Arkansas 2005-2006 School District Rankings

Author: Mark Witkowski July 2007

Summary: This study relies on Spring 2006 testing data fromArkansas students taking the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills to evaluate the performance of 251 K-12 public school districts. Using a standard distribution, 14 districts earned A or A- grades; 61 districts received 8+, B or 8- grades; 111 districts earned C+, C or C- grades; 47 districts received O+, D or 0- grades; and 18 districts were assigned failing grades of F. Using a modified distribution, 14 districts earned A or A­ grades: 79 districts received B+, B or 8- grades; 110 districts earnedC+. C or C- grades; 35 districts received D+, 0 or 0- grades; and 13districts were assigned failing grades of F.

Education refonns discussed in this paper include charter schools, inter­ district schoo.l choice, home schooling and publicly-funded vouchers.

 

ARKANSAS 2005-06 SCHOOL DISTRICTGRADES 

INTRODUCTION

As noted last year in this report grading Arkansas public schooldistricts, the failure of the 1983 Education Standards Committee chaired by Hilary Rodham Clinton, and subsequent proposals, is underscored by two Arkansas Supreme Court decisions since2002. The Court, in both decisions found the state’s K-12 publicschool system unconstitutional1. The Court’s first ruling led to reforms including Public Act 35 of 2003 (Second Extraordinary Session), sponsored by state Senator Steven Bryles, 0-Blytheville. The Act requires transparency for every Arkansas public school district In the areas of academic and fiscalperformance but does not require a letter grade for districts. PA 35 and other legislative measures are significant steps on theroad to education reform. But the Court still held that Arkansas’ K-12 system was unconstitutional.

This study’s purpose, for the second year in a row, is to create a letter grade for each district, and to discuss policy options forthose on Alert (D grade) or in Distress (F grade). Nine years ago,In 1998, the Murphy Commission, a Policy Foundation project,recommended establishment of a K-12 school district academicratings and Diggers using the following criteria:

Academic Success: Majority of Students scoring 1O or morepercentage points above the 50¹¹percentile on a nationalreading/comprehension/writingandmathematics test.

Academic Competence; Majority of Students scoring at or abovethe so” percentile on a nationalreading/comprehension/writingand mathematics test.

Academic Weak: Majority of Students scoring between the40¹¹¹and 49¹¹¹percentile on a nationalreading/comprehension/writing and mathematics test.

Academic Alert: Majority of Students scoring between the 30^thand 39¹¹¹percentile ona national reading/comprehension/writingand mathematics test. Ifimprovement does not occur in one year, the district is placed onAcademic Distress.

Acade.mic Distress: Majority of Students scoring below the 301hpercentile on a national reading/comprehension/writing andmathematics test. Director, Department of Education, mustintervene after two years of no improvement.²

1Ma. Ctinton et1111<lld the Education Standards Committee. In Dupree v Alma School DistrictNo. 30, the state Supreme Court found the school finance system violated the ArkansasConstitution’s equal protection clau&e. (Dupf96 v Alma School District No. 30, 651 S.W. 2d 90 (1983)). Lake View was filed In 1992. In 2002, a Supreme Court majority citied Dupree infinding H had juri8didlon In Lake View. The Court upheld a lower court ruling that found the pt.tllic K-12 school system “Inadequate” and “Inequitable:  In Oecel’rber 2005, theCourt again found1he state’s school system UllCllnstitutional.The Court finally found the K-12 syslemconstitutional emlier this year.

‘The Murphy Commi,;sion’s Education Committee recommended using the·StanlordAchievement Test (SAT). Each category corresponds to the following grade&: (A) AcademicSuccess, (B) Academic Competence, (CJAcademic Weak, (0) Ac.demic Aten, and (F) AcademieDiStress. (As of fall 2004. the Arkansas Department of Education has chosen to use the Iowa Basie Skill Test (IBST) Instead of the SAT. The lnfonnatlon pro\iled by 1lle IBST doesnot provide percenUlescores in the format used by SAT.

Therefore, different statistical criteria were developed for inplementing thereconwnendedgrading system asexplmedlater.

Economists have long recognized education’s importance to economic prosperity and a higher standard of Jiving. Dallas Federal Reserve System economist Dr. Michael Cox, a graduate of Little Rock Central High School, has noted thelikelihood of Americans achieving upward income mobilityand a rising standard of living is dependent on educationalachievement “What D’Ya Know? Lifetime Leaming in Pursuit of the American Dream”). Dr. Cox notes individuals in the age group of 25 to 34 with a bachelor’s degree earn 63 percent more than a high school graduate and 100 percent more than a high school dropout. An individual with a graduate degree would earn 90 percent more than a high school graduate and 140 percent more than the high school dropout. These differences in earnings increase as people age. Compared to other states Arkansas’ college graduation rate• is significantly below the national average of 26percent as is our state per capita income level of

$25,725⁶ versus the national 2004 per capita income level of 32,937. One key step that could significantly increase our state per capital income level versus the rest of the nationwould be to increase our state’s level of college graduates. Of course to increase the number of people in Arkansas with bachelor’s degrees the high school students must be prepared for entering and succeeding/graduating in/fromcollege.

Lower unemployment rates are another benefit associatedwith higher levels of educational achievement. Dr. Cox notes, “Jobless rates are also lower for workers with more years of schooling, largely because they’re more in demand…e As our world is driven more and more by technological advances, the importance of a quality and advanced education will become even more crucial. Howwell Arkansas’ schools. in parUcular its public schools,perform the task of educating our children so they are equipped with the skills, knowledge and aptitude necessary for successfully completing four years or more of college studies is of critical importance.

The Policy Foundation recommended in 1998 that the legislature adopt education reforms including transparency and accountability. Several Murphy Commission recommendations have been enacted by the legislature and signed by ex-Gov. Mike Huckabee. They create schooldistricts that are more accountable, transparent, and that provide additional options for public school students and their parents.⁷ The Policy Foundation filed two amicus curiae briefs with the Supreme Court in the Lake View casethat discuss some of these ideas. These measures are important first steps toward addressing the constitutionaldeficiencies identified in Court rulings.  Additionaleducational

• Dr, Michael Coxis the Senior Economist for the Fe<leral Reserve Bank of This articleappeared In lhe Bank’s 2004 AnnualReport, pages 5 through 23.                                    •

‘    19.7% in 2002 according to U.S. Census Bureau Ranking Table: ‘Percent of People 25Yeal’ll and Over Who Have Completed a Bachelo(s Degree (State Level).

• U.S. Census Bureau “Change In Per Capita Income by State: 1999-2004”
• tbid. “UfeUme Leaming•, page 7,

These reforms include PA Act 35 of 2003 (Second Extraordinary Seasion) and PA Act 2005 of 2005. PA 35 eXPands district transparency, and features accountabilily measures induding rewards and sanclions for performance. PA 2005 eitpands the noo,ber of charter schoolspermitted in Arkansas. Sen. Brytes sponsored both measures,  Another reform, PA

60 of 2003 (Second Extraordinary Session) sponsored by stale Rep, \JI/ill Bond, D-Jaci(sonviUe. has led to the restructuring of districts and their adminiatratora.

reforms are necessary. In that regard this paper assigns a letter grade for each Arkansas K-12 public school district. It concludes with a brief review of other education reforms proposed by the Murphy Commission in 1998 or enacted in other states.

 

EVALUATIONfGRADING PROCESS

 

This study relies on Spring 2006 testing data derived from students taking the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) to grade the performance of 251 Arkansas public school districts in the 2005-2006 academic year. In 2006 a complete set of tests were administered to students in grades kindergarten through ninth grade. In 2005, Arkansas public schoolstudents were tested using only about half of the ITBS exam.Therefore, comparing Arkansas ITBS score to the nationalmean is more relevant in 2006 versus the Arkansas test scoreresults in 2005. This change in Arkansas testing using the complete, instead of partial ITBS most likely explains thedifference in school district grades for 2006 scores versustheir grades for 2005 scores. Statistically⁸, at a 95 percent confidence level there was a significant change in the totaldistribution of grades in 2006 versus 2005. The number of districts receiving a grade of A or A- fell from 20 districts in2005 to 14 districts in 2006. The number of districts receivinga B+, B or B- changed from 104 districts in 2005 to 79 in 2006. Districts with F grades increased from nine⁹ to 13.Other potential factors such as the exam content, which did not change from 2005 to 2006; and the percentage of ;African­ American students which did not change significantly, cannot explain this change in the number of schools pergrade classification.

