Print Page   |   Sign In   |   Join
Arkansas Learns
Blog Home All Blogs

Lafayette County School Board Denies Transfer of Four-year Old

Posted By Arkansas Learns, Friday, July 26, 2019
Updated: Friday, July 26, 2019
Listen and weep for the Harrison family and trapped children of Lafayette County School District.

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Exit Criteria: Good Enough for Schools, Good Enough for Administrators

Posted By Arkansas Learns, Friday, July 12, 2019
Updated: Friday, July 12, 2019

In 2018, the Arkansas Department of Education announced exit criteria for Level 5 - Intensive Support school districts in state control because of academics.

In short, the qualitative measures for the Little Rock School District’s eight 'F' schools call for evidence of collaboration among educators, consistent use of specific instructional practices and employee evaluation systems, adherence to state education standards, and management of resources to support teachers and increase student achievement

In other words, the inputs. Best practices. Blocking and tackling.

The quantitative measures call for each of the district's eight 'F' schools to:

  • Achieve an 80 or better on Value Added Growth score (80 signifies that students at a school, on average, made as much academic growth in the current school year as they did in the last)
  • Have a majority of students achieving at "Close," "Ready" or "Exceeds" on the ACT Aspire and ACT, instead of a majority "In Need of Improvement."

In other words, the results. Simply grow as much as you did the year before (no matter how low that may have been), and don't have a majority of students needing improvement.

All-in-all, a very low bar.

Here's how the district stands today in regard to exiting from state control:

Little Rock currently has eight ‘F’ schools. From 2016-17 to 2018-19, only one - Hall - improved its Value Added Growth score: +0.29 to 80.22.

  • Bale declined -0.49 to 76.74
  • Romine declined -3.21 to 74.98
  • Stephens declined -1.04 to 75.04
  • Washington declined -5.8 to 75.06
  • Cloverdale declined -2.26 to 76.81
  • Fair declined -2.01 to 75.11
  • McClellan declined -0.45 to 78.45

As for percentage of students "In Need of Improvement" on the latest ACT Aspire:

  • Bale
    • English 14.9%
    • Math 31.5%
    • Science 67.1%
    • Reading 57.3%
  • Romine
    • English 12.6%
    • Math 25.2%
    • Science 57%
    • Reading 58.5%
  • Stephens
    • English 14.7%
    • Math 34.9%
    • Science 66.8%
    • Reading 62.4%
  • Washington
    • English 14.2%
    • Math 32%
    • Science 75.5%
    • Reading 67.5%
  • Cloverdale
    • English 24.7%
    • Math 57.3%
    • Science 71.2%
    • Reading 66.8%
  • Fair
    • English 52.9%
    • Math 85.1%
    • Science 82.4%
    • Reading 76.4%
  • Hall
    • English 61.7%
    • Math 87.2%
    • Science 82.7%
    • Reading 81.7%
  • McClellan
    • English 49.2%
    • Math 84.9%
    • Science 78.3%
    • Reading 73.3%

None meet nor are even close to the exit criteria.

 

Director of K-12 Literacy

If these minimal exit criteria are good enough for schools, they should also be relevant when determining administrators' exits from or entries to positions.

The new Director of K-12 Literacy was the seven-year principal at Chicot Elementary.

From 2016-17 to 2018-19, Chicot's Value Added Growth score improved +7.05, from 75.62 to 82.67.

But its 2019 percentages of students "In Need of Improvement" on the latest ACT Aspire were:

  • English 13.5%
  • Math 23.3%
  • Science 62.6%
  • Reading 56.7%

So in Reading, after seven years, a majority of the new head of literacy's students aren't close, meeting or exceeding, but rather, are in need of improvement.

 

Executive Director of Elementary Education

The new Executive Director of Elementary Education is the 14-year principal of Mabelvale Elementary School.

From 2016-17 to 2018-19, Mabelvale's Value Added Growth score declined -2.6, from 80 to 77.4.

And its 2019 percentages of students "In Need of Improvement" on the latest ACT Aspire were:

  • English 11.3%
  • Math 22.5%
  • Science 65.9%
  • Reading 61.5%

So in both Value Added Growth and two of four subjects, the new head of Elementary Education would not meet exit criteria if his school were an 'F,' which based on his latest scores, likely will be when school grades are released in October. It was only 0.53 away last year.

 

Superintendent

The district’s average Value Added Growth score declined from 80.35 in 2017 to 79.39 in 2018 for a -0.94 loss.

And its 2019 percentages of students "In Need of Improvement" on the latest ACT Aspire were:

  • English 16.4%
  • Math 34.8%
  • Science 51.9%
  • Reading 45.4%

In 2017, the district had 18 schools above 80.

In 2018, the district had 14 schools above 80, a decline of four schools.

Ten schools improved their Value Added Growth scores in 2018, which means 30 declined

 

But of course, adults are never held to the same criteria as are students and schools under their watch. Until they are, no district will emerge.

If you're wondering why we're so far into the personnel weeds, it's because, after four years and five months of state control, students have been left with no margin for error. And only time will tell if non-data-supported leadership decisions will work or not.

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Helena-West Helena School Board Member Proposes Banning Journalist from Public Meetings

Posted By Arkansas Learns, Tuesday, June 11, 2019
Updated: Tuesday, June 11, 2019

Earnest Simpson, Jr. is the recently former principal of Lee High School in Marianna (Lee County School District). He resigned before he could be fired after the Arkansas State Board of Education voted to take over the Lee County School District.

Among the many reasons cited for takeover of the district were multiple accreditation issues, as well as the fact that 35 of 56 seniors at the high school were not on track to graduate.

Mr. Simpson, however, still serves on the Helena-West Helena School Board, a position he also held while serving as principal in another school district.

At last night's (June 10, 2019) public board meeting, he proposed a resolution banning a former school board member - Andrew Bagley - from future public meetings because of what Mr. Bagley has written in the Helena-West Helena World newspaper. His proposal was met with multiple audible "amens."

Further, Mr. Simpson - the longtime Arkansas principal and board member - identified Brad Montgomery as director of the Arkansas Department of Education. That would be Johnny Key.

While Mr. Simpson was duly elected by the voters of his school district, his proposal, if enacted, would be both unconstitutional and in violation of the laws of the State of Arkansas.

When the State provides over 50% of the funding for the school districts of Arkansas, but has no say in the leadership of the districts it funds, this is what you get.

By the way, Helena-West Helena has been taken over by the State, not once, but twice for Fiscal Distress. Mr. Simpson is currently the subject of an ethics complaint on filed by Mr. Bagley on another issue with the Arkansas Ethics Commission.

Read the complaint and listen to Mr. Simpson's proposal in the links below:

 Attached Files:

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Issues Order Granting Filing of Parents' Amicus Brief

Posted By Arkansas Learns, Thursday, May 30, 2019
Updated: Thursday, May 30, 2019

 Attached Files:

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

For LRSD's Success or Failure, Buck Stops with State Board of Education

Posted By Arkansas Learns, Friday, April 26, 2019
Updated: Thursday, May 2, 2019

In June, Little Rock School District Superintendent Michael Poore will have concluded his third year at the helm of the district. While there is no limit to how long a superintendent may serve, by Arkansas law, superintendent contracts may not exceed three years, including extensions.

The following is the academic growth of the district under his watch (scroll left, right to see full charts):

NWEA MAP Formative Assessment Growth
Fall 2018 - Winter 2018 - Spring 2019
Nationally Normed Growth Percentiles (1st Worst; 99th Best)

  • LOW: 1st - 20th Percentile
  • LOW AVERAGE: 21st to 40th Percentile
  • AVERAGE: 41st - 60th Percentile
  • HIGH AVERAGE: 61st - 80th Percentile
  • HIGH: 81st - 99th Percentile

NOTE: As a guide to parents, avoid any grades in schools which only grew in the 20th percentile or lower for the year. And seek those which grew in the 80th percentile or higher. As for the district as a whole:

  • K is Succeeding
  • Grade 8 is Succeeding and Below Average
  • Grades 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are Below Average
  • Grades 2, 3, 4, and 5 are Failing
Grade K    Grade 1   Grade 2   Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10
Math Reading  Math Reading  Math Reading  Math Reading Math Reading Math Reading Math Reading Math
Reading Math
Reading Math
Reading Math
Reading
District            
Fall - Winter  40th  32nd  15th  6th  8th  6th  15th  2nd  6th  2nd  20th  5th  25th  16th  34th  27th  35th  12th        
Winter - Spring  87th  75th  63rd  61st  40th  23rd  3rd  14th  34th  27th  20th  50th  63rd  62nd  49th  41st  80th  76th  66th  31st  16th  5th
Fall - Spring  66th  54th  33rd  22nd  17th  14th  6th  5th  13th  8th  18th  19th  35th  28th  35th  32nd  55th  38th  45th  36th  37th  39th
Bale            
Fall-Winter  9th  2d  1st  1st  2nd  1st  69th  75th  34th  82nd  21st  99th
Winter-Spring  99th  81st  28th  33rd  13th  1st 1st  4th  29th  81st  31st  18th
Fall-Spring  74th  26th  6th  2nd  4th  1st  16th  39th  19th  96th  18th  49th                    
Baseline            
Fall-Winter  1st  1st  45th  1st  67th  4th  6th  12th  25th  1st  39th  44th
Winter-Spring  1st  2nd  92nd  96th  68th  1st  15th  2nd  8th  14th  88th  99th
Fall-Spring  1st  1st  57th  8th  57th  1st  6th  4th  9th  1st  57th  85th                    
Booker            
Fall-Winter  64th  7th  2nd  1st  2nd  14th  4th  1st  1st  1st  1st  1st
Winter-Spring  98th  74th  11th  2nd  55th  76th  11th  1st  4th  95th  41st  97th
Fall-Spring  95th  48th  2nd  1st  11th  40th  4th  1st  1st  1st  8th  1st                    
Brady            
Fall-Winter  19th  10th  5th  24th  25th  67th  20th  1st  27th  90th  4th  1st
Winter-Spring  72nd  84th  12th  1st  7th  2nd  2nd  98th  1st  98th  37th  51st
Fall-Spring  40th  38th  5th  4th  13th  14th  8th  4th  8th  91st  8th  1st                    
Carver            
Fall-Winter  59th  33rd  20th  1st  2nd  43rd  14th  1st  4th  12th  66th  65th
Winter-Spring  94th  10th  25th  76th  71st  43rd 1st  4th  28th  2nd  14th   3rd
Fall-Spring  82nd  15th  18th  17th  18th  45th  1st  3rd  11th  18th  27th  8th                    
Central            
Fall-Winter            
Winter-Spring            
Fall-Spring                                      25th  48th  34th  21st
Chicot            
Fall-Winter  7th  2nd  36th  2nd  12th  1st  1st  1st  2nd  1st  56th  99th
Winter-Spring  30th  29th  24th  9th  85th  12th  1st  8th  39th  73rd  1st  1st
Fall-Spring  14th  9th  29th  5th  37th  4th  1st  1st  4th  6th  7th  32nd                    
Cloverdale            
Fall-Winter              1st  99th  5th  1st  10th  1st
Winter-Spring              96th  98th  13th  54th  15th  17th
Fall-Spring                          36th  98th  3rd  5th  30th  16th        
Dodd                
Fall-Winter  1st  79th  2nd  1st  1st  8th  64th  65th  3rd  82nd  65th  17th
Winter-Spring  99th  12th  95th  69th  71st  43rd  22nd  1st  53rd  1st  14th  1st
Fall-Spring  88th  49th  27th  20th  19th  21st  27th  6th  14th  10th  33rd  1st                    
Don Roberts            
Fall-Winter  98th  98th  35th  70th  1st  2nd  35th  1st  31st  10th  21st  61st
Winter-Spring  84th  98th  66th  8th  56th  9th 1st  14th  81st  2nd  6th  26th
Fall-Spring  95th  99th  57th  41st  15th  6th  6th  4th  57th  6th  13th  43rd                    
Dunbar            
Fall-Winter              34th  89th  56th  99th  28th  17th
Winter-Spring              51st  1st  11th 11th  86th  87th
Fall-Spring                          39th  6th  27th  89th  46th  39th        
Forest Heights STEM            
Fall-Winter  81st  99th  2nd  1st  22nd  73rd  6th  33rd  11th  1st  1st  1st  58th  5th  4th  52nd  61st  81st
Winter-Spring  99th  87th  99th  99th  37th  18th  2nd  19th  1st  5th  17th  97th  4th  5th  73rd  67th  12th  31st
Fall-Spring  99th  99th  59th  37th  27th  46th  5th  27th  3rd  4th  3rd  16th  21st  4th  27th  62nd  34th  58th        
Forest Park            
Fall-Winter  99th  99th  54th  41st  6th  3rd  83rd  42nd  1st  3rd  31st  3rd
Winter-Spring  78th  92nd  62nd  49th  1st  5th  14th  10th 99th  50th  30th  35th
Fall-Spring  97th  99th  62nd  57th  1st  4th  52nd  29th  41st  17th  29th  11th                    
Fulbright            
Fall-Winter  99th  82nd  60th  2nd  13th  1st  13th  7th  7th  57th  2nd  14th
Winter-Spring  99th  99th  97th  97th  7th  48th 17th 62nd 27th 1st  46th  30th
Fall-Spring  99th  99th  88th  49th  7th  19th  14th  23rd  12th  16th  12th  28th                    
Gibbs            
Fall-Winter  62nd  85th  23rd  3rd  15th  97th  28th  1st  1st  1st  1st  1st
Winter-Spring  70th  57th  55th  96th  27th  69th  17th  6th  82nd  79th  6th  22nd
Fall-Spring  66th  70th  61st  50th  20th  90th  25th  1st  8th  16th  1st  3rd                    
Hall            
Fall-Winter            
Winter-Spring            
Fall-Spring                                      59th  28th  31st  75th
Henderson
                                           
