Scholars Program and the Elementary Level Summer School Program (#s 2 and 3 above) are again offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 5. Onward to Excellence CSRD Program (Ross) The OTE model was implemented at Watson Elementary School for several years, starting in 1999. It has since been discontinued and was never formally evaluated, except for achievement data reports sent by the principal to ADE. Thus, in essence, there is no longer any program in LRSD to evaluate and no evaluation report to revise, expand, or redraft. It would seem wasteful of resources to reexamine historical data from this program, especially since implementation data are lacking. That is, if positive or negative results were found, it would be impossible to determine whether OTE or numerous others factors were the main cause. Suggestions, therefore, are similar to those for #s 2-4 above. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 6. HIPPY (Ross) Because HIPPY is a continuing program, this evaluation can be potentially useful to LRSD by providing initial program results on student achievement and benefits to African American children. A limitation of the study, which unfortunately cannot be remedied retroactively, is the lack of implementation data to describe the fidelity with which HIPPY program components were actually used. The quantitative achievement results must therefore be viewed cautiously, but should still be at least suggestive regarding program influences. Substantive expansion and revision, however, are needed to increase the readability and meaningfulness of the report. For example, there is inadequate description of the program, context, methodology, and analysis design. Tables and findings need to be presented in a more readable (user-friendly) manner. Suggestions: A. Reorganize and expand the introduction and methodology to be in line with district evaluation standards (i.e., more context, more detailed methodology, clearer questions and organization). B. Ed Williams needs to run the revised analysis and write up results by January 31, 2003. A program description needs to be provided. Results need to be disaggregated, if possible, for African American and Caucasian students. Expand the Results sections to provide more informative reporting of outcomes, clearer tabular presentations, etc.5 C. Expand the Conclusions section to: (a) directly address whether there are implications for the achievement of African American and other disadvantaged groups (there probably are not at this stage), (b) more fully discuss implications and recommendations associated with the findings, and (c) propose further evaluation research that will validly determine both implementation quality and influences of HIPPY on student achievement. D. The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy in expanding this report. 7. Extended Year Education (EYE) Report (Moore) The EYE program is relevant to LRSDs current interests in improving academic achievement of its students. Unfortunately, the present evaluation design does not seem sufficiently sensitive to detect effects that might be attributable to EYE. Specifically, usage of whole-school data compared descriptively to district norms gives only a very surface examination of the schools progress, with susceptibility to contamination by student mobility, differences in SES, etc. A more precise analysis would match students at the three schools to similar students at comparable schools not using EYE, and then examine progress using a multivariate-type (regression or MANOVA) analysis. It is questionable, however, that such analyses could be completed in the time remaining for the required submission of the final report. Also, the findings would be limited by having only two years of post-program data. Aside fi-om the design limitations, the organization of the report is difficult to follow due to the many tables and brief but not very informative narrative descriptions. The survey data might be interpretable, but also need a much clearer and better organized presentation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 8. Campus Leadership Teams (Ross) This initiative seems highly relevant to current and future goals of LRSD. However, the evaluation data collected to date consist of only results from two district-wide surveys that assessed team members reactions to various activities. No information exists to verify the representativeness of the samples, the validity of the data collection in general, or the implementation of the CLTs at the various schools. The aggregate survey results on the 24 combined items (14 in the team member survey\n10 in the certified/non- certified staff member survey) do not appear overly interesting or meaningful with regard to informing practice. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 12/3/021 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Overnight Delivery OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F.AX (501) 372-3428 Email\nmchenryd@swbell.net March 20^ 2003 Mr. Michael E. Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse Ills. lO'h St., Room 24.329 St. Louis, MO 63102 Re: received MAR 2 0 J003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOMITORING Little Rock School District, Appellee v. Pulaski County Special School District No.l, Defendants, Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al.. Appellants, Katherine Knight, et al.. Intervenors\nAppeal Nos. 02-3867, 03-1147 Dear Mr. Gans: Enclosed you will find ten copies of Brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. and Addendum and three copies of the Appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. for filing in the above matter. Also enclosed you will find a diskette as required by the rales. Sincerely, W. Walker JWW:lp cc: All Counsel of RecordB IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT I APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 fl fl LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. received 20 2003 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS I KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas I Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. I BRIEF OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. a a a Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900 aN IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. received M PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS MAR 20 2003 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING fl KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. BRIEF OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. RECEIVED I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MAR 2 0 2003 I OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS I KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS I I Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas I Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. ADDENDUM OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. I I I Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 I R Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 RI IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT I APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. RECEIVED I I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MAR 2 0 2003 n OFFICE OF I MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS DESEGREGATION MONITORING KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS I Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. I APPENDIX OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. I I Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 I I John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900nrr,, :? ^OHi1 JUMI '1 W WHLKt-K H H NO.097 P.2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT iiwS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS' WESTERN DIVISION APR Ma LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W, MeCORMACK, GLERK Byx_________ PLAINTffiP]P-?RX V. LR-C-82~866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. intervenors KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Comments on the Submission of Paoe lae \"Evaluations\" The Joshua Intervenors comment as follows on the *[LRSD] Notice of Filing Rrogran Evaluations Required by Paragraph C o the Court's Compliance Remedy and the accompanying \"evaluations. This court held that the LRSD did not substantially comply with Sec. 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, addressing \"Program Assessment/Prograrn Evaluation [at ISO].\" [At 168] The court noted the importance of this commitment. I find that the purpose of Sec. 2.7.1 was to make sure that the programs promised under Sec. 7   ' improve the academic achievement of African-American students. 2.7 actually worked to I further find that LRSD's substantial compliance with Sec. 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African-American students\ntor. without performing a rigorous annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under Sec. 2.7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, or replaced with new programs. [At ISO] The court's \"Compliance Remedy\" for the Sec. 2.7.1 violation 1 1 JUHII JUHM W WHLKLH P a HO.097 P.3 addxe\u0026amp;Bed in part program evaluations identified in page 148 of on each of the programs 171] The court discuseed the the Final Compliance Report.\" [At 17O, completion of these evaluations and their submission to the court and the parties, by March 15, after their approval by the LRSD school board. 2003, [At 171-72] The court also required, in effect, additional evaluations of \"each of the programs ia^lemented under Section 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students.\" are to be submitted on or before March 15, [^t 170] These materials 2004. [At 172] This court also discussed the criteria to exiting court supervision. govern the LRSD's substantially comply with the C^cxally important obligations contained i,, ==.... vr with regard to th^ in Sec. 2.7.1, it section of the Revised Plan Gntil it\" fa BTooram asBeeftmonf- .flJ- tnat a ^flgram aesessment nrocedure is in oTaoe program implemented under wSCt 417 inIraprovino_achievemn* .i.7 in improving the academic American students\n\" ntfAPan Hrt^. lo. i::k3t3^ n The LRSD \"Notice of Piling\" describes the LRSD's plan to prepare \"comprehensive program evaluationfs]\" as follows\n. District will prepare the followinq nen Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and (C] K-12 Mathematics and Science, ach evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Ri and will incorporate all available st^ent assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. These evaluations will be submitted to the District before March 15. 2004. [Exhibit A at S] student Court on or Joshua Interveners have raised an issue about the scope of this plan pursuant to Section 8 of the Revised Plan. The page 148 \"evaluations\" were, as noted, submitted on March 14, 2003. A review of these materials and other relevant documents 2NO.097 p.4 Show that if LRSD is to \"[demonstrate] that a program assessment procedure is in place that can of each program implemented accurately meaaure the effectiveness under Sec. in improving the I H 2.1 academic achievement of African-American students\"  it will have to be by a future submission, were either not evaluations, In general, the documents submitted or very deficient evaluations. Joshua Intervenors offer the following examples of deficiencies identified in the page 154 \"evaluations.\" Early Literacy [vol. 1-2]' Dr. Ross described the report as \"one of the best written reports from LRSD i^ve read. [At 2] He also discussed \"a number of weaknesses . . - [Id-] Dr. Ross* critique includes the following content: \"Of greatest concern overall is the writer's obvious efforts to 'prove' gap reduction even where the data support is weak or spurious.\" [At 3] \"Statistically, a very serious weakness is the lack of validity of the 'Percent Improvement' (Pl) index. [At 3 ] \"Another major statistical weakness is emphasizing the comparison of growth ratios (GR) between B and KB students. . . The reason is the obvious ceiling effects on most of the measures.\" [At 4] \"Not surprisingly, on the two literacy tests that do ngx have low ceilings  Writing Vocabulary and DRA  Ratios are much less supportive of gap reduction [e.g.. the Growth see p. 54, bullet 4), and could even be used by critics as showing extensions of the gap in a number of places.\" [At 5] \"The present data are , This segment is based upon a critique by Dr. Ross, titled Review of Year 2 Evaluations.\" It was submitted to counsel a^d Mrs. Marshall of QDM, by counsel for the LRSD, on October 25, 2002. 3. C.VJCJO r?* ozwi i. jut-in w wHL_r.t.K r h NO.097 p.5 suggestive of definite xU. students' literacy performance. early progress made by lrsd in improving e^e also indicators some progress in gap reduction in certain skills. of However, given that we are dealing with teacher-administered tests having very ceiling levels, the overall evidence low conveys. There is is weaker than this report no reason to reduce the findings by presenting them credibility of the [At 7] \"Conduct more studies that with such an obvious positive bias. and impacts on the school and Charter schog-[ [Vol. 1-2} \"Performance data for examine implementation quality the classroom.\" [At 8] the program evaluation were disaggregated by African American. not race. The student body, however, was 87 percent N [Vol. 1-2 at 1\nDr. Lesley] Southwest Middle school's smni. Program [Vol. The \"evaluation\" documents produced by 1-2] the Southwest Educational Development Lab contain of the program implemented at Southwest Middle achievement data. [Vol. 1-2 at 243-63] neither a detailed description School, nor student C\u0026lt;? 1 labor at ive Action Plan [Vol, 1-2] \"Although the 249-page study produced by SEDL that evaluated the project included student achievement data, those data were not disaggregated by race, and LRSD's short-term [one year) in the project would not predict that the involvement this relatively small of parents and community vo)ynte^rs would result in improved student performance. Dr, Lesley] N [Vol. 1-2 at 528\n4 I. C-WtJO 3  COMI'I JUMU W whlklh h h HO.097 P.6 Bctended Year Schools [Vol. Vol. 4] \"Unfortunately, the present evaluation sufficiently sensitive to detect effects that design does not seem might be attributable . to BYE. Specifically, usage of whole^school data compared descriptively to district examination of the schools' norms gives only progress. a very surface with susceptibility to contamination by student mobility, differences in SES, etc.\" [Exh, B at 5\nDr. Ross] \"The external evaluator's conclusion was that 'Unfortunately, the limited nature of the original design and existing data do not afford us an opportunity to answer in a rigorous manner the key evaluation question of the extent of impact of the initiative on black student performance.'\" [Vol. 4 at 1732\nDr. Lesley\nsee also Vol. 4 at 1813 (Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.] Middle School Imnlementatien [Vol. 4] \"The study conducted by the external evaluator did not attempt to draw any conclusions related to this research question [impact on African-American achievement] since the student performance data available for the study were 'baseline'. and there are serious questions about the appropriateness of the achievement measures and about the validity of some of the other performance outcome measures.\" [Vol. 4 at 1870\nDr. Lesley] \"The data presented in the original report does not support the interpretation of program effects on student performance. It provides a baseline for examining future effects, but needs to be extended and verified.\" [Vol. 4 at 1911\nYouth Policy Research 5 MtiHi'i JUI-iri W WHLK.t.K h' H NO.097 ' P.7 Group\u0026lt; Inc.] Elementary Summar SehonT [Vol. 3] There is a lack of implementation data to describe the i program strategies and the degree to which they were actually used by teachers.\" There is not \"an adequate control group or norms to which the achievement scores of the summer school students could be compared.\" [Eh. B at 3\nDr. Ross] \"unfortunately, there are no additional details in the evaluation that describe the precise treatment afforded the students in the program. Missing is any indication of precisely how much of the curriculum was delivered. how and when it was delivered. and neither by whom, nor its relationship to the previously identified objectives.\" [Vol. at \"] \"No adequate control group or norms . . [Vol. at -J (By Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc.] Hippy [Vol. 3] \"A limitation of the study, which unfortunately cannot be remedied retroactively. is the lack of implementation data to describe the fidelity with which Hippy program components were actually used. [Eh. B at 4\nOr. Ross] M \"Conclusions are difficult due to limitations of the study.\" [Vol. 3. at 1554\nDr. Lesley] \"A third weakness is the gap between the HIPPY experience and the achievement scores analyzed. ... By that time, several years had elapsed subsequent to the HIPPY interventions.\" [vol. 3 at 1567\nDr. Ross] 6 -ttJMI I J s-'ni W H NO.097 p.8 gamPUS T.\u0026lt;adez-Rh\u0026lt;o T)ms [Vol. 3] consist of only . However, the 'evaluation data' collected to date results from two district-wide assessed team nenbers surveys that reactions to various information exists to activities. No the validity of verify the representatives of the samples t the data collection in implementation of the CLTs Dr. Ross] general, or the at the various schools.\" [Eh. B at S\n\"These surveys were not intended although they to he a program evaluation., Vere mistaKenly characterized as District's Compliance such in the report to the court. data were collected, and, therefore, No student performance no conclusions could be drawn as to whether the improved academic achievement African American students. campus Leadership Teams' work has resulted in for any students, nor specifically H [Vol. 3 at 1256\nwas no formal evaluation Dr. Lesley] of CLT by the LRSD.\" [vol. at 1259\nDr. Ross] Lyceum scholars Program [Vol. 3 4] \"Approximately one-half of the students small participating in this program (8 to 10 students total) were African American. Because the numbers were so small, neither performance data nor survey data were disaggregated by race. Neither the staff study nor that of the external evaluator could determine whether this had any positive benefit on the academic performance program of African American students.\" [Vol.4 at 1607\n(inadequate description of treatment Dr. Lesley\nsee also at 1635 provided students in program\n7\u0026lt;1 jurrn w WHUKt-K k h NO.097 P.9 Dr. Ross)] Qnwara to Exceiieneg fvoi. 3] The program \"was never formally evaluated. achievement data except for reports sent by the principal to ADE.\" As \"i iaplejnentation data are lacking, It n if positive or negative results were found, it would be impossible to determine whether OTE or numerous other factors were the main cause. [Eh. B at 4\n\"In view of these factors, Dr, Ross] is no basis for evaluating the 'study,' since none existed.\" [Vol. 3 at 1217\nDr. Ross] Vital Link [Vol. 3] ^Drthar, the evaluation study conducted was so limited (a h brief post-test only, closed-ended survey) that the policy implications of the results are minimal and even potentially misleading if derived.\" [Eh- B at 3\nDr. Ross] There is [iInsufficient description of the program and its N implementation.* There is a \"[l]ack of pre-program (pretest).data for judging change following program completion.\" \"Mo examination of results for different subgroups (e.g., by ethnicity).\" [Vol.3 at 1542\nDr. Ross] 8 1 i_?  CJMl I J 1 w wHL-\\c.r\u0026lt; H NO.097 P.10 sonciueion The need for high quality evaluations, court supervision, is clear. if XJISD IS to exit Respectfully submitted. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862'-1S55 Mass. 405900 'J in W. Iker John w. Walker, p.a. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 Ricky Micks Attorney at Law 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, AR 72207 501-663-9900 9 jvmi w wHLrLr r H NO.097 P. 11 CERTmCATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleadi pre-paid, to all the counsel of record this day of has been mailed, postage ohn W, Walker IMrr,, 1^. iiukUO cJtJHI'i JUm W WHLKLK H W \" NO. 097------P. 1 JOHN IV WALKIR, P.A. 7 Date: Attorney at Law 1723 Broadwey Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET To: Fax: Re: Sender: YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [JJ(mduixni sheet)] PACE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-3758\u0026gt;\" The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential i^onnation intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of tlus message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immec^w not^ us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via atcomey privileged and confidential the U.S. Postal Service. Tliank yoi lU-BN district AW\" EAST^NOist^' IBAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.ygsW. WESTERN DIVISION _____ APR 15 2W MCCORMACK. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. APR 1 9 2004 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Opposition to the Motion of the LRSD to Be Released from Further Supervision and Monitoring of Its Desegregation Efforts The \"LRSD has [not] substantially complied with [Plan] Section 2.7.1, as specified in [the court's] Compliance Remedy.\" [Mem. Opin. , September 13, 2002, at 172] Therefore, the LRSD must continue to be subject to further supervision and monitoring of its implementation of the court-ordered remedy, until it demonstrates substantial compliance with that remedy. The LRSD motion should be denied and supervision and monitoring should continue for a minimum of two additional years. 1 The Intervenors' Opposition is based upon record in the case. the accompanying memorandum. and evidence (including expert ^This two year period of time will afford the^LRSD the minimum time it needs to achieve compliance with t'he remedy/ and, as well, give the Joshua Intervenors and the ODM the time to determine whether compliance is not merely transitory. 1testimony) and arguments to be submitted at the hearing scheduled by the court. (esmectfu y suj^itted, Robert Pressman Ro: 'W. Walker 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass, 405900 fe^key Hicks YJohn W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 o Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Norman Chachkin Theodore Shaw N7\\ACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street New York, NY 212-965-2200 10013-2897 2 JCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE day of April, 2004 by placing on I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been served all counsel of record on this IS*^ a copy of same in the United States mail postage prepaid. 3s filed district court eastern district ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ADD 1 5 gflfli EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ' WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By:_____________________________ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEP CLERK PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. received DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. APR 1 9 2004 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Memorandum in Support of Their Opposition to the Motion of the LRSD to Be Released from Further Supervision and Monitoring of Its Desegregation Efforts The LRSD has [not] substantially complied with [Plan] Section 2.7.1, as specified in [the court's] Compliance Remedy [Memorandum Opinion, September 13,2002,at 172, para. F]. Therefore, the LRSD   must continue to be subject to further supervision and monitoring of its implementation of the court-ordered remedy, until it demonstrates substantial compliance with that remedy. The retention of jurisdiction should be for a new period of two school years . This court's September, 2002 opinion identified the purpose of Section 2.7.1, the importance of substantial compliance with its terms, and the capacity which the LRSD must demonstrate as one element of its burden to justify the termination of the court's 1supervision. This court wrote: . I find that the purpose of 2.7.1 was to make that the programs under 2.7 actually worked to improve sure the academic achievement of African-American students. I further find that LRSD's substantial compliance with 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African American students\nfor, without performing a rigorous annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under 2.7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, or replaced with new programs [at 150\nemphasis in original] . . . . I conclude that the court should continue supervision and monitoring of LRSD's compliance with this crucially important section of the Revised Plan in order to ensure that LRSD has in place an effective assessment program that will allow it identify and improve those programs that are most effective to in remediating the academic achievement of African American students, [at 168] These elements of the court's opinion help to frame the issues presented by the Joshua Intervenors' opposition to the LRSD motion. A. The Lack of the Capacity of the LRSD to Perform the Reouisite Assessments and Evaluations (1. ) For the reasons set forth in paragraphs 2 through 14, the LRSD has failed to \"[demonstrate] that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Section 2.7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students: . . [\"Compliance Remedy,\" Mem. Opin., at 170\nsee also id. at 168] (2.) In its ruling of September 13, 2002, the court cited the recognition of the school board and upper echelon administrators that the LRSD had been without the capacity to prepare what the court termed \"in-depth and analytic program evaluations. T1 [Mem. 2Opin. at 156\nsee id. at 153 (Dr. Lesley)\nat 156-57 (school board)\nat\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_367","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Student Academic Improvement Plans (SAIPs) Using Data to Improve Individual Student Performance''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Student Academic Improvement Plans (SAIPs) Using Data to Improve Individual Student Performance''"],"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/367"],"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":["87 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\nSTUDENT ACADEMIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS (SAIPs) -USING DATA TO IMPROVE INDIVIDUAL STUDENT PERFORMANCE0-1 ozo5o mm z o in Student Academic Improvement Plans (SAIPs)Using Data to Improve Individual Student Performance 1. 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Memorandum to Division of Instruction staff and others, Nov. 15,1999, providing information on new requirements from the state on a personalized education plan, appointing a committee to develop a plan, and stating the committee charge Memorandum to Board of Education, Aug. 24, 2000, requesting approval of the attached administrative regulations (IHBDA-R2) and review of other information E-mail to Dennis Glasgow, Patricia Price, and Suzi Davis, Sept. 15, 2000, requesting that they develop sample SAIPs for the teachers to use ''7 Memorandum in Sept. 20, 2000, Learning Links to all principals from Bonnie Lesley stating a philosophy relating to the SAIPs Memorandum in Sept. 20, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals from Patricia Price clarifying the use of data in SAIPs and attaching sample SAIPs Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to all middle school principals from Suzi Davis providing information on SAIPs and attaching sample SAIPs Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to all middle school principals from Suzi Davis on how to use the SAIP form for parent conferencing Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to middle school principals on how to use the SAIP form for middle school mathematics, how to use the ALT data to interpret need, and including a sample SAIP E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Sept. 21, 2000, from Lillie Carter expressing appreciation for the copy of the SAIP philosophy and the sample SAIPs 10. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Sept. 27, 2000, from Eleanor Cox expressing appreciation for the SAIP philosophy and for the sample SAIPs 11. E-mail to middle school principals, Sept. 29, 2000, from Suzi Davis providing more assistance with SAIPs 12. Memorandum to Pat Price, Pat Busbea, and Ed Williams, Apr. 3, 2001, with attached document from Connecticut on interpretation of the DRA and use of that data with SAIPs1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501)324-2131 November 15,1999 TO: Gary Smith (or designee) Mable Donaldson Patricia Price Leon Adams Karen Broadnax Eddie McCoy Vanessa Cleaver Linda Austin Sadie Mitchell (or designee) Everett Hawks Marion Baldwin Suzi Davis I FROM: SUBJECT: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Personalized Education Plan The states ACTAAP plan states the following: An academic improvement plan means a plan that details supplemental and/or intervention and remedial instruction in deficient academic areas. One shall be developed for each student no performing at the proficient level in every portion of the criterion - referenced examinations. Our 1999-200 Work Plan includes the following priority: 9. Develop Personalized Education Plan design for K-12 students for fall 2000 implementation. Dr. Carnine has stated more than once that'he envisions a personalized Education Plan for every student - not just those who are not performing at the proficient level. I think we can learn a lot about how to think about such plans from our colleagues in special education, so Dr. Smith may wish to add one or more to the committee. We should also add Clementine Kelly and other teacher representatives, and you need to be sure to include an ODM representative, plus some parents since the students plan development must certainly include parents. Personalized Education Plan Memo November 15, 1999 Page Two I request that Gary Smith call the first meeting, and then you all decide who should chair the greater committee. Your charge includes the following: 1. Determine the full committees membership. 2. Conduct research to determine what the critical attributes will be of the LRSD Personalized Education Plan. What are other Districts doing? 3. 4. 5. 6, 7. 8. 9. Will ADE publish a model? Review Mable Donaldsons directory of Personalized Education programs to consider available options/interventions. Consider how planning of electives at the middle school level fits into the plan. Consider how planning for graduation fits into the plan. What should the Boards policy say? The regulations? Design the process/procedures/forms. Design the training/professional development. Propose the necessary budget for implementation. 10. Lay out the plan to secure the support of teachers, students, and parents. 11 .Write a handbook for teachers and a brochure for parents. All this work must be completed by the end of June, but there's lots to do - especially communication to and from teachers - so we should get started now. I request that you provide me with frequent updates on how you are doing. Also, please let me know how you want me to help. Thanks to all of you in advance for the work youll do on this challenging project. We want to create processes that ensure the effectiveness of the PEP's not just create another paperwork exercise. BAL/rcm Cc: Les Carnine Kathy Lease Junious Babbs Suellen Vann Brady Gadberry Victor Anderson Linda Watson I2 TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 August 24, 2000 Board of Education ^r. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction THROUGH: Dr. Les Gamine, Superintendent, Little Rock School District SUBJECT: Student Academic Improvement Plan Act 999 of 1999 requires that schools develop student Academic Improvement Plans for all students not performing at grade level (K-4), those not proficient\" on any part of Benchmark examinations at primary (grade 4), intermediate (grade 6), and middle (grade 8) levels, and those not scoring at the \"proficient\" level on End-of-Course examinations in literacy, Algebra I, and Geometry. One of the priorities in the 1999-2000 work plan for the Division of Instruction was the development of a plan and process to comply with the mandate. Dr. Gary Smith chaired the committee (see names attached), and they involved a broader group of staff and parents in their design work. The administrative regulations (IHBDA-R2)to implement this plan are attached for the Board's review. Attachments BAL/rcm STUDENT ACADEMIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN (SAIP)- DRAFT COMMITTEE - Gary Smith, Janice Wyatt-Ross, Susan Colford, Eddie McCoy, Kathy Tatum, Everett Hawks, Mable Donaldson, Pat Price, Karen Broadnax, Leon Adams, Marion Baldwin, Jim Fullerton, Jim Fullerton, Ada Keown, Gail Bradford, Vanessa Cleaver, Linda Austin, Suzi Davis, Dennis Glascow, Gloria Billingsly, Joevelyn Elston, Cassandra Norman, Mona Briggs REGULATION - Act 999 of 1999 requiring Student Academic Improvement Plan for students not performing on grade level (K-4), not proficient on any part of Benchmark (primary, intermediate, middle), students not scoring proficient on End-of-Course exams in Literacy, Geometry, Algebra OUR CHARGE - To develop a plan and procedure to meet the requirements of Act 999. Specifically\nCONSIDERATIONS___________________ 1. Determine critical attributes of a P.E.P. COMMENTS________________________ Must be skill specific. Use a pre-assessment/post-assessment process. Must be user friendly and not overburdening to teachers. Must identify deficits and develop goals with suggested strategies. 2. How do electives at middle school and graduation planning fit? Should augment strategies recommended in SAIP. 3. What should the regulations say? 4. Design a process, procedure, and forms 5. Design training and professional development 6. Determine budget See attached draft. See attached draft. See attached plan. See attached budget considerations.I TRAINING AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TRAINING NEED FOR TEACHERS Process and procedures of SAIP Interpretation of assessment Development of strategies RESOURCES AVAILABLE SAIP committee to train trainers to train school site teachers. _________________ Planning Research, and Evaluation staff to train trainers to train school site teachers. Curriculum specialists, Special Education teachers, GT specialists. Embed in all curriculum trainings. Include The Pre-Referral Intervention Manual (and other text resources) in schools professional libraries. Secure The Pre-Referral Intervention Manual computer version for access by teachers. Computer access to The Pre-Referral Intervention Manual and interactive WEB site for the posting and reading of strategies. Develop interactive WEB site for the posting and reading of strategies.________ Computer services to train trainers to train school site teachers in the use of software. BUDGET - APPROXIMATE ITEM SAIP forms in triplicate_ The Pre-Referral Intervention Manual The Pre-Referral Intervention Manual - computer version COST PER ITEM .10 $36.00 $190.00 QUANTITY 20,000 One per school (52 schools) One per school (52 schools) TOTAL COST $2,000.00 $1,872.00 $9,880.00 Additional costs to be identified: Development of interactive WEB site Materials for staff development Refreshments for staff development Stipends for teachers to attend ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Parents can be informed of the process for SAIP via District wide publications, WEB site, television station, PTA meetings, etc. Parent/Teachers conferences would need to be scheduled to assure time for teachers to have assessment results available to use in SAIP. Develop processes to produce individual student printouts of assessment results on a SAIP template and/or available on disk, allowing teachers to utilize computers to create computer documents of the SAIP. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IHBDA-R2 STUDENT ACADEMIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN (SAIP) In compliance with Act 999 of 1999, elementary classroom teachers and both middle and high school teachers of English language arts and mathematics will develop a Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) for each student who  is not performing on grade level (K-4)\n is not proficient on any part of the states Benchmark examinationsprimary (grade 4), intermediate (grade 6), middle (grade 8)\nand  is not scoring proficient on End-of-Course examinations in literacy, geometry, and/or algebra. Grade-level performance in grades K-2 shall be defined as performing at or above the readiness level on the Developmental Reading Assessment. Grade-level performance in grades 3-4 shall be defined as performing at or above the national median on the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs) in reading, language, and mathematics. Schools and individual teachers are encouraged to develop plans for additional students who, in their judgment, require remediation or intervention. The Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) will document a students 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. The Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) and the students progress toward grade-level or proficient performance must be shared with parents/guardians at the parent-teacher conferences that are regularly scheduled. If parents do not attend the scheduled parent-teacher conferences, alternate conference times may be scheduled or the form may be mailed. The principal must review and sign all SAIPs. The SAIP will be used to document parent-teacher conferences. Student Academic Improvement Plans are to be filed in the students permanent record folders at the end of each school year or when the student withdraws from the school. Current services -__IDEA 504 ESL T TITLEI OTHER-Little Rock School District - Academic Improvement Plan for Student - School year - Student: ID#: Grade: Teacher: School: Principal: Date developed: ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS __ Developmental Reading Assessment _ ALT Benchmark Exam End-of-Course-______________ AREA OF NEEDS SKILLS TO IMPROVE DATES REVIEWED Date Reviewed by: Results - (AREA) AT END OF YEAR - FILE IN PERMANENT RECORD FOLDER STRATEGIES TO BE USED PROGRESS SIGNATURES - TEACHER PARENT STUDENT (IF APPLICABLE) PRINCIPAL WHITFCnPY -TFACHFRS WORKING COPY VFI I nW COPY - PARENT r9\u0026gt; mNFFRFNrFt PINK COPY -PAR PNT ir r-riNPPR cNrcr 1 3 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, September 15, 2000 12:17 PM GLASGOW, DENNIS\nPRICE, PATRICIA\nDAVIS, SUZI SAIP I promised the principals that we would do some sample SAIPs for them. We need to get them to them right away. Please work with your staff to generate a sample for K-2. another for 3-5, then 6-8, and 9-12 in both language arts and mathematics, please. You may need to get access to the book/CD that Gary Smith disseminated so that you will be working with the same resources we asked the schools to use. Each kid does not need a unique SAIP. Teachers can identify kids with similar needs and then duplicate the form for all that set of kids. SAIPs are mandated for kids in grades k-4 who are not performing at grade level, in grade 5 (after grade 4 benchmark), grade 7 (after grade 6 benchmark), grade 9 (after grade 8 benchmark), and high school after the end-of-course tests (whichever grade level is appropriate for individual kids). SAIPs should continue for students who do not reach proficient performance in one year. Please get these samples to me asap. We need toget them out to the schools! Those parent-teacher conferences are already occurring. 1 4 TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 September 15, 2000 All Principals Jt)r. Bonnie Lesley. Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: SAIPsSome Philosophy I Ive been thinking about our discussion about the SAIPs at the Cluster Meeting last week, and I worry that we talked too much about compliance with the law and not enough about the potential benefits to our kids. One of the things, of course, that outrages really fine educators is for legislators and other lay people to micromanage our processes. For SAIPs to be mandated is very similar to the mandate I received last week from my insurance company to take another medication rather than the one prescribed by my doctor. Both actions ARE outrageous! We also resent unfunded and time intensive demands'on usas this new requirement certainly is. So our reactions to this new law should have been totally anticipated. Now the other side: Parents, legislators, and business people also become outraged when we educators fail, in their view, to take the leadership to initiate processes that seem to them to be commonsensical, to be reasonable if we truly want to improve learning. And, indeed, SAIPs are totally reasonable and even reflective of good practice. Think for a moment about the four principles of quality management that we have embraced: customer service, data-driven decisions, continuous learning, and continuous improvement. A good faculty meeting activity might be to reflect together on the ways that SAIPs fit into those four principles. So I invite you to put aside your outrage relating to this new mandate and to think about the ways that you can exploit the mandate and use it as an opportunity to do something good. The SAIP process has the potential to: prevent student failure improve academic performance of individual students improve students self-concept and their perceptions of school and education reduce the dropout rate educate and involve parents provide a focus for professional development I SAIPsSome Philosophy - Memo September 15, 2000 Page Two  improve instructional practices  start a dialogue among teachers on effective interventions  provide a focus for budget prioritization  inform the design of the Title I and School Improvement Plan  create a commitment to develop a SAIP for all students  etc., etc., etc. Now none of these good things will happen if we see the SAIP only as an exercise in paperwork, if we see it as an event that we have to get through and then file the documentation, if we only comply with the letter of the law. I hope you will all use the SAIPs in ways that serve children well, as additional sets of data to guide decision-making in the school, and as opportunities for reflective dialogue with parents and students about improved academic performance. Use them, in other words, as a quality management tool. Please let us know if we can assist you. BAL/adg 5 LL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EARLY CHILDHOOD/ELEMENTARY LITERACY DEPARTMENT 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 Sqjtember 18, 2000 To: Elementary Principals From: Pat Price, Director of Early Childhood/Elementary Literacy Subject: Information regarding SAIP (Student Academic Improvement Plan) for Reading K-5 Please be sure to use the following data when filling out the Assessment Results on the SAIP: Developmental Reading Assessment  A Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) should be filled out only for Kindergarten children who are retained. If a student is retained in Kindergarten their score on the Spring DRA should be below a 2.  A Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) should be filled out for any First Grade student who scored below a 2 on the Spring Kindergarten DRA.  A Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) should be filled out for any Second Grade student who scored below a 16 on the Spring First Grade DRA.  A Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) should be filled out for any Third Grade student who scored below a 24 on the Spring Second Grade DRA. Achievement Level Test  A Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) should be filled out for any Fourth Grade student who scored below a 198 RTT score in Reading on the 3\"* Grade Spring ALT.  A Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) should be filled out for any Fifth Grade student who scored below a 205 RTF score in Reading on the 4*** Grade Spring ALT. In addition, any student who scored Basic or Below Basic on the 4* Grade Benchmark Exam in Reading, must have a Student Academic Improvement Plan. Current services -IDEA 504 ESL G/T TITLEI X Little Rock School District - Academic Improvement Plan for Student - School year - 2000-2001 Student: Tiffany Smith ID#: 100100 School: Main Street Elementary Principal: Mr. Morgan Grade: Kindergarten ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS X Developmentil Reading Assessment _ ALT __ Benchmark Exam End-of-Course________________ AREA OF NEEDS Letter/sound association (AREA) Results\nKindergarten Spring results DRA Level A Recognition of upper and lower case letters Recognizing rhyming words Constructing and writing words Concepts about print STRATEGIES TO BE USED The teacher will model and instruct the student in how to: Hear and record sounds in words through interactive writing Develop concepts about print, letter and Word recognition, and rhyming patterns through shared reading Develop the use of meaning structure and visual cues through shared reading The parent will: Listen to the child read Read to the child Discuss reading and writing assignments with child SIGNATURES - TEACHER PARENT f WHITE COPY - TEACHER'S WORKING COPY Teacher: Ms. Jones Date developed\n10/4/00 SKILLS TO IMPROVE Phonemic awareness Letter recognition Using letter sound knowledge in writing Directionality One - to - one matching Date 10/4/00 10/4/00 DATES REVIEWED Reviewed by\nMs, Jones - Teacher Mrs. Smith - Parent AT END OF YEAR - FILE IN PERMANENT RECORD FOLDER PROGRESS STUDENT (IF APPLICABLE) YELLOW COPY - PARENT (2\" CONFERENqE) T PRINCIPAL PINK COPY - PARENT (l\" CONFERENCE) Current services - IDEA 50 ESL G/T TITLEI X Little Rock School District - Academic Improvement Plan for Student - School year - 2000-2001 Student: Tiffany Smith ID#\n100100 Grade: 1st School: Main Street Elementary Principal: Mr. Morgan ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS X Developmental Reading Assessment . ALT __ Benchmark Exam End-of-Course________________ Results: (AREA) Kindergarten Spring results DRA Level A First Grade Fall results DRA Level 1 AREA OF NEEDS Letter/sound association Letter recognition Use of meaning, structure \u0026amp; visual cues in reading. Constructing \u0026amp; writing sentences Teacher\nMs. Jones Date developed: 10/4/00 SKILLS TO IMPROVE Independent writing Independent reading Writing vocabulary DATES REVIEWED Date I Reviewed by: 10/4^0 Ms. Jones - Teacher 10/4/00 Mrs. Smith - Parent AT END OF YEAR - FILE IN PERMANENT RECORD FOLDER STRATEGIES TO BE USED PROGRESS The teacher will model and instruct the student in how to: Hear \u0026amp; record sounds in words through interactive writing Use meaning visual and structure cues through guided reading Provide literacy centers to reinforce letter identification, letter sound association and writing vocabulary The parent will: Listen to the child read Read to the child Discuss reading and writing assignments with child SIGNATURES - TEACHER PARENT STUDENT (IF APPLICABLE) PRINCIPAL WHITE COPY - TEACHER'S WORKING COPY YELLOW COPY - PARENT t:* CONFERENCE) PINKCOPY -PARNT(lCONFERNCE) Current services - IDEA 504 ESL G/T TITLEI X Little Rock School District - Academic Improvement Plan for Student - School year - 2000-2001 Student: Tiffany Smith ID#: 100100 Grade: 2nd School: Main Street Elementary Principal: Mr, Morgan ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS X Devclopmenlil Reading Assessment _ ALT __ Benchmark Exam EDd-or-Courie________________ AREA OF NEEDS Vocabulary (AREA) Spelling pattom Results: Comprehension 1\" grade Spring results DRA Level 12 Spelling \u0026amp; writing development 2\"* grade Fall results DRA Level 14 Use of structure, meaning \u0026amp; visual cues when Reading STRATEGIES TO BE USED The teacher will model and instruct the student in bow to: Use known spelling patterns to spell and read new words Cross check meaning, structure, and visual cues in reading Use the writing process (edit and revise writing) The parent will\nListen to the child read Read to the child Discuss reading and writing assignments with child Teacher: Ms. Jones Date developed: 10/4/00 SKILLS TO IMPROVE Independent Writing Independent Reading Reading for Information I Date 10/4/00 10/4/00 DATES REVIEWED Reviewed by: Ms. Jones - Teacher Mrs. Smith - Parent AT END OF YEAR - FILE IN PERMANENT RECORD FOLDER PROGRESS I I SIGNATURES - TEACHER PARENT STUDENT (IF APPLICABLE) PRINCIPAL WHITE COPY - TEACHER'S WORKING COPY YELLOW COPY - PARENT (2\" CONFERENCE) PtNKCOPY . PARENT (I\" CONFERENCE) Current services -IDEA 50 ESL G/T TITLEI X Little Rock School District - Academic Improvement Plan for Student - School year - 2000-2001 Student: Tiffany Smith ID#: 100100 Grade: 3\"* Grade School: Main Street Elementary Principal: Mr. Morgan ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS X Dcveiopmeotal Readiag Asseumeol _ ALT __ Beacbmark Exam End-of-Courae_____________ AREA OF NEEDS Teacher: Ms. Jones Date developed: 10/4/00 SKILLS TO IMPROVE DATES REVIEWED (AREA) Comprehension: Predicting Making inferences Reading for information Reading Comprehension Process Writing Date 10/4/00 Results: Second grade Spring DRA Level 14 Development of Spelling patterns for Reading and Writing Spelling Development Vocabulary Development 10/4/00 Reviewed by: Ms. Jones - Teacher Mrs. Smith - Parent Writing: Revising Editing STRATEGIES TO BE USED AT END OF YEAR - FILE IN PERMANENT RECORD FOLDER PROGRESS The teacher will model and instruct the student in bow to: Use comprehension strategies to make meaning through guided reading, read alouds, and literature circles Use writing process to write narrative and expository texts, expand vocabulary and develop spelling The parent will: Listen to the child read Read to the child Discuss reading and writing assignments with child SIGNATURES - TEACHER PARENT STUDENT (IF APPLICABLE) PRINCIPAL WHITE COPY - TEACHERS WORKING COPY YELLOW COPY - PARENT (2 CONFERENCE) PINK.COPY -PARNT(l^CONFERENCE) I I I Current services -IDEA 504 ESL G/T TITLE I X Little Rock School District - Academic Improvement Plan for Student - School year - 2000-2001 Student: Tiffany Smith ID#: 100100 Grade: 4th Teacher\nMs. Jones School: Main Street Elementary Principal: Mr. Morgan ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS __ Developmental Reading Assessment X ALT __ Benchmark Exam Eod'Of'Course_____________ AREA OF NEEDS Reading Comprehension: (AREA) Reading for meaning - fiction and non fiction text Results\nReading nanative and expository Date developed: 10/4/00________ SKILLS TO IMPROVE Reading: Monitor comprehension and use fix up strategies Writing: 10/4/00 10/4/00 DATES REVIEWED I Reviewed by: Ms. Jones - Teach Mrs. Smith - Parent Third Grade Spring results ALT - RIT score 190 Write paragraph with topic sentence supporting details Organize paragraphs to develop cohesive text AT END OF YEAR - FILE IN PERMANENT RECORD FOLDER I pate., STRATEGIES TO BE USED PROGRESS The teacher will model and instruct the student in bow to: Model comprehension strategies through \"think alouds\", self-correct, reread, read on, self question, and summarize Use student conferences to discuss revisions/editing The parent will: Continue to read to and with child Discuss and work with child in various subject areas Encourage child to read-for \" SIGNATURES - TEACHER PARENT STUDENT (IF APPLICABLE) PRINCIPAL WHITE COPY - TEACHERS WORKING COPY YELLOW COPY - PARENT (2* CONFERENCE) PINK COPY - PARENT (1\" CONFERENCE) .a Bnsse-c I Current services -__IDEA Little Rock School District - Academic Improvement Plan for Student - School year - 2000-2001 Student: Tiffany Smith ID#: 100100 Grade: Sth G/T TITLEI X School: Main Street Elementary Principal: Mr. Morgan ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS __ Developmental Reading Assessment X ALT __ Benchmark Exam End-of-Course_____________ AREA OF NEEDS Reading Comprehension: (AREA) Reading for purpose Results: Use personal background to comprehend 4 th grade Benchmark Exam (ACTAAP) Reading - Below Basic 4'*' grade Spring ALT - RIT score 200 The teacher will: Read functional text Writing: Writing Process STRATEGIES TO BE USED Use activities to establish prior learning/predict new learning Have students read for a variety of purposes Conference student on writing to prompts/using writing process The parent will: Continue to read to and with child Discuss and work with child in various subject areas Encourage child to read-for' SIGNATURES - TEACHER PARENT Teacher: Ms. Jones Date developed: 10/4/00 SKILLS TO IMPROVE Reading Comprehension: Read and discuss inferential information Evaluate new information by Comparing Writing: Revise and edit writing for . content/mechanics I STUDENT,(IF APPLICABLE) DATES REVIEWED Date 10/4/00 10/4/00 Reviewed by: Ms. Jones - Teacher Mrs. Smith - Parent AT END OF YEAR - FILE IN PERMANENT RECORD FOLDER PROGRESS I I I PRINCIPAL WHITE COPY - TEACHER'S WORKING COPY YELLOW COPY^.Pjii^^(^ - .ri'\"'* ' 5\" \\ v'jXs 6 LL ft. Secondary English/Foreign Languages Instructional Resource Center 3001 South Pulaski, Little Rock, AR 72206 Phone (501) 324-0510, 324-0513 Fax (501) 324-0504 To: From: Date: All Middle School Principals Suzi Davis September 21, 2000 Attached you will find the sample SAIP form for middle school reading, language arts, writing. Please read below carefully to understand the form and how to fill one out. Assessments Used: 6* grade\n5* grade spring ALT Cut off RIT scores\nReading= 211, Language= 212 7* grade\n6* grade spring ALT Cut off RIT scores: Reading=215, Language-216 6\"' grade spring State Benchmark Test For Basic and Below Basic scores 8* grade: V'*\" grade spring ALT Cut off RIT scores\nReading=220, Language-219 There^^e four areas or goal areas listed by the NWEA for ALT Reading tests, and three ^eas for ALT Language (which include writing skills). Under each of these goal areas are L- -- -------- ________ ran hp. determined which skills in which areas are weak. On the sample, which is a listed several skills. From the report of each child, it can be determined which skills in which areas are . 1 __ til____x1-KAaori' s^ple for reading SAIP only, you will see that in area one. Word Meanings, this student showed weakness skills co A -c were co skills in Uus firs, area wbreh need address.Sl* meanings. In the second area. Interpretive Comprehension, cre were also two remediations needed\none in Snee, and one in authors purpose. A third area and its skill are also listed, but since there is no mention of the fourth area (Literal Comprehension), we know that this child performed satisfactonly m that area and On SAIP, if necessary, a childs language needs and writing needs could be ad^essed. In the future when State Benchmark scores are available, a seventh graders SAIP should also reflect any needs identified by the sixth grade State Benchmark test. Strategies To Be Used: ., , . It has been suggested as a more efficient way of dealmg with this area. that a checklist could be made for skills with the specific needs checked off for each child and this checklist attached to the S^P^It ^uld tSe a team effort to prepare the initial checklist, but after the work is done once it would save time. This SAIP should be available for parent conferences. Progress: This area should reflect data to indicate student is practicing and acquiring skills needed. Notations should be added as the school year progresses. 1 5AmPlc Little Rock School District - Student\nTiffany Smith Cunenl services - _ IDEA 504 ___ESL _ G/T TITLE 1 X OTHER - Academic Improvement Plan for Student - School year ID#: 100100 Grade: 6th -^2000-2001 Teacher\nR. Martin School: Hogwarts Middle School Principal: Dumbledorf Date developed: 10/4/00 ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS Developnieiitl Reading Assessment X ALT Benctiinark Exam End-of-Course _------------------ I area OF NEEDS 1. Word Meanings 1. (AREA) 2. Interpretive Comprehension 2. Results: 3. Evaluative Comprehension SKILLS TO IMPROVE Context Clues Multiple Meanings Inference Authors Purpose Date: 10-1-00 10-1-00 DATES REVIEWED Reviewed by\nR. Martin, teacher B. Spears, parent 5i'* grade Spring ALT Reading RIT - 208 strategies to be USED rVrTviSrpmctke in predicting word meaning and identifying clues in context Provide students with word lists having multiple meanings and practice different context and meanings. . 2. Use short passages to practice inference and drawing conclusions when formation is not given. Teach purposes of literature and provide practice in identifying the purposes in several forms and identifying fact^ias. 3 Teach meaning and purpose c.----------- . Teach meaning of stereotypes and identify examples with studen . The parent will: 1. Read aloud to child and listen to child read aloud, noting words child has 2 child in all subject areas and the meaning of 3. Sse television and magazine advertisements to show bias and purpose of presented 3 material. Encourage the child to read for pleasure! SIGNATURES - TEACHER PARENT 3. Identify bias, stereotypes PROGRESS STUDENT (IF APPLICABLE) PRINCIPAL WHITE COPY - TEACHERS WORKING COPY YELLOW COPY - PARENT (2\" CONFERENCE) PINK COPY - PARENT (1^^ CONFERENCE) ] Little Rock Public Schools Reading Achievement Level Test Goals 1. Word Meaning a. b. c. d. e. Phonetic skills Context clues Synonyms, antonyms, homonyms Component structure (prefix, suffix, origin, roots Multiple meanings 2. Literal Comprehension a. Recall/identify significant details b. c. d. e. Identify main idea Locate information Follow directions Sequence details 3. Interpretive Comprehension a. b. c. d. e. f. Inference Identify cause and effect Authors purpose Prediction Summarize Identify literary elements (character, plot, setting, theme, etc.) 4. Evaluative Comprehension a. b. c. d. e. Evaluate conclusions, validity (supporting context) Identify fact and opinion Identify literary techniques (figurative language, mood, tone, etc.) Distinguish text forms Identify bias, stereotypes Little Rock School District Language Usage Achievement Level Test Goals 1. Writing Process a. Prewriting skills b. c. d. e. f. Drafting and revising Editing/proofreading Choosing appropriate format Sentence choice appropriate to purpose Paragraph skills (topic and concluding sentences, indenting, etc.) 2. Grammar and Usage a. b. c. d. e. f. g-h. i. Sentence patterns Phrases and clauses Noun forms Verb usage: tenses, irregular verbs, subject-verb agreement Adjective forms Adverb forms Pronoun forms Pronoun antecedent agreement Negative forms 3. Mechanics a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. End punctuation Commas Apostrophes Enclosing punctuation Titles Beginning Capitalization Proper nouns and adjectives Capital I I ! I 7I LL Secondary English, Foreign Languages I I f 5 Memo To: From\nCC\nDate: Re: Middle School Principals ^Suzi Davis September 26,2000 Parent Conferences for SAIP Attached you will find a copy of the information regarding use of the SAIP form for parent conferencing. Please note the part about mailing home the SAIP if the parent is unable to attend a conference or sign the form. I thought the information included in this page was important and might be helpful to you. Please let me know if there is more that you need.  Page 1**4 , Ji / background - Act 999 of 1999 requires LRSD to develop a Student Academic ImnrtJ^lTpian for students not performing on grade level (K-4), not proficient ow XXXark (primary, intermediate, middle), ^d students ~ proficient on Cv XiXA*** J ) 7 f' Al K End-of-Course exams in Literacy, Geometry, Algebra PROCESS, PROCEDURE, AND FORM - DRAFT A Student Achievement Improvement Plan will be developed/revised for students who are not proficient according to the results of\n. Observation Surveys (Grades K-Z\"-*) conducted in September and April, . Achievement Level Tests (Grades 3\"*-11*) conducted m August/September and . EnTo^f Course Exams (Algebra I, Geometry, Literacy) conducted in May, and _1_______1, i-n AAoV th 4' Quarter Benchmark Exams (3'^ -8') in May. The SAIP will document the consideration of cutreut personalized services (apecial Xato English as a Second Language, Title I, Gifted programs etc.) f areas of need, specific skills to improve, strategies that will be implemented. progress. The SAIP conferences in will be reviewed/revised with parents at scheduled in the Fall and Spring. The parent, teacher, and student (if applicable) will ies for the home and school, and discuss which area of needs will be addressed, sriategies The principal, or desi^ee will review and si^ dl  P review progress. . _ are unable to attend the Parent Teacher Conference, a copy of the SAIP will be mailed to them. X form is to be used in heu of current Parent Teacher Conference form. The SAIP will be kept in the classroom during the school year as a working copy for the Al_ _ 0 A IIJ teacher. At the end of the school year. or if the student exits the school, the SAIP would SS iXXts permaneni record folder for review by fiiture teachers. ) I I Snecific strategies will be developed by the teacher, parent, and student (if applicable). IrXST^tegiescancom^ftomavari^ofs^^^^ knowledge and experience, student team meetmgs, or r.  sessions. Some of the sources recommended are\nschool generated problem-solving . The Pre-Referral Intervention Manual by McCamey, Wunderlich \u0026amp; Bauer Second Edition, (see attached cover, index, and sample page) Cost - $36.00 Manual, $190.00 Computer version. District created interactive WEB site for posting and locating strategies that can  S XsXstatf members. This would neeb to be developed. Cost unknown. . Imbed into all curricular suff development training specific strategies to address areas of need that are assessed. 1 s8 TO. FROM. LL little rock school district INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTH PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 September 27, 2000 middle school PRINCIPALS I^ENNIS GLASGOW. DIRECTOR OF MATH AND SCIENCE SUBJECT: SAIP Form The SAIP form for middle school mathematics will follow the same format as the iwuauw Tii\u0026gt; will find the sample SAIP form for middle readinq/language arts. Attached you will find the samples oMir ____and the areas and skills listed for the ALT. school mathematics and the areas Below you will find the cut off RIT scores for mathematics\n1 I 6' grade\n7 grade\ns grade\n5\"* grade spring ALT 6* grade spring ALT 7 grade spring ALT Cut off RIT scores\nMath = 215 Cut off RIT scores\nMath = 220 Cut off RIT scores\nMath = 227 I) Little Rock School District Mathematics Achievement Level Test Goals 1. Operations a. Whole number computation b. Fraction, decimal, mixed number percents computation c. Computation with positive and negative numbers d. Estimation and rounding e. Applications 2. Number Sense and Properties a. Identify numerical patterns b. Counting and recognition, odd-even, grouping c. Place value, expanded notation d. Powers of ten, factoring, prime numbers, multiples e. Exponents, squares, scientific notation, roots f. Whole and fractional concepts g. Number lines, coordinate graphs h. Applications I 3. Geometry and Spatial Sense i S Identify, describe, classify shapes, figures, and objects b. Classify and measure angles and triangles, Pythagorean Theorem c. Line segments, lines, rays, relationships (perpendicular, parallel, intersecting, etc.) d. Congruence, symmetry, translations (flips, slides, rotations) a. e. Circles (circumference, diameter, radius) f. Coordinates, ordered pairs O' Applications 4. Measurement I I a. b. Linear measurement Measure/estimate perimeter, area, mass, volume in standard and non-standard measures c. Time, rate, speed, ratio, scale d. Weight, temperature e. Units of money f. Conversion within a system g- Compare or convert between systems h. Applications 5. Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability a. Analyze, interpret data displays b. Probability and prediction c. Measures of central tendency and distribution d. Applications 6. Patterns, Algebra and Functions Equations, variables, expressions b. Equalities and inequalities (=,\u0026gt;,\u0026lt;) a. c. Patterns and functions d. Applications Current services -__IDEA  504 ------ U/l iiiLbi AuinnK.- Little Rock School District - Grad^*^**^h Teacher\nR. Martin Student\nTiffany Smith ED #\n100100 School: Hogwarts Middle School Principal: Dumbledorf Date developed\n10/4/00 ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS _ DevetopmenUl Rudins Asseument X ALT __ Benchmark Eim End-of-Coune________________ /JtEA OF NEEDS SKBXS TO IMPROVE ni\\TES reviewed (AREA) I, Operations 2. Number Sense and Properties 1. Whole number computation Estimation and rounding Date\nReviewed by: Results\n3. Geometry and Spatial Sense 2. Identify numerical patterns Whole and fractional concepts 10-1- 00 10 -1-00 R. Martin, teacher R. Snears, parent 5i'* grade Spring ATT Mathematics RIT - 3. Circles (circumference, diameter, radius) 208 STRATEGIES TO BE USED ^ctiK in whole number computation using a variety of resources including practice sheets, games and computer software^ resources including 2 Provide pracUce in estimation and rounding usmg a variety reso practice s.h eets, gam__e_s_ _a_n_d1 computer CsAoffttwwfalTreC. 3 Develop alternative algorithms for computation. 4 5. Use concrete activities to attributes of circles. and progress The parent will\n1. Practice computation. 2. Discuss material read with child in in mathematics and the meaning of material. 3. 4. Provide opportunities to Use television and magazine advertisements to estimation skills (i.c.. shopping) ..ccH in show mathematical concepts used in real life. Encourage the child to have a positive attitude about problem solving! SIGNATURES - TEACHER parent STUDENT (IF APPLICABLE) PRINCIPAL TC acmpdo tvAoviKin rODV VT?T T rk/ /^ov DA Dwxrr r-** Drxtv rnDV DA D cxrr dp 9LESLEY, BONNIE From: lent: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, September 27, 2000 6:28 PM CARTER, LILLIE RE: SAIP Thanks so much for this nice feedback, Lillie. And thanks for being our victim principal today. You're a great sport. Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: CARTER\u0026gt;ltriE ) Thursd^September 21, 2000, LESLEvSOMMlS------ SAIP If52 PM Dr. Lesley, I just finished reading this week's Learning Links. Thank you so much for sharing your philosophy and for sending sample copies of the SAIP. Many years ago, we had to write a plan for students who did not pass the Arkansas M.P.T. (Minimum Performance Test). I know that you are very busy. I just wanted you to know how much I appreciate what you do for our district on a daily basis. This will be shared with my staff during grade-level meetings on Monday and Tuesday of next week. Lillie Carter 1 10 LESLEY, BONNIE From: bSent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY. BONNIE Wednesday, September 27, 2000 6:22 PM COX, ELEANOR PRICE. PATRICIA RE: SAIP'S Thanks so much for this feedback, Eleanor. I will pass it along to Pat as well. We appreciate your taking the time. Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: cox, ELEANOR Friday, September 22, 2000 3:11 PM LESLEY, BONNIE SAIP'S I really appreciate your comments in the \"Learning Links\" regarding the SAIP mandate. I do not understand all the complaints or \"disasterizing\" as I call it. This is not anything new. The incentive schools have done this for years. I initiated a practice similar to this at every school I have been principal except Baseline. It does work and helps to keep teachers focused on what needs to be taught and how to use the benchmarks to accomplish these goals. I personally am thrilled about the process, and like you, outraged with the mandate. But, we ae living in different times and we have to go with the flow or find employment elsewhere. Tell Pat thanks for the examples of the SAIP's. Good move for us visual learner (Smile). 1 11LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent\nTo: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, September 29, 2000 12:43 PM DAVIS, SUZI RE: More SAIP help I'm free now. Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: DAVIS, SUZI Friday, September 29, 2000 11:25 AM LESLEY, BONNIE FW: More SAIP help Maybe this has calmed the storm a little bit for Nancy. We have talked and I will go there next week and get them on task with SAIP. The testing problem I cannot help with much, but I perhaps can give them something. Meantime, I will be here all day as Jim Fullerton has moved me to Monday. So let me know when we can visit. Especially before you get out of here. Who is going with you to see \"Grapes\"? Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: ROUSSEAU, NANCY Friday, September 29, 2000 10:59 AM DAVIS, SUZI RE: More SAIP help I am copying this and distributing it to all of my wonderful English teachers. Thank you, Suzi, for all that you do for the LRSD and my English teachers. You are a most competent, wonderful professional. We thank you here at PHMS -  -----Original Message----- From: DAVIS, SUZI Sent: To: Friday, September 29, 2000 9:43 AM BUCK, LARRY\nBLAYLOCK, ANN\nFULLERTON, JIM\nMOSBY, JIMMY\nBERRY, DEBORAH\nPATTERSON, DAVID\nROUSSEAU, NANCY\nHUDSON, ELOUISE Subject: More SAIP help I will send you by email later this morning a checklist with strategies listed for ail the areas of the ALT tests, reading and language, that teachers can simply check the ones that apply to each student not proficient, and then staple to the SAIP form. It should make teachers' lives quite a bit simpler when filling these things out. I know it won't be a perfect list of strategies, but I wanted to do something to help as soon as possible. Look for it later this morning. 1 12 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 April 3, 2001 TO: FROM: Pat Price Pat Busbea Dr. Ed Williams ^r. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: DRA Please read the attached document carefully. Think about our own procedures, levels of readiness, SAIP requirements, etc. Lets meet to discuss Friday, April 6, at 1:30 in my office. Thanks! I BAL/adg Attachments I Connecticut State Department of Education An Act Concerning Educational Accountability Q\u0026amp;A  Use of the Developmental Reading Assessment  All Students Grades 1-3  Special Education Students  Bilingual Education Students  Additional Support for 4^*\" Grade Students Scoring Below Intervention Level on CMT 1. How is the DRA used to meet the requirements of Public Act 99-288, An Act Concerning Educational Accountability? Public Act 99-288, An Act Concerning Educational Accountability, states that for each school year commencing on or after July 1, 1999, each local and regional board of education for a priority school district shall require the schools under its jurisdiction to evaluate the reading level of students enrolled in grades one through three, inclusive, in the middle of the school year and at the end of the school year. The legislation further states, a student shall be determined to be substantially deficient in reading based on measures set by the State Board of Education.\" On 12/1/99 the State Board of Education adopted the Developmental Reading Assessment [DRA] as the approved standardized assessment for identifying which students are substantially deficient in reading and in need of additional support for students in grades 1-3. 2. When mu^ the DRA be given as required by state legislation and which texts should be used for the assessment? To fulfill the legislative requirement the state-approved DRA must be administered twice a year to all students in grades 1-3. Based on previous assessments and the judgment of the teacher, the appropriate level text should be used for the assessment. If the student has met the standard on the state identified text or on texts beyond that level, the student will not be identified as substantially deficient in reading. If the student is not able to meet the standard on the state identified text or they can only be assessed on texts below the state identified text, they would be identified as substantially deficient in reading. 1Mid-year, priority school districts must select a four-week period in January-February in which to do the testing. At the end of the year, priority school districts must test during the last week in April and the first three weeks of May. 3. What are the levels at which a student will be considered substantially deficient? The following table provides the DRA substantially deficient standard level information. In order for a student to be considered beyond the substantially deficient level, s/he would have to achieve both of the following standards:  The student would have to read the appropriate text with 95%-100% accuracy\nand  The student would have to receive a score of 3 or 4 on a 4-point rubric assessing the student's ability to comprehend and retell a story Grade Level 1 Mid-Year Level Level 6 Why Are We Stopping Level 14 The Wagon End of Year Level Level 10 Shoe Boxes\" Level 16 The Pot of Gold\" Level 20 \u0026lt;Green Freddie\" Level 24 The Wonderful Day 2 3 4. How often can the DRA be used to assess students? The use of the DRA Kit should be limited for use in classrooms for the following-reasons\n to determine base-line reading levels\n for new students\n for mid-year and end-of-the year state-mandated assessments\nand  to determine a satisfactory level of progress in reading for students for whom a reading intervention has been provided. The state-approved DRA should not be used to practice for future state-mandated assessments. District and school personnel are responsible to ensure that appropriate materials are provided for classroom teachers to continue on-going assessments throughout the school year. Alternate titles have been developed by the publisher of the Developmental Reading Assessment and may be used for on-going assessments. However, these alternate DRA texts at the substantially deficient standard\" levels are not to be used for the state-mandated formal assessment at mid-year or at the end-of-the year. 2 The Developmental Reading Assessment was intended for use with students in grades K-3. It may also be used appropriately to assess students who are performing below expected reading levels in fourth grade. Assessments using the DRA should not take place with more frequency than a six-week interval. The state approved DRA should be used only for the purposes addressed in paragraph 1. Efforts should be made to keep the state approved DRA in a central location in the school and available to classroom teachers and personnel as needed for those stated purposes. 5. What services are required to be provided if a student scores below the substantially deficient level on the state approved DRA? The legislation requires that if a student is found to be substantially deficient in reading based on: 1. 2. 6. the middle of the year evaluation  the school shall notify the parents or guardians of the student of such result.\" 'A District and school personnel should develop a letter to inform the students family about the students performance including the schools plan(s) for intervention and suggestions on what the family could do to assist the child Additionally we recommend that districts should: Develop a personal (individual) reading plan that outlines additional instructional support and monitors student progress. This instructional support may include but not necessarily be limited to tutoring, after school support, Saturday Academies as well as explicit instruction in small-groups. the end of the year evaluation  the school shall develop a personal reading plan for each student. The personal reading plan shall include measures to improve the students reading level, such as tutoring, a transitional class, or a summer reading program ... and shall be maintained until the student achieves a satisfactory level of progress. If a student scores at or above the substantially deficient level does that mean the student is a competent independent reader? No. If the student has scored at the substantially deficient level, the student still requires a great deal of instruction to become a competent independent reader. The score only implies that the student needs intervention in reading. 7. Will bilingual students be assessed using the state approved DRA? I Yes. The legislation states that all students in the priority school districts in grades one through three, inclusive, must be assessed. This has been interpreted to mean that students in bilingual prograrhs will be assessed for their ability to read in English, as measured by the state approved DRA. Only after the English version of the state-approved DRA has been administered, the 3 Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) recommends that Spanish speaking students in bilingual programs be assessed for their ability to read and comprehend in Spanish using the Spanish version of the DRA, Evaluacidn del Desarrollo de la Lecture (EDL). The use of the EDL will allow teachers of bilingual students to plan instruction based on ongoing assessment. 8. How is the DRA also used to fulfill the P.A. 99-211, An Act Improving Bilingual Education, requirement for the annual assessment of academic progress for students in bilingual programs? To be eligible to exit a bilingual program or stop receiving bilingual support, a student in Grades K, 1,2 and 3 must meet the grade level standard on the DRA, in addition to meeting a linguistic standard (third grade students also have to score above the inten/ention level on the CMT). DRA Grade Level Standard K 1 2 3 Level 2 Level 16 Level 28 Level 38 I Can See The Pot of Gold You Dont Look Beautiful to Me Trouble at the Beaver Pond 9. When is the DRA administered to meet the requirements to annually assess students In bilingual programs? The results of the spring DRA assessment (last week in April through third week in May) can also be used to fulfill the assessment requirements for bilingual students. 10. If a student in a bilingual program is identified as substantially deficient in reading and the individual reading plan identifies the need for summer school, must the summer school instruction be provided in the students native language? Yes, if the individual reading plan indicates the need for continued literacy development in the students native language. 11. What is the districts obligation to include measures to improve special education students reading level, such as tutoring, transitional classes, after school and summer school when the student scores below the substantially deficient level? 4The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that public agencies ...ensure that its children with disabilities have available to them the variety of educational programs and services available to non-disabled children in the area served by the agency... As such special education students who are substantially deficient on the state approved DRA must have the same access to measures to improve student learning as regular education students who also scored in the substantially-deficient range. 12.Will students in special education be assessed using the state approved DRA? Yes. ALL special education students in an academic program (1-3) should be assessed with all other students, and if they are not making sufficient progress towards learning to read they should have access to the extra help provided. As such, only severely cognitively impaired students in grades 1-3 who are participating in a functionally based program, which does not include reading should not participate. The Individual Educational Plans (lEPs) of students in this latter group should reflect how they would be assessed on appropriate developmental communication skills. Students who have not been tested using the state approved DRA should not be included in the number of students who are found to be substantially deficient in reading. 13. Do special education students with lEPs need a Personai/lndividual Reading Plan? Yes, every student who has been identified as substantially deficient\" on the state-approved DRA must have a Personai/lndividual Reading Plan. School teams should review the lEPs of special education students who score in the substantially deficient range on the state-approved DRA. Appropriate components of the lEP may be copied and included in the students Personai/lndividual Reading Plan to ensure that the student has a comprehensive and coordinated reading program, with appropriate interventions in place. 14. Who should administer the state-approved DRA7 The classroom teacher is responsible for the administration of the state-approved DRA to all regular education students and bilingual education students. In the case of special education students, the teacher who has primary responsibility for planning and implementing the reading instruction program should administer the state-approved DRA. 5 15. What is the official state-approved DRA retelling rubric and what are the directions? DRA Retelling Rubric Teacher: start at the beginning and tell me in your own words what happened in the story. Teachier may add (ohl^ once)\nTell me more. Important note: No other prompts (questions) may be given to the student prior to scoring the students retelling. Assessors notes should reflect what the child tells the teacher. The assessor should use the story overview to underline phrases and words and to write pertinent words and phrases that the student uses- JPASS (score 3 or 4) ir' . . .\u0026lt;  -  U'.f i.'.zyrv,. V?, h. 4 Retelling reflects very good comprehension:  Captures the essence of the story or information  Sequential: includes important events/facts  Includes important information about the characters and setting  Refers to characters and places by name  Reveals use of background knowledge to interpret 3 Retelling reflects adequate comprehension:  Relates the gist of the story or information  Sequential for the most part: 1 or 2 events/facts may be omitted  Includes some information about the characters and setting  Refers to most characters by name  Literal interpretation FAIL? (score 2 or 1)1. w 2 Retelling reflects some comprehension:  Relates pieces of the story or information  Some events/facts omitted or out of sequence  Mentions most of the characters  Refers to 1 or 2 characters by name  Some misinterpretation 1 Retelling reflects very little comprehension:  Focuses on a limited part of the story or information  Only 1 or 2 events/facts mentioned  Some characters omitted  Refers to characters in common terms (boy, girl, dog, he, she)  Misinterpretation or incorrect information 16. Will the current state-approved rubric and standards be revised as a result of changes in Joetta Beavers newly published DRA? 6 After two years of use, we will re-examine the standards in light of our state results and in light of Joetta Beaver's changes. For the 2000-2001 academic year, these will be NO CHANGES. 17. What are the requirements for providing additional instruction to students in priority school districts who scored below the intervention level on the 4**^ grade CMT tests during the 2000-2001 school year? According to PA 99-288, the additional instruction should be geared to addressing the students' deficiencies and may include tutoring, after school or school vacation programs or weekend school programs. The additional instruction should be provided as soon as possible after the CMT student results are released. The Principal may waive the additional instruction based on the recommendation of the classroom teacher with documentation that the student has demonstrated significant growth in the subject tested and would not benefit from additional instruction. 