The school and district test scores are reported in threedifferent formats: (1), Standard Scores (SS)¹⁰, (2) Normal Curve Equivalent scores (NCE), and (3) percentile scores.For purposes of this study, Standard Scores were utilized. Although parents and teachers may be more familiar withpercentile scores they do not provide statistically meaningful measures such as the standard deviation or mean. NCE scores, which are derived from SS scores, can be used in a statistical manner such as averaging. Since SS scores are the basic building block from which NCE and percentilescores are derived ii is logical to base this study on SS scores.

One consideration in determining which school districts havebeen successful is whether to use a district score whichincluded all students taking the ITBS, one based on a subsetof grade levels or a single grade level. All grade levels are important in the development of a child’s education, whether it be first grade or twelfth grade. However, in determining which school districts are or are not preparing their students for economic well being once they leave their local public school district, the most appropriate grade level or levelswould be those

⁸ This was determined using the Chi Squared Statistical Method.

⁹ Of the nine districts receiving an F In 2005, six received an F in 2006. One dislrid, Parkin, was merged. England improved from an F in 2005 to a O in 2006 and Altheimer Unified went from an FIn 2005 to a o. (F in language and O in malh) in 2006.

• • SS test scores can range from 80 to 400. Each grade level has its own mean v,tiieh increaseswithgrade levels.

grade levels closest to their graduation, preferably the high school years, or twelfth grade. For the 200!>–2006 school year ninth grade was the highest grade level at which the ITBS was given to Arkansas’ public school students.Therefore, ninth grade SS scores were used to evaluate the performance of Arkansas’ public school districts.  In the same manner in which students are graded with As, Bs, Cs, Ds, and Fs, this study grades Arkansas’ 251 public school districts. As noted in the following table, 14 of Arkansas’s public school districts were given grades of A or A-; 79 grades of B+, B, or B-, 110 grades of C+, C, and C-; and 48 grades of O+, D, 0-, • and 11 districts earned a grade of F.’

Page 51 of Iowa Forms A and B, Levels 15 – 17/18 notesthat the norm/mean SS score for ninth grade students is260 points. Given that Arkansas public school students tookthe ITBS exams¹² approximately a month earlier than the time period associated with the national norm/mean SSscore of 260 points, the appropriate SS norm/mean score toevaluate Arkansas test scores by is 259¹³ points..The totalninth grade lan uage mean SS score for Arkansas’ 251public school districts was 256.1 points ⁴. The total ninthgrade math mean SS score for Arkansas’ 251 public schooldistricts was 261..5 points.¹⁵ For the total ninth gradelanguage exam, 136 of Arkansas’ public.school districtsscored higher than the national norm/mean, and 115 scoredbelow the national norm/mean. For the total ninth grade math exam, 161 school districts scored above the nationalnorm/mean, 89 scored below the national norm/mean, andone equal to the national norm/mean.

 

To determine the appropriate grade for each school district the properties of the standard normal distribution curvemethod were utilized. This method assumes that fiftypercent of the scores should be below the mean/norm and fifty percent above. Another property of the standard normal distribution curve is that the further the score/valueis above or below the norm/mean score, the smaller the frequency. As noted earlier the appropriate SS mean score for the grading of ninth grade students is 259 points.  Onebasic assumption made for this study

• is that scores at or close to the mean/norm of 259 points represented an average performance or the equivalent of a C grade. Therefore, scores somewhat about the mean • • • are equivalent to B grades and scores significantly higher than the mean would be equivalent to A grades. Conversely, grades somewhat below the mean/norm would be equivalent to D grades and scores significantly below the mean/norm would be equivalent to F grades. Traditionally, scores/values in the highest or lowest 5 or 10 percent are considered to be significantly above orbelow the norm/mean. For determining at what value the top 10 percent of the scores should begin at the standard deviations of Arkansas’ public school district languageand math scores were
• Detailed lnfonnatlon on rrss SS scores and other school di.trict infonnalfon is presented In App&n<lxOne.

12 Manses ninth grade public IIChool students             four of the nine exams in spring 2005. In spring 2006.Arkan888 ninth

F,bllc school students took al nine exams.

3 Arkansas Benchmark proVlded by Iowa Tests of Education Development Reseerch Department, See Attachment OM

” Data provided at the Arlcansas Department of Education web sit&.

¹⁵ Data provided at the Arkansas Oepa,tment of EducaDonweb site.

calculated, which were 10.735 and 11.207 respectively. Avalue equal to 1.282 times language score standarddeviation 10.735 plus the national norm/mean of 259 points (272.8 points) is equal to the SS score to be reached for a school district to receive an A math grade. This method wasused to determine values and ranges of SS scores for othergrades, i.e. for a math grade of B, a district’s SS score should be equal to or greater than 263.1 and less than272.8.¹⁶

 

School districts with grades of A or A- are classified as “Academic Success”. Districts with grades of “B+, 8, B-” areclassified as “Academic Competence”. Districts with grades of “C+, C, and C-” are classified as ‘Academic Weak”. Districts with grades. of “D+, D, and D-” are classified as “Academic Alert”. Districts with the grade of F are classified as “Academic Distress”. Using this method, 14 Arkansas public school districts were classified as “Academic Success•, 79 districts as “Academic Competence”, 110 districts as “Academic Weak’, 11 are between “AcademicWeak” and Academic Alert”, and 37 are either •Academic Alert” or “Academic Distress”.

 

Two measures shown in Table One support these findings. They are student remediation percentiles in math and English, and ACT composite scores. These measures are noted in the following table. Higher than normal remediation percentiles and lower than norm ACT scores would be further evidence that school districts are not preparing their students adequately for higher education and the workforce.For the 37 “Academic Alert or Distress” dhltricts approximately three-fourths of their graduating students were required to take either a remedial coursein math or English or both. The approximate average ACT score for the 37 districts in distress was approximately 17.B points or approximately the bottom 12^th percentile.One unexpected relationship in Table One is that while the 37 districts in distress have lower per capita incomes these districts spent more than A, B, and C districts. Spending more per student has not improved perforrnance.¹⁷

Noof Schools   School Gracia ss Verbal Score ss Math Score   Remediation Rates Composite ACT Score Total Net Funding PerStudenf 2004 PerCapital Index’ 14 A or A-s 275.6 278.4 40.1 21.7 $7.097 .94 79 B+. B. orB-s 264.5 270,8 49.3 20.7 $6.853 .91 110 C+.C. orC-s 254.6 260.3 55.3 20.1 $7 095 .92 11 O+s 245.7 252.0 63.7 19.3 $7,112 .93 24 D& D-s 242.1 246.3 71.2 18.2 $8,090 .91 13 Fa 232,4 233.8 80.3 17.0 $8,450 .86   251 State” AveragN   256.1   261.5   55.8 20.0 $7,191 1.00

Table One {Modified Distribution)

¹⁸ The percentage values for aasigning grades, as noted in the Appendix, were stop 10%,’A’: 65% to 89.9%, “8′: 20% to 64.9″/4, “C’; 5% to 19.9%, “D”: and less than 4.99%, “F”, This distribution doesnot reflaet a true Slandard normal diatribution cun,e In that the top 10% of SSscores receive an A grade and the bottom 5% rea:ived an F grade. In addttion scores from 50% to65% received C grades and scores from 20% to 50o/o received C grades. Thus, compared to astrict standard normal distribution cun,e. the assignment of grades in this study were somewhatskewed towards higher grades. In Appendix Two is a table comparing the grade outcomesversus a modified distribution versus a non-modified/standard grade distribution.

¹⁷ ‘Money and School Pe<formance: Lessons from the Kansas City DesesregationExperiment”, Policy Analysis, Cato lnstttute·, Number 298.

• The ADA Total Net Funding values do indude Title I and Title VI •  State Avereges forlhe Language and Math SS scores were calculated using each of the 251 public schooldistrict vales·at equal weights. All other averages were weighted calculations reflecting thenumber of districts per Grade Category.• Per Capita Index Is calculated by dl11lding 2004county per capita income by the 2004 state per capita income $25,814 per the U.S. Census. The stale aver8’g8 weighted per capita Income according to grade category does not equal 1.00 since all school dl.stricts within grade categories were weighed equally, I.e. did not reflectstudent enrollment sizes, Which Is representative of populationdiffenences per county.