Fall-Winter                          68th  2nd  84th  99th  85th  99th        
Winter-Spring                          32nd  99th  35th  91st  88th  84th        
Fall-Spring                          38th  41st  68th  96th  80th  91st        
J.A. Fair            
Fall-Winter              
Winter-Spring              67th  31st  14th  6th
Fall-Spring                                      36th  5th  18th  10th
Jefferson            
Fall-Winter  99th  99th  46th  55th  10th  5th  10th  53rd  28th  9th  52nd  2nd
Winter-Spring  99th  99th  99th  99th  52nd  2nd  1st  12th  1st  55th  5th   91st
Fall-Spring  99th  99th  98th  91st  36th  5th  3rd  30th  6th  24th  24th  30th                    
King            
Fall-Winter  2nd  1st  1st  9th  55th  1st  19th  62nd  1st  1st  1st  1st
Winter-Spring  99th  92nd  13th  1st  87th  99th  1st  1st  9th  1st  38th  12th
Fall-Spring  92nd  30th  3rd  1st  77th  21st  1st  3rd  1st  1st  8th  1st                    
Mabelvale            
Fall-Winter  10th  21st  29th  7th  51st  4th  1st  7th  6th  1st  47th  1st
Winter-Spring  80th  38th  48th  74th  16th  32nd  11th  1st  7th  97th  48th  82nd
Fall-Spring  39th  28th  32nd  27th  25th  11th  4th  2nd  3rd  1st  47th  1st                    
Mabelvale            
Fall-Winter              15th  17th  5th  57th  15th  1st
Winter-Spring              90th 20th  3rd  1st  37th  94th
Fall-Spring                          56th  25th  2nd  1st  20th  28th        
Mann
                                           
Fall-Winter                          11th  1st  64th  32nd  6th  24th        
Winter-Spring                          18th  96th  19th  65th  84th  54th        
Fall-Spring                          11th  40th  36th  52nd  38th  34th        
McClellan            
Fall-Winter            
Winter-Spring            
Fall-Spring                                      88th  3rd  75th  51st
McDermott            
Fall-Winter  1st  1st  73rd  1st  2nd  13th  19th  1st  6th  12th  46th  1st
Winter-Spring  99th  72nd  1st  80th  98th  9th 1st  22nd  95th  91st  4th  1st
Fall-Spring  64th  10th  7th  12th  36th  14th  2nd  7th  58th  40th  8th  1st                    
Meadowcliff            
Fall-Winter  26th  7th  15th  1st  25th  1st  16th  1st  15th  27th  1st  7th
Winter-Spring  99th  64th  68th  99th  14th  98th  1st  73rd  4th  7th  98th  99th
Fall-Spring  80th  22nd  27th  22nd  7th  7th  2nd  5th  4th  19th  41st  9th                    
Otter Creek            
Fall-Winter  31st  26th  7th  6th  2nd  1st  2nd  1st  1st  97th  7th  9th
Winter-Spring  15th  83rd  38th  37th  99th  64th 12th  1st  99th  1st  38th  85th
Fall-Spring  20th  52nd  16th  15th  57th  4th  5th  1st  24th  14th  12th  50th                    
Parkview            
Fall-Winter            
Winter-Spring            
Fall-Spring                                      56th  51st  40th  55th
Pinnacle View            
Fall-Winter              50th  35th  61st  18th  99th  2nd
Winter-Spring              76th  73rd  75th  81st  83rd  99th
Fall-Spring                          45th  50th  63rd  39th  95th  71st        
Pulaski Heights            
Fall-Winter  99th  99th  43rd  52nd  1st  11th  4th  10th  32nd  78th  13th  44th
Winter-Spring  99th  97th  99th  66th  91st  2nd  80th  28th  92nd  23rd  96th  97th
Fall-Spring  99th  99th  88th  65th  32nd  6th  26th  14th  65th  53rd  68th  63rd                    
Pulaski Heights            
Fall-Winter              8th  1st  20th  1st  6th  1st
Winter-Spring              98th  89th  99th  87th  99th  54th
Fall-Winter                          63rd  12th  87th  12th  77th  6th        
Rockefeller            
Fall-Winter  2nd  1st  2nd  1st  12th  90th  99th  1st  13th  99th  44th  47th
Winter-Spring  11th  47th  21st  58th  6th  1st  1st  1st  31st  2nd  1st  18th
Fall-Spring  2nd  3rd  3rd  2nd  6th  29th  35th  2nd  18th  67th  6th  26th                    
Romine            
Fall-Winter  1st  1st  1st  1st  1st  2nd  58th  1st  10th  1st  75th  1st
Winter-Spring  29th  96th  84th  94th  4th  69th  4th  75th  5th  3rd  55th  99th
Fall-Spring  1st  17th  5th  13th  1st  23rd  17th  10th  9th  6th  47th  12th                    
Stephens            
Fall-Winter  2nd  14th  2nd  1st  3rd  1st  39th  1st  1st  1st  95th  76th
Winter-Spring  99th  97th  53rd  99th  38th  76th  28th  98th  16th  99th  20th  99th
Fall-Spring  61st  63rd  13th  38th  3rd  12th  16th  24th  2nd  46th  51st  93rd                    
Terry            
Fall-Winter  91st  20th  17th  2nd  1st  47th  1st  1st  27th  1st  95th  76th
Winter-Spring  96th  97th  99th  99th  98th  22nd  7th  26th  62nd  69th  1st  1st
Fall-Spring  94th  70th  81st  78th  45th  33rd  1st  4th  30th  7th  4th  5th                    
Wakefield            
Fall-Winter            
Winter-Spring  25th  2nd  77th  1st  15th  46th 22nd 1st 1st 99th 27th 99th
Fall-Spring  1st  1st  19th  1st  5th  16th  39th  10th  23rd  17th  71st  76th                    
Washington            
Fall-Winter  1st  1st  8th  2nd  7th  34th  3rd  1st  10th  1st  1st  1st
Winter-Spring  8th  1st  1st  36th  69th  97th  1st  84th  1st 99th  27th  99th
Fall-Winter  1st  1st  2nd  8th  59th  74th  1st  9th  2nd  7th  5th  29th                    
Watson            
Fall-Winter  1st  2nd  72nd  15th  43rd  1st  4th  13th  82nd  1st  23rd  35th
Winter-Spring  1st  1st  23rd  20th  1st  1st  5th  30th  8th  30th  8th  40th
Fall-Spring  1st  1st  47th  12th  8th  1st  4th  8th  37th  1st  20th  30th                    
Western Hills            
Fall-Winter  23rd  1st  1st  21st  1st  67th  15th  1st  1st  1st 11th  1st
Winter-Spring  68th  92nd  35th  45th  99th  85th  1st  11th  8th  31st  1st  70th
Fall-Spring  55th  19th  4th  24th  43rd  75th  1st  1st  3rd  6th  3rd  3rd                    
Williams            
Fall-Winter  87th  88th  37th  45th  4th  1st  1st  1st  1st  1st  3rd  26th
Winter-Spring  78th  61st  89th  82nd  18th  38th  1st  5th  39th  1st  39th  12th
Fall-Spring  77th  72nd  67th  69th  9th  9th  1st  1st  14th  1st  11th  25th                    

 

Recommendations

Based solely on growth during this 2018-19 school year (which has nothing to do with demographics), here are the recommended schools/grades to seek and those to avoid. Any student of the Little Rock School District assigned to F School is eligible to transfer to a non-F school via Opportunity School Choice. As a Level 5 - Intensive Support district, all LRSD students are eligible for transfer to a non-Level 5 - Intensive Support district also via Opportunity School Choice. Deadline for both Inter-district and Opportunity School Choice is May 1st.