18. If students scored below the intervention (remedial) level on more than one test, what is the priority for providing additional instruction? Since this is the first year of the requirement, priority should be given to providing additional instruction to students during the school year who scored below the intervention level in reading. If resources are available within the district, a comprehensive program of additional instruction should be provided to students who scored below the intervention level in writing and/or mathematics. 19. What are the summer school requirements for 4'* grade students in priority school districts who scored below the intervention level on the 4**^ grade CMT tests during the 2000-2001 school year? Again, priority should be given to students who scored below the intervention level in reading. These students are expected to attend summer school unless they are exempt by the Superintendent. Exemption from summer school may mean that there is supporting evidence to indicate that a student is performing above the intervention level. Decisions for exempting students from summer school should be made using only standardized procedures and assessment data established at the district level. It is recommended that additional student assessment data to document that progress in reading be obtained through the use of the school secure Reading Comprehension test of the CMT, the DRP, Level 40 {Old Ben Bailey Meets His Match) of the state approved DRA, local district assessments or other standardized reading tests. 20. What if summer school is offered to those students in priority school districts for whom an exemption is not recommended and they do not attend summer school? I Any student who scored below the intervention level on the reading 4* grade CMT in 2000-2001, who was not exempt from summer school and did not attend, shall not be promoted to 5'* grade. 7Where do I have information or questions answered? Name Organization Phone No. DRA Questions Linda Kauffmann CSDE 860-566-3135 Office of Priority Schools/ Implementation of DRA Barbara Beaudin CSDE 860-566-4306 DRA and accountability evaluation model Kristina Eiias^taron CSDE 860-566-1103 LA Consultant/Curriculum questions Nancy Stark CSDE 860-804-2021 Special Ed LA Consultant/Speciai Ed curriculum questions John Frolich Celebration Press/Pearson Learning 914-925-0346 FAX 914-925-0347 vm\n800-435-3499 ext. 12021 Ordering Information H:\\DRA MemostDRA - Q and A Revisions 01 -09-01 .doc 8 Curriculum Mapping (Examples) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Dec. 3, 1998, with agenda for Dec. 9 meeting\nincludes reports on District-Level Curriculum Maps Memorandum to Mona Briggs, July 16, 1999, with copy of a training notebook on curriculum mapping and with charge to put together a training program on curriculum mapping Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Aug. 30, 1999, with agenda for Sept. 1 meeting\nincludes discussion led by Mona Briggs and Eddie McCoy on Curriculum Mapping Project Memorandum in Nov. 9, 1999, Learning Links providing information on curriculum mapping with attached article Memorandum in Nov. 17, 1999, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping training Memorandum in Dec. 1,1999, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping Memorandum in Jan. 12, 2000, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping E-mail to Mona Briggs, Eddie McCoy, and Kathy Lease, Jan. 18, 2000, requesting that they develop a plan for April inservice on curriculum mapping Memorandum in Jan. 19, 2000, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping 10. Memorandum in Feb. 16, 2000, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping 11. E-mail, Feb. 15-17, 2000, relating to training for curriculum mapping trainers 12. Memorandum in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links to Brokers and IRC Specialists establishing training schedule on curriculum mapping 13. E-mail to Mona Briggs and Marion Woods, Apr. 14, 2000, relating to additional curriculum mapping training 14. E-mail, Apr. 26-May 2, 2000, relating to plans for curriculum mapping 15. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, June 6, 2000, with information on curriculum mapping16. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, June 6, 2000, relating to results of curriculum mapping training LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTH PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 December 3,1998 TO\nDennis Glasgow Judy Teeter Marie McNeal Marion Woods Patty Kohler Dr. Kathy Lease Marion Baldwin Linda Young Debbie Milam Lucy Lyon Leon Adams Carol Green Catherine Gill Marian Shead-Jackson Pat Price Ann Freeman Vanessa Cleaver Paulette Martin FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: December 9 Division Meeting Please be reminded of our Division meeting on Wednesday, December 9, 9:00 - noon. Room 19 here at the IRC. Our tentative agenda follows: 1. Opening Remarks and Announcements Bonnie Lesley 2. Report on Status of CRTs Kathy Lease 3. Brief Reports on Status of Curriculum Maps, K-4 4. Smart Start Data Analysis Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Judy Teeter Pat Price Ann Freeman Please invite those members of your departments who should attend. BAL/adg LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 July 16, 1999 TO: Mona Briggs FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley,, AAssssociate Superintendent, for Instruction SUBJECT: Curriculum Mapping Attached is a copy of the training notebook that someone picked up for me at last summers training on Curriculum Mapping. Gene Parker has one. I am also attaching a copy of a newsletter article. Id like you and Gene Parker to collaborate on putting together a training package on Curriculum Mapping for, first. Division staff and other Brokers\nfor principals\nand then perhaps a plan to train someone else at each school. I think we should leverage and exploit this new ACSIP expectation to take us to the next step of standards implementation. Lets meet to discuss - you. Gene, and me, on Tuesday, August 10, at 9:00, in Room 19. Attachments BAL/rcm cc: Kathy Lease Gene Parker LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501)324-2131 August 30, 1999 TO: Kathy Lease Mona Briggs Eddie McCoy Ed Williams Yvette Dillingham Marion Woods Patty Kohler Diane Rynders Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Pat Price Marie McNeal Carol Green Sue Walls Pam Crawford Linda Austin Debbie Milam Paulette Martin Marion Baldwin Lucy Neal Selma Hobby Leon Adams Marian S. Jackson FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesle' .ssociate Superintendent, for Instruction SUBJECT: September 1 Division Meeting I am looking forward to seeing you at the Sept.1 Division meeting - 9:00 am until Noon in Room 19 here at the IRC. Our tentative agenda is attached. Please let me know if there are topics or action items you would like to add. Attachment BAL/rcm Agenda, Division of Instruction September 1,1999 Discussion: 1999-2000 Work Plan Priorities Team Leaders Discussion and Reading Assignment Why Teams? Roles of Work Teams in School Improvement What Is Our Portfolio of Services? Guidelines for School Improvement Planning Discussion: Curriculmn Mapping Project ACC Curriculum/Assessment Professional DevelopmentScheduling Miscellaneous Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Mona Briggs Eddie McCoy Carol Green Kathy Lease Marion Woods All LL \"/\"l/H 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 November 4, 1999 I TO: FROM\nEveryone Dr. Bonnie LesleyrA^ociate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT\nCurriculum Mapping I I The ACSIP process requires you to do curriculum mapping. A better reason is that it is a process that ensures that every teacher is aligning his/her lessons with the Curriculum Standards. It's a wonderful professional development actively, and it will move your school forward in being successful. Attached is an article that will be helpful. For more information, study Heidi Hayes Jacobs' book. Mapping the Big Picture. For even more information, call Mona Briggs or Eddie McCoy, 324-2120. I 1 1! Attachment BAL/rcm \u0026gt;1 / I { I -A 2 Lessons Learned from Curriculum Mapping By Charlotte Vlases aToya is excited. Her Sth grade class is planning a field trip to Chickamauga ___Battlefield, a local site made famous during the Civil War. LaToya had a great time when her 4th grade class toured the museum last yearshe even v/rote a paper on her visit. This year, she thinks, itll be a breeze. Theres no way shes going to tell her teacher shes been there beforeLaToya has always appreciated L an easy A.. Many teachers can see a truth reflected in the fictitious scenario above: That although we try to give our students rich learning activities, we sometimes forget that we re building on a childs entire educational experience. What happens, then, is that students like LaToya arent really challenged and dont really deepen their understanding. She may indeed have fun on that field trip. But how did her teacher make sure the trip was as intellectually rigorous as it was enjoyable? How did the teacher extend what LaToya learned during her earlier visit to Chickamauga Battlefield? Here at the Chattanooga School for the Liberal Arts (CSLA) in Chattanooga, Tenn., weve found a way to eliminate such repetitions, as well as gaps, in our curriculum. We map our curriculum so all of our teachers know what we want our students to learn, what they have learned in the past, and what theyll learn in the next gradeand beyond. Just as a road map shows where you are. the teachers within a grade level compared maps and together developed a map that represented the curriculum taught at that grade. These maps were first handwritten on large sheets of paper and posted on a wall in the office, where they remained for all teachers at every grade level to review before any changes were made. As we examined the maps, we began to see where repetitions and gaps occurred in the curriculum. Working together, we started making revisions that would ensure a logical and meaningful curriculum for all of our students. We have changed the maps several times and continue to refine them by adding essential questions, assessments, and lists of the precise skills we want students to acquire. Computer technology has made creating and revising where you've been, and where you are going, a curriculum map. gives the. sam. e information about what is occurring in a classroom, in a school, and in schools throughout a district. A Brief History of Mapping at CSLA Former principal Mary Ann Holt brought the idea of curriculum mapping to CSLA fac-ulty after reading articles by Heidi Hayes Jacobs, author of the 1997 ASCD book Mapping the Big Picture. Holt also attended workshops presented by Jacobs and was convinced that most teachers would find curriculum mapping to be a logical way to see exactly what would be taught each year within our building. What Teachers Say /Curriculum mappin gtakes time, effort.and .a wtaessTo / work witb coheagues to rret\u0026amp;finiee tteeaacchhjinngg^ ppllamnSs.\nSSttiiUll,, .mmaaktiongg: fect.sehse to teachers. Tliey sayitbest: i'After having sperrt raanyhours trymglo rnd^i^ani^a curricuhimsfit theneedsof my:swdents,\nthe.idea,^^^^ .mappingwas^i*m...e.diately, appe^, g-t p-. me\n. 1 , S -. thinkhawiig time to refledbiWhe raaps-vatli^Q^.^\u0026amp;i sw leaguesiisveiy inipoTtanTitp?y^^:^^^y^^?^' 1^\n^'bwnrnapjbml c^genera]yibimt.\u0026amp;  nevvideatobe'-sparked by^ne of m'ypeers dtmng a ..  reflection session: :..v' '7\n, ' - .f-'-^enni^H\u0026lt;mtkih,a}Tnputertec^ ?}: Curriculum inapping helps me -visualize what s bemg ,  taught , ASancy Huston^ foreign'Janguage Tt immediately rn^e sense fb me, because of how it . looks at chiidreris overall irarnmg frbm year to year, 5\" ^dbecauM ofhbwit'cqririders eachteacher and each p\u0026gt;-\ngrade as'a^tal part of an.overall lemfeg process.  _ : 7\nRobert\nV \\ It helps me focus on the objectives I want to teach. maps manageable. By keeping the maps on a database, teachers can easily share and review one anothers documents. At CSLA, our computer technology teacher created map templates for each teacher, making it simple for them to create, revise, and store the curriculum maps. cisms of their teaching plans personaUy. Everyone must be willing to work together. Teachers should never feel intimidated or judged. They must have the freedom to be completely honest when creating their first map so that it truly reflects the operational curriculum. If teachers describe their teach-ing the way they think it should be instead of Lesson Learned: A Collegial Environment Is Key Curriculum mapping isnt easy. Its time consuming and cannot be done alone. Teachers may naturally feel possessive of the units and the curriculum they have developed and perhaps taught for years. It can be difficult when a colleague suggests that a teacher give up a cherished piece of literature or a favorite activity so that someone else can use it. But those are the types of discussions that have to take place and the types of changes that have to occur to successfully implement curriculum mapping. To create a schoolwide curriculum that truly is best for students, teachers have to feel free to express themselves and not take criti-the way it actually is, then the maps will be flawed, and any revisions will be false. At CSLA, we always start the school year with a team-building activity that is fun, and not related to academics. This gives teachers opportunities to get to know one another outsidethe school setting. For example, one school year began with a white-water rafting adventure. Another year we tried a ropes course at a survival camp. The next fall we were sent on a scavenger hunt all around town, using only public transportation. Ismahen Kangles, our current principal, continued the tradition by taking the faculty to a secluded mountain cabin for some reflection time, followed by an outdoor ed a calendar-based map by listing the units lunch at a riverside restaurant. Such activities taught each month of the school year. Then We began slowly. First, each teacher creat 3 set the tone for the kind of camaraderie that must exist before the real work begins and continues. i r Lesson Learned: Support from Administrators Is ^sential To sustain a curriculum mapping approach, teachers must hear from those colleagues who have been there and are willing to share their experiences and results. Creating and refining the maps is a collaborative process that takes a substantial amount of time. Savvy administrators make sure teachers have that time. Here at CSLA, our principal devotes two faculty meetings each month to curriculum mapping work. According to Kangles, teachers need to be given time to revisit and revise their maps if they are to take an active role in bringing about curriculum mapping within their building. Training and time are important elements that an administrator provides, but equally important is the clear expectation set by the principalthat mapping willhe done. Both Holt and Kangles set deadlines for the completion of maps. When the principal sets the expectation that work will be accomplished by a specific date and then offers support, teachers get the message that mapping is a top priority and something that must be done. ! i f Personal Reflections The teachers at CSLA have accomplished a great deal in a fairly short amount of time. We began curriculum mapping with the support of knowledgeable administrators who shared a 'vision. We are committed to curriculum mapping because we are willing to do whatever it takes to create the best learning experience for our students, juh No More First-Year Jitters Preparing teachers for a successful first year of teaching sometimes seems a near-impossible task. Trying to bridge the gap between good theories in college and successful practices in the classroom is a complicated and enormous responsibility for first-year teachers. A new publication written by Amy DePaul and available from the U.S. Department of Education may be just the tool se/o\\nm-/e tttefaacrhrieprrsc nnpepeHd tton nnnott oAnnl Vy ssuurrvviivvee' but also succeed in their first year. Entitled What to Expect Your First Year of Teaching, the book is a compilation of first-year teachers responses to questions about their first year of teaching. Among the issues the book addresses is What Colleges and Universities Should Know. This chapter includes teachers comments about how their education prepared or failed to prepare them for classroom experiences. Many of the respondents stated that they lacked adequate computer training and that they could have benefitted from spending more time in real classrooms and learning more about social problems affecting young people today. These observations relate directly to teachers suggestions on how colleges and universities could improve their education programs. Top among the-suggestions\n Require student teachers to complete an internship at a crisis center to get experience with kids with social issues. The Wisdom of Experience  Help student teachers make connections with students and faculty in local districts so they can connect what theyre learning to the reality of the K-12 school setting.  Create mentoring programs so first-year teachers can share experiences and work with veteran teachers. The teachers who contributed to 'What to Expect Your First Year of Teaching also acknowledged that there were some experiences for which no college or university understanding the absolute commitment they must make to students. Respondents also felt that no teacher preparation program can adequately deal with the real-world challenges of social issues like gangs, violence, and abuse and the need to fill the many demanding roles of a teacher. The teachers whose responses are included in What to Expect were winners of the First Class Teacher Award, an award that honors the nations outstanding elementary and secondary first-year teachers. Other topics in the book include tips on having a successful first year, advice from veteran teachers on being a successful teacher, and what principals and administrators can do to help first-year teachers. H Laura Kelly Editors Note: The entire text 0/What to Expect Your First Year of Teaching is available on the Web at \u0026lt;.http:/fwww.ed .gov/pubs/FirstYear\u0026gt;. 5'S Editor's Note: Charlotte Vlasis is the library media specialist at the Chattanooga School for the Liberal Arts. As media specialist, I am a resource person. But I also serve as a curriculum coordinator because I plan with all teachers and work with everyones maps, she says. SiA\nAwar^winningveteriiteathershave supplied a set oftips to p^s on to their .first-year colleagues.\nMai^ of these suggestiqiw^etips that all teachers would be. advisedto'fbliow. Heres a sampling: It's Vlasis'job to always have the big picture'' perspective, so it's also her responsibility to let teachers know when they're stepping on one another's toes. A lot of times it's easier for me to do that,\" she notes. \"I help make sure that we are developing a curriculum that grows in a spiral and instead of just repeating things.\" Vlasis can be reached via e-mail at \u0026lt; Vlasis_char@al .cps.k-12.tn.us\u0026gt;.  Be consistentdo what you say you are going to do at all times and with  every child.\n' A? s/D.. f. . Ntodelaiovefbrlearning. l Di.i^j v : ' 7\n/.\ni\u0026lt;'\"Maintama'senseofhumori\nyf 'A 'fN j-Sffefavarid^tifintetestingi3idices.qfactivitiesfbrldds.' W N.NN Keep an open doorto parents. A T ,  \u0026gt; i*. Maintain reject above all. yy:,\nD?'A-'i-I'i'\n. ' . In a nut^ell:.bejyourself,'Wofk with'paEents, love-the kids, lqye .teaching\n'\n. Source: From What to Expect Your TirstYear of Teaching,Try A DePaul Septmt b^^ 'T'998iJVasKn^n,L\u0026gt;C:tlJS.D^drfmehtofEducdtipil.'.... I ASCD Professional Development Newsletter 5\n:!ggi856W^sda WE 1 t I t ( t t i 1 t T Curriculum Mapping: Charting the Course for Content T he Chattanooga School for the Liberal Arts is one of the schools featured in Curriculum Mapping: Charting the Course for Content, a new ASCD video-based staff development program designed to help educators explore curriculum mapping. The series consists of two videotapes and a Facilitator s Guide. The first program, The Essentials of Mapping, examines the purpose and possibilities of mapping and provides an overview of the mapping process as it has occurred in schools. The second video, Putting Mapping to Work, focuses on revising the maps using essential questions, developmental assessments, and computer technology. In bo programs, interviews and on-site observations offer perspectives of the many variables involved in curriculum mapping, including how to develop a school culture that supports mapping. The videos also describe how implementing curriculum mapping enhances student learning. The Facilitator's Guide includes detailed agendas and activities for six workshops three per videotapeas well as handouts, overheads, and additional readings and resources. Curriculum Mapping: Charting the Course for Content may be purchased for $326 (ASCD members) or $396 (nonmembers). For more information or to order, call the ASCD Service Center at 800-933-ASCD, then press 2. lilBa : i.^'f-' 1 :? A' \u0026gt;5. CTea.lmg and usmg curri^im' maps'ma^ lead to chmges in the way cur^culuni '., decisibnshremade?  \"S*'-'*' -r-.,. :  i-  Curriculum committees can be replaced with site-based councilsvwho use diejnaps r ftr.a clearpicture of the curriculum taught within the site aiidi^o make d^ioi^ ... .^^about issues that arise:  Member of the site-based councils meet at the (U^ct level to. coordinate laues between feeder schools. 1  Task forces are formed to study iKUK that need further research at e site or.. - district level. They iare disbanded when they have completed the study and inade  . Tecommendations. .Se\u0026gt;.-  To (tteafe a school culture that enables effective mapping, teachers mustbe comfbriable working with one another and feel free to be open Md honMt about their operational curriculum..'._ ....................  All decisions about the curriculum mustbe based on what is best for the leyher.  Mapping improves student performance by providing a clear picture of what Aesm- dent actuaUy experiences in grades K-12. giving teachers an opportunity to refine the curriculum to best-meet thestudents needs.  Source: From Curriculum Mapping: Charting the Course for Content, Facmtator s . Guide,^ 1999. Alexdndria,.Vd.:AssociationforSupervisionandG^^mDevelop^t^Ll I///7/9? Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Little Rock School District To: Selected Principals/Schools (Carver, Cloverdale Elem., Geyer Springs, Gibbs, Hall, King, Mabelvale Elem., Meadowcliff, Pulaski Heights Middle, Cloverdale Middle, Southwest Middle, Badgett, McDermitt, Wakefield, Woodruff) From: Mona Briggs, Evaluation Through: Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent\u0026lt;X^Xs Re: Curriculum Mapping Training Date: November 8, 1999 As you know. Curriculum Mapping is a vital part of the school improvement process. Our field representatives from the Arkansas Department of Education will be expecting to see evidence of our mapping as they visit our schools, as this is part of the ACSIP requirement. Your school has been selected for the first round of training\na team from each school will participate in learning this procedure. It will enable you and your teachers to develop and use curriculum, maps. In order to provide your team with all the information and tools that will be needed to train the rest of your staff, we have scheduled one day and a half on January 11 and 12 at the State Police Headquarters facility at Geyer Springs and I-30. The first days schedule will be from 8:30 am until 4:00 pm\nthe second day will begin at 8:30 and will end at noon. Since teachers have had to be out of the building so much this fall for curriculum training, we are suggesting that a team be comprised of the administrator and two or three staff members who do not require substitutes. For example, a team might be a principal, a counselor, a media specialist, and a curriculum specialist. It is essential that an administrator be present\nif the principal cannot be present, please permit and assistant principal to attend. The same participants must attend both days. You will be sent another notification of the training\nhowever, I wanted to get this on your calendar well in advance so as to prevent possible conflicts. If you have any questions vvhatsoever, please feel free to contact me or Eddie McCoy. Cl LL Lt Planriing, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Little Rock School District To: From: Selected Principals/Schools ( Bale, Booker, Brady, Central High, Fulbright, Metro, Mitchell, Otter Creek, Rockefeller, Western Jiills, McDermott, Baseline, J. A. Fair, Dunbar) Mona Briggs, Evaluation SpecialistVy^ Through: Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent Re: Curriculum Mapping Training Date: November 19, 1999 1' 4 iiS As you know, Curriculum Mapping is a vital part of the school improvement process. Our field representatives from the Arkansas Department of Education will be expecting to see evidence of our mapping as they visit our schools, as this is part of the ACSIP requirement. i  I\u0026lt; Your school has been selected for the second round of training\na team from each school will participate in learning this procedure. It will enable you and your teachers to develop and use curriculum maps. In order to provide your team with all the information and tools that will be needed to train the rest of your staff, we have scheduled one day and a half on January 18 and 19 at the State Police Headquarters facility at Geyer Springs and I-30. The first day's schedule will be from 8:30 am until 4:00 pm\nthe second day will begin at 8:30 and will end at noon. fj  'S? i Since teachers have had to be out of the building so much this fall for curriculum training, we are suggesting that a team be comprised of the administrator and two or three staff members who do not require substitutes. For example, a team might be a principal, a counselor, a media specialist, and a curriculum specialist. It is essential that an administrator be present\nif the principal cannot be present, please permit an assistant principal to attend. The same participants must attend both days. You will be sent another notification of the training\nhowever, I wanted to get this on your calendar well in advance so as to prevent possible conflicts. If you have any questions whatsoever, please feel free to contact me or Eddie McCoy. 9 LL l|P|av Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Little Rock School District January 12, 2000 To: From\nSelected Principals (Central, J.A. Fair, Dunbar, Baseline, Bale, Brady, Otter Creek, Rockefeller, Western Hills) , Mona Briggs, Evaluation Specialist Through\nKathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent RE: Curriculum Mapping Training Your school is scheduled on February 9 and 10,2000 to participate in Curriculum Mapping training. Our new ACSIP process requires this as part of the school improvement planning process. In order to provide you with the information and materials needed to present to your staff, please identify a team from your school consisting of an administrator and two or three other staff members who do not require substitutes. For example, a team might be the principal, a media specialist, a counselor, and a curriculum specialist. This will prevent you from having teachers out of the building. The same participants must participate both days. The training will be held at the State Police Headquarters. It is located off 1-30 at the Geyer Springs exit. The facility is located south of 1-30 on the access road. You will need to come through the main doors to the information desk. You will receive visitors' badges and will be required to sign in. The workshop is in Classroom A\nthe information desk clerk can direct you to the room. The first days schedule is from 8:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. The second day will begin at 8:30 and will end at noon. Have each team member bring a plan book from last year for use in applying the skills learned on day 1. The more detailed the planbook, the better it will be for you to do the mapping. Be sure and eat a hearty breakfast, as we are not permitted to bring food or drink into the classroom area. However, there is a break room where you can purchase drinks and snacks during the mid-moming and mid-afternoon break. LESLEY, BONNIE From: pent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, January 18, 2000 5:39 PM BRIGGS, MONA\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nLEASE, KATHY R. Curriculum Mapping--April Inservice Please think through what the schools will need if we let them do Curriculum Mapping training on the April inservice day. I know the videos will be an issue. Can we get permission from ASCD to copy the tape for use that one day? I know we bought several tapes already, but we certainly don't have 50 for the schools to use. Should we combine some schools, perhaps? Let me know what you think. 1 To: u- 1 nloo t .1 1 I 1 I From: Through: RE: Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District Instructional Resource Center Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 January 14,2000 Selected Principals (McClellan, Forest Heights, Henderson, Chicot, Dodd, Fair Park, Forest Park, Franklin, Garland, Jefferson, Fulbright, McDermott, Hall, Pulaski Heights Elementary, Mann Magnet) Mona Briggs, Evaluation Specialist Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent Curriculum Mapping Training Your school is scheduled on March 7 and 8,2000 to participate in Curriculum Mapping training. As you know, the states ACSIP process requires mapping as part of the school improvement planning process. In order to provide you with the information and materials needed to teach your staff, please identify a team from your school consisting of an administrator and two or three other staff members who do not require substitutes. For example, a team might be the principal, a counselor, the media specialist, and a curriculum specialist. This will prevent you from having a number of teachers out of your building You are encouraged to invite your broker to the training, as well. The same participants should participate on both days. The training will be held at the State Police Headquarters. It is located off 1-30 at the Geyer Springs exit. The facility is located south of 1-30 on the access road. You will to come through the main doors to the information desk. You will be given a visitors badge and will be required to sign in. The workshops is in Classroom C\nthe information desk clerk can direct you to the room. The first days schedule is from 8:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. The second day will begin at 8:30 a.m. and will end at noon. Have each team member bring a plan book from last fall or last year for use in applying the skills learned. The more detailed the plan book, the better it will be for you to do the mapping activities. Be sure and eat a hearty breakfast, as we are not permitted to bring food or drink into classroom area. However, there is a break room where you can purchase drinks and snacks during the mid-morning and mid-afternoon breaks. Please e-mail me when you have identified your school team. Call me at 324-2120 if you have any questions. f UL Planning, Research, and Evaluation Instructional Resource Center Little Rock, Arkansas To: Selected Principals (McClellan, Forest Heights, Henderson, Chicot, Dodd, Fair Park, Forest Park, Fulbright, Garland, Jefferson, Fulbright, McDermott, Mann, Pulaski Heights Elementary) /I From: Mona Briggs, Technical Assistance ^9^ Through: Dr. Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent for RE: Curriculum Mapping Training Date: February 14, 2000 This is just a reminder that your school is scheduled for March 7 and 8 to participate in Curriculum Mapping training. Please identify a team from your school consisting of an administrator and two or three other staff members. If you are experiencing difficulty in getting substitutes, you may choose to bring the counselor, media specialist, and a curriculum specialist. Some principals have felt strongly, particularly at the secondary level, at math and/or language arts teachers should be included. That decision is up to you\nyou may also invite your broker as weU. However, we wiU be doing training for brokers in April. The important thing is that the same participants attend both days. Don't forget, the training wiU be held at e State Police Headquarters, located at Geyer Springs exit. You must enter through the front entrance and check in at the front desk where you wUl be given a visitor's pass. The workshop will be held in Classroom C. Please arrive early enough to go through the check-in procedures and still be ready to work at 8:30. The first day is tightly scheduled. The first day's schedule is from 8130 until 4:00. The second day will begin at 8:30 and end at noon. Have each team member including yourself bring a plan book to use in applying the mapping skills. If you have questions, please call or e-mail me. I know this is a busy time of year, but earlier in the spring is always better than later when you consider aU the end of the year activities that you will be involved with. Thanks for your cooperation! LESLEY, BONNIE From: Bent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Thursday, February 17, 2000 12:29 PM BRIGGS, MONA RE: CM You always make me smile. Thank you. Oh, by the way, I can pay the $4000 plus for the inservice day. Just send me the bill and don't bother the schools with that. Have you heard that we may use the April day for snow day make-up and then move the inservice day to the end of the school year? Does that make a difference in our licensing agreement? Whatever you decide about New Orleans is fine, but I have the money if you want to go. Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: BRIGGS, MONA Thursday, February 17, 2000 12:10 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: CM Dear B, Having just read Gayle's request, Eddie and I think it would be great for Gayle and Cassandra to be able to go to the pre-conference. Gayle really wants to go and Cassandra did not even get to go to Wilson because of the money issue at that time. Eddie and I believe that the sessions are well presented\nthere is some resistance, as will always be the case when you move peoplej out of their comfort zone. Actually, the resistance has less than one would expect\nthat last session, one school had some \"issues. II Gayle and Cassandra can bring back the information to us\nspending that money on all of us would not be an efficient use of sorely limited funds. There's a lot we need to know about this, but we don't think we will get that kind of knowledge in a conference setting where we hear the overview from a speaker and just listen. However, we do think that a site visit at some pointperhaps in the summer when we have more timeto a school district that has been doing mapping for some year would be extremely beneficial for the \"Bobsey Twins\" aka AAONA and EDDIE! (smile) So, keep that in mind... 1MAE from PRE who are doing NWEA ASAP...yadda, yadda, yadda From: Sent: To: Original Message- Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Thursday, February 17, 2000 12:00 PM BRADFORD, GAYLE\nBRIGGS, MONA\nSTEELE, CASSANDRA\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nMcNEAL, MARIE\nGLASGOW, DENNIS: DAVIS, SUZI\nCLEAVER, VANESSA GILLIAM, ANITA RE: CM If any or all of you would like to attend the ASCD pre-conference on curriculum mapping (see Gayle Bradford's appeal below), then I will fund it out of my budget. Please send your forms to Anita Gilliam for processing. From: Sent: Original Message- To: LESLEY, BONNIE BRADFORD, GAYLE Thursday, February 17, 2000 11:26 AM Subject: Importance: RE: CM High Sorry I missed you last night - I'll be at the NSF meeting at 8:30 tomorrow at Adult Leisure Center. Let me tell you what I wanted to discuss. I'm not sure but think that probably Kathy, Sadie or Mona/Eddie have told you what a fiasco we had in the last curriculum mapping training. There was much negativism on the part of one school in particular and comments as to lack of expertise on the part of the presenters. Well, we (in the opening portion of the workshop) explained that we were not experts and that we were learning along with everyone else but had been slated to deliver this information to them in an orderly fashion to assist them in training their teachers to do CM. We also explained that mapping is a state mandate and have no choice about implementing - however, noting that it was chosen by the state because it has been shown to be effective in increasing student achievement. Anyway, at the end of the session, the four of us met. I told them and later told Sadie and Kathy that I feel quite inadequate. I immediately got on the internet and found that there is a two-day session at ASCD this year (March 22/23) where Heidi Hayes Jacobs is doing CM. I asked Sadie about it - she suggested that I sit down and talk with you about it. I believe we need the training since this is a long-term commitment on our part - a multi-year process. I am requesting that we be allowed to get the training in March so that we can be ready for the rest of the training and implementing all seven phases of Jacobs' model - we're still at phase one but need the fine-tuned information from a training session on the model. We also need to visit a school (s) where the model has been implemented and \"pick their brains\" as to how their training took place, timelines for implementation of the seven phases, etc. Could you please send us to the training? I'm not the type person who feels good about doing half-ass work - presentations need to be good - I don't like to go before a group of folks and present information, let them know what we have lying ahead, and then can't field questions. PLEASE HELP! Gayle B. Bradford Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 501.324.0568\nfax: 501.324.2213 gbbradf@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, February 16, 2000 10:02 AM BRADFORD, GAYLE RE: CM I'll be there for the Board meeting on Thursday and for the compliance meeting on Friday morning. Original Message From: BRADFORD, GAYLE 2 Sent: To: Subject: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 1:17 PM LESLEY, BONNIE CM Hi, Will you be coming over to this building in the next few days? I'd like to talk with you about CM training. I won't be in your shop for a number of days because of cluster meetings, etc. around here. Thanks. Gayle B. Bradford Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 501.324.0568\nfax: 501.324.2213 gbbradf@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 3 DO Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District March 27, 2000 To: Brokers/IRC Specialists From: Mona Briggs, Technical Assistance Through: Dr. Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent for P.R.E. I RE: Curriculum Mapping Training We are providing a one-day curriculum mapping training session on April 24, 2000, for Brokers and interested IRC Specialists who have not yet had the training. The training will be held at the State Police Headquarters, located at 1-30 and the Geyer Springs exit. You will be required to enter the front entrance and check in at the front desk where you will be given a visitors pass. The workshop will be held in Classroom C. The workshop will begin at 8:30 a.m. and will conclude at 4:00 p.m. Be sure and eat a hearty breakfast, as we are not permitted to bring any food or drink into the room itself. There is, however, a break-room where drinks and snacks can be purchased during morning and afternoon breaks. Please let me know if you are not going to be able to attend. You can telephone me at 324-2120 or e-mail me. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks!LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, April 14, 2000 10:40 AM BRIGGS, MONA\nWOODS, MARION LEASE, KATHY R. RE\nCM Day for High Schools The high schools have two and one half days of pre-school inservice. They must use one of those days to do curriculum mapping. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: BRIGGS, MONA Friday, April 14, 2000 10:25 AM WOODS, MARION LEASE, KATHY R.\nLESLEY, BONNIE CM Day for High Schools M, Is there a way we can build in time during our summer pre-school days for the five high schools to inservice their staffs on Curriculum mapping? They cannot do it in June with everyone else due to CAP activities. They have concerns about how they are going to be able to do it. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Seek first to understand, then to be understood Mona mrbrigg@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 1 LESLEY, BONNIE aFrom: lent: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, May 02, 2000 3:24 PM BRIGGS, MONA RE\nCM District Timeline See Anita for a time for us to meet. -Original Message- From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: High BRIGGS, MONA Wednesday, April 26, 2000 5:09 PM LEASE, KATHY R.\nLESLEY, BONNIE\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nSTEELE, CASSANDRA\nBRADFORD, GAYLE FW: CM District Timeline Great minds run in the same vein...Eddie and I have been \"saying\" we have got to get this stuff nailed down. I gave Daniel the tapes to copy and he completed the taping and they are ready for June 5. We need to get a memo out to principals and yes, we need to determine expectations and a timeline...etc. Kathy and Bonnie: would you guys be willing to sit down with us for a few focused minutes and give us your input on our next steps? If so, give me some times and I will get with Gayle, Eddie, and Cassandra and set up the time and date. Let me know... MONA Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: High BRADFORD, GAYLE Wednesday, April 26, 2000 4:36 PM BRIGGS, MONA CM District Timeline Mona, I am really antsy about getting our CM in focus for both now and the future -- we need to sit down with Kathy and Bonnie, plan/draft a timeline for the district and get their input as to implementation levels, etc. Remember, the principals and even the team members attending the training had the \"need\" to know where they are going -- our district's plan in getting the whole process implemented from the time the teachers map their lesson plans, take their individual maps on to their grade levels, and then on to the final stage of having those maps established -- posted in their buildings for all to see -- and then on a semester basis, reviewing the previous semester's map and modifying those areas they see where changes need to be made, etc. Sorry so long -- kind of thinking as I am typing. BOTTOM LINE -- PLEASE, LET'S GET INPUT FROM KATHY AND BONNIE. Bye, Gayle Gayle B. Bradford Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Uttle Rock, AR 72201 501.324.0568\nfax: 501.324.2213 gbbradf@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 1 LESLEY, BONNIE a From: lent: Subject: McCOY, EDDIE Tuesday, June 06, 2000 3:50 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: curriculum mapping models I checked this out and it's very interesting. I printed some of the grade levels in the areas of math and language arts. They did a good job of focusing on content, skills/concepts, and assessment. The Sth grade curriculum is divided into six units, each lasting four weeks. This example may be helpful to schools using thematic units. This can serve as a good example for those schools having difficulty with the mapping concept/process! Of course, they appear to be further along in the process than we are. Thanks for the \"heads up.\" We have received a lot of positive feed-back on Monday's curriculum mapping activities! Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY. BONNIE Tuesday, June 06, 2000 8:36 AM BRIGGS, MONA\nMcCOY, EDDIE FW: curriculum mapping models Want to check this out? Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: MADDOX, BEVERLY Friday, June 02, 2000 3:14 PM BUCK, LARRY\nROGERS, SHERRY\nBOYKIN, PATRICIA BRIGGS, MONA\nWILSON, VEKISSA\nLESLEY, BONNIE\nLACEY, MARIAN G. curriculum mapping models  File\ncurriculum mappping.doc  If this site is still active, it could contain some useful models. I'm going to visit it before Monday, if I have time. I know you would be interested. Beverly 1LESLEY, BONNIE From: pent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, June 06, 2000 12:06 PM BRIGGS, MONA RE: curriculum mapping models Great news! Pinch me tool Making taking the pressure off them helped. Now they are doing it because they want to-not because we said they had to. Original Message- From: Sent: To: Subject: BRIGGS, MONA Tuesday, June 06, 2000 10:36 AM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: curriculum mapping models Thanks! I have continued to get positive reports--from Rightsell, Baseline. Mann, and Southwest. They really got into it! My husband was mapping his physcial education classes and is gonna complete his map over the summer...pinch me now! Original Message- From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, June 06, 2000 8:36 AM BRIGGS, MONA: McCOY, EDDIE Subject: FW: curriculum mapping models Want to check this out? Original Message- From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: MADDOX, BEVERLY Friday, June 02, 2000 3:14 PM BUCK, LARRY\nROGERS, SHERRY\nBOYKIN, PATRICIA BRIGGS, MONA\nWILSON, VEKISSA\nLESLEY, BONNIE\nLACEY, MARIAN G. curriculum mapping models  File: curriculum mappping.doc  If this site is still active, it could contain some useful models. I'm going to visit it before Monday, if I have time. I know you would be interested. Beverly 1\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_132","title":"Development Guidance Handbook: A Resource and Planning Guide","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":["1992"],"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","Childhood development","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["Development Guidance Handbook: A Resource and Planning Guide"],"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/132"],"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":["booklets"],"dcterms_extent":["273 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   00 l\u0026gt;EvElopMENTAl GuKiANcE HAN\u0026lt;lbook 0000 0000 A RESOlRCE ANd PlANNiNG GuidE Arkansas Department ci Education    DEVELOPMENTAL GUIDANCE HANDBOOK: A RESOURCE AND PLANNING GUIDE PUBLISHED BY ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Burton Elliott Director General Education Division Emma Bass Associate Director Instructional Services Division Gayle Teal Coordinator Curriculum Section J.B. Robertson Specialist Guidance, Counseling \u0026amp; Career Education Marlene Bush Specialist Guidance and Counseling #4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 1987, Reprinted 1992 DEVEL0El1ENI:AL GUILWCE HAND8CXJK: A~ AND PUNNlt\nQJlI\u0026gt;e TABLE OF cnmNrS Fore\u0026gt;rd . ............................................................... . iv Acl\u0026lt;Ix::M ledgoe,ts ......................................................... . V Introot1etioo ............................................................ . Iles igrt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Plamil'lg, arld ltq\u0026gt;lE!IDIE!Tltat ioo.          ..    . .                               3 ~rel\"letlS i ve ProgratD Res()llrces ..................... c                      5 El !Dell tary Scl1cx:\u0026gt; 1 Yea.rs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Middle/ Junior High Scl1cx:\u0026gt;l Years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 High Scl1cx:\u0026gt;l Years. Appendixes A. A Systems Approach to Individual Leaming and Development. .. B. Ccmrunity-Based Advisory Calmittee ............................. c. AS:A Position Statement : The School Counselor and the Qiidance and CcA.lnseling Program ... D. ASCA Positioo Statement : The School Counselor and Developmental Qiidance . E. Sources for Identifying Possible Grant or funding . F. Other Sources of Grants and Funding .... G. PlaT'II\"lir\u0026gt;g arKi Evalt1at ioo Resoo.rces  . 17 21 25 29 32 36 40 41       ----- The Standards for Accreditatioo of Arkansas Public Schools required the Arlcansas Department of Educatioo (AI) to develop statewide goals to be used by school districts as a fnllDEY:\u0026gt;rlc for district plaming. Therefore, the ADE divisioo of iliidance Services developed the K-12 ~ and Sequence iliidance Cm-ricuh.111 Qiide to provide statewide goals . aria ooJecf ives_ ~e and counseling.--n'exibility was given to local school districts for the ac~lislnent of these goals and objectives. The.following docunent, the Developmental Qiidance Handbook:~ Resource and Planning Qiide, is intended to supplement the aforementioned K-12 Scope and Sequence Chidance Curriculum iliide. It is also intended to assist counselors in developing a systematic, ~rehensive, developnental guidance progran to meet the needs of all students. Its purpose is to assist the local planning process, not to prescribe. The Devel~tal iliidance Handbook: A Resource and Plaming iliide has been prepared iri aoose-leaf notebook in order to facilitate partial revisions and updating. Your suggestions for improvement, additions to chapters or specific useful resource materials are always welcane and encouraged  iv The Department of Education Guidance Services extends its thanks to the following C001Dittee members who reviewed this docunent and suggested revisions during its develoIXJlellt: Mary l.o.l Miles Elementary School Counselor Carlisle School District Suzanne Ward K-12 School Counselor OJachita School District Jeannie York High School Counselor Kirby Sch:x\u0026gt;l District ~lph \\oA'\\iteside K-12 School Counselor DeValls Bluff Sch:x\u0026gt;l District Dave Floyd Ele11entary Education Supervisor Department of F.ducation F.arl Walton Secondary Education Supervisor Depa\"\"tr'..d'lt of Education Arlcan.sa.s Department of F.ducation, Guidance Services Thelma R. Cook iliidance Supervisor State GED ~inistrator Lynda D. Ha\\wkins Coordinator Guidance, Career Education and GED Testing Rick Griffin Secondary Guidance Specialist J.C. Smith, Olair Q.iidance and Career Education Supervisor Special thanks and recognition are extended to the following for giving their permission to use their materials: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Madison, Wisconsin American School Counselor Association Alexandria, Virginia V       The educational, personal/social, and career development needs of students in the state's public schools can be more effectively met with a kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) guidance program that systematically and ~rehensively addresses developmental stages loihlch students experience as they progress through school. The following systematic approach is based on the works of Benjamin IHooo, Erik Erikson, Robert Havighurst, Lawrence l\u0026lt;ohlberg, Abraham Maslo.1, Jean Piaget. and others (see Appendix A). It is based on the recognition that all pupils pass through specific developmental stages as they mature. Wlat happens or fails to happen to children/adolescents developmentally will toore than likely detennine lifelong attitudes toward learning and help or hinder the acquisition of skills, attairroent of career goals, and evolvement of satisfactory attitudes about self, soc iety, family and career. School guidance program.5 mJSt be structured to anticipate the personal/social, career and educational needs of pupils and ensure t hat these .~s are met. Such an approach stresses prevention of problems by provid1.ng students with age-appropriate skills and information through instruction, group interaction, and individual COl.D'lSeling. There are numerous human resources in schools and ccrmunities to draw upon. A systematic approach to guidance can help make certain that the skills of the cOLmSelor are used to opti.nun advantage\nthat the invaluable work of psychologists, nurses and social workers interfaces with the guidance program\nthat the classroan teacher's already important guidance role is strengthened\nand that parents and other camunity resource people are kept informed and urged to participate more actively in the education of children. Parents have a particularly important role to play, as their guidance of children begins before and continues after the school experience. Family assistance and encouragement are critical as children develop thoughts and ideas about career choice, learning, them.selves and others. Thus. guidance of pupils as they develop personally, socially, occupationally and educationally is the responsibility of the entire K-12 staff, parents, ccrmunity and local business and industry persorme 1. A ccmparison of traditional school guidance efforts with roore contemporary developmental guidance program.5 is shol.n below. In this cooiparison, the anphasis shifts fr001 working Ioli.th individuals to w10rking with all students, fran renediation to preventioo and fran unplanned/unstructured to systematic/accountable. Traditional Crisis Counseling Infonnation Service Career Infonnatioo Service Schedul ing/Programning Reactive Clerical /Task-Oriented Unplanned llis true tu red Maintain., Status Q-Jo Developaental Preventive Plus Crisis Counseling G.lidance Curriculun Career Planning and Development Program Management Proactive Goal-Oriented Plarmed Daily Activities Accountable Evaluates and Olanges Deeign The overriding goal of the developmental guidance plan is to provide for pupils in grades K-12 a cauprehensive, responsive school counseling program suited to their developmental needs as growing, maturing citizens. The developing stages of children and adolescents may be seen as a predictable series of progressive changes. These changes should lead forward rather than backward and there is a definite relationship between each state of develo?J)E!nt and those that precede or follow it. Those reading and using this plan should think of school counseling and guidance in the context of a program intended to assist pupils with learning readiness, school adjustment and school achievement, career development and goal setting. Such a school COl.D'lSeling program llllSt be : 1. K-12 in scope, 2. based on the develoi:xner,tal needs of pupils, 3. preventive in nature, 4. managed and coordinated so that it is an integral part of the total educational program and S. formed around a delivery system with counselors at the core and the services of others integrated into a total program. The delivery system is structured into three levels to clearly show the relationship of resource providers to canprehensiveness of programs. Level I. The school counselor is the primary program delivery resource, and the program may be limited in scope by the number of pupils to be served by the counselor(s) and other factors. U!Yel II. The counselor is the core and the cla.ssrocm teacher added in. flexibility in guidance pr~ramning, groups, and the invaluable resources of the delivery system, with the classrOOOJ This new dimensia, provides more an opportl.ality to reach students in of the teacher. U!Yel Ill. The counselor is at the core of the delivery system. The classroom dimension expands that system. In addition, the efforts of school staff, coom.mity members, parents and business/industry representatives are coordinated into a program that meets the develoi:mental needs of all students. It is ~rtant to note that the levels are CIJIIJ.llative and interdependent. As the school counseling and guidance program develops from Level I to Level III, the rn.tDber of impediments or barriers to program design, operation and management diminish sharply, and the involvement of all school staff expands proportionately. 2       ~ and lllpl.-entat:ion . Major Dew-J1,w+1tal Areas. The plan focuses on three major areas of student developnent: ~. Penonal./Social and Career/Vocational. These are the types of functional life canpetencies each person IIIJSt attain in order to learn, achieve academic success, and prepare for a satisfying and productive career. lleveLf\\w+Jt91 Student eo.petencles. Specific student canpetencies are listed \\.D'lder each major developmental area. The c~etencies represent basic skills each person should master in order to deal effectively with daily life situations. The ~tencies are listed across age and grade levels and are consistent with children's general physical and intellectual capabilities at various stages. Deli~ Systell. Counselors, parents, school staff, ccmrunity members and business/industry/labor representatives are incorporated into the guidance program delivery system. The school district guidance program manager organizes district resources to address the greatest llllDber of student needs. Resowoe Organization and ~t. Research and experience suggest that develoflDE!fltal guidance is more functional or less ft.uictional as levels of resource organization and management rise or fall. Programs in which the CCA.D1Selor is the sole resource provider may be limited. G.lidance programs which involve a variety of school staff as well as camunity/business/labor/ . industry members are able to more efficiently help students attain skills and canpetencies. (See Appendix B, Advisory c.cmnittee). The key to a successful program is organization and management of guidance providers best suited to assist students in achieving life skills and caupetencies. It is important to note that the levels of resource organization and management described in this plan are c,m1Jative. Devel.qaental COl!petencies and Me8ource ~t The folloong pages are intended to provide local district planners with a matrix which incorporates the K-12 developmental caupetencies, the levels of resource organization and management, and sample activities and strategies that could be used to teach students about the ~tencies. Level I organization relies primarily upon the CCU1Selor. Level II incorporates participation of others on the school staff. Level 111 programning depends upon the interaction of all identified resource providers. The levels are rot independent of one another, but each builds upon the activities and strategies designed for the one before it. Level III is the ID'.)St caq\u0026gt;rehensive delivery approach, as it incorporates the resources of Leve ls I and I I. 3 ~-12 Developaental Coapetencies Developmental guidance is based on the premise that, as all children mature, they pass through various developmental stages vital to their growth. During these stages, specific kinds of learning and developaent must occur to ensure optimal progress. A developmentally based delivery structure spans the K-12 years and matches student competencies that must be mastered with the delivery systems most appropriate for age - or grade-level groups. Elementary school children respond well to situations in which they Lean About and become aware ot new things and ideas. They also need opportunities to explore what they are learning and to try out new things. Midjle/junior high school-aged students are ready for Understanding and experiaentation as they continue to absorb new facts and ideas. High school students need to Apply what they have previously learned and to constantly move toward increased understanding and \u0026amp;dditional knowledge. Developaeotal Student Coapetencies Elementary School Middle/ Junior High School High School Learning About Understanding Applying Learning About Understanding Applying Learning About Understanding Applying 4 ~-12 Leaning Coapetencies ~-12 Personal and Social Coapetencies ~-12 Career and Vocational Coapetencies       CXIHBHl!NSIVB PIIDIAH mDID'S School c~elors help all pupils by establishing individual, graJJ\u0026gt; and classroom contacts with them, collaborating with teachers, and coordinating with other school or connunity guidance r~sources. The clinic.al skills and knowledge base of the counselor are l1I08t effectively used if effort is directed in an organized way toward making the school, the teachers and the curriculum sensitive to those aspects of personal develoi\nment most associated with life success. Counselors serving different school populations function differently, due primarily to variations in the developmental stages of students and in school organization. \\ohatever the setting , however, COU'\\Seling and guidance are functions integral to the school that are maximized i.ihen counselors collaborate with others. Develofm!1tal guidance programs as organized in the Developoontal Q.iidance Handbook provide a three-level approach. At Level I, the focus is on the cOtD1Selor(s) and \"'1.at can be a~lished with that limited delivery resoorce. Level II builds upa1 the unique skills of the school crunselor in conjunction and collaboration with the other staff in the school. Level Ill uses the school program and also parental and cCIJID..U1ity involvement and input to organize the DX)St effective and efficient guidance program. Other individuals in addition to the school counselor play an i.qx\u0026gt;rtant part in the guidance of children and adolescents. Each level of guidance progra111Ding in the DeveloJXDE!!1tal Q.iidance Handbook formally involves these other individuals to varying degrees, sanetimes as resoorces and sanetimes as primary deliverers. CA1 the following pages, involvement levels have been delineated for school boards, superintendents, principals, guidance directors, classroan teachers, vocational education coordinators, vocational education teachers, special education teachers, pupil services staff, ccmrunity business and irrl.lstry representat i ve.s , and parents. As the comprehensiveness of programning increases, so irust the involvement of others. This involvement nust be coordinated, or the systematic approach to develoJXDE!!1tal guidance will be lost. Level I involvement of others is primarily supportive. Level II programning utilizes the abilities of others on the school staff and coordinates their participation in guidance activities. At Level Ill, the counselor and the other hLman resources of the school and COITlll..lllity are used as the delivery system. Level Ill programning depends on the collaborative efforts of many to provide a canprehens i ve guidance program for all pupils. 1. SQOJL BQ\\RD MD1BER A. Supportive--Recogni zes the state standard ...tiich requires that cx:,unseling be available to all K-12 students  B. Particip.\ntive- -Provides ad~ uate financial support for the program in such areas as personnel , staff development, cleric.al support and materials . 5 c. lnterdependent--Supports policies for delivering the guidance program as an integral part of the total educational process so that all of students' development needs are met. 2. DISTRICT AIMINISTRATOR A. Supportive--Understands the guidance needs of school populations. Establishes and reviews counselor job descriptions in the cootext of developmental guidance. 8. Participative--Works with the school board, faculty, acininistrative staff and coom.mity to secure support for develo}Defltal guidance. Insures that the guidance staff is represented on the district acininistrative council. C. lnterdependent--Views all s..::hool personnel as having a part to play in an articulated developmental guid~nce p~re:D. Provides leadership for an active, ongoing guidance program. Requires accountability and evaluation of the progress toward goals, objectives and develoi:mental student outccxnes. 3. BUIIDOC PRINCIPAL A. Supportive--Establishes a positive climate for implementing the guidance program. Recruits qualified personnel and provides them with the necessary facilities, time, equipment and clerical staff. Assists  with a public relations program that will eq\u0026gt;hasize guidance as an  integral part of the total school program. B. Participative--Works closely with the guidance staff to plan, ~lement and evaluate the guidance program. Uses the guidance staff to plan in-service, evaluatioo or assessment of guidance program. Encourages parents, COIIIII.Jl1ity members, and bJ.siness and industry representatives to participate in the education system. Assures that the guidance program staff is relieved of excessive clerical and non-developmental guidance duties. C. Interdependent--Encourages staft members to upgrade skills and knowledge for implementing guidance programning. F.ncouraging counselors to assume managerial role to facilitate the establisl\"IDent of a developmental guidance program. Monitors program effectiveness for the goals, objectives and developmental student ootcomes identified in the guidance program. 4. DIRECTOR OF CURRICUUM A. Supportive--Infuses develofXl)eOtal guidance awareness through curriculun. Assists to identify curricular resources for the guidance program. B. Participative--Coordinates the guidance program with other district  curricuhns. C. Interdependent--\\.,lorks with guidance staff to plan, implement and evaluate the comprehensive developmental guidance program. 6    S. DIRFL\"'llE OF GUICWCE A. Supportive--Provides the district \u0026amp;:binistrator and school board with informatioo oo funding, personnel, program and evaluation needs. Praootes professional growth of all guidance personnel. 8. Participative--Establishes a systematic approach to making guidance available K-12. Seeks and maintains cooperative working relationships with all personnel whose roles and responsibilities affect the development and implementation of the guid....'1Ce program. Provides leadership for development of the appropriate guidance program ~lementation plans. Coordinates regular, planned meetings \\iihere counselors share information, consult on specific problems, and develop and refine systemwide programs. C. Interdependent--Works with administration and supervisory staff to plan and develop the K-12 guidance curriculLID. Assigns staff and coordinates all curricular guidance activities. Coordinates the guidance program and the resQlU\"ces provided by teachers, parents and others. Pranotes a cauprehensive, pupil services ioodel delivery system. 6. PSYQl.}L(X\nISI, SOCIAL \\.ORKER, SQO)L NUR.5E A. Supportive--Coordinate referrals to other guidance service persormel. Camunicate regularly oo district pupil service programs. 8. Participative--Work with the guidance staff to provide infonnation to school/ccmDJnity about \"at-risk\" students and assist with programning designed to reduce those risks. Utilize a cauprehensive pupil services team approach to coordinating programs and services for students in crisis. C. Interdependent--Are involved in planning. implementing and evaluating the guidance program so that all students receive systematic guidance based on learning, personal/social and career/vocational needs. 7. voc.ATIOOAL IDX:ATIOO TFMl-lERS A. Supportive--Assist vocational education students to achieve specific vocational ~etencies which wi 11 enable them to gain entry into an occupational or post-secondary setting. 8. Participative--Work cooperatively with counselors to provide ~loyment counseling, placement and follow-up services for students enrolled in vocational courses and cooperative programs. C. Interdependent--Work with counselors and entire staff to ensure that all students receive instruction or information on occupations, ~loyability skills, current job market and intervi\u0026amp;'i.ng techniques. Participate in the various activities of planning, i~lementing and evaluating the guidance progam . 7 8. TF.AOIERS A. Supportive--Refer studmts to counselor for assistance. Create positive, interactive relationships with students and provide a primary. basis for intellectual, social and emotional growth. B. C. Participative--Request assistance frcn counselor to plan and implement guidance activities in academic and vocational curriculun. Participate in guidance programning, i.e., as co-facilitators of groups, in advisor/ advisee progr~, as primary instructors in sane areas and support students in crisis. Interdependent--~ize the value of developmental guidance. Use subject areas to assist students in developing personal/social, career and learning ~tencies. Work as team members to plan and implement guidance activities essential to the overall development of students. 9. BUSI.NESS AND 1NIU5TRY REPRESmrATIVE.5 A. Supportive--Provide speakers, field trip opportunities and school daI01Strations to increase student knowledge of the work world in their ccmrunity. B. Participative--Provide information and opportunities for students to participate in co-op programs, job-shadowing, and work experience. Encourage and participate in student organizations. C. lnterdependent--Provide up-to-date labor market information, co-op and  apprenticeship sites, and mentorships for all students. 10. PARENTS A. Supportive--Provide support for children through participation in parent conferences, school activities and volunteerism. Work with teachers and counselors to support their children's learning, personal/social, arxi career/vocational growth. B. Participative--Partici.pate in school curricular, extracurricular and guidance activities serving their children. Praoote guidance as an ~rtant part of education. C. Interdependent--Participate on the guidance catlllittee that will facilitate i~lementation of the guidance program. Serve as mentors and models for classes. 11. cntfJNIT'i SERVICES AGF.R:IE:5. A. Supportive--Establish camunication and referral channels. B. Participative--Provide information oo services available to students and families. C. InterdepE:ndent--Participate in planning and implementatioo of a guidance program that includes services and activities provided by the c001JU11ity agencies. 8     KIJNINfMY sam. 1IAIS Children in elementary school have already begun to acquire learning, personal/social and career/vocaticnal conipetencies. The following plan describes specific, fundamental coq\u0026gt;etencies that should be addressed through the framework of a developmental guidance program. The goal is to take a preventive, instructional approach by planning the guidance program around the coq\u0026gt;etencies elementary school-aged children nust acquire and to ensure that program services will be delivered to all elementary students. The strategies and activities listed are suggested ways to address the coq\u0026gt;etencies. The exact programing fornaat and delivery responsibility IIJ.lSt be detemined by each district as it goes through the ~lementatioo process and procedures. As the level of resources increases, the strategies and techniques become oore caq,rehensive. The mphA.sis oo prevention and utilization of available resources makes it a oost-effective approach  9 Eleaeotary School Learoiog Coapetenciea lll!llt and 1'\\at is expected of sru:lents. U1derstam strengths, abi litie. s am how to learn 11DSt effectively. lhierstam relationships alDlg ability, effort and the quality of schoo 1 achieYBIBlt. rstam how to assess learning needs am 'Wh?re to seek help. Uooers tam the process of sett  ueaningful schoo 1 achievellB1 t goals . Level of l.eaoarce and llanageaeot Counselors Be available for inch - vidual CCU1Seling. Provide service to teactr ers cmceming speci fie children. Consult with PlJltidisciplinary Teans oo specific edocat ion needs of s tuden ts. \\obrk in:livicrually with child on how best to Counselors  School Staff I)) grrup 'WDrlc vi th a 11 children to provide orientatioo to scoool. Assist staff to ~iz.e learning how to learn. Calduct stuient asse.sslll! llts of incf i vidua 1 learning styles am share results vi th students . Identify children \"at Aiisist vi.th coordination risk\" and respcn:I to their of activities that exhibit needs. relaticn,hips betlieell effort am product. \\obrk vi th in:! i vidua ls I)) t.eall,IOric that pro-who need assistance in vides children vi tn se lf-eva luat ioo . asse.s91Blt opportuu ties ~ certain all children 50 they bec\u0026lt;ae ccmfort- 1.Diers tan:! who is avai 1- ab le vi th the process . able to help . \\obrk vith stu:ients who dem:nstrate a lack of interest in scmol. Level I Teach the process of goal setting in curricular and ertracurricular activites. Level 11 10  Sct,ool Staff  Parents  . C~lty  Business/Industry  l'teet vi.th parents of all kindergarteners. Explain guidance programs to studellts and parents. Provide staff in-service in learning styles and identification of sai:e. Establish parent/comunity voh.nteer tutoring progrc1115. Secure staff agreerent oo S\u0026lt;J1E cause and effect rules for the sch:x:\u0026gt; 1. Get rosiness / ~try Ul?lt on mtivatioo techniques and the value of work. Train staff to clearly explain tests, rep::irt cards, achievene,t IIE.asures and interest inventories to children and parents . Assist in developing p grims illustrating the need to set goals\nassist parents to help children set and achieve goals . Level 111    Eleaeotary School Personal/Social Cc:.petcncies Exhibit conflictresolution ski-lls . th adults and peers. Exhibit respect for individual freedcms and ri~ts of self and others . lhiers tam the COll56JUeflCe5 of actions for self and others. lhiers tam the influence that Jitysical, emtional an:i intellectua 1 behaviors have on ooe another. Be aware of own em,t ion.a 1, Jitysica 1 and intellectual deYe 10p1Hlt . Levels of Resource Organization and Naoageaent Counselors W:\u0026gt;rk vi th s ti.den ts who are \\nable to resolYe conflicts in an acceptable 1MJ111er. ~l individually vi.th s tuicn ts who infringe on r~ts of others. W:\u0026gt;rk with eroups of individual 5 who appear ln:fWare of the ca\\Slequences of their actions. W:\u0026gt;rk individua 1ly vith stuients who 00 not ll'lderstar.:! tOJ Jitysical and enotional oody fu1c t ion.s are interrelated . W:\u0026gt;rk vi th children tnaware of tlx?ir own deYe lopieit . Assist teachers vi th students who are deYe lop-Ent. ally immture. Level I Counselors  School Staff W:\u0026gt;rk vi th stuicnts to minimize conflicts. W:\u0026gt;rk vi.th groups of students to foster an appreciAtion for ri~ts and freedan of others.  School Staff  Parents   Coaaun1ty  Business/Industry c:arry rut staff devel0p- 11E1t on positive conflict re.solution methods as opposed to p.nishrents. lb staff develo1J151t to ensure that individual freedcrrs and ri~ts are exanincd th~ the curriculun. Assist in activitcs lJ1 the PrCJTOte classrCXJTI visits classroan that illustrate by police or Judges. the in1)0rtance of taking re5JXX1Sibility. Crndoct activities which allow sti.dents to share camon concerns regarding Jitysica 1 and mvtiona 1 deYe lop!Cn t. lb grotq:\u0026gt; work vi th stuicnts who evidence camon devel\u0026lt;J111e1tal difficulties. Organize day vith senior citizens. W:\u0026gt;rk vi.th staff to erilance tn:lerstanding of how all aspects of chi 1- dren' s developrent i.apact on le.a ming. Fonn grrups to assist parents in tn:lerstanding children's developrental processes. Teach curricular mi.ts on Sensitize staff to re-- specific deYelop!Elltal spect stwcnts' individ-areas. unl rates of growth tiona}, chysical and l.fltel edual. Level II Level 111 11 Eleaentary School Personal/Social Coapetencies (continued) Learn to cmrlllnicate with peers .n1 adults in varirus ha!E, sch?o 1 and cannm ty settings . CDnse 1 vi th children who are having difficulty expressing thBmelve:s. [evelop a posi- \\t\u0026gt;rk with stu:ients who ti ve se 1f and so- are oot adjusting we 11 to cial self-coocept. scrool. lhlers tarn the concept of engoing change in sdX\u0026gt;OOl, hcnE and camuri ty lives. lhlerstand .n1 respect differences am:ing people's cultures, lifestyles, attituies and abilities. Ass i.s t teachers .n1 parents vi th these stu:ients . Co.nse 1 ind i vidua 1 chi 1- dren who are having difficulty in new situations. Provide i..\"'ld i vidua 1 co.nse ling to solve specific relationship conflicts. Level I ~iz.e camuucation in the classroan by stnrturing time for talking .n1 sharing. Coordinate program5 that msure positive scooo 1 experiences for a 11 stu:ients . Cadtrt grrup work to explore dwl8(! an:i oow it relates to the ind i vidua 1. D:\u0026gt; group work .n1 tean teaching to ll'Ddel good interpersonal relaticnships. lt:Jde 1 good interpersooa l relationships schoolvide. Level II l 2 Coordinate activities in schoo 1 and rut that encru.rage camuricatioo bet\\oleel1 children and those they need to be able to talk to. 1.brk to help parents and teachers U'Xlers~ the i.n\u0026gt;rtance of a positive se If-concept and how to foster it in all children. Recognize the rapid changes in technology and give stulerlts opportl. ni ties to see new IIBChines. Coordinate activites that =age broadening range of acquaintances. Provide staff and camunity with opportl.llities to learn about varirus cultures represented in the school PCOJlation. Level Ill       Eleaeotary School Career/Vocational Coapetenciea Levels of Resource Organization ~ and l'laoageaeot --------~elors School Staff  Parents Counselors + Coapeteocies + Coaaunity ---- Counselors School Staff + ------ Business/Industry Acquire know 1- edge about different occupa-t icns and changing uele/femle roles. BecCJIE aware of personal in-terests and preferences. I.earn oow to cooperate .-id coexist with others in wrk and play. Lhierstand \\lhat it OEa1S to wrk and hOW' school wrk re lat.es to future plans. la::areaware of '-Urlds beyood the imlai ia te experience. Provide occupa t iooa 1 Provide i.n formation Qx:mhnate efforts to infometion to be used by ~ the aedi.a center, have a variety of all teachers as a cooperative and field people speak to classroan re.!nlrce. trips. classes about their \\i,rk vith stuierits ~ have vocational or\nr,\nocatiooal interests aoo discuss oow they 11BY purSlE them. Provide i.n:ii vidua 1 ~ seli.ng to help stuierits solve specific relationship con.fl ic ts . Te.an teach a tni t on careers and the wrld of wrk. Ck\u0026gt; group wrk to enable stuients to becall! aware of their vocational interests and lifestyle preferences. Form a CCU1.Selor and teacher teaD for ac ti vi - ties that vi 11 encourage cooperation. Develop career awareness curr iculun or Jfu lo.soi\ntiy that provides for oogoi.ng career edocat ioo in the classroan. .A:\u0026gt;rk vith iniividual  Te.ach activities to s tuien ts to develop self- edlance 5raI'eJle.5S of self awareness. Level I in relation to the rest of the wrld. Level II 13 ~tions. Coordinate ccma.nity efforts that allow sttr dents to purStE their vocational interests outside of scoool. Carry out staff develc,ir IIEfl t to p['l'.Jll)t.e cooperat im as a scoool Jfulo. soi\ntiy. Encoura,o\ne !'C' lat ions hips ~ labor and ioous try and school concerning curricuh.rn that realist ica 11 y nEe ts the needs of the i.n:ii vidua 1 and society . Provide staff in-service to illustrate the need to be aware of se 1f in order to re late we 11 with others . Level III Kiddle/Junior Bigb School Years Students in middle/junior high school have unique developmental needs. This time of life brings much of the physical, emotional and cognitive growth and change that human beings go through . To assist students with this growth process, the following charts address age-specific competencies, and the strategies and techniques are suggested ways to address these competencies. Exact programming format and delivery responsibilities must be determined by each district staff as it goes through the implementation process and procedures. Please note that as the levels of resources increase, strategies and techniques become more comprehensive. Kiddle/Junior High School Learniag Coapeteocies Develop internal acadmri.c IIDtivatioo . Develop good sttdy skills. l)?velop a sense of the future and how to IIDVe toward it. lb:iers taro strengths and abilities and how to learn DDSt effectively F.xhibit problem-so 1 ving skills. Cotrue 1 inh vidua 1 srudeflts who laclc academic 11Dtivatioo. Rt\u0026gt;rk with gr-oops of stu:ients who h:lve poor sttdy skills . D:\u0026gt; inh vidua 1 ~rk with stu:ien.s who lack tn:ler-s taro ing of oow actions af f~t cxn,equences. Participate oo l'tlltidisciplinary Teaii\n. A.5s is t individuals to approach probl8DS in a logi ca 1 l!B\"ller . Level I Discuss with stuien ts lll1d parents 111\u0026gt;tivatioo lll1d how it rel.ates to academi C per fol\"llllllCe . ~lliJi! staff to ex.!llt'\" ine assigrne,ts lll1d requin!lll!flts and to promote basic sttdy skills. Pramte participatioo in future problm 90lving. Inform parents abrut learning styles and tutoring strategies . ~lliJi! utili.z.atioo of prob lSIHIO 1 ving skills in the classrocm. Level II 14 Develop i.ncen ti ve partnershi p.s with local rusiness/ in:iustry to prmote academic perfornence. Rt\u0026gt;rk with parents to e,able them to assist their children with stu:iy ski l ls and ~ rk . c.arry rut staff develop- 11e1t on in\u0026gt;rt.ance of stwents obtaining a future/goal orientatioo. D:\u0026gt; staff deve lorent oo learning styles and adapting te.ach.ing strategies to lll!Jet the needs of stuients. Provide infornetioo for pa.rents and others oo the ilqx\u0026gt;rtance of problemsolving skills. Level III    Kiddle/Junior High School Personal/Social Collpetencies  . . ~ 1. .. .is of lesource Or~ , and llanageaent School Staff  ~ Counselors Puent,  Coapetencies  C-mity --------- Counselors School Staff  Business/Industry lh:ie rs t.aixl CAnse l inii vidua l s tu- D:\u0026gt; g'\"OJP w::\u0026gt; rk to di.scu.,s Assist staff to plan !XJYSical, EmJ-- dents \\n:lble to cope vith the rapid changes s tu- humn grCMh and develop-tional, and the i r rapidly changing dents a.re exper ieocir'b . Delt Classes. inte llectua 1 bodies and/or 01Dtions. Assist parents vith growth and devel-growth and deve lop!Hlt ~t. issues. te.,e lop self and Ca.n9e 1 stuient.s who haYe W:Jric vi th grrups to ex- W:Jric to help parents and social self- a negative se lf-coocept . plore iniivirual differ- teachers tn:lers taro the cx:n::ept. ence.s and gain an accep-- ~rtance of a i:ositive ta'lCe of them. se l f-coocept and row to Teadl stuients self-foster it in all children as ses91Bl t and se lf-  referral technicrues . Urrlers tan:! and D:\u0026gt; group canse ling to Provide CUIT icu lar and Assist staff in develqr develop peer solve specific relatiexr extracurricular ac:tiv- ing curricular offerings relation.ships. ship cmflicts. ities \\Auch encourage which deal vi th inter-heterogeneow and tom:,g-enea.. i.s re lat ion.ships. persooal relationships. Exhibit i:ositive W:Jric vi th s tuien ts who Assist teachers an! par- Carry out staff develop-attitu: ie toward exhibit a negat ive atti- ents at~ting to relate l!Blt oo creating a i:osi-scmol, fairi.ly tu:1e toward scmo 1. to s tuients vi th a nega- tive scmol clillBte. and self. tive attituie. learn to w.nse 1 in1 i vidua l O::nh: t group sessions Assist staff to a:odel ccma.ni ca te stuients having di ff icu 1 ty oo flmri.ly camanicatioo good ccnmnicatioo vi th parents . re la ting to their parents . and relations. skills. Provide inf onmt ioo oo ccnmni ty resrurces for faai 1 y couise l in.R . learn to cope CAnse l inii virua l D:\u0026gt; group w::\u0026gt;ric oo stress Plan staff develoient IWi th life I S pres- stuients lI'\\Bble to cope redoctioo ard/or coping oo stress reductioo and sures, defeats vith stress. slcil L'l. ~ing excess stress and soccesses. i, s ta.lents. learn to deal Colnse 1 in1 i vidua 1 s tu- D:\u0026gt; group w::\u0026gt;ric to exp lore Provide infonmt ioo oo vi th oogoing den ts having di ff icu 1 ty row the manging ,..,rld changes in the w::\u0026gt;ric changes in per- i..n::lerst.and ing row and vill ~t oo stuients. w::\u0026gt;rld and row to be scna 1 and aca- why the w::\u0026gt;r ld is changing. prepared for them.  dsaic life . Level 1 Level II Level III l 5 Kiddle/Junior Bigb School Career/Vocational Coepetencies Ulderstand dee is ioo-,mking skills. 1.arn to cope vith transition in school, halE cn:1 camurity lives. Becare i.' lfo med about alternative edocat iona 1 an:! vocational choices an:! prep-aration for them. 'Relate persooal interests to broad occupa-tional areas. lh:lerstand aro use camurication skills. 