 

Other characteristics stand out for the 37 districts indistress versus other districts. These are shown in TableTwo. The percentage of families married

decreased.     In   terms of teacher’s salaries per a9radelevel there was no significantly difference at a 95°/o levelof confidence¹ .

 

Noof Schools   School Grades Total Net Funding PerStudent’ 2004 PerCapital Index• Average Teac;;;,;her Sala   %of Families Married 14 Aor A-s $7.097 .94 42565   55.2% 79 B+ B or B-s $6.853 .91 41112   58.1% 110 C+ C, orC-s $7,095 .92 40278 ‘ 56.0%, 11 D+s $7.112 .93 39,357   56.5% 24 D & D-s $8090 .91 39889   49.9% 13 Fs $8.450 .86 41111   46.3%   251 State6 Aven,ges $7,186c   .91   40.630     55.5%

Table Two

“‘”The Total Net Funding values do include Trtle I end Tide VI funding. “State Averages for the Language and Math SS scores were calculated using each of the 251 publicschooldia1rictvales al equal weights. All other averages were weighted calculations reflectwlg thenumbe< of districts per Grade Category. ‘Per Capita Index Is calculated by dl11iding 2004coullty per capaa in=  by the 2004 state per capita lnoome of $25,814 per the U.S. Census.The state average weighted eccotding to grade cetegory does not equal since all schooldistricts within grade categories were weighed equaRy, i.e. did

not reflect student enrollment sizes•.   Salary dollars were obtained from Arkansas O&partmentof Education Annual 2004 –

2005 Statistical Report.     The average teacher salaries were for non-certified ful timeeducators. This sala,y level is approximately 5% high&r thantrad ional le-12 full-limeeducato,s.

 

COMPETITION AND SCHOOL CHOICE

We expect to and do have choices in this society. These include the radio station we listen to, the stores where weshop, the restaurants where we eat our meals, the colors and options we desire to have in a new car, the area of town we live in, or the college or university our children decide to attend. In our economy and nation, it is the consumer who determines the direction the markets follows. Given consumer choice, producers and suppliers of the products and services are motivated and driven to provide an affordable and quality product or service, which meets ourwants and desires. The competitive marketplaceencourages innovation, creativity, more knowledge. Not to doso is short sighted by the producer. When a producer is notmeeting our expectations we move to another unless that company Is a government monopoly such as Arkansaselectric companies or the US Postal Service (USPS).

19 This was detennined using theChi Squared Statistical Method.

6

 

In recent decades the Federal Government has allowed private firms to compete with the USPS for delivering packages, but not first class mail. In general most would agree that the competition for moving packages has benefited the consumer with more mail locations, more productivity, and lower costs. Our national K-12 and higher education systems and institutions compare similarly to themoving of packages and first class mail. At the higher institution level competition has been in place since the beginning of our nation’s history when only private colleges and universities had to compete with one another. The beginnings of Yale were based some students and others dissatisfaction with Harvard, its predecessor. Today, higher education is more competitive than ever as witnessed by the competition of some 20 four-year colleges anduniversities in Arkansas. The schools with the brightest andmost students generally win. The way to attract the brightest and most students is for the colleges and universities toimprove and win the students’ and ·parents’ confidence.This competition is working in the higher education system that includes both private and public colleges and universities competing with one another and not just private versus private. There are more foreign students enrolled In U.S. colleges and universities, whether public or private.American K-12 public schools are rated inferior to those of most developing natlons¹⁹, especially in science and math, yet many students from other nations choose to be get theiradvanced degrees in the U.S. at a great financial and socialcost.

But for K-12 education, which in essence is government-approved monopoly with a captive tax base, how many of the parents who send their child to a particular public schooldo so because that school has earned their allegiance? Orare many, If not most of these students attending public schools because for most their families have no other viable choice? The lack of choices in K-12 education in Arkansas for all parents is fundamentally opposed to the basic American psyche of choice. Thomas Jefferson seemed tothink so. In a letter he wrote to Joseph C. Cabell in 1816,Jefferson warned against schools being managed by Governors and Councils to the determent of the parents, because it was a belief against all experience. He said, “Whathas destroyed liberty and the rights of man in everygovernment which has ever existed under the sun? Thegeneralizing and concentrating of all cares and powers intoone body.”20 Nobel Pri economist Milton Friedman, achampion of competition, proposed 50 years ago that thebest education for America’s K-12 students would comefrom, “giving each child, through his parents, a specified sumto be used solely in payment for his general education…Theresult would be a sizeable reduction in the direct activities of government, yet a great widening in the educationalopportunities open to our children.”

How free are Arkansas families to make K-12 education choices? How many choice options do the families living in failing or near failing school districts have or are they lockedin to the present structure?  How many students inArkansas

 

• • OCEO Report, ‘Education Statistics and lncliceto111•, Out of 29 Economieally DevelopedNations. US 15 year olds ranked 24th, page 14. Only one of Iha other 28 nations spends more percapital in education children, Switzerland, than the US, g,age 28.

School ChoioB Advoc8’tJ, March 2005, page 10. Emphaala added.

 

will be put at a distinct disadvantage in their pursuit of theAmerican Dream due to a poor education? How can thisquestion be measured and answered?

Dr. Jay P. Greene²¹ in 2000 coined the term the “Education Freedom Index” or EFL In his paper, Dr. Greene evaluated five options of education choice. These included (his order}:

1. the availability of charter school options;
2. the availability of government assisted private school options;
3. the ease with which one can home school their children;
4. the ease with which one can choose a different publicschool district by relocating; and
5. the ease with which one can send a child to a different publicschool district

without changing residence.

This paper reviews four of the five options: charter schools; inter-district public school transfers; home schooling; and publicly funded vouchers. The assessment of the availability of these school choice options for Arkansas children isdetermined by comparing their choice options to other states.

 

Charter Schools

Nationally there are approximately 3,400 charter schools in the U.S. educating close to a million children in 40 states andWashington D.C.²² In Arkansas, as of this fall, there arecurrently 18 charter schools in operation.  Legislation²³ in 2005 authorized the establishment of another six charter schools. One additional charter school has been approved for the 2006-2007 school year. Are charter schools a goodchoice option for Arkansas students? Should the state be encouraged to authorize more? As noted in a study2⁴released in December, 2004 by Caroline Hoxby, HarvardUniversity, in established charter schools, “ten percent more of the students in charter schools are proficient on stateexams than those in neighboring public schools when acharter school has been in operation nine years or longer..e Inaddition, Hoxley noted that, “People involved in charterschools tell you that they improve a lot each year   In their

early years in operation, they might cope with issues like finding abuilding. But

after that, they focus on achievement and it shows..a⁵  Furthermore, as noted by the in a 2004 report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, charter schools…serve a disproportionate and increasing number of poor and minority students…andthat the greatest achievemen ains canbe seen among African American, Hispanic, or low-incomestudents.”

²¹ Dr. Jay P. Greene is the Endowed Chair and Head of the Department of Education Reform at theUnlvenslty of Ar1<ansas, College of Education and Health Profeuiooa.  Prior to that at the time thisarticle was written, Dr. Greene was a seni0< fellow

,J the Manhattan Institute for Policy Re&earch.

Center for Education Reform, *CER Quick Facis. All About Challer Schools*, Febru&ry 11. 2004, page 1.

²³ Senate Bil 1130. State of Ari<ansas 86°’ General Aasembly, Regular $e11$ion, 2005.

24News Release, December. 2004by “Program on Education Policy and Govamance, Haival’dUnlveniity”. p. 1.

2$ Ibid., p. 1.

26 Center for Educellon Reform, *CER Quick Fads, Aft About Charter Schools”, January 25, 2005,page 1.

The formal history of Arkansas charter schools began in 1995.Today, there are only 18 charters In existence, with six more approved. How does Arkansas’ treatment of the charter school choice compare to other states? In a study²⁷performed by the Center for Education Reform (CER) in 2004,the 40 states and Washington DC, which allow charterschools, were ranked and araded in terms of the effectiveness their charter schools according to . 10 criteria such as number of schools allowed, legal/operational autonorny, etc. States received grades of either A, 8, C, D, or F. In this study six states received A’s, fourteen states Bs, thirteen states Cs, six states Ds, and two states received failing grades. Arkansas ranked 3411> in a survey of 40 states and the District of Columbia, and received a D grade. Thus, Arkansas’ K-12 students are at a disadvantage when trying to use the charter school choice option.