If leaders of the Arkansas Department of Education, district and buildings are not using these nationally normed growth data to make hiring/firing decisions by the May 1st contract deadline, they should:

Best Kindergartens - 99th Percentile in Both Math and Reading (Highest in Nation)

  • Forest Heights STEM
  • Fulbright
  • Jefferson
  • Pulaski Heights
Next Best Kindergartens -  80th Percentile or Above in Both Math and Reading
  • Don Roberts
  • Forest Park

Worst Kindergartens - 1st Percentile in Both Math and Reading (Lowest in Nation)

  • Baseline
  • Wakefield
  • Washington
  • Watson

Next Worst Kindergartens - 20th Percentile or Below in Both Math and Reading

  • Romine
  • Rockefeller
  • Chicot
Best 1st Grades - 99th Percentile in Both Math and Reading (Highest in Nation)
  • None

Next Best 1st Grades - 80th Percentile or Higher in Both Math and Reading

  • Jefferson

Worst 1st Grades - 1st Percentile in Both Math and Reading

  • None

Next Worst 1st Grades - 20th Percentile or Below in Both Math and Reading

  • Bale
  • Booker
  • Brady
  • Carver
  • King
  • McDermott
  • Meadowcliff
  • Otter Creek
  • Rockefeller
  • Romine
  • Wakefield
  • Washington

Best 2nd Grades - 99th Percentile in Both Math and Reading (Highest in Nation)

  • None

Next Best 2nd Grades - 80th Percentile or Higher in Both Math and Reading

  • None

Worst 2nd Grades - 1st Percentile in Both Math and Reading (Lowest in Nation)

  • None

Next Worst 2nd Grades - 20th Percentile or Lower in Both Math and Reading

  • Bale
  • Brady
  • Don Roberts
  • Forest Park
  • Fulbright
  • Meadowcliff
  • Stephens
  • Wakefield
  • Watson
  • Williams

Best 3rd Grades - 99th Percentile in Both Math and Reading (Highest in Nation)

  • None

Next Best 3rd Grades - 80th Percentile or Higher in Both Math and Reading

  • None

Worst 3rd Grades - 1st Percentile in Both Math and Reading (Lowest in Nation)

  • Chicot
  • Western Hills
  • Williams

Next Worst 3rd Grades - 20th Percentile or Lower in Both Math and Reading

  • Baseline
  • Booker
  • Brady
  • Carver
  • Don Roberts
  • King
  • Mabelvale
  • McDermott
  • Terry
  • Washington
  • Watson

Best 4th Grades - 99th Percentile in Both Math and Reading (Highest in Nation)

  • None

Next Best 4th Grades - 80th Percentile or Higher in Both Math and Reading

  • None

Worst 4th Grades - 1st Percentile in Both Math and Reading (Lowest in Nation)

  • Booker
  • King

Next Worst 4th Grades - 20th Percentile or Lower in Both Math and Reading

  • Baseline
  • Carver
  • Chicot
  • Dodd
  • Forest Heights STEM
  • Fulbright
  • Gibbs
  • Mabelvale
  • Meadowcliff
  • Romine
  • Washington
  • Western Hills
  • Williams

Best 5th Grades - 99th Percentile in Both Math and Reading (Highest in Nation)

  • None

Next Best 5th Grades - 80th Percentile or Higher in Both Math and Reading

  • None 

Worst 5th Grades - 1st Percentile in Both Math and Reading (Lowest in Nation)

  • None

Next Worst 5th Grades - 20th Percentile or Lower in Both Math and Reading

  • Booker
  • Brady
  • Forest Heights STEM
  • Gibbs
  • King
  • McDermott
  • Terry
  • Western Hills

Best 6th Grades - 99th Percentile in Both Math and Reading (Highest in Nation)

  • None

Next Best 6th Grades - 80th Percentile or Higher in Both Math and Reading

  • None

Worst 6th Grades- 1st Percentile in Both Math and Reading (Lowest in Nation)

  • None

Next Worst 6th Grades - 20th Percentile or Lower in Both Math and Reading

  • None

Best 7th Grades - 99th Percentile in Both Math and Reading (Highest in Nation)

  • None

Next Best 7th Grades - 80th Percentile or Higher in Both Math and Reading

  • None

Worst 7th Grades - 1st Percentile in Both Math and Reading (Lowest in Nation)

  • None

Next Worst 7th Grades - 20th Percentile or Lower in Both Math and Reading

  • Cloverdale
  • Mabelvale

Best 8th Grades - 99th Percentile in Both Math and Reading (Highest in Nation)

  • None

Next Best 8th Grades - 80th Percentile or Higher in Both Math and Reading

  • Henderson

Worst 8th Grades- 1st Percentile in Both Math and Reading (Lowest in Nation)

  • None

Next Worst 8th Grades - 20th Percentile or Lower in Both Math and Reading

  • None

Best 9th Grades - 99th Percentile in Both Math and Reading (Highest in Nation)

  • None

Next Best 9th Grades - 80th Percentile or Higher in Both Math and Reading

  • None

Worst 9th Grades - 1st Percentile in Both Math and Reading (Lowest in Nation)

  • None

Next Worst 9th Grades - 20th Percentile or Lower in Both Math and Reading

  • None

Best 10th Grades - 99th Percentile in Both Math and Reading (Highest in Nation)

  • None

Next Best 10th Grades - 80th Percentile or Higher in Both Math and Reading

  • None

Worst 10th Grades - 1st Percentile in Both Math and Reading (Lowest in Nation)

  • None

Next Worst 10th Grades - 20th Percentile or Lower in Both Math and Reading

  • J.A. Fair
 
The Little Rock School District, as both a Level 5 - Intensive Support district and in state takeover, is under the authority of the State Board of Education. Under Act 930 of the 91st General Assembly, the State Board has the following duties and responsibilities:

 

6-15-2916. State Board of Education authority over a public school district classified as in need of Level 5 - Intensive support.

If a public school district is classified as in need of Level 5 - Intensive support, the State Board of Education may:

(1) Direct the Commissioner of Education to conduct an analysis of all school district systems and make recommendations for action by the state board; and

(2) Assume authority of the public school district and take one (1) or more of the following actions at any time after classification:

(A) Remove permanently, reassign, or suspend on a temporary basis the superintendent of the school district and:

(i) Appoint an individual in place of the superintendent of the public school district to administratively operate the public school district under the supervision and approval of the commissioner;

(ii) Authorize the individual to remove, replace, reassign, or suspend public school district personnel in accordance with state law; and

(iii) Compensate from public school district funds the individual appointed to operate the public school district and other individuals authorized by the commissioner;

(B) Remove permanently or suspend on a temporary basis some or all of the current public school district board of directors and either:

(i) Call for the election of a new public school district board of directors, in which case the public school district shall reimburse the county board of election commissioners for election costs as otherwise required by law;

(ii) Require the public school district to operate without a board of directors under the supervision of the superintendent of the public school district or an individual or panel appointed by the commissioner; or

(iii) Direct the commissioner to assume some or all authority of the public school district board of directors as may be necessary to operate the public school district;

(C)

(i) Remove on a temporary basis some or all of the powers and duties granted to the current public school district board of directors under § 6-13-620 or any other law but allow the public school district board of directors to continue to operate under the direction and approval of the commissioner.

(ii) The state board shall define the powers and duties of the public school district board of directors.

(iii) The public school district board of directors shall act in an advisory capacity to the commissioner regarding all other powers and duties maintained by the commissioner;

(D) Require the annexation, consolidation, or reconstitution of the public school district under § 6-13-1401 et seq. and this subchapter;

(E) Waive provisions of Title 6 and corresponding rules of the state board with the exception of:

(i) Special education programs as provided by this title;

(ii) Conducting criminal background checks for employees as provided in this title; and

(iii) Health and safety codes as established by the state board and local governmental entities;

(F) Require reassignment of some or all of the administrative, instructional, or support staff of a public school;

(G) Require a public school to institute and fully implement a student curriculum based on academic standards;

(H) Require a public school to provide professional development for teachers and administrators based on the department’s review of educators’ professional growth plans with the cost to be paid by the public school district in which the public school is located;

(I) Remove one (1) or more public schools from the jurisdiction of the classified school district and establish alternative public governance and supervision of the public school;

(J) Require reorganization, closure, or dissolution of one (1) or more of the public schools within the classified district; and

(K) Take any other necessary and proper action, as determined by the state board that is allowed by law.

 

6-15-2917. Public school district under authority of the State Board of Education.

(a) For a public school district under the authority of the State Board of Education, the state board shall review quarterly the progress of the public school district toward improving the issues that caused the classification of the public school district as in need of Level 5 - Intensive support.

(b) At any time during the second full school year following the assumption of authority or any time thereafter:

(1) The state board may direct the commissioner to update the analysis of all school district systems to determine if the public school district has demonstrated substantial improvement of the issues that caused the classification of the public school district as in need of Level 5 - Intensive support;

(2) The commissioner may recommend to the state board that the state board:

(A) Take additional action concerning the public school district under § 6-15-2916; or

(B) Return the public school district to local control through the appointment or election of a board of directors; and

(3)

(A) The state board may return the public school district to local control through the appointment or election of a newly elected board of directors upon the recommendation of the commissioner.

(B) The state board may limit the powers and duties of the public school district board of directors under § 6-13-620 or any other law but allow the public school district board of directors to operate under the
15 direction and approval of the commissioner.

(C) The state board shall define the powers and duties of the public school district board of directors if the state board limits the powers and duties under subdivision (b)(3)(B) of this section.

(D) The public school district board of directors shall act in an advisory capacity to the commissioner in regards to all other powers and duties maintained by the commissioner.

(E) The state board may grant additional powers and duties to the public school district board of directors if the public school district demonstrates progress toward improving the issues that caused the classification of the public school district as in need of Level 5 - Intensive support.

(c)

(1) If the public school district has not demonstrated to the state board and the Department of Education that the public school district meets the criteria to exit Level 5 - Intensive support within five (5) years of the assumption of authority, the state board shall annex, consolidate, or reconstitute the public school district under § 6-13-1401 et seq. and this subchapter.

(2) The state board shall promulgate rules to establish the criteria by which a public school district may exit Level 5 -Intensive support.

The Little Rock School District is under the authority of the State Board of Education.

The State Board of Education has directed the commissioner to assume all authority of the Little Rock School District's board of directors as may be necessary to operate the public school district.

The Commissioner has appointed Michael Poore as superintendent of the district.

However, by law and rule, the buck still stops with the State Board of Education.

The district's NWEA MAP growth scores project that the district will not meet the minimum exit criteria when results of the ACT Aspire are posted later this summer. If it doesn't, the district must be consolidated, annexed or reconstituted by the end of January 2020.

With nine months to go before that happens, the State Board of Education must use all Act 930 powers at its discretion to ensure that the best interests of students are immediately prioritized.

2017-18 ACT Aspire Summative Assessment Growth
Source: http://www.officeforeducationpolicy.org/arkansas-school-data-act-aspire

2016-17 to 2017-18  Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 District Overall 
  Math Reading Math Reading Math Reading Math Reading Math
Reading Math
Reading Math
Reading Math
Reading Math Reading 
District      
 2016-17    +2.4  +0.3  +5.6  +1.8  +2.4  +2.5  +7.9  +4.7  +5.3  -0.8  +5.4  +2.9  +3.2  +2.9  +2.1  +4.1  +4.44  +2.20
 2017-18    +0.18  +0.39  -6.2  +1.56  -1.35  +1.27  -6.59  +1.39  -1.25  +0.52  +2.84  -2.46  +0.23  -3.25  +3.07  -5.91  -1.42  -0.49
Bale      
 Math  +3.62    
 Reading  +3.49    
Baseline      
 Math  -14.70    
 Reading  -3.77    
Booker      
 Math  -0.01    
 Reading  +5.59    
Brady      
 Math  +2.30    
 Reading  +2.92    
Carver      
 Math  +4.74    
 Reading  +6.31    
Central      
 Math  +3.86    
 Reading  -3.90    
Chicot      
 Math  -1.87    
 Reading  +0.06    
Cloverdale      
 Math  -5.45    
 Reading  -1.02    
Dodd      
 Math  -2.86    
 Reading  +2.68    
Don Roberts      
 Math  -0.23    
 Reading  -0.45    
Dunbar      
 Math  -9.90    
 Reading  -8.40    
Forest Heights STEM      
 Math  -4.73    
 Reading  +0.56    
Forest Park      
 Math  -4.09    
 Reading  -1.57    
Fulbright      
 Math  -0.65    
 Reading  +6.11    
Gibbs      
 Math  -3.83    
 Reading  -8.64    
Hall      
 Math  -0.22    
 Reading  -1.15    
J.A. Fair      
 Math  +0.15    
 Reading  -4.99    
Jefferson      
 Math  +8.06    
 Reading  +3.17    
King      
 Math  -8.22    
 Reading  +0.35    
Mabelvale Elementary      
 Math  -5.34    
 Reading  -1.68    
Mabelvale Middle      
 Math  -4.73    
 Reading  +0.67    
Mann
                                     