1.arn humn cooflict mnage- IIBlt vi th adu 1 ts aoo peers. learn that sex role sterecr typing, bi.as, or discrimination limit choices , ~mnities ochievme1t. \\i:\u0026gt;rlc vi th stu:ients ~ exhibit an inability to IIBke decisions. ..,ld orientations to fa-mi 1 iarize s tu:ients vi th the expectations of the new envircnEnt . Comsel stu:ients having di f ficu ~ ty a:! just i.ng to new envi n:nieits . Provide ~ti ona 1 and edoca tiona 1 inforneticri to a 11 te.achers . Ehsure that s tu:ients liderstand the ~t of ~se choices. .ldninister interest in- 'A:!ltories to stu:ients to acquaint then vi th their interests. \\i:\u0026gt;rlc ... i th s tu:ien ts hav-i. ng difficulty ccmn.ni - cat i.ng vi th peers or adults. \\i:\u0026gt;rlc vi th s tu:ien ts 1'tlo are l.llab le to re.solve ccnflicts in an accept-able l!B\"ller. Ca.nse 1 vi th s tu:ient s 1'tlo are having difficulty imla.ng choices. Level I Carey rut dee is iOl'Hl8king an:! problem-solving ac-t ivities for grmos .r.oo classes . Have class roan dLSC\\JS-sions cri e:\u0026lt;pectat ions in new envirameits am how to respond appropri - ately. C.OOrdinate efforts to have guest speakers cri varirus ~tional areas. Provide d 1scu.ss ions for s tu:ien ts cri how interests are related to occupa-tional choices. Teach camu1icaticri skills. Provide interpersooal camuricaticri worlcstlp5. ~ grn4) worlc vi th stu-dents to better lider-staxl differences in in-di vidua 1 respmse.s to conflict. Inform stu:ients and par-ents about the career op-portuuties open to both sexes. Level 11 16 Provide staff develOl]IB1t cri how dee is ion naking can be incorporated into a 11 curricular areas . \\i:\u0026gt;rk vi th teachers, par-ents, an:! others to assist students in tran-siticri periods. C.OOrdinate camini ty re-sources to IIBke a 11 s tu-dents lll)re fully aware of voca t iona 1 coo ices aro the edocation required for them. Carry rut staff develop-rrent activities on inter-ests, OC::upf!tiooal ~I~~ ca~eer Provide staff develov- IIBlt \u0026lt;rl requiring good ccmn.nicaticri skills in all subject-area classes. ~ staff deve l01]1B1t on positive conflict resolu-t ion 112tln:Ls . Prarvte a career day fe.aturi.ng pare,ts aro camu1i ty IIBibers woo worlc in tra:litional aro naitra:litional careers . Level Ill       High School Years High school is the gateway to further education for some students and the last formal educational experience that others will have. The following competencies take into account the important choices that students must make during their high schocl years and lists the skills they will need as they mature educationally, personally and vocati onall y . The strategies and techniques described in the charts are suggested ways of helping students acquire the competencies. Programming format and delivery responsibilities must be determined by each school district staff as 1t goes through the implementation process and procedures. Once again, as the level of invested resources increases, strategies and techniques become more comprehensive. High School Learning Coapetencies . ------ ~e lors Levels of Resource Org + and Kanageaeot School Staff  Parents Coapeteocies Counselors + + C-Unity ------------ Schoo 1 Sta ff + Counselors Business/Industry lhlerstand learning abi li - ties am oow best to apply them. BecCIIE infor.!Bl alnlt self ~ assess-l! Blt techniques . Learn to set reali.stic goals am ~lop strategies to reach them. lh:ierstand the sdro 1 curri culun am the ~ pact CO-ll'se selection wi 11 have on future plans. lhders tand the school errvi roollEl1t am what 1s expected. WJrk \"\"1th l'\\Jltidisci-p Ii.nary Tean for s tu:ients experiencing learning difficulties. Schedule iro i vidua 1 coo-fererces to discuss re-sults of standardized tests . WJrk with s tu:ients irn i - vidually to help them set short - am loog-tem goals. l'ee t with irn i vidua 1 stuients to discuss future p 1ans . Colnse 1 iroi vidua 1 s tuden ts mable to coofonn to the scoool l!Blt am/or f\u0026gt;XPeC tat ions . errviron- Level I Gi ~ am exp lain to Stu-dents iroividual learn-ing style i.r'M!ntories. D:J gro.ip 1o1::\u0026gt;rk oo tnder-staroing what tests as-sess , oow to take them ani haw to learn f ran the results . lbld gro.ip discussion.s oo goa 1 setting ani strategies to help stu-dents reach goals. l'eet with group.s of stu:lents to discuss the need for choosing classes care fu 11 y. Tean teach to discuss the schoo 1 errvi rcn!'fflt am its expec tat ioos with all stu:ients. Level II 1 7 D:J staff deve lCJ?IBI t oo learning sty 1 es am adapting teaching strategies to aeet needs of stlrlents. Assist staff to gain a better tnders tand ing of stan:iardized tests am the i.n3c t they have oo stu:lents. Provide staff developll'E'flt to stress need for students to set goals am nethods Of helping them do so. Assist staff as they develop am articulate curricu 1 t.m across the district. Utilize rosiness/industry nert:ers to speak oo the re la-t 1 on.sh1 p of school am 1o1::\u0026gt;rk. Level Ill High School Persoaal/Social Coapetencie  Levels of Resource Organisation ~ and llaaageaent Counselors ------------- School:Staff ------------- Parents Counselors Coapeteocies + + COlaUDi ty --------- School Staff + Counselors Busioess/lodustrv ~rstaoo IEY5ica l , aiotiona 1 and inte llectua l growth cnl deYE! l op!Bl t. Learn to cope with change al:! plai for the future. CGulse 1 in:l i vidua 1 s tudents having difficulty coping with deve lop!Blt. Teach an:i teao teach groi,th an:i deve)opn?Ilt cnl to, they are inter-re lated. Cou,sel in:lividual stu- C\u0026lt;n:hrt ~ work to dents tnable to cope with discuss the chariging cha1ge. world am to, it i.q\u0026gt;ac ts on stuients . Assist staff in developing curriculun which addresses all areas of deve lop!Blt. Ck\u0026gt; stat f deve lopta1t oo the ~t of change oo Stooeflts. I I.earn ht.man Orient new stuients al:!/ or frestmen. \\i:\u0026gt;rk with in:li vidua 1 D:\u0026gt; ~ work to discuss in:liviooal differeoces Get input f rem t:us iness / industry oo techno logica 1 change am the future. ,. Ck\u0026gt; staff deve lopren t oo coo.flic t re.so lu- stuients tnab le to rein: lividual differences tioo skills with solve cooflicts in a adults and peers. positive mmer. and to minimize coof1 icts. Understand and ~reciate one's CMl capabilities and those of others. Provide opporturi ties for Ck\u0026gt; ~ work oo \\Dier-interact ioo with in:l i - starxi ing one 's own capavidua ls of varying abil- bi lit ies al:! to, best to thierstaoo perscnal re latiooships and to, to establish an iniepement identity. To..!\ne responsi - bility for persmal decisioo.s . ity. Cou1.se 1 in:l i vidua 1 students experiencing di f fi - cu 1 ty developing per-sen. al relatiooships. Cou1.sel with stuients \\IOO are wi 11 ing to take respons i bi li ty for actiCX\\5. Level I u.,e them. lbld 91811\n..-roup disCU5sions oo relaticnships, the need to ~ independence and construe ti, -e lll!a'lS of doing so. \\i:\u0026gt;rk vi th peer grwps to prcm,te a.iarene.ss of impact of decisioo.s aoout issues such as drin!ung and drivi.r1_g i!l1d others. Level II 18 and dea 1 ing with them in the c lassrCXIIl. Invo lye school/ ccrmuni ty with Special Olympics or other similar activities. Ck\u0026gt; staff developrent oo \\n:ierstaooing snreits' needs for inieperdence and good personal relaticnships. Secure camuu ty / schoo 1 collaboration to publi-c i:ze ~rtance of neking infonred dee is ions aoout coot.eqiorary issues. Level Ill   Bigb School Career/Vocational eo.petencies Levels of Resource Organization ~ and Nanageaent ~-~------- -------- School: Staff ----------- -------- Parents Coapetencies Counselors + . + C~ity ------- Counselors School Staff + Business/Industry lhiers tam Colnse l in:1 i vidua 1 s tuani develop deci- dents experiencing dif- Team teach tni t m deci - sim uaking an:l career choice. Assist staff in iocorJXr rating dee is iorH!aking skills into their curriculuns. sirn-1!Blcing ficulty lIBking decisioos. skills. U'lderstam the world of work an:l its expectations for enploy11e1t. Becme inf orne:1 aoout ~ timal/work alternatives. th:iers tam cm t inn.ls changes of mle/ feDBle roles an:l how this relates to career choice. !Eve lop the interpersona 1 skills necessary for ha.maly in the worknlace. BecaIE in-fo rne:1 about upto- date ~loyllBlt opportunities during and after high sdr:x\u0026gt;l. Provide 11Bterials m occupa tion.s and postsecoodary inst i tut ioos . Tuan with tusiness/~ try experts to te.ach tnits m ~loyue1t expectations. Assist staff to iocorJXr rate world-of~rk expectations soch as p.nctuality, respollSibi!ity, arrl ac=tability into the cl\nissroan. \\.brk with in:iividual stu- lt:lld group discussions of Provide staff deve lorr-dents m post.seccn:lary educatimal arrl work al- l'IBlt m postsecco:1ary ed-educational an:l worx al- tematives after high LCatimal an:l work al-ternatives. schxll. tematives. \\.brk vith individual s tu:len ts experiencing difficulty with the dlalging roles of IIB1 and \\QIEl'l. Gotnsel with stulents displaying a lack of i.nterpersona l skills . l'llke ~lO'fl!Blt opport\\ ni ties arrl career p lnri.ng 11B teria ls avai 1- ah le for stuient use. Level I lt:l ld group discuss ims m how the changing roles of mles and females msy affect career opporttnities. r:o group work or tean teaching to discuss how interperscnal skills are required for hanrooy in the workplace . Ccl'dr t grc,..ip5 to exp lore var irus ~ loyue1t an:l career opport\\ni ties . Te.an teach tni ts oo ~ loyue1t opport\\ni ties. Level II 19 ~age parent invo 1 vellBl t as s tu:len ts exp lore educa t iooa l arrl \\,Q rk alternatives. Assist staff to gain understaming of ha,, societal attitu:ie.s ~t on rrele/femle role develoirl'IBlt. r:o staff deve loren t on how interpersroal skills are essential for all s tu:len ts as they enter the \\,Qrld of work. C.OOrd ina te camuni ty resrurces to give stuients opport\\nities to learn of ru:ierrus and varied careers. Provide 11B1torships for s tu:lents in areas they wish to explore. Level Ill High School Career/Vocation.al Collpetenciea (continued) eo.peteocies Levels of Resource llaoageaeot and llaoageaent Counselors  School Staff Form tentative Provide current aateri.als r:o group work oo goal career gmls am for career awareness an1 setting and stratpg:ies strategies to exploratioo. for reaching goals. reach then. lh:lerst.an:l lifestyle prefe ences am re late thsn to occupational interests. \\i:\u0026gt;rk with im i vidua 1 studen ts to discuss ~ tional interests. Level I Provide opportmities to discuss lifestyles am various occupat icna l interes ts with ccmn..ni ty lll!dlers . Level II 20  School Staff  Parents  C-JDity  Busioess/Iodust Assist staff to develop CUITiculllll that will help sttdents set career  goals am strategies to reach then. Assist staff to incorprate infornetion on varirus lifestyles am occupational interests into the c:urr icu lllll. Level III    Appendix I\\ A Syate Approach to Individual Learning and ' Developaent by Oenn is Van Oen lteuve 1 The pupil competencies in the preceding developmental plan are based upon the work of a number of developmental theorists. Appendix A presents a compilation from developmental theories of age-appropriate capabilities, skills, and behavior and the guidance need9 of cl1ildren and adolescents at the various developmental 3tages. r.-rging Physical Expected Age/Grade and Paychological Nicro-Syate llacro-Syatea Identifying Develoi-ntal Functional Sir.ilia General Guidance Level Capabi lilies Integration Integration Behaviors Correlates Repertoire Weeda ~ 1-4 -Sensory lll)tOr skills -lbfy awareness ~ -\u0026lt;llserving -Preaocial -IIMic p:,ysical lll)tor -Recognition of wic years differentiation skills security and support -Ba, ic recall/oerory -Se If-awareness I. Family -Testing p:,ysical -Iq,Jbive -Sensory knew ledge from primory and Prescrool -language -Security 2. Sibling, -Imitating ( l.oevi.nger) processing secoroarynw::ro-acquisition/ usage -Imitation and ~ -0,eying/ -SeMori.notor  la!J! -Self-control-systans ~ical motor skills nodeling styles conforming (Piaget) j:ilysical and social -Stinulatioo of -t1snaging bod i l y I. Child care micro-~st.8T!9 - lrlllgi.na t ion/ nnctioos adult -ttxleling -Psychological -~ling/ thrrug, inc identa 1 S)\u0026lt;IOO I ic inagery 2. Chi Id care survival usage am s true lured -Sin1\u0026gt; le cause- 111lt.eB -leorizing orientation, learning situations -\"Pre!tent\" time effa:tive ). Qilture p:,ysical -0.Jltural absorpti.\u0026gt;n provided thrrug, orientatioo relationships 4, Family and -labeling satisfaction necro-systans camulity (!'eslow) -Sense of obedience religirus -Immdiate and c~e of -Ba,ic and consist\"'1t lll)ral gratification -~sical rrorality behavior set of personal, orientation (Kohlberg) 90Cial, rultural, -AckncwledlJlell of am rroral paraieters -ICJnintegrated sources of established thrrus\n, 1cncwledge (Bloon) gratificatioo the nw::ro-syst..,.,, -Synt,olic play -Basic sense of fair -Reinforcerrent for (H!Jit) play inte \\lectua I and -Ol!:ni t ion 90Cial achievenEnts (OJi I ford) 21 Eaerging Physical Age/Grade 11!.1:pected and Psychological Micro-Syate llacro-Syate Identifying Deve loi-eota l Functional Skills General Guidance Level Capabi litiea Integration Integration Behaviors Correlates Repertoire Need  !,, 5-10 -Concre te operations -Jlmreness of Primary -Recogn1 zi.11,p, -concrete opeJ\"ations -Sense of fair play -Basic evaluation and )'1!8rS on reality self in social (Piaget) llllllitoring kill context l. Flllli ly Grade K-6 -5\u0026gt;'rllolic --ling -Social carpetition 2. School - Social nodeling and cooperation -Basic problem-oolv- representation am -Sense of J . ~rs -Short - term (Bandura) ing techniques to reflex knowledge coo fonni ty and predic ting -\\h:ler land the cope vi th inte lice tu- duty ~ -Self-protectiw, 111111ning of persona I al and social con- -Active nerory -Effec tive verbal coofonnist, expectation flicting situations -Awareness of l. Local cann..nicatioo opport.iiist ic -Effective language psychological comu,ity (u,evinger) -now the c riteria for i-Social ethics usage seU 2. Ne iij\\bort.ood -lru,iij\\t into self-evaluation J. Orurch, clubs causes of things -Safety, love, (i:tiysicsl and o-Basic learning tech- -Inventions of Sense of i:tiyical , -Socio- affection, intellectual) nique., and habits abstract coot,i.na- inte llectua 1 enconcmic -Im,ginll\\g belongingi,e.,s ti.on, and potency status (\"\"'low) -lfnowledge of t-AecotJ,i t ioo of sociA l assoc iAt ions --:Ultur~I -Olnvert ing authority and duty \"'4'POr t sys tan, Acclimation to -Qnler identifies- 30Cial, cultural httitase --Traru,fonmtion.9 ~formi ty. dl. ty. ( parents , schoo 1 social approval Responsibility for staff, chJrt-11, peers, tion atxl and gender -Group/ tean (l\u0026lt;ohlberg) I.earning aro1 soc iA 1 camu,ity, ,-,iijlbors) re lat i.onslnP\" stereotyping aeroership -\u0026lt;:onvergen t relationshi1Jt1 thinking ~n,hension, i'hyical Se 1f\" 1!0li tor ing responding (Bloem) Sense of persona 1 fa luate the qua Ii ty coordination -O\u0026gt;operating potency ( locus of of various '4Jport f)cpenled ~ry (Qiilford l cootrol) systalrl amreness of -0,eying C\u0026amp;\u0026gt;Se-1! ff ec t o-Effecuve intra- am rCoping skills for re lat ionshi ps -Role playing inter-persona 1 personal welfare\n-T\"\"'ral aria,- -Respon:J ing carm.nicat ioo i:tiYsical, intellec-talion to past- tual, social ard -Peroonal satis- o-Social adaptation : present-future Bllltional faction Iii.th 1 units of coofonnity learning ard and deviation -Social C\u0026lt;Jll!Ulication achieving Social nonm training -Labeling H-t,ral nonm -Ability to effective-- IdentifyinP, k)J l tura 1 nornl5 ly uti liz.e ard in- -terorizing Self-concept of ~ate various micro identity \u0026amp; co-support systea: 22 l\\ge/Grade Eloerging Physical Expected and Psychological Micro- System Macro-System ldentifyinr. Deve lopeen ta l Functional Level Skills General Guidance Capabilities Integration Integration Bebaviorn Correlates Repertoire - Needs .. l-\\g,, l!-14 -fonMl opPrations -ldentificatlon of Prizrery -React irtR -Initial formal Problmr-solving -Study Skills yc.ar-:i se If -cooccpt and operaticns techniques -Abstract \u0026amp; logical self-esteen in I. fsni ly -Revolting -Problmr-90lving brwtes 7-9 thtnl\u0026lt;i.ng fsni ly, school, I-Ind ividual \u0026amp; Sltua-- Application of processes peer contexts 2. Peer group -Screening tional role thinking content knowledge -Self-concept of (Piaget) -Clarification of per-tnt. el lectual an:l -Sense of potency J . School -Applying Sense of sonal, 90Ci.al an:l !0Cl81 identLty to lnflueoce -Validation of self- responsibility to religious value perSOMl an:l 14 . (a,mlll 1.) ....:lvtnei.ng efficacy se If an:! others in system -Initial intrO-'Jl\"Ction :,oc ia 1 systeJr\u0026lt;I 90Ci.al contexts an:l utilLzation of ~ -Sorting '-Se If -referent -tCnclwledae of sex reflex knowledge -Acknowl.edjJle,t tho.J81,t ( 8ondur a) Acti\"\"' ..,_ of self roles-iq,licationa of per90Ml lo.iltural an:l -.ll.l:lgi.ng and ,oc ia l esteem for educational/ -Tine-pro Jectill'C intellectual an:l status affL IL.a- -Social cognition 90Ci.al roles slu lls 90Cial tiO'l.'3 -coping Evaluation of self in capabilities -f'et.a-cogni ti\"\" per90Ml an:l 90Ci.al -f-it\u0026gt;ack on persona I -Sexuol identity -Local \"\"'1ia -ttxleling know ledge ( F lave 11 ) situaticn, achi\"\"\"\"\"\"'u am re90lutLon -Affiliation with \u0026amp; p:,htics perfoms,ce refereoce grrups -\u0026lt;ll\u0026lt;xlsing -lnterper90Ml Sense of cooperation -Local laws ca,cordaoce an:l collaboration -Ba lance between - Awareness of arY1 rrore., -Preparing cooper at ion an:l pararet.ers of (90Cial an:! -Esteen (Kohlherg) Self-m\u0026gt;tivation an:! i.rdepenlence i.ndepen:lence religious) -ValuinP, reinforcme.nt -Self -respec t/esteen techniques ,. -llecisiOIH!llking -Sex-role -Local -\u0026lt;:ater,orizing (l'laslowl processes orientation concepts of ~ ien t irusness Value identity an:l work and -Cl!lSsi fying ( lnevinger) rronitoring -Sense of contro I an:l product ,vity -0: stinr,uishinr, -Application, Sex-role orientation responsibility for -C-x,pcrat inr, vah~~BtJ11) per90na I behavior -=r t Guilford) -~1~~~ 2)  Faerging Phyeical Age/Grad, and Expected Peycho logica' !licro-Syate llacro-Syste ldentifyinc Develoi-eotal Functional Ski lle General Guidance Level Capabilities lntegrat ion Integration Behaviors Correla tee Repertoire lleede fv!t, 15-19 -Mature fonrsl -Awareness of year operations personal ~ Ac:.carrmdating -Fonno I ope rat ions -Responsibi hty for -Dec i iO\u0026lt;Hreking CPiaaet \u0026gt; personal decisions kill potencies I. Peer group lntcgratmg Grades -Abotract ond logical 2. Scoool/work -Synthesis/e valuatioo -Recognitioo of skills, -Goa 1-attai.nnent 10-12 thinking -Se lf-coocept in sett~ Projecting \"\"\"\"\"tency scaling various 90Cial 3. Friends -f\\n:twMl past- cootexts -Interacting --Organizatioo/ -Sense of self-evalua- -Effecti\"\" camuiica- pre.serit-future tine ~ Exchanging characteriz.at i.on t ion in var iou., tion perspecti\"\" -lnternaliz.at ion (Sloan) situation., -Psycoo-physical of values I. Fllllli ly -coping Self and ituatiooal h\u0026gt;UXlarous/ Persona 1 assertive- llllni to ring and integration -Eva luat ioo of 2. Social tatus -Nonaging integrated nes based oo evaluaticn -Per\"\"\" l potency to self in social (present \u0026amp; -Synthes lling ( Loevingerl \"\"\"\"\"tence and tecmiqu,,s act l4)00 concrete ccrttexts aspirations) -Se lf-actua lizati.on int.ere.st., and abstract klserti\"\"\"\"\" -Academic an:! - OJltural -Produ:: ing (Maslow) -COl 1.aboratioo, training realities social self- coofonnity/ -1.nve,ting cooperatioo skills to departure -{.ni\"\"rsal ethic -Problem-so 1v ing t\"flature 5)'!Ttlolic esteen -Creating (Kohlberg) achieve personal C'Clll!U'lication tecmiqu,,s -Awareness of -Gamulity goel in social -cm., lex ne, ta l shift fran groups -Evaluating -Eva luat ioo coot.ext -tlocro-sy tan pasi\"\" to -Social an:! -.Jwging ( OJ.i I ford) associations \u0026amp; -Ability to uti liz.e integratioo proacti\"\" religious past learning tecnii.q.es relationships ~ring projectioo 110res -Ability to project -ilecognitioo of self- -U,ique reality -\u0026lt;Dvernne,t -\u0026lt;ri tiquu,g esteem future goe ls/ coping style -11:\u0026gt;litics - 9.Jppor ting objective., -coping with -\u0026lt;:arpeti t ion 1R:ertainty an:! -f'edia cooflict -\u0026amp;oronics -Acces rules to persona I gr \"'1th and to soc ia I in-stitutions -Rites of passage 24   Appendix B ~m!ty Pm 11d Qddanoe Callllttee: A \u0026lt;bide for School c.om.elors School counselors have long recognized the need for coommity support in order for their programs to be effective. The ~lete cooperation of the aaninistration and faculty is also necessary. One method of linking the needs of the school and ccmDJnity with the guidance program is through the use of camunity-based guidance camittees. Such coomittees have been used successfully by many school programs and promise to be a potential solutioo to many of the problems facing counselors. This dOCI.IDel\"lt cootains important information for counselors atteq,ting to develop a guidance camittee. What is! guidance ccmnittee?  A guidance comnittee is ~ed of key l.aypen,ons and educators ~ provide lines of camunication bet\"Ween the school and the cOllll1Jl'lity, thereby assisting the COLnSelor in wilding sound programs based upon student needs and camunity needs. There are at least~ major types of guidance ccmnittees. Smaller school districts may have one type, \\olhile larger districts might possibly have both. The first type of a guidance c00111ittee is a cauprehensive district-wide com:nittee. The second type is a wilding (school) level cxmnittee. The makeup of both C01J111ittees \"'1ld be similar, including teachers, a!ininistrators, parents, representatives of b.lsiness and industry, and students  What is the purpose of~ guidance camittee? The primary ?J.rpose of a guidance coomittee is to do what cannot be dooe effectively by the guidance staff alone. The CXX11Dittee seeks to emphasize the creation of a program that constantly strives to better serve the student, teachers, parent and school administration, as well as the coom.mity. The cannittee extends the arms of the guidance pi.-ogram into the school and the COIIIJU'lity, expands the potential for a greater production of ideas and resoorces, and increases the mnber of workers and leaders available to carry rut programs and projects. Since the COOJDittee is ~sed of a variety of interest groups, it serves to keep the lines of camunication open between these groups and the school. The use of a guidance comDittee should result in a rwre active and productive guidance program. How can! guidance camittee help school counselors? Guidance camittees can help counselors to effectively meet the needs of students in many ways. A guidance comnittee can uniquely solve problems that a counselor might be unable to on his/her own. It can be very helpful in keeping a guidance program current, monitoring new camunity trends and other local needs. It provides advice and counsel regarding the development and maintenance of meaningful programs. The C01111ittee can help develop rationale for new and expanded career guidance programs. It can develop a line of support for the counselor both within and wi.thoot the school, providing assistance in the area of public rel.ations--getting infonnation aboot the program to the media, sclx\u0026gt;ol patrons and the rest of the camunity. The members of the caJJDittee can provide liaison, with coorruni.ty leaders, professionals or 0rganizations \\olhich can assist in meeting the objectives of the guidance ~rogram. 25 Appendix B (continued) The guidance C0111Dittee serves to iq\u0026gt;rove channels of C0lllll.ll'licatia, between the camunity to the guidance staff. It can help transmit infomation about the services and contributions of the guidance program. Leadership for varirus  guidance projects, such as a career day, can result from the work of guidance coanittees. The guidance C011111ittee serves as an instnnent for developing a greater awareness of the need for aCCOlrltability--encouraging and assisting the continuous evaluatioo of the guidance program. The guidance C0111Dittee can aid the guidance staff in the developnent of a cauprehensive plan for guidance in the school a:rv:J/or district by assisting the counselors with conducting needs assessments, writing objectives and in plaming for program evaluation. By having the broad base a comnittee provides, guidance programs can becane roore respoosive and accountable to all the publics they serve. \\illo should be included in the coanittee? \\ollile there is no single set of criteria for the sel~ction of camnittee members, reasons for selection should include: personal interest in the effectiveness of the guidance progran they will be advising, available time to attend scheduled and special meetings in order to carry out camittee business and respoosibilities, and a general willingness to provide counsel in a manner that will support the general guidance needs of all students rather than the special interests of specific cx:mnittee members. f.ertain me!llbers of the camiittee may be chosen for their expertise in certain are.as such as testing, social work or personlel worlc as the need arises. As stated above, the size and ~ition of coamittees will vary according to type and size of the school or district served. For example, a K-6 elementary school guidance camittee could include a primary and intennediate  level teacher, the principal ard/or assistant principal, parents of both I. primary and intermediate level children, representatives fran local business and industries. Additionally, other pupil persomel service groups, junior high counselors, social welfare or mental health agencies could also be represented. Secondary level ccmnittees will have similar caupositioos and might also include representatives of postsecondary institutions within the COUIJlll'lity. The size of tOOSt school comnittees ranges frooi eight to 12 members. District level comnittees often include one counselor fran each level (or all if a small district), the district's director of guidance (or \u0026amp;binistrator in charge of guidance), a principal ft\"OOI each level, a teacher frcn each level, parents, students, representatives of business or industry, other pupil personnel groups and members of social action or mental health agencies. Additionally, local colleges and military recruiters might have representatives on the coomittee. If the district is in a faming ccmiunity, at least one farmer should be included in the camnittee. If there is a da!linant industry in that ccmamity, a representative of that industry should be included in the comnittee membership. The size of a district coamittee could range fran about eight in a very small district to over 20 in a large district. The building level guidance ccmnittee should be appointed by the principal with input frcn the guidance staff, loihi le district level guidance C001Dittees are appointed by the superintendent with input from the director of guidance  26    Append ix 8 (continued) The coomittee should then elect a chairperson fran its lay membership. The ~election of the chairperson is very critical, as this person will work very closely with the guidance staff and a\u0026lt;hinistration in planning the 1o0rk of the CO'llllittee. The school's COU'lSelor or the district's director of guidance will serve as an a-officio secretary to supervise the preparation of minutes, correspondence, etc. What is the counselor's role in the camiittee's operation? The recognized need for a guidance comnittee, the approval for developing a guidance conmittee and the selection of members to the guidance ccmnittee should orginate frOOl the counselors or professional staff of the school. The guidance comnittee will need help in its efforts to locate, define, clarify and select areas of need that can be trans lated into objectives, goals, programs and projects. The cau:nittee wi 11 need assistance in bringing together materials and resources available to the ccmnittee in pursuing program objectives and in developing techniques for evaluating its 1o0rk. As ex-officio secretary of the coamittee, the counselor 111lSt provide this support to the camiittee. The guidance staff ID.l8t take the initiative in developing a cohesive group in which the participation of all members is desired and sought. The counselors ID.JSt also be prepared to assume the responsibility for the actions of the comnittee, the direction in which it goes and intensity with which it pursues a goal. The staff llllSt provide clerical, mailing and other support services for the camiittee. How are meetings scheduled and conducted? At. least NO full coomittee meetings should be held per year with the counselors aoo/or the camiittee having the option of calling mre if needed. Generally, each meeting should have a specific agenda. The counselors in consultation with the chairperson should set the agenda for each meeting. Generally, the first meeting of the year should include an orientation to the school guidance program. Other meetings should address various program needs aoo projects. Finally, this should be a 1o0rking comnittee. ththing can cut short the enthusiasm of the members than to be a part of a non-functioning, \"in-nameonly\" carmittee. Members of the CC111Dittee should be recognized for their contributions publicly. News releases can help give the needed publicity to the comnittee -urk. \"'1hat are~ problems associated with the use of guidance caxmittees? Qiidance comnittees do not always function smoothly. Some coom:,n problems associated with the use of comnittees often include a tendency to want to set policy rather than assist, a lack of understanding of the total functioning of a school, a lack of perspective, an inability to see the program as a whole. The consunption of staff time in providing materials for the C01DJ1ittee, preparing for mailings, preparing minutes and writing reports can also be a problem  27 Appendix 8 (continued) Good selection procedures and orientation are the best way to overcane these probl~. The administrators and counselors are employees of the board  of education. They should listen very carefully to their coamittee, but not sucCUDb to bad advice. They tD.JSt take responsibility for helping the coomittee understand and adhere to board policies, remembering that an advisory coarnittee is siq\u0026gt;ly what the name suggests--advisory. Their function is to help provide accountability and camunity feedback to the progrm. The school is responsible for hearing the camittee's advice and honesty and openly weighing that advice in light of current constraints, resources, etc. 28     Appendix C NIDllCAN saDI. \u0026lt;XINiEUlt ASSCX:IATI\u0026lt;JC (ASCA) PelilTI\u0026lt;JC STATIN!N'l' 1he School Con,e lor md the Qddance and Comselq Plogr. Intrcxb:tim This position of the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) describes the elements of a caoprehensive and developmental guidance and counseling program and the criteria upon which the quantity and responsibilities of qualified, differentiated staff members is based. lhe ASCA statements of counseling role and function for the elementary, middle/ junior high, secondary and postsecondary settings are an integral part of the design and implementation of guidance and counseling programs. fhi~ ''\\,h\n:) am I?\" \"who can I becaoe as a person?\" and \"HcM can I best contribute to society?\" are questions which quidance and crunseling programs help all individuals to answer. In their design and operation, guidance and counseling programs exist to i~rove the learning enviroroent by involving students, staff, parents, C001Il.111ity and others who influence the learning and development of the persons served by the program. Through individual and group contacts over a period of time, the counselor has a major role in helping all persons develop more adequate and realistic concepts of themselves, becane aware of educational and occupational opportunities and integrate their understanding of self and opportunities in making informed decisions. PrugtM Galls A guidance and counseling program provides for direct involvement of a service to students, staff and coom.mity in order to facilitate achievement of the following program goals. Assists persons in developing: 1. A better understanding and acceptance of themselves\ntheir strengths and limitations\naptitudes, needs, values, interests and worth as unique individuals\n2. Interpersonal relationships on the basis of ID.ltual respect\n3. Problem solving and decision making\n4. Accepting increased responsibility for their educational, occupational and avocational development. Standards These standards are set forth in a manner which allows local school districts, institutions, agencies and others to design and implement guidance and counseling programs consistent with the unique needs found within each setting. 29 Append ix C ( cont irrued) Ptc.t 1. There is a written guidance curriculLDD developed by counselors and with  the involvement of appropriate others, specifying the overall guidance and counseling program as it involves and relates to the needs of the person in the school, institution, agency and c00111.J11ity. 2. The basic program of guidance and coLD1seling involves the process of consulting, providing information and coordinating services for all students. The program is ccq\u0026gt;rehens i ve, deve lo?J)!1ta l and is imp lenented through the guidance curricultn and through specialized approaches. Orientation, information, appraisal, placement, follow-up, follow-through, referral and research activities are included in the program. 3. There is evidence that all persons throughout the school, institution, agency and coomJ11ity have on-going opportunity to par t icipate in the guidance and counseling program. 4. There is evidence that the guidance and counseling program is systematically planned, i~lemented and evaluated. 5. There is evidence that the guidance and counseling program may be continued on an extended basis during periods -.hen classes are not in session as deemed appropriate for each school district, institution or agency. \\.,hen each school district, institutioo or agency deans that these additional services are desired, counselors should be appropriately compensated. 6. The guidance and counseling program should be cCllmll\"lity oriented. If  services are to be provided to preschoolers, dropouts, graduates and other , coom.mity citizens, additional staffing needs to be provided. 7. CcA.Jnselor-taught or initiated LD1its in decision making, values clarification, career planning, test taking/study skills and/or similar tD1its are offered. 8. The guidance and counseling program serves three-to five-year-old children and their parents -.here pre-elementary school settings exist and there is an existing elementary guidance and counseling program. 9. The guidance and counseling program provides other innovative service(s) or activities ...tlich are designed to meet lD'lique needs. St:aff ASCA holds the position that appropriate m.lDbers of staff shall be employed to i~lement a guidance and counseling program designed to meet the needs of the persons involved in tne program. There is a direct correlation be~en the quantity and quality of guidance counseling services and the mnber to provide that service. 1. The guidance and counseling staff is qualified and appropriately certified/licensed according to state agency standards. 2. The guidance and counseling staff is responsible for the design, implementation anrl evaluatioo of the services and activities prescribed in the program. 30   Appendix C (continued) 3. Professional, secretarial and/or paraprofessional staff are adequate in rnnbers to meet the objectives of the guidance and counseling program. 4. Provision is made for staff to attend or participate in intra and inter-professional meetings and activities inside and outside the state. Facilities Appropriate and meaningful guidance and counseling activities with individuals and groups take place in a wide variety of settings, the specific environnent often being detemined by circunstances. There are, however, continuing student, program and staff needs in which privacy and confidentiality of conversation and records require specific counseling facilities. 1. Each counselor is provided with pleasant, private quarters conducive to conferences of a confidential nature and adequate in size to accoomodate three to five persons. 2. The counseling facilities are located in an area readily accessible to students and others. 3. Each C01.D1Selor's quarters is equipped with adequate telephone service. 4. A conveniently located area adequate for group guidance and counseling activities is available. 5. Adequate provision is made for the storage and display of all records and materials used by the counselor(s) in carrying out the guidance and counseling program. 6. Career resource center(s) are established and appropriately staffed to facilitate use of career awareness, exploration, planning, preparation and progression of materials, equipment and supplies. Mllt.erlals and Bquii-erit There is adequate budget for purchasing, maintaining and developing the materials and equii:xnent necessary to achieve the objectives of the guidance and counseling program. Adopted 1974\nreviewed and reaffinned 1980\nrevised 1986 31 Appendix D Aaeri.c.an School Comae lor Aeeocf.atiaa (ASCA) Poeltiaa Statment 1he School Colnse lor and lleelopaental Qddanoe Luring recent years a m.nber of counselor educators and school counselors have advanced the proposition that c'JUOseling can and should becooie tD:\u0026gt;re proactive and preventative in its focus and llX)re developmental in its content and process. Viewed in the context of an evolving societal emphasis upon personal growth and an expanding professional expertise , developmental guidance has resulted in a potentially dynamic and prcxnisi~ c1pproach to the helping relationship of the school counselor. The concept of developmental guidance has been discussed under various rubrics, such as (deliberate) psychological education, h\\nan relations training and preventive mental health. Develonental guidance is reaffirmation and actualization of the belief that guidance is for all students and that its purpose is to maximally facilitate personal develonent. Definition  Develonental guidance is that caoponent of all guidance efforts lolhich fosters planned interventioo within educational and other human development . services program.5 at all points in the human life cycle. It vigorously still1llates and actively facilitates the total development of individuals in all areas--personal, social, emotional , career, rooral-ethical, cognitive, aesthetic--and to praoote the integration of the several canponents into an individual lifestyle. fndor8CM!Dt The American School Counselor Association (ASCA) formally endorses, supports and encourages the incorporation of developmental guidance in the role and function of the school counselor. Antee :ecients In the past the role of the schcx\u0026gt;l counselor has suffered Eran the restrictions of historical precedent, philosophical tradition, financial support, achinistrative definition, and counselor selection and preparation. Counselor functions have often been limited to crisis management, adjustment coordinatioo, vocational guidance, and clerical and quasi-administrative tasks. Catalysts Pr~ted by cultural change, progressive philosophy, advancement of knowledge and methodological improvement in the behavioral sciences, a climate of open public discourse, pressures of educational accountability,  institutional ecunanics, and professional survival, the \"traditional\" ~rk of the scl':\u0026gt;ol COLTI\u0026amp;elor is in need of well-seasoned revisioo. 32   Appendix D (continued) Direction If counseling is vie-wed humanistically, holistically and canprehensively--that is, developmentally--then the rationale for develoinental guidance is clearly defined : cOll'lseling should be habilitative as well as rehabilitative, proactive as well as reactive, preventative as well as remedial, skill-additive as well as problem-reductive and characterized by outreach as well as availability. Developmental guidance is the S\\IIIDative terminology which connotes this E!fll)hasis. Specifically, then, developmental guidance refers to the process and content of confluent human development as prOOJOted by planned, ~rposeful and sequential intervention. Content The content of developmental guidance will vary according to the developmental levels, stages and needs of participants\ncounselor carpetence and resources\nand other factors. Examples of programs of contemporary interest include the follOJing: tn.man development (theories, stages, tasks, principles)\ncareer develonent (awareness, exploration, selection, employability skills)\nacademic development (achievement motivation, study skills, test preparation, test wiseness)\ncoom.mication skills\ninterpersonal relations\ndecision making\nvalues clarification\nmarriage and family planning\nparent education\nmoral development\naffective education\nconflict resolution\nleadership training\nassertion training\nrelaxation training\nhuman sexuality\ndrug education\ndeath education\nand situational adjusonent and self-management (divorce adjustment, depression management, weight control, behavior modification). This list is not exhaustive. lntervent: ion Many means and resources for developmental guidance intervention are available, and counselors should select fr\u0026lt;XD among these alternatives according to needs identified in his or her work situation. Examples of means ol:: delivery include : mini-courses, academic release time \"from designated classes for developmental guidance activities, curricular scheduling of guidance activities, extended hours (after school and evening,) and classroan guidance. Ex.:uq:\u0026gt;les of techniques and resources include : resource centers and libraries\nprogramned texts and workbooks\nco-facilitation and consultation with teachers\nparaprofessionals, peer counselors, and others\ncounseling and educational kits\ncurricular aids, media, bibliotherapy, cinematherapy\ncontracting\nand experiential education. Examples of strategies include : direct service delivery, consultation, team teaching, peer facilitating and paraprofessional counseling. Medi.ta of Delivery In terms of efficiency, as well as effectiveness, group approaches are the preferred medium of delivery for developmental guidance activities. By definition, \"group\" refers to a natural or created cluster of individuals, as small in mnber as two or of lD'llimited size. The clusters may be identified as families, cl.assror:xns and grades, employees, clients or other canposites of persons who cane together as a result of shared need or purpose, COIIIDOn attributes and/or other coincident characteristics. 33 Appendix D (continued) COllpeteocies Essential preparation for develo.xnental guidance intervention involves a  thorough understanding of hunan development (descriptive and theoretical)\nknowledge of counseling t,heory and pr act ice\ncaupetence in COLD1Seling techniques and group processes\nskill in program develo.xnent and management\nassessment, appraisal and diagnostic skills based on developmental concepts\npractical canpetence in basic statistics, applied research and program evaluation methods\nand specific knowledge in the area of developmental emphasis. The ca.mselor should be personally effective and comfortable in all areas in which developmental guidance intervention is offered. Develo(Xl)ental guidance specialists llJJSt, at a minillUD, be able to effectively deal with questions such as : what are the general characteristics, expectations, tasks and behaviors of individuals at this state of development? What are this individual's characteristics , expectat i ::x-1s , tasks and behaviors? What can impede the process of develo(Xl)ent for thi_s individual? \\oh.at will facilitate the process of develofXl)ent for this individual? Because the emphasis oo develo(Xl)ental guidance is fairly new, cCU1Selor educators may need to roodify the counselor education curriculum in order to prepare ca.mseling students as proficient developmental interventionists. Because such an approach has often been taught as an ideal rather than as reality, as an attitude instead of a skill, counselor educators may be required to further develop their educative role. Counseling students should seek to add the skills of develo(Xl)ental guidance intervention to their repertoire--if necessary, through adjuncts and (. _.. alternatives to the usual counselor education curricula. Practicing counselors ~ _ whose programs did not include developmental guidance coo:iponents should seek to acquire the skills of develoixrental guidance intervention as part of their professional renewal efforts . The developmental guidance counselor should be involved in a continuing program of professional improvement in developmental guidance expertise and strategies. ~tencies may be acquired. maintained and improved through a variety of means, for example, graduate study, loQrkshops, institutes and seminars, meetings and programs of professional associations, self-study of journals, contemporary texts and instructional manuals, in-service education, continuing and extended education, inteniships, and consultation. Iaplemntatial Many administrators, teachers, other school personnel, students and parents will be unaccustomed to the concept, intent and outcane of develofXl)ental guidance\ntherefore, the counselor's competence nust be visible\nprogram develoinei,t and planning thorough\nrationale for programs convincing\nconduct of procedures professional\nand programs ~ured, evaluated and reported effectively, both formally and informally. Implementation strategies for the initiation of develofXDental guidance will  require both asfertiveness and ingenuity. The entire guidance coommity, ASCA and its constitue:-.t organizations should strive to loQrk in harroony to facilitate th2 i~lementatim of developmental guidance programs.   Appendix D (continued) The true impact of the develOfOental guidance concept loses meaning when discussed as a lofty goal, abstract concept or as an isolated piece of rhetoric. For the concept of a sequential and develoinental guidance program to be truly meaningful to both the professional staff as well as parents and students, it tDJSt be part of a c~rehensive K-12 guidance plan. A plan which states its aims in measurable outcomes for all students, specific activities and a built-in evaluation procedure with provisions for necessary annual revisions. ' There is a necessity for some fonn of needs assessment which addresses the legitimate needs of the entire school cOOJru11ity. The counselor needs to be realistic in evaluating time and fiscal parameters. A curriculum for each grade level or special area is then developed, implemented, assessed and revised annually. In-service education needs to be considered when necessary. School counselors need to develop their abilities to teach the attitudes necessary to enhance the academic success of their counselees\ni.e., for a student to succeed in geooietry, the student needs more than the usual mathematical concepts. In addition, they need to deal with structure, boredan, intimidation and frustration. The plan should be presented to the appropriate educational agency for adoption. The effects of a written ~rehensive K-12 guidance plan helps the consumer to realistically become aware of the goals, objectives and true roles of their local guidance department. Cbidelines There are several general principles which should help insure quality and effectiveness in the implementatiCl1 of develoinental guidance: 1. The program should be systematic, sequential and cauprehensive. 2. The program should be jointly founded upon developmental psychology, educational philosophy and counseling methodology. 3. Both process and product (of the program itself and the individuals in it) should be stressed. 4. All the personal dooiains--cognitive, affective, behavioral, experiential and envirorniental--should be emphasized. 5. Programs should emphasize preparation for the future and consolidation of the present. 6. Individualization and transfer of learning should be central to program procedure and method. 7. Evaluation and corrective feedback are essential. Adopted, 1978\nreviewed and revised 1984 35 Appendix E DRZS Kit llBlrlfYDI\nRliSl.BLI QWII Ol PlN\u0026gt;UE taK:1.ESIN!llrATICB Printed Sources Amual Register of Grant Support: A Directory of 1'\\nU.~ Sources. Qdcago: Marquis Profealonal fublicatlone. 1985. Contains large section oo grants in education (pp. 4fJ7-67) in the areas of: Educational Projects and Research, General\nElementary and Secondary \u0026amp;iucation\nHigher Edur....ation Projects and Research\nand Scoolar Aid Programs. Also lists funding sources ifl th..? broad areas of: Humanities, International Affairs and Are.a Studies\nSpecial Populations\nScience\nSocial Sciences\nPhysical Sciences\nLife Sciences\nand Technology and Industry. 'Die Fomdatioo Directory. New Yodt: 1be Fcamdation Center. 1985. Standard source for identifying foundations\narranged by state, and indexed by foundation name, geographic areas of funding, types of support , and subject. 'lbe 1983-84 ~ of Grant Halting Fcamdations With Aaaets of Over $1.000.000 or Grants of \u0026lt;\u0026gt;Yer $100,000. Harteda.le. NY: Public Service Materials Center, 1982. Surveys principal f~dations in tenn.5 of : when to apply for grants, geographic restrictioos, how to apply for funds, in lolhat fields grants are awarded, and prospects for funding. \\here laeric.a's Large F\u0026lt;ll.Ddatioos Hake 'Ibeir Grmts. 8art:9dale, NY: fublic Service NaterW.a Center. 'This is the !IX)St ccxq:\u0026gt;lete representative record ever published giving the specifics of grant-making by leading foundations in this COlD1try. Includes over 650 foundations in every part of the natioo, most with assets of $10,000,000 or more.\" How to Write Soccessful Corporate Appeals. With Pull ~les. 8artadale, NY: Public Service Nateriala Center. \"James Sinclair, a leading authority on corporate fund raising, opens his   files to reveal all his secrets of writing successful appeals to  corporations--and provides you with an extraordinary range of grant\nnnring samples.\" 36    Appendix E (continued) 'Die Cmpl.eb! Qri.de To Corporate 11\\ni la.laing. Hartedale, NY: Public Service Hatertal.s c.enter  \"To begin with, this book is a superb technical manual. You will never again wooder how or ~t you should do to win corporate support. Special sections of the book tell you how to raise corporate funds if you are a l.D'liversity or hospital, a rultural institution, an advocacy organization, social service agency, or smaller institution.\" 1he Corporate Fmd Ra.is~ Directory. Hartsdale, NY: Public Service Materials r.enter. \"Now accurate up-to-date inforamtion is available on the huge $3.5 billioo grant-making program o~ America's top corporations. Here you can find out ..iho to approach at e.ach corporation, primary areas of giving, typical grants, special insights and other vital information.\" New Ways to Saroeed With Fa.niatims: A Qlide for the Reagarl Years. Hartadale, Ill: Public Service Nateriala Cent.er. \"Joseph Deamer has written an important new book designed to help nonprofit organizations not only survive the Reagan years, rut to grow stronger through increased foundation support. le is the first book that provides specific strategies for different ncnprofit institutioos to understand during the next two years in approaching foundations.\" Holl To Ge(: GoYenaent Grant.e. Hartsdal.e, NY: Public Service Hatertal.s Center. . \"Finally, there is a book describing in simple, straight forward language how yCA.Ir institution should go aboJt securing govetTeOtal grants--fran yCA.Ir first organizational step to the final accounting of how your institution spent the funds.\" Federal Ft.ming Glide for Kle.entary aid Secxndary ll'docatioo. ~. OC: Fd.JcatiM Ptmd~ Research Cancll, 1980. Provides overview of the Department of I-.:ducatioo and federal aid to education in general, as well as new eligibility requirements and 1980 budget allocations. ' Federal aid programs are divided into broad areas: educationally disadvantaged children, impact, vocational educatioo, cultural programs, shared revenues, etc. 1he Casebook: Aid-To-Mlcatioo Prugnw of Lead~ Business Q:ocems. New Yorlt: C-Oic,cf 1 for 1\"'1rwrfa1 Aid to \u0026amp;tocatian, 1978. M cngoing report that ~iles details on the aid-to-education activities of saDe corporations active in this field that are willing to let others know lolhat types of programs they support and how. 37 Append ix E ( cont irrued) EUil PlinUng Soun:es lll!lillletter. lboeob:~ Willi.a and Betty Wil.aan, 1978-~t:e. K:,nthly reference newsletter for elementary, secondary and special education, with infomation en federal, state, f~tion and corporate grants. Fomdatim Ji'tnd ntalJI: A Chide for Grantseeken. New Yorlt: 'lhe li'omdet ian Center, 1981 . Qiide by Carol M. Kurzig, designed to help both novice and experienced grantseekers beccme more familiar with the 1oK\u0026gt;rld of tcuidations. Goverrment Docunents Catalog of Federal Donx\u0026gt;estic Assistance (annual). Federal Grants and Contracts Weekly. Catalog of Federal Education Assistance Programs (1980). ED 1.29:980 Application for Grants Under Training Personnel for the Education of the Handicapped. ED 1.2 :T 68/5 Instructions and Application for Grants Under the Special Needs Program. ED 1.2:SP 3/2 Application for Grants Under the Secretary's Discretionary Program. ED 1.2:SE 2/986 Application for Grants Under Secondary Education and Transitional Services for Handicapped You th. ED 1.2:SE 1/986 Application for Grants Under the Secretary's Discretionary Program for Mathematics, Science, Canputer Leaming and Critical Foreign Languages. ED 1.2:M 42/2/986 Application for Grants Under Magnet Schools Assistance Program. ED 1.2:M 27/986 Application for Grants Lnder Handicapped Oli ldren 's F.arly Education Program, Demonstration and Auxiliary Activities Projects. ED 1.2:H 19/5 Application for Grants Under the Endc:MDE!S1t Grant Program. ED 1.2:~ 2/3   Application for Grants. Supplemental Funds Program for Cooperative FAfucation.  ED 1.2:C 78/3 ... Application for Granes Under the Cooperat ~ve Education Program. ED 1.2:C 78/2 )8    Append ix E (continued) On-line Sources Fomdatioo Di.rectory. On-line equivalent of the hard copy directory. Fomdatim Gamts ID:ies. Contains information on grants awarded by more than 400 major American philanthropic foundations, representing all records fran the Fc,.mdation Grants Index section of the bimonthly Foondation News. QWIIS. Source to more than 4,000 grants offered by federal, state and local goverrments, comnercial organizations, associations, and private foundations. All grants included carry application deadlines up to six months ahead. Mat ional Fomdat ions. Provides records of all 22,100 lhited States foundations liolhich award grants, regardless of the assets of the foundation. Many smaller funding sources not listed in the Foundations Directory may be found here. Other Sources of Information Federal Infonnatioo Centers U.S. General Services Administration 18th and F Sts., N.W. Washington, OC 20405 (202) 566-1937 The Foundation Center 888 7th Ave. New York, NY 10106 (212) 975-1120 (800) 424-9836 39 Appendix F ODD SIJRZS CW QWll'S AND Plll\u0026gt;DE Address Rockefeller Foundation 308 East Eighth St. Little Rock, AR 72202 (S01) 376-6854 The American Association for Counseling and Develoixnent FOlD'ldation 5999 Stevenson Ave. Alexandria, VA 22304 Arkansas State Recognition Program Arkansas Department of Education Career Education Mini-Grants Arkansas Department of Education Carnegie Corporation of New York 437 Madisoo Ave. New York, NY 10022 (212) 371-3200 The Field Foundation, Inc. 100 East 85th St. New York, NY 10028 (212) 535-9915 William T. Grant Foundation 919 Third Ave. New York, NY 10022 (212) 752-0071 lttleson Foundation, Inc. 14 East 60th St., Suite 704 New York, NY 10022 (212) 838-S010 W.K. Kellogg Foundation 235 Porter St. Battle Creek, Ml 49016 (616) 966-2000 The Ford Foundation 320 East 43rd St. New York, NY 10017 Deadline Four Times a Year Dec. ,Mar. ,June,Sept. Decenber February Spring All Year All Year All Year All Year Early Fall Spring and Fall Additional infonnation is available in The Foundation Directory available in most public libraries. 40       Appendix G PINliOO Ml\u0026gt; KVALLII\\Tl\u0026lt;lt RISlRJlS Collison, B. B. Needs assessment for guidance program planning: a procedure. The School Counselor, November 1982, 30(2), ~15-21. Conducting ~ Needs Assessment. Highlights .. an ERIC/CAPS Fact Sheet. Ann Arbor, MI: ERIC/CAPS, 1982. Dameron, J. D., ed. The Professional Colmselor: Callpetencies, Performance Guidelines and Assessment. Alexandria. VA: AA.CD, 1980. Diamcnd, E. E. Development of the Joint Camiittee Standards for evaluations of educational programs, projects and materials. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Develof:CDE.Ot, July 1985, 18(2), 51-57. F.pperson, D. L. and Pecnik, J. A. Counselor Rating Form--short version : further validation and cooiparison to the long form. Journal of Counseling Psychology, January 1985, Bill, 143-6. Hayden, C. and Pohlmann, N. Accountability and evaluation : necessary for the survival of guidance programs? NASSP Bulletin, October 1981, 66(447), 29-33. Healy, C. C. suggestions. Formative evaluation in career education : problems and Jrurnal of Career Education, December 1982, 9(2), 134-4U. Kelly, F. R., Jr. and Ferguson , D. G. Elementary scrool guidance needs asssessment : a field-tested rocx:lel. Elementary School GJidance and Counseling, February 1984, .!!Ll2_, 176-80. Lewis, J. D. Q.i idance program evaluation : how to do it. The School Colmselor, November 1983, l!..Q.2_, 111-9. Lanbana, J. H. Q.iidance accountability: a new look at an old problem. The School Counselor, Hay 1985, 32(5), 340-6. Maher, C. A. and Bennett, R. E. Planning and Evaluating Special Education Services. EnglE.\"wOOCl Clitfs, NJ : ?rentice-ltiil, 1984 . 4 I Appendix G (continued) Matczynski, T. J. and Rogus, J. Needs assessment: a means to clarify the goals  of secondary schools. rwiSP Bulletin, January 1985, 69(477), 34-40. Wiggins, J. D. Steps to take in evaluating a school's guidance program. NA.SSP Bulletin, October 1981, 66(447), 29-33. Wysong, H. E. Needs Assessment in Counseling Qiidance, and Personnel Services. Searcii!Ight bibliograpny. Ann Harli:\u0026gt;r, Ml: ElUC/CAPS, 1983. A Qiide for the Development of a Counselor Evaluatioo Plan, ASCA, 1981. 42   a Care Paekage for ne-w  eletnentarY, counselors Indiana Department of Education Division of IIuman SerYiccs / Pupil Personnd Services October, 1984 A \"CARE PACKAGE\" fOR NEW ELEMENTARY COUNSELORS Every counselor at one time or another is a \"new\" counselor. ft may he that very first counseling joh or it may be a new school assir.nment that the corporation has maJe. Maybe it's a new job in a Ji ffercnt school system or another state and maybe it's the request o[ the counselor to experience a different school setting or n Jifferent counseling situation. And maybe it's the beginning o [ a ne,, program in a corpora ti on that has never had an elementary counselor. No matter what the reason, there will be a time and maybe several times when a counselor is given the task of establishing a new counseling program in a school. It's an exciting time, challenging the counselor to use every possible resource to communicate to his/her public the role of the counselor. To assist elementary counselors in this responsibility, the following \"Care Package\" has been developed. Although there arc numerous ways to communicate this information, the purpose of the \"Care Package\" is r.o provide samples of ideas and methods for establishing the role of the counselor. Classroom guidance presentations, letters and suggestions are included along with a step-by-step plan for organizing the counseling program. Improvising anJ adapting this package with the counselors own skills, abilities, and resources is both expected and encouraged. Sections: I. 11:-ive a Statement [I. In the Beginning 11 I. .rust [or Kids IV. Communicating with Parents V. ~lanaging and Organizing Your Time 1 SECTION I !lave a Statement: rrom this section one should be able to answer two basic quest ions. \"Why have an elementary gui\u0026lt;lance program?\" and \"\\'Jhat docs an elementary counselor do 7 \" It is valuable for administrators in every school corporation to have a written statement answering those two most basic questions. Rationale Philosophy Objectives Role Goals function o matter what words one wants to use to answer these questions, these samples of how others have handled the task might be helpful. Included are: A. Counselor Education Program Objectives B. Statements from House of Representative Bill S477 - September 28, 1979 C. American School Counselor Association's Position !'aper D. A school corporation's program description 2 - COUNSELOR EDU CATI ON PROGRAM OBJECTIVES FOR THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COUNSELOR (TENTATIVE) Nelson and Segrist Purdue University In preparation for counseling and guidance activities, the counselor reaches out toward children: a. Talks about his program in classrooms. h. Brings small groups of younger children to his office to familiarize them with the setting and the selfreferral process. c. Develops and maintains friendly, informal contact in such settings as the halls, playground, lunchroom. d. Participates with children in appropriate, informal ways, such as engaging in games with them. The counselor engages in individual counseling: a. h. C. d. e. f. g. h. 1. J . k. l. m. Is informed in the area of counseling theory. Demonstrates use of a variety of counseling approaches. Produces comfort in the child. Arranges a comfortable, familiar environment. Engages the child in discussion of appropriate topics. Encourages the child to discuss his concerns. Facilitates expression by the child. lle1ps the child to understand his concerns and place them into perspective. Confronts the child, as appropriate, about his selfdefeating, inappropriate modes of problem solving. At the same time, provides minimal leads for the child. Helps the child to develop plans for appropriate action. Is alert to the child's avoidance behaviors. Is able to terminate counseling relationships leaving the door open for further discussion. The counselor engages in group counseling and guidance: a. Ts informed in the area of group counseling theory. h. Is able to incorporate different theoretical models. c. Encourages voluntary group formation. d. Arranges the formation of appropriate groups. e. Functions in group formation so that readiness to share is an expectation of group members. f. Helps to develop in the group a \"we\" feeling. g. Helps to develop in the group an expectation that all may help a child and all may receive help. h. Is willing and able to intervene in the interests of developing a setting in which children expect to work on concerns. 1. Is ahle to help the group develop problem solving approaches. J. encourages confidentiality. k. llclps group me:mbers to focus on particular is~ues. 1. Encourages the group to examine its own interactive processes. 3 The counselor consults with teachers, parents, and children: 3. Is informed in the area of consulting theory. h. Inspires confidence in those with whom he consults. c. Demonstrates a willingness to consult with others. \u0026lt;l. Develops a cooperative atmosphere rather than a superior-subordinate relationship. e. runctions so as to elicit teacher, parent, etc., responses toward the child which are enhancing. f. Is willing to make specific suggestions where appropriate. g. Helps teachers and others develop programs to meet the needs of children. h. Is willing and able to confront those using procedures which seem antithetical to progress. 1. Is able to contribute to deeper understanding of children by adults and accepts the need to gain from other adults in his own understanding. J Conducts case conferences relevant to concerns about children. The counselor is a participant in producing change in the school environment: a. Informs himself about the environment. h. Searches out environmental effects upon students. c. Confronts environmental problems as necessary. d. Considers and incorporates changes in his own program where necessary. The counselor engages in research and evaluation: a. Seek-\nto determine the effects of his own program. h. Seeks to determine the problems affecting students and teachers. c. Seeks to understand the specific setting in which he is involved. cl. Designs experimental programs and determines their effects. The counselor understands human behavior: a. Is informed in the area of human behavior. h. Observes children in varied settings. c. Ts aware of physical and developmental differences. d. Ts aware of hierarchical differences in children's needs. e. rits his understandings and his approaches together. f. Is aware of situational (home, school, neighborhood) effects on the child. The counselor respects others: a. Iloes not manipulate against others. h. Involves others in decisions relevant to them. c. Encourages the confrontation of issues hy those affected. d. racilitatcs genuineness in others. 4 The counselor in his own person: a. Demonstrates that he accepts and respects himself. h. Is aware of his own needs. c. Is engaged in coping with his own needs. \u0026lt;l. functions in ways which demonstrate openness, honesty, and genuineness. e. Is courageous. f. Is alert and well informed. g. Is sensitive to others, aware of both verbal and non-verbal components of behavior. h. Is a responsive human being. 1. Is a potent being. The counselor understands basic principals of education: a. Is an informed student of principles of education. b. Considers individual differences. c. Respects the values of helping relationships. d. Is aware of the values of openness and honesty. e. Understands developmental processes of early and middle childhood. f. Understands the elementary school as a social system. 5 ELEMENTARY GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING SERVICES l\u0026lt;J\\TTONJ\\LF I . The elementary school of today is no longer protected and isolated from society 's problems and concerns, rather, it has hecome a setting where the early symptoms of these problems are being displayed. 2. Elementary school children arc, therefore, increasingly vulnerable to these external pressures as they attempt to acquire personal and social skills in addition to academic competencies. :S. Early symptoms of these pressures are underachievement, school disinterest, classroom disruption, and truancy which result in acute societal and economic burdens. 4. Without early and appropriate intervention, these pressures arc manifested as juvenile delinquency, substance abuse, school vandalism, failure, and the loss to society of s. fully functioning and competent adult members. l11 no other setting is the establishment of a foundation for self-discipline and positive mental health more critical. It is here that school children absorb and adopt views related to human and societal values, attitudes toward self, work, antl toward individuals from other cultures and ethnic origins. 6. Positive learning environments for children require a comprehensive coordinated effort of the school, the home and the community. The elementary school counselor is a professional uniquely qualified to facilitate such cooperative efforts witl1in an established guidance and counseling program. ROLE The role of the guidance counselor is to assure the accessibility of developmental guidance and counseling to all children of elementary school age by establishing comprehensive guidance pro grams . Implementation of these programs is to be performed hy a ce rtified elementary school counselor. 1. Counseling in groups and individually, with all children to\n1ss1st them in school and life adjustment tasks\ne.g., helping them learn to make choices and to accept responsibility for choi ces made, learning to solve their own problems, developing positive attitudes, values, and work habits, acquiring basic un\u0026lt;lcrstandings of the world of work, increasing their human relations skills, and learning to make reasoned adjustments to the demands and responsibilities associated with family, school and community membership. 6 2. Consulting with teachers, parents, educational specialists, administrators, community members, and others to establish and maintain the best possible environment for learning and personal growth. 3. Coordinating school and community resources in behalf of all children, including those whose special needs require additional and unique services, such as handicapped, gifted and talented, learning disabled, limited English-speaking, economically disadvantaged, and culturally different. FUNCTION Counselor functions would also include, but not be limited to the following activities: 1. Recognizing early indications of social maladjustment, child abuse and neglect, and other physical and emotional problems requiring immediate intervention and appropriate referral services. 2. Providing information leading to the reduction of racial and ethnic prejudices, sex-role stereotyping, and an increased regard for the worth and dignity of all individuals. 3. Conducting classroom guidance sessions for children in areas of citizenship, interpersonal skills, improved study habits, meaningful use of leisure time, impact of one's behavior on others, self-management, effective use and the conservation of natural resources. 4. Providing teachers with assistance concerning an individual student. 5. Conducting teacher discussion groups on classroom management techniques, differing learning styles and developmental stages of children. 6. Providing information about the work, ethics, career awareness, and other factors affecting career development, such as the interactions of business, industry, government and labor in the larger society. 7. Conducting family discussion groups on parenting skills, home-school cooperation, and parent-teacher relationships. 8. Coordinating the guidance activities with administrators and other school specialists to assure optimal delivery of guidance services. 9. Coordinating liaison activities between the elementary and middle-school/junior high school settings that assure effective articulation of developmental guidance and counseling services. J 7 TIIE UNIQUE ROLE or TflE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COUNSELOR APGA Position Paper Rationale Consistent with the philosophy of education, elementary school counseling concerns itself with children in the developmental process of maximizing their potential. The elementary counselor works within the educational framework and the child's total environment to enable each child to arrive at an identity and learn to make choices and decisions that lead to effective functioning as a worthwhile being. Particular attention and time need to be given in the educational program of young children to provide training and opportunities to learn decision-making skills. Individuals make the choices and decisions that ultimately determine their behavior and their learning. Elementary school counselors, be cause of their specialized training, provide service and leadership in this area as it is integrated into the total s ci1ool experience. Elementary guidance and counseling builds upon the belief that human beings must have continuous experience of challenge, achievement, and success. The school creates situations in which children find themselves needed and wanted by others. Teachers can demonstrate to pupils that they matter as individuals and are accepted as they are, by their teachers as well as by their peers. The teacher plays the primary role in working with children and the counselor aids the teacher in making education more meaningful to each child with the implementation of an appropriate guidance and counseling program. Oh_jectives As an elementary school guidance and counseling program is composed of more than a professional counselor, it is imperative that our objectives represent all of the various populations. We arc then able to communicate more clearly our responsibilities and goals and the manner in which they relate to the total education and environment of the child. I. For A. l3  C. ]). E. individual children (age-appropriate): To be able to identify themselves by description, likes, dislikes, interests, skills and similar concern. To be able to define their role in the family, school setting, neighborhood, and community. To have a positive feeling of self and be able to verbalize self-feelings in a straightforward, comfortable manner without fear of non-acceptance. To ?e abl~ to_recognize their own shortcomings and accept their l1m1tat1ons, then proceed to work toward improvement as goals are set. To he acceptant of other people and be able to identify and work toward solving conflicts in relationships. 8 F. To feel good about learning and working and, when distress occurs, be able to use appropriate skills of problem-solving and decision-making to reach a level at which they are able to cope. G. 10 ~ave interest in the future and engage in some fantasizing of possible life roles. I!. To have a realistic understanding of the interrelatedness of people and the world of work and services and the part that the child, other members of the family and acquaintances play in it. II. For teachers, administrators, and parents in the child's life: I L I . A. R. C. n. for A. B. C. ll. I:. To understand and accept the child's self-concept and work toward determining with them positive changes\nthen to provide guidance and support as each child endeavors to make those changes. To relate to the child as a worthwhile human being, so that the child can use acceptable and appropriate relationship behavior. To provide teaching, experiences, and opportunities for learning decision-making skills and grant the child the dignity to live with and learn from mistakes without criticism and ridicule, or without \"taking over\" the decision-making. To seek help for themselves when necessary in order to provide the most effective learning environment for the child. the counselor: To be a congruent human being comfortable in both personal and professional life to the extent that the counselor can functLon for the best intercc.t of those served. To accept each person (child and adult), in the professional environment, with all accompanying feelings and behaviors, and help the counselee with unique training and skills to define needs and concerns. To provide the guidance and counseling appropriate and acceptable for the counselee. To be able to identify changes and objectives reached hy counselee and interpret them to others. To serve as an advocate for the child within the adult structure of the school and community. 9 Submitted by: TI PPCCANOE SCHOOL CORPORATION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COUNSELING PROGRAM Marjorie R. Sharples and Kathy Coder Elementary Counselors, Tippecanoe School Corporation September 1980 PHILOSOPHY The main goal of elementary guidance is to assist schools in personalizing and humanizing the educational process for all students. This can be accomplished by helping children better understand themselves and others, and by helping them recognize the opportunities, rcsponsihilities, and choices which education and life provide. fn addition, due to the pressures of an increasingly complex s ociety, children often encounter problems which may require appropriate supplementary adult support. Counselor assistance in early identification of difficulties and early intervention can aid children, parents, and teachers deal with and grow through these experiences. We believe in the importance of the following: - working with and being an advocate for all children, - functioning as team members with children, school personnel, and parents, - recognizing the potential for growth and change, - seeing the elementary school setting as a place where effective living skills can be learned, - valuing the importance of affective learning, and heing flexible enough to meet the needs of children in a particular school setting while utilizing the unique talents of a specific counselor. Tn conclusion, we believe it is important to help children develop\nin appreciation for life in general, and human life in particular, through accepting, understanding, and celebrating themselves and others. We want to help children grow in increa s ingly more satisfying relationships with the world. Elementary guidance is an integral part of the total educational experience. We cannot separate the academic growth from the social emotional growth of the child. The elementary counselor wi11 focus on the total growth potential of each child in the elementary school. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES We sec the elementary counselor's role as part of a team effort involving the student, school personnel, and parents in very interrelated ways. Students are our main concern. They can help themselves and each other in many ways. 10 Our goals with students are: to help children develop a self-awareness, to help children develop a positive self-concept, to help children develop a positive attitude toward school and learning (focus is on topics such as motivation to learn, responsibility for self and to others), to help children develop good relationships with peers, parents, teachers, and siblings, to help children improve their communication skills, to help children develop effective decision-making skills, to help children deal with personal concerns: developmental tasks, crises, school related problems, home concerns, health and physical development, to help children to develop an awareness of the world of work and preparation needed to participate in it, and to ease the transitions between school settings (i.e. mobile students, preschool/kindergarten and elementary/ junior high). Teachers and other school personnel have tremendous influence on the child's school environment. Our goals with school personnel are : to help teachers identify students with special needs and abilities, to help teachers with classroom management, to be aware of teachers' needs and provide support individually and collectively through inservice training groups, resource papers dealing with teacher concerns, guidance activity ideas, etc., to assist teachers with affective education and career education, to participate in curriculum development and evaluation when appropriate, to help teachers utilize school and community resources and support personnel (I.E. GLASS, Family Service Agency, Wabash Valley Mental Health Society, etc.). Parents are the third vital part of the guidance team. Our goals with parents are: to help parents understand child growth and development, to foster good home/school cooperation and understanding, to enhance parent/child communication and relationships, to familiarize parents with community resources, and to provide support. 11 _J . ADMINISTRATION OF GUIDANCE PROGRAM In order to function as a guidance team, some coordination an\u0026lt;l administration must take place. Therefore, the elementary counselors will: regularly develop, interpret, implement, and evaluate the guidance activities within TSC elementary schools, interpret the elementary guidance program to the community, initiate and assist in planning a total k-12 guidance program, be knowledgeable about and utilize community resources, plan and carry out an ongoing evaluation of the elementary guidance program using input from students, parents, teachers, and other school personnel, be aware of available guidance materials and be able to evaluate their quality and usefulness in our guidance program, and he accountable for the use of their time by keeping records of their activities and regulary sharing these records with administrators. COUNSELOR ACTIVITIES To accomplish these objectives, counselor methods and activities might include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: introductory contacts with all classrooms, individual and group counseling sessions with children, contacted through self referral, teacher, parent, or other referral sources, teacher and parent consultations, classroom observations, classroom guidance activities, career awareness activities with classes, curriculum development and evaluation when appropriate, organizing pupil information so it is more readily usah]c by teachers, parents, and students, (i.e. test results, psychological reports, etc.), teacher inscrvice activities, parent education groups, kindergarten and junior high orientation meetings, consultation with community resources, cooperation with nurses, speech therapists, psychometrists, an\u0026lt;l special teachers to provide coordinated evaluation and services, and serving as a child advocate on various committees within the school system. 12 A. Inservice day hefore the children come to school in the fall, give a presentation to all principals and teachers of all schools. 1. Include a rationale - \"ChanBing Times and the Needs of Society Today.\" 2. Explain the Role - film, \"Developmental Counseling in the Elementary School.\" 3. Recruit an \"expert\" from somewhere else to assist you with this program. (e.g., State Department consultant or a principal from a nearby city who has a counseling program.) B. Initial meeting with principal in your building. l. Talk about your role. 2. Discuss how you would like to explain your role to the staff of the building. 3. Arrange a time to speak at an upcoming staff meeting. 4. Invite him/her to watch the introduction lessons you will be doing with kids. S. Listen carefully to his/her expectations of the role of the counselor. 6. Learn all you can about the special needs and character of your school. C:. l. xplaining your role to teachers. I. Short letter or introduction. 2. Go around the building and visit each teacher 1n his/her classroom. a. Explain role b. Ask for referrals C . Request a time to visit your role to children. with the children will to tc\n-ichcrs.) ~- c\nRJ , Folders. t::::__-, 14 the class to explain (Your activities explain your role t'r\\G...k:'e o.. ~older- -+or eo..c.h ~!c,_c.V\\tr 4. ~ couple of months after starting the program, arrange a time to discuss the program with your teachers. Possibly have the principal lead the discussion. Include the following questions: a. So far, what are some things you like about the guidance program? b. Do you see any potential problems or have any concerns about the program? Is there anything you feel uneasy about or uncertain or need more information? c. What is something you can \u0026lt;lo to help the guidance program grow? 15 \"Si~i\"\\,+1ca.\"-\"t- rc\\~+-ior-csh.,ps.  ~+ct..l\"'+ w ~ i-h. C, t\\ e. ~: tt-\\ e. \\A,JOY\"c:l - H\n\\ 1, l'm very pleased to be a part of this school and am looking forward to meeting each of you! To help you understand my role as your guidance counselor, I've jotted down some ideas about my position. Elementary counseling is classifed by H.E_.W, as a service program and must serve only those children who have been identified through a Title I instructional programs as Title I students. I wi 11 need your help in identifying the Title I children in your room. The next few weeks I'll be asking about a convenient time to come into your class to explain to your children my role as a counselor. I've included a folder with this information as a convenient place to keep your guidance materials. Every now and then you will be receiving information, ideas, and notes from me which I hope will be helpful and useful. /\\gain, yourself to I am excited to be here and hope you will introduce me.f ~ ~~ _ ~~ ~ FACTS ABOUT MY ROLE AS YOUR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL GUIDANCE COUNSELOR: Who- I am an adult friend to children and a resource person for you. llow-r sec children individually, in small groups, and \u0026lt;luring classroom presentations f see children mostly on the basis of self-referral and if you suggest I talk with someone. When- I '11 be at your school 2 \u0026lt;lays a week. Why- I strongly believe ~hildren hcncfit from h:iving an adult friend just to talk with, an\u0026lt;l 1 LIKE children. What- The things I talk about with children include: Self-concept Self-awareness Career awareness Study habits Peer relationships Feelings Concerns from home Attitudes Etc. Where- 16 My room is across the hall near the principal's office. Stop by. SECTION I I I Just for Kids: This i tern in the \"Care Package\" is labeled - \"Just for Kids.