North Little Rock School District: 2013 Annual Report

At beginning of each school year the Arkansas Department of Education classifies all schools within our state as Priority,

Focus, Needs Improvement, Achieving, or Exemplary based on students’ standardized test performance from the

previous year. Priority schools include the bottom 5% of schools with the lowest levels of student performance. Focus

schools include 10% of Title I schools with the largest TAGG/Non-TAGG achievement gaps. Needs Improvement schools

scored above the bottom 5%, and do not have significant achievement gaps between their TAGG/Non-TAGG. Needs

Improvement schools have at least one academic area or subgroup needing advancement. Achieving schools met all

their performance goals in 2013 for their TAGG and combined population. Exemplary schools include the top 1% of

schools that had high performance, high TAGG and high progress.

Note: Targeted Achievement Gap Group (TAGG) includes all students classified as an English language learner,

economically disadvantaged, or having a learning disability.

The North Little Rock School District is classified as a Needs Improvement district.

Focus schools- Crestwood Elementary School, Indian Hills Elementary School, Lynch Drive Elementary School (status

pending), North Heights Elementary School, Pike View Elementary School, Seventh Street Elementary School, Lakewood

Middle School

Needs Improvement schools- Amboy Elementary School, Lakewood Elementary School, Meadow Park Elementary

School, Park Hill Elementary School, Ridgeroad Middle School, North Little Rock High School, North Little Rock Academy

Achieving schools- Glenview Elementary School, Boone Park Elementary Schol

NLRSD ACTAAP 2013 ResultsArkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program

80%77%

73%77%

60%

81%

MATH LITERACY

Elementary ProficiencyRates

3rd 4th 5th

59%56%

61% 61%58%

69%66%

74%

MATH LITERACY

Secondary ProficiencyRates

6th 7th 8th Aglebra I Grade 11

Current 9th Grade Cohort

These charts represent our current 9th graders as they have progressed 3rd grade through 8th grade. We are comparing

the average scale scores to the percentage of students who were either proficient or advanced for each grade. Scale

scores are transformed raw scores. When multiple forms of a test are used, or when results are compared from year to

year, scale scores are needed to adjust for possible differences in test form length or difficulty. Scale scores are intended

to make scores more meaningful by defining a scale of measurement that is not tied to a particular form of a test. The

state raises the scale performance levels each year in order for students to reach the minimum proficiency level. As a

district we are committed in helping all students advance their achievement level at every grade. Even though students

are making gains each year within our district, this is a good illustration of how difficult it can be for struggling students

to catch-up after they have fallen behind.

Please visit us at our web page to download the full presentation presented to the North Little

Rock School Board at the 2013 October meeting.

www.nlrsd.org

We work very hard throughout the year to provide the most up-to-date information regarding

school and district performance.