 

Inter-District Public School Transfers

Another school choice option that is becoming more popular is inter-district transfers from ooe public school to another or from one public school district to another. Generally these programs allow parents to move their children from the school they were assigned to another one in their district or into a public school district that is contiguous to the one they live in.What conditions need to exist prior to a student transferring from one public school district to another vary from not having to give a reason to their current school district to being classified as academically failing or being in financial distress.In Arkansas, parents and students were permitted to transfer to a public school district they did not reside in beginning in the 2003 school year2⁸. The nonresident district has theoption to accept the transferring student. In addition, this Actcontains many restrictions prohibiting parents and students from asking for an inter­ district transfer. According to theArkansas Department of Education (ADE) for the 2004–2005 school year approximately 2,600 students participated in the inter-district public choice program. Information for the 2005-2006 is not unavailable. Since Arkansas inter-district public school transfer program has been in existence for onlyseveral years it would be premature to issue a grade.

 

Home Schooling

The third method of school choice is home education/schooling. Home schooling is legal to some degree in all fifty states. Approximately 2 million²⁹ children are home schooled in the U.S.. The laws allowing families to choose this option vary from state to state. Some states required little or no notification to the state or the publicschool districts, the children reside in, or supervision of hometeaching by some public institution in that state. However, a few states do make difficult to home school by requiringexcessive reporting requirements, etc. The Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), which has supportedthe concept of home schooling for over 20 yeara, ranked

 

 

77 Center for Education Reform, ‘CER Press Release, Strong Charter School LewsBoostAchievement”. February 11, 2004.

,a Senate Bill242, “An Act to Require All School Districts to Participate In PubHcSchool Choice; and for Other Purposes”, Senator Jim Argue.

‘9 Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLA) report.

9

 

states as being either home school fTiendly or unfriendly to homeschooling³⁰. HSLDA developed four levels of home schoolacceptance. Twelve states were rated as being very friendly to home schooling, 13 states and DC as being friendly to home schooling, 15 states as being somewhat friendly to home schooling, and 11 states as being unfriendly or difficult to home school in. HSLDA determined that Arkansas was a somewhat homeschool friendly state. According to the Education Alliance³¹approximately 14,000, or more than three percent of Arkansas’ school age children are home schooled.

 

Publicly Funded Vouchers

The fourth choice option proposes the use of vouchers that wouldgive parents the ability to send their children to the public or private school of their choice. Eleven states and Washington D.C.³², as of Fall 2005 have approved the use of state and/or local and federal(D.C.) public funds for families to remove their children .from public schools to private schools, and in some states religious schools.Approximately 675,000 students in .these states and DC have exercised this school choice option.

The use of publicly funded vouchers for enrollments in privateschools, including religious has been challenged in eight of theeleven states authorizing their use. The use of publicly funded vouchers for sending students to private schools was upheld in sixstates by either •.• • . _, a state Supreme Court or the U.S.Supreme Court. In addition, in three of those six rulings it was determined that using publicly funded vouchers for enrolling students in religious schools was not a violation of the First Amendment of the U,S. Constitution. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2002 in the Cleveland Voucher Case that school choice programs are constitutional when they give parents a truly independent choice of schools among a wide array of options without favoring or disfavoring religion. This choice option of allowing parents to use pubricly funded voucher for transferringtheir children out of falling public school districts to privateschools, religious or not, is not available to Arkansas parents and students at this time. Along with the other 39 states that do not allow the use of publicly funded vouchers for transferringstudents out of failing public school districts, Arkansas shouldreceive a no-pass grade.

 

School Choice Record

The arguments against school choice, in particular charter schools and vouchers generally focus on what happens to the public schools when students leave for private and religious schools.Students in urban areas like Milwaukee or Cleveland who switched from public schools to charter, private and religious schools reached significantly higher levels of achievement. In a reportpublished in May, 2004 by Education Wee/<3³, “Chicago students who transferred to hlgher-perfonnance public schools under a provision of the No Child Left Behind Act, saw much strongerachievement gains overall during

ac HSLDA Home page map.

a, Education Alliance Is affifiatedwith Arkansas Family Council.

32Information provided by “The School Chclce Advocate• published by MIiton and Rose 0. FriedmanFoundation.

.. Educalfon W””‘1. is published by Editorial Projects in &:Juc411on,Inc.                                                           •

10

 

first year of the program in their new schools than the year before.”In the Chicago School System, the third largest in the nation, in the 2005-2006 school year, “far fewer students, (175,000), than thenumber of slots (500), will get a chance to transfer out of low-performing schools”.³⁴ The traditional argument that’s left against school choice options is that the public schools which lose studentswill suffer in their ability to properly educate the remaining studentsand that student achievement levels at these schools will fall.

In the 2004 study of Chicago public schools it was determined that “the schools losing/sending students scored significant gains in reading and math scores³⁶. Public schools across the state of Florida have experience similar results. Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research³⁶ foundthat falling/low performing public schools that children were allowed to transfer from showed greater gains in the state’s Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) than schools deemed not at risk. That “these inprovements are real, not the result of testgaming, demographic shifts, or the statistical phenomenon of “regression to the mean”.³⁷ Thus, current evidence indicates that the transferring students on average achieve higher test scores and that the losing/sending districts perform better as well. Therefore, the hypothesis that making K-12 education more competitive by offering parents education choices, such as charter school, inter-district transfers, home schooling, and publicly funded vouchers would result in more effective public schools is hard to dispute. When does competition not challenge the parties involved to improve and do their best?

 

 

CONCLUSION

In December, 2005, the Arkansas Supreme Court found the state’s K-12 school finance system unconstitutional for the second time inthree years in the Lake View School District case, as it did twenty-two years ago in Dupree v. Alma in 1983. As noted by Or. Cox in this paper, the importance of a quality education for the individual to achieve their “American Dream• of upward mobility and a risingstandard of living has become more and more critical.

The Arl<:ansas Legislature’s response to these rulings isincomplete. Positive developments include administrative restructuring and charter school expansion. But negatives includenot developing a system for assigning letter grades to each district, and failing to provide disadvantaged children in deficient districts with more options.

Based on spring 2006 ITBS scores, 37 Arl<:ansas public schooldistricts were found to be deficient in providing a quality education for its ninth grade students.   In order for the ninth graders and allother students in these 37

³⁴ Ibid.

.. ,bid.

Publiahed In August, 2008.

., Ibid.

11

 

districts to be able to pursue a lifetime of quality learning, theparents should have the ability to tum to another source/supplier, whether it be another public school district ora private religious school. Full school choice should not beonly for those who can afford it. As school choice is expandedin Arkansas, those who stand to gain the most will be those who today are trapped in a failing school with no knowledge or means of hope. As school choice expands in Arkansas, allschools whether public or private, will be pushed to excel to be competitive and more accountable to Arkansas parents. In addition wheri the consumer has choice avaUable to them it naturally creates more choices for the consumer/parents and students. With more school choice options, Arkansas hasmuch to gain and little to lose. In the words of Milwaukee Mayor John Q. Norquisf’: “America’s children are tooimportant to leave trapped In a monopoly system we know is harmful to them. Milton Friedman pointed us toward educationexcellence. Now it’s time to get to our destination.” Until these reforms are enacted and followed the Arkansas Policy Foundation will continue to grade Arkansas’ public schooldistricts for the benefit of their students and their parents.

Table Three Comparing the Grading of Arkansas School District FOR 2006

NinthGrade According toDistribution Method

 

Gradecategory	Ni.mberofGrades (Non-Modiffed Distribution)	Number of Districts (Modified Distribution)	Variance Between Non-Modified Gradee V1lrSUS MoclfledGrades
As	14	14	0
Bs	61	79	-18 -29.6″.4\
Cs	111	110	+1 +.9%)
D+s	12	11	+1	+8.3%
DI andD-s	35	24	+11 (+31.4
Fs	18	13	+5(27.8%
Totals	251	251	-0-

 

 

 

 

 

‘”Johna.Norquist served as Mayor ol MIiwaukee from 1998 to 2003. He la culTently the president andCEO of lhe “Congress forNew Urbanism”, a norvofit Ofganiza1ion basedin Chicago.