\" They arc the reason that all the previous activities have been Jone. All those activities have been setting the stage for the counselor to he able to begin to develop relationships with children in the school. The following lessons are suggestions of ways to introduce the role of the counselor to children. A. K-2 Puppet Talk B. Frog Puppet Show C . Co un s e l or ' s Bag 0 . ? - Role of the Counselor E. Self-Referral Poster F. Coloring Book 17 The second visit to the classrooms should be some kind of a presentation on how to have a classroom discussion. This will give the children an idea of what you expect from them. It will also be modeling for teachers a classroom management technique. rhcse ideas need to be reinforced every time you do a classroom guidance activity for the first few months. /\\. DUSO characters: 1. Don't clam up. 2. Stick to the point. 3. Raise your hand. 4. Listen carefully. 5. Work together. IL Clues to a good classroom discussion (Dr. Linda Myrick) 1. A hand - raise your hand. 2. A mouth - share your ideas. 3. An ear - listen to others. 4. A mouse sitting on a chair - sit as quiet as a mouse. What is this a picture of? How will this help in a discussion? C. Magic Circle rules 18 Introducing the Counselor Grade level: K-2 Materials: an an\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_1148","title":"Little Rock School District's Revised 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":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2006-10-25"],"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's Revised 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/1148"],"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":["407 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.\nCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED OCT 2 7 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S REVISED COMPLIANCE REPORT For its Revised Compliance Report, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This Compliance Report is filed pursuant to paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy contained in this Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion. The reason for revising the Compliance Report is to correctly reflect the fact that school portfolios, as opposed to the district portfolio, have not been implemented in LRSD. The substantive changes from the initial Compliance Report are found in paragraphs eleven through sixteen. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. This Page 1 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 2 of 30 compliance is documented below, as well as in the eight Quarterly Updates which were filed between December 1, 2004 and September 1, 2006, the evaluations of Compass Learning, Smart/Thrive, Reading Recovery and Year-Round Education which were previously filed, and the evaluations of A+, 21 st Century Community Leaming Centers and READ 180 which are filed with this Compliance Report. 3. The progress of LRSD's efforts to comply with the requirement for an eighth step 2 program evaluation, the Pre-K Literacy evaluation, has been shown in LRSD's Quarterly Updates and status reports to the Court. The final evidence of LRSD's compliance with that requirement will be the evaluation itself, which the evaluator, Dr. Ross, expects to have completed on or before November 15, 2006. 4. LRSD will separately describe below its compliance with each of the requirements of the Compliance Remedy except those which set out the responsibilities of the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 5. The requirements of paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy are: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations\nand (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American Page 2 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 3 of 30 students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.\nto have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations\nand to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. 6. LRSD met the requirements of paragraph A by adding to the PRE team three new professionals who have lrnowledge and experience in assessment, evaluation, and statistical analysis. The qualifications of the seven people who were employed by PRE as of November 1, 2004 are shown at pages 3 through 5 of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. The resumes of PRE Director Dr. Karen DeJamette and statisticians Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams are found in Appendix A to the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This highly trained team of professionals has the qualifications required by paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 7. There have been a few changes in personnel since the first Quarterly Update, but PRE has maintained a highly trained team of professionals. Administrative Assistant Irma Shelton took medical leave in May of 2005. The Administrative Assistant position was eliminated on July 1, 2005. Testing Coordinator Yvette Dillingham left PRE in August, 2005. Dr. Ed Williams temporarily assumed her responsibilities until she was replaced in November 2005 Page 3 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 4 of 30 by Arthur Olds. Olds' resume can be found in Appendix A to the March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. As reported in the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, Olds sought reassignment to a teaching possession at Dunbar Magnet Middle School on April 14, 2006. Dr. Williams again temporarily assumed the Testing Coordinator responsibilities. LRSD posted the Testing Coordinator position in June, 2006 and interviews were scheduled for August, 2006. See September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A new testing coordinator, Danyell Cummings was hired October 1, 2006. Her resume is attached as Exhibit A to this Compliance Report. 8. The current PRE staff has all of the qualifications listed in paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD complied with paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 9. The requirements of paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy are: B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Part of LRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive Page 4 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 5 of 30 program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. I suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process\nthen be sure that he approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. 10. LRSD has devised and deeply embedded a comprehensive program assessment process in accordance with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in developing the comprehensive program assessment process. By the time of the first Quarterly Update on December 1, 2004, PRE and Dr. Ross had \"developed and shared with ODM and the Joshua Intervenors a program assessment process to be deeply embedded in LRSD's educational operations.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 6. The final draft of that process is found at Appendix B of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This final draft was furnished to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors more than a month in advance of its consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process has become deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included Page 5 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 6 of 30 the development of a school district portfolio. As part of the process of the development and implementation of the portfolio, four PRE department members attended an institute for data analysis during the summer of 2005, and a consultant \"visited LRSD and reviewed its data collection procedures and resources.\" Id. 12. LRSD has continued to develop the infrastructure to support its comprehensive assessment process. A district portfolio is an important part of this infrastructure. The portfolio will \"allow PRE staff as well as others to more easily analyze data and intersect various types of data sets to answer research questions about comprehensive school improvement efforts.\" December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 13. As of December 1, 2005, PRE had identified the data to be included in the district portfolio and had designed a draft district portfolio. Id. District administrators and principals were making use of the portfolio and steps were being taken \"to allow a more efficient collection of data related to educational processes.\" Id. Dr. Catterall used data from LRSD's portfolio in his step 2 evaluation of the Year-Round Education program. March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 14. The development of the district portfolio is a continual process. As new data becomes available ( e.g. new test results) they are added to the data base. Page 6 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 7 of 30 The infrastructure is in place, and LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolio. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 15. During April of 2006, an expert on school portfolios provided professional development for LRSD principals, administrators, and the PRE staff regarding the creation and use of school portfolios. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD expects to begin the creation of school portfolios during the 2007-08 school year. 16. LRSD has also sought to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process by hiring a consultant, the Janis Group, to help develop a \"data warehouse.\" The Janis Group has \"expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently accessing data.\" March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. The data warehouse will support frequent updates of the portfolio and allow timely data reports for purposes of planning, research, evaluation and developing policy. The data warehouse will allow reports to be generated by program, classroom, school, grade, or districtwide. Id. 17. There was some debate within LRSD about whether to purchase an internet-based data warehouse from a company called TetraData or to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse using the Business Objects software and the database already available to LRSD. LRSD decided, with some Page 7 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 8 of 30 dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. Business Objects is state of the art software which can be effectively used in the assessment of academic programs. The capabilities of the Business Objects data warehouse, including updating and reporting student data, are shown in the \"Business Objects Reporting Tools\" document attached as Exhibit B to this Compliance Report. 18. The process of developing school and district portfolios, and creating a data warehouse, has revealed the need for LRSD to take steps to insure that the data entered into its database is accurate. The accuracy of the data would be a concern whether the district used the Business Objects system, the TetraData system or some other software system. To improve the accuracy of data reporting within LRSD, LRSD has increased the number of \"error checking routines\" in its computer software. LRSD also has a full time training coordinator whose job it is to train school registrars and other LRSD personnel in the proper entry of student data, to work with those people to identify and correct recurring data entry errors, and to generally assure the accuracy and completeness of student data within the LRSD database. The accuracy of the data in LRSD's database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. 19. Finally, as another part of embedding the comprehensive program Page 8 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 9 of 30 assessment process, PRE has designed \"feasible, ongoing assessments of the four programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross subjected to step 2 evaluations last year.\" June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD also plans to have PRE conduct ongoing assessments of the programs currently being evaluated by Drs. Ross and Catterall. 20. LRSD has devised a comprehensive program assessment process as required by paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. That process has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum program. LRSD has complied with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. 21. The requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy are: C. 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. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key  2. 7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2. 7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross -- to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year\nand (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the Page 9 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 10 of 30 step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. 22. In accordance with paragraph C, LRSD hired Dr. Ross to \"identify the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year,\" and to \"prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible.\" 23. Dr. Ross was provided a copy of the Compliance Remedy and he endorsed the first Quarterly Update \"as representing an accurate portrayal of accomplishments to date and a viable plan for addressing the requirements of the Remedy.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, Appendix C (p. 45). Dr. Ross assumed responsibility for preparing six of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations. Three of those cover the 2004-05 school year and were filed on February 6, 2006. Two others are for the 2005-06 school year and will be filed today. The sixth step 2 evaluation being prepared by Dr. Ross, Pre-K Literacy, has been delayed due to the unavailability of necessary data and is expected to be completed no later than November 15, 2006. 24. Two of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations were prepared by Dr. James Catterall. One covered the 2004-05 school year and was filed on Page 10 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 11 of 30 February 6, 2006. The other will be filed today. 25. PRE, in collaboration with Dr. Ross, selected Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, Compass Leaming and Year-Round Education to be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year. December l, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 7-9. Those evaluations have been completed. 26. Dr. Ross initially identified the following four  2.7 programs for step 2 evaluations in the 2005-06 school year: Arkansas A+ School Network\nKnowledgePoints\nPLATO Leaming and Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Development. June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. At the request of the Joshua Intervenors, and with the agreement of Dr. Ross, 21 st Century Community Leaming Centers was substituted for PLATO Leaming as the subject of an evaluation for the 2005- 06 school year. September 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4 and Appendix C, (pp. 19-21 ). KnowledgePoints was also replaced as the subject of evaluation by the READ 180 program because the supplier of KnowledgePoints withdrew its support of the program in Arkansas. December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. 27. Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall possess the experience and ability necessary to prepare the eight required step 2 evaluations. Their qualifications are found in Appendix C to the first Quarterly Update (pp. 46-54). They are both familiar with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy and have agreed to Page 11 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 12 of 30 prepare their evaluations in accordance with those requirements. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. 28. The requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy are: D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations must answer the following essential research question: \"Has the  2.7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district?\" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. 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 hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations\nand (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. 29. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations answers the essential research question of whether the program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations also answers other important research questions. Each is organized and written so that its findings and recommendations can be readily understood by a lay person. In each case, the outside experts and the evaluation teams determined the evaluation design, Page 12 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 13 of 30 including the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data necessary to the utility of each evaluation. 30. PRE has overseen the preparation of all eight step 2 evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and those associated with them, to support their work and provide any and all requested assistance. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp.6-7\nMarch 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 4\nJune 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 5-6\nSeptember 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 6 and Appendix A. LRSD has substantially complied with the requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 31. The requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy are: E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: ( 1) describes the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key  2.7 program being evaluated\n(2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\nand (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2. 7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. 32. In accordance with paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy, each of Page 13 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 14 of 30 the eight step 2 evaluations contains a section concerning data collection which describes the number of teachers and administrators at various grade levels who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the program being evaluated. Each of the eight evaluations also contains recommended program modifications and explains how the recommended modifications can be expected to increase the effectiveness of the program. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 4-5. 33. On April 18, 2006, LRSD convened the four evaluation teams which worked on the 2004-05 evaluations to consider the feasibility and the timeframe for implementing the external evaluators' recommendations. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A summary of LRSD's commitments to the modifications recommended by the external evaluators is found in Appendix A (pp. 7-11) to the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. LRSD will follow the same process of reviewing the evaluators' recommended modifications following receipt of the evaluations for the 2005-06 school year. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy. 34. The requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy are: F. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In Page 14 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 15 of 30 addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31, 2004. 35. In accordance with paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, PRE notified ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations. See June l, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 8. PRE also provided to ODM and Joshua a final draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented to the Board for approval. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 6 and 11. The LRSD Board of - Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004, in advance of the December 31, 2004 deadline. March I, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy. 36. The requirements of paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy are: G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. Page 15 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 16 of 30 37. In accordance with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy, LRSD submitted quarterly written updates to the Court and delivered them to ODM and Joshua on or before December 1, 2004, March 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, September 1, 2005, December 1, 2005, March 1, 2006, June 1, 2006 and September 1, 2006. Those quarterly written updates reported \"the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations\" prepared during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. The quarterly updates also provided information on the status of compliance with other components of the Compliance Remedy. - 38. As soon as the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were completed and approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD provided them to ODM and Joshua. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on October 16, 2006. The fourth will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on or before November 15, 2006. As soon as the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year are approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD will provide final copies of those evaluations to ODM and Joshua. LRSD has complied with paragraph G of Page 16 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 17 of 30 the Compliance Remedy. 39. The requirements of paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy are: J. The four step program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October l, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006. 40. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were filed with the Court on February 6, 2006 in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005- 06 school year will be filed on today in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Dr. Ross requires additional time to complete the Pre-K - Literacy evaluation because of the delayed availability of necessary testing data. LRSD has requested an extension of time for the filing of that step 2 evaluation to and including November 15, 2006, and expects to file that evaluation by that date. LRSD has substantially complied with paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy. 41. The requirements of paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy are: K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. Page 17 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 18 of 30 42. LRSD is filing this Compliance Report on October 16, 2006 in accordance with paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy and the Court's July 12, 2006 letter to the parties (docket no. 4027). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the eight Quarterly Updates which have been filed with the Court, and on the basis of the completion of eight step 2 program evaluations by Drs. Ross and Catterall, LRSD prays for an order finding it to be in substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy contained in the Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion, declaring LRSD to be a unitary school district, and releasing LRSD from all supervision and - monitoring by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Page 18 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 19 of 30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 25, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com i ohnwalkeratty@aol .com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 /s/ Christopher Heller Page 19 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 20 of 30 -----------------~-------------- Career ObJe\\ltlve: Pro!ouionaJ Experimce: 2004-Preseot 1998-Prolont Education: May,2005 Dccombor, 1998 May, 1997 Proteulonally .Related AclJvitla: Danyell Crutchneld Cummlnt1 5 Ben HOi\u0026amp;JI Cove Llttle Rockt ArkaDSU 72210 (501) 407.8497 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven ac\u0026amp;demic and professiODll experience to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for srowth and an opportunif)' to contribute to 1. prosroslivo cducatiooal onviron:mCllt. High Schools That Wotk Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Engliah Tc~hcr ]. A. Fair Symllll Magnet Hiib School Littlo Rock, Arlcanw 72210 Randy Rutherford, Priocip\u0026amp;I Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supetviuoo, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Maler ofBducation, Secondary EdUC\u0026amp;tio11, University of Arbmu at Little Roca: Bachelor of Arts, .English, Univerdty of Arkansas at Little ~k Actina Assistant Prinolpal Section 504 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Slakcboldcr Southern Regional \u0026amp;lucation Board Literacy Team mcrnbcr Teacher of the Year Educational Spcclallst Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 21 of 30 ---- _.. -------- . .-.- ---- ----. -.- -- -------. Refueuca: Linda YO\\IJlg Gntnta Coordinator (501) 447.3372 work (501) 225-5439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Blcmentary (501)447-4300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed,D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 wod: {501) 4070817 homo Sharon Cauley, Ed.D A.5sistant Principal J.A. Fair Systems Megnot High School (S-01) 447-1700 ext. 1710 work (501)~66-6216 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 22 of 30 ---- ---------------------- Career ObJe~tlve: Pr.Cealonal ~erienco: 2004-Present 1998-PRKnt Edll(:ttlon: May,2005 Dectmbor, 1998 May, 1997 Prufeulcmally Rt1atcd ActMtlu: Dallyell Crutchfield Cummlup 5 Bea Hogan Cove LUtle Rock, Arwuu 7l210 (501) 407--8097 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and professional cicpcricnce lo obcain a challenging position as 1111 administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contn'butc to a pl'OjTClsaive educational cnvlromncnt. High Schools That Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Syalcrrui Magnet Hlgb School Little ~0k. Arb.mu 72210 Randy Ruthcdord, Principal English Teacher J. A. Fair Syskins Magnet Hi\u0026amp;h School Littlo Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford. Priucipal Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supemsiotl, University of Arkansas at Little Rook Mas1CII\" ofBducatioa. S:onduy Ea.ioation, U'nivonity of Arlcaasu al Uttlc Rook Bachelor of Art\u0026amp;, English, University of Arlcansa.s at Little Rocle Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Stakeholder Southcm Regional Bducatloo Board Ltter,cy Team rnomber Teacher of' the Year Bduoatlonal Spcclalist Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 23 of 30 __ ........ ----- llaferences: Linda Young Grants Coordinator {501) 447-3372 work {501) 22S-S439 home JmBrooks Principal David O'Dodd Elc:mcntary (,501) 447-4300 WOJX (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax. Ed,D Student Hearing (501) 4473S82 work (501)407.0817 homo Sharon Cauloy, Bd.D Aasistant Principal J.A. Falr S)'ltClllS Ma,snct High School (SOI) 44M700 \"t. 1710 work (SOI) 666-621_6 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 24 of 30 Bl Platform Little Rock School District Business Objects Reporting Tools Business Objects Enterprise is a scalable, adaptive platform that delivers insight and corporate information to all your end users. With a platform designed to help you confidently deploy and manage your Business Intelligence (BI) implementations, Business Objects provides the Little Rock School District with the extreme insight you need to extend your competitive advantage. The BI Platform provides a set of common services to simplify deployment and management ofBI tools, reports, and applications. The reporting system at the Little Rock School District includes information delivery in subject areas including Student Demographics, Student Performance, Budget and Finance, Employee Attendance, Child Nutrition, Human Resources, Accounts Payable, Payroll, Procurement, and Procurement Warehouse, to name a few. Flexible Services...Orlented Platform By building the Little Rock School District's BI solutions with Business Objects Enterprise, we have the flexibility to deploy a solution for a single infonnation chaJlenge, while being able to simultaneously expand the deployment as our needs evolve. Designed for ScalabiUty and High Performance Business Objects Enterprise is designed for scalability, reliability, fault-tolerance, extensibility, and 24n availability. This platfonn recognizes the importance of diverse global deployments, supports Unicode, and is compliant with Microsoft Windows, Sun Solaris, illM AfX, HP-UX, and Linux. So you can start with a single BI project on one platform, and easily grow to support an entelJ)rise-wide standardization initiative on multiple platfonns. With Bl content now being delivered via intranet and extranet, BI platform scalability ls a key issue. Business Objects Enterprise has the scalability you need to accommodate increasing numbers of users, process growing volumes of infonnation, and scale on a single machin~r clusters of machines-while maintaining high performance. Proven RellabUlty This platfonn's key attributes-performance, reliability, and scalability-are proven by extensive, real world testing and third-party certification. Enterprise is the only BI platform to achieve Microsoft Windows 2003 Datacenter certification. Business Objects Enterpris~ covered by a 24/7 technical customer support-has demonstrably installed and run on a 32processor system, remained stable through rigorous stress testing, and stayed available after being subject to extensive failover conditions. We also continually conduct extensive benchmarking and perfonnance testing to ensure our platform .,..~~cal~ c,~ 81 :-::~~m-e_e_tt h_e_n_ccd_s_o_f_th_e_Li_tt1_e_R_oc_k_S_ch_oo_l D_is_tn_c_t_to_d_a_y_an_d_t_o_m_o_rr_o_w_. __~ (. I._ _B EXHJ-BIT--\"] Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 25 of 30 Reporting Fundamentals The fundamental requirements of any reporting system are a normalized database and a reporting tool. Data from disparate systems and formats is collected in a centralized database platform and transformed into a consistent, well organized reporting database. Many reports have been created and delivered from this reporting database using Crystal Reports as the reporting tool. Normalized Data This data, securely housed at the Little Rock School District Technology Center, has been normalized to 3rd nonnal form on a Microsoft SQL Server database server. The original database management software is DB2 residing on an IBM AS/400 application server, which houses a majority of the studentbased data. Other student data resides in Microsoft Access or is provided to the CIS department via Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Automated processes have been developed and scheduled to update the student data nightly, where required. Processes have also been designed and implemented to update data in key financial, human resources and accounting subject areas. Business Objects provides the industry's leading suite of integrated business intelligence products. The products are categorized into three groups: Reportln2 allows all levels of the Little Rock School District to access, format, and deliver data as meaningful infonnation to large populations of information consumers like teachers and school administrators both inside and outside the organization. This is provided through detailed reports created using Crystal Reports and accessed via a web browser using the Business Objects Enterprise Info View application-  Query aad Analysis tools allow end users to interact with District infonnation and answer ad hoc questions, without advanced knowledge of the underlying data sources and structures. This is provided through a product called Web Intelligence or WEBL This allows users to create dynamic reports from their desks with little or no required knowledge of the underlying database schema. Jn-\u0026lt;iepth analysis is performed using OLAP Intelligence, a powerful OnLine Analytic Processing tool that provides detailed, fast, multidimensional data for sophisticated comparative analysis and reporting. Performance Management products help users align with strategy by tracking and analyzing key business and educational metrics and goals via management dashboards, scorecards. and alerting. This is provided through Perfozmance Manager and Dashboard Manager products that present Key Perfonnance Indicators in user-friendly, interactive graphical tools. Crystal Reports A world standard for enterprise reporting, Crystal Reports is an intuitive reporting solution that helps customers rapidly create flexible, feature-rich, high-fidelity reports and tightly integrate them into web and Windows applications. The Crystal Reports enterprise reporting solution consists of: lRSDBITooll l'c,Zo/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 26 of 30  Powerl'ul report design: Report authors can use the visual report designer (with a complete set of layout and design controls), to design highly fonnatted, interactive, and professional-looking reports. And they can design within the leading .NET and Java development tools without having to step out of their chosen development environment.  Flexi'ble application development: Developers can leverage cross-platform support for Java, .NET, and COM development technologies. HTML is generated directly by Crystal Reports, allowing developers to focus on application business logic, rather than tedious, time-intensive hand coding. Separation of application development and report design tasks allow developers to focus on application development, while the report authors can focus on report design.  Report management and delivery: Reports are easily published to the web, for better business decisions in all areas of the Little Rock School District. Reports can be exported and repurposed to the electronic fonnats used by most end users (e.g. PDF and Excel). IT can centralize the management of operational reporting while distributing the report authoring function out to departments of the District that need them. The following themes are an overview of what features are available in Crystal Reports XI:  Powerful data access and report design  Enhanced productivity and maintenance  Report management and delivery Dynamic and Cascading Prompts Report prompts can be based on dynamic values. This means that report designers no longer have to maintain static prompt value lists within individual reports. Instead, they can reuse existing prompts stored in the repository. HTML Preview The iterative report design/view process is streamlined, with a new HTML preview that allows report authors to sec how reports will look when published to the web. Editable RTF Format This new feature is ideal for report export editing. It delivers reports to end users in a new RTF format, so they can easily make their own document modifications. Report Export Configuration The report designer can save report export configuration infonnation within the report itself so that the end user forgoes the time aod trouble of reconfiguring the export each time a report is run. Dependency Checker With the new dependency checker, report authors can quickly find broken Jinks, formula errors. and dependency issues. This greatly reduces the time spent on QA. Business Views Speed Report Design and Maintenance Cycles Crystal Enterprise Business Views helps you better manage reporting across multiple data sources and applications by simplifying data access, change management, and data-level security processes. An l.RSDB/Too/1 Pq,Jo/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 27 of 30 optional service in Crystal Enterprise, Business Views allow you to integrate data from disparate sources, handle promotion/demotion between development and production environments, and control security at both the row and column level. Simplified Data Access Data access is one of the most fundamental, yet difficult aspects of designing a report. Locating the right data, joining tables appropriately, and filtering the data to focus on a specific subject area requires an indepth knowledge of the underlying data structures. The Business View Manager allows you to simplify data access for your report designers by insulating them from the raw data structures. You can build connections to multiple data sources, join tables, alias field names, create calculated fields, and then surface this simplified structure as a Business View in Crystal Enterprise. Your report designers can then connect to Crystal Enterprise and use the Business View as the basis for their report, rather than accessing the data directly and building their own queries. Business Views helps administrators pull data together from disparate sources. Data Connectiqns (created visually or with complex SQL statements) can be integrated into a Data Foundation. Once the Data Fowidation is built, Business Elements (a collection ofrelated fields from the Data Fowidation) can be created and combined into a Business View. The modular architecture of Business Views also allows you to readily re-use various components of one Business View to build other Business Views. A single, broad data foundation can serve as the basis for multiple, specialized Business Views. Used carefully, these capabilities allow you to minimize the number of changes required to introduce new data, fields, or formulas into your system. Granular Data-level Security Many reporting scenarios involve complex security requirements. Each user is entitled to see a slightly different slice of District data, based on their School, Department or level of seniority. Data in the Little Rock School District is commonly segregated by School and Teacher-based infonnation. Business Views allow teachers to view data regarding their students and prevents them form seeing data regarding students that are NOT assigned to them. Rather than creating a number of different reports to meet this need, we can create a single report and use the security features of Business Views to filter data appropriately for each user. Using the Business View Manager, you can set up row- or column-level filters and map these filters to users or user groups stored in your existing LDAP, Active Dirootory, or Windows authentication provider. This security is then consistently applied at the data level, ensuring that any report design based on a Business View will respect the underlying data security. You can then choose to schedule the report to run regularly. Or you can allow users to refresh it on demand. Regardless, Crystal Enterprise can generate a master instance of the report (with all the data included if you run the report under an administrator context) and then filter the report every time a user views it. All exporting, printing, and report modification requests will also return only the data the user is entitled to see. LRSD Bl Toob Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 28 of 30 Change Management and Re-use Maintaining a large set of reports is often more time-consuming and complex than new development. Activities such as making small changes in response to user needs, updating business calculations, changing formatting, and moving your reports between development and production data sources all delay you from addressing new requirements. Business Views includes two key features to help you spend less time on report maintenance. First, you can use Dynamic Data Connections to store connections to multiple instances of the same database (e.g., development, test, and production). By passing a parameter when you're designing (or scheduling) the report, you can select which data source the report runs against. Second, you can store commonly-used functions, text objects, and logos directly in your data fowidation. This allows you to easily roll changes across multiple reports by changing the object once. Business Objects Enterprise Info View Business Objects Info View is a completely redesigned web interface that enables user to navigate, create, and interact with District information. Integrated search and navigation tools allow users to easily find the infonnation they need. Users can also personalize their interactions to simplify consumption of District information. Info View is built to support Java and Microsoft based web servers, to easily fit within you're the Little Rock School District IT infrastructure. Web Intelligence Many organizations find it difficult to access information not contained in standard reports. And requests to IT for new infonnation simply add to the report backlog. Even when ad hoc query capabilities are available, they're typically difficult to use and don't provide your non-technical users with a simple method of exploring infonnation, to really understand the business issue at hand. With Business Objects Web Intelligence, both self-service access to information and data analysis are available in one product, helping your users turn educational analysis into effective decisions. Users can create a query from scratch, format the information retrieved, and analyze it to understand underlying trends and root causes. If the full power of query capabilities is not required, users can simply analyze information in existing reports-fonnatting and exploring them to meet specific needs. OLAP lntelllgence Businen Objects OLAP Intelligence is a powerful and easy-to-use tool that allows you to access and analyze data stored in tbe leading OLAP servers. It uniquely satisfies the analysis requirements of both information analysts (power users) and less sophisticated knowledge workers (business users). With OLAP Intelligence, power users can slice and dice, drill, rank, sort, filter, create calculations on the fly, and perfonn. speed-of-thought data exploration. And business users can interact with pre-built OLAP workbooks that contain highly intuitive, graphical views of educational activity, guided navigation and worktlows, and flexible ad hoc analysis. Its advanced analysis capabilities, shared security, acd relational drill-through allow you to standardize on Business Objects for all of your BI needs. OLAP Intelligence delivers:  Best-of-breed ad hoc OLAP  Managed OLAP authoring and distribution  Integration with the market leading, trusted BI platfonn LRSDBlTooll Pa,, S o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 29 of 30 Best-of-Breed Ad Hoc OLAP The primary driver for implementing an OLAP database is to provide users with fast access to multidimensional data. IT develops focused OLAP cubes to provide users with a structured data environment, optimized for analysis. But in order for users to take advantage of the pre-aggregated data within an OLAP cube, they require an interface that allows them to drill, slice, and dice while leveraging the response times that the predefined OLAP cube environment offers. Speed-of-Thought Analysis OLAP Intelligence provides an intuitive, web-based interface that allows users to select dimensions and members from a query panel as we11 as perfonn similar analysis from integrated Windows, Microsoft Excel, and ActiveX client interfaces. Users can interact with their data and ask spontaneous questions to uncover trends and identify anomalies. And because OLAP Intelligence takes advantage of the power of the OLAP cube, users are guaranteed speed-of-thought response time. Intuitive, Function-Rich Interface The OLAP Intelligence interface is both intuitive and function-rich. Common functions such as ranking, filtering, highlighting, quick calculations, zero suppression, and axis swapping are available with a single click of the mouse. More advanced analyses are only a few mouse clicks away and provide an uncluttered, intuitive user interface that requires minimal training. With OLAP Intelligence, users can also asymmetrically display data and hide specific dimensions that are irrelevant to data exploration. Deep, Open Access to Microsoft, Hyperion, and SAP OLAP Servers With OLAP Intelligence, you get best.of-breed, ad hoc OLAP for today's leading, multidimensional database servers-Microsoft SQL Server Analysis Services, Hyperion Essbase, IBM DB2 OLAP, and SAP BW. For examplei native Hyperion Essbase 7.x support for free-fonn calculations and cube actions means that organizations are maximizing their OLAP server investments and taking advantage ofkey enhancements and optimizations. Managed OLAP Authoring and Distribution OLAP Intelligence goes further than most OLAP clients on the market today by not only providing powerful ad hoc analysis, but also delivering a flexible, managed OLAP environment. With OLAP Intelligence, you can easily create sophisticated workbooks that exploit the power of the underlying OLAP server, and enable users to build in predefined navigation paths and workflows. Then you can securely deploy and deliver the workbooks live to business users who don't necessarily fit the powerdata analyst profile. These OLAP workbooks may contain custom buttons and multi-page reports that recipients can view and interact with over the web. Publish Live OLAP Workbooks to Business Users When users view an OLAP Intelligence workbook over the web, it may appear as a dashboard with custom .functionality specific to one area of the business, or as an ad hoc interface that allows them to perform advanced analysis. Because OLAP Intelligence has a flexible design and was created to meet powerful ad hoc and managed anaJysis needs, the deployment possibilities are limitless. Built-In Guided Navigation and Data Exploration UISD Bl Tooh Pq,60/1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 30 of 30 With OLAP Intelligence you can guide users through the OLAP data navigation and exploration process. For example, a user can highlight a group of cells in a report, click a custom analysis button, and view a new graph that has drilled down on the chosen group, displaying variances as a worksheet and chart. A show trend analysis button could then be made available that displays a new page in the workbook with a year-over-year comparison. Open drill-through capabilities in OLAP Intelligence empower users to drill .from aggregated OLAP data down to relational details. This means that users can navigate and explore summarized information, and drill through and pass context to more detailed Crystal Reports or Business Objects Web Intelligence documents. This contextual drill-through technology provides users with intelligent navigation without the need to understand the complexities of Wlderlying data and metadata structures. LRSDB/Toob Pqlo/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coUR-rRECEIVED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 1 7 2006 OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S COMPLIANCE REPORT For its Compliance Report, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This Compliance Report is filed pursuant to paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy contained in this Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. This compliance is documented below, as well as in the eight Quarterly Updates which were filed between December 1, 2004 and September 1, 2006, the evaluations of Compass Learning, Smart/Thrive, Reading Recovery and Year-Round Education which were previously filed, and the evaluations of A+, 21st Century Community Page 1 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 2 of 30 Learning Centers and READ 180 which are filed with this Compliance Report. 3. The progress ofLRSD's efforts to comply with the requirement for an eighth step 2 program evaluation, the Pre-K Literacy evaluation, has been shown in LRSD's Quarterly Updates and status reports to the Court. The final evidence of LRSD's compliance with that requirement will be the evaluation itself, which the evaluator, Dr. Ross, expects to have completed on or before November 15, 2006. 4. LRSD will separately describe below its compliance with each of the requirements of the Compliance Remedy except those which set out the responsibilities of the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 5. The requirements of paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy are: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations\nand (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.\nto have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations\nand to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. Page 2 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 3 of 30 6. LRSD met the requirements of paragraph A by adding to the PRE team three new professionals who have knowledge and experience in assessment, evaluation, and statistical analysis. The qualifications of the seven people who were employed by PRE as of November 1, 2004 are shown at pages 3 through 5 of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. The resumes of PRE Director Dr. Karen DeJarnette and statisticians Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams are found in Appendix A to the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This highly trained team of professionals has the qualifications required by paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 7. There have been a few changes in personnel since the first Quarterly - Update, but PRE has maintained a highly trained team of professionals. Administrative Assistant Irma Shelton took medical leave in May of 2005. The Administrative Assistant position was eliminated on July 1, 2005. Testing Coordinator Yvette Dillingham left PRE in August, 2005. Dr. Ed Williams temporarily assumed her responsibilities until she was replaced in November 2005 by Arthur Olds. Olds' resume can be found in Appendix A to the March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. As reported in the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, Olds sought reassignment to a teaching possession at Dunbar Magnet Middle School on April 14, 2006. Dr. Williams again temporarily assumed the Testing Coordinator Page 3 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 4 of 30 - responsibilities. LRSD posted the Testing Coordinator position in June, 2006 and interviews were scheduled for August, 2006. See September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A new testing coordinator, Danyell Cummings was hired October 1, 2006. Her resume is attached as Exhibit A to this Compliance Report. 8. The current PRE staff has all of the qualifications listed in paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD complied with paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 9. The requirements of paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy are: B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD' s curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Part of LRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. I suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process\nthen be sure that he approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. 10. LRSD has devised and deeply embedded a comprehensive program Page 4 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 5 of 30 - assessment process in accordance with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in developing the comprehensive program assessment process. By the time of the first Quarterly Update on December 1, 2004, PRE and Dr. Ross had \"developed and shared with ODM and the Joshua Intervenors a program assessment process to be deeply embedded in LRSD's educational operations.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 6. The final draft of that process is found at Appendix B of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This final draft was furnished to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors more than a month in advance of its consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 11. The comprehensive program - assessment process was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process has become deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included the development of school portfolios. \"School portfolios assemble comprehensive data about classrooms, schools, and districts from disparate sources into data bases that are accessible and informative particularly to teachers and administrators as well as to board members, parents, and other stakeholders.\" September 1, 2005 Page 5 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 6 of 30 Quarterly Update, p. 3. School portfolios are useful for formative evaluations of student achievement and educational programs. LRSD began implementing school portfolios during the 2005-06 school year. Id. As part of the process of the development and implementation of portfolios, four PRE department members attended an institute for data analysis during the summer of 2005, and a consultant \"visited LRSD and reviewed its data collection procedures and resources.\" Id. 12. LRSD has continued to develop the infrastructure to support its comprehensive assessment process. School and district data portfolios are an important part of this infrastructure. These portfolios \"allow PRE staff as well as others to more easily analyze data and intersect various types of data sets to answer - research questions about comprehensive school improvement efforts.\" December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. During April of 2006, an expert on school portfolios provided professional development for LRSD principals, administrators, and the PRE staff regarding the creation and use of school portfolios. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 13. As of December 1, 2005, PRE had identified the data to be included in the district portfolio and had designed a draft district portfolio. Id. District administrators and principals were making use of the portfolio and steps were being taken \"to allow a more efficient collection of data related to educational Page 6 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 7 of 30 processes.\" Id. Dr. Catterall used data from LRSD's portfolio in his step 2 evaluation of the Year-Round Education program. March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 14. The development of portfolios is a continual process. As new data becomes available (e.g. new test results) they are added to the data base. The infrastructure is in place, and LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolios. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 15. LRSD has also sought to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process by hiring a consultant, the Janis Group, to help develop a \"data warehouse.\" The Janis Group has \"expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently - accessing data.\" March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. The data warehouse will support frequent updates of the portfolio and allow timely data reports for purposes of planning, research, evaluation and developing policy. Reports can be generated by program, classroom, school, grade, or district-wide. Id. 16. There was some debate within LRSD about whether to purchase an internet-based data warehouse from a company called TetraData or to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse using the Business Objects software and the database already available to LRSD. LRSD decided, with some dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. Page 7 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 8 of 30 - Business Objects is state of the art software which can be effectively used in the assessment of academic programs. The capabilities of the Business Objects data warehouse, including updating and reporting student data, are shown in the \"Business Objects Reporting Tools\" document attached as Exhibit B to this Compliance Report. 17. The process of developing school and district portfolios, and creating a data warehouse, has revealed the need for LRSD to take steps to insure that the data entered into its database is accurate. The accuracy of the data would be a concern whether the district used the Business Objects system, the TetraData system or some other software system. To improve the accuracy of data reporting within LRSD, LRSD has increased the number of \"error checking routines\" in its computer software. LRSD also has a full time training coordinator whose job it is to train school registrars and other LRSD personnel in the proper entry of student data, to work with those people to identify and correct recurring data entry errors, and to generally assure the accuracy and completeness of student data within the LRSD database. The accuracy of the data in LRSD's database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. 18. Finally, as another part of embedding the comprehensive program assessment process, PRE has designed \"feasible, ongoing assessments of the four Page 8 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 9 of 30 - programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross subjected to step 2 evaluations last year.\" June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD also plans to have PRE conduct ongoing assessments of the programs currently being evaluated by Drs. Ross and Catterall. 19. LRSD has devised a comprehensive program assessment process as required by paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. That process has been deeply embedded as a permanent part ofLRSD's curriculum program. LRSD has complied with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. 20. The requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy are: C. 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) fonnal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key  2. 7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2.7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross -- to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year\nand (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary Page 9 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 0 of 30 - to prepare those evaluations. 21 . In accordance with paragraph C, LRSD hired Dr. Ross to \"identify the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year,\" and to \"prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible.\" 22. Dr. Ross was provided a copy of the Compliance Remedy and he endorsed the first Quarterly Update \"as representing an accurate portrayal of accomplishments to date and a viable plan for addressing the requirements of the Remedy.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, Appendix C (p. 45). Dr. Ross assumed responsibility for preparing six of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations. Three of those cover the 2004-05 school year and were filed on February 6, 2006. Two others are for the 2005-06 school year and will be filed today. The sixth step 2 evaluation being prepared by Dr. Ross, Pre-K Literacy, has been delayed due to the unavailability of necessary data and is expected to be completed no later than November 15, 2006. 23. Two of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations were prepared by Dr. James Catterall. One covered the 2004-05 school year and was filed on February 6, 2006. The other will be filed today. Page 10 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 11 of 30 24. PRE, in collaboration with Dr. Ross, selected Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, Compass Leaming and Year-Round Education to be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 7-9. Those evaluations have been completed. 25. Dr. Ross initially identified the following four 2.7 programs for step 2 evaluations in the 2005-06 school year: Arkansas A+ School Network\nKnowledgePoints\nPLATO Leaming and Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Development. June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. At the request of the Joshua Intervenors, and with the agreement of Dr. Ross, 21 st Century Community Leaming Centers was substituted for PLATO Leaming as the subject of an evaluation for the 2005- - 06 school year. September 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4 and Appendix C, (pp. 19-21). KnowledgePoints was also replaced as the subject of evaluation by the READ 180 program because the supplier of KnowledgePoints withdrew its support of the program in Arkansas. December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. 26. Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall possess the experience and ability necessary to prepare the eight required step 2 evaluations. Their qualifications are found in Appendix C to the first Quarterly Update (pp. 46-54). They are both familiar with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy and have agreed to prepare their evaluations in accordance with those requirements. LRSD has Page 11 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 12 of 30 - complied with the requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. 27. The requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy are: D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations must answer the following essential research question: \"Has the  2.7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district?\" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. 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 hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations\nand (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. 28. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations answers the essential research question of whether the program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations also answers other important research questions. Each is organized and written so that it can be readily understood by a lay person. In each case, the outside experts and the evaluation teams determined the evaluation design, including the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data necessary to the utility of each Page 12 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 13 of 30 - evaluation. 29. PRE has overseen the preparation of all eight step 2 evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and those associated with them, to support their work and provide any and all requested assistance. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp.6-7\nMarch 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 4\nJune 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 5-6\nSeptember 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 6 and Appendix A. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 30. The requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy are: E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: (1) describes the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key  2.7 program being evaluated\n(2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\nand (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2.7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.l of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. 31. In accordance with paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy, each of the eight step 2 evaluations contains a section concerning data collection which Page 13 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 14 of 30 - describes the number of teachers and administrators at various grade levels who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the program being evaluated. Each of the eight evaluations also contains recommended program modifications and explains how the recommended modifications can be expected to increase the effectiveness of the program. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 4-5. 32. On April 18, 2006, LRSD convened the four evaluation teams which worked on the 2004-05 evaluations to consider the feasibility and the timeframe for implementing the external evaluators' recommendations. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A summary of LRSD's commitments to the modifications recommended by the external evaluators is found in Appendix A (pp. 7-11) to the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. LRSD will follow the same process of reviewing the evaluators' recommended modifications following receipt of the evaluations for the 2005-06 school year. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy. 33. The requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy are: F. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, 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 Page 14 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 15 of 30 provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31, 2004. 34. In accordance with paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, PRE notified ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update\np. 8. PRE also provided to ODM and Joshua a final draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented to the Board for approval. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 6 and 11. The LRSD Board of Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004, in advance of the December 31, 2004 deadline. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy. 35. The requirements of paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy are: G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. 36. In accordance with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy, Page 15 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 16 of 30 LRSD submitted quarterly written updates to the Court and delivered them to ODM and Joshua on or before December 1, 2004, March 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, September 1, 2005, December 1, 2005, March 1, 2006, June 1, 2006 and September 1, 2006. Those quarterly written updates reported \"the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations\" prepared during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. The quarterly updates also provided information on the status of compliance with other components of the Compliance Remedy. 36. As soon as the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were completed and approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD provided them to ODM and Joshua. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on October 16, 2006. The fourth will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on or before November 15, 2006. As soon as the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year are approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD will provide final copies of those evaluations to ODM and Joshua. LRSD has complied with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy. 37. The requirements of paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy are: Page 16 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 17 of 30 J. The four step program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006. 38. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were filed with the Court on February 6, 2006 in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005- 06 school year will be filed on today in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Dr. Ross requires additional time to complete the Pre-K Literacy evaluation because of the delayed availability of necessary testing data. LRSD has requested an extension of time for the filing of that step 2 evaluation to and including November 15, 2006, and expects to file that evaluation by that date. LRSD has substantially complied with paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy. 39. The requirements of paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy are: K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. 40. LRSD is filing this Compliance Report on October 16, 2006 in accordance with paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy and the Court's July 12, Page 17 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 18 of 30 2006 letter to the parties ( docket no. 4027). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the eight Quarterly Updates which have been filed with the Court, and on the basis of the completion of eight step 2 program evaluations by Drs. Ross and Catterall, LRSD prays for an order finding it to be in substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy contained in the Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion, declaring LRSD to be a unitary school district, and releasing LRSD from all supervision and monitoring by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 /s/ Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 16, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: Page 18 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 19 of 30 mark.hagemeier(@.ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 /s/ Christopher Heller Page 19 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 . P~e 20 of _ 30 .. Career Objective: Prefe1sional Experience: 2004-Present 1998-Present Education: May,2005 December, 1998 May, 1997 ProfessJonaJly Related Activities: DanyeJI Crutchfield Cummlnp S Ben Hogan Cove Little Rocle, Arkansas 72210 (501) 407-8097 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and professional experience to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contribute to a progressive educational environment. High Schools That Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal English Teacher J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little R(ick, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervision, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Master of Education, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Stakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher oflhe Year Educational Specialist Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 References: Linda Young Grants Coordinator (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-5439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elementary (501) 447-4300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed.D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 work (501) 407-0817 home Sharon Cauley, Ed.D Assistant Principal J.A. Fair Systems Magnet High School (501) 447-1700 ext. 1710 work (501) 666-6216 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 22 of 30 ---------- .. ---------- .. - - - Career Objective: Profeaional Experience: 2004-Present 1998-Prescnt Education: May,2005 December, 1998 May, 1997 Professionally Related Activities: Danyell Crutchfield Cumminp S Ben Hogan Cove Little Rocle, Arkan11u 72210 (!01) 407-8097 (S0l) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and professional ~eriencc to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opporhmity to contribute to a progressive educational environment. High Schools That Work Coordinator ]. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal English Teacher J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervision, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Master of Education, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Stakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher of the Year Educational Specialist References: Linda Young Grants Coordinator (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-5439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elementary (501) 447-4300 WOJX (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed.D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 work (SOl) 407-08l7 home Sharon Cauley, Ed.D Assistant Principal ].A. Fair Systems Magnet High School (501)447-1700ext. 1710 work {501) 666-6216 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 24 of 30 Bl Platform Little Rock School District Business Objects Reporting Tools Business Objects Enterprise is a scalable, adaptive platform that delivers insight and corporate infonnation to all your end users. With a platform designed to help you confidently deploy and manage your Business Intelligence (BI) implementations, Business Objects provides the Little Rock School District with the extreme insight you need to extend your competitive advantage. The BI Platform provides a set of common services to simplify deployment and management of BI tools, reports, and applications. The reporting system at the Little Rock School District includes information delivery in subject areas including Student Demographics, Student Performance, Budget and Finance, Employee Attendance, Child Nutrition, Human Resources, Accounts Payable, Payroll, Procurement, and Procurement Warehouse, to name a few. Flexible Services-Oriented Platform By building the Little Rock School District's BI solutions with Business Objects Enterprise, we have the flexibility to deploy a solution for a single information challenge, while being able to simultaneously expand the deployment as our needs evolve. Designed for Scalabilitv and High Performance Business Objects Enterprise is designed for scalability, reliability, fault-tolerance, extensibility, and 24/7 availability. This platform recognizes the importance of diverse global deployments, supports Unicode, and is compliant with Microsoft Windows, Sun Solaris, IBM AIX, HP-UX, and Linux. So you can start with a single BI project on one platform, and easily grow to support an enterprise-wide standardization initiative on multiple platforms. With BI content now being delivered via intranet and extranet, BI platform scalability is a key issue. Business Objects Enterprise has the scalability you need to accommodate increasing numbers of users, process growing volumes of information, and scale on a single machine-or clusters of machineswhile maintaining high performance. Proven Reliability This platform's key attributes-performance, reliability, and scalability-are proven by extensive, real-world testing and third-party certification. Enterprise is the only BI platform to achieve Microsoft Windows 2003 Datacenter certification. Business Objects Enterprise- covered by a 24/7 technical customer support-has demonstrably installed and run on a 32-processor system, remained stable through rigorous stress testing, and stayed available after being subject to extensive failover conditions. We also continually conduct extensive benchmarking and performance testing to ensure our platform -sc-a-le_s_t_o_m_e_e_t_th_e_n__eed_ s - of_t_h_e_L-itt_l_e_R_o_c_k_S_c_h_oo_l_D_i_s_tn-c_t-to_d_a_y_an_d-to_m_o_rr_o_w_. ---l. .i _ _'B _H.IBIT--J LRSD BI Tools .., ~ ., Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 25 of 30 Reporting Fundamentals The fundamental requirements of any reporting system are a nonnalized database and a reporting tool. Data from disparate systems and formats is collected in a centralized database platform and transformed into a consistent, well organized reporting database. Many reports have been created and delivered from this reporting database using Crystal Reports as the reporting tool. Normalized Data This data, securely housed at the Little Rock School District Technology Center, has been nonnalized to 3rd normal form on a Microsoft SQL Server database server. The original database management software is DB2 residing on an IBM AS/400 application server, whkh houses a majority of the studentbased data. Other student data resides in Microsoft Access or is provided to the CIS department via Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Automated processes have been developed and scheduled to update the student data nightly, where required. Processes have also been designed and implemented to update data in key financial, human resources and accounting subject areas. Business Objects provides the industry's leading suite of integrated business intelligence products. The products are categorized into three groups: Reporting allows all levels of the Little Rock School District to access, format, and deliver data as meaningful information to large populations of information consumers like teachers and school administrators both inside and outside the organization. This is provided through detailed reports created using Crystal Reports and accessed via a web browser using the Business Objects Enterprise Info View application. Query and Analysis tools allow end users to interact with District information and answer ad hoc questions, without advanced knowledge of the underlying data sources and structures. This is provided through a product called Web Intelligence or WEBI. This allows users to create dynamic reports from their desks with little or no required knowledge of the underlying database schema. In-depth analysis is performed using OLAP Intelligence, a powerful OnLine Analytic Processing tool that provides detailed, fast, multidimensional data for sophisticated comparative analysis and reporting. Performance Management products help users align with strategy by tracking and analyzing key business and educational metrics and goals via management dashboards, scorecards, and alerting. This is provided through Performance Manager and Dashboard Manager products that present Key Performance Indicators in user-friendly, interactive graphical tools. Crystal Reports A world standard for enterprise reporting, Crystal Reports is an intuitive reporting solution that helps customers rapidly create flexible, feature-rich, high-fidelity reports and tightly integrate them into web and Windows applications. The Crystal Reports enterprise reporting solution consists of: LRSD Bl Tools Pagel o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 26 of 30  Powerful report design: Report authors can use the visual report designer (with a complete set of layout and design controls), to design highly formatted, interactive, and professional-looking reports. And they can design within the leading .NET and Java development tools without having to step out of their chosen development environment.  Flexible application development: Developers can leverage cross-platform support for Java, .NET, and COM development technologies. HTML is generated directly by Crystal Reports, allowing developers to focus on application business logic, rather than tedious, time-intensive hand coding. Separation of application development and report design tasks allow developers to focus on application development, while the report authors can focus on report design.  