545507

598 607634

670692 677712

768714

772

MATH-COMBINED LITERACY-COMBINED

Scale Scores

Grade 3: 2008 Grade 4: 2009 Grade 5: 2010

Grade 6: 2011 Grade 7: 2012 Grade 8: 2013

67%

55%

66% 64%63%68%67%

59%

65%

74%

58%

69%

MATH-COMBINED LITERACY-COMBINED

Proficiency Rates

Grade 3: 2008 Grade 4: 2009 Grade 5: 2010

Grade 6: 2011 Grade 7: 2012 Grade 8: 2013

North Little Rock School District

Am

boy

Ele

men

tary

Boo

neP

ark

Ele

men

tary

Cre

stw

ood

Ele

men

tary

Gle

nvie

wE

lem

enta

ry

Ind

ian

Hill

sE

lem

enta

ry

Lake

woo

dE

lem

enta

ry

Lync

hD

rive

Ele

men

tary

Mea

dow

Par

kE

lem

enta

ry

Nor

thH

eigh

tsE

lem

enta

ry

Par

kH

illE

lem

enta

ry

Pik

eV

iew

Ele

men

tary

Sev

enth

Str

eetE

lem

enta

ry

Lake

woo

dM

iddl

e

Rid

gero

adM

iddl

e

NLR

Aca

dem

y

NLR

Hig

hS

choo

l

Dis

tric

t

Grade One Reading 36 39 65 74 76 68 35 47 47 39 37 35 NA NA NA NA 53Grade One Language 41 48 64 93 90 67 34 54 58 35 45 34 NA NA NA NA 58Grade One Math 38 42 54 81 78 62 25 54 51 48 27 25 NA NA NA NA 50Grade Two Reading 37 27 74 37 76 71 28 34 31 45 38 23 NA NA NA NA 49Grade Two Language 41 22 70 33 76 66 26 28 36 39 39 20 NA NA NA NA 47Grade Two Math 45 25 67 28 74 61 25 31 31 43 35 21 NA NA NA NA 45Grade Three Reading 30 33 60 51 58 60 27 38 31 37 26 28 NA NA NA NA 42Grade Three Language 25 38 55 45 52 49 31 47 40 42 22 26 NA NA NA NA 40Grade Three Math 40 37 62 50 52 69 32 45 38 41 24 35 NA NA NA NA 46Grade Four Reading 29 28 59 46 57 60 20 28 27 36 31 21 NA NA NA NA 40Grade Four Language 31 45 66 50 62 63 30 35 30 42 35 26 NA NA NA NA 46Grade Four Math 39 43 63 49 64 67 35 43 43 45 38 38 NA NA NA NA 50Grade Five Reading 27 18 59 30 52 54 22 40 25 36 28 31 NA NA NA NA 37Grade Five Language 32 27 63 43 54 60 25 51 36 51 35 33 NA NA NA NA 45Grade Five Math 38 24 67 43 59 66 23 59 36 39 27 41 NA NA NA NA 46Grade Five Science 37 29 73 46 61 62 31 48 40 49 32 40 NA NA NA NA 50Grade Six Reading NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 42 26 14 NA 35Grade Six Language NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 47 29 17 NA 39Grade Six Math NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 48 34 22 NA 42Grade Seven Reading NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 44 32 16 NA 38Grade Seven Language NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 45 32 20 NA 39Grade Seven Math NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 47 37 17 NA 42Grade Seven Science NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 54 35 19 NA 45Grade Eight Reading NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 53 34 25 NA 45Grade Eight Language NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 49 32 23 NA 43Grade Eight Math NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 55 36 29 NA 47Grade Nine Reading NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 12 43 40Grade Nine Math NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 13 40 38

Overall Status 2013 Nee

dsIm

prov

emen

t

Ach

ievi

ng

Nee

dsIm

prov

emen

tFoc

us

Ach

ievi

ng

Nee

dsIm

prov

emen

tFoc

us

Nee

dsIm

prov

emen

t

Nee

dsIm

prov

emen

tFoc

us

Nee

dsIm

prov

emen

t

Nee

dsIm

prov

emen

tFoc

us

Nee

dsIm

prov

emen

t

Nee

dsIm

prov

emen

tFoc

us

Nee

dsIm

prov

emen

tFoc

us

Nee

dsIm

prov

emen

tFoc

us

Nee

dsIm

prov

emen

t

Nee

dsIm

prov

emen

t

Nee

dsIm

prov

emen

t

Nee

dsIm

prov

emen

t

Achieving Literacy Y Y N Y N N N Y Y Y N Y N N N N NAchieving Math N Y N Y N N N N N N N Y N N N N NAchieving Graduation Rate NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NDid Priority/Foucs Meet Year 1 Required for Exit? NA Y N NA N NA Y NA Y NA Y N N NA NA NA NADid Priority/Foucs Meet Year 2 Required for Exit? NA Y N NA N NA N NA N NA N Y N NA NA NA NA

Accredited Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 16Accredited-Cited N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0Accredited-Probationary N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0Attendance Rate 94.1 94.8 95.78 98.56 96.08 96.79 93.7 97.13 95.78 97.05 96.46 94.08 97.84 93.81 81.14 95.92 95.6Grade Inflation Rate 6.3

College Remediation Rate 51.8October Enrollment 295 296 384 129 515 359 204 150 333 234 269 189 1141 693 164 2456 7811