12

p-      One. App,tnlix One

Appendix One: Modified

Analysis of 2006 Iowa Test of Basic SkillStandard Scores for Grading Arkansas’ 251 Public School Districts

Based on Ninth Grades ITBS StandardScores

And a Modified Standard Normal Bell CurveShape Distribution

No. School DistrictNames with Combined A or A-Grades “AcademicSuccess” District Language Standard Scores District Langua99 Grades DistrictMath Standard Scores District 1111th Gradea Combined DistrictStandard Scores Combined- District Grade I     1 HAZEN SD. 280.0 A 284.8 A 564.8 A 2 VALLEY VIEWSD 276.9 A 284.9 . A 561.8 A   – 3 BENTONVILLESD 279.1 A 282.1 A 561.2 A 4 DEVALL$BLUFF SD 283.4 A 274.4 A 557.8 A 5 OUACHITA SD 273.4  • A 283.2 A 556.6 A 6 ARMORELSD LAKESIDESD – Hot S• CONWAY SD   277.3 277.1 273.2 A A A 279.0 276.8 280.6   A A A ·556.3 553.9 553.8   A A A   7 8   s     9- MAYNARD SD 273.1 A 276.4 A 549.5 A 10 FAYETTEVILLESD 274.8 A 274,4 A 549.0 A 11 GREENWOODSD 273.1 A 274.8 A 547.9 A 12 EUREKASPRINGS SD 275.5 A 272.9 B 5..48.4 548.0 — ‘ ..     A- 13 FLIPPIN SD     271.9 — 269.9– B 276,1 A A- 14 NETTI.ETONSD B 276.6 A 546.5 A-   Grade A and A-Avoraoes 275,6   278.4   554.0

–

 

No,	SchoolDistrictNamesWith Combined B+,B or B- Grades “AcademicCompetence”	District Language Standard Scorn		District Language Gradea	DistrictMath Standard Scores	District ·Math Grades	Combined District Standard Scores	Combined District Grade
1	LAKEHAMILTON SD	271.5		B	274.6	A	546.1	B+
2	MOUNTAINVIEW SD	269.2 270.4		B	276.8	A	54-6.0 545.8	B-t-
3	MOUNTAINHOME SD			B	275.4	A		B+
4	SCRANTON SD	269.8		B	275.9	A	545.7	B+
5	CUSHMAN SD	269.8		B	275.4	A	545.2            I                      B+
6	MELBOURNESO	273.3		A	271.9	B	545.2	B+
7	CLARKSVILLESD	267.1		B	2TT.4	A	544.5	B+
8	DARDANELLESD	266.7		B	277.2	A	543.9	B+
9	BERGMAN SD	267.5		B	276.3	A	543.8	B+
10	GR.EENBRIERSD	267.8                 .		B	275.0	A	542.8	B+
11	WHITE HALL SD	269.1		B	273.6	A	542.7	B+
12	BRYANT SD	266.9		B	274.8	A	541.7	B+
13	LAMAR SD	267.1		B	274.6	A	541.7	– B+
14	FOUNTAINLAKE SD	266.7		B	274.8	A	541.5	B+
15	PEA RIDGE SD	265.7		B	275.1	A	540.8	B+
16	CHARLESTONSD	264.5		B	276.1	A	540.6	B+
17	VAN COVE SD	266.1		B	274.3	A	540.4	B+
18	NORFORK SD	265.2		B	274.7	A	539.9	B+
19	EMERSON-TAYLOR	271.0		B	270.8	B	541.8	B
20	MANSFIELD SD	268.3		B	272.5	B	540.8	8
21	MTVERNONENOLASD	268.1		B	272.7	8	540.8	B
22	SALEM SD	262.2		C	278.6	A	540.8	.-·           8
23	PARKERSCHAPEL SD	272.1		B	267.8	B	539.9	8
24	SEARCY SD	266.5		B	•            273.1	8	539.6	8
25	GREENE COTECH SD	267.5		B	271.4	8	538.9	B
26	CEDARVILLESD	268.7		B	270.1	8	538.8	B
27	CADDO HILLSSD	261.9		C	276.8	A	538.7	B
28	BERRYVILLESD	267.7		B	270.8	B	538.5	B
29	HARRISON SD	267.2		B	271.3	B	538.5	8
30	BATESVILLE SD	267.6		B	269.9	B	537.5	B
31	SOUTH SIDE SDBee Branch	267.0		B	270.3	B	537.3	8
32	ARKADELPHIASD	268.5		B	268.7	B	537.2	B
33	CABOT SD	265.1		B	271.9	B	537.0                –	B
34	BENTON SD	261.9		C	275.0	A	536.9	B
35	WALNUTRIDGE SD	265.3		B	270.8	B	536.1	B
36	JONESBOROSD	264.8		B	271.0	B	535.B	B
37	POYEN SD	263.2		B	272.0	B	535.2	B
38	POTTSVILLESO	265.5		B	269.6	B	535.1	B
39	JACKSONCOUNTY SD	267.5		B	267.3	B	534.8	B

 

 

40	BALD KNOB SD		265.0	B	269.4	B	534.4	B
41	GENOA CENTRAL SD		263.5	B	270.9	B	534.4	B
42	WHITE CO CENTRAL SD		267.1	B	266.9	B	534.0	B
43	HARMONY GROVEBenton SD		263.6	B	270.3	B	533.9	B
44	HEBER SPRINGS SD		264.7	B	269.2	B	533.9	B
45	POCAHONTAS SD		263.6	B	270.2	.        B	533.8	B
46	RUSSELLVILLE SD		263.9	B	269.5	B	533.4	B
47	CALICO ROCK SD		267.6	B	265.5	B	533.1	B
48	BEEBE SD		263.7	B	268.2	B	531.9	B
49	DEER/MT. JUDEA		263.6	8	268.2	B	531.8	–   B
50	JESSIEVILLE SD		264.1	B	267.7	B	531.8	B
51	SILOAM SPRINGS SD		263.1	B	268.0	B	531.1	B
52	BOONEVILLE SD		263.2	B	267.0	B	530.2	B
53	MCCRORY SD		263.7	B	265.3	B	529.0	B
54	OZARK SD		263.6	8	265.2	B	528.8	B
55	SHERIDAN SO		261.7	C	272.5	B	534.2	8-
56	MAMMOTH SPRING SD		261.5	C	271.0	B	532.5	8-
57	KIRBY SO		260.0	C	271.8	B	531.8	8-
56	ROGERS SO		262.1	C	269.2	B	·531.3	8-
59	HUNTSVILLE SD		258.7	C	272.4	B	531.1	8-
60	HILLCRESTSD                                       .		259.9	C	270.8	B	530.7	B-
61	VILONIA SD		263.0	C	267.4	B	530.4	8-
62	CLEVELAND COUNTYDIST.		261.9	C	268.0	B	529.9	8-
63	OUACHITA RIVER SD		258.9	C	270.8	B	529.7	B-
64	JASPER SO		259.3	C	270.0	B	529.3	B-
65	ELKINS SD		257.5	C	271.6	B	529.1	B-
66	NEMO VISTA SD		257.4	C	271.2	B	528.6	B-
67	MENA SD		259.8	C	268.7	B	528.5	8-
-68 69	GRAVETTE SD		262.3	C	266.2	B	528.5	B-
	RIVERVIEW SD		262.4	C	265.9	B	528.3	B-
70	BROOKLAND SD		259.2	C	268.9	B	528.1	B-
.,.. 7-.1-. 72	ALPENA SD		261.8.	C	265.9	B	527.7	8-
	VALLEY SPRINGS SD		259.4	C	268.0	B	527.4	B-
73	PRAIRIE GROVESD                                  ..		260.3	C	266.8	B	527.1	8-
74	RIVERSIDE SD SLOANHENDRIX SD		259.2	C	267.7	B	526.9	B-
75			262.8	C	264.1	B	526.9	B-
-·76	PARIS SD		261.3	C	265.5	B	526.8	B-
77	BARTONLEXA SD		262.8	C	263.9	B	526.7	8-
78	COTTER SD		258.1	C	268.6	B	526.7	B-
79	MOUNTAINBURG SD		259.2	C	267.4	B	526.6	B-
–	Grade B+._E! and B-Averaaes		264.6		270.8		535.3

P_    line, Appendix One

 