Report management and delivery: Reports are easily published to the web, for better business decisions in all areas of the Little Rock School District. Reports can be exported and repurposed to the electronic formats used by most end users (e.g. PDF and Excel). IT can centralize the management of operational reporting while distributing the report authoring function out to departments of the District that need them. The following themes are an overview of what features are available in Crystal Reports XI:  Powerful data access and report design  Enhanced productivity and maintenance  Report management and delivery Dynamic and Cascading\nPrompts Report prompts can be based on dynamic values. This means that report designers no longer have to maintain static prompt value lists within individual reports. Instead, they can reuse existing prompts stored in the repository. HTML Preview The iterative report design/view process is streamlined, with a new HTML preview that allows report authors to see how reports will look when published to the web. Editable RTF Format This new feature is ideal for report export editing. It delivers reports to end users in a new RTF format, so they can easily make their own document modifications. Report Export Config\nuration The report designer can save report export configuration information within the report itself so that the end user forgoes the time and trouble of reconfiguring the export each time a report is run. Dependencv Checker With the new dependency checker, report authors can quickly find broken links, formula errors, and dependency issues. This greatly reduces the time spent on QA. Business Views Speed Report Desig\nn and Maintenance Cycles Crystal Enterprise Business Views helps you better manage reporting across multiple data sources and applications by simplifying data access, change management, and data-level security processes. An LRSD Bl Tools Page 3 of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 27 of 30 optional service in Crystal Enterprise, Business Views allow you to integrate data from disparate sources, handle promotion/demotion between development and production environments, and control security at both the row and column level. Simplified Data Access Data access is one of the most fundamental, yet difficult aspects of designing a report. Locating the right data, joining tables appropriately, and filtering the data to focus on a specific subject area requires an indepth knowledge of the underlying data structures. The Business View Manager allows you to simplify data access for your report designers by insulating them from the raw data structures. You can build connections to multiple data sources, join tables, alias field names, create calculated fields, and then surface this simplified structure as a Business View in Crystal Enterprise. Your report designers can then connect to Crystal Enterprise and use the Business View as the basis for their report, rather than accessing the data directly and building their own queries. Business Views helps administrators pull data together from disparate sources. Data Connections (created visually or with complex SQL statements) can be integrated into a Data Foundation. Once the Data Foundation is built, Business Elements (a collection ofrelated fields from the Data Foundation) can be created and combined into a Business View. The modular architecture of Business Views also allows you to readily re-use various components of one Business View to build other Business Views. A single, broad data foundation can serve as the basis for multiple, specialized Business Views. Used carefully, these capabilities allow you to minimize the number of changes required to introduce new data, fields, or formulas into your system. Granular Data-level Securitv Many reporting scenarios involve complex security requirements. Each user is entitled to see a slightly different slice of District data, based on their School, Department or level of seniority. Data in the Little Rock School District is commonly segregated by School and Teacher-based information. Business Views allow teachers to view data regarding their students and prevents them form seeing data regarding students that are NOT assigned to them. Rather than creating a number of different reports to meet this need, we can create a single report and use the security features of Business Views to filter data appropriately for each user. Using the Business View Manager, you can set up row- or column-level filters and map these filters to users or user groups stored in your existing LDAP, Active Directory, or Windows authentication provider. This security is then consistently applied at the data level, ensuring that any report design based on a Business View will respect the underlying data security. You can then choose to schedule the report to run regularly. Or you can allow users to refresh it on demand. Regardless, Crystal Enterprise can generate a master instance of the report (with all the data included if you run the report under an administrator context) and then filter the report every time a user views it. All exporting, printing, and report modification requests will also return only the data the user is entitled to see. LRSD Bl Tools Page 4 of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 28 of 30 Change Management and Re-use Maintaining a large set ofreports is often more time-consuming and complex than new development. Activities such as making small changes in response to user needs, updating business calculations, changing formatting, and moving your reports between development and production data sources all delay you from addressing new requirements. Business Views includes two key features to help you spend less time on report maintenance. First, you can use Dynamic Data Connections to store connections to multiple instances of the same database (e.g., development, test, and production). By passing a parameter when you're designing (or scheduling) the report, you can select which data source the report runs against. Second, you can store commonly-used functions, text objects, and logos directly in your data foundation. This aliows you to easily ro11 changes across multiple reports by changing the object once. Business Objects Enterprise Info View Business Objects Info View is a completely redesigned web interface that enables user to navigate, create, and interact with District information. Integrated search and navigation tools allow users to easily find the information they need. Users can also personalize their interactions to simplify consumption of District information. Info View is built to support Java and Microsoft based web servers, to easily fit within you're the Little Rock School District IT infrastructure. Web Intelligence Many organizations find it difficult to access information not contained in standard reports. And requests to IT for new information simply add to the report backlog. Even when ad hoc query capabilities are available, they're typically difficult to use and don't provide your non-technical users with a simple method of exploring information, to really understand the business issue at hand. With Business Objects Web Intelligence, both self-service access to information and data analysis are available in one product, helping your users turn educational analysis into effective decisions. Users can create a query from scratch, format the information retrieved, and analyze it to understand underlying trends and root causes. If the full power of query capabilities is not required, users can simply analyze information in existing reports-formatting and exploring them to meet specific needs. OLAP Intelligence Business Objects OLAP Intelligence is a powerful and easy-to-use tool that allows you to access and analyze data stored in the leading OLAP servers. It uniquely satisfies the analysis requirements of both information analysts (power users) and less sophisticated knowledge workers (business users). With OLAP Intelligence, power users can slice and dice, drill, rank, sort, filter, create calculations on the fly, and perform speed-of-thought data exploration. And business users can interact with pre-built OLAP workbooks that contain highly intuitive, graphical views of educational activity, guided navigation and workflows, and flexible ad hoc analysis. Its advanced analysis capabilities, shared security, and relational drill-through allow you to standardize on Business Objects for all of your BI needs. OLAP Intelligence delivers:  Best-of-breed ad hoc OLAP  Managed OLAP authoring and distribution  Integration with the market leading, trusted BI platform LRSD Bl Tools Page5 of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 29 of 30 Best-of-Breed Ad Hoc OLAP The primary driver for implementing an OLAP database is to provide users with fast access to multidimensional data. IT develops focused OLAP cubes to provide users with a structured data environment, optimized for analysis. But in order for users to talce advantage of the pre-aggregated data within an OLAP cube, they require an interface that allows them to drill, slice, and dice while leveraging the response times that the predefined OLAP cube environment offers. Speed-of-Thought Analysis OLAP Intelligence provides an intuitive, web-based interface that allows users to select dimensions and members from a query panel as well as perform similar analysis from integrated Windows, Microsoft Excel, and ActiveX client interfaces. Users can interact with their data and ask sp,mtaneous questions to uncover trends and identify anomalies. And because OLAP Intelligence talces advantage of the power of the OLAP cube, users are guaranteed speed-of-thought response time. Intuitive, Function-Rich Interface The OLAP Intelligence interface is both intuitive and function-rich. Common functions such as ranking, filtering, highlighting, quick calculations, zero suppression, and axis swapping are available with a single click of the mouse. More advanced analyses are only a few mouse clicks away and provide an uncluttered, intuitive user interface that requires minimal training. With OLAP Intelligence, users can also asymmetrically display data and hide specific dimensions that are irrelevant to data exploration. Deep, Open Access to Microsoft, Hyperion, and SAP OLAP Servers With OLAP Intelligence, you get best-of-breed, ad hoc OLAP for today's leading, multidimensional database servers-Microsoft SQL Server Analysis Services, Hyperion Essbase, IBM DB2 OLAP, and SAP BW. For example, native Hyperion Essbase 7.x support for free-form calculations and cube actions means that organizations are maximizing their OLAP server investments and taking advantage of key enhancements and optimizations. Managed OLAP Authoring and Distribution OLAP Intelligence goes further than most OLAP clients on the market today by not only providing powerful ad hoc analysis, but also delivering a flexible, managed OLAP environment. With OLAP Intelligence, you can easily create sophisticated workbooks that exploit the power of the underlying OLAP server, and enable users to build in predefined navigation paths and workflows. Then you can securely deploy and deliver the workbooks live to business users who don't necessarily fit the powerdata analyst profile. These OLAP workbooks may contain custom buttons and multi-page reports that recipients can view and interact with over the web. Publish Live OLAP Workbooks to Business Users When users view an OLAF Intelligence workbook over the web, it may appear as a dashboard with custom functionality specific to one area of the business, or as an ad hoc interface that allows them to perform advanced analysis. Because OLAP Intelligence has a flexible design and was created to meet powerful ad hoc and managed analysis needs, the deployment possibilities are limitless. Built-In Guided Navigation and Data Exploration LRSD Bl Tocls Page 6 o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 30 of 30 With OLAP Intelligence you can guide users through the OLAP data navigation and exploration process. For example, a user can highlight a group of cells in a report, click a custom analysis button, and view a new graph that has drilled down on the chosen group, displaying variances as a worksheet and chart. A show trend analysis button could then be made available that displays a new page in the workbook with a year-over-year comparison. Open drill-through capabilities in OLAP Intelligence empower users to drill from aggregated OLAP data down to relational details. This means that users can navigate and explore summarized infonnation, and drill through and pass context to more detailed Crystal Reports or Business Objects Web Intelligence documents. This contextual drill-through technology provides users with intelligent navigation without the need to understand the complexities of underlying data and metadata structures. LRSD 81 Tools Page 7 o/7\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\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_445","title":"English as a Second Language","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"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","English language--Study and teaching--Foreign speakers","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["English as a Second Language"],"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/445"],"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":["123 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\na .- RECEIVED TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 February 7, 2002 Ann Marshall, ODM FEB 1 2 2002 (SnCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING bl-i FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: 2000-2001 ESL Program Evaluation We are attaching a copy of the 2000-2001 ESL program evaluation. Please share it also with Horace Smith. We are rather pleased with the findings. Weve come a long way. Let us know if you have questions. BAL/adg Attachment frtn tJlSC) i-it-IZ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: PREPARED BY: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ^^onnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: February 28, 2002 SUBJECT: Program Evaluation: Alternative Language Program Background Information A part of the Districts Commitment to Resolve with the Office for Civil Rights in 1999 was to conduct an annual program evaluation of the Alternative Language Program and to modify the programs and services based on the findings. The first program evaluation was presented to the Board of Education in August 2000 and submitted to OCR in October 2000. The second annual evaluation is now ready for Board review. Eddie McCoy was assigned the lead responsibility for writing the program evaluation in fall 1999. Other staff (Karen Broadnax, Ed Williams, Ken Savage, and Bonnie Lesley) have worked with her to verify data and the overall accuracy of the report. Mark Vasquez served as consultant to the process. Fiscal Impact No fiscal impact is anticipated. Recommendation That the Board of Education review and provide feedback to the ESL program evaluation. BAL/adg Attachment cc: Karen Broadnax Dr. Eddie McCoy I The Second Annual Program Evaluation for Alternative Language Program (ALP) School Year: 2000-2001 (Introduction and Key Findings/Recommendations) January 30, 2002 Division of Instruction Little Rock School District Prepared by Eddie Williams-McCoy Karen Broadnax Dr. Ed Williams Ken Savage Dr. Bonnie Lesley Mark Vasquez, Consultant T Table of Contents I I 1 I Section I: introduction Introduction Program Goals and Objectives Research Questions Methodology Evaluation Design and Focus Assessments Outline of Program Evaluation Section II: Policies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance i I Top Ten Languages of PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE Students PHLOTE Students LEP Students FEPE Students Policy, Procedural, and Program Changes Program Objective 1 (Student Identification) Program Objective 2 (Assessment) Program Objective 3 (Program Placement) Organization and Role of LPACs Student Assignment Program Objective 4 (ESL Program) Curriculum Standards and Benchmarks Assessments ESL InstructionElementary Schools ESL InstructionMiddle Schools ESL InstructionHigh Schools Program Objective 5 (Staffing/Development) ESL Training Program (Elementary) ESL Training Program (Secondary) Schedule for ESL Training Summary of ESL Training Participation ESL Endorsement Program Summary of ESL Endorsement Participation Program Objective 6 (Instructional Materials) Program Objective 7 (Program Exit) Program Objective 8 (Parental Involvement) Program Objective 9 (Special Programs) Special Education Gifted and Talented Special Programs by PHLOTE and Grades Third Grade G/T PHLOTE Students Fourth Grade G/T PHLOTE Students Fifth Grade G/T PHLOTE Students 1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5 5-6 7-9 7 8 8-9 9 9-10 10 10-12 11 11-12 13-16 13-14 14 14-15 15 16 17-19 17 17 18 18 18-19 19 21 22 22 22-27 23 23-24 24 24 24-25 25r-  Middle-Level G/T and Special Education PHLOTE Students Special Education PHLOTE Students GfT PHLOTE Students Senior-Level G/T and Special Education Special Education PHLOTEs (9-10) G/T PHLOTEs (9-10) Special Educatoin PHLOTEs (11-12) G/T PHLOTEs (11-12) Program Objective 10 (Exited LEPs) Students Who Exited Prior to Fall 2000 Students Who Exited in 2000-2001 Program Objective 11 (Program Evaluation) Program Objective 12 (Student Records) Program Cost Section III: English Language Acquisition of LEP and FEPE Students Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten Performance Overall Performance of PHLOTEs Kindergarten PHLOTES with PreK Kindergarten PHLOTES without PreK Overall Performance of LEPs Kindergarten LEPs with PreK Kindergarten LEPs without PreK Kindergarten FEPEs Kindergarten PerformanceTwo Years Overall Performance of PHLOTEs Overall Performance of LEPs Summary and Conclusions First Grade PerformanceTwo Years Overall Performance of PHLOTEs Performance of LEPs Summary and Conclusions Second Grade PerformanceTwo Years Overall Performance of PHLOTEs Performance of LEPs Performance of FEPEs Summary and Conclusions Newcomer Centers School Enrollment by PHLOTE Elementary Newcomer Centers Elementary Non-Newcomer Centers DRA Results by Schools DRA by Newcomer Centers DRA by Non-Newcomer Centers Overall Performance of PHLOTEs 25 25 26 26 26 27 27 27 28-34 29-32 32-34 34-35 35-36 36 37-38 38- 38-39 39 39-40 40 40-41 41 42 42-44 42-43 43 43-44 44-45 44 44-45 45 45-47 46 46-47 47 47 48- 48 48-49 49-50 50-54 50 50-51 51-52 iiOverall Performance of LEPs Conclusions Achievement Level Tests 52-54 54 54-55 Data Interpretation for LEPs and FEPEs 55 ALT ReadingGrade 2 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 2 LEPs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 3 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 3 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 3 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 4 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 4 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 4 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 5 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 5 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 5 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 6 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 6 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 6 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 7 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 7 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 7 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 8 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 8 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 8 FEPEs ALT ReadingGrade 9 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 9 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 9 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 10 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 10 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 10 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions Conclusions\nALT Reading 55-56 56 56 56-57 57 58 58-59 59-60 60 60-61 61 61-62 62-63 63 63 63-64 64-65 65 65 65-66 66-67 67 67 68 68-69 69-70 70 71 71-72 72 72-73 73 73-74 74 74 ALT Language Usage ALT Language Grade 2 LEPs ALT Language Grade 2 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 3 LEPs ALT Language Grade 3 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 4 LEPs ALT Language Grade 4 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 5 LEPs 74-75 75 75 75-76 76 76-77 77 78 iiiALT Language Grade 5 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 6 LEPs ALT Language Grade 6 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 7 LEPs ALT Language Grade 7 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 8 LEPs ALT Language Grade 8 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 9 LEPs ALT Language Grade 9 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 10 LEPs ALT Language Grade 10 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 11 LEPs ALT Language Grade 11 FEPEs 78-79 79 79-80 80 80-81 81 81-82 82 82-83 83 83 83 83-84 Section IV: Content Area Knowledge and Skills of LEP and FEPE Students ALT Mathematics Grade 2 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 2 FEPEs ALT Mathematics Grade 3 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 3 FEPEs ALT Mathematics Grade 4 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 4 FEPEs ALT Mathematics Grade 5 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 5 FEPEs ALT Mathematics Grade 6 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 6 FEPEs ALT Mathematics Grade 7 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 7 FEPEs ALT Mathematics Grade 8 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 8 FEPEs ALT Algebra I LEPs and FEPEs ALT Algebra 11 LEPs and FEPEs ALT Geometry LEPs and FEPEs 85 85 86 86-87 87 87-88 88 88-89 89 89-90 90 90 91 91 91-92 92 92 ALT Biology LEPs and FEPEs ALT Physics LEPs and FEPEs ALT Chemistry LEPs and FEPEs 93 93 93-94 Stanford Achievement Test, 9* Edition Grade 5 PHLOTEs Grade 5 LEPs Grade 5 FEPEs Grade 7 PHLOTEs Grade 7 LEPs Grade 7 FEPEs Grade 10 PHLOTEs Grade 10 LEPs Grade 10 FEPEs 94-95 95 95-96 96 96-97 97 97 97-98 98 98 ivArkansas Benchmark Examinations Primary and Middle Level Definitions Grade 4 PHLOTEs Grade 4 LEPs Grade 4 FEPEs Grade 8 PHLOTEs Grade 8 LEPs Grade 8 FEPEs 99 99-100 100 100-101 101 101 101-102 102 Section V: Behavioral Performance Indicators of LEP and FEPE Students Background Information on PHLOTEs in District Grade Distribution of PHLOTEs Grade Distribution of LEPs and FEPEs Six Highest PHLOTE Student Enrollments School Enrollment by LEP and FEPE PreKindergarten PHLOTEs Kindergarten PHLOTEs First Grade PHLOTEs Second Grade PHLOTEs Third Grade PHLOTEs Fourth Grade PHLOTEs Fifth Grade PHLOTEs Sixth Grade PHLOTEs Seventh Grade PHLOTEs Eighth Grade PHLOTEs Ninth Grade PHLOTEs Tenth Grade PHLOTEs Eleventh Grade PHLOTEs Twelfth Grade PHLOTEs 103 103-104 104 105 105 106 106 106-107 107 108 108-109 109-110 110-111 111 112 112-113 113-114 114-115 115-116 Graduation Rates for PHLOTEs Summary Who Are the Dropouts? 116 116 116-117 Section VI\nKey Findings and Recommendations Research Question 1 (Policies, Procedures, Programs) Research Question 2 (Special Opportunity Programs) Research Question 3 (Quality of Instruction) Research Question 4 (Learning English) Effect of PreKindergarten Two-Year Comparison of Kindergarten DRAs Two-Year Comparison of Grade 1 DRAs Two-Year Comparison of Grade 2 DRAs Summary of K-2 Findings 118 118 118-119 119-125 119-120 120 120-121 121 121 VComparison of K-2 Students in Newcomer and Non-Newcomer Center Schools Summary of Findings 121-122 122 Cohort Performance on ALT Reading Summary of Findings 122-123 123 Cohort Performance on ALT Language Usage Summary of Findings 123-124 124 Stanford Achievement Test Summary of Findings 124-125 125 Arkansas Benchmark Examinations Summary of Findings Conclusions 125 125 125 Research Question 5 (Content Knowledge and Skills) Cohort Performance on ALT Mathematics Summary of Findings 125-127 125-126 126 ALT High School Mathematics/Science Summary of Findings 126-127 127 Stanford Achievement TestMathematics Summary of Findings 127 127 Arkansas Benchmark Examinations Summary of Findings Conclusions 127 127 127 Research Question 6 (Behavioral Indicators) Attendance Discipline and Suspensions Retention Dropouts Graduation Rate Summary of Findings 127-129 128 128 128 128 128 128-129 Recommendations 129-130 References 131 vi Second Annual Evaluation of the Little Rock School Districts Alternative Language Program Section I: Introduction This Second Annual Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) Alternative Language Program builds on the information provided in an earlier report that was submitted to the Board of Education in August 2000 and to the Dallas Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in October 2000. The report for school year 2000-2001 is a part of the Little Rock School Districts continuing efforts to meet the requirements outlined in the LRSDs Commitment to Resolve (CTR) agreement with the Office for Civil Rights (September 29, 1999), to comply with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and to meet the requirements of the Arkansas Department of Education. The requirement to conduct an annual evaluation of the Alternative Language Program was formally established by the Board of Education in its adoption of Policy IHBEA: English as a Second Language, on November 18,1999. Specific requirements and procedures were delineated in the administrative regulations (IHBEA-R) as adopted in October 1999 and amended in November 2001. This report also is in compliance with the Boards Policy IL: Evaluation of Instructional Programs, adopted on March 22, 2001, that requires program evaluations to include valuable insights into how programs are operating, the extent to which they are serving the intended purpose of increasing student achievement, the strengths and weaknesses, the cost effectiveness, and directions for the future. Program Goals and Objectives According to the Districts Administrative Regulation IHBEA-R: English as a Second Language (adopted in September 1999 and amended in November 2001), the first goal of the ESL program is to enable identified students to master English language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and comprehension/understanding) and content area concepts and skills so that the students are able to participate effectively in the regular program as quickly as possible. The second goal of the program is to provide identified students with the cultural literacy necessary for them to feel comfortable in participating in the school, community, and greater community. To reach those goals, the District also established twelve program objectives. Each one addressed a policy, procedural, or program requirement mandated by federal, state, and/or local governance bodies. They are as follows: 1 I 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. To implement and maintain consistent procedures for student identification processes. To assess all students who have a primary home language other than English (PHLOTE), regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for entry and placement into an ESL program. To diagnose student needs and provide appropriate ESL standards/ benchmarks, instruction, and assessments to meet identified students individual needs for English-language instruction, for understandable instruction in other content areas, and for positive self-concept and identification with personal/family cultural heritages. To hire, train, and continually develop highly motivated, sensitive, and caring ESL teachers and other staff to provide effective ESL instruction, interact one-to- one with the identified students and their families, and serve as liaisons between school and relevant community. To provide appropriately aligned instructional materials. To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for exit from an ESL program. To provide for parental/family involvement in the school setting to support improved student learning. 9. To provide equitable access to other district programs and services, including special education and gifted/talented education and all procedural safeguards. 10. To monitor the progress of all identified students during program participation and after program exit and to reclassify students as needed. 11 .To evaluate the ESL program and make program modifications as needed. 12.To maintain accurate and useful student records, including procedural safeguards. Research Questions To address the requirements of federal, state, and local governance, the following research questions were selected to guide the evaluation of the effectiveness of the Districts Alternative Language program\nProgram Implementation 1. Has the District implemented appropriate policies, procedures, and programs to comply with federal law, the Commitment to Resolve with OCR, the ADE, and local LRSD policy? What has been the cost of implementation? 2. What is the evidence that LEP students have appropriate access to the range of special opportunity programs in the District, including special education, gifted/talented programs, 504 programs, and co/extra-curricular programs? 3. Has the District been successful in improving the quality of instruction through either ensuring an adequate number of ESL-endorsed teachers to serve the identified LEP students or in providing adequate training to ensure competent performance? I 2 I 5 t Academic Progress 4. Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Pmnrorr* _ __________  ____  .. . _ iy prggress in learning reading and English language arts soki/iiHllcsO? How does their _p__e__rfco__r_m___a nce compare wi_t_h__ _t_h e general popiyulation with PHLOTE students in general, and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? 5. Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program making progress in learning content knowledge and skills? How does their performance compare with the general population, with PHLOTE students in general, and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? Other Behavioral Indicators 6. What are the attendance rates, retention rates, discipline/suspension rates dropout rates, and graduation rates of identified LEP students being served i the Alternative Language Program? How does their performance compare with that of the general population, with PHLOTE students in general and in with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? Methodology A team comprised of staff from the Division of Instruction and from the Department of Testing, Research and Evaluation was assembled early in the year to determine the scope and focus of the evaluation, to formulate the research questions, and to ensure the availability of appropriate data upon which to base findings and conclusions. During all stages of the process, this team relied on findings from best practices in the development aanud ceififceucutivvec iimiiippileemmeennitaaitiioonn oorf AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee LLaanngguuaaggee PPrrooggrraammss and effective techniques for monitoring and assessing the performance of limited-EnqIish Mr. Mark Vasquez, an expert on the requirements for compliance with the Office of Civil Rights relating to LEP issues, served as a consultant to the team who prepared the program evaluation. Since this study is a year-two evaluation, the team decided to focus on the gualitv of the iimmnplloemmoennttoattiiroinn of the program, Xto__ _m___o__n:ixt_o_r 1t1h. e. _p errf ormance of _L__E__P_ and__ _F__EjPr ^E1 sUtudents academic performance in relation to the performance of the general student population in both acquiring English language skills and content knowledge and skills, and to monitor certain behavioral variables such as attendance, retention, discipline/ suspension, dropout, and graduation rates. Compiled data results for each academic or behavioral variable are displayed Tables follow the descriptions of the data. The descriptions always start with an overview of the demographics of the table, i.e., how many LEPs, FEPs, etc. The demographic overview is followed by An Overview of the Overall Performance of PHLOTE Students (Primary Home Language Other Than English) students. Caul description proceeds with the performance of LEP (Limited English Proficient) and in tables. Each FEPE (Fluent English Proficient Exited) students. A summary follows each description 3 of each PHLOTE category. Conclusions are included at the end of each grade-level section. Unless otherwise indicated, pre assessment refers to the spring of the 1999-2000 school year, and post refers to the spring of the 2000-2001 school year. The exception is with the Development Reading Assessment (DRA) for the kindergarten, first grade, and second grade students who took the DRA during the 2000-2001 school year. In these cases, pre refers to the fall of the 2000-2001 school year, and post refers to the spring of the 2000-2001 school year. Evaluation Design and Focus The general population for this report will consist of all students in the LRSD except the PHLOTE (Primary Home Language Other Than English) students. PHLOTE students include the following sub-populations: LEP, FEP, FEPE, NALMS, REFUSE, LEPREC, and LEPREF which are designated by acronyms. The acronyms and the definitions of the sub-populations of PHLOTE students are as follows:  LEP (Limited-English Proficient): Students administered the Language Assessment Scale (LAS) upon admission to the LRSD and determined not to be proficient in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and/or speaking English.  NALMS (Not Assessed Language Minority Students): PHLOTE students whose English language proficiency has not been assessed.  FEP (Fluent-English Proficient): PHLOTE students administered the LAS upon admission to the LRSD and determined to be proficient in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English.  FEPE (Fluent-English Proficient and Exited from the program): PHLOTE students initially identified as LEP\nreceived LRSD ESL program services\nand then exited the program after the LAS indicated a proficiency in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English.  REFUSE (Parent Refused Initial Assessment): PHLOTE students whose parents refused permission to assess the students English proficiency. I i I J  LEPREC (Limited English Proficient Reclassified): FEPE students whose performance after exiting the ESL program required that the student to again be identified as LEP.  LEPREF (Limited English Proficient Refused Services)\nPHLOTE students who were identified through language assessment to be LEP\nhowever, the parents refused permission to place the student in the ESL program. 4Although the evaluation analyzes the achievement of PHLOTE students as a group, the primary focus of the evaluation is the performance (behavioral and academic) of LEP (Limited- English Proficient) and FEPE (Fluent-English Proficient Exited) students. LEP students are the students receiving ALP (Alternative Language Program) services, and FEPE students are former LEP students who have been exited from the AL program and are no longer receiving direct services. The performance (academic) of FEPE students must be monitored in case reclassification is necessary. Reclassification is the process by which a FEPE student re-enters the ALP because he/she was not successful in the regular school program and is, thus, reclassified as LEP. Assessments The descriptions of academic performance in the English language arts are based upon student performance on the following national, state, and local assessments\n\" Stanford Achievement Test Series - Ninth Edition (grades 5, 7 and 10),Total Reading and Total Language\n Arkansas Benchmark Examination (grade 4 and 8), Literacy Examinations\n Developmental Reading Assessment (grades K-2)\n LRSD Achievement Level Tests\nReading and Language Usage (grades 2 through 11). The descriptions of academic performance in specific content knowledge and skills are based upon student performance on the following assessments\n LRSD Achievement Level Tests\nElementary Mathematics (Grades 2-5)\nMiddle School Mathematics (Grades 6-8), and the following content courses at the secondary level\n Physics  Chemistry  Biology,  Algebra I and II  Geometry. Outline of Program Evaluation This document is divided into six sections. Each of sections ll-V addresses specific research questions. Section I: Introduction The first section includes the introduction, an outline of the Districts program goals and objectives, a delineation of the research questions for the study, a description of methodologies, the evaluation focus, a list of assessments used to gather academic and behavioral data, and an outline of the sections in the stud/ Section II\nPolicies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance Section II includes evidence of the Districts implementation of numerous new policies, procedures, and programs to ensure compliance and quality, including cost data, all aligned with the twelve program objectives. Also included are demographic datanumbers of PHLOTE, LEP, and PEPE students, as well as statistics on the top ten language communities represented by each subpopulation. 5 s Section III: English Language Acquisition Performance of LEP and FEPE Students This section includes an evaluation of the effectiveness of programs that develop students' English language arts skills. Section IV: Content Area Knowledge and Skills of LEP and FEPE Students This section evaluates LEP and FEPE students' progress in attaining content area knowledge and skills. Section V\nBehavioral Performance Indicators of LEP and FEPE Students This section evaluates LEP and FEPE students' performance in relation to attendance, retention, discipline and suspension, dropout, and graduation rates. Section VI: Key Findings and Recommendations\nBibliography 6Section VI: Key Findings and Recommendations Program Implementation 1. Has the District implemented appropriate policies, procedures, and programs to comply with federal law, the Commitment to Resolve with OCR, the ADE, and local LRSD policy? What has been the cost of implementation? A review of documents submitted to OCR as per the agreed-upon schedule, of the annual report to the ADE, and of LRSD data and reports, along with the information provided for this program evaluation provides adequate evidence for the Districts compliance with federal, state, and local expectations. Although the District has invested substantial funding in these efforts, most of the funds have come from the federal Class-size Reduction grant, from Title I, and from the States allocation for LEP students. District funds have been used to pay the salaries and office expenses of the ESL Supervisor, one-half secretary, and 20 percent of the ESL Parent Coordinators salary. The remaining 80 percent of her salary is paid through Title I. 2. What is the evidence that LEP students have appropriate access to the range of special opportunity programs in the District, including special education, gifted/talented programs, 504 programs, and co/extra-curricular programs? 5 J i As described under Program Objective 9 above, the LRSD has established and implemented appropriate policies and procedures, as well as training of various levels of staff, to ensure compliance with the expectation that LEP students will have appropriate access to the range of special opportunity programs. The District has provided evidence of the inclusion of LEP students in its special education and gifted/talented programs. In addition to the data provided, LEP students are also represented in the Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses at all secondary schools and in the University Studies (concurrent enrollment with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock) at Hall High School. Section III of this study also provides evidence of the participation of LEP students in the Districts pre-kindergarten program. 3. Has the District been successful in improving the quality of instruction through either ensuring an adequate number of ESL-endorsed teachers to serve the identified LEP students or in providing adequate training to ensure competent performance? Program Objective 5 activities described above includes evidence of the Districts effort's to support teacher endorsement in ESL, to provide training for scores of other teachers to enhance their effectiveness, to provide administrator training, and to schedule students appropriately with the trained or endorsed teachers. The ESL Supervisors database provides further evidence of the Districts commitment to provide quality instruction for LEP students. At all three levels of schools (elementary, middle, and high), the District already had at the end of the second year (2000-2001) more endorsed teachers than they projected a need for in the fall of 1999. 118Having more and more teachers endorsed allows a school to be more flexible in scheduling students, and it also enables the District to serve without so much stress its growing population of LEP students. 1 i Academic Progress 4. Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program making progress in learning reading and English language arts skills? How does their performance compare with the general population, with PHLOTE students in general, and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? i i i 5 Effect of Prekindergarten on Academic Progress The performance of six groups of kindergarten students were displayed in the tables in the first part of Section 111\nall kindergarten PHLOTE students\nkindergarten PHLOTE students with pre-kindergarten\nkindergarten PHLOTE students without pre- kindergarten\nall kindergarten LEP students\nkindergarten LEP students with pre- kindergarten\nand, finally, kindergarten LEP students without pre-kindergarten. Each of the groups is rank-ordered below in terms of its performance on the spring 2001 DRA the percent of students performing At/Above the readiness level: PHLOTE kindergarten with pre-kindergarten LEP kindergarten with pre-kindergarten LRSD General Population All PHLOTE kindergarten All LEP kindergarten PHLOTE kindergarten without pre-kindergarten LEP kindergarten without pre-kindergarten 86% 81% 81% 78% 76% 68% 67% The rank order of the groups according to gains from the fall 2000 pre-test to the spring 2001 post-test is as follows: LEP kindergarten with pre-kindergarten PHLOTE kindergarten with pre-kindergarten All LEP kindergarten All PHLOTE kindergarten LEP kindergarten without pre-kindergarten PHLOTE kindergarten without pre-kindergarten 76%age points 72%age points 67%age points 67%age points 57%age points 57%age points Either way the data are examined reveals the importance of students participation in the pre-kindergarten program for more rapid acquisition of English language skills. The PHLOTE and LEP students with LRSD pre-kindergarten experience both out-performed those without pre-kindergarten, and they grew at faster rates. In comparison to all kindergarten students in the District, both the PHLOTE and LEP kindergarten students with LRSD pre-kindergarten experience out-performed the general population. The LRSD average in spring 2001 for all students was 80.7. The PHLOTE kindergarten average was 86%, and the LEP kindergarten average was 81%. It is also important to examine the differences in the performance of PHLOTE kindergarten students with LRSD pre-kindergarten (86% At/Above readiness) and those 119 without (68%)a difference of 18 percentage points. A similar disparity is found between the LEP kindergarten students with LRSD pre-kindergarten (81% At/Above readiness) and those without (67%)a 14 point difference. These differences are especially important, given that there is almost no difference between the performance of PHLOTE kindergarten students in general (78% At/Above readiness) and LEP kindergarten students in general (75% At/Above readiness), although the LEP students comprise 86 percent of the total kindergarten PHLOTE population. This study further finds that LEP kindergarten students who have attended LRSD pre-kindergarten (81 % At/Above readiness) out-perform PHLOTE kindergarten students in general (78% At/Above) and LRSDs general population (80.7% At/Above readiness). The students with the pre-kindergarten experience had an advantage over the students without the pre-kindergarten experience. This finding validates the research on the importance of early childhood education (Bredekamp, Knuth, Kunesh, and Shulman. 1992\nKagan, 1995\nSchwartz, 1996). Two-Year Comparison of Kindergarten DRA Scores Just as the students in the second year of the Districts new literacy program improved at each grade level, K-2, over the performance of students in the first year of the programs implementation, so did the PHLOTE and LEP students.  LRSDs general kindergarten population improved from 72% readiness to 81%-9 points.  Kindergarten PHLOTE students improved from 67% to 79%12 points.  Kindergarten LEP students improved from 59% to 76%-17 points. Both PHLOTE and LEP students improved more on average than the general population, with LEP students achieving the most improvement. The gap between the general population and PHLOTE students decreased from 5 points in 1999-2000 to only 2 points in 2000-2001 The gap between the general population and LEP students decreased from 13 points to 5 points in the second year. Two-Year Comparison of Grade 1 DRA Scores At grade 1, the general population, PHLOTEs and LEPs students all improved the second year of the program:  LRSDs general grade 1 population improved from 54% to 64%-10 points.  Grade 1 PHLOTE students improved from 33% to 60%--17 points.  Grade 1 LEP students improved from 23% to 59%--36 points. Again, both PHLOTE and LEP students improved more on average than the general population, and, again, with LEP students improving the most. The gap between the general population and PHLOTE students decreased from 21 points in 1999-2000 to 4 120 I points in 2000-2001, and the gap between the general population and LEPs decreased from 31 points to 5. Two-Year Comparison of Grade 2 DRA Scores The pattern of improved achievement during the second year of program implementation continued for grade 2 for the general population, PHLOTEs, LEPs, and FEPEs.  LRSDs general population at grade 2 improved from 68% to 75%--7 points.  Grade 2 PHLOTE students improved from 56% to 65%--9 points.  Grade 2 LEP students improved from 50% to 57%--7 points.  Grade 2 FEPE students improved from 60% to 100%~40 points. The grade 2 PHLOTE and FEPE students both improved more in the second year than did the general population. The LEP students improved the same. The gap between the general population and PHLOTE grade 2 students decreased from 12 points to 10 points in the second year and for the FEPE students decreased from 8 points to -25. The gap remained the same for LEP students18 points. Summary of K-2 Findings LEP students grew more than PHLOTE students or the general population in both kindergarten and grade 1. FEPE students, although small in number, all achieved the District standard at grade 2 (100% readiness), and their improvement in the second year was 40 points. FEPE students outperformed the general population in grade 3. Comparison of K-2 Students in Newcomer and Non-Newcomer Schools At the K-2 levels, there were 145 PHLOTE students attending Newcomer Schools in 2000-2001, and 140 attended non-Newcomer Center schools. Eight elementary schools had no PHLOTE students.  At the kindergarten level the Newcomer Center PHLOTE students (82%) outperformed the District (81%) and non-Newcomer Center schools (76%) with the percent of students reaching the readiness standard. LEP students (83%) at Newcomer Centers also outperformed the District and non-Newcomer Center schools (70%).  At grade 1 the PHLOTE (66%) students at the non-Newcomer Center schools outperformed the PHLOTE students at Newcomer Centers (53%), as well as the general population (64%). LEP students at the Newcomer Center schools performed as well as those in non-Newcomer Center schools (59%), but not as well as the general population (64%), 121 i Grade 2 non-Newcomer Center school PHLOTE students (70%) performed significantly better than those in the Newcomer Center schools (56%) and just five points below the general population (75%). Non-Newcomer Center LEP students (76%) also significantly outperformed LEP students in the Newcomer Centers (44%) and outperformed the general population by one point (75%). Summary of Findings Both PHLOTE and LEP students at the kindergarten level at the Newcomer Center schools outperformed the PHLOTE and LEP students at the non-Newcomer Center schools, as well as the Districts general population. At grades 1 and 2, however, both PHLOTE and LEP students at the non-Newcomer Center schools outperformed their peers in the Newcomer Center schools. In grade 1 the PHLOTE students in the nonNewcomer Center schools outperformed the general population. Cohort Performance on the Achievement Level Reading Test The Northwest Evaluation Association recommends the use of median RIT scores for the purpose of evaluating student performance.  The Grade 2 general population (183) outperformed both PHLOTE (171) and LEP (179) students.  The 1999-2000 grade 2 FEPE students grew 21 points by the end of grade 3, as compared to an 18-point growth by PHLOTEs, a 10-point growth by LEPs, and only one point by the general population. Both PHLOTE and FEPE students scored higher than the general population in grade 3 during 2000-2001. i 1  The 1999-2000 grade 3 PHLOTE students grew 16 points by the end of grade 4, as compared to a 13-point growth by LEPs, 10 points by FEPEs, and no growth by the general population. FEPE students outperformed the general population both in grade 3 in 1999-2000 and in grade 4 in 2000-2001. PHLOTE students also outperformed the general population in 2000-2001.  The 1999-2000 grade 4 LEP students grew 11 points by the end of grade 5, as compared to 10 points by the FEPEs, 3 points by the general population and a -9 points by PHLOTES, Both PHLOTEs and FEPEs outperformed the general population in grade 4 in 1999-2000, and FEPEs outperformed the general population in grade 5 in 2000-2001.  The 1999-2000 grade 5 LEP students grew 6 points by the end of grade 6 in 2000- .- 2001, as compared to 4 points each by PHLOTEs, FEPEs, and the general population. The general population outperformed PHLOTEs, LEPs, and FEPEs at the end of grade 6.  The 1999-2000 grade 6 FEPE students grew 15 points by the end of grade 7 in 2000-2001, as compared to 10 points by PHLOTEs, 3 points by LEPs, and 2 points by the general population. The general population scored higher than PHLOTEs, 122LEPs. and FEPEs in grade 6. but both FEPEs (222) and PHLOTEs (221) outperformed the general population (216) in grade 7.  The 1999-2000 grade 7 PHLOTE students grew 15 points by the end of grade 8 in 2000-2001, as compared to 10 points by FEPEs. 7 points by LEPs, and 2 points by the general population. The general population outperformed the PHLOTEs. LEPs. and FEPEs in grade 7. but PHLOTE students significantly outperformed the general population in grade 8.  The 1999-2000 grade 8 LEP students grew 7 points by the end of grade 9 in 2000- 2001. as compared to only one point of growth by PHLOTE and FEPE students and none by the general population. The general population outperformed the PHLOTE. LEP. and FEPE students in both grades 8 and 9.  The 1999-2000 grade 9 PHLOTE students grew 6 points by the end of grade 10 in 2000-2001. as compared to only one point by the general population, no growth by FEPEs. and a -2 by LEPs. Summary of Findings In general. PHLOTE and FEPE students performed better than the general population on the ALT Reading test in grades 3-4 and 7-8. This finding provides evidence of the strength and effectiveness of the elementary Alternative Language Program. The lower performance of these students in grades 6 and 9-10 requires examination to determine whether their lower performance is a result of the schools to which they are assigned, changes in the LEP and FEPE populations themselves from year to year, or the quality the Alternative Language Program at these levels. I Cohort Performance on the Achievement Level Language Usage Test Both the DRA and ALT reading scores already reported provide evidence that PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students are improving in their ability to read in English. The following analysis provides evidence of the acquisition of English usage skills for these students.  At grade 2 in 2000-2001, the FEPE students outperformed the general population.  The 1999-2000 grade 2 LEP students grew 14 points by the end of grade 3 in 2000- 2001. as compared to 11 points by the general population and 10 points by FEPE students. The grade 2 FEPE students outperformed the general population, as did the grade 3 FEPE students in 2000-2001.  The 1999-2000 grade 3 FEPE students grew 8 points by the end of grade 4 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 5 points by the LEPs and no growth by the general population. The grade 3 FEPE students outperformed the general population, as did the FEPE students in grade 4 in 2000-2001.  The 1999-2000 grade 4 LEP students grew 12 points by the end of grade 5 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 5 points by FEPE students and 4 by the general population. 123The grade 4 FEPE students outperformed the general population in 1999-2000, as well as in grade 5 in 2000-2001.  The 1999-2000 grade 5 LEP students grew 3 points, as compared to no growth by FEPEs and -2 by the general population by the end of grade 6 in 2000-2001. The general population outperformed the LEP and FEPE students in both grade 5 and grade 6.  The 1999-2000 grade 6 FEPE students grew 5 points by the end of grade 7 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 1 point for LEP students, and -2 for the general population. The general population outperformed LEP and FEPE students in grade 6, but the FEPE students outperformed the general population in grade 7.  The 1999-2000 grade 7 FEPE students grew 7 points by the end of grade 8 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 2 points for LEP students and none for the general population. The general population outperformed the LEP and FEPE students in both grades 7 and 8.  The 1999-2000 grade 8 LEP students grew 4 points by the end of grade 9, but both FEPEs and the general population declined. The general population outperformed both LEP and FEPE students in both grades 8 and 9.  The 1999-2000 grade 9 general population posted no growth by the end of grade 10, and both the LEPs and FEPEs posted declines. The general population outperformed both the LEPs and FEPEs in grades 9 and 10. i Summary of Findings FEPE students in grades 2-5 consistently outperformed the general population on the English Language Usage ALT. With only one exception, however, neither LEP nor FEPE students scored as well as the general population in grades 6-10. I Stanford Achievement Test The degree to which PHLOTE students, as well as LEPs and FEPEs, are acquiring English reading and language arts skills can also be measured by the SAT9 reading and language subtests, although not all LEP students take these tests, as they do the DRA and ALTS. j I  At grade 5, the FEPE students (64' %ile) significantly outperformed the general population (42 %ile) on the language subtest. PHLOTE students (45 %ile) also outperformed the general population.  At grade 7 the PHLOTE students (45' %ile) outperformed the general population (39^ %ile) on the reading subtest. The FEPE students scored at the 38' %ile.  At grade 7 both the PHLOTES (49' %ile) and FEPEs (51 %ile) outperformed the general population (SS^^ %ile) on the language subtest. i I 124 At grade 10 the PHLOTE students (44** %ile) outperformed the general population (42\" %ile). I Summary of Findings PHLOTEs outperformed the general population at all three grade levels tests on the language subtest, and FEPE students did better in grades 5 and 7. Only in grade 7 did PHLOTEs and FEPEs outperform the general population in reading. Arkansas Benchmark Examinations Not all LEP students take the Benchmark Examinations, but the scores on these tests can also be analyzed to determine the degree to which PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students are acquiring English literacy skills.  At grade 4, FEPE students (75%) significantly outperformed the general population (35%). PHLOTEs were close behind with 33%.  At grade 8, both PHLOTE (28%) and FEPE (25%) students outperformed the general population (17%). Summary of Findings Both PHLOTE and FEPE students are doing very well on the state Benchmark Examinations, as compared to the general population. i Conclusions A review of PHLOTE, FEPE, and LEP performance on the DRA, ALT reading, ALT language usage, SAT9 reading, SAT9 language usage, and Arkansas Benchmark Literacy Examinations, as compared to the general population, shows strong performance by PHLOTE and FEPE students at the elementary level and to some degree at the middle school level. Both PHLOTE and FEPE students compared to the general population more favorably on the SAT9 and Arkansas Benchmark examinations than they did on the ALTs. Kindergarten students who attended the LRSD prekindergarten program performed significantly better than those without this experience. Grades 1-2 students in the non-Newcomer Center schools outperformed their peers in the Newcomer Centers. ! I 5. Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program making progress in learning content knowledge and skills? How does their performance compare with the general population and with fluent English- proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? This question will be answered through analysis of student performance on the ALT mathematics test, the SAT9 mathematics subtest, and the Arkansas Benchmark Mathematics Examinations. Scores are also included for high school science ALTs. Cohort Performance on the Achievement Level Mathematics Test  The 2000-2001 grade 2 FEPE students outperformed the general population, and the LEPs did as well as the general population. 125 The 1999-2000 grade 2 LEP students grew 17 points by the end of grade 3 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 9 points by FEPEs and 2 points by the general population. In grade 2 the general population outperformed LEPs and FEPEs, but FEPEs outperformed the general population in grade 3, and the LEPs tied their score.  The 1999-2000 grade 3 FEPE students grew 8 points by the end of grade 4, compared to 5 points for LEPs and 2 points for the general population. The FEPE students outperformed the general population in grade grade 3 and grade 4. . The 1999-2000 grade 4 LEP students grew 11 points by the end of grade 5, as compared to 3 for the general population, and none for FEPEs. FEPE students tied the performance of the general population in grade 4, and the general population outscored both LEPs and FEPEs in grade 5.  The 1999-2000 grade 5 general population grew 4 points, as compared to none for LEP students and 6 for FEPEs. The FEPEs tied the performance of the general population in grade 5, but the general population outperformed the LEP and FEPE students in grade 6.  The 1999-2000 grade 6 LEP students grew 5 points by the end of grade 7 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 2 for the general population and none by FEPEs. The general population outperformed both groups in both grades 6 and 7.  The 1999-2000 grade 7 LEP students grew 8 points by the end of grade 8 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 3 by the general population and none for FEPEs. The general population performed slightly higher than FEPEs in grade 7 and slightly higher than LEPs in grade 8. Summary of Findings FEPE students generally outperformed the general population in mathematics in grades 2-4. They fall behind, however, in grades 508. Achievement Level Test: High School Mathematics and Science  FEPE students outperformed the general population in 2000-2001 in Algebra I.  FEPE students outperformed the general population in 2000-2001 in Algebra II.  FEPE students outperformed the general population in 2000-2001 in Geometry.  The general population outperformed FEPEs in 2000-2001 in Biology.  The general population outperformed FEPEs in 2000-2001 in Physics.  FEPE students outperformed the general population in 2000-2001 in Chemistry. 126Summary of Findings FEPE students outperformed the general population in all three required mathematics courses and in Chemistry. Stanford Achievement Mathematics Test  At grade 5 PHLOTE students (40* %ile) outperformed the general population (31  %ile).  At grade 7 PHLOTE students (53^' %ile) and FEPEs (41 %ile) both outperformed the general population %ile).  At grade 10 PHLOTE students (52\"'^ %ile) and LEPs (48* %ile) both outperformed the general population (46 %ile). Summary of Findings PHLOTE students outperformed the general population at all three grade levels on the SAT9 mathematics subtest. FEPE students outperformed the general population at grade 7 and LEPs outperformed them at grade 10. Arkansas Benchmark Mathematics Examination  PHLOTE (46%), LEP (33%), and FEPE (75%) students all outperformed the general population on the grade 4 Benchmark.  PHLOTE (25%) students outperformed the general population (17%) in grade 8. Summary of Findings As seen in elementary reading and language usage and in elementary mathematics on the ALT, PHLOTE students outperformed the general population in both grades 4 and 8. In addition, both LEP and FEPE students outperformed the general population in grade 4 on this important measurement. Conclusions Based on the available data on mathematics achievement, PHLOTE and FEPE students appear to be doing very well at all three levels of schools, even though the scores were weaker at the middle school level on the ALT. PHLOTE and FEPE achievement was good in chemistry, but weaker in biology and physics. Other Behavioral Indicators 6. What are the attendance rates, retention rates, discipline/suspension rates, dropout rates, and graduation rates of identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program? How does their performance compare with that of the general population, with PHLOTE students in general, and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? The data indicate that kindergarten and grade 1 have the largest PHLOTE enrollments\nkindergarten through grade 3 the largest LEP enrollment, and grades 3 and 4 the 127 largest FEPE enrollment. The elementary school with the largest enrollment is Chicot with 109\nthe middle school with the most PHLOTEs is Cloverdale\nand the high school with the largest PHLOTE enrollment in Hall High School. Attendance  FEPE students attendance is better than the general population in grades kindergarten, 2-6, and 8-12. PHLOTE students attendance is better than the general population at grades 4-7 and grade 12. LEP students attendance is better than the general population at grade 12.  LEP students missed an average of 18 days at grade 9, apparently as a result in part of their being suspended. Discipline/Suspensions  There were no PHLOTE, LEP, or FEPE students disciplined in grades K-4. At grade 5 there were 2 students with 3 sanctions\nat grade 6 there were 6 students with 9 sanctions\nat grade 7 there were 6 students with 10 sanctions\nand at grade 8 there were 9 students with 15 sanctions. I  At the high school level at grade 9 there were 17 students with 41 sanctions and 416 missed days of school for suspensions. Grade 10 had 12 students, 26 sanctions, and 93 days of suspension. Twenty of the 29 students receiving discipline were LEP.  At grade 11 there were 5 students, 6 sanctions, and 19 days of suspension. Only 5 seniors were disciplined, with 10 sanctions, but with 371 days of missed school. Retention  A total of 50 PHLOTE students were retained in 2000-2001. Nineteen of these were in grades K-5\n6 in grades 6-8\nand 26 in grades 9-12. Dropouts  Only 4 PHLOTE students dropped out in 2000-2001. Graduation Rate  In 2000-2001,42 of the 48 PHLOTE students (88%) graduated, as compared to 27 of 27 the year before. Summary of Findings  Attendance of FEPE and PHLOTE students generally was better than the attendance of the general population. LEP attendance typically was not.  Discipline/suspensions does not appear to be a problem for any PHLOTE students, except at grades 9-10 and 12. The largest sub-group of those receiving sanctions is LEP students.  Retention occurs infrequently for PHLOTEs at the elementary and middle schools. 128 The retention rate of LEP students at the high school level is a weakness. . The dropout rate of PHLOTE students is less than that of the general population.  The graduation rate of PHLOTE students is about the same as the general population. Recommendations  The District's school-level staff must ensure that LEP students are scheduled with teachers who are either endorsed, partially endorsed, or fully trained in ESL methodologies. District-level staff should monitor carefully at the beginning of each school year to ensure compliance.  The District should continue to be advocates for more state funds for the education of LEP students.  The District should develop a plan in spring 2002 for the potential loss of the Classsize Reduction grant from the federal government and how extra teachers and professional development may be funded in 2002-2003.  District-level staff should complete and publish the procedural handbook for school staff in identifying and serving students in the Alternative Language Program. . Parent recruiters, the ESL Parent Coordinator, and other staff should actively recruit LEP students for the prekindergarten program, given the importance of that extra year in LEP students reading performance.  The District should continue with its plan to phase out elementary Newcomer Centers, given the performance of students in the non-Newcomer Center schools.  The District should examine the dip of performance of middle school LEP students to determine the cause.  The District should examine the attendance and discipline problems of LEP students in grades 9-10 and develop plans for improvement.  PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE student performance on the elementary ALT science tests should be analyzed in 2002-2003 to help determine whether these students are acquiring content area knowledge and skills. The 2002-2003 program evaluation should include an analysis of PHLOTE, LEP,  Ine ZUUZ'ZUUO piuyidi11 cvdiuduiut oiluuiu \u0026gt;v- j i and FEPE participation in Pre-AP, AP, and University Studies courses at the middle and high school levels. 129 The District should continue to provide high levels of professional development for staff responsible for the Alternative Language Program to ensure continuous improvement. i I I s i 130Agenda RECEIVED FEB 2 8 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting February 2002 R. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: PREPARED BY: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ^/Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent of Instruction DATE: April 25, 2002 SUBJECT: Proposed Revision of Policy IHBEA: English as a Second Language Background Information The District gathered data in 1999-2000 on its identified limited-English proficient students (LEP) relating to where they were attending school. Significant percentages were assigned to the five elementary Newcomer Centers, the two middle school centers, and the one high school center. What surprised everyone, however, is how many were attending their neighborhood schools. Virtually every school in the District had LEP students in attendance. In 1999-2000 the District also conducted its first ESL program evaluation. That study included a look at the performance of students in the Newcomer Centers as opposed to other schools. Tentative findings indicated that the elementary students in the nonNewcomer schools were performing as well as or better than those assigned to the Newcomer Centers. That finding was repeated in the 2000-2001 study, with the exception of kindergarten LEP students. This important finding told the staff several things: 1. The literacy curriculum was working well for both native English speakers and for second-language students\n2. The assignment of LEP students to trained/endorsed teachers, regardless of whether the school was a Newcomer Center, was reaping benefits\n3. Significant savings could result in transportation if LEP students, at least at the elementary level, could attend their neighborhood schools\n4. Parental involvement for LEP students would more likely improve if LEP students were not bused to Newcomer Centers but attended school closer to their homes. Also, of course, the Districts obligation to provide an alternative language program is the same in the non-Newcomer schools as it is in the Newcomer schools. Board of Education April 25, 2002 Page Two District staff began informally to phase out the automatic assignment of elementary LEP students to Newcomer Centers in 2000-2001 and have continued to allow (and not discourage) attendance at the neighborhood school in 2001-2002. Those who wished to stay in the Newcomer schools to complete elementary school were allowed to do so. The proposed deletions to Policy IHBEA remove the language relating to Newcomer Centers to reflect this proposed change. At this time LEP secondary students continue to be offered an assignment to a Newcomer Center. If, however, enrollment continues to grow in other secondary schools, this option may in the future also be discontinued as more and more students are served well in their zoned schools. Fiscal Impact This proposed change will not cost the District anything. Instead, it should continue to provide opportunities to save money formerly required for transportation. Recommendation That the Board of Education approve on first reading the proposed amendments (deletions of language) to Policy IHBEA: English as a Second Language. BAL/adgLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IHBEA ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE The Board of Education is committed to providing appropriate and equitable programs and services in compliance with federal and state mandates and which are designed to ensure that students who are limited-English-proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District. The Districts program will be designed to address the affective, linguistic, and cognitive needs of the limited-English proficient (LEP) students. A research-based English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) program will be provided in designated Newcomer Centers at the elementary, middle, and high school levels for all identified students, regardless of the students grade levels and home language, except where parents have denied placement in the program. The District will meet its obligations to provide language services to students whose parents have denied services and placement in a Nowcomer Center through teachers professional development in ESL methodologies, tutoring, summer school opportunities, parental involvement, and monitoring of students academic progress. The District will ensure the provision of appropriate ESL curriculum standards and benchmarks, professional development, technical assistance, parent involvement, staffing, materials, access to special education and other special opportunity programs, qualified staff, and othqr resources to ensure compliance and effectiveness. The District will annually conduct an evaluation of the ESL programs and services, report the findings to the Board of Education, and make appropriate program modifications based on the evaluation. Revised: Adopted: November 18,1999 Legal Reference: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. 2000d seq., and sections 100.3(a), (b) of its implementing regulation, at 34 C.F.R. Part 100.0b/iy/2002 08: 48 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS RAISE 01/05 810 West Markham Is Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 447-1027 \" (501)447-1161 Fax: DATE: June 19, 2002 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Central Arkansas Media Cynthia Howell, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette JuHe Davis, Communications Specialist ESL Graduate Academy Continues through June 28 Forty-one teachers from the Little Rock School District have joined forces with teachers from other central Arkansas school districts at the two-week ESL (English As a Second Language) Graduate Academy, held at the Oasis Renewal Center, 14913 Cooper Orbit Road. Technology Day, held on June 27, will take place at three locations: Williams Magnet Elementary (7301 Evergreen St.), Southwest Middle School (3301 S. Bryant St.) and the Instructional Resource Center (3001 S. Pulaski St.). The academy is sponsored by the Little Rock School District, the Arkansas Department of Education and Arkansas Tech University. The Little Rock School District is home to students who speak 42 foreign languages. Spanish-speaking children comprise the largest segment of this population. A schedule of activities and a list of presenters are attached. ###06/19/2002 08:49 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 02/05 ESL GKADUATE ACADEMY VI Week One at a Glance June 17 - 22,2002 Little Rock, Arkansas Time Monday 6/17 Tuesday 6a8 Wednesday 6/19 Thursday 6/20 Friday 6/21 Saturday 6/22 9:00 Welcome Addresses 10:00 11:00 Limguage Acquisition/ ESL . Medtodology JOr-Carmen Sarudtez-Sadek Life of an Immigrant Child Dr. Urisula Chandler Teaching with Arkansas Frameworks MaTgaret Zoller Language  Acquisition (Continued) -\nL--\nTauent-\u0026amp; .  Commiini^ \"'ReJationslups Al Lopez Culture (Continued) 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 ' Dmguage Aeqaieitiotd- ESL Methodology . (Continued) Language Acquisition/ ESL Methodology (Continued) Lanj^a^ Acquisition Dr. tlena Iztftiierdp L^guage Acquiritioh (Cdntiiiuiid)'  Culture , . Dr. Afa^ . Bmitei Culture (Continued ~ ~ L U N C H 4:00 5:00 --DINl^ER-- 6:00 7:00 I^guage Acquisitioii/ f'jSL Methodology (Cqnrinuedl Language '/Acquisition/ ,, I^thodolo^ (Continued) Laiigua^ , Acquisition (Continued). .Language Acqulsitiqiv . Vitali ' }- 8:00 --DISMISSAL-- fKv. 't ESL Graduate Academy VI Coordinators: Little Rock School OiatricL Karen Broadnax Arkansas Tech University# Dr- Ursula Chandler 06/13/2002 08:43 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 03/05 Time 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5-.00 6z00 7:00 8:00 Sunday 6/23 Group Projects Project^ Showcase Asiui Odtnie Mai te Ngttyeii ESL GRADUATE ACADEMY VI Week Two at a Glance June 23 - 28,2002 Little Rock, Arkansas Monday 6724 Tuesday 6/25 Wedaesday 6/26 Thursday 6/27 Triday 6/28 ESL Standards Workshop Dehhtr Sabo \u0026amp; Lisa Poteet ADE  Ron Tolson Methodology Dr. Prank Gonzales (Ltem.) \u0026amp; Diana Conzalez Worthen (Secondary) Language Assessment Dr. Carmen Sanchez-Sadei Technology. Dr. Yvonne Watts, .. -CItzistote z  B^k \u0026amp; Grace Kerr /tssesemeiA Karen Broadnax '--LUNCH Office of Civil Rights Recjuirements Mark Vas/fuez ESL Strategies Karen Broadnax AXKTESOt Resouice Display Methodology \u0026amp; Children's Literature (Continued) Language Assessment (Condhued) Technolo^ (Cp'ntUaed) Gtaduation , --DINNER-- Assessmmt Karen Broadnax . .. Hispanic Cultiue S tella Lt^a i ^^DISMISSAL-- ESI Graduate Academy VI Coordinators: Little Kock School DistricL Karen Broadnax Arkansas Tech University, Dr. Ursula Chandler 06/19/2002 08:49 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 04/05 Little Rock School District ESL Graduate Academy Oasis Renewal Center Little Rock, AR June 17-28, 2002 Presenters and Topics 1. Dr. Mario Benitez, Chair (Emeritus), Curriculum and Instruction, University of Texas at Austin Topic: Socio-Cultural Influences of Language on Learning 2. Dr. Carmen Sanchez-Sadek, Educational Consultant/Program Evaluator, Los Angeles, California Topic- Second Language Acquisition, ESL Methodology and Assessment 3. Dr. Ursula Chandler, Department Head, Foreign Languages and International Studies. Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, AR Topic: The Life of an Immigrant child 4. Dr. Elena Izquierdo, College of Education. University of Texas at El Paso Topic: Second Language Acquisition 5. Mark Vasquez, Esq., Consultant/Civil Rights Attorney, Dallas, Texas Topic: Civil Rights Requirements for Language Minority Students 6. Dr. Frank Gonzales Topic: Methodology/Childrens Literature (Elementary) 7. Christine Black, ESL Services/Gifted Education, Lake Hamilton School District Grace Kerr, Media Specialist, The New School. Fayetteville, AR Dr. Yvonne Waits, Consultant/ADE, Little Rock, Arkansas Topic: Utilizing technology for ESL/ Core Content Instruction with LEP students 8. Dr. Diana Worthen Topic: Methodology/Childrens Literature (Secondary) The following presenters will provide special presentations^ Arkansas Department of Education Ron Tolson, Director Professional Licensure Topic: The ESL Endorsement Application Process Al Papa Rap Lopez, Springdale Public Schools/N.W. Arkansas Multicultural Youth Clubs Topic: Parent and Community Relationships06/19/2002 08:49 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 05/05 ESL Graduate Academy Oasis Renewal Center Little Rock, AR June 17-28, 2002 The following presenters will provide special presentations: Fort Smith Public Schools Mai Le Nguyen Topic: Asian Culture Little Rock School District Debbie Sabo and Lisa Poteet Topic: ESL Standards Workshop Little Rock School District Karen Broadnax, ESL Supervisor Topic: The Language Assessment Scales/An Introduction Little Rock School District Stella Loya, ESL Parent Liaison Topic: Hispanic Culture0 f/ov. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: ^^Sonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: SUBJECT: November 21,2002 Approval of the ESL Program Evaluations for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Background The LRSDs Compliance Plan for completion of the tasks relating to page 148 of the Final Compliance Report (Section 2.7.1) requires the Boards approval of already completed program evaluations that were conducted with the assistance of external experts. Two of those completed program evaluations are those for the English-as-a-Second Language program for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, which the Board has previously reviewed. The external expert who participated on those evaluation teams was Mr. Mark Vasquez, a former employee of the Office for Civil Rights in Dallas and an expert on OCRs expectations for the evaluation of alternative language programs. Those participating in the design and writing of the 1999-2000 evaluation included Dr. Ed Williams, Karen Broadnax, Ken Savage, and Mr. Vasquez. The Board of Education initially reviewed this program evaluation in fall 2000. Those participating in the design and writing of the 2000-2001 evaluation included Dr. Eddie McCoy, Dr. Ed Williams, Karen Broadnax, Ken Savage, Dr. Bonnie Lesley, and Mr. Vasquez. The Board of Education initially reviewed this program evaluation in fall 2001. Neither of these program evaluations included data related to the improvement or remediation of student achievement for African American students. Rather, the data were disaggregated for limited-English proficient students and fluent-English proficient students who had exited the LRSDs alternative language program. These data were then compared to the data for the general population. The research questions, the data to be collected, and the disaggregations were Board of Education - Memo November 21,2002 Page Two specified, for the most part, in the Commitment to Resolve, the District's voluntary agreement with OCR to put into place the necessary programs, policies, and procedures to be in full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Fiscal Impact None Recommendation That the Board of Education formally approve the following: 1. 1999-2000 program evaluation for LRSDs alternative language program 2. 2000-2001 program evaluation for LRSDs alternative language program \u0026amp; i BAL/adg 3 Attachment 1?ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students *1 Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.die ess .on .tor 197 Introduction: Promising Futures ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students All elementary and secondary school students currently in the United States will be Ihing in and contributing to an increasingly diverse society and interdependent community' of nanons in the 21st century. To realize their personal, social, and long-term career goals, indincuals will need to be able to communicate with others skillfully, appropriately, and effectively. The challenge of contemporary education is to prepare all students for life in this new world, including those learners who enter schools with a lang'uage other than English. The purpose of this document is to identify the ESL standards and their role in meeting this challenge. Why ESL Standards Are Needed Schools and communides throughout the United States are facing increased linguistic and cultural diversity. Ever}' year, more and more studencs who speak languages ocher than Er h r from homes and communities with diverse histones, traditions, world news, and experiences, populate classrooms in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Th num: school-age children and youth who speak languages other than English at home increas 68.6% in the past 10 years. By 1993 English lang'uage learners in U.S. public schools m more than 2.5 million. Current projections estimate that by the year 2000 the majonty school-age population in 50 or more major U.S. cities will be from language minor.?.' b: grounds. I I 1 fn this document use [WO acronyms. E5L and ESOL. ES refers io [hefieid oj ing'.ish as a se: 0 com.e tonal\nen oy imbered of the .1 fSOL students vary greatly in proficiency level and academic needs. Some ESOL students are recent immigrants, brought to the United States by families seeking refuge from political repression or persecution or by families seeking economic opporrunim Others are members of ethnolinguisuc groups that have lived on this continent for generations, some for longer than the United States has e.xisted as a nation. Some'have had prior education, including literacy, in their native languages. Others hav'e had limited formal schooling. Some have had normal dev'elopmental histories, while others have identified disabilities that challenge their learning. Our'  primary concerns in this document are with students in elementary and secondary' schools who are not native speakers of English, and whom we refer to as ESOL students and learners. ESL Standards describe the language skills necessary for social and academic purposes. The standards described in this document specify the language competencies ESOL students tn elementary and secondary schools need to become fully proficient in English, to have unre- ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students I I I i i language ana te cht scandards chemsecves. EiCL ( En^iish io sve-iic' oy ocher languagesj refers co che ieamer u ho are idencifiea a sccll in the process o acquiring Engiish a an additional language. 1 stricted access to grade-appropriate instruction in challenging academic subjects, and ultimately to lead nch and productive lives. The development of these standards has been informed by the work of other national standards groups, particularly by the English language arts and foreign language standards. All three language standards projects share an emphasis on the importance of:  language as communication  language learning through meaningful and significant use  the indixddual and societal value of bi- and multilingualism 8' th  the role of ESOL students native languages in their English language and general acade- -SU mic development o' o' cultural, social, and cognitive processes in language and academic development * assessment that respects language and cultural diversity let th The ESL Standards provide the bridge to general education standards expected of all Ths ESL standards articulate the developmental Endish language needs of ESOL learners and highlight special instructional and assessment considerations that must be given to ESOL learners if they are to benefit from and achieve the high standards proposed for other subjects. 2 dents in the United States. stu- Standods do not ano cannot stand alone. Other professional have developed standards that organizations and groups Of useful. Thes\nincluding E and strategic are world-class, imponant. developmentally appropriate, and standards mandate high levels of achievement in content learning for ail learners. :Oi- students. But the content standards do not orovide educators the directions\ns mey need to assist ESOL leaimers to attain these standards because t student understanding of and ability to use English to engase with content. Many tent stanna\nO' do not acknowledge the central role of language in the achievement of iSor do they highlight the learning styles and particular instructional and assessme learners who are still developing proficiency in English. In sum. the content stand: 14 Er bii ac e\\ assume f the Con: content, needs of s do not in addiess the specific needs of ESOL students who are adding znglish to their home !an\u0026lt;maoes. Therefore. ESL standards are needed. o O or mt The uSL standards recognize that upon entry to scnool ESOL learners must acquire an addi- tional language and culture and learn the English language com.petencies that are characteristic of native Englisn speakers of the same age and, most importantly, that are fundamental to the full attainment of English language arts and other content standards. The ESL standards articu- late the developmental English language needs of ESOL learners and highlight special mstruc- tional and assessment considerations that must be given-to. ESOL learners if they are to benefit from and achieve the high standards proposed for other subjects. Thus, the ESL Standards important because they:  aniculate the English language development needs of E5OL learners  pro\\-ide directions to educators on how to meet the needs of ESOL learners  emphasize the central role of language in the attainment of other standards are Introduction: Promising Futures if. T fo\ndu In ESely he 1 ce Myths About Second Language Learning Several myths regarding second language learning prevail both among many lay persons and some educational professionals and policy makers. One intent of this document is to refute these myths. Myth 1\nESOL students learn English easily and quickly simply by being exposed to and surrounded by native English speakers. Fact: Learning a second language takes time and significant intellectual effort on the part of the learner. Learning a second language is hard work\neven the youngest learners do not simply pick up\" the language. Myth 2: When ESOL learners are able to converse comfortably in English, they have developed proficiency in the language. Face It can take 6-9 years for ESOL students to achie^/e the same le'.'cls of proficiency in academic English as native speakers. Moreover, ESOL students participating in thoughtfiilly designed programs of bilingual or sheltered content instruction remain in school longer and attain signifii academic achie'/ement in comparison to students without such advantages. I Myth 3: In earlier times immigrant children learned English rapidly and into American life. '.dy higher ra[es of niiated .1- I i I Fact: Many immigrant students during the early part of this century did not learn English auicklv or well. Many dropped out of school to work in Jobs that did not require the kinds of academic achie.'e-ment and communication skills chat substantive employment oppotiunities reauire :odav. 1- I i TESOLs Vision of Effective Education for All Students The role of ESL standards can only be fully understood in the broader context of education for ESOL students. Therefore, before presenting the ESL Standards, it is important to desenbe our overarching vision of effecave education. In TESOLs vision:  Effective education for ESOL students includes nativelike levels of proficient?/ in English.  