 Math  -0.18                                    
 Reading  -1.45                                    
McClellan
                                     
 Math  +0.29                                    
 Reading  -1.94                                    
McDermott      
 Math  -13.27    
 Reading  -0.98    
Meadowcliff      
 Math  -3.06    
 Reading  +7.03    
Otter Creek      
 Math  -5.17    
 Reading  -0.51    
Parkview      
 Math  -1.96    
 Reading  -12.32    
Pinnacle View      
 Math  --7.57    
 Reading  -0.25    
Pulaski Heights Elementary      
 Math  -9.43    
 Reading  +1.61    
Pulaski Heights Middle      
 Math  +1.07    
 Reading  +2.19    
Rockefeller      
 Math  +1.46    
 Reading  +1.77    
Romine      
 Math  -5.21    
 Reading  -0.42    
Stephens      
 Math  -4.84    
 Reading  -4.57    
Terry      
 Math  -12.36    
 Reading  +6.36    
Wakefield      
 Math  -2.91    
 Reading  +1.56    
Washington      
 Math  -12.44    
 Reading  -4.33    
Watson      
 Reading  -1.56    
 Math  +1.41    
Western Hills      
 Math  -4.70    
 Reading  +5.67    
Williams      
 Math  +0.72    
 Reading  -0.71    

 

 Attached Files:

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

LRSD's 'Flat Scores': The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth

Posted By Arkansas Learns, Tuesday, January 29, 2019
Updated: Wednesday, January 30, 2019

The following is an analysis of the NWEA MAP growth/decline in Reading from Fall to Winter in the Little Rock School District’s K through 8 schools. Growth percentiles are nationally normed against all students taking NWEA MAP. The formative test is given three times a year to formulate individual student learning plans, make necessary adjustments, and track success.

None of these data were referenced during the December 20, 2018 meeting of the State Board of Education, where the superintendent, under oath, reported "basically flat" ACT Aspire and ACT results.

They weren't.

For proof, let's go to the video tape. 1:59:38 to be exact (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If_VZNQ3PVg&feature=youtu.be).

Michael Poore: "As you look at this data, though, I do want you to think about, that basically, it’s pretty easy to see flat results.

FACT: The Little Rock School District declined in all areas of the ACT Aspire (Grades 3-10) and in two of five areas of the ACT (Grade 11)."

  • ACT Aspire Math: -1.42 points (-3.8%)
  • ACT Aspire English: -0.4 points (-0.7%)
  • ACT Aspire Reading: -0.51 points (-1.6%)
  • ACT Aspire Science: -0.72 points (-2.4%)
  • ACT All 4 Subjects: +0.8 points (+0.6%)
  • ACT Math: -0.1 points (-0.6%)
  • ACT English: -0.1 points (-0.6%)
  • ACT Reading: +0.4 points (+2.2%)
  • ACT Science: 0 points (0%)

FACT: In 160 opportunities (40 schools, 4 categories) on ACT Aspire (Grades 3-10), LRSD schools:

  • Improved (48)
  • Declined (93)
  • Stayed Same (19)

In 25 opportunities (5 schools, 5 categories) on ACT (Grade 11), LRSD schools:

  • Improved (12)
  • Declined (12)
  • Stayed Same (1)

Source: http://www.officeforeducationpolicy.org/arkansas-schools-data-recognition-data-and-letter-grades

At the last meeting of the LRSD Community Advisory Board (January 25, 2019), the superintendent was quoted in the next day's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette:

Michael Poore: "Being upfront and honest, you see flat results right now in fall to winter."

They weren't.

Flat results, though untrue, in regard to performance is bad enough. Flat results, though also untrue, in regard to growth is a gross dereliction of duty.

Not knowing or not telling the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" is grounds for dismissal.

What follows measures individual student growth (Winter) over their previous scores (Fall).

NWEA MAP Growth in Reading (28 K-5 Schools) – Fall to Winter

Kindergarten (District – 32nd Percentile)

  • 1st Percentile – 7 Schools
  • 2nd Percentile – 4 Schools
  • 7th Percentile – 2 Schools
  • 20th and Below (Considered Low) – 16 Schools (57% of K-5 Schools)
  • Outlier: Dodd – 79th Percentile

1st Grade (District – 6th Percentile)

  • 1st Percentile – 11 Schools
  • 2nd Percentile – 4 Schools
  • 3rd Percentile – 1 School
  • 6th Percentile – 1 School
  • 7th Percentile – 1 School
  • 9th Percentile – 1 School
  • 20th and Below (Considered Low) – 21 Schools (75% of K-5 Schools)
  • Outlier: Roberts – 70th Percentile

2nd Grade (District – 6th Percentile)

  • 1st Percentile – 9 Schools
  • 2nd Percentile – 2 Schools
  • 3rd Percentile – 1 School
  • 4th Percentile – 2 Schools
  • 5th Percentile – 1 School
  • 8th Percentile – 1 School
  • 20th and Below (Considered Low) – 20 Schools (71% of K-5 Schools)
  • Outliers: Gibbs – 97th Percentile, Rockefeller – 90th Percentile

3rd Grade (District – 2nd Percentile)

  • 1st Percentile – 16 Schools
  • 7th Percentile – 2 Schools
  • 20th and Below (Considered Low) – 21 Schools (75% of K-5 Schools)
  • Outlier: Wakefield – 95th Percentile

4th Grade (District – 2nd Percentile)

  • 1st Percentile – 15 Schools
  • 3rd Percentile – 1 School
  • 9th Percentile – 1 School
  • 20th and Below (Considered Low) – 20 Schools (71% of K-5 Schools)
  • Outliers: Bale – 82nd Percentile, Brady – 90th Percentile, Dodd – 82nd Percentile, Otter Creek – 97th Percentile, Rockefeller – 99th Percentile

5th Grade (District – 5th Percentile)

  • 1st Percentile – 11 Schools
  • 2nd Percentile – 1 School
  • 3rd Percentile – 1 School
  • 9th Percentile – 2 Schools
  • 20th and Below (Considered Low) – 17 Schools (61% of K-5 Schools)
  • Outliers: Bale – 99th Percentile, Chicot – 99th Percentile, Wakefield – 92nd Percentile

NWEA MAP Growth in Reading (8 6-8 Schools) – Fall to Winter

6th Grade (District – 16th Percentile)

  • 1st Percentile – 2 Schools
  • 2nd Percentile – 1 School
  • 5th Percentile – 1 School
  • 20th and Below (Considered Low) – 5 Schools (62.5% of 6-8 Schools)
  • Outliers: Cloverdale – 99th Percentile, Dunbar – 89th Percentile

7th Grade (District – 27th Percentile)

  • 1st Percentile – 2 Schools
  • 20th and Below (Considered Low) – 3 Schools (37.5% of 6-8 Schools)
  • Outliers: Dunbar – 99th Percentile, Henderson – 99th Percentile

8th Grade (District – 12th Percentile)

  • 1st Percentile – 2 Schools
  • 2nd Percentile – 1 School
  • 3rd Percentile – 1 School
  • 20th and Below (Considered Low) – 5 Schools (62.5% of 6-8 Schools)
  • Outliers: Forest Heights STEM – 89th Percentile, Henderson – 99th Percentile

Highest Reading Growth Schools of District

  • K – Jefferson - Forest Heights STEM, Forest Park, Jefferson, Pulaski Heights - 99th Percentile
  • 1st Grade – Roberts – 70th Percentile
  • 2nd Grade – Gibbs – 97th Percentile
  • 3rd Grade – Wakefield – 95th Percentile
  • 4th Grade – Rockefeller – 99th Percentile
  • 5th Grade – Bale, Chicot – 99th Percentile
  • 6th Grade – Cloverdale – 99th Percentile
  • 7th Grade – Henderson – 99th Percentile
  • 8th Grade – Henderson – 99th Percentile

Lowest Reading Growth/Highest Declining Schools of District

  • K – Rockefeller +3 Points
  • 1st Grade – Rockefeller +3.5 Points
  • 2nd Grade – King, Meadowcliff +2.6 Points
  • 3rd Grade – Western Hills +1.5 Points
  • 4th Grade – Booker -0.5 Points
  • 5th Grade – Booker -1.6 Points, Mabelvale -1.2 Points, McDermott -0.5 Points, Meadowcliff -1.4 Points, -0.9 Romine,
  • 6th Grade – Pulaski Heights -0.2 Points
  • 7th Grade – Cloverdale -2.1 Points, Pulaski Heights -0.7 Points
  • 8th Grade – Cloverdale -0.5 Points, Mabelvale -0.7 Points, Pinnacle View -0.6 Points, Pulaski Heights -1.9 Points

 Summary of Reading Growth

  • Of 28 K-5 schools in the district, 57% to 75% of schools (varying by grade) achieved low growth (20th percentile or below)
  • Of eight 6-8 schools in the district, 37.5% to 62.5% of schools (varying by grade) achieved low growth (20th percentile or below)
  • Of 28 K-5 schools in the district, 46% to 68% of schools (varying by grade) were in a single digit percentile in regard to growth
  • Of eight 6-8 schools in the district, 25% to 50% of schools (varying by grade) were in a single digit percentile in regard to growth
  • Eight schools actually had one or more grades that declined: Booker (4th, 5th), Mabelvale (5th), McDermott (5th), Meadowcliff (5th), Romine (5th), Pulaski Heights (6th, 7th, 8th), Cloverdale (7th, 8th), Mabelvale (8th), Pinnacle View (8th)
    Source: Little Rock Schoo District, NWEA MAP, Reading, Fall 2018 to Winter 2018

Act 930 of the 91st General Assembly states:

"(c) (1) If the public school district has not demonstrated to the state board and the Department of Education that the public school district meets the criteria to exit Level 5 - Intensive support within five (5) years of the assumption of authority, the state board shall annex, consolidate, or reconstitute the public school district under § 6-13-1401 et seq. and this subchapter."

By any measure, the Little Rock School District is performing worse academically than when the State intervened four years ago. Those longtime resistors of the State's leadership crying loudest for local control had better light a fire under the current leadership, or - under current law - the Little Rock School District as we've known it will cease to exist.

Epilogue

NWEA MAP measures two areas of growth - Reading and Math. While Reading is the greatest indicator of overall student growth, performance, here are the district's Math results.