	School District Names with	Dlstric:t Language Standard Scores 260.7 261.6 258.4 258.4 254.7 258.7 261.3 258.6 259.8 258.9 260.1 260.3 258.3 256.4 260.0 259.9 256.7 263.1 255.9 255.4 258.3 257.7 255.3 255.5 257.8 257.3 257.9 257.8 256.3 256.8 254.1 256.2 253.0 253.5 255.2 250.1                – 252.5 251.3 261.4	District	DistrictMath	District	Combined	Combined District Grade C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ —C·+ C+ C+ C+ –   C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C
	Combined C+, C or C-Grades		Verbal	Standard	Math	District
No. 1	N Academic Weak” WYNNESD		Grades ”         C	Scores 265.0	Grades B	Standard Scores 525.7
2	FARMINGTON SD		C	263.9	B	525.5
3	ATKINS SD		C	266.8	B	525.2
4	BLACK ROCK SD		C	266.8	B	525.2
5 6	DOVER SD MAGAZINE SD		C C	270.4 266.2	B B	525.1 524.9
7 8 9	DIERKSSD GENTRY SD FORT SMITHSD		C C C	263.5 266.1 264.7	B B B	524.8 524.7 524.5
10	GLEN ROSE SD		C	265.6	B	524.5
11	SPRINGDALE SD		C	2.64.3	8	524.4
12	BISMARCK SD		C	264.0	B	524.3
13 14	RECTORSD CLINTONSD		C C	265.7 267.2	B B	524.0 523.6              .
15	SOLITHSIDE SD		C	263.5	B	523.5
16	COUNTY LINE SD		C	263.3	B	523.2
17	VANBUREN SD		C	266.5	B	523.2
18	FOREMAN SD		B	259.9	C	523.0
19	HIGHLAND SD		C	267.1	B	523.0
20	PANGBURN SD		C	267.6	8	523.0
21	VIOLA SD		C	264.5	B	522.8
22	MAGNOLIA SD		C	264.9	B	5.22.6
23	OZARK MOUNTAIN		C	266.9	B	522.2
24	STAR CITYSD		C	266.4	B	521.9
25	ALMA SD		C	264.0	B	521.8
26	PIGGOTT SD		C	264.4	B	521.7
27	GUYPERKINS SD		C	263.6	B	521.5
28	FOUKE SD		C	263.4	B	521.2
29	PERRYVILLE SD					521.1
			C	264.8	B
30	CAVE CITY SD		C	264.2	B	521.0
31	SEARCY COUNTYSDtMarshalll		C	266.1	8	520.2
32	DEQUEEN SD		C	263.8	B	520.0
33 34	WESTSIDE CONS SD BAY SD		C C	266.2 265.5	8 B	519.2 519.0
35	YELLVILLESUMMIT SD		C	263.6	B	518.8
36 37	DANVILLESD LEADHILL SD					518.4 516.8
			C C	268.3 264.3	B B
38 39	GREEN FOREST SD CEDAR RIDGE		C C	263.8 262.8	B C	515.1 52-4.2

 

 

40	OMAHA SD	261.9		C	261.1	C	523.0	C
41	MAGNET COVE SD	259.0		C	263.0	C	522.0	C
-42 43	SOUTH COmYAY CO SD	261.0		C	260.1	C	521.1	C
	SPRING HILL SO	261.7		C	258.3	C	520.0	C
44	MOUNTIDASD	256.6    .		C	263.1	C	519.7	C
45	TWIN RIVERS	256.7		C	261.4	C	518.1	C
46	MAYFLOWER SD	257.9		C	260.1	C	518.0	C
47	CARLISLE SD	2549		C	262.8	C	517.7	C
48	PARAGOULD SD	256.1		C	261.0	C	517.1	C
49	MOUNTAIN PINE SD	256.2		C	260.5	C	516.7	C
5(}	CROSSETT SD	256.3		C	260.1	C	516.4	C
·51	HOXIE SD	255.7		C	260.6	C	516.3	C
52	MULBERRY SD	257.7		C	256.3	C	516.0	C
53	WESTSIDE SD	255.5		C	2604	C	515.9	C
54	LOCKESBURG SD	255.1.		C	260.1	C	515.2	C
55	BRINKLEY SD	–   259.2		C	255.9	C	515.1	C
56	BRADFORD SD	255.2		C	259.6	C	514.8	C
57	LAVACA SD	252.6		C	262.1	C	514.7	C
58	LONOKE SD	256.5		C	258.2	C	514.7	C
59	IZARD COUNTY CONSSO	253.2		C	261.4	C	514.6	C
60	BEARDEN SD	258.7		C	255.7	C	514.4	C
61	MARKED TREE SO	255.0		C	259.0	C	514.0	C
62	QUITMAN SO	256.1		C	257.9	C	514.0	C
63	HARMONY GROVECamden SO	254.3		C	259.6	C	513.9	C
64	WATSON CHAPEL SD	260.7		C	253.2	C	513.9	C
65	BUFFALO ISCENTRALSD	253.8		C	260.0	C	513.8	C
66	WESTFORKSO	257.2		C	256.6	C	513.8	C
67	HECTOR SD	252.1		C	281.3	C	513.4	C
68	WOODLAWNSD                                      –	256.5		C	256.7	C	513.2	C
69	HOT SPRINGS SD	253.3		C	259.4	C	512.7	C
70	MIDLAND SD	256.9		C	255.8	C	512.7	C
71	SO MISSISSIPPI CO SD	253.1		C	258.9	C	512.0	C
72	EAST END SD	253.2		C	257.8	C	511.0	C
73	GREENLAND SD	251.1		C	259.9	C	511.0	C
74	MARION SD	250.6		C	259.8	C	510.4	C
75	JUNCTION CITY SD	251.5		C	2588	C	510.3	C
76	EAST POINSETT SD	–	250.3	C	259.6	C	509.9	C
n	MONTICELLO SD		254.0	C	255.5	C	509.5	C
78	ELDORADO SO	252.2		··-C- C	256.7	C	508.9	C
79	PULASKI COUNTY SD	255.9			252.9	C	508.8	C
80	WEINER SD	253.6		C	255.2	C	508.8	C
81	CENTERPOINT SD	253.6		C	255.1	C	508.7	C

 

 

82 TWO RIVERS 250.6 C 257.7 C 508.5 C 83 WICKES SD 253.8 C 254.4 C 508.2 C 84 TRUMANN SD 253.1 C 255.1 C 508.2 C 85 CUTTER MRNGSTAR SD 252.3 C 255.8 C 508.1 C — 86 STUTTGART SD 250.6 C 256.8 C 507.4 C 87 MURFREESBOROSD 256.4 C 250.0 C 506.4 C 88 HAMBURGSD                   – 250.6 C 255.7 C 506.3 C 89 PRESCOTT SD 251.4 C 254.0 C 505.4 C 90 SHIRLEY SD 253.1 C 251.8 C 504.9 C 91 ROSEBUD SD 248.4 D 262.2 C 510.6     • C- 92 CONCORD SD 249.8 —  D •      260.5 C 510.3 C- 93 HACKETT SD 247.2 D 260.9 C 508.1 C- 94 HAMPTON SD 249.9 0 257.7 C 507.6 C- 95 LINCOLN SD 247.8 D 259.7 C 507.5            I             C- 96 NORPHLET SD 249.5 D 255.8 C 505.3 C- 97 NEWPORT SD 249.6 D 2555 C 505.1 C- 98 WESTSIDE SD 246.0 D 259.1 C 505.1 C- 99 CORNING SO 245.7 D 259.2 C 504.9 c- 100 WALDRON SD 248.9 D 256.0 C 504.9 C- 101 GURDON SD 246.6 D I            258.1 C 504.7 C- 102 GOSNELL SD 247.9 D 256.7 C 504.6 C- 103 DEWITT SD 249.7 D 254.5 C 504.2 C- 104 BRADLEY SD 248.1 D 256.0 -C C 504.1 C- 105 ASHDOWN SD 245.5 D 255.8 501.3 C- 106 CAMDENFAIRVIEWSD 248.2 D 252.3 C 500.5 C- 107 MALVERN SD 246.0 D 254.4 C 500.4 C- 108 LlffiE ROCK SD 251.1 242.8 C 248.9 -D 500.0 C- 109 HARTFORD SD D 256.9 C 499.7 C- 110 HARRISBURG SD 249..5 D 250.2 C 499.7 c-   Grade C+. C and C-Averaaes 254.5   260.3   514.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page Six, Appe- OM

 