Effective education for ESOL students includes the maintenance and promotion of ESOL students' native languages in school and community contexts. \u0026gt; All educational personnel assume responsibility for the educadon of ESOL students. - Effective education also calls for comprehensive provision of first-rate services and full access to those services by all students \u0026gt; Knowledge of more than one language and culture is advantageous for all students. !S ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students 3 Effective education for ESOL students includes nativelike levels of proficiency in English. For ESOL students to be successful in school and ultimately in the world outside school. they must be able to use English to accomplish their academic, personal, and social goals with the same proficiency as native speakers of English. In school environments, ESOL students need to be able to use spoken and written English both to acquire academic content and to demonstrate their learning. ESOL learners also need to be able to follow routine classroom instructions given o' in English and understand and use appropriate communication patterns so that they can be successful learners in academic environments. Finally, ESOL learners need to use English to function effectively in social settings outside the school, as well as in academic settmgs. The ESL standards in this document are concerned with these types of social and acad- emic skills. Moreover, appropriate performance and assessment standards that distinguish between language and academic achievement are also required if ESOL students are* to be given full credit for learning academic content while acquiring English. o' Effective education for ESOL students includes the maintenance and promotion of ESOL students native languages in school and community contexts. The auHinmeni. oi ihallenging, wo.'-ld- ciass eaucatioria\nBy definition. ESOL learners already know and use another language. Both the academic Siam SLUG .cards by ui! ier.LS is oniv j achievement and the school completion of ESOL learners is significantly enrianced when they are able to use their native languages to leam in school. In fact, full proficiency in the native language (including literacy) facilitates second language development. Developing and using COSSfOL scnoos i design their i I ESOL students guistic and cul\nBilingualism is o native languages also sen'es U.S. national interests because it increases the lin- rral resources available as the United States competes in the global economy. UI dsset whose \\aiue for the indhidual and for societv can onlv increase as the a, Kmc Sim Sdiv |at} id me U Ian ^Th S sp\u0026lt; i she cot eaucanonai | :ons v.-.d- EiCi.\nL .S. role in the global market place expands in the next centurv. siuden Olh: \u0026lt; as well ss i All educational personnel assume responsibility for the education of ESOL students. Ai in mi: ' I I I i I The attainment of challenging, worid-class educational standards by al! students is only possible it scnools design their educational missions with ESOL students, as well as others, in mind, u.omprehen.si'. e education calls tor shared responsibility by and collaboration among all educational protessionals wort-ting wuth ESOL students. It also calls for professionals to expand their knowledge to encompass issues of relevance to the education of ESOL students. This e.xpanded knowledge base includes an understanding of similarities and differences in first and second language acquisition, the role ot the native language in second language and content learning, instructional methods and strategies that facilitate both English language and content learning, instructional practices that accommodate individual differences in learning styles, the interrelationships between culture, cogniuon and academic achievement, alternative approaches to assessment, and the imponance of community-school linkages in education. These are all  for tx'scf f?- tin \u0026amp; ^wh det ^coi aca 4 I 1 I I part of the professional development of ESL specialists that general educators must tap into if educational reform is to result in the attainment of high standards by all students. Effective education also calls for comprehensive provision of first-rate services and full access to those services hy all students. Quality educational experiences and ser\\nces must be made fully accessible to all ESOL students. These include, among others, comprehensive and challenging curricula, access to the full range of curricula (e .g., gifted classes, laboratory sciences, college preparatory courses), safe and Introduction: Promising Futures we us\u0026lt; off\nSr' wc ?- ^0 ESi a:h 1 ) id- 2n well-equipped classrooms, appropriate instructional practices and assessment measures, inclusion in extracurricular activities, fully and appropriately certified teachers, and other educational specialists and resources. However, this is often not the case in most schools. To have quality programs and to serve ESOL students appropriately on their way to mastery of English, instruction must take into account the different entry-level abilities in English that ESOL learners have. Some learners come to school with oral and written skills\nothers do not. In addition, where necessary, programs should provide some instruction in the native languages of ESOL students. TESOLs Access Brochure provides a description of the conditions needed to provide ESOL students with equitable opportunities to leam. (See Appendix A.) Knowledge of more than one language and culture is advantageous for all students. Internationalism is the hallmark of modem U.S. education and of the education reform movement, and linguistic and cultural diversity are the hallmarks of internationalism. The challenge of contemporary education is to contribute to students abilities to live in increasingly diverse local communities and an ever-shrinking world community. Effective education for the 21st century' must provide firsthand opportunities for students to leam about the cultural diversity around them and to leam world languages. Cross-cultural competence can be fostered bv meaningful and long-term interactions with others with different world views, life e.xperiences. languages, and cultures. Language learning can be fostered by interactions with native speakers. This means that, not only should ESOL students leam about the U.S. from native-Envli^h speakers, but native-English-speaking students, teachers, administrators, and school staff should leam about the world and its languages from ESOL students, their families, and their communities. IfESOLsiudii iO have full aci challenging i cumeuia and: i achieve :o che I high level content a: native Ens Audience \u0026gt;5- 1 This document is written for educators who work with ESOL learners. First, it is intended for educators who work directly with ESOL students at elementary\nmiddle, and secondarv school levels. This includes designated ESL teachers (whether in resource or self-contained set- tings), bilingual teachers who work with ESOL students in their native languages and English, 'O 4 t e .es and teachers who work with ESOL students with special needs and talents. Other educators who will use these standards are content area teachers who teach ESOL students. If ESOL students are to have full access to challenging curricula and to achieve to the same high level in the content are:^ as native English speakers, then content area specialists must become aware of the importance of language in relationship to their disciplines, so that they' can better facilitate the ^^demic achievement of their ESOL students. Curriculum developers and program coordinators are likely to refer to thus document as The standards and descriptors will be helpful for developers of ESL curricula and may be ^rj^^ out learning objectives. The sample progress indicators, vignettes, and discussions ^yoffer ideas for learning activities, assessment and program design. 111 id speakers, \"ler. content area specialists rat-t become awareate imponar.ee of language in relationship to ateir disciplines sc that they can better facilitate the academic achievement of their ESOL students. document may be used as a reference for educators such as counselors, school social ^ud psychologists who provide additional service to ESOL students and for profes- ^onals whose activities and decisions affect programs for ESOL students, that is, building es i KL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students 5i i ! i I 6 administrators, preservice and in-service teacher educators, and local, state and national policy makers. Parents and communities with ESOL learners may also wish to consult this document so that they may better understand what constitutes appropriate and effective education for their children. General Principles of Language Acquisition . A number of general principles derived from current research and theory about the nature of language, language learning, human development, and pedagogy, underlie the ESL standards described in this document. These principles are described briefly here.  Language is functional\nO o  Language varies. o  Language learning is cultural learning.  Language acquisition is a long-term process.  Language acquisition occurs through meaningful use and interaction.  Language processes develop interdependently.  Native language proficiency contributes to second language acquisition. ,x Etc ca idf t f-  Bilingualism is an indixidual and societal asset. Language is junctional. Language, oral and written, is primarily a means of communication used by people in multiple and varied social contexts to express themselves, interact with others, learn about the world, and meet their indi\\-idual and collective needs. Successful language learning and language teaching emphasize the goal of functional proficiency. This is a departure from traditional pedagogical approaches that new language learning and teaching primarily as mastety of the elements of language, such as grammar and vocabulary, without reference to their functional usefulness. Therefore, what is most important for ESOL learners is to function effectively in English and through English while learning challenging academic content. Language varies. Language, oral and written, is not monolithic\nit comes in different varieties. Language varies according to person, topic, purpose, and situation. Everyone is proficient in more than one of these social varieties of their native language. Language also varies with respect to regional, social class, and ethnic group differences. Such language varieties are characterized by distinctive structural and functional characteristics, and they constitute legitimate and functional systems of communication within their respective sociocultural niches. Additionally, language varies from one academic domain to anotherthe language of mathematics is different from the language of social studies. As competent language users, ESOL students already use their own language varieties. They must also learn the oral and written language varieties used in schools and in the community in large. What is most important for ESOL learners is to function effectively in academic environments, while retaining their own native language varieties. Introduction: Promising Futures Bl S ar be le\nac ac \u0026gt; er F.i/ Li e L er ^ac ^le Seb L-f' to ^in g'lb ^al feicy .nt -e of s Language learning is cultural learning. Patterns of language usage vary across cultures and reflect differences in values, norms, and beliefs about social roles and relationships in each culture. 'When children learn their first language, they learn the cultural values, norms, and beliefs that are characteristic of their cultures. To learn another language is to learn new norms, behaviors and beliefs that are appropriate in the new culture, and thus to extend one's sociocultural competence to new environments. To add a new language, therefore, is to add a new culture. Learning a new language and culture also provides insights into ones own language and culture. This is imponant for ESOL students because general education in U.S. schools tends to reflect a culture other than their own. If ESOL students are to attain the same high standards as native-English-spealdng students, educational programs must be based on acknowledgment of, understanding of, respect for, and valuing of diverse cultural backgrounds. What is imponant for all language learners is to develop attitudes of additive bilingualism and biculturalism. Language acquisition is a long-term process. iki- rld. dae- j fo ties .f 5- Language acquisition occurs over time with learners moving through developmental stages and gradually growing in prohciency. Individual learners however move through these stages at variable rates. Rates of acquisition are influenced by multiple factors including an indhiduals educational background, first language background, learning style, cognitive style, motivation, and personality. In addition, sociocultural factors, such as the influence of the English or native language communir. in the learners life, may play a role in acquisition. In many instances. learners pick up\" conversation skills related to social language more quickly than th acquire academic language skills. Educational programs must recognize the length of time it takes to acquire the English language skills necessary for success in school. This means that ESOL !eam- ers must be given the time it takes to attain full academic proficiency in English, often fro.m 5 to 1 years. Language acquisition occurs through meaningful use and interaction. Research in first and second language acquisition indicates that language is learned most effectively when it is used in significant and meaningful situations as learners interact with others (some of whom should be more proficient than the learners are) to accomplish their purposes. Language acquisition takes place as learners engage in activities of a social nature with opportunities to practice language forms for a variety of communicative purposes. Language acquisition also takes place during actixnties that are of a cognitive or intellectual nature where learners have oppormnities to become skilled in using language for reasoning and mastery of S- challenging new information. This means that ESOL learners must have multiple opportunities to Efigiish, to interact with others as they study meaningful and intellectually challengng content, and receive feedback on their language use. ^Language processes develop interdependently. Learner K' conversation\nrelated to sect language more 5- quickly man: acquire acace: O' / Educui ?ro.^ra: recoi^r.izs 'O of time it acquire tf language le le :e: necessar.' ior 5UCCSS5 in sc\nICCl. I lan^. Traditional distinctions among the processes of reading, listening, writing, and speaking are ^^cial. So is the conceptualization that language acquisition as linear (with listening preced- ion jres peaking, and speaking preceding reading, and so forth). Authentic language often entails simultaneous use of different language modalities, and acquisition of functional language ^^lities occurs simultaneously and interdependently, rather than sequentially. Thus, for exam- 'depending on the age of the learner, reading activities may activate the development of Standards for Pre-K-12 Students 71 -I 8 speaking abilities, or vice versa. Additionally, listening, speaking, reading, and writing develop as learners engage with and through different modes and technologies, such as computers. music, film, and video. This means that ESOL learners need learning environments that provide demonstrations of the interdependence of listening. e\u0026gt; speaking, reading, and writing. They also need to develop all of their language abilities through the use of varied modes and technologies. Native language proficiency contributes to second language acquisition. Because, by definition, ESOL students know and use at least one other language, they have acquired an mtuitive understanding of the general structural and functional characteristics of language. They bring this knowledge to the task of second language learning..students also come to the task of learning English and learning content through. English already lit- erate in their native languages. These learners know what a Some E5OL stu- it means to be literatethey know that they can use written forms of language to leam more about the world, to convey information and receive information from others, to establish and maintain relationships with others, and to e.xplore the perspectives of others. Literacy in the native language correlates positively with the acquisition of literacy' in a second language. In addition, academic A fl i - ! 1 I I i i j I i I I 1 I I I includes the use of E5OL students instraction that native languages, especially if they are literate in that Ian- guage. promotes learners' academic achievement while they are acquiring the English needed to benefit fully from instruction through English. Native language literacy abilities cin a_____ students in English-medium classrooms to construct meaning from academic materials and o ESOL expenences in English. And. in learning a new language, students also leam more about their natii e tongae-. This means that for aSOL leatmers the most effective teaching and learning are those th romote ESOL students' native langua\u0026lt; environments for secona language as a foundation jor English language and academic dc'.elopment. Bilingualism is an individual and societal asset. o' '.ge and literacy development .Acquisition of two languages simultaneously is a common and normal developmental ph? nomenon and that acquisition of a second (or third) language can confer certain cognitive and linguistic advantages on the indindual. To realize these benefits, however, advanced levels of pne- proficiency in both languages are necessary. Therefore, the most effective educational environ- ments for ESOL learners are those that promote the continued development of learners' primary' languages for both academic and social purposes. In addition, as noted earlier, bilingual proficiency enhances employment possibilities in the international marketplace and enhances the competitive strength of U.S. industry' and business worldwide. This means that bilingualism benefits the individual and serves the national development of multiple languages. Goals for ESOL Learners o' interest, and schools need to promote the retention and TESOL has established three broad goals for ESOL learners at all age levels, goals that include personal, social, and acadermc uses of English. Each goal is associated wth three dis- tinct standards. In TESOLs vision, ESOL learners will meet these standards as a result of the instruction they receive, thereby achieving the goals. Our schools need to ensure that all stu- Introduction\nPromising Futuresop dents achieve the English language competence needed for academic success and for life in a literate culture. 0 Goal 1: To use English to communicate in social settings\nve if lU- y lit- V .la- s, V SB' A primary goal of ESL instruction is to assist students in communicating effectively in English, both in and out of school. Such communication is vital if ESOL learners are to avoid ' the negative social and economic consequences of low proficiency in English and are to panici-  pate as informed participants in our democracy. ESOL learners also need to see that ere are j personal rewards to be gained from communicating effectively in English. This goal does not S'suggest, however, that students should lose their native language proficiency. Standards for Goal 1 Students will\n:d to SOL\n.x gi- 1. 2. 3. use English to participate in social interaction interact in, through, and with spoken and written English for personal expression and enjoyment use learning strategies to extend their communicative competence\nir nags r.snt  Goal 2: To use English to achieve academically in ail content areas In school settings, English competence is critical for success and expectations fcr -SOL I learners are high. They are expected to leam academic content through the English .anguase I lend m- T'and to compete academically with native-English-speaking ^/kamers use spoken and written Engiish in their schooiwor ig^ndards for Goal 2 -Students will\neers. This process requires that\nal :es im nd use English to interact in the classroom use English to obtain, process, construct, and proxide subject matter information in spoken and written form use appropriate learning strategies to construct and apply academic knowledge s- 1- in socially and culturally appropriate ways ^tt^udents in U.S. schools come into contact with peers and adults who are different ^^rlmguistically and culturally. The diversity in U.S. schools mirrors the diversity in g^^y and around the world that young people will encounter as they move into the 21st of work. In order to work and live amid diversity, students need to be able to appreciate people who are different and communicate effectively with them. ^^^gmcation includes the ability to interact in multiple social settings. itures for Pre-K-12 Students 9 aStandards for Goal 3 Students will: 1. 2. use the appropriate language variety, register, and genre according to audience, purpose, and setting use nonverbal communication appropriate to audience, purpose, and setting 1. J. use appropriate learning strategies to extend their sociolinguistic and sociocultural competence Conclusion 11 The ESL standards dsscnoe the proficiencies in Enaiish that ESOL students need to acquire sc they can Full proficiency in English is critical for the long-term personal, social, and economic development .of all students in the United States. In this document, TESOL outlines a framework for considering and planning language education for ESOL students and for interpreting and making use of the ESL standards. The ESL standards describe the proficiencies in English that E50L students need to acquire so.they can attain the same high level standards in other content domains, including English language arts, as fully proficient English-speaking students. Thus, the ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Siudenis is the starting point for developing effective and equitable education for ESOL students. Planning effective English language instruction for ESOL students cannot be don isolation. It must be part of a comprehensive and challenging educational program that takes into a same hish itandaros in 0! lonisnt domains, including English language arts, as .fully proficient English- speaking students.  10 account OL students social, educational, and personal backgrounds as well as the: existing skills and knowledge bases. It must understand and respond appropriatelv to the interrelation- ships between language, academic, and sociocultural developm^ent. The linguistic, cosnitive. and sociocultural competencies that ESOL students bring to school are a solid base for buildin: 'g their future, in terms of educational and career success. Only if tSL instruction is part of a comprehensive, challenging, and enriching educational program, however, will the promising futures of ESOL learners be realized. Introduction: Promising Futures 31ie Hie ^Haku! ?K\nHo\u0026amp;r ^^Krash lihdfc II cLat rCac ilii I* Sta s m- .'el-for ik- OL References for Further Reading Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisiti(^n \u0026lt; Ai d: August, D., \u0026amp; Hakuta, K. (Ed.). (1997). Improving schooling^^rl(ingiiage-mindri^,cifyi\u0026gt;^, A' research agenda. Washington, DC\nNational Academy K^sS' 'V Bialystok, E., \u0026amp; Hakuta, K. (1994). In ocher words: The scienc'^^nd:psvchplogy oj secori^^ldtx^iage acijuisicion. New York: Basic Books. A'-.. . d- Collier, V (1987). Age and rate of acquisitio'^.bt^econd langua^)fe?.\nach\n^^ic purposes. ' TESOL Quarterly, 21 (3), 617-641.' 'f fi ' ' ' ' \"(S'' % Collier, V (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academ.ic achievement in a second language. TE5OL Quarterly, 23(2), 509-532' W- p Hak-uta, K. (1986). mVirror o/language\n1 he dehafil^n'New York^^^sic Books. Hoffman, C. (1991). Introduction to bilingualism. NetV.-YSfk: Longmian. Krashen, S. (1982). Princi_p!es of first and second lang'.iage^cduisicion. O.xford: P. iamon. Lindfors, J. (1987). Children's language and leatming. (2nd ed\u0026lt;)\n^ Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentl Hall. .ulus McLaughlin, B. (1984). Second language acquisition in children. Volume 1: Preschool children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McLaughlin, B. (1985). Second language acquisition in children. Volume 2\nSchool-age children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McLaughlin, B. (1992). Myths and misconceptions about second language learning:,.What teacher needs to know. Educational Practice Report No. 5. Santa Cruz, CA and'^asl^.'gt^n^ DC: Nauqnal Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language t^rhins. a\nPease-Alvarec, L, \u0026amp; Hakuta, K. (1992). Enriching our views of bilingualism and bilin'^i^i^U' cation. Educational Researcher, 21(2), 4-6. Bilingual Education: Importance of Native Language Collier, V (1992). A synthesis of studies'e-xamining long-term language-minority student data on academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16(1/2), 187-212. ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students Si-f* ! 1 II I si-.- \\ hi, v\u0026lt;- %%. '.v 11 V Exhibit No. 66: LI230-90 Program Evaluation for English as a Second Language.Section L. Program Evaluation Program Goals The Little Rock School district shall provide a research-based English-as-a- Second Language (ESL) program for its students who are identified limited-English proficient (LEP). The first goal of the ESL program is to enable students to master English language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening), content area concepts, and skills so that the students are able to participate effectively in the regular program as quickly as possible. The second goal of the ESL program is to provide identified students with the cultural literacy necessary for them to feel comfortable in participating in the school, community, and greater community. Program Objectives ESL program objectives are as follows: 1. 2. J. 4. 5, 6. 1. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. To implement and maintain consistent procedures for student identification processes. To assess all students who have a primary language other than English (PHLOTE), regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for entry and placement into an ESL program. To diagnose student needs and provide appropriate ESL standards/benchmarks, instruction, and assessments to meet identified students individual needs for English-language instruction, for understandable instruction in other content areas, and for positive self-concept and identification with personal/family cultural heritages. To hire, train, and continually , develop highly motivated, sensitive, and caring ESL teachers and other staff to provide effective ESL instruction, interact one-on-one with the identified stodents and their families, and serve as liaisons between school and relevant community. To provide appropriately aligned instructional materials. To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for exit from an ESL program. To provide for parental/family involvement in the school setting to support improved student learning. To provide equitable access to other district programs and services, including special education, gifted/talented education, and all procedural safeguards. To monitor the progress of all identified students during program participation and after program exit and to reclassify students as needed. To evaluate the ESL program and make program modifications as needed. To maintain accurate and useful student records, including procedural safeguards (See Administrative Regulations, IHBEA-R, approved November, 1999). Categories of English Second Language Students An objective of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) is to assess all PHLOTE students regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. After attempting to assess these students, they are tagged within the Districts database as: (1) LEP - Limited English proficient, (2) NALEP - not assessed, or (3) FEP - Fluent English proficient. As of June 2,2000 the District has identified 805 PHLOTE students (LEP = 467, N-AfcEP = 45, and FEP = 293). -4here-i3-\u0026amp;fte-horTte-schQoled-sludent that has heerLassessed-EEPrbtrrwiltTTorbe included in this~' Supporting charts reflect three data gathering points, 11/30/99, 3/24/00, and 6/2/00, and correspond to the Districts reporting to the Arkansas State Department of Education, Districts Quarterly Report, and the Annual OCR report. The Districts primary database is the AS400 mainframe computer using CIMS, an electronic student database software. Student data are collected at school level. Cunent year data are filed with the students permanent record file (PRF). Baseline data are stored in ESL Department files. 'BSi7pTograirrand'DRtricrstaff1iave-reviewed-studenliiala_aud_mlLcnittinueJu44pdate4he mainframe database. As i^fereRecririrHlhHApdan. District staff are members nCthe Divi.sion of Curriculum andTnstraction. The Divisions-Associate Superintendent is Dr. Bonnie-Lesley^ The initial portion of this section will report demographic data (i.e,, gender, language, school location, grade level distribution, and any sub-groups) on LEP, NALEP, and FEP students. The subsequent sections will report academic and behavioral progress (e.g., attendance) of LEP students and how LEP students compare on academic and behavioral variables to NALEP, LEP, and the Districts general school population. Description of Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students. As of June 2, 2000, there are 467 LEP students in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). Demographics on this population are:  255 male (54.6%) and 212 female (45.4%),  Newcomer Centers serve most of the LEP students, 309 students (66.2%) (see also Figure#!), 3  LRSD has 48 schools, LEP students are being served in all of the High schools. Middle schools, and all but six of the Elementary schools (i.e., Badgett, Dodd, Jefferson, Mitchell, Western Hills, Rightsell, and Woodruff),  Non-Newcomer Centers serve the remaining LEP students (N = 158), with the top seven schools serving between 7 and 20 students (see also Figure 2),  The elementary level (grades Kindergarten through 5*) has the highest number of students per grade level with an average grade level enrollment of 46. Middle school (grades 6* through 8*') average grade level enrollment is 29, and high school (grades 9* through 12'*) per grade level enrollment averaged 19. The pre-kindergarten program (i.e. LRSDs 4-year- old program) had 29 LEP students enrolled, and  Among LEP students Spanish is the most common language spoken (71.1%), followed by Chinese (4.5%), Arabic (3.6%), Assyrian (2.3%), Korean (2.3%), and Vietnamese (1.5%). An additional 29 languages account for the remaining 14.3% of LEP students. One student has no language listed. Within the LEP population are several sub-groups: LEPNC - LEPSO - In an ESL program at a Newcomer Center (N = 309) Being served at a school other than a Newcomer Center (N = 158) LEPNS - Not being served (N = 9) LEPSPD - Receiving special education services (N = 9) LEPGT- Receiving gifted and talented (GT) services (N = 7) LEPREC - Students who have left the program, have been reclassified, and have re-entered the program (N = 0) Additional demographic data on these sub-populations are:  Newcomer Centers serve all of the students receiving gifted and talented services (N = 8),  Five of the Center, ^e^ students receiving special education services (LEPGT) attend a Newcomer  Five of the nine LEP students not receiving services (LEPNS) attend Newcomer Centers, and  Students not rei being monitored (N = 4y lirect services (LEPNS) have either refused services (N = 5) or areNewcomer Center LEP Enrollment Brady Chicot Romine Terry V\\feshington 11/30/99 26 _____68 33 22 38 3/24/00 25 71 30 18 33 6/2/00 ___  74 28 23 30 Cloverdale Middle Dunbar Middle 42 16 44 16 47 13 Hail High Total Languages LMS [ Figure 2 Top 7 Non-Newcomer Centers serving LEP Students Wakefield Cloverdale El McDermott Bale Garland Henderson Middle Forest Heights 11/30/99 21 17 17 10 6 7 11 3/24/00 22 14 18 9 8 8 10 6/2/00 20 14 13 12 8 8 7 Total I 97 I 73  88 Description of Not Assessed Limited English Proficient (NALEP) Students. There are 45 NALEP students identified in the Districts database. Demographics for this population are:  23 Male (51.1%) and 22 Female (48.9%),  Spanish is the most common language (31.1%), followed by Korean (15.5%), Gujarati (8.9%), German (4.4%), Farsi (4.4%), and Chinese (4.4%),  Grades kindergarten through 5* have an average grade level enrollment of 1, grades 6* through 8* have an average enrollment of 2, and grades 9* through 12* have an average enrollment of 8, 5  Most NALEP students, 80% (N = 36), have refused to be assessed, three (6.7%) are special education students and were unable to complete the Language Assessment Survey (LAS), three (6.7%) have not been at school when the LAS was administered, one (2.2%) is auditing, one (2.2%) has not returned the signed letter from a parent, and one (2.2%) has been assessed but the score report has not been received by the ESL office, and  Only 6.7% (N - 3) attend a Newcomer Center. Parkview High School has the most NALEP students, 44.4% (N = 20). Description of Fluent English Proficient (FEP) Students. There are 299 FEP in the Little Rock School District. Demographics for this population are:  147 male (50.2%) and 146 female (49.8%),  Spanish is the most common language (32.2%), followed by Chinese (11.2%), Vietnamese (6.4%), Urdu (4.1%), Korean (3.1%), Arabic (3.1%), and Russian (2.7%). While 34 remaining languages constitute an additional 31.4%, 5.8% (N = 17) have no language listed,  One hundred and eighteen (N = 118, 31.8%) of the students attend a Newcomer Center, with Chicot Elementary having 75 students, Cloverdale Middle having 46 students, and Hall High having 72 students.  For grades Kindergarten through 5 the average grade level distribution is 26, grades 6* through 8the average grade level distribution is 27, and grades 9 through 12^'the average grade level distribution is 13. There are nine FEP students in the Districts 4-year old program. Evaluation Plan Across four components listed below data will be collected, analyzed, and used to make appropriate, research-based, modifications to the program. The process of this evaluation is to report not only the basic program, demographic, and achievement data, but to used the data and data analysis to investigate and develop new and innovative instructional strategies. 1.(2,  Discussion of variables. All LEP academic and other data (e.g/lattendance) will be compared to the general population. The general population for this report consists of all students in the Little Rock School District except those students classified as LEP and students receiving special education services. The District will not compile the graduation, attendance, or retention rates for the 1999-2000 school year until August of 2000y These data will not be reported. LAS scores have only been entered into the Districts debase for those students who have become fluent after October 1999. Since most of the LEP, r and Pep students were not tagged in the Districts database 1999-2000 school ye^graduation data for 1998-1999 is not available. Retention and attendance data only will be reported for the 1998-1999 school year. Database information indicates that no students dropped out during the 1998-1999 or 1999-2000 school year. / Evaluation Components Curriculum service delivery, including curriculum for students who are identified for both Special Education and ESL. Materials and resources\nstaffing, including the number of teachers and aides trained, frequency of training, scope of training and results\nand student progress. Student progre^^^ademic progress of LEP students in ESL programs, LEP students who have been exited, anoifEP students not served in ESL programs. Examination of the number of retentions, drop-outs, and the student attendance rates of LEP students, former LEP students, and non-LEP students, and the extra become proficient in English/^ extent to which the aforementioned groups are becoming or have _______ .eview and comparison of data reflecting the gradtiation-and-\n(d^but rates of LEP a^former LEP students with that of their non-LEP peers. 7 Description of LRSDs Academic Testing to Assess LEP Student Progress 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 and literacy. The intent and purpose of this component is to identify students in need of additional instruction in mathematics and literacy. This examination process is being developed, piloted, and implemented in a sequential and cumulative process beginning with 4* grade in SY 1997-98, and including 8* grade in SY 1998-99. SY 2000-01 will incorporate the math measure for 6* 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. All ESL students are to take the test unless parental permission to exempt is given. The comprehensive mathematics and literacy components contain multiple-choice and openresponse questions based on The Arkansas Mathematics, Reading, and English/Language Arts Curriculum Frameyvorks. Items are developed with the assistance and approval of the Arkansas Content Advisory Committees composed of active Arkansas educators with expertise in mathematics and literacy. The committees developed and reviewed both multiple-choice and open-response 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 are given scores in math and literacy. 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, reading, language, usage, and science 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 3-11 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 and 500,000 students and growing 4 to 13 points annually. This is not a norm group configured to represent public school populations. All ESL students are to take the test unless parental permission to exempt is given. 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 Frameyvorks, 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 Frame^vorks. During test development activities, questions were calibrated for difficulty and assigned to a level (e.g.. Math levels 1-8). For example: An 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 f  and 4th quarters. Stanford Achievement Test- O*** edition (SAT-9). The Sat-9 is a overall measure of achievement in reading, mathematics, language arts, science, and social science. The SAT-9 is designed to measure student achievement in relation to the performance of a national sample selected to be representative of the nations students in each of the grades tested. The test provides a method for comparing the achievement of students with that of students in the same grade across the country. The SAT-9 is administered to students in grades 5, 7, and 10 during the month of September. The SAT-9 is a timed test. In addition to a raw score, mean scaled scores, normal curve equivalent (NCE), percentile, and stanine scores are provided. For this report, NCE scores are to be used.Marie M. Clav: An Observation Survey (AOS). The AOS is an observational measure that is used to guide student work on tasks related to reading and writing. The AOS consists of six measurable tasks.  Running Records records student behavior as text is read aloud.  Letter Identification records the what letters a student knows.  Concepts in Print records what a student is attending to on the printed page.  Word Test records the number of words a students knows.  Writing records a students writing behavior, and  Writing Vocabulary records all the words a student can write in ten minutes. Running records is considered the pivotal task among the remainder of the observation tasks. During this observation the student reads materials that are typically used within the classroom and the observer records the directional movements that are made, errors or miscues, and the student is assessed on deriving meaning, structure and information from the material. Given the number of observational tasks, only the running record data will be reported. The AOS is administered in the fall and spring to Kinderg^en through 2\"* grade. The AOS is written for classroom teachers who want to become careful observers of young children as they learn to read and write. The Survey is useful to teachers who work one-on-one with students who are having difficulty in learning to read and write. The AOS is administered to all students. Results State Mandated ACTAAP Benchmark Examination. Grades 4 \u0026amp; 8. The State Benchmark exam for the 1999-2000 school year was given in April 2000 and the results will not be available to the District until October 2000. The Benchmark exam was given to 4* and 8* grade students in February 1999 for the 1998-1999 school year. Data from the 1998-1999 school year will be used Jbr this report. Initial test results are provided to the District in hard copy form, only disagregating the data by race and ethnicity. At this time database data (e.g. Excel file) are only available for 4* grade students. Several LEP students (N = 18) did not take the test. The State of Arkansas allows LEP students, with permission from their parents, to be exempted from taking the test. This is probably the case for most of these students. The Arkansas Department of Education is currently field testing an alternative assessment for exempted students. Training on the administration of the alternative assessment will begin in fall 2000. There were no 4^ grader NALEP students, thus no test results. LEP students that took the test performed below District results and FEP students performed above District results (see Figures 3 \u0026amp; 4). (insert Figures 3 \u0026amp; 4) CL Stanford Achievement Test, 9^ edition (SAT-O). Students in the 5*, 7*, and lO'^ grades took the SAT-9 during September 2000. The complete battery scores reported are a compilation of reading, mathematics, language, spelling, study skills, science, social science, using information, and thinking skills subtest results. Percentile scores are reported (see Figure 5). The general population consists of all student with the exception of exempted LEP and special education students. A number of students (18 5 graders, 15 graders, and 18 10* graders) did not take the SAT-9. The State of Arkansas allows LEP students, with permission from their parents, to be exempted from taking the test. %js=?rpF^ably=^e\u0026lt;ise-fb-iaastailise-stedeHts. The Arkansas Department of Education is currently field testing an.alteBtrative assessment for exempted students. Training on the administration of the altemativ\nassessment will begin in fall 2000. Figure 5 SAT-9 Complete Battery Percentile Scores Grade General Population LEP NALEP FEP Sth 7th 10th 36 N = 1481 42 N = 1363 40 N = 1448 15 N = 11 27 N = 22 30 N=2 78 N = 2 40 N = 5 55 N = 30 71 N = 21 55 N = 16 Marie M. Clay: An Observation Survey (AOS). During the 1999-2000 school year, kindergarten through 2\"' grade students were assessed during the early fall and late spring on the six categories of the AOS. No students were to be exempted from taking the test. However, there were some students that were not assessed. During the fall testing 10 kindergarten, 19 1 grade, and 19 2\" grade students and during spring testing 11 kindergarten, 15 1 grade, and 5 2\"'' grade wee not assessed. There was an improvement from fall to spring on the number tested. On most of the State and District assessments (i.e., SAT-9 and State Benchmark), LEP students are allowed to be exempted, with parental permission, from testing. Teachers were asked to assess all students. With the exception of Kindergarten, LEP students did not grow as fast as the general population (see Figures 6, 7, \u0026amp; 8). V (insert figures 6, 7, \u0026amp; 8) rd Retention rate. Twenty-five students (16 LEP, 1 NALEP, arid 8 FEP)^ere retained after the 1998-1999 school year. Retention rates of these subpopulatiQns_were generally higher than the general school population (see Figure 8). Among the LEP students there were 10 male and 6 female students, and 14 students spoke Spanish, with 1 speaking Chinese and 1 Filipino. The one NALEP student was female and spoke Spanish. Among the FEP students there were 6 male and 2 females, with 7 speaking Spanish and 1 speaking Portuguese Figure 4 Retention Rate for the 1998-1999 school year by Level Level General Population LEP NALEP lElementar^ |Middle f HZ 1.33%| 4.29% I [High EI 0.98%| 2.94^ 0.42%| 1,31^ 3.30% I ^.00%| I 0.65%l iJ--  I 5.06%] EP I Attendance. The average daily attendance for the District in 1998-1999 was 92%. District data is not reported by level. Average Daily Membership (ADM) data is sent to the Arkansas State Department of Education and the Dept, of Ed. calculates the attendance rate. Dropout. According to the Districts database, no LEP, NALEP, FEP students dropped out during the 1998-1999 or 1999-2000 school years. However, 63 students did leave the District. Reasons for leave were:  Moved to another country, 23%, N = 15  Transferred to a private school, 10%, N = 6  Moved out of state, 30%, N = 19  Moved to another school District within the state, 35%, N = 22  Withdrew from school, 2%, N = 1 / ^eview^f academic dataj)f students reclassified and exited from ESL programs. Review of data reflecfing fh'e number of LEP students who have exited from ESL but returned to e ESL program to address academic deficits. Twenty-five students, since 11/30/99, have beeia-r/clasai-fied fro\n200 school year, no students have exited the program and ret\n, ,^me^ De data for this subpopulation are: ,EP to FEP. ^uring the 1999- le^ Demographic and academic  12 males (48%) and 13 females (52%),  10 students with aLASof3/4andl5 students with a L AS o f 3/5,  2 students exited March 2000, 5 exited April 2000, 10 exited May 2000, and 8 have no exit date,  17 of the 25 students do not have a language code in the database.  All of the students receive Gifted and Talented (GT) services.  64% of the exited students were from grades 2\" through 5*, 28% from grades 6* through 8*, / and 8% from grades 9 and 11, /  11 of the students (44%) were from Newcomer Centers. /fcr 4 P Z L L 1^- Figure 5 SAT-9 Complete Battery Percentile Scores Grade General Population LEP NALEP FEP Sth 7th 10th Figure 9 36 N = 1481 42 N = 1363 40 N = 1448 15 N = 11 21 N =22 30 N =2 78 N = 2 40 N = 5 55 N = 30 71 N = 21 55 N= 16 Retention Rate for the 1998-1999 school year by Level Level General Population LEP NALEP LEP 3 J I Elementary} 1.33% I 4.29% I I 0,65^ [Middle 0.98%| 2.9\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_1043","title":"External Evaluations, correspondence and personal vitas","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":["2002/2003"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["External Evaluations, correspondence and personal vitas"],"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/1043"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["78 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nMemorandums related to \"\"Extended Year Education (EYE) Program Evaluation\"\" and \"\"Middle School Transition Program Evaluation.\"\" Personal vitas for Theresa Akey and William P. Moore.\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nMd:l!c: 5:/4col ll'cJnsffe,IJh /Jrd?l'i:2#7 Educo/c.tJh TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET RECEIVED LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 Board of Education T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools FEB 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PREPARED BY: ~~onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: February 27, 2003 SUBJECT: Middle School Transition Program Evaluation Background Information One of the group of programs requ ired by the federal court to be evaluated with the participation of an external evaluator was the Middle School Transition Program. The District made the transition to middle schools in fall 1999. One of the four \"draft\" program evaluations presented to the Board of Education in summer 2000 was the one on the Middle School Transition for school year 1999-2000. Steps Taken as a Result of the Program Evaluation The District took no steps as a result of the 1999-2000 program evaluation, since, as is noted in the document, the data gathered that year were considered to be baseline data, against which to evaluate progress in the future. That statement does not mean that no changes in the middle schools have occurred since 1999-2000. In addition to numerous individual school level changes, the following significant District-led changes have occurred:  Full phase-in of new mathematics curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments\n Full phase-in of new science curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments\n Refinement of implementation of the new middle school Reading/Writing Workshop program (curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments)\n Implementation of new curriculum for Research and Writing Pre-AP at grades 6-8\n New writing curriculum implemented in 2002-2003.  Beginning of phase-in of new social studies curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments\nBoard Memo February 27, 2003 Page Two  New magnet programs implemented in fall 2001 at Cloverdale Middle School and Mabelvale Middle School\n Full implementation of the Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant project, focused almost exclusively at the middle school level, providing a range of comprehensive programs and services to improve learning climate and student achievement\n Increased enrollment in grades 6-8 Pre-AP courses in the core areas\n Increased enrollment in Algebra I in grades 7-8\n Administration of new Benchmark examinations in grade 6\n Involvement of four middle schools (Cloverdale, Mabelvale, Henderson, and Southwest) in Successful Transitions and Making Middle Grades Work, as developed by the Southern Regional Education Board\n Strengthening of the middle school fine arts programs\n Implementation of Act 1748, requiring physical activity at each grade level, K-9\n Implementation of Fred Jones' classroom management strategies. Designation of External Consultant and His/Her Qualifications On December 2, 2002, the District awarded the contract for the Middle School Transition program evaluation to the firm, Youth Policy Research Group, Inc., Dr. William Moore, Senior Partner. The resumes of Dr. Moore and his associate, Dr. Theresa Akey, are attached, establishing their qualifications. Administrator Participation in Conducting the Program Evaluation In addition to Dr. Moore and his associates, specifically Dr. Theresa Akey, the following LRSD staff participated in the evaluation: Dr. Ed Williams, Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Ms. Mona Briggs, Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Dr. Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent for Planning, Research, and Evaluation Principals of the eight middle schools, who participated in the administration of assessments and who completed surveys and administered student surveys Teacher Participation in Conducting the Program Evaluation All grade 7 teachers who administered the SAT-9\nand all grade 8 teachers who administered the Benchmarks\nAll grades 6-8 teachers who completed surveys and/or who administered student surveys I Board Memo February 27, 2003 Page Three Impact on African-American Student Achievement The study conducted by the external evaluator did not attempt to draw any conclusions related to this research question since the student performance data available for the study were \"baseline, and there are serious questions about the appropriateness of the achievement measures and about the validity of some of the other performance outcome measures.\" Recommendation That the Board of Education approve the Middle School Transition program evaluation for submission to the federal court. BAL/adg ' ~ ~ ~ \"\" \"\"- \"\" - - ~    .a. T. AJceY f l uuw, v .. - . -- RFQ23-01 a-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, Jnc. THERESA AKEY, PH. D. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OCTOBER, 2002 Dr. Toeresa J,/\n.ey bas extensive experience in the areas of evaluation, research and assessment. She earned her doctorate in educationil psychology, research and statistics from the UniversitY of](ansas in 1995 and her master's in comrnunitY and school counseling from Delta Staie University in !990. She bas approximately 12 years experience working as a consultant with nonprofit service agencies. Her major work bas focused on agencies that provide supports to families of children with disabilities, including evaluation of grants, staff development traming, and site-based research projects. She bas also worked with nonprofit organiza!ions in the areas of alcohol and drug abuse, comrnunitY counseling, and other services in both rural and urban areas. She served as project director and research director of the Beach Center on Families and Disabilities where sbe co-anthored grants, conducted research, and coordinated research and evaluation activities for a large research center focused on service provision to fumilies of children with disabilities. Dr. J,/\n.ey bas extensive background in educationil assessment. research, evaluation, and analytic methods. She served as an assistant professor in the area of research and analytic methods at Auburn University for two years, and roost recently in the role of director of educationil research. evaluation, and assessment in a ](ansas City area school district for the last four years. 38 ~   '  '-   I -..       J. T. A~ (Y01J1h Policy Research Group, inc.) 2 RFQ23-0JO--Respon.se ojYowh Policy Research Group, inc. CURRICULUM VITAE THERESA M. AKEY, PH.D. P.O. Box 4196 Kansas City, KS 66104-0196 (816) 935-0852 (V) (816) 62S-1927 (F) tak~rg.org PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT A collaborative, innovative professional with interests in educational evaluation and assessment issues, including school reform, teacher professional development and evaluation, instructional strategies, standards-based education, and alternative educational environments. Seeks to promote continuous improvement of educational and youth-serving organizations through collaborative partnerships, action-oriented research, and application of theory to practice. AREAS OF PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE o Research design and analysis including complex quantitative analyses (HLM, SEM), categorical modeling, and qualitative design and analysis. o Development of educational assessment materials and psychometric validation of those materials. o Program evaluation in educational and community settings o Curriculum development in K-12 and higher education settings o Professional development in the use of data for organizational improvement, assessment development, and program evaluation o Grant and proposal writing o Information management development for educational information EDUCATIONAL HISTORY Ph.D. (1995). University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, Educational psychology and research with emphases in developmental psychology and quantitative research methods  Ed.S. (1992). University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, School psychology  M.Ed. (1991). Delta State University, Cleveland, MS, School psychology B.S. (1990). University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR, Psychology and sociology 39 ,     '  ''  ' - II       T. Akev (Yowh Policy Research Group. inc.) 3 RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, bu\n. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCES RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Youth Policy Research Group, Kansas City, Mo (June, 2002 to present). Senior Partner D Acting managing partner in research and evaluation corporation- administration and company management D Indiana Teaching ~ality Center (May 2002 to present). Evaluation project of best practices in teacher evaluation. ~alitative policy analysis of national standards in teacher evaluation and comparison of Indiana school districtS to those standards.  YDSI, Inc (May 2002 to present). Multivariate statistical analyses of insuuctional survey and observation data, including data display, technical assistance, and interrupted ti.me-series analyses   Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools (May 2002 to present). Development and implementation of case management system to display and organize student information  Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools Qune 2002 to present). Alignment and development of standards-based mathematics and language artS assessments  Park Hill School District, Kansas City, MO (July 1998 to May, 2002), Director of Research Evaluation and Assessment D Oversight and coordination of all district assessment and program evaluation activities. D Preparation of short-term and long-range budget and operational plans\nD Fiscal authority for budget of $200,000+ annually. D Responsibility for all personnel and resource utilization within the Department D Development and implementation of a comprehensive local curriculum-cm.bedded assessment system integrated with the Missouri Standards  D Development and implementation of district-wide continuous improvement planning and  eDvoacluuamtieonnt ation and analysis of district performance on all state accreditation performance and evaluation guidelines . D Development and implementation of district-wide: program evaluations of instructional practices, special education, professional development, assessment, supplemental instruction (Title 1, gifted, ESL), curriculum, and otha educational initiatives  D Served on regional and state comminees related to K-U assessment and evaluation issues. D Led applied and theoretical research projectS to address pressing educational issues relevant to local policy and instructional practice. D Collaborated with district stakeholders and school leadership to find innovative solutions to chronic educational problems in the Disrrict. Akey Consulting, Auburn, AL (June 1996 to July 1998) and Kansas City, MO. (Aug. 1999 to May, 2002), Founder and Owner O Online assessment and data information coordinating consultant for Kansas Cir-y, Kansas Public Schools. Design and implementation of online assessment and case management sysrem for reporting assessment information to teachers and adminiscrarnrs  D Assessment and data consultant for Kansas City, MO Regional Professional Development Center. Facilitated development of regional local assessments tied tO state standards and benchmarks  ::J Statistical analysis consultant for Kansas City Kansas Public Schools. Systems reform data analysis 40 I t   ' ' '          t  T Akey (Yowh Policy Research Group. Jnc.J ./ RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group. Inc D Educational consultant to Missouri school disrrictS- using data to make insuuctional decisions and best practices in standards-based assessment. Have consulted with approximately 10 different school districts to do uaining and planning in this area. D Consultant to Kansas City, MO School District- review of performance indicators and data management system and statistical consultant for desegregation case. D Educational consultant to Alvin Nash, Kansas City, Missouri Mayor's office. Suategic planning. D Educational consultant for the West Alabama Learning Coalition of Schools. Program evaluation and grant/proposal writing on teacher professional development and collaboration. D Educational evaluation consultant for Celebration School and Disney Corporation. Evaluation of integrated assessment practices. D Consultant for Chambers County-Auburn University Partnership. Program evaluation of insuuctional effectiveness and professional development. Beach Center on Families and Disabilities (1993 to 1996), Lawrence, Kansas, Research coordinator (1995-1996) and Research project director (1993-1996). D Coordinated center research activities and data analysis as research coordinator D Provided technical assistance in instrument development o Developed insuuments to measure consuucts of psychological empowerment D Primary research investigator on two projectS (one qualitative and one quantitative) concerning responsive services and psychological empowerment in family members of a child with a disability  D Worked in collaborative manner with community-based family support programs in several states to evaluate responsiveness of services to families of a child with a disability  D Grant and report writing Jones Research Consulting (1991-1996), Lawrence, Kansas, Founder and owner D Training consultant in empowering professionals and families. Beach Center on Families and Disabilities, University of Kansas. D Research and statistics consultant. Department of Educational Psychology and Research, University of Kansas D Family support consultant to Wisconsin Family Support program. Program evaluation D Insuuctional consultant to Douglas County Christian Schools, Lawrence, KS TEACHING AND ACADEMIC POSITIONS University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS (September 2001 to present). Psychology and Research in Education Department, Adjunct Professor, Educational 'Research, Statistics, and Classroom Assessment University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO Qanuary 2000 to present). Department of Educational Psychology and Research, Adjunct Professor, Classroom Assessment Park University, Parkville, MO Oanuary 2000 to present). Education Department, Adjunct Professor, Standards-Based Assessment Auburn University, Auburn, AL (1996 to 1998). Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology, Educational Statistics (including suucrural equation modeling, hierarchical linear modeling, multivariate statistics, and basic statistics), Research Methods, and pre-service classroom assessment University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS (1995-1996), Department of Educational Psychology and Research, Insuuctor, Basic educational statistics  41 I '    '           T. Akev (fowh Policy Research Group, Jnc.) ) RFQ23-01 O-Response of Youih Policy Research Group, Inc. University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS (1991-1995). Department of Educational Psychology and Research, Graduate Teaching Assistant, Developmental psychology, basic educational statistics, and multiple regression. CLINICAL AND APPLIED PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCES Topeka Public Schools (1991-1993). Topeka, KS, School Psychologist Clarksdale Public Schools ( 1990-1991 ), Clarksdale, MS, School Psychologist Arkansas Children's Hospital (1989-1991), Little Rocle., AR, Behavioral Intervention Unit, Classroom Teacher Arkansas Children's Hospital (1989-1991), Little Rocle., AR, Counselor GRANT FUNDING St. Clair, MA, \u0026amp; Akey, TM. (1999). Using Reflective Practice Groups to Improve Mathematics Instruction. Goals 2000 Grant, $40,000, .!J\u0026lt;ey, T. M. (1993). Family support influences on the development of parental skill and efficacy. NIDRR Grant # H133330070, RTD-5. Funded June 1993 as part of $650,000 grant, $45,000 per year for 5 years. /\\key, T. M. (1993). Validating the Psychological Empowerment Scale for parents of children with disabilities. NIDRR Grant# H133330070, RTD-7, Funded June 1993 as part of $650,000 grant, $35,000 for 5 years . PUBLICATIONS Aley, T. M. \u0026amp; Ares, N. M. (in press). Using a Learning Partnership to Teach Classroom-based Assessment in Context: .Conceptual and Belief Changes in Preservice Teachers. Teaching Education  Aies, N.M., \u0026amp; /\\key, T. (2000/2001). Self-organization in educational systems. Louisiana Education Research 1oumal. 25(1), 49-71  /\\key, T. M., Marquis, J. M., \u0026amp; Ross, M. E. (2000). The development of the Psychological Empowerment Scale: Evidence of its construct validity. Educational and Psvchological Measurement. 60Q), 419-437  Jensen, C., Hansen, C., Green, S. B., \u0026amp; /\\key, T. M. (1997). An investigation of item difficulty incorporating structure of listening tests: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis. Proceedings of the Language Testing Research Colloauium  Green S.B., Salkind, .J., \u0026amp; /\\key, T.M. (1999). Using SPSS for Windows: Analvzing and Understanding Data, 2nd Edition. New York: Prentice Hall  Green, S. B., .AJzey, T. M., Fleming, K. K., Hershberger, S. L., \u0026amp; Marquis, J. G. (1997). The effecrs of the number of scale points on chi square fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis. Srrucrural Eauation Modeling, 1(2) . 42 t t            J,.. T. Akey (fouih Policy Research Group, Jru:.) 6 RFQ23-0JO-Response of YOUih Policy Research Group, In!:. Akey, T. M. (1996). Empowering families of children with a disability: Implications for professional educators and service providers from a family-centered program- Teacher Education Research and Practice, 12(2). Green, S.B., Salkind, N .J., \u0026amp; Akey, TM. (1996). Using SPSS for Windows: Analvzing and Understandin_g Dara~ 1st Edition. New York: Prentice Hall. Jones (Akey), T. M., Garlow, J. G., Turnbull, H. R., \u0026amp; Barber, P. A. (1995). Family empowerment in a family suppon setting. In G. Singer, L E. Powers, \u0026amp; Olson, A.L (Eds.) Redefining farnilv support Introduction to oublic-orivate oarmershios. Jones (Akey), T. M. (1995). To hdp o, not to hdpc A ,n,dy of group ,nd in\u0026lt;fi,idu,l wriabks in , monl system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Depanment of Educational Psychology and Research, University of Kansas Jones (Akey), T. M. (1994). Development of the Psychological Empowerment Scale: Preliminary investigations. Unpublished master's thesis. Department of Educational Psychology and Research, University of Kansas. Frey, B., Jones (Akey), T. M., \u0026amp; Saxon, T. F., (1993). Exoloring Research: Teacher's Manual ITeacher's Manual for N.J. Salkind's Exploring Researchl. New York: MacMillan. CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS A.ND WORKSHOPS Akey, T. M. (2000). Using Data to Improve Instruction. Workshop presented to the Regional Professional Development Center, Kansas City, MO, April 16, 2001. Akey, T. M. (2000). Using Data to Improve Instruction. Workshop presented to East Central Show-Me Curriculum Administrators Association, St Louis, MO, April 1, 2000  Akey, T. M. (2000). Using Data to Improve Instruction. Workshop presented to West Central Show-Me Curriculum Administrators Association, Kansas City, MO, February 16, 2000  Pennell, J., Eick, C., and Akey, T. M. (2000). Teacher beliefs and grading practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 2\u0026amp;-30, 2000  Akey, T. M., Sanders, S., Boyd, P., Gorrell, J. J., Kamen, M., \u0026amp; Salisbury-Glennon, J. (1999). Assessment and evaluation .in the Celebration School: Links to learning and curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, April 19-23, 1999  Ares, N. \u0026amp; Akey, T. M. (April, 1999). Modeling and understanding of social interactions. Roundtable presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, April 19-23, 1999 . Akey, T. M. \u0026amp; Lawrence, F. (April, 1998). Undersranding the effecrs of non-normal data on latent growth curve models. Violations of normality and influence of sample size. Paper accepted as part of a ,ymposi= (also chai, wd o,g,niw of session) Madding Non-norm,\\ Dau fo, the annual m~cing of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA., April 12-17, 1998  43 I 9 ~ --~ ~ ~  ~ w l.l!.t ~ - T. Akey (J'owh Policy Research Group, inc.) 7 RFQ23-0 I (}-Response of }'ouch Policy Research Group, inc. Mey, T. M., \u0026amp; Ares, N. M. (November, 1997). Conceptual and Belief Changes: Implications of a Sociocultural Approach to Educating Preservice Teachers in Classroom-Based Assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting cif the MidSouth Educational Research Association, Memphis, TN, November 12- 14, 1997 Mey, T. M., Marquis, J. G., \u0026amp; Turnbull, H. R. (August, 1997). Effecr.s of Family Support Programs on Parental Empowerment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL, August 1997. Lmcig, D., \u0026amp; M\u0026lt;y, T. M. (April, 1997) Family Adapucion in f,mili,s wiili Adult Cbild\u0026gt;-en wiili Mcnul Retardation: Impact of Family Suengths and Appraisal. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Counseling Association, Orlando FL, April 1~13, 1997. Mey, T. M. \u0026amp; Green, S. B. (March, 1997). A Model of Moral Decision-Making: A Srudy of Group and Individual Influences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. March 24-28, 1997. Mey, T. M. \u0026amp; Green, S. B. (March, 1997). The Relationship Between Power and Intercorrelated Dependent Variables in MANOVA. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. March 24-28, 1997. Mey, T. M. (February, 1997). Confirmatory Factor Analysis of a Moral Dilemma Helping Measure. Papa p,esmt\u0026lt;d at th, ,nnu,I mming of ili, E,,tem Educaciou,I Ros=ch Assnciacion, Hilton Hou!, SC, February 19-22, 1997. Jensen, C., Hansen, C., Green, S. B., \u0026amp; Mey, T. M. (1996). An investigation of item difficulty incorporating structure of listening tests: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis. Paper presented at the Language Testing Research Colloquium, Tampere, Finland, July 31-August 3, 1996. Mey, T. M. (December, 1995). Effecr.s of family support programs on parental empowerment. Workshop presentation at the annual Empowering Families Conference, Chicago, IL. Jones (Mey), T. M. (August, 1994). The development of the Psychological Empowerment Scale: Preliminary investigations. Poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA. Jones (Akey), T. M. Qune, 1993). Roundtable discussions on family empowerment and family services. Invited round table participant and presenter at the annual-Family Support and Family Empowerment Conference, Dartmouth, NH. RECENT TECHNICAL AND EVALUATION REPORTS Mey, T.M. (2002). Effecrs of standards-based assessment on insuuctional practices in middle school math teachers. Technical report for the Park Hill School District, February 2002. Akey, T.M (2001). Using data as a method for school improvement planning and decision-making: Administrators. Technical report for Park Hill School District, August 2001  Akey,~- M. (2000). 2000-2001 Disuict Performance Update: Assessment of the Show-Me Standards. Evaluaoon report prepared for Park Hill Scnool Disuict, October 1::, 2000.   J t '  t 'I           ill T. Akey (fouth Policy Research Group, inc.) 8 RFQ23-0JO-Response of YOUJh Policy Research Group, inc. Akey, T.M (2001). Using data as a method for insrructional planning and decision-making: Teachers. Technical repon for Park Hill School Disuict, August 2001. Akey, T.M. (2001) Validation of learning expectations for a standards-based curriculum in communication am. Technical repon for Park Hill School Disuict, January, 2001 Akey, T. M. (2001). Effectiveness of the Class-Within-a-Class Model .. Evaluation report for Park Hill School District. February, 2001 Akey, T. M. (2001). Evaluation of class rank procedures: Examination of alternate methods. Evaluation report for Park Hill School District. February, 2001 Akey, T. M. (2001). EffectS of Block Scheduling on lnsrructional Practices. Evaluation repon prepared for Park Hill School Disuict, February, 2001  Akey, T. M. (2000). Title I Evaluation Report Adequate Yearly Progress and Recommendations for Program Improvement. Evaluation report prepared for Park Hill School Disuict, December 7, 2000. Akey, T. M. (2000). 1999-2000 District Performance Update. Evaluation report prepared for Park Hill School District, October U, 2000. Akey, T. M. (2000). EffectS of Block Scheduling on Student Outcomes: Mastery achievement, credits, and test scores. Evaluation report prepared for Park Hill School District, April, 2000. Akey, T. M. (1999). Effectiveness ofFull-Day Kindergarten: Third Year Evaluation. Evaluation report prepared for Park Hill School District. Akey, T. M. (1999). 1998-1999 Disuict Performance Update. Evaluation repon prepared for Park Hill School District, October 10, 1999  BOOKS Green, S. B., Sal.kind, N. ]., \u0026amp; Akey, T. M. (1997). Using SPSS for Wmdows: Analyzing and Understanding Data. New York: Prentice Hall  Green, S. B., Sal.kind, N. ]., \u0026amp; Akey, T. M. (1997). Using SPSS for the Macintosh: Analyzing and Understanding Data. New York: Prentice Hall. PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Kansas City, Kansas YWCA, (Dec 2001 to present), Board of Directors Heartland Student Achievement Gap Organization, (August 2001 to present). Board of Directors Park Hill Educational Foundation, (August 2000 to present), Advisory Board 45 I  ~    ~ -  t t         Auburn University T. Akey (Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.) 9 RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, Inc. 1998: Undergraduate Core Curriculum Development Committee for Teacher Education 1997: Chair, Library Appeals Committee 1997: Reviewer. Professional Educator, College of Education Universitv of Kansas 1993: Representative to the Graduate Student Council Student representative for faculty meetings of Educational Psychology and 1993, 1995: Research .Deparonent. RECENT HONORS Nomination for Dissertation of the Year: University of Kansas, School of Education, May 1996 Who's Who in College, 1987, 1991 President's List 1987-1991 Outstanding Psychology Student, 1990 PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZA TIONS Show-Me Curriculum Administrators Association 1998 to present ASCD National Organization, 1998 to present Missouri ASCD: 1998 to present American Psychological Association: 1990-1998 Society for Research In Child D~elopment 1992 to present American Educational Research Association: 1993 to present 1997: Reviewer for American Educational Research Association Arinual Meeting MidSouth Educational Research Association: 1996-1998 1998: Graduate Student Involvement Committee 1997: Reviewer for MidSoutb Educational Research Association Annual Meeting 1997: Graduate Student Involvement Committee Eastern Educational Research Association: 1996-1998 American Evaluation Association 1998-present 46 I                  W. P. Moore (Youth !'Otley J(esearcn vruu , ,,,.__ , , RFQ23-01 O--Response of Youth Policy Research Group, Inc Wn.,LIAM P. MOORE, PH. D. BIOGRAHICAL SKETCH OCT0BE~ 2002 Dr. Moore holds a doctorate in Educational Psychology from the University of Kansas and is a Senior Parmer with Youth Policy Research Group, Inc. located in Kansas City, Kansas. Currently be is the co-investigator for the evaluation of a systemic change initiative (First Things First) in the Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools and just completed a post-doctoral fellowship with Juniper Gardens Childrens Research Project exploring the dimensions of effective learning communities in schools. Dr. Moore serves also as a lecturer at the University of Kansas where he teaches Evaluating School Programs, a doctoral-level educational evaluation course  Dr. Moore has served as Research and Evaluation Director in two urban school districts\nSenior Research Associate with the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation\nand held faculty positions in research and measurement at the University of Kansas- Dr. Moore co-founded and directed the Dramatic AIDS Education Project, a collaborative AIDS education program for school-age youth and has spent the last 6 years conducting research and evaluation srodies on the efficacy of this AIDS education program for youth. Two years ago, the Project received Kansas City's Ribbon of Hope Award for outstanding community service towards the elimination of HIV /AIDS  Previously, Dr. Moore was Senior Ma.na:,oing Consultant with GPR\u0026amp;E, a research and evaluation consulting firm. He has consulted with school districts, not-for-profits, health care institutions, national foundations, youth development intermediaries and universities. He is a past member of the Board of Directors of Kansas City Public Achievement, a Minnesota-based youth empowerment program\nand recently retired, after 6 years, from the Board of Directors of Sunflower House: A Child Abuse Prevention Center, where be was Vice-President of Education and a member of the agency's Executive Committee. He now serves as a member of the Advisory Board . Dr. Moore has served as an expert witness in Federal school desegregation litigation\nwas a member of the Panel of Writers for the development of the new Student Evaluation Standards coordinated by The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation\nand served a twoyear term as a member of the National Research Development Committee for the American Occupational Therapy Foundation  Dr. Moore's research and evaluation interests have focused on effectively documenting the success of educational reform initiatives\nthe impact of mandated assessment -programs on teacher instructional practice\nand the impact of education on the HIV-related knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions of youth. Dr. Moore has published in Applied Measurement in Educarion, Educational Assessment, the International Journal of Educational Research, and The American Occupational Therapy Journal. Dr. Moore served 4 years on the Editorial Board of the Occupational Therapy Journal of Research and is currently a grant reviewer for the W. T. Grant Foundation . 7       t  W. P. Moore (Youth Polic-y Research Group. inc.) 2 RFQ23-0JO--Response of Youth Poiicy Research Group, inc. CURRICULUM VITAE WILLIAM P. MOORE, PH. D. OCT0BE~ 2002 Home 114 78 South Wtlder Street Olathe, KS 66061 913. 829. 3077 gprekc@aol.com Office P. 0. Box4196 Kansas City, KS 66104-0196 816. 564. 0143 01) 913. 390. 6162 (F) wmoore@YPrg.org Educational History 1991 Ph.D. 1984 M.A. 1981 B.S. University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS Educational Psychology Major: Evaluation, Research, and Measurement University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS Education Major: Secondary Curriculum and Instruction University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS Education Major: Secondary Soci.al Sciences Emphasis: Psychology and Sociology Current Appointments and Positions Senior Parmer. Youth Policy Research Group lnc  Kansas City, KS Lecturer. University of Kansas. Lawrence. KS Granc Reviewer. Willi.am. T. Grant Foundation., ew York.. JY Advisory Board, Sunflower House: A Child Abuse Prevention Center. Overland Park.. KS Advisory Board. Community Health Promotion Program. University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City. KS 8 t  t t '' ' -' ~,, ,  ~  ii  ..  W. P. Moore (l outh Policy Research Group. mc.1 j RFQ23-0JO-Response of YouJh Policy Research Group. inc. Professional Experience Consultation 2002-Present Senior Parmer, Youth Policy Research Group, Inc., Kansas City, KS. Youth Policy Research Group is a cmpora!e partnership formed by youth and education researchers located ID the Kansas City merropofuan area. The mission of this fum is to engage ID applied research and evaluation studies that will conrnDnte to policy and practice decisions and dialogue about the necessary supports and resources youth require to aclrieve long-term developmental success both acaderoicallY and behaviorally. Mucb of the work already complered by YPRG researchers is ID the K-12 education arena. Acting n,anagmg partner in research and evaluation corporation- administration and company management. 1993-2002 Senior Manrurin9- Consu)tan~ Great Plains Research and Evaluation, Olathe, KS. GPR\u0026amp;E was an education and youth development research and policy fum focused on improving the programming and organizations that children and youth experience- Qverall responsil,ility for managing research and evaluation conrractual work. Oversaw a staff of part-time consultants. managed resources and budget, negotiated contraets, oversaw project development, implementation, coordination of cla1a collection, analysis, rnssemmation, and action planning for future decision-making with clients. Clients included:  Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Through contactual work awarded by EMKF we assisted the following clients:  State of Kansas, SRS, Alcohol \u0026amp; Drug Abuse Services + State of Missouri, Dept. of Mental Health, Div. of Alcohol \u0026amp; Drug Abuse + State of Colorado, Team Fort Collins + Kansas City-St. Joseph Diocese Schools  youth Opportunities unlimited  Coalition for Positive Family Relationships Shawnee Mission East High School, St. Thomas Aquinas High School, Shawnee Mission North High School, Grandview High School, Lee's Summit High School Blue Valley High School, Wmnetonka High School, Park Hill School District, Center High School, Hickman Mills Management School II  Telemedicine Research Center, Portland OR.  Gambone \u0026amp; Associates: Youth Policy and Research Firm, Philadelphia, PA  Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Kansas  Shawnee Mission Medical Center Foundation  Johnson County Regional Prevention Center  Kansas City Young Audiences-KCY A  Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation, University of Kansas  Child Abuse Prevention Coalition  The Coterie Theatre 9 I  .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t  i   ~ ii8 W. P. Moore (Yourh Policy Research Group. Jnc.J .: RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, Inc. Tbrough contactual work awarded by KCY A., we worked with the following clients:  Kansas City Arts Partners  Kansas City Lyric Opera  Kansas City Symphony  Fort Osage School District 1988 Evaluation Consultant. Deparrment of Art Education, Universitl' of](ansas, Lawrence, Kansas- Evaluation and data analysis of survey data examining the impact on participants of the Artist-in-Residence program, an integrated art education approach. 1987-88 Research Consultant. iawrence Unifred School District, Lawrence, ](ansas. Citywide telephone survey of attitudes towards Lawrence Public Schools. Development of sampling procedures, u,strumen1 development and revision, training of telephone interviews and protocol development. Oversee all technical aspects of data collection and analysis for survey oftaXPayers and for survey of district employees. Research \u0026amp; Evaluation Management and Staff Positions 1998-2002 Director, Department of Educational Research and Assessroent. Kansas Ciry, Kansas Public Schools, K,nsas City, ](ansas. Cabinet-level position with direct report to superintendent of Schools. Responsibilities included the overall IIJllllll,,oeroent of research, evaluation and assessment functions within the District. Created and organized the department from separate functional units. Prepared short-term and long-range budget and operational plansResponsibility for all personnel and resource utilization within the Department- Coordinated the actions of 8 professional and suppart staff members, as well as ten consultants, to respond to policy and strategic decision making ~ of senior district leadership, board memb=, building ~tors and district staff_ Met with State-level )ea\u0026lt;lership, communitl' 1eadershiP, and Unified Government staff to respond to external stakeholder needs for information. Planned for. and led applied and theoretical research projects to ,rldress pressing educational lssues relevant to local policy and i:nstnJCtional practice. Collaborated withJdistrict stakeholders and school leadersmP to find innovative solutions to cbronic educational problems in the District. 1997-1998 Senior ReseaICh Associate, Department of Research and Evaluaiion. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. K,nsas City, Missouri. Responsibilities include providing research and evaluaiion support to internal clients and external grantees. PriroarY responsibility for leading all research and evaluation support to Foundation youth developm.ent-k-12 educational program initiatives. Client initiatives include local and national resrrucruring efforts in urban school districts. Provide leadership and management of teams associated with research and evaluation efforts. supervise three junior research and evaluation associates, liaison between research and evalUBiion and clientso creaxe, plan and manage research and evaluation projects: identifl' and select external vendors for specific projectS\ncreate and review RFPs: review grant proposals requiring research and evaluation oversight or support. Provide information for senior Foundarion and school district leadersmP to infonn policy and program decisions regarding urban school restructuring. 