NWEA MAP Growth in Math (28 K-5 Schools) – Fall to Winter

Kindergarten (District – 40th Percentile)

  • 1st Percentile – 7 Schools
  • 2nd Percentile - 3 Schools
  • 7th Percentile - 1 School
  • 9th Percentile - 1 School
  • 20th and Below (Considered Low) – 14 Schools (50% of 28 Schools)
  • Outliers: Fulbright, Jefferson - 99th Percentile

1st Grade (District – 15th Percentile)

  • 1st Percentile – 4 Schools
  • 2nd Percentile - 5 Schools
  • 4th Percentile - 1 School
  • 5th Percentile - 1 School
  • 7th Percentile - 1 School
  • 8th Percentile - 1 School
  • 20th and Below (Considered Low) – 16 Schools (57% of 28 Schools)
  • Outlier: McDermott - 73rd Percentile, Watson - 72nd Percentile

2nd Grade (District – 8th Percentile)

  • 1st Percentile – 6 School
  • 2nd Percentile - 5 Schools
  • 3rd Percentile - 1 School
  • 4th Percentile - 2 Schools
  • 6th Percentile - 1 School
  • 7th Percentile - 1 School
  • 20th and Below (Considered Low) - 21 Schools (75% of 28 Schools)

3rd Grade (District – 15th Percentile)

  • 1st Percentile – 4 Schools
  • 2nd Percentile - 1 School
  • 3rd Percentile - 1 School
  • 4th Percentile - 3 Schools
  • 6th Percentile - 2 Schools
  • 20th and Below (Considered Low) - 19 Schools (68% of 28 Schools)
  • Outliers: Bale, Wakefield - 69th Percentile

4th Grade (District – 6th Percentile)

  • 1st Percentile – 8 Schools
  • 2nd Percentile - 1 School
  • 3rd Percentile - 1 School
  • 4th Percentile - 2 Schools
  • 6th Percentile - 2 Schools
  • 7th Percentile - 1 School
  • 20th and Below (Considered Low) - 20 Schools (71% of 28 Schools)
  • Outliers: Western Hills - 82nd Percentile

5th Grade (District – 11th Percentile)

  • 1st Percentile – 1 School
  • 2nd Percentile - 2 Schools
  • 3rd Percentile - 1 School
  • 4th Percentile - 1 School
  • 7th Percentile - 1 Schools
  • 20th and Below (Considered Low) - 11 School (39% of 28 Schools)
  • Outliers: Carver - 66th Percentile, Dodd - 65th Percentile

NWEA MAP Growth in Math (8 6-8 Schools) – Fall to Winter

6th Grade (District – 25th Percentile)

  • 1st Percentile – 1 School
  • 20th and Below (Considered Low) - 4 Schools (50% of 8 Schools)
  • Outlier: Henderson - 68th Percentile

7th Grade (District – 34th Percentile)

  • 4th Percentile – 1 School
  • 5th Percentile - 2 Schools
  • 20th and Below (Considered Low) - 4 Schools (50% of 8 Schools)
  • Outlier - Henderson - 68th Percentile

8th Grade (District – 35th Percentile)

  • 6th Percentile – 2 Schools
  • 20th and Below (Considered Low) - 4 Schools (50% of 8 Schools)
  • Outlier: Henderson - 85th Percentile

Highest Math Growth Schools of District

  • K – Forest Park, Fulbright, Jefferson, Pulaski Heights – 99th Percentile
  • 1st Grade – McDermott – 73rd Percentile
  • 2nd Grade – Baseline – 67th Percentile
  • 3rd Grade – Rockefeller – 99th Percentile
  • 4th Grade – Watson – 82nd Percentile
  • 5th Grade – Wakefield – 98th Percentile
  • 6th Grade – Henderson – 68th Percentile
  • 7th Grade – Henderson – 84th Percentile
  • 8th Grade – Pinnacle View – 99th Percentile

Lowest Math Growth Schools of District

  • K – Washington +3.6 Points
  • 1st Grade – Western Hills +4.4 Points
  • 2nd Grade – Romine +4.1 Points
  • 3rd Grade – Terry +2.4 Points
  • 4th Grade – King +1.5 Points
  • 5th Grade – Gibbs +0.2 Points
  • 6th Grade – Cloverdale +1.4 Points
  • 7th Grade – Cloverdale, Mabelvale +0.7 Points
  • 8th Grade – Cloverdale +0.5 Points

Full LRSD NWEA MAP Fall to Winter 2018 Results Attached Below

Download File (DOCX)

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Teaching Teachers to Teach: Ranking Arkansas's Education Preparation Providers

Posted By Arkansas Learns, Wednesday, January 16, 2019
Updated: Wednesday, January 16, 2019

Here's how Arkansas's colleges and universities rank in preparing teachers to teach, based on results of the licensure test. Passing percentages are only listed for those with 10 or more test takers.

Act 328, sponsored by Senator Alan Clark in 2017's 91st General Assembly, requires that teaching candidates entering an educator preparation program beginning in the 2017-18 academic year or thereafter for a first-time elementary level K-6 license or special education K-12 license shall take and pass a stand-alone assessment that examines the acquisition of knowledge of essential components of beginning reading instruction based on the science of reading.

Those results are not reflected in the following:

Source: https://eis.ade.arkansas.gov/eppr/docs/State/StatewideReportApril2018.pdf

College/University  2018 % Passed  2018 Test Takers  2017 % Passed  2017 Test Takers  2016 % Passed  2016 Test Takers  Combined 3 Years 
 University of Arkansas at Little Rock  100%  68  99%  67  99%  76  
 Ouachita Baptist University  100%  31  100%  33  100%  33  
 John Brown University  100%  14  93%  29  96%  27  
 University of Arkansas (Fayetteville)  99%  103  98%  229  98%  250  
 Henderson State University  98%  92  99%  95  99%  102  
 Arkansas Tech University  95%  170  98%  168  97%  216  
 University of Arkansas at Fort Smith  94%  258  98%  104  100%  107  
 University of Central Arkansas  93%  176  100%  148  99%  170  
 University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff  93%  15  100%  11  100%  11  
 Harding University  88%  139  95%  128  96%  117  
 Arkansas State University  84%  206  95%  245  93%  291  
 Southern Arkansas University  81%  52  93%  45  94%  63  
 Crowley's Ridge College  64%  11  82%  11  -  5  14 of 14 (100%)
 Williams Baptist University  61%  18  93%  14  85%  27  
 Central Baptist College  -  7  -  4  -  3  
 Hendrix College  -  5  -  6  -  5  15 of 16 (94%)
 Lyon College  -  1  -  2  -  5  8
 Philander Smith College  -  0  -  1  -  1  
 University of Arkansas at Monticello  -  5  95%  21  95%  37  2
 University of the Ozarks  -  9  100%  14  100%  16  
 TOTALS    1,380    1,375    1,562  
 State Average  92%    96%    97%    

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Arkansas Education Policy Advocates: Debating Merits vs. Demonizing Messengers

Posted By Arkansas Learns, Tuesday, January 1, 2019

In an age when many choose to focus on the messengers instead of the message, it's important to know the major Arkansas education advocacy organizations and their primary constituencies.

Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators
501(c)6
Funding: Public school district paid dues on behalf of individual members; Private)
Primary Constituency: School district administrators
Number of Employees: 10
Mission: "The Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators is a united alliance of diverse school leaders and an effective force for the highest quality public education for all children. Our mission is to insure high standards of leadership by providing quality professional development, influencing education legislation and policy, stimulating and fostering support and building successful coalitions."

Arkansas Education Association
501(c)6
Affiliate of National Education Association
Funding: Private
Primary Constituency: School district teachers, staff
Number of Employees: 12
Mission: "To advocate for education professionals and to unite our members and the state to fulfill the promise of public education to prepare every student to succeed in a diverse and interdependent world."

Arkansas Learns
501(c)6
Funding: Private
Primary Constituency: Business
Number of Employees: 1
Mission: "Arkansas Learns is the Voice of Business for excellent education options - including industry-relevant career pathways - for all students, no matter their culture, economic status or ZIP Code, to ensure the talent necessary for Arkansas and Arkansans to successfully compete economically."

Arkansas Public School Resource Center
501(c)3
Funding: Public school district dues; Private
Primary Constituency: Public school districts, open-enrollment charters
Number of Employees: 18
Mission: "The mission of the Arkansas Public School Resource Center is to support the improvement of public education by providing advocacy services on behalf of public schools with a special emphasis on charter schools and rural districts."

Arkansas School Boards Association
501(c)4
Affiliate of National School Boards Association
Primary Constituency: Elected school board members
Funding: Public school district paid dues on behalf of individual members; Private)
Number of Employees: 21
Mission: "The mission of ASBA is to promote student focused leadership in public education through training, advocacy and service for local board members."

Sometimes these groups are aligned. More often they are not. It behooves all - if only for the students all purport to prioritize - to vigorously debate issues on merits and facts and avoid demonizing those with whom they disagree. Arkansas and her people will be better for it.

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Apples-to-Apples Accountability of Little Rock School District

Posted By Arkansas Learns, Sunday, December 30, 2018
Updated: Sunday, December 30, 2018

While status quo apologists debate the validity of state's accountability measures - ESSA scores, A-F Grades, Reward Schools - here's how the Little Rock School District ranks among its in-state peers.

262 Public School Districts and Open-enrollment Public Charter Schools of Arkansas

  Free and Reduced Lunch Special Ed  Limited English Proficiency Homeless  Gifted & Talented  Minority  Math Readiness/Growth  English Readiness/Growth  Reading Readiness/Growth  Science Readiness/Growth 
State Average  63%  12%  8%  2%  8%  39%  47%  70%  41%  40%
LRSD  140th (67%)  193rd (11%)  23rd (13%)  116th (2%)  1st (23%)  23rd (82%)  190th (36%)/-1  221st (58%)/0  193rd (32%)/0  203rd (29%)/0

 

The district may have reasons for its underperformance, but it has no excuses. In fact, it over-identifies Gifted & Talented (qualifying nearly a quarter of its enrollment for Central High), while under-identifying Special Education, denying essential services to our most vulnerable learners. Thankfully, a state audit of the district's special education and dyslexia services is on the way.

The district's Free and Reduced Lunch percentage, though four points higher than the state average, is among the lowest half in the state.

Its Limited English Proficiency (13%), while five points above the state average, is dwarfed by much higher performing districts such as DeQueen (46%), (Springdale (45%), Rogers (31%), and Fort Smith (25%).

That leaves only its minority percentage, which by the way, is decreasing under the state's watch. If, as apologists claim, percentage of minority students correlates to overall academic performance, then the district's academics should be improving instead of declining or staying the same.

Folks may not like how public school performance is measured, but when all public schools are measured the same, the four-year state-controlled district's performance is not at all acceptable, particularly when factoring its demographics.

Mike Poore, the longest serving superintendent in the Little Rock School District since Linda Watson (Interim August 2007 - July 2008; July 2008 - January 2011), opposed every Act 930 measure proposed at the December 20th Arkansas State Board of Education meeting, though all were supported by his "board," Arkansas Department of Education Commissioner Johnny Key. Mr. Poore, with more authority and autonomy than any superintendent in Arkansas, now wholly owns the district's performance or lack thereof.

The only question is if his "board" and the Arkansas State Board of Education will hold him and themselves accountable for results on the statewide accountability measures. Future Little Rock School District reports to the State Board should be strictly apples-to-apples, data-driven accountability measures of performance and growth, with all anecdotal discussion checked at the door.

And speaking of apples-to-apples, the district's new interim assessments - NWEA MAP (the assessment long used by most of the state's charter schools) - should be available now and will provide quantifiable insight into if the district, as the superintendent claims, is on the right track.

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Three School Years of State Leadership of LRSD: Rising Equity, Declining Adequacy

Posted By Arkansas Learns, Tuesday, November 27, 2018
Updated: Friday, December 7, 2018

Free school system.

"Intelligence and virtue being the safeguards of liberty and the bulwark of a free and good government, the State shall ever maintain a general, suitable and efficient system of free public schools and shall adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education."

Arkansas Constitution, Article 14, Section 1

Supervision of schools.

"The supervision of public schools, and the execution of the laws regulating the same, shall be vested in and confided to, such officers as may be provided for by the General Assembly."

Arkansas Constitution, Article 14, Section 4

In 2006, after the Arkansas Supreme Court decision in Lake View School District No. 25 v. Huckabee in 2005, the Eighty-fifth General Assembly passed acts upon the recommendation of the House and Senate Interim Committees on Education resulting in a system of education that is "adequate and equitable."