No.	School DistrictNameswith Combined D+ Grade “AcademicAlert”	District Language Standard Scores	DistrictVerbal Grades	DistrictMath Standard Scores	District Math Grades	Combined •· District StandardScorea	Combined District Grade
1	WONDERVIEWSD	249.1	D	250.3	C	499.4	D+
2	NASHVILLESD	246.5	—   D	252.7	C	499.2	D+
3	NEVADA SD	245.0	D	253.9	C	498.9	D+
4	PINE BLUFF SD	250.5	C	248.2	D	498.7	D+
5	HORATIO SD	243.9	D	254.7	C	498.6	D+
6	DECATUR SD	·-243.2	D	255.1	C	498.3	D+
7	DES ARC SD	246.0	D	252.1	C-	498.1	D+
8	WESTERNYELL CO SD	245.4	D	251.8	C	497.2	D+
9	BAUXITE SD	245.6	D	251.4	C	497.0	D+
10	DUMAS SD	244.7	D	250.3	C	495.0	D+
11	DELIGHT SD	242.6	D	251.8	C	494.4	D+
	Grade D+Averanes	245.7		252.0		_,.T

 

Page Se-ttn, Appendb<One

 

No.	School District Hamnwith Combined D andD- Grades # Academic Distress”	District Language Standard Scores	District Verbal Grades	DistrictMath Standard Scores	District MathGrades	CombinedDistrictStandard Scorea	Combined District Grade
1	MANILA SD	249.3	D	247.3	D	496.6	D
–	WARREN SD	248.1	D	246.6	D	494-.9	D
	MCGEHEE SD	246.1	D	247.9	D	494.0	D
4	DREW CENTRAL SD	244.2	D	249.5	D	493.7	D
5	STRONG SD	244.9	D	248.5	D	493.4	D
6	FORDYCE SD	248.5	D	244.8	D	493.3	D
7	LAFAYETTESD                                        ..	240.2	F	253.1	C	493.3	D
8	TEXARKANA SD	243.0	D	248.2	D	491.2	D
9	CROSS COUNTY SD	234.6	F	255.8	C	490.4	D
10	NORTH LITTLE ROCK SD	243.8	D	248.5	D	490.3	D
11	WEST MEMPHIS SD	242.4	D	246.7	D	489.1	D
12	HERMITAGE SD	243.5	D	245.5	D	489.0	D
13	CLARENDON SO	242.4	D	246.0	D	488.4	D
14	ENGLAND SD	241.7	D	246.2	D     .	487.9	D
15	SMACKOVER SD	241.2	F	248.9	.   D	488.1	D-
16	ALTHEIMER UNIFIED SD	-239.8	.        F	246.6	D	486.4	D-
17	AUGUSTA SD	239.5	F	245.9	D	485.4	D-
18	BLEVINS SD	239.2	F	248.1	D	485.3	D-
19	MARVELL SD	244.5	D	239.7.	F	484.2	D-
20	PALESTINEWHEATLEYSD	235.7	F	248.1	D	483.8	D-
21	OSCEOLA SD	239.5	F	241.9	D	481.4	D-
22	STEPHENS SD	237.1	F	244.3	D	481.4	D-
23	LAKESIDE SD – LakeVlllaae	242.2	D	237.9	F	480.1	D-
24	HUGHES SD	238.1	F	240.6	D	478.7	D-
	Grade D+ Averaaea	242.1		246.3		488.3

Page Elg!, Appendix One

 

No.	School DistrictNames with Combined F Grade “Academic Distress”	, District Language StandardScores	District Verbal Grades	DistrictMath Standard Scorea	District Math Grades	Combined DistrictStandardScores	Combined District Grade
1	HOPE SD	238.8	F	240.3	F	-4-7·9-.1 477.3	.      F
2	LEE COUNTY SD	240.2	F	237.1	F		F
3	FORREST CITY SD	237.0	F	240.2	F	477.2	F
4	BLYTHEVILLE SD	241.2	F	235.1	F	-4-76-.3 471.4	F
5	HELENA/WHELENASD	238.5	F	232.9	F		F
6	DERMOTT SD	233.5	F	235.1	F	468.6	F
7	DOUARWAYSD	232.8	F	235.4	F	468.2	F
B	TURRELL SD	232.9	F	235.0	F	467.9	F
9	MINERAL SPRINGSSO	229.9	F	236.7	F	466.6	F
10	EARLE SD	232.6	F	227.3	F	459.9	F
11	EUDORA SD	229.9	F	227.2	F	457.1	F
12	ELAINE SD	222.5	F	230.0	F	452.5	F
13	WALDO SD Grade FAve.      s	210.9 232.4	F	226.9 233.8	F	437.8 466.1	F

 

	District Language StandardScores	DistrictMathStandard Score	DistrictCombined. Score
StateAvera.es	256.1	281.S	517.7

Appendix One: Modified

Analyals of 2008 lo-       Test of Basic lkUI Standard lconts

for Grading Arkansas’ 251 Public SchCN>I Districts

Bued onNinth Grades ITBS Standard ac-

And • Modified Standard N.onnal Bell Carve Shape Dlatrlbutlon

Modified Grade Proportion ProbablUtles Relying on Nonnal DistributionPropertl” and their Associated z Values

 

 

90 to 100= A

Greater than +1.282

85 to 89.9 =B

Greater than +.385

20to64.9 • C

Greater than-0.841

5 to 19.9″‘ D

Greater than-1.645

Oto4.9• F

l.ess than-1.646

 

National Lan uaae and Math Standard ScoreMeans	259.0
Lanauaae Standard Score StandardDeviation	10.735
Math Standard Score Standard Deviation	11.207

 

Lan             Break “SS” Values                         Math Break “SS” Values

Greater thanor Mual to”A”	272.8		Greater thanor aaual to”A”	273.4
Greater than or eaual to”B”      • 283.1 to 272.7			Greater thanor eaual to”B”	283.3 to273.3                       .
Greater thanor eaual to”C”	250.0 to263.0		Greater thanor aaual to”C”	249.6 to 283.2
Greater thanor eaual to”D”	241.3 to249.9		Greater thanor eaual to”D”	240.6 to 249.5
Less thaneaualto “F”	241.3		Len  thaneaual to “f”	240.6

 

 

 

 

More than or equal to for A- for A andB grades1 or otherwise B+                  546.2 Morethan or equal-t-ofor B- for B andC grades, or otherwise C+ I       526.4 More than or equal to for C- for C andD grad••  or otherwiseD+ I       499.8

Combined SS Lan ua e and Math Score Breaks for+ or- Grade Determinations

 

 

 

 

• /TBS Scores were available at theWeb Site for the Arl<ansasDeparlment of 8:/ucation.

 

 

PageTan,Appendix One

 

Appendix Two: NotModified

Analysis of 2006 IowaTest of Basic SkillStandard Scores forGrading Arkansas’251 Public SchoolDistricts

Based on NinthGrades ITBS StandardScores

And a Standard (not moclffled) Normal Bell Curve ShapeDistribution

 

No.	SchoolDistrictNameswith Combined A orA- Grades “AcademicSuccess”	District language StandardScores	District LanguageGrades	DlatrtctMath Standard Scores	District Math Grades	CombinedDistrict  StandardScores	Combined Dlstrtct Grade
1	HAZEN SD	280.0	A	284,8	A	564.8	A
2	VALLEY VIEWSD	276.9	A	284.9	A	561.8	A
3	BENTONVILLESD	279.1	A	282.1	A	561.2	A
4	DEVALLSBLUFF SD	283.4	A	274.4	A	557.8	A
5	OUACHITA SD	273.4	A	283.2	A	556.6	A
6	ARMORELSD	2TT.3	A	279.0	A	,556.3	A
7	LAKESIDE SO- Hot  nos	277.1	A	276.8	A	553.9	A
8	CONWAY SD	273.2	A	280.6	A	553.8	A
9	MAYNARD SD	273.1	A	276.4	A	549.5	A
10	FAYETTEVILLESD	274.6	A	274.4	A	549.0	A
11	GREENWOODSD	273.1	A	274.8	A	547.9	A
12	EUREKASPRINGS SD	275.5	A	272.9	B	548.4	A-
13	FLIPPIN SD	271.9	B	276.1	A	548.0	A-
14	NETTLETONSD	269.9	B	276.6	A	546.5	A-
	Grade A and A•Averages	275.6		278.4		55′.0

 PageOne, Appendix T-

 