10   ' ~ ~  ~     ~ ~,,,, ,,.. \",.., ,,, W. P. Moore ffouth Policy J(esearc:11 v, uuy, ,,__  RFQ23-0J{}-Response ofYouch Policy Research Group. Jnc. 1996-1997 Director, Department 0 [Educarional Research and Improvement, Km,sas Ciry. Missoud School Dis1ricl, K,msas City, Missouri. Cabinet-level position with direct report to Superintendent of Schools. Responsibilities included the overall management of research and evaluation functions within the Disrrict. prepared short-tenn and loog-range budget plans, fiscal authority for budger of $600,0Q(},-. Resjl\u0026lt;\u0026gt;DS1DilitY for all personnel and resource utilizarion withio the Department. Coordinared the actioos of IO professional and support staff. Established partnerships with communirY groups and school facu]t)' to discuss innovative solutions to chronic educational problems in the Disrrict. Represented the District through information and expert testimony to attorneys and the Federal Court in desegregation litigation. !993-1995 Director of Research and Assist\u0026lt; Professor, Deparnnent of OT Education, University of Kansas Medical Cenrer, K,msas City, Kansas ResponsibiJities included mentoring faculty and sn,dents to develop and complete researcb. coordjnariog and facilitating federal and private grant development, and conducting educational and psychological research. Collaborating with other researchers in health and education. In addition, provided technical support, ins(rumelll and methods development- analytic assistance, and evaluation support to researchers, students  and faculty rnernb= univefsiry-wide. MernbershiP in Data Envelopment Analysis Users Group and Tele-educarion users group. Served on~ and school-wide committees representing researcb. curriculum and instrUCUon interests. As a member of the faculty of the School of Allied Health I coordinated all school-wide professional development events for faculty. 1989-92 Proer.mEvaluator. Km,sas City, Missouri School District, Department of Research. Evaluation, and Testing, K,msas City, MissourL Complete responsibilitY for the evaluation of seven to nine magnet school programs ,nnually. Developed evaluation plans, instmlllentation data collection procedures, trained ev-tion personnel, com:dinated all data  collection schedules and activities, assessed reliability, analyzed all data, and wrote formative, summ,rive, and achievement-enrollment surnn,aries annually. Reports informed local policy decisions for Board and senior district )eadership. Reports were used to infonn Federal court decisions regarding coropJiance with court orders and progress toward established desegregation outcomes as well as state-level policy reg,rding desegregation effectiveness in Missouri. I 987-88 Research A,sistallt. Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation. Kansas Internship Program, University ofK,msas, Lawrence, Kru,sas. Collected, analyzed, and presented da1a concerning the development of an observational system for intern teacher/trainer performance-based assessment. Teaching and Academic Appointments 2002 Lecrorer. Depanment ofPsycbology and Research in Educarion, University of Kansas. Teaching PRE 816 Evaluation of School Programs, a graduate-level evaluation comse for doctoral students. j  1993-1995 Assistant Professor. Department of OT Education. University of Kansas Medical Center. Tenure-line faculty appointment in the o,aduate School Concurrent appointment as J\nlirector of Research. Taught research methods course, graduate s,aristics and research seminar, graduate professional development ge,ninar\nprovided thesis advising to gtudents and contnDuted to the development of graduate progrmtl policies and curriculum. Mentored faculty and students in applied social science and behavioral research. o,airperson of Program Evaluation Corornittee. W. P. Moore (Youth Policy Research Group, inc.) 6 RfQ23-01 a-Response of Youth Policy Research Group. Inc Coordinator of school-wide faculty Development Education semmars. Elected to School of Allied Health Research Committee. 1993-1995 B,,search Assi-t ProfesSO'- University of l(ansaS eancer Center, University of Kansas Medical Center. Honornr)' appointroent ,eeogrn,:ing contnDution to research and scholarly activitl' ContnDute consulting and coJlaborarive service to research projects- 1991-1992 J.se'U\"\" I)epartro\"nt of Educational Psychology-and Rese\u0026amp;ch. University of Kansas. Courses taught included EPR 720 a graduate level classroom assessment course\nEPR 790 Research and EvaJuarion Proposal Development\nand EPR 710 a graduate level statistics course. 1988-89 g,.,,uate Teaching As~ Department ofEducational Psychology and Research, University of Kansas- Complete responsibility for teaching two sections of EPR 3 JO, a first year graduate level educational assessment and measurement c\\asS. 1984-86 Social Sciences m=ctor and De artmen' Actin\" C  erson. Turner High School, Tumer Unified School District, 1(ansaS City, l(ansaS- Taught sections of psychology, sociology, political science, and history. Assutned acting cl,airperson pos\\tion in Spring of 1986    1981-82 fu,cial Sci\"\"'es ]I,@!!Ctor. parsons Junior High SciJool, Parsons Unified School District, parsons, Kansas- Taught ,ections of American rnstotY and introductory Jaw. -- .... .... -rt   ~ t8 ~ ~.. Assessment and Testing I 998-2002 Drr\u0026lt;Ct% Educational Resemch and Assessroent Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools, K,,nsas City, l(ansaS- l see above for description of responsibilities)  t 996-1997 n_rrecrgr, Dep,rttnent of Educational Research and 1mproveroont, Kansas Ci,y, Missouri School District, Kansas City, J,!issouri (see above for description of responsibilities)- 1988-1989 filsistmt to T estjng Coordina19\u0026lt; Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation, K,,nsas J,,linimum eorrrpetency Testing Program, University of l(ansaS, 1..awrence, K,,nsasResponsible for assisting the coordinator in the dailY operation and coordination of a state-wide legislative mandated basic skills testing program. Developed system for rtern banking 3.000 test rterns\ntest paste-up and consrruction\nreviewins printing drafts, a\u0026lt;Jroinistering pilot srod\nes of items\nassisting with test equating and srandard setting activities.    ' -'.. .. .. ~ ~.. ~ ~ ~ ~.... ~ ~ '8 ~ .~. a..t W. P. Moore (Youth Policy Research Group, inc.} - RFQ23-01 O-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, inc. 1987 Test Item Writer. Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. Developed original and revised existing multiple choice mathematics and reading items for inclusion on the 1988 K.MCT tests (grades 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10). 1986-1987 Testing Research Assistant. Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation, Kansas Minimum Competency Testing Program, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. Assisted in test construction., item tracking, and general test development activities and research regarding the KCMT. Publications Educational Psychology Gambone, M.A., Klem, A., Moore, W. P., and Summers, J. A. (2002). First Things First: Creating the conditions \u0026amp; capacity for community-wide reform in an urban school district. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation: Kansas City, MO  Gambone, M.A., Klem, A., Moore, W. P., and Summers, J. A. (2002). Executive Summary of First Things First: Creating the conditions \u0026amp; capacity for community-wide reform in an urban school district. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City, MO. Moranetz C.A., Hammig B.J., Moore W.P., and Coleman-Henderson K. Violence and Teens: Characteristics of High Risk Youth, Submitted to the The American Journal of Health Behavior. Moore W.P., Moranetz C.A., Owens M.M., Wordlaw-Watkins S.D., Parmet D.B., Enenbach M.J., Arroyo E.J., Hanna M.T., and Hammig B.J. The Effectiveness of a Dramatic HWIAIDS Education Program on the .Knowledge, Attitudes, Behavioral Intentions and Perceived Personal Risk of Urban Adolescents, Submitted to the Journal of Adolescent Health Moranetz C.A., Hammig B.J., Moore W.P., Turkman D.F., Miller J.W., Stebbins D.R., Brown C.M., and Mosier M.C. The Community Health Project: An Example of Effective Service Learning at the University of Kansas, Submitted to Academic 1\n1:edicine. Moore, W. P. (1996). Successful grantspersonship: Achieving the three clarities. Ewing Marion Kau:ffi.:nan Foundation, Kansas City, MO  Brown, C., Moore, W. P., Heroman, D., \u0026amp; Yunek, A. (1996). Influence of instrumental activities of daily living assessment method on judgments of independence. The American Occupational Therapy Journal_ 50(3), 202-206. Moore, W. P. (1995). Action research: A primer for teacher professional development. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City, MO. 13 I  I  I ~ '_,  ~ ' -' -' ---- ' W. P. Moore (Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.) 8 RFQ23-0J(}-Response of Youth Policy Research Group. Inc Moore, W. P. (1994). Toe devaluation of standardized testing: One district's response to a mandated assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(4), 343-367. Moore, W. P. (1994). Appropriate test preparation: Can we reach a consensus? Educational Assessment, 2(1), 51-68. Miller, M. D. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1991). Private-public school differences in the United States: Findings from the Second International Mathematics Study. International Journal of Educational Research, 15 (5), 433-444. Moore, W. P. Relationships among teacher test performance pressures, perceived testing benefits, test preparation strategies, and student test performance (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 1991 ). Dissertation Abstracts Internationale. Health Research and Psychology Beisecker, A. E., Murden, R., Moore, W. P., Graham, D., Helmig, L. (1996) Attitudes of medical students and primary care physicians regarding input of older and younger patients in medical decisions. Medical Care, 34(2), 126-13 7. Fabian, C. J., Kamel, S., McKittrick, R., Zalles, C., Simon, C., l(imler, B. F., Zeiger, S., Moore, W. P., and Chin, T. (1995). Breast tissue biomarkers in women at high and low risk for breast cancer. Proceedings of Cancer Symposium. Wayne State University: Kluwer Publishers. Beisecker, A. E., Helmig, L., Graham, D., and Moore, W. P. (1994)._Attitudes of oncologists, oncology nurses, and patients regarding medical decision-making by older and younger breast cancer patients. The Gerontologist, 34, 505-512 Fabian, C. J., Zalles, C., Kamel, S., IGmler, B. F., McKittrick, R., Trainin, A. S., Zieger, S., Moore, W. P., Hassanein, R.S., Simon, C., Johnson, N., Vergara, B., Jewell, W.R., Lin, F., Bhatia, P., and Chin, T. (1994). Prevalence of aneuploidy, overexpressed ER and EGFR and dysplastic cytology in random breast aspirates of women at high and low risk for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 30, 263-274  Beisecker, A. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1994). Oncologists' perceptions of the effects of cancer patients' companions on physician-patient interactions. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 12 (1/2), 23-39. Fabian, C. J., Zalles, C., Kamel, S., McKittrick. R., Moore, W. P., Zeiger. S  Simon, C., IGmler. B., Cramer, A., Garcia, F., and Jewell, W. (1993). Biomarker and cytologic abnormalities in women at high and low risk for breast cancer. Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, J 7G, 153- 160. ~ I ' '  '  ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -' --' -\" ' ' --'  W. P. Moore() owh Policy Research Group. Inc.} 9 RFQ23-0J(}-Response of Youth Policy Research Group. inc. Beisecker, A. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1992). Physician-cancer patient-companion interactions. Proceedings from the first annual meering of Psychosocial Oncology: Enhancing Parient and Family Care, Beverly Hills. Research, Evaluation and Planning Reports Moore, W. P. and Husman, M. (in press). Constructing youth engagement: A synthesis of literature, observation and professional opinion. Prepared under contract to Kansas City Young Audiences by Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.: Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. and Gramlich, A. (Sep. 2002). Evaluation of the impact of the school to enrrepreneurship program: Findings from the 2001-2002 implementation. Prepared under contract to the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation by Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.: Kansas City, KS. Gambone, M. A, Klem, A., Moore, W. P., and Summers, J. A. (2002). First Things First: Creating the conditions \u0026amp; capaciry for community-wide reform in an urban school district. Gambone \u0026amp; Associates: Philadelphia: PA. Gambone, M. A, Klem, A., Moore, W. P., and Summers, J. A. (2002). Executive Summary of First Things First: Creating the conditions \u0026amp; capaciry for community-wide reform in an urban school district. Gambone \u0026amp; Associates: Philadelphia: PA. Moore, W. P., Anthony, J., and Husman, M. (Nov. 2001). Evaluation of the TeacherArtist Residency Professional Development Model. Great Plains Research and Evaluation: Olathe, KS. Moore, W. P. (June, 2001) Effectiveness of the Young Audiences' Artist Training Conference. Great Plains Research and Evaluation: Olathe, KS. Moranetz, C., Moore, W. P., \u0026amp; Coleman-Henderson, K. (Dec, 1999). Evaluation of a Violence Prevention Program for High Risk Youth Phase One: Profiling Participants in Project SAFE. Great Plains Research and Evaluation: Olathe, KS. Moore, W. P. (1999). Learning about evaluation: Who are the stakeholders? Research Brief 4, Department of Educational Research and Assessment, Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. Moore, W. P. (1999). Summary of parent and staff support for the Early Release Program, Research Brief, 2, Department of Educational Research and Assessment, Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. Moore, W. P. (1999). School leadership mobility in the Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. KCKPS Research Brief 1, Department of Educational Research and Assessment. Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. 15 I I   I '    ' ' ' ' ' ' '  -    W. P. Moore (Yauch Policy Research Group, Inc.) JO RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, Inc. Moore, W. P., Wright, D., \u0026amp; Cantwell, D. (1999). Assessment 2000: A Plan to create a world class assessment system in the Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. Moore, W. P., Wright, D., \u0026amp; Cronister, J. (1998). 1997-1998 Student perceptions of instructional environment: District summary. Kansas City, KS: Department of Educational Research and Assessment, Kansas City, KS Public Schools. Richtermeyer, G., Moore, W. P., \u0026amp; Jones, R. L. (1998). Project Choice: A summary of parent perceptions five years later. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P., Helliner, T., fomas, L., Jones, R., \u0026amp; Gonzalez, S. (1998). Public achievement in Kansas City: Evaluation of the first year of implementation. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P., Jianas, L., Helliner, T., \u0026amp; Jones, R. (1998). The scholarship initiative: Synthesis of findings from phases 1 and 2 of the implementation evaluation. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P., Helliner, T., Jianas, L., Jones, R., \u0026amp; Robinson, R. (1998). Evaluation of the first year of implementation of Public Achievement in Kansas City: Mid-course findings  Kansas City, MO: Ewmg Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. (1998). Long-term planning for the evaluation of Arts Partners programming in schools. Olathe, KS: Great Plains Research and Evaluation. Moore, W. P., Richtermeyer, G., Helliner, T., \u0026amp; Jones, R. (1998). Professional development for urban principals: Findings from a needs assessment of Kansas City principals. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Jones, R. (1998). Evaluation of the third annual Successful Schools network meeting. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W.P. \u0026amp; Jones, R. (1998). Evaluation of the second Missouri Superintendent's Forum. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Jones, R. (1998) Evaluation of the second First Things First educational roundtable for school-site reform . Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Jones, R. (1998). Evaluation of the Missouri Superinrendent's Forum. Kansas City. MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation  16  '  '' '  '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' W. P. Moore (fouih Policy Research Group, 1 nc.J JI RFQ:!3-0JO-Response of Youih Policy Research Group. Jn:: Moore, W. P., Jones, R. (1997). Evaluarion of the First Things First Educational Roundtable for Schaal-Sire Reform. ].(ansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman F oundarion Daniels, S. D., fomas, L., \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1997). Sustainability study of youth development granrees. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. (1997). Teacher perceprions of school leadership: Decision making support informarion. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City. Missouri School District. Moore, W. P. ( 1997). College prepatory education' Results of observations at Lincoln College P,eparatory Academy. ].(ansas CIT)'. MO: ].(ansas CIT)', Missouri School District. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; )(ass. H.K. (1997). Evaluation of the educational resrructuring efforr in the Kansas City-St. Joseph Catholic Diocese elementary schools: Findings from the second year of evaluation. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. (1997). Intern.al audit of Iowa Tests of Basic Skills special testing to determine swdent eligibility for Admission to Lincoln College P,epartory: A report to the Superincendent. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, MO School District. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Kass, H.K. (1996). Evaluarion of the implementation of the FYI Training Insritute. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation  Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Kass, H. K. (1996). Evaluation of the initial implemenJation af the Bug H U. G. S. educarion.al program. Shawnee Mission, KS: Shawnee Mission Medical Center Foundation.. Moore, W. P ., Kass, H.K., \u0026amp; Welch., K. (1996). Evaluation of the education.al rest,ucruring effort in the Kansas City-St. Joseph catholic diocese elementary schools: Findings from the first yew of evaluation. ].(ansas CIT)', MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Kass, H. K. ( 1996). Implementation evaluation and identification of our comes for selected music programs offered through Arts Partners. ].(ansas City, MO: )(ausaS City Young Audiences. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Kass, H.K. (1996). Evaluarion of the implementation of Arts Farmers prog,ams in the Fort Osage School District. Kansas CIT)', MO: J(ausaSCity Young Audiences. Moore, W. P. (1996). Summary of technical assistance ourcomesfor nation-wide substonce use projectsfimded by the Ewing Mwion Kauffman Foundation. Kansas City, MO, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Welch. K. (1996). Evaluarion report for the 3-on-3 youth ourreach prog,am Context, implementation and preliminary outcomes. ].(ansas City. MO: Emlg Marion Kau:ffinan Foundation. I   ' -~ '' ''' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' W. P. Moore (Youth Policy Researcn Group. inc.) !2 RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group. Inc Moranetz., C. A., Moore, W. P. Hutcheson, D. \u0026amp; Wendt, K.. J. (1996). Summary of impact of the Dramaric AIDS Education Project at catholic high sclwols: Technical Report. Kansas City, KS: University ofl(ansas Medical Center. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Kass, H. ( I 996). Evaluation report for Baseline Training in the midwest region of the United States: Implementation, rechnicol specifications, and perceived outcomes. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion K.auffinan Foundation. Moore, W. P., Welch, K.., \u0026amp; Kass, H. (1995). Final evaluation report for the STAR continuarion grants program. I(ansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Welch, K. (1995). Evaluation report for the Ewing Marion Kauffino-n Foundation's Project ST AR continuation granrs program: Unintended outcomes and future role off oundation in substance abuse prevention. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kanffinan Foundation. Moore, W. P. (1994). Evaluarion of the Mind's Edge arts integration program: An examination of the process and products. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City Young Audiences. Atwater, J. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1992). Achievement and enrollment evaluation of the Applied Learning ElementarY Magnet Schools, I 990-I 99 I  Kansas City, MO: Kansas City  Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1992). Achievement and enrollment evaluation of the Faxon Monressori Elemenrary Magnet Sclwol Program, 1991-/992. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1992). Achievement and enrollment evaluation of the Science/Math Middle Magnet Sclwols Program. I 991-199 2. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1992). AchievemenI and enrollment evaluation of the Southwest High School Math/Science Magnet Program, I 991-1992. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City. Missnuri School District. Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1992). Summarive evaluation of the Applied Learning Elemenrary Magnet Sclwols Program. I 99 J-199 2. Kansas City. MO: Kansas City. Mi,souri School D\n,\nrrict. Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1992). Summarive evaluation of the Science and Mathematics Magner Elemenrary Sclwols. Longiwdinal Report, I 989-1990. Kansas City. MO: Kansas City. Missouri School District.. Evaluation Office. 18 I  ~ - ' '  '  ' ' '' '''''' 1ft -~ ~ Ir P. Moore (T'oucn Poucy Research Group  .1 n:. J 3 RFQ23-0I (}-Response of J'ouih Policy Research Group. in::. Moore, W. P. (1992). Summative evaluation of the lnvesrigarive Learning Elementary Magnet Schools, 1991-1992. Kansas City, MO: KansaS City. Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1992). Formative evaluation of the Holliday Monressori Elementary Magnet School Program, 1991-1992. J(\n,nsas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1992). Formative evaluation of the Southeast Health Professions Magnet High School, 1 991-199 2. J(\n,nsas City, M 0: J(\n,nsas City, Missouri School Disrrict. Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1991). Achievement and enrollment evaluation of the Investigative Learning Elemenrary Magnet Schools, 1990-1991. I(ansas City, MO: 1(ansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1991). Achievement and enrollment evaluation of theScience/Math Middle Magnet Schools, 1990-1991. I(ansas City, MO: l(ansaS City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1991). Formative evaluation of the Holliday Montessori Elementary Magnet Schaal, 1990-1991. Kansas City, MO: K\n,nsas City, Missouri School Disrrict, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1991). Formative evaluation of the Science and Mathematics Magne1 Elementary School Program, 1990-1991. Kansas City. MO: l(ansaS City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1991). Formative evaluation of the Southeast Health Professions Magnet Wgh Schaal, 1990-1991. Kansas City, MO: K\n,nsas City, Missouri Schoo 1 Disrrict, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1991). Summative evaluation of the Fax.on Montessori Magnet School Program, Longicudinal Report, 1989-1991. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1991 ). Summative evaluation of the Southwest Science and Mathemacics Magnet High School Prag.-am, Longitudinal Report, 1989-1991. K\n,nsas City, MO: Kansas City. Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1990). AchievemenI and enrollment evaluation of the Jnvescigarive Learning Elemenrary Magnet Schools, 1989-1990. Kansas City. MO: Kansas City. Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. 19 I   ' ' ' '  '  '  '    W. P. Moore (iourh Policy Research Group, Jnc.j /4 RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, Jnc. Moore, W. P. (1990). Formative evaluation of the New Faxon Montessori Magnet School, 1989-1990. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1990). Formative evaluation of the First Year Science and Mathematics Magnet Elementary Schools, 1989-1990. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1990). Formative evaluation of the Southwest Science and Mathematics Magnet High School, 1989-1990. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1990). Mid-year formative evaluation of the First Year Science and Mathematics Elementary Magnet Schools, 1989-1990. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1990). Mid-year formative evaluation of the Science/Math Middle Magnet Schools, Longitudinal Report, 1987-1988, i988-1989, 1989-1990. K,,nsas City, MO Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1990). Summative evaluation of the Science/Math Middl.e Magnet Schools: Longitudinal Report, 1987-1988, 1988-1989, 1989-1990. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office  Moore, W. P. (1988). Evaluation report on the Artist-in-Residence Program. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, Department of Art Education. Published Abstracts Wendt K.J., Moranetz C.A., Wallace D.D .. HoffG.L., Moore W.P., Hamm.R.H., Bindman A.B., Lehman J.S. Deterrents to HIV Testing and Care: An Analysis of the HIV Referral Syscem in Missouri, Presented at 125th Annual American Public Health Association Meeting. Indianapolis. Indiana. November 1997  Wendt K.L Moranetz C.A., and Moore W.P. Treatment Group Composition Effects in A HIV Education Program For Teenage Youth. Presented at 18th Annual Scientic Sessions of The Society of Behavioral Medicine. San Francisco, California., April 1997  Moore, W.P .. Moranetz C.A., and Wendt K.J. , Artitudes and Predicrors of HIV Risk Reduction Behavior in Carholic Teenagers. Presented at 26th International Congress of Psychology. Monrreal. Canada. August 1996. 20 I I ' ' ~ ' -~ \\ ' ' '' ' ' ' ' -' ' ' -'  W. ?. Moore (Youth POiicy Researcn Group, inc.J ,J RFQ23-0JO-Response o_( l'outh Policy Research Group, In=. Conference Presentations and Session Chairs Wright. D ., Moore, W. P ., and Heiro=. J. (2002, Apr.). Whom did we miss and why? Character\nstics of non-participating general education srudents in mandated achievement assessments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, ew Orleans, LA. Moranetz, C. A., Hamming, B. J., Moore, W. P., Mosier, M. M., Turla:nani, D. F., Young. B., \u0026amp; Anthony, A. (2000, Apr.). Service learning Merging medicine and public health. The Community Healrh Project at the University af Kansas. Paper presented at the annual meeting oftbe Association for Teachers of Preventive Medicine, Atlanta. GA. Coleman-Henderson K., Moranetz C.A., Moore W.P. (2000, Apr.). Violence and Teens Characteristics of High-Risk Youth, Srudent National Medical A.,sociarion 35 Annual Medical Education Conference, Los Angeles, CA. Wendt, JU., Moranetz, C. A., Wallace, D. D., Hoff, G. L., Moore, W. P., Har=, RH  B-A. B., and Lebman, J. S. ( l 997, Nov.). Deterrents to HIV testing and carec An analysis of the HIV referral system in Missouri. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, Indianapolis, IN. Moore, W. P. (1997, Apr.). Using multiple measures in evaluation. Chairpenon for conference session in Division R Research on Evaluation Special Interest Group. Session delivered at the annual rneerinll of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Wendt, IC, Moranetz., C. A, \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1997, Apr.). Treatment Group Composition Effects in A HW Education Program For Teenage Youth. Paper pre-ed at the annual meeting oftbe Society for Behavioral Medicm.e, Washington, DC. Moore, W .P ., Moranetz C.A., and Wendt K.l. ( 1996, Aug.). Attitudes and Predicrors of HIV Risk Reduction Behavior in Catholic Teenagers, Presented at the 26th International Congress of Psychology, Montreal.\nCanada- Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Mercer, C. (1995, Apr.). The role of teachers in the development of the national educational research agenda Is ar,yone in Washington listening? Paper presented at the I 995 annual meeting of the AJDerican Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Moranetz, C. A. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P., Owens, M., \u0026amp; Wordlaw, S. (1995, Apr.). A collaborative AIDS education model for changing knowledge and behavioral intentions of adnlescenrs. Paper presented at the I 995 annual meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicllle. San Diego. 21 W. P. Moore () 'owh Pnlicy Research Group, inc./ /6 RFQ23-0JO-Response of YouJh Policy Research Group, Inc Moranetz., C. A., Moore, W. P., Owens, M., \u0026amp; Wordlaw, S. (1995, Mar.). The impact of a dramatic AIDS education program on knowledge and behavioral intentions of teenagers. Paper presented at the 1995 annual meeting of the Association for Teachers of Preventive Medicine, New Orleans, LA. Moranetz, C. A., Moore, W. P., Owens, M. M., \u0026amp; Wordlaw, S. D. (1994, Nov.). AIDS education and prevention: A medicine and drama model for changing knowledge and behavioral intentions of adolescents. Paper presented at the annual University of Kansas Medical Center Faculty Research Day, Kansas City, KS. Kamel. S., Fabian, C., Zalles, C., McKittrick, R., Kimler, B., Zeiger, S., Simon, C., Moore, W. (1994, Nov.). Correlation of breast tissue biomarkers with hyperplasia and dysplasia in fine needle aspirates (FNA's) of women at high and low riskfor breast cancer. Paper presented at the annual Faculty Research Day at the University of Kansas Medical Center. Kansas City, KS. Moranetz, C. A., \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1994, July). The dramatic AIDS education project: The impact of an innovative program on the knowledge, attitudes and behavior of teenagers. Paper presented at the 19th annual meeting of the National Wellness Conference, Stevens Point, Wl. Scott, D. A., \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1994, Jun.). Predicting academic success and failure. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Commission on Education, Boston. Moore, W. P., Moranetz, C. A., Hanna, M. T., \u0026amp; Arroyo, E. Y. (1994. Jun.). Effects of a dramatic education intervention on AIDS-related knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Paper presented at the sixth annual meeting of the American Psychological Society. Washington. DC. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Esselman., M. E. (1994, Apr.). Exploring the context of teacher efficacy: The role of achievement and school climate. Paper presented at-the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Fabian. C., Zalles, C., Kamel. S., McKittrick. R., Kimler, B., Zeiger. S., Simon, C  Moore, W. (1994, Apr). Correlation of breasr tissue biomarkers with hyperplasia and dysplasia in fine needle aspirates (FNA's) of women at high and low riskfor breast cancer. Paper presented at the 85th annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, San Francisco. Moranetz. C. A., Arroyo, E. Y .. Hanna. M. T .. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1994. Feb). The implementation and evaluation of an innovative AIDS education program. Paper presented at the fifth annual meeting of the American Journal of Health Promotion research conference. Colorado Springs. CO. 22   ' ' ~ ' ' ' ~ ' ' ' ' ' '\\ '.. '''\" -.. W. P. Moore (Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.) Ji RFQ23-0JO-Response of Yourh Policy Research Group. Jnc. Beisecker, A. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1993, Nov.). Attirudes regarding desire for information and patient input in medical decisions for breast cancer. Paper presented a! the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, San Francisco. Beisecker, A. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. ( l 993, Sept.). The effects of patient age on attitudes of oncologists. oncology nurses and female patients regarding patient input in medical decisions for breast cancer. Paper presented at the snnual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, San Diego. Moranetz, C. A., Moore, W. P., Arroyo, E. Y., \u0026amp; Hanna, M. T. (1993, Nov.). The impact on teenagers of an innovafive AIDS education program: Results from the first pilot year Paper preseoted at the University of Kansas Medical Center annual faculty research day, Ki,nsas City, KS. .  Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Mercer, C. ( l 993, Nov.). Identifying research prioriries in education: Results from a national sample of university educarors. Paper presented at the snnual F acuity Research Day, University ofl(ansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. ( l 993, Apr.). Preparation of swdents for testing: Teacher differentiation of appropriare and inappropriate practices. Paper presented at the snnual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Atlanta- Beisecker, A. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. ( l 992, Nov.). Attiwdes of oncologists and oncology nurses regarding medical decision-making by older and younger breast cancer patients: Implications for provider-patient communication. Paper presented at the snnual meeting of the American Public Health Association, Washington, D. C. BeIBecker, A. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1992, Nov.). Attitudes of medical sn,dents and primary care physicians regarding input of older and younger patients in medical decisions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Gerontological Society of America, wasmngton, D c. Moon,, W. P. \u0026amp; Beisecker, A. E. (l 992, Nov.). Oncologist's perceptions of physician cancer patient-companion interactions. Poster presented at the University of Kansas Medical Center Faculty Research Day, Kansas City, KS. Beisecker, A. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1992, Sept.). Physician-cancer patient-companion interactions. Presented at the first Psychosocwl Oncology: Enhancing PatiOnt and Family Care Conference, Beverly Hills, CA. Essebnan, M. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. ( 1992, Apr.). In search of organiiationnl variables which can be altered to promote an increased sense of efficacy. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, San Francisco. 23 W. P. Moore ffouch Policy Research Group. Inc.) 18 RFQ23-0JO-Response of Yauch Policy Research Group, Jnc. Moore, W. P. (1992, Apr.). Testing perceptions, practices, and malpractice: The impacr on teachers of court-ordered achievement testing in a desegregation setting. Paper presented at the National Council on Measurement in Education annual meeting, San Francisco. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Esse~ M. E. (1992, Apr.). Teacher efficacy, empowerment, and a focused instructional climate: Does student achievement benefit? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, San Francisco. Moore, W. P. (1990, Apr.). Ethnic group differential mathematics achievement: Some findings from the Second International Mathematics Study. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, Boston. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Miller, M. D. (1990, Apr.). Differential insrructional environments in public and private school classrooms: Some findings from the Second International Mathematics Study. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, Boston. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Peckover, R. (1989, Nov.). Integrating the phases of item management utilizing Apple's HyperCard. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Psychological and Educational Research in Kansas, Pittsburg, KS. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Hsia, S. (1989, Nov.). Qualitatively better education in private school classrooms? Some findings from the Second International Mathematics Study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Psychological and Educational Research in Kansas, Pittsburg, KS. Hsia. S. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1989, Nov.). Factors associated with minority group achievement: Some findings from the Second International Mathematics Study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Psychological and Educational Research in Kansas. Pittsburg, KS.  Miller, M. D. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1988, Apr.). Private-public achievement differences in the Second International Mathematics Study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, ew Orleans. Salkind, N. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1988, Apr.). Leaming about children and families. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southwestern Society for Research in Human Development. New Orleans. Moore, W. P. (1 987. ov.). Teacher observation under a microscope: A iechniquefor evaluating the effectiveness of beginning teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Psychological and Educational Research in Kansas- Lawrence, KS. lnvited Addresses, Seminars, and Training Presentations I ~  ' '' '''''' ' ' ' ' -''' .. '..  '  '.. W. P Moore(} ouih Polzet Researcn Grou_o. 1nc.1 , ~ RFQ23-010---Response of fown Policy Researcn Group, Jru: Moore, W. P. and Gambone. M.A. (2002. Aug.). A theory ofchange approach to evaluating community-wide reform. Invited presentation to the Los Angeles. California County Commissioners meeting, Long Beach, CA. Gambone, M. A. and Moore, W. P. (200'.?.. Feb.). A theory of change approach to evaluating education system reform. Invited presentation at The Aspen Institute's Roundtable on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families. Glen Cove, Long Island, New York. Moore, W. P. (2001. Aug.). Re-casting the role of the arts in k-12 education: How the arts can contribute to the national educational reform dialogue . Invited panel presentation at the Annual National Conference of Young Audiences Organizations. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1998, Aug.). Next steps for the evaluation of Public Achievement in Kansas City. Invited presentation to the Kansas City Partners of Public Achievement. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1998, May). Understanding the process of benchmarking and establishing benchmarks w guide internal improvement efforts. Invited presentation to the Department of Research and Evaluation, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Independence. MO. Moore, W. P. (1998, Feb.). Re-casting the role of the arts in education: How evaluation can shape the local and national agenda. Invited panel presentation to the Young Audiences Board of Directors. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1997, Jun.). Furure direcrionsfor the West-Cenrral Associated Schools: What do evaluation results tell us? Invited presentation to community and school stakeholders of the West-Central Associated Schools sponsored by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1997, Apr.). Setting realistic and meaningful system and school goals. Invited kevnote address at the Kansas City, Missouri School District's District-wide administrators workshop on school improvement planning. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1996, May). Consequences of mandared achievement testing: Resulrs from a desegregating school district. Invited presentation to College of Education faculty and staff, Auburn University. Auburn, AL. Moore, W. P. (1996, Apr.). Introduction to positive youth development through asset building in our communities and schools. Invited keynote address to the Advisory Board ofthe HelpNet Community Project. Overland Park. KS. 25 ' ~ ' -- \" \"-   -~ \"\" \" ~ -  -  W. P. Moore rTouzh Policy Research Group, h,c.) 2(J RFQ23-0JO-Response of You1h Policy Research Group. Inc. Moran.etz, C. A. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1996, Apr.). Adolescent health behaviors: The good, the bad and the ugly. Invited keynote address to parents of O'Hara High School. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1996, Apr.). Consequences of mandated achievement testing: Results from a desegregating school district. Invited presentation to College of Education faculty and staff, University of Wyoming. Laramie, WY. Moore, W. P. (1996, Mar.). Teacher leadership through action research. Invited keynote address to Park Hill School District Administrative Leadership. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1996, Feb.). Preparing your grant application to increase the chances of funding. Invited professional development seminar to Baseline Cad.re members from Colorado, Kansas, and Missouri. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1996, Feb.). Professional development through action research. Invited staff development seminar to Park Hill School District faculty and staff. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W.P. (1995, Dec.). Evaluation as a stimulant for creating a learning organization. Invited presentation to the Board of Directors of l(ansaS City Arts Partners. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1995, Nov.). The role of evaluation in a learning organization. Invited presentation to the Board ofDirectors of Kansas City Young Audiences. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1995, Nov.). Locatingfunders and.preparing grant applications. Invited staff development seminar to ST AR schools faculty. Sponsored by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1995, Oct.). Achieving the three clarities of successful grantspersonship  Invited staff development seminar to Baseline program cad.re in Kansas, Missouri, and Colorado  Sponsored by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, 1(ansaS City, MO  Moore, W. P. (1995, Sept.). Designing client-focused program evaluacions. Invited staff development seminar sponsored by the University of Kansas Medical Center, Child Development Unit, Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. (1995, May). Outcomes-Based Evaluation. Invited staff development seminar to the staff of Kansas City Young Audiences. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1995. Apr.). Using SPSS (Statiscical Package for the Social Sciences) in applied research. Invited staff development seminar to the faculty of the University of Kansas Department of Occupational Therapy Education. Kansas City. KS  26 I  ' ' ~ ~  .. .. ~ ~ ~ ..   ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.-. W P. Moore (Youih Policy Research Group, Inc. ) ~l RFQ23-0JO--Respome of Youth Policy Research Group, Inc. Moore, W. P. (1995, Mar.). Improving your classroom-based assessments. Invited staff development seminar to the University of Kansas Department of Physical Therapy Education, Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P., \u0026amp; Richards, L. (1994, Dec.). Assessing independent living. Invited presentation at the University of Kansas Medical Center OT Education conference: The Competent Professional: A Balance of Work-Play-Leisure, Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Moranetz, C. (1994, Aug.). An AIDS education program. Invited presentation to community and business leaders sponsored by the Child Abuse Prevention Coalition, Overland Park, KS. Moranetz, C. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1994, Apr.). The implementation of an innovative AIDS education project. Invited presentation to the Kansas University Affiliated Programs Child Development Unit (CDU), Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. (1994, Apr.). How to improve your classroom-based assessments  Svmposium Chair for the University of Kansas School of Allied Health Faculty Development Education Seminar, Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. (1994, Mar.). Clinician as researcher. Invited address to the Kansas University Affiliated Program Child Development Unit (CDU), Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. (1994, Mar.). The clinician as researcher. Invited address to the Leadership in Occupational Therapy Service Systems (LOTSS) Group at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS . Moore, W. P. (1994, Mar.). Problem-based learning and critical thinking. Symposium chair for the University of Kansas School of Allied Health Faculty Development Education Seminars, Kansas City, KS.  Moore, W. P. (1994, Mar.). How children are assessed in schools. Invited address to community and business leaders sponsored by the Child Abuse Prevention Coalition, Overland Park, KS. Moore, W. P. (1994, Feb.). How to be creative and effective in the classroom  Svmposium Chair for the University of Kansas School of Allied Health Faculty Development Education Seminars. Kansas City, KS  Moore, W. P. (1993, Dec.). Developing educationally useful and defensible classroom tests. Invited training seminar to the faculty of the Department of Occupational Therapy Education, University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. Clinician as researcher. (1993, Nov.). Invited kevnote address at the annual meeting of the Kansas Occupational Therapy Association, Topeka, KS. 27 ~ ' \\ ~ \\ ~ '  ' ~ ' ' '  ~ ~ W. P. Moore (Yourh Policy Research Group. j 11!:.} 2] RFQ23-0W-Response ofYourh Policy Research Group, Inc. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; McCl~ L. (1993, Nov.). Understanding quantitative and qualitative research approaches. Invited presentation to the Leadership in Occupational Therapy Service Systems (LOTSS) Group at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Esselman, W. P. (1992, Mar.). The influence of school climate on student achievement and teacher efficacy. Invited presenta1ion to Kansas City, Missouri School Di.strict Conflict Resolution subcommittee, l(an.sas City, MO. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Seever, M. (1992, Mar.). Large-scale testing: The impact on instrUction and school curriculum. Invited presentation to Area 2 Di.strict principals, Hartman Elementary, Kansas City, MO. Seever, M. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1992, Jan.). How students learn: Implications for insrrucrional design. Invited presentation to Area 2 Di.strict principals, Hartman Elementary, Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1992, Mar.). Test performance and test preparation: How instruction and curriculum are influenced Invited presentation during spring staff development to administration and faculty at district elementary schools, West Rock Creek Elementary, Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1992, Mar.). Testing practices and preparation: How to benefit your students' test performance. Invited presentation to Swinney and Volker elementary school administration and faculty, Swinney Elementary, Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1992, Feb.). Testing programs and teacher practices. Invited presentation to Swinney and Volker elementary school School Advisory Committee, Swinney Elementary. Kansas City. MO. Moore, W. P. (1991, Aug.). Health professions educational programs in the Kansas Cicy, Missouri School Disrrict, A sta1US report. Invited kevm,te address to fi,oulty at the 1991 District Inservice Conferences. University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1990, Aug.). A report on the status of mathematics and science education in the Kansas Ciry, Missouri School Disrrict. Invited kevnote address to di.strict-wide faculty at the 1990 Opening of School Conference, Kansas City, MO. Externally Funded Research \u0026amp; Training The Evaluation of the Kansas Superintendent's Forum. Principal Investigator: W. Moore. Total CostS: 96.157.25. Funded by the Kansas Health Foundation.. November 2002-December. 2004. 28 W P. Moore (Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.) 23 RFQ23-0!0-Response of Yau.th Policy Research Group, Inc. Evaluation of the Impact of the School to Entrepreneurship Program. Principal InveStigator: W. Moore. Total Costs: 9750.00. Funded by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation., July 2002- ovember, 2002. The Dramatic AIDS-Education Project: A program for extreme risk youth. Co-principal Investigators: J. Pelster, C. Moranetz, W. Moore. Total Costs: 18,000. Funded by Heart of America Community Foundation for AIDS and Design Industries Foundation Fighting AIDS, October, 1995-September, 1996. Development of a Consolidated Interdisciplinary Model for Providing Inclusive Education and Related Services for Children and Youth with Disabilities. Co-Principal Investigators: W. -Dunn and W. Moore, Dept. of OT Education. US Department of Education. Total Costs: 157,962. Application Approved, May, 1995. Institute on Statistical Analysis for Education Policy. American Educational Research Association Grants Program for the Enhancement of Education Statistics, Mathematics, and Science Education., and the Educational Research Infrastructure. Funded. April, 1995. The Dramatic AIDS Education Project: Development of a Middle School Educational Intervention. Principal Investigator: C. Moranetz\nCo-Investigator: W. Moore. Joint submission with The Coterie Theatre. Total Costs: 34,000. Funded by The Kansas City Junior League, June, 1995-May, 1997. The Dramatic AIDS Education Project: Continuation for Year Two. Principal Investigator: C. Moranetz\nCo-Investigator: W. Moore. Joint submission with Toe Coterie Theatre. Total Costs 36,000. Funded by Twentieth Century Companies, AU:,crust, 1994-August 1995. Establishing Educational Priorities in Kansas. Principal Investigator: W. Moore, Dept. of OT Education\nCo-investigator: C. Mercer. Funded by the Kansas State Board of Education. Total Costs: 5,000. January 1993-September 1994. Establishing Educational Priorities in Kansas. Principal Investigator: W. Moore, Dept of OT Education. Funded by the University of Kansas, Graduate Studies and Faculty Research Grant, Total Costs: 1,000. April, 1994 and March, 1995 The Validity of JADL Assessments for Predicting Function in Natural Environments. Principal Investigator: W. Moore, Dept of OT Education\nCo-Investigator: C. Brown. Funded by the University of Kansas, School of Allied Health, Dean's Research Fund. Total Costs: 750.00. July 1993-June 1994. The Dramatic Aids Education Project. A joint project with Toe Coterie Theatre and the University of Kansas Medical Center. Principal Investigator: C. Moranetz, Associate Professor Preventive Medicine. Co-investigator: W. Moore. Total Costs: 23,000. Funded by Twentieth Century Companies, Inc. August 1993-July 1994. 29 I  ~ '   ..   \".... .... .... .... .... ..  W. P. Moore (fouth Policy esearcn RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, inc. Honors, Awards, Elected and Appointed Positions Adv\u0026lt;\nory Council, CommunitJ' Health Promotion Project, University of Kansas Medical Center, 2A0d0v1i-sPorreys Benota rd, Sunflower House: A Child Abuse Prevention Ctr, 1998-Present National Panel of Writers, Joint Cornrrrinee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, Subcommittee to develop standards for student evaluation, Western Michigan University, 1998 Vice-President of Education, Sunflower House, A Child Abuse Prevention Ctr, 1998 Kansas City Ribbon of Hope Award, The Dramlictic AIDS Education Project, 1997 Board Secretary, Sunflower House, A Child Abuse Prevention Center, 1997 Board of Directors, Sunflower House, 1997-1998 Vice-President for Education, Child Abuse Prevention Coalition, 1996. \"Faculty Marshall, University of Kansas Commencement Ceremonies, 1995 Who's Who in American Education, 5th Edition. A. N. Marquis Publishers, 1996-1997 Univ. ofKansas School of Allied Health, Research Committee, Elected by Faculty, 1994 Univ. of Kansas Graduate Studies and Research faculty Travel Grant, 1994, 1995 Board of Directors, Child Abuse Prevention Coalition, 1994 Appointment to the KU Cancer Center as Honorarv Research AssisW\u0026gt;t Professor, 1993 Univ. of Kansas School of Allied Health, Dean's Research Award, Fall, 1993 Selected by faculty to Madeline Hunter Effective Tear.rung Cadre, 1985-1986 Kansas National Education Association-Turner, Building Representative, 1985-86 Professional Service National Reviewer. W. T. Grant Foundation., 2002-Present Member, Panel of Writers, The Joint Committee on Standmds for Educational E valuarilm  Western Michigan University., 1997-1998 National Succes.eful Schools planning T earn. 1997-1998 Editorial Board Member. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 1994-1998 Member. ational Research Development Committee. American Occupational Therapy Foundation. 1995-97 Grant Reviewer, U.S. Deparrment of Health and Human Services. Administration on Children- Y outb and Families, 1992-1998 Program Reviewer. American Psychological Sociery. 1992-1995 Manuscript Reviewer, Macmillan Publishing. Educational Psychology. 1991-1995 Manuscript Reviewer. Wadsworth Publishing. Educational Psychology. 1995-1996 30  t       .. .... .... .... .... ....  \" W. P Moore (You1h Policy Research Group. inc.) __ RFQ23-0JO--Response of }'ou1h Policy Research Group, Jr::. Regional and Local Kansas Ciry Merropolitan Task Force to Establish Local Standards for Evaluarion, 1998 Kansas Ciry Urban Principal's Leadership Planning Team. 1997-1998 Kansas Ciry Metropolitan Area Early Childhood Care and Education Planning Team. 1997-1998 Missouri Superintendent's Forum Planning Team, 1997-1998 Kansas Ciry, Missouri School-to Career Communiry Steering Commitree, 1997-1998 BE2 School-to-Career Functional Team Member, Benchmarking and Evaluation, 1997-2000 Kansas Ciry Public Achievement: Leadership Team member. 1998-2000 Dramatic AIDS Education Projecr: Co-Director, Research and Evaluation. 1993-1997 Consuhant, Research and Evaluation, 199'.?., 1998-Present Coalition for Positive Family Relationships: Education and Training Committee member, 1995-1997 Family Research Team Committee member, 1995-1997 Sunflower House: A Child Abuse Prevention Center Advisory Board Member, 1998-Present Vice-President of Education, 1997-1998 Executive Committee, 1997-1998 Strategic planning Crurirperson, 1997-1998 Board of Directors, 1997-1998 Education Committee member, 1997-199 Child Abuse Prevention Coalition: Board of Directors, 1994-1997 Sunflower Children's Advocacy Center/CAPC Merger Joint Task Force, 1995-96 Wyandotte County, Child Abuse Task Force, CAPC 1995-1996 Vice-President, Education, 1996 Executive Committee, 1996-1997 Executive Director Search Committee, 1994 Strategic Planning Chairperson\n1994-1997 Education Committee member, 1993-1997 HelpNET:A Communiry Response to Youth Development, Overland Park, KS, Co-Organizer, 1995-1996 Institutional Summer School Planning Committee, Member, Kansas City. Kansas Public Schools. 1998-2002 KCKPS and KNEA Instructional Improvement Initiative Planning Committee, 1999-2002 Overcrowded Schools Committee. Member. Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools, 1999-200'2 Superintendent's Assessment Advisory Committee. Chairperson. Kansas City. Kansas Public 31 W. P. Moore (YouJh Policy Research Group, Inc.) 26 R.FQ23-0IO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, inc. Schools, 1998-2002 Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools District Data Team, Chairperson., Kansas City, Kansas Public Superintendent' s Management Team (Cabinet), Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools, 1998-2002 Schools, 1998-2002 First Things First: Kansas City, Kansas School District, Research Management Team, 1997-2002 Superintendent's Cabinet, Kansas City, Missouri School District, 1996-97 Desegregation Transition Planning Team, Kansas City, Missouri School Dist., 1996-97 Education Leadership Planning Team, Kansas City, Missouri School District, 1996-97 Missouri School Improvement Plan, Advisory Council, KCMSD, 1996-97 Superintendent's Planning Team for School Reorganization and Closings, KCMSD, 1996-1997 Superintendent's Testing Advisory Committee, Kansas City, Missouri School District, 1991-92 Kansas City, Missouri School District Magnet Program Planning Committees, 1989-91 Graduate Faculty, University ofKansas, 1993-1995 Internal Advisory Panel, University of Kansas Medical Center, Primary Care Physician Education Grant, 1994 Coordinator, School of Allied Health Faculty Development Seminars, 1993-95 Research Committee, Member \u0026amp; Secretary, School of Allied Health, 1994-1995 Thesis Committee Member, Departments of OT Education., Preventive Medicine, Speech and Hearing, 1993-96 Co-Chairperson., Program Evaluation Committee, Dept of OT Education, 1993-1995 Graduate Committee, Dept of OT Education, Member, 1993-1995 Senior Directors Committee, Dept of OT Education, Member, 1993-1995 Chairperson, Student Research Handbook Committee, Dept of OT Education., 1993-1995 Acting Department Chairperson, Dept. of Social Sciences, Turner High School, 1986 Turner SRA Testing Committee, 1985-86 Faculty Sponsor, Turner Students Mental Health Patients Cbristma:S Fund, 1985 orth Central Accreditation Steering Committee, Turner Unified School District, 1985 Chairperson., North Central Accreditation Goals and Objectives Committee, Turner School District, 1985 32 Likmd ,Yeh~ Mu~(0G) /12?/(}A'I ~/uQ-/u)n TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER RECEIVED 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 FEB 11 2003 Board of Education T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PREPARED BY: 1 ?--.Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: February 27, 2003 SUBJECT: Extended Year Education (EYE) Program Evaluation Background Information One of the group of programs required by the federal court to be evaluated with the participation of an external evaluator was the Extended Year Education (EYE) program. District staff had completed a program evaluation after the end of the 2000-2001 school year, and it was presented to the Board of Education for information. Another report was also completed for the 2001-2002 school year. Both of these preliminary studies are attached for the Board's information. Steps Taken as a Result of the 2000-2001 Program Evaluation Three schools initially participated as EYE schools: Stephens Elementary, Mabelvale Elementary, and Woodruff Elementary. In fall 2002, two additional schools were added : Cloverdale Elementary and Mitchell Elementary. Some modifications to the intersessions were made in 2002-2003, but these were not a result of the program evaluation. Designation of External Consultant and His/Her Qualifications On December 2, 2002, the District awarded the contract for the Extended Year Education (EYE) program evaluation to the firm , Youth Policy Research Group, Inc., Dr. William Moore, Senior Partner. Dr. Moore's and Dr. Theresa Akey's resumes are attached, establishing their qualifications. Administrator Participation in Conducting the Program Evaluation In addition to Dr. Moore and his associates, specifically Dr. Theresa Akey, the following LRSD administrators participated in the evaluation: Ms. Frances Jones, Assistant Superintendent for Elementary School Services Dr. Ed Williams, Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Ms. Patricia Price, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy Board Memo February 27, 2003 Page Two Mr. Ken Savage, Department of Computer Information Systems Ms. Sharon Brooks, Principal, Stephens Elementary School Ms. Tab Phillips, Principal, Mabelvale Elementary School Ms. Janice Wilson, Principal, Woodruff Elementary School Teacher Participation in Conducting the Program Evaluation Teachers at Stephens, Mabelvale, and Woodruff who administered the various assessments-ORA and Observation Surveys at grades K-2\nBenchmarks at grade 4\nAL Ts at grades 2-5\nand SAT-9 at grade 5. Impact on African-American Student Achievement The external evaluator's conclusion wast hat \" Unfortunately, the limited nature oft he original design and existing data do not afford us an opportunity to answer in a rigorous manner the key evaluation question oft he extent of impact of the initiative on black student performance.\" Recommendation That the Board of Education approve the Extended Year .Education (EYE) program evaluation for submission to the federal court. BAL/adg ' ~ -~ \"\" ~ ' ~ ~ \"\"- --  Jl T A/CeV fl UWr\u0026lt;, v .. - . -- RFQ13-0JO-Response ~[Yauch Policy Research Group, Jnc. THERESA AKEY, PH. D. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OCTOBER, 2002 Dr. Theresa Akey bas exrensive experience m the areas of evaluation, research and assessment She earned her doctorate m educational psychology, research and sraristics from the University of Kansas m 1995 and her master's m cornrnunitY and school counseling from Delta State University m 1990. She bas approximately 12 years experience working as a consultant with nonprofit service agencies. Her major work bas focused on agencies that provide supports to families of children with disabilities, ll}cludlllg evaluation of grants, staff development training, and site-based research projects. She bas also worked with nonprofit organizations mt he areas of alcohol and drug abuse, cornrnunitY counseling, and other services m both rural and urban areas. She served as project director and research director oftbe Beach Center on Families and Disabilities where she co-authored grants, condDcted research, and coordinated research and evaluarion acrivities for a large research cenrer focused on service provision to fumilies of children with disabilities. Dr. Akey bas extensive background m educational assessment, research evaluation, and analytic methods. She served as an assisrant professor mth e area of research and analytic methods at Auburn University for twO years, and mosr recently in the role of director of educational research, evaluation, and assessment m a J(mlsas Ciry area school district for the last four years. 38 I ~   '''- ..  .... \" ..     .... T. Akey (Yowh Policy Research Group. Jnc. J 2 RFQ23-0JO--Response of YouJh Policy Research Group, Jnc. CURRICULUM VITAE THERESA M. AKEY, PH.0. P.O. Box 4196 Kansas City, KS 66104-01% (816) 935-0852 (V) (816) 628-1927 (F) takey@YErg.org PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT A collaborative, innovative professional with interests in educational evaluation and assessment issues, including school reform, teacher professional devdopment and evaluation, insrructional strategies, standards-based education, and alternative educational environments. Seeks to promote continuous improvement of educational and youth-serving organizations through collaborative partnerships, action-oriented research, and application of theory to practice. AREAS OF PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE  Research design and analysis including complex quantitative analyses (HLM, SEM), categorical madding, and qualitative design and analysis.  Development of educational assessment materials and psychometric validation of those materials. :::i Program evaluation in educational and community settings  Curriculum devdopment in K-12 and higher education settings  Professional devdopment in the use of data for organizational improvement, assessment devdopment, and program evaluation  Grant and proposal writing Information management development for educational information EDUCATIONAL HISTORY Ph.D. (1995). University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, Educational psychology and research ,vith emphases in devdopmental psychology and quantitative research methods  Ed.S. (1992). University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, School psychology  M.Ed. (191). Delta State University, Cleveland, MS, School psychology B.S. (1990). University of Arkansas, Little Rock. ~ Psychology and sociology 39 I   -t   I I  ' -        T. Ake\\ (Youih Policy kesearcn Group, inc.J J RFQ23-0JO-Response offouth Policy Research Group. Inc. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCES RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Youth Policy Research Group, Kansas City, Mo (June, 2002 to present). Senior Partner D Acting managing partner in research and evaluation corporation- administration and company  mInadniaagneam Teenatc hing ~ality Center (May 2002 to present). Evaluation project of best practices in teacher evaluation. ~alitative policy analysis of national standards in teacher evaluation and comparison of Indiana school districtS to those standards. D YDSI, Inc (May 2002 to present). Multivariate statistical analyses of instructional survey and observation data. including data display, technical assistance, and interrupted time-series analyses  o Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools (May 2002 to present). Development and implementation of case management system to display and organize student information o Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools Qune 2002 to present). Alignment and development of standards-based mathematics and language artS assessments  Pane Hill School District, Kansas City, MO (July 1998 to May, 2002), Director of Research Evaluation and Assessment  Oversight and coordination of all district assessment and program evaluation activities.  Preparation of short-term and long-range budget and operational plans\n Fiscal authority for budget of $200,000+ annually. D Responsibility for all personnel and resource utilization within the Department  Development and implementation of a comprehensive local curriculum-embedded assessment system integrated with the Missouri Standards  D Development and implementation of district-wide continuous improvement planning and D eDvoacluuamtieonnt ation and analysis of district performance on all state accreditation performance and D eDveavluealotipomn egnuti daenldin iems .p lementation of district-wide program evaluations of instructional practices, special education, professional development, assessment, supplemental instruction (Title 1, gifted, ESL), curriculum, and otha educational initiatives  D Served on regional and state committees related -to K-12 assessment and evaluation issues.  Led applied and theoretical research projecrs to address pressing educational issues relevant to  local policy and instructional practice  Collaborated with district stakeholders and school leadership to find innovative solutions to chronic educational problems in the District. Akey Consulting, Auburn, AL (June 1996 to July 1998) and Kansas City, MO. (Aug. 1999 to May, 2002), Founder .and owner O Online assessment and data information coordinating consultant for Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. Design and implementation of online assessment and case management system for reporting assessment information to teachers and administrators  :J Assessment and data consultant for Kansas City, MO Regional Professional Development Center. Facilitated development of regional local assessments tied to state standards and benchmarks  D Statistical analysis consultant for Kansas City Kansas Public Schools. Systems reform data analysis 40 ~ ~  ' ' ' '         t t  T Akey (Yowh Policy Research Group, Im:. ) ./ RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youzh Policy Research Group, inc. D Educational consultant to Missouri school districtS- using data to make instructional decisions and best practices in standards-based assessment. Have consulted with approximately 10 different school districtS to do training and planning in this area. D Consultant to Kansas City, MO School District- review of performance indicators and data management system and statistical consultant for desegregation case. D Educational consultant to Alvin Nash, Kansas City, Missouri Mayor's office. Strategic planning. D Educational consultant for the West Alabama Learning Coalition of Schools. Program evaluation and grant/proposal writing on teacher professional development and collaboration. D Educational evaluation consultant for Celebration School and Disney Corporation. Evaluation of integrated assessment practices. D Consultant for Chambers County-Auburn University Partnership. Program evaluation of instructional effectiveness and professional development. Beach Center on Families and Disabilities (1993 to 1996), Lawrence, Kansas, Research coordinator (1995-1996) and Research project director (1993-1996). o Coordinated center research activities and data analysis as research coordinator D Provided technical assistance in instrument development  Developed instruments to measure constructS of psychological empowerment  Primary research investigator on two projectS (one qualitative and one quantitative) concerning responsive services and psychological empowerment in family members of a child with a disability.  Worked in collaborative manner with community-based family support programs in several states to evaluate responsiveness of services to families of a child with a disability   Grant and report writing Jones Research Consulting (1991-1996), Lawrence, Kansas, Founder and owner  Training consultant in empowering professionals and families. Beach Center on Families and  DRiessaebairlcihti easn, dU nstiavteisrtsiictsy coofn Ksualntsaanst.. Department of Educational Psychology and Research, University of D KFaamnsialsy support consultant to Wisconsin Family Support program. Program evaluation o lnscructional consultant to Douglas County Christian Schools, Lawrence, KS TEACHING AND ACADEMIC POSITIONS University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS (September 2001 to present). Psychology and Research in Education Department, Adjunct Professor, Educational Research, Statistics, and Classroom Assessment University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO Qanuary 2000 to present). Department of Educational Psychology and Research, Adjunct Professor, Classroom Assessment Park University, Parkville, MO Qanuary 2000 to present). Educacion Department, Adjunct Professor, SAtuanbduarrnd sU-Bniavseerds iAtys,s eAsusmbuernnt , AL (1996 to 1998). Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology, Educational Statistics (including suucrural equation modeling, hierarchical linear modeling, mulcivariate statiscics. and basic statistics), Research Methods, and pre-service classroom assessment University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS (1995-1996), Department of Educational Psychology and Research  Instructor, Basic educacional statistics  41        I    T. Akey (J\"outh Policy Research Group. JnC.) J RFQ13-0JO-Response offowh Policy Research Group, Jn:: University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS (1991-1995). Department of Educational Psychology and Research, Gradu~te Teaching Assistant, Developmental psychology, basic educational sratistics, and multiple regression. CLINICAL AND APPLIED PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCES Topeka Public Schools (1991-1993). Topeka, KS, School Psychologist Clarksdale Public Schools (1990-1991), Clarksdale, MS, School Psychologist Arkansas Children's Hospital (1989-1991), Little Rock, AR, Behavioral lntervention Unit, Classroom Teacher Arkansas Children's Hospital (1989-1991), Little Rock, AR, Counselor GRANT FUNDING St. Clair, MA, \u0026amp; M.ey, TM. (1999). Using Reflective Practice Groups to Improve Mathematics Instruction. Goals 2000 Grant, $40,000, Af.ey, T. M. (1993). Family support influences on the development of parental skill and efficacy. NIDRR Grant # H133330070, RTD-5. Funded June 1993 as part of )650,000 grant, $45,000 per year for 5 years. Af..ey, T. M. (1993). Validating the Psychological Empowerment Scale for parents of children with disabilities. NIDRR Grant t H133330070, RTD-7, Funded June 1993 as part of $650,000 grant, $35,000 for 5 years . PUBLICATIONS Af..ey, T. M. \u0026amp; Ares, N. M. (in press). Using a Learning Partnership to Teach Classroom-based Assessment in Context Conceptual and Belief Changes in Preservice Teachers. Teaching Education  Ares, N.M., \u0026amp; Af..ey, T. (2000/2001). Self-organization in educational systems. Louisiana Education Research 1ournal 25(1), 49-71  Af..ey, T. M., Marquis, J. M., \u0026amp; Ross, M. E. (2000). The development of the Psychological Empowerment Scale: Evidence of its construct validity. Educational and Psvcholorical Measurement. 60Q), 419-437  Jensen, C., Hansen, C., Green, S. B., \u0026amp; Af..ey, T. M. (1997). Ari investigation of item difficulty incorporating structure of listening tests: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis. Proceedings of the Language Testing Research Colloauium  Green, S.B., Salkind, N.J., \u0026amp; Af..ey, TM. (1999). Using SPSS for Windows: Analvzing and Understandin_g Data, 2nd Edition. New York: Prentice Hall. Green, S. B., Af..ey, T. M., Fleming, K. K., Hershberger, S. L.. \u0026amp; Marquis, J. G. (1997). The effects of the number of scale points on chi square fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis. Srrucrural Eauation Modeling, ~(2) . 42   t           I T. Akey ffouJh Policy Research Group, inc.) 6 RFQ:23-0 I a-Response of Youth Policy Research Group. Inc. Afcey, T. M. (1996). Empowering families of children with a disability: lmplicati.ons for professional educators and service providers from a family-centered program. Teacher Education Research and Practice, 12(2). Green, S.B., Salkind, N.]., \u0026amp; Mey, T.M. (1996). Using SPSS for Windows: Analvzing and Understanding Data, 1st Editi.on. New York: Prentice Hall. Jones (Akey), T. M., Garlow, J. G., Turnbull, H. R..., \u0026amp; Barber, P.A. (1995). Family empowerment in a family support setting. 1n G. Singer, LE. Powers, \u0026amp; Olson, A.L. (Eds.) Redefining farnilv support: Introduction to public-private partnerships. Jones (Akey), T. M. (1995). To hdp o\u0026lt; not to help, A ,o,dy of group and individual v,,iabks in a monl system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Depanment of Educational Psychology and Research, University of Kansas Jones (Afcey), T. M. (1994). Development of the Psychological Empowerment Scale: Preliminary investigations. Unpublished master's thesis. Department of Educational Psychology and Research, University of Kansas. Frey, B., Jones (Afcey), T. M., \u0026amp; Saxon, T. F., (1993). Exoloring Research: Teacher's Manual (Teacher's Manual for N.J. Salkind's Exploring ResearchJ. New York MacMillan  CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS AND WORKSHOPS Akey, T. M. (2000). Using Dau to !mprnve lmtruction. Wo,kshop p,esenwl to tl Regional P,.ofcssioual Development Center, Kansas City, MO, April 16, 2001. Afcey, T. M. (2000). Using Data to lmprove lnstr11ction. Workshop presented to East Central Show-Me Curriculum Administrators Association, St Louis, MO, April 1, 2000  Afcey, T. M. (2000). Using Data to lmprove lnstr11ction. Workshop presented to West Central Show-Me Curriculum Administrators Association, Kansas City, MO, February 16, 2000  Pennell, J .. Eick, C., and Afcey, T. M. (2000). Teacher beliefs and grading practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 26-30, 2000  Afcey, T. M., Sanders, S., Boyd, P., Gorrell, J. J., Kamen, M., \u0026amp; Salisbury-Glennon, ). (1999). Assessment and evaluation .in the Celebration School: Links to learning and curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeri.ng of the American Educational Research Association Montreal, Canada, April 19-23 , 1999  Ares, K \u0026amp; Akey, T. M. (April, 1999). Modeling and understanding of social interactions. Roundtable presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, April 19-23, 1999 . Afcey, T. M. \u0026amp; Lawrence, F. (April, 1998). Understanding the effeccs of non-normal data on latent growth curve models. Violations of normaliry and influence of sample size. Paper accepted as pan of a \"\"\"posiuro (al.so chai, rnd o,gmiu\u0026lt; of smion) Modeling on-norm,! D,u fo, ,he rnnu,l ro~ring of the American Educaoonal Research Association, San Diego, CA. April 12-17, 1998  43 I  , t i ~  I 9 8  ~ ~ W!f ~ l.-il.t -- ~- T. Akey (foUih Policy Research Group, inc. , R.FQ23-0 Io-Response of Youih Policy Research Group. Jn::. /Cm, T. M, \u0026amp; A=, N. M. (Novanbe\u0026lt;, 1997). Conttpa\u0026gt;al and Bclicf ChanS\"' lmplicarions of, Socioculnml Apptn\u0026gt;ch to EducaUUg ps=,vicc Tcachm\n. Cl\u0026gt;,s,ooroB.scd Assessment P\u0026gt;pcr p,cscnd \u0026gt;t ili, mnual rowing of ,he MidSouili Eduational R,scatch Associ\u0026gt;rion. Memphis, TN, ovcnbet 12 14, 1997 /Cm, T. M., M\u0026gt;tqui,, J. G., \u0026amp; Tum bull, H R. (August. 1997). Effrro of f,mily Suppon Ptogr,uns on P\u0026gt;tcntal Eropow=ncnL P\u0026gt;pct P\"\"ntcd \" ,he ,nnual meeting of ,he Aroctiosn Psychological Associ,tion, Chicago, IL, August 1997. Lusti~ D., \u0026amp; /Cm, T. M. (Ap,il, 1997) f,mi\\y Adapurion\n. f,milics wiili Adult Cbildten wi,h Mental Rewdationc lmp\u0026gt;ct ofF.unily So-cngilis and Apprais\u0026gt;l PP'\" p,cscnusl \u0026gt;t m, ,nnual meeting of m, American Counseling Association, Orlando FL, April 10-13, 1997. Akey, T. M. \u0026amp; Gtccn, S. B. (M,tch, 1997). A Modd of Mo,al Deci,ionM,ltingc A Srody of Gwu p wd Individual Influcnw. P,pcr p,=ntcd \" ,he ,nnual mccUUg of ,he An,ctican Educational Rcs=ch Association, Chicago, IL March 24-28, 1997  Akey, T. M. \u0026amp; G,w,, S. B. (M=h, 1997). Tb\u0026lt; Rchuionsbip Jk,wccn Pomt md Intcnnrrdansl Dependent V,riablcs m MANOVA. Posre, p,,,,,ntcd \"m, ,nnual mcering of ,he An,ctiosn Educ\u0026gt;rional R,s=ch Association, Chicago, IL March 24-28, 1997  Akey, T. M. (FcbnW'/, 1997). Coofum\u0026gt;to,Y F,ctot Analysi, of, Moral Dilcnun Hdping Mcasut\u0026lt; P,p,s p,cscntI \u0026gt;t m, ,nnual mceUUg of m, E,w= Educ,rion\u0026gt;l R=ch A,soci,tion. Hilton Head, SC, February 19-22, 1997. Jensen, C., Hmscn, C., G=n, S. B., \u0026amp; Ny, T. M. (1996). An invarig,rion of i= difficuley inro,poraUUg srructut\u0026lt; of li,twing tcsuc A l,i,wchical lin\u0026lt;\u0026gt;t mod ding ,n,lysi.. P,pcr p,csW,I \u0026gt;t ili\u0026lt; Language Testing Research Colloquium, Tampere, Finland, July 31-August 3, 1996. Akey, T. M. (D=mbu, 1995). Effects of family support p,ogrnms on P\"'W ,mpow,nncnt. Wmkshnp presentation at the annual Empowering Families Conference, Chicago, IL. Jones (A'y), T. M. (August, 1994). Tb\u0026lt; dcodopmcnt of ,he Psychological EmpQWWO'' Sc,k Plimin,ry invcsrig,rions. Pom\u0026lt; p,cscnrarioo \u0026gt;t ,he ,nnual roceUUg of m, An,aican Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA. Jones (Akey), T. M. Uun\u0026lt;, 1993). Roundublc discussioos on family cmpnwcnn\u0026lt;nt wd f=ily sctvises. Invited ,oundrabl\u0026lt; p,rticip\u0026gt;n\u0026lt; wd P\"''\"' ,t m, ,nnual f,mily Support ,nd f,mily Empowenn\u0026lt;n\u0026lt; Conference, Dartmouth, NH. RECENT TECHNICAL AND EVALUATION REPORTS /Cm, T.M. (2002). Effects of sw,dwl.s-b.a,d ,sscssmon\u0026lt; on insnuctional pnctiscs in middle school m\u0026gt;ili teachers. Technical report for the Park Hill School District, February 2002. Akey, T.M (2001). Using d,u ,s , method fo ,chool imp\"\"'\"'\"'' plannffig ,nd dctisionmkingc Administrators. Technical report for Park Hill School District, August 2001. Akey, T. M. (2000). 2000-2001 Diso-ict P,.fonnan Updac Asscssmcns of ili\u0026lt; Show-Mc Srand\u0026gt;tds Evaluation report prepared for Park Hill School District, October 12, 2000. 44 t ~ ~ t  t ~ I          .. T. Akey (YOUih Policy Research Group. inc) 8 RFQ23-0JO--Response of Youth Policy Research Group. Jnc. AJ\u0026lt;ey, T.M (2001). Using data as a method for insuuctional planning and decision-making: Teachers. Technical report for Park Hill School Disuict, August 2001. Akey, T.M. (200 l) V ,lidacion nf l,aming c\u0026lt;p\u0026lt;ctacinn, fo, , ,rand,uds-b,sol cuniculum in rommunicacinn ans. Technical report for Park Hill School Disuict, January, 2001 Akey, T. M. (2001). Effecrivon\u0026lt;Ss of th\u0026lt; Cl,ss-W\u0026gt;thin-,-Cl,,, Modd  .,..Ju,rion ,\u0026lt;port fo, Puk Hill School Disuict. February, 2001 Akey, T. M. (2001). Ev,lu,rion of cl,ss rank p,ocoluresc Ex,min,cion of ,!,en, m,thod,. Ev,lu,cion report for Park Hill School District. February, 2001 Akey, T. M (2001). Eff\u0026lt;ru nf Block Scboluling on !nsrrucrinnal P,wi= Ev,lu,cion ,\u0026lt;port p,opu,d fo, Park Hill School Disuict, February, 2001. ll\u0026lt;ey, T. M. (2000). Titl, l v,lu,rinn F,pnnc Ad\u0026lt;qu\u0026gt;. Y=ly P,ng,css ,nd F,cnmmondarions fa, Program Improvement. Evaluation report prepared for Park Hill School District, December 7, 2000. ll\u0026lt;,y, T. M. (2000). 1999-2000 District P\"fnnnmcr Upd,tt. Evalu,rinn report pp=d fo, Puk Hill School Disuict, October 12, 2000  Al=f, T. M. (2000). Eff,ru of Blnck Scboluling on Srod,nt Outt\u0026lt;\u0026gt;m\u0026lt;'' Man\u0026lt;,Y ,chi=\"'' uolin, ,nd test scores. Evaluation report prepared for Park Hill School Disuict, April, 2000. AJ\u0026lt;ey, T. M. (1999). Effectiveness of Full-Day Kindergarten: Third Year Evaluation. Evaluation report prepared for Park Hill School Disuict. N\u0026lt;ey, T. M. (1999). 199\u0026amp;-1999 District PWOnnancr Upd\"' v,lu,rion ,\u0026lt;port pel\"'ol fo, Puk Hill School Disuict, October 10, 1999  BOOKS Gmn, S. B., Salkind, N. J., \u0026amp; !1,_ey, T. M. (1997). Using SPSS fa, Windows, An,!yzing ,nd Undc\u0026gt;unding Data. New York: Prentice Hall  Green, S. B., Salkind, N. J., \u0026amp; AJ\u0026lt;ey, T. M. (1997). Using SPSS for the Macintosh: Analyzing and Understanding Data. New York: Prentice Hall  PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Kansas City, Kansas yWCA, (Dec 2001 to present), Board of Directors Heartland Student Achievement Gap Organization, (August 2001 to present). Board of Directors Park Hill Educational Foundation, (August 2000 to present), Advisory Board 45 I ~ ~ t   ~        ..    T. Akey (Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.) 