On January 28, 2015, the State Board of Education exercised its Constitutional authority granted by the General Assembly and voted to take over the Little Rock School District and dismiss its local elected board. At the time, one school in Academic Distress (three-year average of less than 49.5% of students proficient) could trigger state takeover. Little Rock had six schools in Academic Distress, including three of its five high schools.

Three full school years later (three years and ten months total), how has the state performed in making the district "adequate and equitable?"

Equity

In the Saturday, September 23, 2017 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Rita Sklar of the Arkansas ACLU, repeated what has become a constant talking point of those opposed to both charter schools and the State's intervention in the Little Rock School District.

"Here in Little Rock, the process of re-segregating our classrooms has accelerated since the state takeover of the Little Rock School District in 2015, and new state-initiated and authorized charter schools are being created at a breakneck pace and with a fervor that is obscene."

And yet, no evidence is ever provided regarding the district's "re-segregation" since State control nor the charters' alleged role as accomplices. In fact, the district's decades-long, locally-controlled history of "re-segregation"- via gerrymandered, non-contiguous attendance zones, preferential magnet admissions, and bussing of Hispanic high school students - is conveniently ignored.

The reason no evidence is ever provided is because none exists. In fact, the truth is just the opposite of the status quo's re-segregation fabrication.

Here are demographic data for the district since the advent of the first charter school in 2004.

  • District enrollment has dropped 5,363 students (-12%) over the past 15 years
  • African-American enrollment has dropped 3,490 students (-21%) over the past 15 years (65% of total)
  • White enrollment has dropped 1,873 students (-31%) over the past 15 years (35% of total)
  • African-American and White enrollment has essentially declined 1 percentage point a year for the past fifteen years for an overall decline of 24%
  • Hispanic enrollment has grown 2,053 students (+167%) in the same period
  • As a percentage of enrollment, Hispanic enrollment has grown from 5% to 15% over the past 15 years
  • For the first time in fifteen years, Hispanic enrollment dropped (-71) between 2017-18 and 2018-19
  • African-American enrollment is at its lowest number (13,248) and percentage (61%) on modern record
  • White enrollment is at its highest number (4,095) in five years and highest percentage (19%) in six years
  • The gap between African-American and White students is lowest in number (9,153) on modern record and lowest percentage (76%/24%) in nine years
2 or More
Races
Asian Black Hispanic Native American/
Alaskan
Native Hawaiian/
Pacific Islander
White Total Total
Black/White
Enrollment
Black/White
Enrollment Gap
2004-05* NA 430 16,738 (69%) 1,226 (5%) 62 NA 5,968 (24%) 24,424 22,706 (93%) 10,770
(74%/26%)
2005-06 NA 399 17,173 (68%) 1,343 (5%) 69 NA 6,111 (24%) 25,095 23,284 (93%) 11,062
(74%/26%)
2006-07 NA 412 17,432 (68%) 1,553 (7%) 76 NA 6,027 (24%) 25,550 23,459 (92%) 11,405
(74%/26%)
2007-08 NA 436 17,715 (69%) 1,733 (7%) 81 NA 5,773 (22%) 25,738 23,488 (91%) 11,942
(75%/25%)
2008-09** NA 432 16,936 (69%) 1,865 (8%) 73 NA 5,354 (22%) 24,660 22,290 (90%) 11,582
(76%/24%)
2009-10 NA 450 16,574 (68%) 1,927 (8%) 76 NA 5,363 (22%) 24,380 21,937 (90%) 11,211
(76%/24%)
2010-11 126 509 16,245 (67%) 2,174 (9%) 83 2 5,087 (21%) 24,226 21,332 (88%) 11,158
(76%/24%)
2011-12 177 534 16,114 (67%) 2,322 (10%) 75 8 4,819 (20%) 24,049 20,933 (87%) 11,295
(77%/23%)
2012-13 199 523 15,708 (67%) 2,540 (11%) 69 6 4,549 (19%) 23,594 20,257 (86%) 11,159
(78%/22%)
2013-14 227 579 15,689 (66%) 2,728 (12%) 64 9 4,380 (19%) 23,676 20,069 (85%) 11,309
(78%/22%)
2014-15 271 557 15,371 (66%) 2,925 (13%) 65 10 4,164 (18%) 23,363 19,535 (84%) 11,207
(79%/21%)
2015-16*** 272 567 15,070 (65%) 3,124 (13%) 55 11 4,065 (18%) 23,164 19,135 (83%) 11,005
(79%/21%)
2016-17 285 563 14,603 (64%) 3,183 (14%) 57 14 4,054 (18%) 22,759 18,657 (82%) 10,549
(78.3%/21.7%)
2017-18 318 595 14,040 (63%) 3,350 (15%) 54 10 3,971 (18%) 22,338 18,011 (81%)

10,069
(78%/22%)

2018-19 241 (1%) 671 (3%) 13,248 (61%) 3,279 (15%) 53 (0%) 8 (0%) 4,095 (19%) 21,595 17,343 (80%) 9,153 (76%/24%)
TOTAL
LOSS/GAIN
+115 (+91%) +241 (+56%)
-3,490 (-21%)
+2,053 (+167%)
-9 (-15%)
12 (+600%) -1,873 (-31%)
-2,829 (-12%)
-5,363 (-24%)
-1,617 (-15%)
BEFORE STATE
CONTROL
LOSS/GAIN

+271 +127
(+30%)
-1,367
(-8%)
+1,699
(+139%)
+3
(+1%)
NA -1,804
(-30%)
-1,061
(-4%)
-3,171
(-14%)
+437
(+5%/-5%)
STATE CONTROL
LOSS/GAIN

+30 (+11%)
+114 (+20%)
-2,123 (-14%) +354 (+12%) -8 (-12%) -2 (-20%) -69 (-2%)
-1,768 (-8% -2,192 (-11%)
-2,054 (-18%)

* First Year of Charters
** First Year of African-American Majority Board
*** First Year of State Takeover

Meanwhile, at the charters and neighboring school district...

District/School 2 or More
Races
Asian Black Hispanic Native American/
Alaskan
Native Hawaiian/
Pacific Islander
White Total
LRSD 241 (1%)
671 (3%)
13,248 (61%)
3,279 (15%)
53 (0.2%)
8 (0%) 4,095
(19%)
21,595
PCSSD (South of River) 111 (3%) 178 (4%) 1,576 (38%) 520 (12%) 16 (0%) 1 (0%) 1,773 (42%) 4,175
All Little Rock
Charters*
229 (4%) 206 (3%) 3,389 (56%) 1,019 (17%) 15 (0%) 2 (0%) 1,457 (19%) 6,001
Covenant Keepers
0 0 32 (28%) 82 (72%) 0 0 0 114
eStem 160 (5%) 53 (2%) 1,783 (58%) 258 (8%) 7 (0%) 2 (0%) 1,129 (20%) 3,070
Exalt 7 (2%) 0 150 (30%) 242 (60%) 0 0 0 406
LISA Academy 45 (3%) 142 (10%) 587 (43%) 371 (27%) 6 (0%) 0 223 (16%) 1,374
Little Rock Prep 2 (0%) 0 319 (88%) 35 (10%) 0 0 5 (1%) 361
Premier 0 0 104 (90%) 5 (4%) 0 0 7 (6%) 116
Quest
7 (4%) 11 (7%) 50 (31%) 12 (7%) 2 (1%) 0 81 (50%) 163
ScholarMade
7 (2.5%) 0 253 (93%) 7 (2.5%) 0 0 5 (2%)   272
SIA Tech 1 (1%) 0 111 (89%) 7 (6%) 0 0 6 (5%) 125

 * Friendship Public Charter School will open in 2019 at 3615 West 25th Street.

Here are the facts:

  • Open-enrollment public charter school enrollment in Little Rock is 6,001
    • 3,389 (56%) African-American
    • 1,134 (19%) White - Same percentage as the Little Rock School District
  • African-Americans choose Little Rock charter schools at a rate three times that of Whites
  • There are over twice as many African-Americans in Little Rock charters schools than there are in Little Rock PCSSD schools (1,576)

Though dramatic improvement has occurred during the State's watch, true equity will not come to the Little Rock School District until:

  • Central's sprawling, preferentially gerrymandered, non-contiguous attendance zone is abolished
  • Attendance zones only applied to neighborhood elementary schools
  • All middle and high school attendance zones replaced with feeder schools (e.g. Fulbright, Roberts, Terry feeding Pinnacle View Middle School)
  • Students no longer bussed, Balkanized based solely on culture
  • Preferential and audition-based magnet, academy admissions for intra-district schools of choice replaced by open-enrollment, blind lotteries
  • Schools are opened, closed, reconstituted based solely on current, projected demand

It's now solely up to the State to correct what decades of local control created and perpetuated.

 

Adequacy

Adequacy (i.e. academic performance, growth) is a different story.

In the school year following the State's intervention in Little Rock, the State changed its summative assessment from PARCC to ACT Aspire (Grades 3-10) and ACT (Grade 11). Three years later, we now have two years of growth, performance data.

ACT Aspire (Grades 3 - 10) - Rounded Percentage of Students Meeting/Exceeding Readiness
* Original Six Academic Distress Schools (Three-year Average of Less than 49.5% of Students Proficient)
Bold indicates decline in all subjects in one year or over two