Number of Students Retained at Grade One 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 14Percent of Students Retained at Grade One 0.00% 0.00% 0.78% 0.00% 0.39% 0.00% 0.00% 3.33% 0.00% 0.00% 1.12% 0.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.18%Number of Students Retained at Grade Two 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 7Percent of Students Retained at Grade Two 0.00% 0.00% 0.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.43% 0.74% 0.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.09%Number of Students Retained at Grade Three 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3Percent of Students Retained at Grade Three 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.37% 0.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.04%Number of Students Retained at Grade Four 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Percent of Students Retained at Grade Four 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%Number of Students Retained at Grade Five 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent of Students Retained at Grade Five 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Number of Students Retained at Grade Six 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent of Students Retained at Grade Six 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Number of Students Retained at Grade Seven 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 1 0 12Percent of Students Retained at Grade Seven 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.09% 1.44% 0.61% 0.00% 0.15%Number of Students Retained at Grade Eight 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 4Percent of Students Retained at Grade Eight 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.09% 0.43% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05%

% of Students Eligible for Free and Reduced Meals 94.6% 97.2% 42.1% 95.9% 34.6% 43.7% 98.8% 98.9% 96.6% 85.5% 92.4% 97.6% 61.2% 91.1% 95.7% 59.0% 70.2%

Discipline Policies Distributed to Parents Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YDiscipline Training Provided to Staff Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YParental Involvement Plan Adopted Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YExpulsions 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 6 13 25Weapons Incidents 5 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 5 0 0 15 30Staff Assaults 5 0 5 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 2 0 0 8 12 5 42Student Assaults 4 0 13 0 10 0 0 2 5 1 8 0 18 11 85 13 170

Percent of Teachers Completely Certified (Licensed) 100 100 97 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 93 100 100 100 98 99Percent Teaching with Emergency/Provisional Credentials 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 2 1Precent of Teachers with Bachelor's Degree 56.7 56.30 54.50 35.30 63.90 37.90 44.00 45.50 54.30 56.50 70.40 48.10 56.20 49.10 30.00 45.70 50.60Percent of Teachers with Master's Degree 43.3 37.50 45.50 64.70 33.30 62.10 56.00 54.50 45.70 43.50 29.60 51.90 42.50 47.20 60.00 49.70 46.90Percent of Teachers with Advanced Degree 0 6.30 0.00 0.00 2.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 3.80 10.00 4.60 2.40

Percent of classes not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers 0 0 NA 0 NA NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 16.5 NA NA 2Teachers in Low Poverty SchoolsPercent of classes not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0

Percent of classes not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.5 NA 0 0.8

Percent of Students Obtained Through School Choice 0 1.3 18.79 0 33 10.49 0.42 1.2 0.77 0.34 1 1.25 1.66 0 0 1.77 5.31

Alternative learning environment compliance YDrop-out rate 2.16% ACT

District Total Mills Voted 40.9 Graduation rate 0.7 Mathematics 19.5District Expenditure Per Student 10,441 District provides textbooks for all pupils Y Science 19.6District Average Teacher Salary 49,529 English 19.3District Total Expenditures 94,574,922 SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER TRAINING Reading 20District Instructional Expenditures 48,130,864 Zone 3 12.50 Composite 19.8District Administrative Expenditures 4,934,466 Zone 1 38.00District Extracurricular Expenditures 1,748,482 Zone 7 7.50 Advanced Placement Courses (AP) DistDistrict Capital Expenditures 2,448,881 Zone 4 11.75 370District Debt Service Expenditures 2,769,122 Zone 5 8.00 515District Soft Drink Revenue 31,688 Zone 2 15.50 103 (20%)District Vending Machine Revenue 2,555 Zone 6 13.25 98District Food Only School Fundraiser 6,901State Free and Reduced-Price Meal Rate ** 60.33%National Free and Reduced-Price Meal Rate ** 53.92%

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Annual Measureable Objectives (AMO)

Norm Referenced Test (ITBS) Average Percentile Rank

Number of Students Taking AP CoursesNumber of AP Exams TakenNumber of Exams Scored 3,4 or 5

Scott Teague

J.T. Zakrzewski Number of Students Taking IB Courses

2012-2013 Preliminary School Performance Reports - published annually as required under Ark. Code Ann. 6-15-2006(b)

Scott Miller

Annual Accreditation Status

Retention

Discipline

Demographics

Teachers in High Poverty Schools

Aggregate all Economic Levels

Choice

DISTRICTEconomic

Darrell MontgomeryDorothy WilliamsLuke KingRon Treat