9 RFQ23-0JO--Response of Youth Policy Research Group, Jru:. Auburn Universitv 1998: Undergraduate Core Curriculum Development Committee for Teacher Education 1997: Chair, Library Appeals Committee 1997: Reviewer. Professional Educator, College of Education Universitv of Kansas 1993: Representative to the Graduate Student Council Student representative for faculty meetings of Educational Psychology and 1993, 1995: Research Deparonent. RECENT HONORS Nomination for Dissertation of the Year: University of Kansas, School of Education, May 1996 Who's Who in College, 1987, 1991 President's List 1987-1991 Outstanding Psychology Student, 1990 PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZA TIONS Show-Me Curriculum Administrators Association 1998 to present ASCD National Organization, 1998 to present Missouri ASCD: 1998 to present American Psychological Association: 199~ 1998 Society for Research In Child Development 1992 to present American Educational Research Association: 1993 to present 1997: Reviewer for American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting MidSouth Educational Research Association: 1996-1998 1998: Graduate Student Involvement Committee 1997: Reviewer for MidSouth Educational Research Association Annual Meeting 1997: Graduate Student Involvement Committee Eastern Educational Research Association: 1996-1998 American Evaluation Association 1998-present 46 l I  -t              ,,  W. P. Moore (Youth J'ollcy J{esearcn uruu, \"\"-- '  RFQ23-0JO-Response ofl'OU1h Policy Research Group, Inc. WILLJAMP. MOORE, PH. D. BIOGRAHICAL SKETCH OCTOBER, 2002 Dr. Moore holds a doctorate in Educational Psychology from the University of Kansas and is a Senior Partner with Youth Policy Research Group, Inc. located in Kansas City, Kansas. Currently he is the co-investigator for the evaluation of a systemic change initiative (First Things First) in the Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools and just completed a .post-doctoral fellowship with Juniper Gardens Cbildrens Research Project exploring the dimensions of effective learning communities in schools. Dr. Moore serves also as a lecturer at the University of Kansas where he teaches Evaluating School Programs, a doctoral-level educational evaluation course. Dr. Moore has served as Research and Evaluation Director in two urban school districts\nSenior Research Associate with the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundatio~ and held faculty positions in research and measurement at the University of Kansas- Dr. Moore co-founded and directed the Dramatic AIDS Education Project, a collaborative AIDS education program for school-age youth and has spent the last 6 years conducting research and evaluation studies on the efficacy of this AIDS education program for youth. Two years ago, the Project received Kansas Ci-rys Ribbon of Hope Award for outstanding community service towards the elimination of HIV /AIDS  Previously, Dr. Moore was Senior Managing Consultant with GPR\u0026amp;E, a research and evaluation consulting furn. He has consulted with school districts, not-for-profits, health care institutions, national foundations, youth development intermediaries and universities. He is a past member of the Board of Directors of Kansas City Public Achievement, a Minnesota-based youth empowennent program\nand recently retired, after 6 years, from the Board of Directors of Sunflower House: A Child Abuse Prevention Center, where he was Vice-President of Education and a member of the agency's Executive Committee. He now serves as a member of the Advisory Board . Dr. Moore has served as an expert witness in Federal school desegregation litigation: was a member of the Panel of Writers for the development of the new Student Evaluation Standards coordinated by The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation\nand served a twoyear term as a member of the National Research Development Committee for the American Occupational Therapy Foundation  Dr. Moore s research and evaluation interests have focused on effectively documenting the success of educational reform initiatives\nthe impact of mandated assessment programs on teacher instructional practice\nand the impact of education on the HIV-related knowledge, anirudes and behavioral intentions of youth. Dr. Moore has published in Applied Measurement in Education, Educational Assessment, the Jnrernational Journal of Educarional Research, and The American Occupazional Therapy Journal. Dr. Moore served 4 years on the Editorial Board of the Occupational Therap} Journal of Research and is currently a grant reviewer for the W. T. Grant Foundation. 7 I  ~ ' ' '         W. P. Moore (}'ouzh Policy Research Group. inc.) 2 RFQ13-0JO-Response of You.th Policy Research Group, Inc. CURRICULUM VITAE WILLIAMP- MOORE, PH. D. OCTOBER, 2002 Home 11478 South Wilder Street Olathe, KS 66061 913. 829. 3077 gprekc@aol.com Office P. 0. Box 4196 l(ansas City, KS 66104-0196 816. s64. 0143 M 913. 390. 6162 (F) wrooore@YPrg.org Educational History 1991 Ph.D. 1984 M.A. 1981 B.S. University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS Educational Psychology Major: Evaluation, Research, and Measurement University ofl(ansas, Lawrence, KS Education Major: Secondary Curriculum and Instruction University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS Education Major: Secondary Social Sciences Emphasis: Psychology and Sociology Current Appointments and Positions Senior Partner, Youth Policy Research Group lnc., Kansas City, KS Lecturer, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS Grant Reviewer, William T. Grant Foundation, New York., NY Advisory Board, Sunflower Housec A Child Abuse Prevention Center, Overland j'ark, KS Advisory Boa,d, Communitl' Health Prornotion Program, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS 8 I  ~ , -' ---I I I ~ ~ ~     -- W. P. Moore (l'outh Poiicy Research Group, me.\n3 RFQ23-0JO-Response o_(Youth Policy Research Group, Inc. Professional Experience Consultation 2002-Present Senior Partner, Youth Policy Research Group, Inc., Kansas City, KS. Youth Policy Research Group is a corporate partnership formed by youth and education researchers located in the Kansas City metropolitan area. Toe mission ofthis firm is to engage in applied research and evaluation studies that will contribute to policy and practice decisions and dialogue about the necessary supports and resources youth require to achieve long-term developmental success both academically and behaviorally. Much of the work already completed by YPRG researchers is in the K-12 education arena. Acting mana::.aing partner in research and evaluation corporation- administration and company management. 1993-2002 Senior Mana...oin2: Consultant, Great Plains Research and Evaluarion, Olathe, KS. GPR\u0026amp;E was an education and youth development research and policy furn focused on improving the programming and organizations that children and youth experience. Overall responsibility for managing research and evaluation contractual work. Oversaw a staff of part-time consultants, managed resources and budget, negotiated contracts, oversaw project development, implementation, coordination of data collection, analysis, dissemination, and action planning for future decision-making with clients. Clients included:  Ewing Marion Kauffman. Foundation. Through contactual work awarded by EMKF we assisted the following clients:  State of Kansas, SRS, Alcohol \u0026amp; Drug Abuse Services  State of Missouri, Dept. of Mental Health. Div. of Alcohol \u0026amp; Drug Abuse  State of Colorado, Team Fort Collins  Kansas City-St. Joseph Diocese Sc\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_1117","title":"Motion to Substitute A Complete Copy of Little Rock School District's (LRSD'S) Interim 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":["2000-04-18"],"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","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Motion to Substitute A Complete Copy of Little Rock School District's (LRSD'S) Interim 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/1117"],"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":["98 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\nIncludes correspondence, vitas for Terrence J. Roberts and Steven M. Ross\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 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 MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE A COMPLETE COPY OF LRSD'S INTERIM COMPLIANCE REPORT Rf C iE_j ~ ~i.li APR 19 1000 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Motion to Substitute A Complete Copy of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report states: 1. On March 15, 2000, LRSD filed its Interim Compliance Report outlining the programs, policies and procedures implemented in accordance with LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 2. Since that time, it has come to LRSD's attention that attachments 1 through 4 of the Interim Compliance Report were inadvertently omitted from the report during printing. 3. A complete copy of the report, including attachments 1 through 4, are attached to this Motion. LRSD respectfully requests that this report be substituted for the one filed March 15, 2000. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that the complete copy of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report attached hereto be substituted for the one filed March 15, 2000. Otfiee of Desegregation Monitoring ALECOPY Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 2 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 this 18th day of April, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JOE D. BELL, P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICKS. URSERY, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR .. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK, JR .. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM Ill, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A . A . WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A . JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A . J , SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill, P.A . DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A . RICHARD D. TAYLOR, PA. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., PA. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, PA. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, PA. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERTS. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill, P.A. MICHAELS. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A . WALTER M. EBEL Ill , P.A KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR . . P A SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P A. M GAYLE CORLEY, P.A . ROBERT B. BEACH, JR., P.A J . LEE BROWN, P.A JAMES C. BAKER, JR., P A. HARRY A. LIGHT, PA Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 April 18 , IECEIVE!ii:, APR 1 ~ 2!JGC m:FICEOF DESESUTJQN MONITORING. Mr. Sam Jones SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER, P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON, P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE, P.A. DAVID M. GRAF, P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, P.A . JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. , P.A. JONANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER, P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR, P.A . TONY L. WILCOX, P.A . FRANC. HICKMAN, P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT DANIELL. HERRINGTON K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR . ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS HELENE N. RAYDER JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL CHRIS A. AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN ROBERT T. SMITH OF COUNSEL WILLIAM J . SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR. H.T. LARZELERE, PA. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. WRITER'S DIRECT HO (501) 370-3323 Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Finn P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Brown - Hand Delivered Desegration Monitor Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 323 Center Street 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: LRSD vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et. al.\nMrs. Lorene Joshua, et. al.\nKatherine Knight, et. al. USDC, Eastern District. Western Division No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Ms. Brown \u0026amp; Gentlemen: Enclosed please find a Motion to Substitute a Complete Copy ofLRSD 's Interim Compliance Report which we are filing today. As indicated in the motion, attachments 1 - 4 ofLRSD's interim compliance report were inadvertently omitted during the printing process. We are enclosing attachments 1 - 4 which you can insert in the original copy of the report served on you. F\\HOMEIFENDLEYILRSD\\pcssd-brown d al h.wpd Office of Desegregation Monftorfng FILE r,opy Ms. Brown \u0026amp; Gentlemen April 18, 2000 Page2 If you would ratherreceive a second and complete copy of the report, please do not hesitate to call, and we will try to provide one. Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) F:IHOMEIFENDLEY\\LRSD\\pcssd-brown ct al ILwpd Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 2 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 this 18th day of April, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 C. Fendley, Jr. ~ 3 EDUCATION: Ph.D. MSW BA VITAE TERRENCE J. ROBERTS, Ph.D. Clinical Psychology - Southern Illinois University, 1976, Psychology - University of California, Los Angeles, 1970 - California State University, Los Angeles, 1967 LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION: California State Licensed Psychologist, Lie. #PSY8892 California State Licensed Social Worker, Lie. #5600 EXPERIENCE: Attachment 1 Chief executive officer for Terrence J. Roberts \u0026amp; Associates, a management consultation firm active in California since 1975. A dynamic group with a wide range of skills and professional abilities. Workshops and Seminars in the areas of: Stress Management Effective Communication Managing Human Relationships Employment Transition Team Building Management Skills Managing Racial and Ethnic Diversity Self Growth and Development Conflict Resolution Developing Multicultural Awareness Employee Evaluation Staff Development Office of Desegregation Monitoring ALECOPY Created training programs and materials for employees in the department. Participated in program delivery, evaluation and revision. Provided social welfare services to children and families in the child welfare division. CONSULTATION\\PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES General psychology and consultation practice office in Pasadena, Ca. Practice includes psychological assessment, psychotherapy for individuals\nfamilies, and groups, and psychological consultation to education, business and industry. MEMBERSHIPS: Member, American Psychological Association Board Member, African American Cultural Institute Board Member, Eisenhower World Affairs Institute Board Member, Economic Resources Corporation PUBLICATIONS_\n_ __ \"Managing Trial Stress,\" in Jonathan M. Purver, Douglas R. Young, and James J. Davis III, Trial Handbook For California Lawvers, Bancroft-Whitney Co., 1987. __ \"Understanding Choice: Gateway to Sound Mental Health,\" Journal of Mental Health Administration, Vol.9, No.l, 1978. _ _ \"Social Welfare in Black America,\" in Cox\net al, eds. Introduction to Black America:A Cultural Perspective, Southern Illinois University Press, 1974. AWARDS: Spingarn Medal, 1957 Annual award presented by NAACP to that person or persons making outstanding .contributions to the area of human rights. Robert S. Abbott Memorial Award, 1958 Annual award presented to those who do most to extend the frontiers of democracy. Outstanding Teacher of the Year, College of Human Resources Southern Illinois University, 1974. NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. Award, 1982 Award commemorating twenty-fifth anniversary of \"Little Rock Nine's\" integration of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. Southern Christian Leadership Conference Women Martin Luther King, Jr. \"Drum Major for Justice\" Award, 1995 Presented in Atlanta, Georgia. REFERENCES: Available upon request. Consultation services :provided to: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice California Medical Center Cedars Sinai Hospital Children's Bureau of Southern California Claremont Graduate School Cleveland College of Chiropractic Coca-Cola, Mid-Atlantic Division Crown City Medical Episcopal Diocese, Los Angeles Fairfield Community Hospital Heller, Ehrman, White \u0026amp; McAuliffe Internal Revenue Service, Los Angeles Kaiser Foundation King-Drew Medical Center, Los Angeles Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services Oskar J's Sightseeing Tours, Inc. Pacific Union College Pasadena Community College Pasadena T ournarnent of Roses Pepperdine University Pomona College Redwood Empire Central Service Association Riverside County Children's Services Department Santa Clara Valley Medical Center The Fielding Institute The March of Dimes Foundation TRW University of California, (Davis, Los Angeles, San Diego) Chair, Master's in Psychology Antioch University, Los Angeles 1993 - present Responsibilities of the Chair include developing and overseeing curriculum, coordinating student programs, creating and managing yearly budgets, participating in the governance of the University, and hiring and supervising adjunct faculty and staff. Included in the job description as well are activities designed to enhance the quality of the program and to maintain connections with psychology programs at schools in the southern California area. Assistant Dean, Student Services UCLA School of Social Welfare 1985 - 1993 Responsible for overall direction of student services including recruitment, admissions, retention, financial aid, student government, and coordination of both MSW and Ph.D. candidate programs. Supervisory responsibilities for student services assistant and student workers. Classroom teaching responsibilities included preparation and delivery of courses in cross-cultural awareness and group conflict and change. Director, Mental Health Services St. Helena Hospital and Health Center Deer Park, CA. 1975 - 1985 General administrative responsibility for sevent'een bed acute care mental health unit. Duties included staJ:fi.ng, program development, budget allocation, sta.i.\"':f development, quality control, coordination of ancillary services, and other related tasks. Served also as \"troubles-shooter\" for other ur,jts in the hospital providing assessment and consultation around changes in procedures and personnel. Lectured and led groups in Health Center programs including cardiac, alcohol, and pulmonary rehabilitation\nsmoking cessation\nweight management\nand eating disorders. Program Director, Social Work Pacific Union College .Angwin, CA 1975 - 1978 Responsible for development of social work curriculum 2nd coordination of program within a behavioral science department. Instructor, Social Work Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Illinois 1972-1975 Taught courses and advised majors in undergraduate social work program. Los Angeles County Children's Service 1. Staff Development Specialist: 1970 - 1972 2. Chiid Welfare Worker: 1967 - 1970 Institution Pennsylvania State University Undergraduate Major: Graduate Major: BRIEF VITA PERSONAL DATA Steven M. Ross EDUCATION Psychology Educational Psychology PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS American Psychological Association, Fellow American Educational Research Association, Member Mid-South Educational Research Association, Member Attachment 2 Degree-Year B.A. 1969 M.S . 1972 Ph.D. 1974 Association for Educational Communications \u0026amp; Technology, Member International Congress for School Effectiveness and School Improvements, Member EXPERIENCE Instructor, Continuing Education, 1973-74, Pennsylvania State University Instructor, Psychology, Spring Semester, 1974, Lock Haven State College Lock Haven, Pennsylvania Evaluator, Summer, 1974, Mitre Corporation, McLean, Virginia Assistant Professor, Educational Psychology, 197 4-79, University of Memphis Associate Professor, Educational Psychology, 1980-1985 Professor, Educational Psychology, 1.985 - Present  Senior Researcher, Center for Research in Education Policy, Univ. of Memphis, 1995 - Present COURSES RECENTLY TAUGHT Theories of Learning (Undergraduate) Individual Differences and Learning (Graduate) Educational Statistics (Undergraduate and Graduate) Educational Research (Graduate) Computers in Education (Graduate and Undergraduate) Thesis Writing (Graduate) Educational Assessment (Graduate) Attachment 2 HONORS AND DISTINCTIONS 1. NDEA Fellowship for graduate study at the Pennsylvania State University, 1971-1973. 2. Graduate Student Associate, Southwest Regional Laboratory, Summer, 1971. 3. Distinguished Teaching Service Award, University of Memphis, 1980. 4. Phi Delta Kappa Professional Research Award, Memphis Chapter, 1983. 5. Elected Fellow, Division 15, American Psychological Association, 1986. 6. Visiting Scholar, National Center for Research on Improving Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. University of Memphis, 1987. 7. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1987. 8. Distinguished Teacher Service Award, University of Memphis, 1988. (First eligibility since 1980\nno longer eligible) 9. Memphis State University nominee, CASE Professor of the Year Award, 1989. 10. Superior Performance in University Research (SPUR) Award, University of Memphis, 1990, 1991, 1992 11. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1993. 12. Board of Visitors Eminent Faculty Award, University of Memphis (first recipient), 1993 13. Editor, Educational Technology Research and Development, 1993-present 14. Editorial Board, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 1995- present 15. Editorial Board, Computers and Human Behavior, 1994-present SCHOLARSIIlP Publications in Refereed Journals: Books Book Chapters Papers Presented at Professional Meetings SELECTED RECENT PUBLICATIONS 115 6 16 170 Ross, S.M., Henry D., Phillipsen, L., Evans, K., Smith, L., \u0026amp; Buggey, T. ( 1997). Matching restructuring programs to schools: Selection, negotiation, and preparation. School Effectiveness and School Imorovement, ~ 45-71. Ross, S.M., Troutman, A., Horgan, D., Maxwell, S., Laitinen, R., \u0026amp; Lowther, D. (1997). The success of schools in implementing eight restructuring designs: A synthesis of first-year evaluation outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, t 95-124. Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J. \u0026amp; Casey, J. (1997). Preventing early school failure: Impacts of Success for all on standardized test outcomes, minority group performance, and school effectiveness. Journal for Research on Students Placed at Risk,~, 29-54. Attachment 2 Stringfield, S., \u0026amp; Ross, S.M. (1997). A \"reflection at time three of marathon: The Memphis restructuring initiative in mid-stride. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, l 151-161. Ross, S. \u0026amp; Smith, L.J. (1997). Improving the academic success of disadvantaged children: An examination of Success for All. Psvcholo!Zv in the Schools, 1.1, 171-180. Jayasinghe, M.G. Morrison, G.R. \u0026amp; Ross, S.M. (1997). The effect of distance learning classroom design on student perceptions. Educational Technolo~ Research and Develooment, 4 5, 5-20. Ross, S.M., \u0026amp; Smith, L.J. (in press). Improving school achievement and inter-group relations for children placed at risk. Euronean Journal of Intercultural Education. 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 Societv, 3 0 (3), 326- 357. Stringfield, S., Datnow, A., Ross, S., \u0026amp; Snively, F. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring in multicultural multilingual contexts: Early observations from Sunland County. Education and Urban Societv, 3 0 (3), 326-357. Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J. \u0026amp; Casey, J.P. (in press). \"Bridging the Gap\": The effects of the Success for All Programs on elementary school reading achievement as a function of student ethnicity and ability level. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. Summary of Interests During the past ten years, I have worked extensively with school districts, both regionally and locally, to develop and evaluate programs for improving student achievement. The primary fo~us of these studies has been schools predominantly serving disadvantaged inner-city minority children. In 1992, I was the lead researcher for the school equity study for the State of Alabama Financial Equity Case and am currently lead researcher on a comparable study in Louisiana. Additional ongoing research projects are studies of school restructuring designs as they are implemented in Memphis City Schools and Dade County (FL) schools and of professional development schools in seven national sites as part of the NEA Teacher Education Initiative (NEA-TEI). Attachment 3 1998-99 (DRAFT 2/7 /00) Relationship Between Total Scores and Percent of African American Students Correlations Percent of African-Americ Total Score: an Students: 1998 1998 1 oral Score: 1998 Pearson Correlation 1.000 .158 Sig. (2-tailed) .285 N 48 48 Percent of Pearson Correlation .158 1.000 African-American Sig. (2-tailed) Students: 1998 .285 N 48 48 .:.\n, 100 c::, D D C') D 0 D 0 en 90  0 D T'\" U) D c D Cl) 8 C -0 80 ::J C Cf) 8 D C 0 D ctl (.) 70  0 0 \n:: 0 ::: 0 Cl) E 0 \u0026lt;i: 0 C c::: 60, ctl 0 C (.) \n:: co C ..... . 0 \u0026lt;i: C 0 C 8 C 8 C 50 C :l 0 Cl) C C u '- 0 Cl) CL 40 30 40 50 60 Total Score: 1998 70 ' Attachment 4  1999-00 (DRAFT 2/7/00) Relationship Between Total Scores and Percent of African-American Students Correlations Percent of African-Americ Total Score: an Students: 1999 1999 1 otal Score: 1999 Pearson Corretauon 1.000 -.0A6 Sig. (2-tailed) .758 N 48 48 Percent of Pearson Correlation -.046 1.000 African-American Sig. (2-tailed) .758 Students: 1999 N 48 48 .:, 100 0  0 0 0 O\"l 90, 8 O\"l  0 .O..\"-l 0 0  tJ) 0 c 80, C 0 0 Q) u C C  .3 C  C (f) 70  C C ro C C u \n:: C a: 0  i= ] C C \u0026lt;   C I C 0 ro aC 0 .g 0 0 \" \u0026lt; 4J  0 0 0 C C 3al 0 Q) f:: Q) c.. 20 30 40 50 60 Total Score: 1999  70\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_1686","title":"Court filings: District Court, motion for extension of time by Knight intervenors to response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, reply of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to the Joshua intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1999-04"],"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","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School districts"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, motion for extension of time by Knight intervenors to response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, reply of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to the Joshua intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1686"],"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":["52 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.  ... 1q ... ,~ , , 1 \\':1  ' ' '  . ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT}Df ~SAS WESTERN D~I't)i'r - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT gg APR -S lit1 I I '\"'.; PLAINTIFF JAME3 Vf. MCC~! ff:;~.r\u003e  .-1  .. VS. NO. J!;:i-~g:zls6~0fr, T. :::. BY- -0...,.E.,,..Pl.i.\",,i. ':' CU:b PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME BY KNIGHT INTERVENORS TO RESPONSE TO PCSSD PETITION FOR RELEASE FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION AND POST APR UNITARY COMMITMENTS OFFICE OF . . . DESEGREGATION MONlTDRIMG Kathenne Knight, et al., Intervenors, by and through theIT attorneys, Roacheff - Law Firm, for their Motion, states: 1. The Motion of PCSSD for release from Federal Court supervision and post unitary commitments was received in this office on Tuesday, March 30, 1999. On that date and before the mail had run, counsel for these Intervenors had left for depositions in Helena, Arkansas on March 31 and April 1, 1999. Upon returning on April 2, 1999, Intervenors counsel actually received and read the PCSSD Petition. 2. All three Districts' employee organizations (LRCTA, NLRCTA and PACT) were off work\u003c April 2, 1999 through the Easter weekend. Therefore, it is impossible for these Intervenors to respond in the time allowed if they do so choose to respond. skp9 l 2.500.doc WHEREFORE, these Intervenors pray that the Court grant a seven (7) day extension of time, within which to file any response to the PCSSD Petition and for all other relief to which they be entitled. Respectfully submitted, :o, :_ ~ .Ct~..4u. ~ - - - - ---- --- Richard W. Roachell, #78132 Roachell Law Firm 504 Lyon Building 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon the following this 5th day of April, 1999. Mr. John Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 skp9 I 2.500.doc M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Ste 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little -~-r ~kansas 72'f\\  ~ \\' --~ \" lc .. J..r..\\..\\- Richard W. Roachell FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS e omc1: 1J~ DESEGREGATION MOWOH\\NG IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR O 6 1I \"'j'\"j'\"J JAMES w. ~AMACK, CLERK By: \\) \\ l,1,,J :\\ 1\\ C I ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL * DISTRICT No. 1, et al., * * Defendants. * * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * * lntervenors, * * * KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., * * lntervenors, * ORDER The motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension oftime until and including April 20, 1999 in which to fiie a response to the PCSSD petition for reiease from federai court supervision is hereby granted. The Knight Intervenors' motion for an extension oftime to file a response to PCSSD's motion is likewise granted and they, too, shall have until and including April 20, 1999 in which to respond to PCSSD's motion. !TIS SO ORDERED this (;.Aday of cf 4, f_ I 999. ~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COUPUANJE vm-~ RULE se AND/OR 79(a) FACP m :f: ~ ~ z:'.'.1' ev.-e_t:_ ___ DEP CLERK u.fo!bfcPuAr EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS APR 161999 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK ey: -------=~::-,-::-,,.,., LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAI~~~ilfAK V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. , RECEIVED APR 19 19B~ omce=.o;r DfSf61111TJCN MO'Ntfffifll@ DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors' Response to the PCSSD Petition for Release From court supervision and Post-unitary commitments The PCSSD has renewed its effort to secure the entry of an order \"declaring that the PCSSD has earned unitary status and releas[ing] [the district] from further court supervision.\" The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the court: ( i) deny .. _ the specific relief sought by the PCSSD, (ii) treat the totality of the new PCSSD submission, in accord with its terms, as a request to substitute a new plan for the current plans, and (iii) declare that the new plan can be approved as a revised settlement agreement, except for its provisions defining the duration of the court's jurisdiction by reference to an arbitrary date rather than by reference to sustained, adequate compliance with the plan's terms. The current petition, of course, omits some important prior 1 I I I I I I I I I history. First. On October 14, 1997, the PCSSD filed an almost identical \"Petition for Release from Federal Court Supervi si on.\" l Secon d . . On Decem be r 2, 1997, th e Jos h ua Intervenors filed their opposition to the petition, setting forth the legal standards deemed to apply to its resolution and discussing the various facets of the system's operation, which the district had addressed. Third. The -Joshua Intervenors undertook written discovery and took numerous depositions. Fourth. The court conducted a three-day hearing on the petition in the period June 29 to July 1, 1998. Fifth. After the hearing, the Joshua Intervenors and the PCSSD each filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as comments on the submission of the other party. Sixth. On September 28, 1998, upon learning of renewed settlement discussions, the court denied the petition without prejudice, and cited the system's right to refile the petition should settlement efforts fail. Seventh. The system has refiled its petition. This history and the congruence of the two versions of the petition shed light on what need n2t: be done at this time. That is, there is no need to conduct new discovery, have a new evidentiary hearing, or file again contentions regarding the content of the 1998 hearing and relevant aspe~ts of th record. 1 The  current document differs in only two ways, substantively. The second paragraph and the attachment concerning the so-called post-unitary commitments are new. At pages 27-28, in the discussion on discipline, a chart which appeared in the first version of the petition has been omitted. The reason for this omission may be that the chart was deemed to depict the racial disparities in discipline too graphically. 2 Intervenors have already addressed the relevant legal standards and the evidence showing that due to inadequate implementation of the current plans, the PCSSD has 11 [not] earned unitary status [or] release ... from further court supervision. 11 Intervenors rely upon their prior submissions, filed on December 2, 1997 (opposition), September 1, 1998 (proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law), and September 16, 1998 (comments on PCSSD findings and conclusions). But for the PCSSD's inclusion in its Petition of what it labels \"Pulaski County Special School District Post Unitary Commitments\" (March 9, 1999), Intervenors could rest on the foregoing argument. The commitments document requires a response, however. Indeed, it provides a vehicle to improve upon the poor record of implementation revealed by the proceedings following the filing of the first version of the petition. Provisions concerning the continuation of this court's jurisdiction are a central feature of the commitments document. The submission is~ a compilation of policies and practices to be followed after this court's jurisdiction ends. The language to which intervenors refer is as follows (at 8-9): A. scope of This Cominitment (1) This Commitment shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in Pulaski County Special School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Pulaski County Special School District with the following exceptions. (a) The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case \"Settlement Agreement\" as revised on September 28, 1989; 3 (b) The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987; (c) Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee; (d) The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; and (e) Orders of the district court and the court of appeals interpreting and enforcing sections (a) through (d) above to the extent not inconsistent with this Commitment. N. continuing Jurisdiction (1) General Rule. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance with and modifications of this commitment during its term, as described in Parts N, P and Q. Nothing in this Commitment shall affect the district court's jurisdiction to enforce the Commitment in the manner required by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. (2) Process for Raising compliance Issues. Before requesting the district court to exercise its jurisdiction with regard to a compliance issue, the Joshua Intervenors shall follow the procedures set forth below. [Sub-parts (a) to (c) omitted] (d) If the compliance issue remains unresolved after good faith attempts at facilitation by the Department of Justice, Community Relations S~rvice, the Joshua Intervenors may seek resolution of the issue before the district court. The court may fashion relief. (e) Unless and until ordered to do otherwise by the district court, PCSSD shall be free to implement the programs, policies and procedures the party alleges fail to comply with this Commitment. o. The scope of compliance Issues The compliance issues subject to enforcement in accordance with Section N. shall include. the PCSSD's implementation of the terms of the Commitment, as well as the standards supplied in accordance with this Commitment ... 4 Q. unitary status The PCSSD believes that it has earned unitary status. Upon execution of this Colllillitment, the PCSSD will petition the court for the district's immediate release from court supervision, subject however to the terms of this Commitment. Provided, however, that the PCSSD shall continue as a party litigant until its final claims against the state defendants and parties as well as those against LRSD have been fully and finally adjudicated. In short, the commitments document sets forth the anticipation of the PCSSD that the court's jurisdiction will continue and addresses the manner in which that jurisdiction will be invoked, as well as the types of compliance issues which may be raised. Furthermore, the substantive portions of the document further identify the areas of potential court activity by setting forth provisions addressing discipline (at 3), multicultural education (at 4), school facilities (at 4), school resources (at - 5), staff (at 6), personnel (at 6), student achievement (at 6 and attachment), etc. The court, intervenors respectfully submit, should treat the commitments document as what its terms show it to be -- a request by the PCSSD to substitute a new plan as the basis for the system's remedial obligations. Respectfully, the court should rule that the motion could be granted, if the terms of the commitments document (revised plan) were modified so that the duration of the court's jurisdiction depended upon the quality of implementation rather than an arbitrary time period. (This topic 5 is discussed below.) 2 Substitution of the new plan would be beneficial. A review of its substantive features reveals a focus upon areas shown by the hearings last summer to require a renewed and more-targeted emphasis, such as discipline, facilities and student achievement . 3 While briefer than the current plans, the plan identifies many specific remedial activities. The system would be required to focus its monitoring efforts on the steps required by the new plan, develop a plan to do so, and identify the persons responsible for implementation of particular features. See page 7, N.(l). There would be no impeding of ODM monitoring. The system would continue to provide the data which ODM has used for many of its reports. See pages 7-8, N.(3). ODM could also test compliance with the various specific activities promised by the district. Lastly, intervenors feel certain that the PCSSD would respond positively to ODM re~ests to participate in the various projects identified in the proposal. Intervenors' approach finds support in the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order in this case of April 10, 1998, approving the joint motion of the LRSD and these intervenors for a revised plan for the LRSD. At a general level, the order evidences that the earlier plans are not cast in concrete. 2 The need for approval by the court was and is obvious. The PCSSD could not expect to invest the court with jurisdiction and delineate the scope of that jurisdiction, unilaterally. 3 See \"The Joshua Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ... ,\" 9-1-98, at 8-14 (discipline), 14-18 (facilities), and 23-38 (student achievement). 6 This court approved the LRSD revision as \"an entirely new consent decree or settlement agreement between the LRSD and Joshua\" (at 3), or, alternatively, as \"a modification of the 1990 Plan\" (at 5). The former approach, relying upon the standard set forth in LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990), may be deemed applicable here. See Mem. Opin. and Order at 3-5 (standard applied). The PCSSD has put forward a new consent decree or settlement agreement and the Intervenors have indicated, in this response, that they agree to its approval, with one exception dealing with the duration of the court's jurisdiction. This court, as explained in the opi nion last year dealing with the LRSD revision, can not pick and choose among the parts of the parties' proposal. Mem. at 4. It may identify those parts deemed to warrant approval, suggest modifications, and leave it to a party or the parties to demonstrate that the court's objections have been satisfi~d . .Ig. The reasons why the provisions with which each party agrees should be approved are as follows. The law strongly favors such agreements. Isl- at 3. ODM monitoring can continue unimpeded. Mat 5. The revised proposal \"is not manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face.\" Isl- at 5. Indeed, the revision \"furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement between the parties.\" .Ig. at 7. This leaves the matter of the duration of the commitment. The commitment provides in Part N.(l) that this court 7 shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance with and modifications of this commitment during its tern, as described in Parts N, P and Q. (emphasis added). Part P. provides: The Term of the commitment The term of this conunitment shall begin upon court approval and shall terminate as of June 30, 2001. The last part of the agreement pertinent in assessing the duration of the court's jurisdiction, as proposed by the PCSSD, is Part N.(3), which reads: (3) Notwithstanding Part 2, invocation by June 30, 2001 of the process described in Part N shall be regarded as timely invocation of the entire process. Under these provisions, as a .totality, the term of the court's jurisdiction could extend beyond June 30, 2001, if the Joshua Intervenors had invoked the Part N.(2} process for raising compliance issues before that date. In this event, the term would depend on any period of relie_f., after June 30, 2001, entered by the court, to compensate for any earlier period of noncompliance. Nevertheless, the duration of jurisdiction would not necessarily be measured by the adequacy of compliance. And that is objectionable to intervenors. Three sources, two from this case, support intervenors' argument that the duration of jurisdiction should be geared to the attainment of sustained and adequate compliance. First. In LRSD v, PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th cir. 1990), in the opinion first approving the settlement, the court alluded to the need of the parties to \"scrupulously and diligently carry out the 8 ,---------------------- - - --- - - - ----- -- -- -- -- settlement plans and the settlement agreement .... \" Second. In the key decision addressing the duration of jurisdiction, outside the realm of agreed plans, the Supreme Court in Freeman y. Pitts, 118 L.Ed.2d 108, 134-35 {1992), identified one relevant factor as 0 whether there has been full and satisfactory compliance with the decree in those aspects of the system where supervision is to be withdrawn; ... \"Third.The revised plan for the LRSD allows the Joshua Intervenors to secure the continuation of the plan by demonstrating, before it expires, that the LRSD has not substantially complied with its terms. The LRSD is to submit a written report, addressing overall implementation, to facilitate consideration of the matter. In summary, in each instance, the focus is upon strong - compliance with substantive standards. Jurisdiction does not end - after an arbitrary time period, without regard to the quality of implementation. conclusion The Joshua Intervenors respectfully -request that the court: (1.) deny the petition of the PCSSD seeking a declaration of unitary status and a release from court supervision, for the reasons expressed by the intervenors in their submissions in response to the earlier version of the PCSSD petition; (2.) declare that the commitment document is acceptable as an amended settlement agreement, except for the provisions concerning the duration of the court's jurisdiction, to the extent that the duration of the court's jurisdiction does not 9 - . turn on the achievement of sustained, adequate compliance; and . ~ (3.) allow the parties to correct the defects in the commitment document (revised agreement) and refile it for approval. Rob rtPressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 Mass. # 405900 Respectfully submitted, Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ark. # 405900 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913 1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT. JR . JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR . GORDON S. RATHER, JR . TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M . POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JIit. PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOOEN ROGER 0 . ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 WEBS ITE : www .wl j .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Wr i ter's Oi recl Dial No . 501-2121273 mjones(l)wlj .com April 30, 1999 TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA A. SIEVERS JAMES M. MOODY. JR . KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J, SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS 111 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON DONS. McKI NNEY MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRI STI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. FAULKNER ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVED MAY 3 1999 OFFICE OP DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enclosed is a copy of Reply of PCSSD to the Joshua lntervenors' Response to the PCSSD Petition for Release from Federal Court Supervision and Post-Unitary Commitments which is being filed today. MSJ/ao Encl. 100174-v1 Cordially, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS REPLY OF PCSSD TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE PCSSD PETITION FOR RELEASE FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION AND POST-UNITARY COMMITMENTS UNITARY STATUS Several comments are in order concerning the Joshua response. In opposing a declaration of unitary status, Joshua asserts that it has \"[a]lready addressed the relevant legal standards and the evidence showing that due to inadequate implementation of the current plans, the PCSSD has [not] earned unitary status ... \" Joshua Response, page 3. (emphasis added). The PCSSD submits that this is not at all what the evidence showed. At most, the evidence showed that in certain areas the PCSSD had not achieved the ambitious statistical outcomes it sought through implementation of its plan. There was no showing of any material failure of implementation in any respect. Indeed, the Board member witnesses called by Joshua testified only generally that they did not believe the PCSSD 100117-v1 was \"ready\" for unitary status, but none testified concerning any specific failure of plan implementation. The statement quoted in paragraph 1 is at the least a tacit acknowledgment by Joshua that the focus of the Court's analysis is properly plan implementation, not statistical outcomes or statistical achievements, however important they are as educational and social issues. This is still a lawsuit which must be evaluated by legal standards. Indeed, all parties understood the role of the Court when they executed the releases of all claims which state in pertinent part that: \"This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the Plans.\" [Court Exhibit No. CX417 at pages 1 and 2] Joshua's acknowledgment, when coupled with another recent development, should make the legal path for this Court clear. This Court approved the \"new\" Little Rock plan in an order dated April 10, 1998. A portion of the Little Rock plan approved specifically states that: The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD .shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan if LRSD followed the strategies described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. LRSD Revised Plan at page 14, note 2 Further, as part of the analysis the Court made to approve the revised Little Rock plan, this Court noted: More importantly, however, there are certain goals in the 1990 Plan which are out of date for the current situation that exists in the LRSD and other specific, rigid goals in the 1990 Plan which expert testimony indicates may never be met, 2 regardless of the amount of effort and good faith put forth by the LRSD. (Citing the goals concerning achievement disparity) Order at page 6. CONTINUING JURISDICTION Joshua presumes that unitary status will be denied, that the 1990 plan would continue in effect unless replaced by the \"Commitment\" and therefore this Court should treat the Commitment as a proposed new plan. On the other hand, the PCSSD is seeking a termination of federal court supervision except in the financial areas and as otherwise specified in the revised Little Rock plan and in the PCSSD Commitment. Of course, this Court could decline to exercise jurisdiction over the unilateral PCSSD Commitment if it so chooses. To the extent any party might urge such - relinquishment as a \"change\" in the PCSSD submission, it will agree to that change. Inviting the Court to retain jurisdiction was seen by the PCSSD as further evidence of its good faith view of desegregation issues and as such as a further matter for the district court to consider in assessing formal relinquishment of supervision, particularly as regards the 1990 plan and declaring the PCSSD unitary in respect of that plan. At the same time, the PCSSD Commitment would institute a new process of dispute and compliance resolution calculated to avoid the necessity of district court intervention except as a last resort. (Please see Commitment at pp. 8-9) THE DURATION OF THE COMMITMENT Again, in the context of asking the Court to treat the PCSSD as a plan - amendment, Joshua complains that the ending date of the PCSSD Commitment, June 30, 2001, is too brief and that the term of the Court's jurisdiction, as envisioned by Joshua, should not necessarily end when the Commitment expires. 3 The term of the PCSSD Commitment is identical to that of the LRSD Revised Plan, both ending at the end of the 2000-2001 school year. Indeed, the PCSSD Commitment is slightly longer extending until June 30, 2001, and, as observed by Joshua, susceptible to extension, as a practical matter, if Joshua demonstrates or claims non-compliance before June 30, 2001 . Interestingly, the April 10, 1998 order approving the Revised Plan of the ,LRSD is entirely silent as concerns the duration of that Plan and voices no concern about it whatsoever. Since the LRSD Revised Plan and the PCSSD Commitment operate basically in the same fashion as concern jurisdiction and the term of the Plan and Commitment, Joshua's arguments and concerns in this regard as respects the PCSSD - are simply unwarranted and unnecessary. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, the PCSSD should be declared unitary and its Commitment approved as part of that declaration and for all proper relief. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By_~~~:::J...~:...C==:=._--- 6060) County Special 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April 3a , 1999, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 5 , e RECEIVED MAY 3 1999 Offif,HJ ~MUlfflRIIG ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARKANSAS Mark Pryor Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 April 30, 1999 Mr. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR ;72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Spedal School District No. 1, et al, LR-C-82-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Brown: Enclosed for your files and information, please find copy of the Notice of Filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for April, 1999 that I have caused to be filed this date. Enclosure Sincerely ~~ Carol Robbins Secretary to Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-8084 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ I - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION RECEIVED MAY 3 1999 OffiCEOF DESf6REGATJON MDNfTDRJNB 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 ADE' s Project Management Tool for April, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, MARKPRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education  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. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1684","title":"Court filings concerning attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants and remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance","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":["1998-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","North Little Rock School District","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants and remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance"],"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/1684"],"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":["45 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"Court of Appeals, ruling; District Court, order; Court of Appeals, North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants; Court of Appeals, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) submission concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance; District Court, joint submission of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) on teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issues; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief on teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issues; District Court, joint motion to extend time; District Court, order; District Court, motion for further extension of time to file reply briefs concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  , -y 06 / :I0 / 98 14 : 42 '5'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS Member of the Pulaski County Board * of Education, a Public Corporate; and * Thomas Broughton, Individually and * in His Official Capacity as a Member * of the Pulaski County Board of * Education, a Public Corporate; * * Defendants, * * Arkansas Department of Education, * * Respondent, * * Martin Zoldessy, Dr., Individually and * in His Official Capacity as a Member of * the Pulaski County Board of Education, * a Public Corporate, * Defendants. * * Submitted: February 24, 1998 Filed: July 1, 1998 Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, 1 Chief Judge, HEANEY and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges. RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge. 1TI1e Hon. Richard S. Arnold stepped down as Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at the close of business on April 17, 1998. He has been succeeded by the Hon. Pasco M. Bowman II. -20- . 023 06 / 30 / 98 14 : 43 '8'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS ~024 In these appeals we are asked once again to interpret certain provisions of the agreement by which the parties to the Pulaski County, Arkansas, school-desegregation case settled their dispute. The question presented is whether changes made by the State of Arkansas in the funding of retirement and health insurance for teachers violated that agreement. The Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, and the North Little Rock School District (which we shall collectively call \"the districts\") claim that by making the changes in question the State violated undertakings it made in the settlement agreement. The District Court, Susan Webber Wright, J., held for the districts on summary judgment. We affirm. I. This case has to do with two important categories of school operating expenses: contributions for teacher retirement and employees' health insurance. When the parties agreed to settle this case, in 1989, the extant system of school funding by the State of Arkansas provided for direct payment by the State of both of these categories of costs. The General Assembly appropriated funds eannarked for these purposes. These funds were separate from another, larger, appropriation for general State aid to public school districts, generally known as Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA). We shall call this system of funding, under which the State separately paid for teacher retirement and health insurance, the Act 34 system, after Act 34 of 1983 (Ex. Sess.), codified as Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-301 et seq. (Michie Repl. 1993) (repealed in large part 1995). In 1995, the General Assembly enacted a new system of school funding. Separate appropriations for teacher retirement and health insurance were no longer made. Each local school district, including the districts involved in this case, was required to pay its own contributions for teacher retirement, Act 1194 of 1995,  13, codified as Ark. Code Ann.  24-7-103 (Michie Repl. 1996), and health insurance, Act 1194 of 1995,  14, codified as Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-1117 (Michie Supp. 1997). -21- I _, 06 / :10 / 98 1 4 : 4:1 '5'3 14 539 3945 Districts began to receive their State aid in one large pot, so to speak, combining what had been called :MFP A with funds that under the previous system had been earmarked for teacher retirement and health insurance. (There were refinements and exceptions to this system, but our general description is sufficient for present purposes.) Under Act 917 of 1995, codified as Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-301 et seq. (Michie Supp. 1997) -- the Equitable School Finance System Act of 1995, this new general fund was apportioned among the several districts in accordance with two main criteria: the number of pupils, called Average Daily Membership (ADM), and the wealth of the districts, with poorer districts getting relatively more money, in order to reduce the disparity in per-pupil expenditures between the poorer and the wealthier districts across the State. This change was made in response to a decision of the Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, which had held the disparity in funding violative of the State Constitution. Lake View Sch. Dist. v. Tucker, No. 92-5318 (Pulaski Co., Ark., Ch. Ct., Nov. 9, 1994). The difficulty with this change, from the point of view of the three Pulaski County districts, was that it affected, to their disadvantage, the basis on which funds from the State would be available to them for teacher-retirement and health-insurance purposes. These districts, as we shall explain further later in this opinion, are \"employee heavy.\" They have proportionally more employees, including teachers, than they have pupils, when compared with school districts generally throughout the State. This is so at least partly because of special desegregation obligations imposed on the districts by the settlement agreement. Funds distributed according to a formula heavily influenced by ADM, therefore, are not so great as they would be if the earlier system, which simply funded retirement and health insurance for all employees, generally speaking, had been continued. During fiscal year 1995-96, the sum total of State aid received by the districts was more, in absolute dollar terms, than it had been in 1994-9 5 under the Act 34 system, but it was less than it would have been had the Act 34 system, including earmarked fimding for retiremerit and health insurance, been retained. -22- 06 / 30 / 98 14:44 '6'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS . 026 It is now time to describe the provisions of the settlement agreement that, according to the districts, were violated by these changes. Two sections of the agreement are principally at issue,2 Sections ILE and ILL. The relevant part of Section ILE reads as follows: In addition to any payment described elsewhere in this agreement, the State will continue to pay the following costs: * * * .. (6) The State's share of any and all programs for which the Districts now receive State funrung. Section ILL reads as follows : The State shall take no action (including the enactment of legislation) for the purpose of retaliating against the Districts (including retaliatory failure to increase State aid and retaliatory reduction in State aid) because of 2NLRSD argues that the State's actions also violate Section ILF, NLRSD Br. at 1 7-18. This section reads as follows, in pertinent part: The State will not exclude the Districts from any compensatory education, early childhood development, or other funding programs or discriminate against them in the development of such programs or distribution of funds under any funding programs. This provision may actually fit the present case better than Sections II.E and II.L, which are the focus of the District Court's opinion and most of the parties' arguments. We are affinning largely on the basis of the District Court's reasoning, however, so we need not pursue the applicability of Section II.F. -23- l ., ... 06 / 30 / 98 14:45 '8'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS this Litigation or this settlement. The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate. Fair and rational adjustments to the funding fonnula which have general applicability but which reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts shall not be considered to have an adverse impact on the desegregation of the Districts. . -~027 The District Court held, in brief, that teacher-retirement and health-insurance funding, as they existed under the former system of public school financing, were ''programs\" within the meaning of Section II.E. The funding formula for such programs, the Court said, citing our opinion in Little Rock Sch Dist. v Pulaski County Special Sch Dist, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996), could be adjusted in a way that is generally applicable to all districts, but only if the adjustment is \"fair and rational,\" in the words of Section ILL. The changes at issue are not \"fair and rational\" in the present context because they work to the disadvantage of the three districts. The new funding scheme does not take into account the number of employees, but only ADM and the districts' wealth. The three districts are \"employee heavy,\" as we said in Little Rock Sch. Dist , supra, 83 F.3d at 1018. The changes in funding for teacher retirement and health insurance therefore violate the settlement agreement, the Court held. II. The State, acting through the Arkansas Department of Education, appeals. The Alma School District and 110 other districts from all parts of the State, also appeal, having been allowed by the District Court to .intervene for this purpose. The intervenors are apprehensive that if the three Pulaski County districts win, securing additional fimding for themselves, the State money going to the intervenor districts will be reduced. (This is not necessarily true, but we understand why the intervenors feel they have an interest to protect.) -24- 06 / 30 / 98 t4 : 46 '5'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS ll]028 .... , , AppeUants' first argument is that it was error to grant summary judgment because - there were genuine issues of material fact that needed to be tried. The first such fact, the State says, is whether funds specifically eannarked for teacher retirement and health insurance are now being distributed as part of the new system of Equalization Funding. We cannot see why this \"fact\" - if it really is a fact, instead of just a description of a legislative change in how the State distributes aid to local school districts - is important or material. The essential nature of the change is undeniable. The State used to pay separately for teacher retirement and health insurance, and it did so on a basis that necessarily took into account the number of each district's employees. Money still goes to the districts that may be used for these pUiposes, but the amount has been folded into the over-all Equalization Funding system, and it no longer has anything to do with numbers of employees. As the District Court phrased it, \"items like teacher retirement and health insurance, which were previously paid directly by the State, were put into one large pool.\" Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch Dist, No. LR-C- 82-866, slip op. 9 (E.D. Ark., memorandlllil opinion and order filed Feb. 18, 1997). Whether this change is characterized as a complete abandonment of State aid for teacher retirement and health insurance, or simply as a change in the way the State - chooses to fund these programs ( a description which seems more realistic to us) is not important to the result in this case. The second fact the State claims was in genuine dispute was whether the new funding system distiibutes funds on a \"pure\" per-student, or ADM, basis. The State says the districts took that position in the District Court, whereas in fact the new . funding system is based not only on ADM but also the wealth of each individual district. In our view, it does not matter what position the districts took below. The important question is on what basis the District Court acted, and that Court clearly did not think or say that the new system was based only on ADM. \"[T]he new funding scheme,\" the Court said! \"is based upon ADM, equalized by the wealth of the district.\" Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch Dist., No. LR-C-82-866, slip op. 5 (E.D. Ark., memorandmn opinion and order filed Apr. 22, 1997) ( emphasis supplied). -25- 06 / :IU / 98 14 : 47 'tl'314 5;19 3945 !JS COIJRT APPEALS The key point is not whether the new system is based only on ADM, but that it gives no weight at all to numbers of employees. So we agree with the District Court that there were no genuine issues of material fact. That being so, was it right to enter judgment for the districts as a matter of law? We think the answer is yes. To begin with, there is no doubt that the teacher-retirement and health-insurance funding systems in effect at the time the settlement agreement was signed, in 1989, are \"programs\" within the meaning of Section Il.E. In Little Rocle Sch, llisL, ~' 83 F.3d at 1017-18, we held that the State's payment of workers' compensation costs was such a \"program,\" and we see no way to distinguish the present case, Our opinion in that case points the way towards the proper solution Ofthe present appeal. There, we had before us two distinct actions of the State: first, a decision to discontinue entirely State payments for workers' compensation for employees of school districts, and, second, the State's decision to distribute, as an interim measure, certain sums as \"seed money\" to help school districts make the transition to paying their own workers' compensation costs. We held that the first decision did not violate the settlement agreement, but that the second one did. Explaining this result, we said: [W]e do not believe that the State's action regarding the \"program\" necessarily violates the Settlement Agreement. The program in effect at the time of the Settlement Agreement, as we see it, was equal State funding of workers' compensation for all school districts. Thus, the State can change its funding scheme for workers' compensation, so long as the change is, in the words of the Settlement Agreement, \"fair and rational\" and of \"general applicability.\" We see this portion of the Settlement Agreement as an anti-retaliation clause. Its purpose, by its very words, is to prevent the State from cutting other programs in order to pay for its desegregation c01mnitments. If, for example, the -26- State had passed a statute decreasing or eliminating workers' compensation payments for the settling districts only, while maintaining its system of paying the costs to other school districts, this portion of the Settlement Agreement would clearly have been offended. The State did not do that, however. Rather, it changed the funding fonnula for all districts in the State. So long as that change affects all districts to the same degree, it does not run afoul of the Settlement Agreement. That, however, does not end our inquiry. When the State disbursed \"seed money\" to help school districts make the transition to paying their own workers' compensation costs, it paid about one-half oftheexpense statewide:- m. the -- ---- Pulaski County districts, it paid only about one-third of the expense. This disparity arose because the State's formula used enrollment rather than number of employees to determine how much money each district would receive. The Pulaski County districts are employee heavy compared to other districts, increasing their workers' compensation costs. Tiris result is precisely what the anti-retaliation clause was meant to prevent. It funds the Pulaski County districts to a lesser degree than other districts in the state. It is of no moment that the State reached tlris result in a mathematically consistent manner. The District Court correctly held that the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County distiicts in the same percentage as it does statewide. 83 F.3d at 1018. - H 1 : _ ;, Thus, we read Sections II.E and II.L together, in an attempt to make sense out of them as a unified whole. The State's discontinuance of payment for workers' compensation, because it was made on an even-handed basis and applicable generally to all school districts, was, in om judgment, not a violation of paragraph ll.E. Reading E and L together, we took the view that the State could discontinue a funding program -27- 06 / 30 / 98 1 4 : 48 '8'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS if it did so in a generally applicable manner and on a fair and rational basis .3 The State's reason for changing its full, no-questions-asked funding of workers' compensation was to give the individual school districts a financial incentive to reduce workers' compensation premiums, by paying more attention to safety in the workplace, for example. nus purpose, combined with the fact that the change affected all school districts equally, convinced us that the change did not violate Section II.E. In effect, we read the last part of Section ILL, referring to \"[flair and rational adjustments to [a] ... funding fonnula which have general applicability . . . , \" as modifying not only the specific prohibitions of Section II.L, but also the provisions of Section II.E(6). . 031 With this previous opinion in mind, we agree with the District Court that theactions taken by the State in the present case closely resemble the \"seed money\" issue in the previous case. \"Seed money\" disbursed by the State covered about one-half of workers' compensation costs statewide, while paying only about one-third of this expense for the three Pulaski County districts. The new funding system for teacherretirement and health-insurance costs produces the same sort of disparity, though the exact amount of the disparity is open to debate. Because the three Pulaski County districts are \"employee heavy,\" as noted above, when compared to school districts in Arkansas generally, the State funds they are now receiving cover proportionally less of their teacher-retirement and health-insurance costs. The District Court explained the 3On the present appeal, NLRSD argues that we were wrong in so interpreting Section II .E. NLRSD brief at 22-23 . In NLRSD's view, Section ILE is a free-standing, independent requirement. The State must continue to pay its share of any and all programs in existence at the time of the settlement agreement, whatever its reasons for desiring to change them, and whatever the effect of such changes. Certainly this is one way to read the agreement, and a plausible way, at that. We did not so interpret Sections ILE and Il.L in our previous decision, however, and that decision has become the law of this case. We do not choose to reexamine it. We have power to do so, but the arguments now advanced against our prior interpretation do not seem to us sufficiently compelling to enable us to describe our prior opinion as egregiously wrong or unjust, and some such description would be necessary to avoid the law-of-the-case doctrine. -28- 06 / 30 / 98 14 : 49 '6'3 14 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS 032 matter in tenns we find persuasive. We quote from the Court's order on teacher - retirement, but the language applies equally to health insurance: The Court thus finds that there is no genuine factual dispute that instead of directly funding each district based upon the number of employees, the State has included funds for teacher retirement in the new funding scheme which distributes funds on a per ADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district. Just as the workers' compensation \"seed money\" fonnula worked to the detriment of the employee-heavy Pulaski County school districts, so too does the distribution of teacher retirement contributions through the new funding fonnula give the districts less money to fund teacher retirement. While the three Pulaski County school districts may fare better under the new funding scheme from a state aid perspective, there is no question that the amount of their teacher retirement funding, previously directly funded by the State based upon the eligible salaries paid to their employees, will be reduced and result in unequal state funding. There is a difference between the State's decision not to fund workers' compensation and to end direct state funding of teacher retirement. The rationale concerning workers' compensation was that the shift of responsibility to the school districts would prompt them to take measures to reduce their workers' compensation costs. Although the State argues the same rationale applies concerning teacher retirement, there are factors, including desegregation obligations, beyond the control of school districts which dictate the number of employees and salaries of teachers. For example, the LRSD desegregation plan obligates the district to implement a four-year-old program, to staff incentive schools with instructional aides, theme specialists, computer aides, art teachers; physical education teachers, social workers, counselors, auxiliary teachers, media specialists, and supervision aides, among many others. The -29- 06 / 30/ 98 14 : 50 '8'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS magnet and interdistrict schools require additional staff such as theme and curriculum specialists. In the PCSSD, numerous positions are required to fulfill desegregation plan obligations, such as home school counselors, curriculum coordinators, theme specialists, and staffing for its desegregation division, such as an assistant superintendent and director of desegregation. Likewise, the NLRSD incurs expenditures as a direct result of the requirements of the desegregation plan, such as an assistant superintendent for desegregation, reading tutors and support personnel, HIPPY staffing and support, computer technicians, junior and senior high remedial reading, and homebound teachers. Thus, it is clear that the districts are not in a position to control their teacher retirement costs in the sense that the districts might control workers' compensation costs. ~033 Little Rock Sch. Dist. SJJPia, slip op. at 9-11 (memorandum opinion and order filed February 18, 1997) (footnote omitted). For these reasons, we agree with the District Court that the changes in state funding at issue in this case did violate the settlement agreement. In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful that Judge Wright has been responsible for administering and interpreting the settlement agreement for some time now, ever since 1990, when she took over this case. Our review of the District Court's interpretation of the settlement agreement is, as a fonnal matter, de novo. But we still think it appropriate to pay some heed to the reasoned determinations of the experienced District Judge, who faces decisions in this case every month, if not every week. The orders granting summary judgment on the teacher-retirement and health-insurance issues will be affinned. On remand, it will be up to the District Court, in the first instance, to decide exactly what relief is appropriate. The tluee Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding -30- for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed. This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be double recovery, a windfall. But the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. Tilis means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system -- MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance -- would have produced, and what the new system -- Equalization Funding in one Jump sum -- is producing. The appellants suggest that this effort will necessarily involve speculation . . Admittedly it cannot be .. exact, but we believe that the District, .. . . . .. Court can make a reasonable and informed estimate. The orders appealed from are affirmed, and the cause remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHIB CIRCUIT. -31- IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * F1LE6 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL O 9 1998 JAMES r M~c ORMACK, CLERK By: \\ .. _ u /\\ M o [\\ .- OEP CLERK\u003c- PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * RECEIVED Defendants, * * 1 3 1998 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * ,JI II Intervenors, * OfFICErn: * DESEGREGATION MOKITORlNG KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee for the approval of the Interdistrict Magnet School Budget for the 1997-98 school year (Draft 1).1 The proposal now under consideration was communicated to the Court in a letter from the Magnet Review Committee dated June 20, 1998. The proposed budget includes the second year of funding for the five-year proposed program improvement plan for the six original magnet schools. The total amount budgeted, $18, 159, 205, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $4,654 per student, calculated from an actual third-quarter enrollment of 3,901.89 students. The budget shows an increase of $84.00 per student over the 1996-97 budget, with the second year of the five-year proposed program improvement plan included. 2 1 Attached hereto as Exhibit L 2 The Magnet Review Committee acknowledged in its letter to this Court that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals had before it an appeal regardi~g teacher retirement and health insurance which may The Court hereby approves the Interdistrict Magnet School Budget for 1997-98 school year (Draft 1). IT IS SO ORDERED THIS cfA-day of July 1998. =Mk UDS'f ATES DISTRI TDGE fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN CC,MPLIANCE WM RULE 58 AND/OR 79(~ FRCP ON 1ll0~ BY r_;r:_ ___ impact the proposed Interdistrict Magnet School Budget for the 1997-98 school year (Draft 1). The Eighth Circuit has now decided the case regarding teacher retirement and health insurance, and this Court anticipates making additional rulings regarding those issues in the future based upon the Eighth Circuit's decision. The Court expects; as the Magnet Review Committee has stated, that any revisions to the proposed Interdistrict Magnet School Budget for the 1997-98 school year (Draft 1) required to be made in light of these decisions will be submitted to this Court for approval. 2 ~f15~:~~g;;;faJe'i~~~~~1il~il::~:::t;:::fr::,: 96-97  F.T.E.- .. CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 03 Specialists 39.2 04 Counselors 12.4 05 Media Spec. 6.5 06 Art-Pert/Prod. 1.0 07 Music 0.0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 09 Vocational 12.6 10 Special Education 8.2 11 Gifted 5.4 12 Classroom 177.9 13 Substitutes 0.0 14 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 293.2 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 20.0 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 17 Custodians 29.0 18 Information Services 0.0 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 6.0 20 Other-Aides 37.0 21 Fringe Benefits(20) TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 97.4 TOTAL ( 10-20) PURCHASED 22 Utilities SERVICES 23 Travel (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other TOTAL (30) MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Reoular Classroom (40) 28 Media 29 Other TOTAL /40) CAPITAL 30 Eouipment OUTLAY 31 Buildino Repair, etc. (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) OTHER 33 Dues and Fees (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) TOTAL (30-60) TOTAL (10-60) 390.6 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ,_,.:.'::..:\\,%:\u003c'.: GRAN0';TOTAL'.f ,':\u003c\":'\"'''' . XXX\u003eOtX  96-97 96-97 Budget Actual $369,070 $369,069 $463,584 $463,585 $1 ,327,018 $1 ,362,980 $476,963 S476,836 S248,736 $248,693 $23.723 $23,723 $0 so $0 so $347,888 $378,577 $264,005 $265,751 $197,633 $197 .633 $5,877 ,608 $5,843,911 $154,990 $166,607 $486.252 $486,572 $10,237,470 $10,283,936 $373,625 $373,570 $163,071 $163,569 $369,006 $365,788 $0 so $156,854 $130,143 $312,743 $317 ,095 $3,115,089 $3,080,923 $4 ,490,388 $4,431,089 $14,727,858 $14,715,D24 $591 ,944 $574,528 $33,600 $13,472 $8,750 so $82,878 $123,953 $717,172 $711,953 $3.600 so $425,485 $450,479 $41 ,523 $35,436 $28,771 $20,114 $499,379 $506,030 $376,785 $316,694 $5,500 $0 $350 $106 $382,635 $316,800 $27,402 $30,648 $0 $0 $27,402 $30,648 $1 ,626,587 $1 ,565,431 $16,354,446 $16,280,455 $890,896 $929,702  $17,245,342 $17,210,157 97-98 F.T.E. 6.0 10.0 39.2 12 4 6 5 1 0 00 00 12 6 8.7 5.4 177.9 0.0 13 0 292 7 20 0 5.4 29 0 1.0 60 37.0 XXXlOOOO( 98.4 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx.x XXXlOOOO( xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx 391 .1 xxxxxxxx \u003eOtXXXX Exhibit 1 97-98 Prooosed $376.587 $488,462 $1 ,343 .119 $505.887 S253.085 S26 ,065 so so S343.81 7 S289, 709 $199.275 $6.147,115 $165.000 S425, 964 $10,564 .086 S407. 495 S163,262 S356,470 S22 .415 $133.806 $285,101 $3,090,046 $4 .458,595 $15,022,681 S617 ,80.3 S27 .000 so S 156.919 $801.722 S2 .500 S5 74 ,289 $35 .450 $17 .632 $629,871 $281 .692 so so $281 ,692 $11 ,213 $0 $11 .213 $1,724 ,498 $16,747 ,179 $1 ,412,026 $18,159,205 I I I I I I I I I Line lteni Costs  Budget Actual Proposed ...... . .. .. 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 ;  Stipends $69.094 $19,983 S33,837 Other Objects $0 $0 so Indirect Costs $736,303 $824,092 $1 ,284 .189 Vocational $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 Athletics $32,000 $31 ,964 S40.500 Gifted Programs $500 $502 S500 Plant Services $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Reading $500 $500 S500 Science $0 $0 $0 English $1,500 $1 ,660 $1 .500 Special Education $4,000 $4 ,000 $4 ,000 $0 $0 so xx:xxxx $0 $0 $0 xx:xxxx $0 $0 so Total Line Items $890,896 $929,702 S 1,412,026  ,/:_' 1996-97 . _: . 1996-97 1997-98 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 3,765.61 3.765 61 3,901 89 Total Costs $17,245,342 $17,210,157 $18,159,205 $4;580 $4,570 $4,654 1~7,:-98 BUDGET PROPOSAL(ORAFT1) 96-97 96-97 96-97 97-98 97-98 Booker Ma,i:i'net School ... F.T.E. Budget Actual F.T.E. Proposed CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $59,663 $59,663 1 0 561 ,582 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $40.672 $40,672 1 0 S4 3. 757 03 Specialists 7.0 $261 ,827 $262.257 7 0 S268.408 04 Counselors 2.0 $73,553 $73,468 2.0 S76, 155 05 Media Spec. 1 0 $41 ,963 $41 ,963 1 0 S42 ,653 06 Art-Per1./Prod. 1.0 $23. 723 $23,723 1 0 S26,065 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 00 so 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 so 00 so 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 $0 00 so 10 Special Education 1.3 $50,243 $50,243 1 3 $55,624 11 Gifted 1.0 $38,946 $38,946 1.0 $39,594 12 Classroom 30.2 $998,938 $1,001,579 30 2 S1 042,379 13 Substitutes 0.0 $20,000 $47. 118 00 $30,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $126,243 $126.243 4.0 S 105. 300 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 49.5 $1 ,7 35,772 $1,765.876 49 5 $1,791 ,516 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $34,706 $35,046 20 $39,821 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31 ,825 $32,145 1 0 $33.050 17 Custodians 4.0 $55,019 $54 ,958 4 0 $53 ,033 18 Information Services 0.0 $0 $0 0.2 $3,736 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 so 0.0 so 20 Other-Aides 7.0 $59,679 $60,277 7.0 $56,973 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $520,352 $520,341 S519,779 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.0 $701 ,580 $702:767 14.2 S706 ,392 TOTAL (10-20)   ;,_., .. $2,437,352 $2,468,642 $2,497,909 PURCHASED 22 Utilities , , .   $78,070 $66,703 $81 ,480 SERVICES 23 Travel   ... ,   $5,000 $2,355 $2,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $8,493 $12,711 S13,350 TOTAL (30) $91 ,563 $81, 769 S96,830 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $42,079 $40,397 S105.498 (40) 28 Media $6,150 $6,105 SS.250 29 Other $4 ,205 $3,475 $3 ,372 TOTAL (40) $52.434 $49,977 $114 ,120 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $60,059 $50,840 $65. 760 OUTLAY 31 Buildinq Repair, etc. - $2,500 so - so (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $62,559 $50,840 S65. 760 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $259 $259 S250 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $259 $259 S250 TOTAL (30-60) $206,816 $182.845 xxxxxxxx S276. 960 TOTAL (10-60) 63.5 $2,644,167 $2,651,488 63. 7 S2.774 .869 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $145,777 $138,793 x:x:xxxxx,. S217,370 i\\:,u:;.,:;-:.GRAND .. TOTAlr :-.: XXXXXX' .. ... ,,, $2,789,944 $2,790,280 xxxxxx $2 ,992,238 Line Item Costs  Budget Actual Proposed Booker ' 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Stipends S20, 733 S3. 789 S8.357 Other Objects Indirect Costs S121 ,381 S131 .479 $205,499 Vocational $0 $0 so Athletics $0 so so Gifted Programs $155 $149 $15 "}],"pages":{"current_page":9,"next_page":10,"prev_page":8,"total_pages":27,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":96,"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}}]}}