2015-16 2016-17 1-Year Growth  2017-18  1-Year Growth 2-Year Growth 
State Math  43%  47%  +4  47%  0  +4
State English  68%  70%  +2  70%  0  +2
State Reading  39%  41%  +2  41%  0  +2
State Science  38%  40%  +2  40%  0  +2
LRSD Math  33%  37%  +4  36%  -1  +3
LRSD English  57%  59%  +2  59%  0  +2
LRSD Reading  30%  32%  +2  32%  0  +2
LRSD Science  23%  29%  +6  29%  0  +6
Bale Math  28%  23%  -5  27%  +4  -1
Bale English  45%  41%  -4  47%  +6  +2
Bale Reading  15%  12%  -3  16%  +3  +1
Bale Science  19%  10%  -5  16%  +5  +1
Bale Cumulative
     -17    +19  +2
*Baseline Math  32%  40%  +8  25%  -15  -7
*Baseline English  41%  50%  +9  44%  -6  +3
*Baseline Reading  15%  16%  +1  12%  -4  -3
*Baseline Science  14%  19%  +3  13%  -5  -2
*Baseline Cumulative      +21    -30  -9
Booker Math  39%  43%  +4  43%  0  +4
Booker English  63%  62%  -1  62%  0  -1
Booker Reading  28%  25%  -3  30%  +6  +3
Booker Science  25%  30%  +2  32%  +1  +4
Booker Cumulative      +2    +7  +9
Brady Math  20%  27%  +6  29%  +2  +9
Brady English  54%  51%  -3  59%  +8  +5
Brady Reading  12%  18%  +6  21%  +3  +9
Brady Science  10%  16%  +4  19%  +2  +6
Brady Cumulative      +13    +16  +29
Carver Math  46%  50%  +4  55%  +5  +8
Carver English  58%  65%  +7  74%  +9  +16
Carver Reading  31%  34%  +2  40%  +6  +9
Carver Science  34%  35%  +4  39%  +4  +8
Carver Cumulative      +17    +25  +41
Chicot Math  NA  29%  NA  27%  -2  NA
Chicot English  NA  46%  NA  46%  0  NA 
Chicot Reading  NA  18%  NA  18%  0  NA
Chicot Science  NA  16%  NA  13%  -3  NA
Chicot Cumulative  
 NA    -5  NA
Dodd Math  28%  36%  +8  33%  -3  +5
Dodd English  58%  55%  -3  55%  +1  -3
Dodd Reading  13%  20%  +7  22%  +3  +10
Dodd Science  20%  20%  0  22%  +1  +1
Dodd Cumulative      +12    +1  +13
Forest Park Math  87%  82%  -5  78%  -4  -9
Forest Park English  91%  92%  +1  92%  0  +2
Forest Park Reading  67%  68%  0  66%  -2  -1
Forest Park Science  72%  67%  -9  72%  +5  -4
Forest Park Cumulative      -3    0  -4
Fulbright Math  60%  51%  -9  51%  -1  -9
Fulbright English  71%  72%  +1  75%  +3  +5
Fulbright Reading  39%  40%  +1  47%  +6  +1
Fulbright Science  44%  39%  -5  41%  +1  +1
Fulbright Cumulative      -12    +10  +4
Gibbs Math  69%  65%  -4  61%  -4  -7
Gibbs English  85%  88%  +3  82%  -6  -3
Gibbs Reading
 49%  53%  +5  45%  -8  -4
Gibbs Science  45%  50%  +5  46%  -4  +1
Gibbs Cumulative
     +9    -23  -13
Jefferson Math  63%  72%  +9  80%  +8  +17
Jefferson English   83%  87%  +4  88%  0  +4
Jefferson Reading  45%  62%  +17  65%  +3  +20
Jefferson Science  52%  68%  +16  67%  -1  +15
Jefferson Cumulative      +46    +10  +57
King Math  38%  39%  0  31%  -8  -8
King English  53%  53%  0  53%  +1  0
King Reading  23%  24%  +1  24%  0  +1
King Science  18%  22%  +3  20%  -1  +2
King Cumulative
     +4    -9  -3
Mabelvale Math  26%  34%  +8  29%  -5  +3
Mabelvale English  50%  53%  +3  49%  -4  -1
Mabelvale Reading  13%  19%  +6  18%  -2  +4
Mabelvale Science  13%  18%  +5  14%  -4  +1
Mabelvale Cumulative      +22    -15  +7
McDermott Math  34%  42%  +8  28%  -13  -5
McDermott English  64%  62%  -3  55%  -7  -10
McDermott Reading  25%  23%  -2  22%  -1  -3
McDermott Science  21%  20%  -1  23%  +2  +2
McDermott Cumulative      +2    -19  -16
Meadowcliff Math  27%  32%  +6  29%  -3  +3
Meadowcliff English  52%  47%  -5  50%  +3  -2
Meadowcliff Reading  12%  17%  +5  24%  +7  +12
Meadowcliff Science  19%  16%  -3  21%  +5  -2
Meadowcliff Cumulative      +3    +12  +17
Otter Creek Math  39%  43%  +4  38%  -5  -1
Otter Creek English  61%  65%  +4  59%  -6  -1
Otter Creek Reading  29%  27%  -2  26%  -1  -2
Otter Creek Science  26%  28%  +2  24%  -4  -2
Otter Creek Cumulative      +8    -15  -8
Pulaski Heights Math  53%  66%  +14  57%  -9  +4
Pulaski Heights English  72%  78%  +5  75%  -3  +2
Pulaski Heights Reading  50%  52%  +2  54%  +2  +3
Pulaski Heights Science  50%  57%  +7  54%  -2  +4
Pulaski Heights Cumulative      +28    -13  +14
Roberts Math  80%  83%  +3  82%  0  +2
Roberts English  86%  90%  +4  89%  -1  +3
Roberts Reading  68%  69%  +1  68%  0  0
Roberts Science  73%  70%  -3  67%  -4  -6
Roberts Cumulative      -5    -5  -1
Rockefeller Math  25%  31%  +5  32%  +1  +7
Rockefeller English  49%  53%  +3  66%  +13  +16
Rockefeller Reading  19%  21%  +3  22%  +1  +4
Rockefeller Science  21%  22%  +1  22%  0  +2
Rockefeller Cumulative      +12    +16  +28
Romine Math  31%  27%  -5  21%  -5  -10
Romine English  48%  45%  -3  43%  -1  -5
Romine Reading  15%  16%  0  15%  0  0
Romine Science  13%  20%  +7  12%  -8  -1
Romine Cumulative      -1    -15  -16
Stephens Math  34%  28%  -7  23%  -5  -12
Stephens English  54%  49%  -6  45%  -4  -9
Stephens Reading  15%  18%  +3  13%  -5  -2
Stephens Science  12%  16%  +3  10%  -6  -3
Stephens Cumulative
     -7    -19  -25
Terry Math  59%  56%  -3  44%  -12  -15
Terry English  72%  69%  -3  62%  -7  -10
Terry Reading  40%  34%  -7  40%  +6  0
Terry Science  33%  32%  -1  31%  0  -1
Terry Cumulative
     -14    -13  -27
Wakefield Math  24%  42%  +18  39%  -3  +15
Wakefield English  54%  51%  -3  47%  -5  -8
Wakefield Reading  16%  19%  +3  20%  +2  +4
Wakefield Science  12%  19%  +6  18%  0  +6
Wakefield Cumulative      +24    -6  +17
Washington Math  23%  30%  +7  18%  -12  -5
Washington English  37%  44%  +7  46%  +1  +9
Washington Reading  15%  15%  -1  10%  -4  -5
Washington Science  14%  15%  +1  10%  -5  -3
Washington Cumulative      +14    -20  -5
Watson Math  18%  21%  -3  19%  -2  +1
Watson English  32%  43%  +11  38%  -5  +6
Watson Reading  9%  14%  +6  16%  +1  +7
Watson Science  6%  12%  +6  11%  -1  +5
Watson Cumulative      +20    -7  +19
Western Hills Math  29%  40%  +11  35%  -5  +6
Western Hills English  63%  64%  +1  57%  -6  -5
Western Hills Reading  25%  21%  -4  26%  +5  +1
Western Hills Science  25%  21%  -4  26%  +6  +2
Western Hills Cumulative      +4    0  +4
Williams Math  68%  71%  +3  71%  1  +3
Williams English  84%  79%  -6  83%  +5  -1
Williams Reading  52%  56%  +4  55%  -1  +3
Williams Science  54%  57%  +3  54%  -3  0
Williams Cumulative      +4    +2  +5

           
Forest Heights STEM (K-8) Math  64%  69%  +6  65%  -5  +1
Forest Heights STEM (K-8) English  88%  87%  -1  89%  -2  +1
Forest Heights STEM (K-8) Reading  57%  58%  +1  59%  +1  +2
Forest Heights STEM (K-8) Science   59%  62%  +3  59  -3  0
Forest Heights STEM (K-8) Cumulative      +9    -5  +5
             
*Cloverdale Math  16%  17%  +1  11%  -5  -4
*Cloverdale English  41%  45%  +3  42%  -2  +1
*Cloverdale Reading  13%  18%  +6  17%  -1  -5
*Cloverdale Science  11%  16%  +5  13%  -2  +2
*Cloverdale Cumulative
     +15    -11  +4
Dunbar Math  23%  34%  +11  24%  -10  +1
Dunbar English  55%  61%  +7  54%  -7  0
Dunbar Reading  29%  32%  +3  23%  -8  -6
Dunbar Science  20%  26%  +6  19%  -7  -1
Dunbar Cumulative
     +27    -32  -6
*Henderson Math  18%  18%  0  17%  -1  -1
*Henderson English  46%  53%  +7  51%  -2  +5
*Henderson Reading   22%  23%  +1  19%  -4  -3
*Henderson Science  13%  15%  +2  12%  -3  -1
*Henderson Cumulative      +10    -10  0
Mabelvale Math  20%  29%  +9  24%  -5  +4
Mabelvale English  54%  51%  -3  53%  +2  -2
Mabelvale Reading  20%  22%  +2  23%  +1  +3
Mabelvale Science  14%  14%  0  15%  +2  +1
Mabelvale Cumulative      +8    -1  +6
Mann Math  38%  44%  +6  44%  0  +6
Mann English  71%  70%  -1  72%  +3  +1
Mann Reading  40%  40%  0  38%  -1  -1
Mann Science  34%  40%  +6  34%  -7  0
Mann Cumulative      +11    -5  +6
Pinnacle View Math  NA  64%  NA  56%  -8  NA
Pinnacle View English  NA  85%  NA  79%  -5  NA
Pinnacle View Reading  NA  54%  NA  54%  0  NA
Pinnacle View Science  NA  57%  NA  56%  -1  NA
Pinnacle View Cumulative
     NA    -14  NA
Pulaski Heights Math  49%  49%  0  50%  +1  +1
Pulaski Heights English  75%  71%  -4  74%  +3  -1
Pulaski Heights Reading  45%  45%  +1  48%  +2  +3
Pulaski Heights Science  46%  42%  -4  42%  0  -4
Pulaski Heights Cumulative      -7    +6  -1

           
Central Math  32%  33%  +1  37%  +4  +5
Central English  60%  64%  +4  58%  -5  -2
Central Reading  43%  43%  +1  39%  -4  -3
Central Science  32%  37%  +5  37%  -1  +5
Central Cumulative      +11    -6  +4
*Fair Math  5%  5%  +1  5%  0  +1
*Fair English  30%  29%  -1  25%  -4  -5
*Fair Reading  13%  14%  +1  9%  -5  -4
*Fair Science  4%  5%  +1  4%  -1  0
*Fair Cumulative
     +2    -10  -7
*Hall Math  2%  4%  +2  4%  0  +2
*Hall English  19%  21%  +2  18%  -2  0
*Hall Reading  8%  11%  +3  10%  -1  +2
*Hall Science  2%  4%  +2  4%  +1  +2
*Hall Cumulative
     +9    -3  +6
*McClellan Math  4%  6%  +2  7%  0  +2
*McClellan English  26%  22%  -4  27%  +5  +1
*McClellan Reading  10%  14%  +4  12%  -2  +2
*McClellan Science  4%  8%  +4  8%  0  +4
*McClellan Cumulative      +6    +3  +9
Parkview Math  22%  29%  +7  27%  -2  +5
Parkview English  57%  62%  +5  56%  -6  -1
Parkview Reading  33%   45%  +13  32%  -13  -1
Parkview Science  27%  29%  +2  26%  -3  -1
Parkview Cumulative
     +27    -23  +3

 

On ACT Aspire, in 152 (38 schools, 4 subjects each) opportunities for one-year growth in 2016-17:

  • 103 Improved
  • 43 Declined
  • 6 Stayed Same
  • Bale and Terry Declined in All Subjects
  • Greatest one-year growth was Jefferson: +46
  • Greatest one-year decline was Bale: -17

On ACT Aspire, in 160 opportunities for one-year growth in 2017-18:

  • 48 Improved
  • 93 Declined
  • 19 Stayed Same
  • Baseline, Gibbs, Mabelvale Elem., Otter Creek, Stephens, Cloverdale, Dunbar, Henderson, Parkview Declined in All Subjects
  • Chicot, Roberts, Romine, Pinnacle View, Fair Declined or Stayed Same in All Subjects
  • Greatest one-year growth was Carver: +25
  • Greatest one-year decline was Dunbar: -32

On ACT Aspire, in 152 opportunities  for two-year growth in 2017-18:

  • 81 Improved
  • 62 Declined
  • 9 Stayed Same
  • Otter Creek and Stephens Declined in All Subjects
  • Romine and Terry Declined or Stayed Same in All Subjects
  • Greatest two-year growth was Jefferson: +57
  • Greatest two-year decline was Terry: -27
    NOTE: Principal Sandra Register left Terry for Jefferson

Leadership Ranking (ACT Aspire 1-Year Growth/Decline)

  • 12 Improved; 2 Stayed Same; 27 Declined
  • Carver (Principal Clifton Woodley): +25
  • Bale (Principal Roxie Browning): +19
  • Brady (Principal Tyrone Harris): +16
  • Rockefeller (Principal Shoutell Richardson): +16
  • Meadowcliff (Principal Cynthia Collins): +12
  • Fulbright (Principal Sherkeyer Jackson): +10
  • Jefferson (Principal Sandra Register): +10
  • Booker (Principal Cheryl Carson): +7
  • Pulaski Heights Middle (Principal Daryl Powell): +6
  • McClellan (Principal Patricia A. Ellis Brunston): +3
  • Williams (Principal Connie Green): +2
  • Dodd (Principal Melinda Modica): +1
  • Forest Park (Principal Theresa Courtney-Ketcher): 0
  • Western Hills (Principal Teresa Richardson): 0
  • Mabelvale Elementary (Principal Darian L. Smith): -1
  • Mabelvale Middle (Principal Rhonda Hall): -1
  • Chicot (Principal E. Yvonne Jones): -3
  • Hall (Principal Mark Roberts): -3
  • Forest Heights STEM (Principal Amy Cooper): -5
  • Mann (Principal Keith McGee): -5
  • Roberts (Steven Helmick): -5
  • Central (Principal Nancy Rousseau): -6
  • Wakefield (Principal Les Taylor): -6
  • Watson (Principal ?): -7
  • King (Principal Karen Carter): -9
  • Fair (Principal Michael Anthony): -10
  • Henderson (Principal Replaced): -10
  • Cloverdale (Principal Wanda Ruffins): -11
  • Pulaski Heights Elementary (Principal Anna Lloyd): -13
  • Terry (Principal Stephanie Franklin): -13
  • *Pinnacle View (Principal Jay Pickering): -14
  • Mabelvale Elementary (Principal Darian L. Smith): -15
  • Otter Creek (Principal Wendy Minor): -15
  • Romine (Principal Suzanne Ray Proctor): -15
  • McDermott (Principal Pam Dial): -19
  • Stephens (Principal Phillip Carlock): -19
  • Washington (Principal Katherine Snyder): -20
  • Gibbs (Principal Tina Greenwood): -23
  • Parkview (Principal Randy Rutherford): -23
  • Baseline (Principal Replaced): -30
  • Dunbar (Principal Eunice Thrasher): -32

* Grew from 6th Grade to 6th and 7th Grades

Leadership Ranking (ACT Aspire 2-Year Growth/Decline)

  • 23 Improved; 1 Stayed Same; 14 Declined
  • Jefferson (Principal Sandra Register): +57
  • Carver (Principal Clifton Woodley): +41
  • Brady (Principal Tyrone Harris): +29
  • Rockefeller (Principal Shoutell Richardson): +28
  • Watson (Principal ?): +19
  • Meadowcliff (Principal Cynthia Collins): +17
  • Wakefield (Principal Les Taylor): +17
  • Pulaski Heights Elementary (Principal Anna Lloyd): +14
  • Dodd (Principal Melinda Modica): +13
  • Booker (Principal Cheryl Carson): +9
  • McClellan (Principal Patricia A. Ellis Brunston): +9
  • Mabelvale Elementary (Principal Darian L. Smith): +7
  • Hall (Principal Mark Roberts): +6
  • Mabelvale Middle (Principal Rhonda Hall): +6
  • Mann (Principal Keith McGee): +6
  • Forest Heights STEM (Principal Amy Cooper): +5
  • Williams (Principal Connie Green): +5
  • Central (Principal Nancy Rousseau): +4
  • Cloverdale (Principal Wanda Ruffins): +4
  • Fulbright (Principal Sherkeyer Jackson): +4
  • Western Hills (Principal Teresa Richardson): +4
  • Parkview (Principal Randy Rutherford): +3
  • Bale (Principal Roxie Browning): +2
  • Henderson (Principal Replaced): 0
  • Pulaski Heights Middle (Principal Daryl Powell): -1
  • Roberts (Steven Helmick): -1
  • King (Principal Karen Carter): -3
  • Forest Park (Principal Theresa Courtney-Ketcher): -4
  • Washington (Principal Katherine Snyder): -5
  • Dunbar (Principal Eunice Thrasher): -6
  • Fair (Principal Michael Anthony): -7
  • Otter Creek (Principal Wendy Minor): -8
  • Baseline (Principal Replaced): -9
  • Gibbs (Principal Tina Greenwood): -13
  • McDermott (Principal Pam Dial): -16
  • Romine (Principal Suzanne Ray Proctor): -16
  • Stephens (Principal Phillip Carlock): -25
  • Terry (Principal Stephanie Franklin): -27

* Grew from 6th Grade to 6th and 7th Grades

  • 10 Elementary and 2 Secondary Schools Cumulatively Declined Over Both One Year and Two:
    • Baseline (Principal Replaced)
    • Dunbar (Principal Eunice Thrasher)
    • Fair (Principal Michael Anthony)
    • Gibbs (Principal Tina Greenwood)
    • King (Principal Karen Carter)
    • McDermott (Principal Pam Dial)
    • Otter Creek (Principal Wendy Minor)
    • Roberts (Principal Seven Helmick)
    • Romine (Principal Suzanne Ray Proctor)
    • Stephens (Principal Phillip Carlock)
    • Terry (Principal Stephanie Franklin)
    • Washington (Principal Katherine Snyder)
  • 10 Elementary and 1 Secondary Schools Cumulatively Improved Over Both One Year and Two:
    • Bale (Principal Roxie Browning)
    • Booker (Principal Cheryl Carson)
    • Brady (Principal Tyrone Harris)
    • Carver (Principal Clifton Woodley)
    • Dodd (Principal Melinda Modica)
    • Fulbright (Principal Sherkeyer Jackson)
    • Jefferson (Principal Sandra Register)
    • McClellan (Principal Patricia A. Ellis Brunston)
    • Meadowcliff (Principal Cynthia Collins)
    • Rockefeller (Principal Shoutell Richardson)
    • Williams (Principal Connie Green)

ACT (Grade 11) - Percentage of Students Meeting/Exceeding Readiness


2015-16  2016-17  1-Year Growth  2017-18  1-Year Growth  2-Year Growth 
State Math  24%  24%  0  24%  0  0
State English  49%  49%  0  48%  -1  -1
State Reading  31%  30%  -1  30%  0  -1
State Science  24%  21%  -3  22%  -1  -2
State All Four Subjects  14%  14%  0  14%  0  0
LRSD Math  20%  20%  0  19%  -1  -1
LRSD English  41%  39%  -2  40%  +1  -1
LRSD Reading  29%  26%  -3  27%  +1  -2
LRSD Science  21%  18%  -3  19%  +1  -2
LRSD All Four Subjects  14%  13%  -1  14%  +1  0
Central Math  32%  37%  +5  33%  -4  +1
Central English  53%  56%  +3  54%  -2  +1
Central Reading  40%  43%  +3  30%  -13  -10
Central Science  31%  33%  +2  33%  0  +2
Central All Four Subjects  22%  27%  +5  25%  -2  +3
Fair Math  2%  4%  +2  1%  -3  -1
Fair English  16%  15%  -1  16%  +1  0
Fair Reading  7%  7%  0  6%  -1  -1
Fair Science  3%  4%  +1  1%  -3  -2
Fair All Four Subjects  2%  1%  -1  0%  -1  -2
Hall Math  3%  2%  -1  4%  +2  -1
Hall English  17%  8%  -9  19%  +9  +2
Hall Reading   12%  3%  -9  9%  +6  -3
Hall Science  4%  1%  -3  3%  +2  -1
Hall All Four Subjects  2%  0  -2  2%  +2  0
McClellan Math  5%  6%  +1  3%  -3  -2
McClellan English  13%  15%  +2  11%  -4  -2
McClellan Reading  5%  3%  -2  4%  +1  -1
McClellan Science  2%  3%  +1  0%  -3  -2
McClellan All Four Subjects  1%  1%  0  0%  -1  -1
Parkview Math  23%  17%  -6  20%  +3  -3
Parkview English  61%  51%  -10  52%  +1  -9
Parkview Reading  41%  30%  -11  34%  +4  -7
Parkview Science  28%  16%  -12  20%  +4  -8
Parkview All Four Subjects  16%  9%  -7  13%  +4  -3

 

On ACT, in 25 (5 schools, 5 areas each) opportunities for one-year growth in 2016-17:

  • 10 Improved
  • 13 Declined
  • 2 Stayed Same
  • Hall and Parkview Declined in All Subjects
  • State and District Declined or Stayed Same in All Subjects
  • Greatest one-year growth was Central +18
  • Greatest one-year decline was Parkview -46

On ACT, in 25 opportunities for one-year growth in 2017-18:

  • 12 Improved
  • 12 Declined
  • 1 Stayed Same
  • 0 Declined in All Subjects
  • State and Central Declined or Stayed Same in All Subjects
  • Greatest one-year growth was Hall +21
  • Greatest one-year decline was Central -21

On ACT, in 25 opportunities  for two-year growth in 2017-18:

  • 5 Improved
  • 18 Declined
  • 2 Stayed Same
  • McClellan and Parkview Declined in All Subjects
  • State, District and Hall Declined or Stayed Same in All Subjects
  • While no high school had two-year growth, the least decline was a tie Central and Hall -3
  • Greatest two-year decline was Parkview -30

Leadership Ranking (ACT 1-Year Growth/Decline)

  • Hall (Principal Mark Roberts): +21
  • Parkview (Principal Randy Rutherford): +16
  • Fair (Principal Michael Anthony): -7
  • McClellan (Principal Patricia Ellis-Brunston): -8
  • Central (Principal Nancy Rousseau): -21

Leadership Ranking (ACT 2-Year Growth/Decline)

  • Hall (Principal Mark Roberts - Only Responsible for One Year): -3
  • Central (Principal Nancy Rousseau): -3
  • Fair (Principal Michael Anthony): -6
  • McClellan (Principal Patricia Ellis-Brunston): -10
  • Parkview (Principal Randy Rutherford - Only Responsible for One Year): -30

Conclusion

Undoubtedly, progress has been made in the Litte Rock School District - in equity, in budget, in infrastructure. However, the district was taken over because of Academic Distress, and its progress (or lack thereof) in academics is woefully inadequate. In fact, rather than improving even incrementally, it is declining in most areas. Immediate, transformational, student-focused actions must be taken to, at the very least, ensure the district consistently improves in all areas by all measures.

That begins and ends with leadership. A school board (or in this case, the Arkansas Department of Education Commissioner acting in place of the board) hires one person to run the district - the superintendent. In Little Rock, the current superintendent and his predecessors have inexplicably chosen to retain (and in one case promote) the two deputies who have long presided over the academic decline of the district.

By simply examining the one and two-year improvement/decline in each of the schools, it is readily evident which building-level leaders are getting the job done on behalf of students and which are not.

The Little Rock School District's challenges and opportunities are all about leadership - in the district, in the buildings, and in the classrooms. At all levels, any adults standing in the way of student success should gracefully step aside or be as swiftly removed as the previous board.

Disclaimer: Because data entered and calculated manually from Arkansas Department of Education, we welcome any correction(s).

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 
Page 1 of 13
1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  >   >>   >| 
Community Search
Sign In


Latest News
Featured Members