No. School District Names with Combined B+, B or B•Grades “Academic Comoetence” District Language Standard Scores District Language Grades DistrictMath Standard Scores District Math Grades CombinedDistrict  Standard Scores C9fllbinedDistrict Grade 1 LAKE HAMILTONSD 271.5 B 274.6 A 546.1 B+ 2 MOUNTAIN VIEW SD 269.2 B 276.8 A 546.0 B+ 3 MOUNTAIN HOME SD 270.4 B 275.4 A 545.8 B+ 4 SCRANTON SD 269.8 B 275.9 A 545.7 B+ 5 CUSHMAN SD 269.8 B 275.4 A 545.2 B+ 6 MELBOURNE SD 273.3 A 271.9 B 545.2 B+ 7 CLARKSVILLE SD 267.1 B 277.4 A 544.5 B+ 6 DARDANELLE SD •        266.7 B      . 277.2 A 543.9 B+ 9 BERGMAN SD 267.5 B 276.3 A 543.8 B+ 10 GREENBRIER SD 267.6 B 275.0 A 542.8 B+ 11 WHITE HALL SD 269.1 B 273.6 A 542.7 B+ 12 BRYANT SD 266.9 B 274.8 A     . 541.7 8-t- 13 LAMAR SD 267.1 B 2746 A 541.7 B+ 14 FOUNTAIN LAKE SD 266.7 B 274.8 A 541.5 B+ 15 PEARIOGESD 265.7 B 275.1 A 540.8 B+ 16 VAN COVE SD 266.1 B 274.3 •         A 54-0.4 B+ 17 NORFORK SD 265.2 B 274.7 A 539.9 B+ 18 EMERSON-TAYLOR 271.0 B 270.8 B 541.8 B 19 MANSFIELD SD 268.3 B 272.5 B 540.8 B 20 MT VERNONENOLA SD 268.1 B 272.7 B 540.8 B 21 SALEM SD 262.2 C 278.6 A 540.8 B >-2–2 23 CHARLESTON SD 264.5 C 276.1 A 540.6 B PARKERS CHAPEL SD 272.1 B 267.8 B 539.9 B 24 SEARCY SD 266.5 B 273.1 B 539.6 B 25 GREENE CO TECH SD 267.5 B 271.4 B 538.9 B 26 >–·- 2 CEDARVILLESD 7·CADDOHILLS♦- SD 268.7 B 270.1 B 538.8 B 261.9 C 276.8 A 538.7 B 28 BERRYVILLE SD 267.7 B 270.8 B 538.5 B 29 HARRISON SD 267.2 B 271.3 B 538.5 B 30 BATESVILLE SD 267.6 B 269.9 B 537.5 B 31 SOUTH SIDE SD BeeBranch 267.0 B 270.3 B 537.3 B 32 ARKADELPHIA SD 268.5 B 268.7 B 537.2 B 33 CABOT SD 265.1 8 271.9 — B A   537.0 8 34 BENTON SD 261.9 ·c 275.0   536.9 B 35 WALNUT RIDGE SD 265.3 B 270.8 B 536.1 B 36 JONESBORO SO 264.8 B 271.0 B 535.8 B 37 POTTSVILLE SD 265.5 B 269.6 B 535.1 B 38 JACKSON COUNTY SD 267.5 B 267.3 B 534.8 — B 39 BALD KNOB SD 265.0 B 269.4 B 534.4 B

 

40	WHITE CO CENTRAL SD		267.1	B	266.9	B	534.0	B’
41	HEBER SPRINGS SD		264.7	B	269.2	B	533.9	B.
42	CALICO ROCK SD		267.6	B	265.5	B	533.1	B-
43	POYEN SD		263.2	C	272.0	B	535.2	B-
44	GENOA CENTRAL SD		263.5	C	270.9	B	534.4	B-
45	SHERIDAN SD		261.7	C	272.5	B	534.2	B–
48	HARMONY GROVE Benton SD		263.6	C	270.3	B	533.9	B-
47	POCAHONTAS SD		263.6	C	270.2	B	533.8	B-
48	RUSSELLVILLE SD		263.9	C	269.5	B	533.4	B·
49	MAMMOTH SPRINGSD                                               .		261.5	C	271.0	8	532.5	B-
50	BEEBE SD       .		263.7	C	268.2	B	531.9	8-
51	DEER/MT. JUDEA		263.6	C	268.2	B	531.8	B-    —
52	JESSIEVILLE SD		264.1	C	267.7	B	531.8	B-
53	KIRBY SD		260.0	C	271.8	B	531.8	B-
54	ROGERS SD		262.1	C	269.2	B	531.3	8-
55	SILOAM SPR-IN-GS SD 61-iUNTSVILLE SD		263.1	C	268.0	B	531.1	B–
5			258.7	C	272.4	B	531.1	B-
57	HILLCREST SD		259.9	C	270.8	B	530.7	B–
58	VILONIA SD		263.0	C	267.4	B	530.4	B. – B–
59	BOONEVILLE SD		263.2	C	. 267.0	8	530.2
60	CLEVELAND COUNTY DIST.		261.9	C	268.0	B	529.9	8-
61	OUACHITA RIVER SD		258.9	C	270.8	B	529.7	B-
	Grade B+, B & B-Averaaes		265.7		‘271.8		537.5

Pagellvw, Appendix Two

 

No. School DistrictNames wi1h Combined C+, Cor C- Grades “AcademicWeak” District Language StandardScores District Verbal Grades District Math Standard Sconis District Math Grades Combined District StandardScores Combined District Grade :    1 JASPER SD 259.3 C 270.0 8 529.3 C+ 2 ELKINS SD 257.5 C 271.6 B 529.1 C+ •         3 MCCRORY SD 263.7 C 265.3 8 529.0 C+ 4 OZARK SD 263.6 C 265.2 B 528.8 C+ 5 NEMO VISTA SD 257.4 C 271.2 8 528.6 C+ 6 MENA SD 259.8 C 268.7 B 528.5 C+ 7 GRAVETTE SD 262.3 C 266.2 B 528.5 C+ 8 RIVERVIEW SD 262.4 C 265.9 8 528.3 C+ 9 BROOKLAND SD 259.2 C 268.9 8 528.1 C+ 10 ALPENA SD 261.8 C 265.9 8 527.7 C+ 11 VALLEYSPRINGS SD 259.4 C 268.0 8 527.4 C+ 12 PRAIRIE GROVESD 260.3 C 266.8 8 527.1 C+ 13 RIVERSIDE SD 259.2 C 267.7 8 526.9 C+ . 14 PARIS SD 261.3 C 265.5 8 526.8 C+ 15 COTTER SD 258.1 C 268.6 8 526.7 C+ 16 MOUNTAINBURGSD 259.2 C 267.4       . 8 526.6 C+     ·- 17 WYNNE SD 260.7 C 265.0 B 525.7 C+ 18 ATKINS SD 258.4 C 266.8 B 525.2 C+ 19 BLACK ROCK SD 258.4 C 266.8 B 525.2 C+ 20 DOVER SD 254.7 C 270.4 8 525.1 C+ 21 MAGAZINE SD 258.7 C 266.2 8 524.9 C+ 22 GENTRY SD 258.6 C 266.1 8 524.7 C+ 23 GLEN ROSE SD 258.9 C 265.6 B 524.5 C+ 24 RECTOR SD 258.3 .        C 265.7 B 524.0 C+ 25 CLINTON SD 256.4 C 267.2 B 523.6 C+ 26 VAN BUREN SD 256.7 C 266.5 B 523.2 ·-·- C+ 27 HIGHLAND SO 255.9 C 267.1 B 523.0 C+ 28 PANGBURN SD 255.4 C 267.6 8 523.0 C+ 29 MAGNOLIA SD 257.7 –   C C 264.9 266.9 B B 522.6 522.2 C+ C+ 30 OZARKMOUNTAIN 255.3 31 STAR CITY SD 255.5 C 266.4 8 521.9 C+ 32 SEARCYCOUNTYSD(Marshall\ 254.1            I        C 266.1 8 520.2 C+ 33 WESTSIDECONS SD 253.0 C 266.2 B 519.2 C+ 34 BAY SD 253.5 C 265.5 B 519.0 C+ 35 SLOAN HENDRIXSD 262.8 C 264.1 C 526.9 C 36 BARTONLEXASD 262.8   C- C- C 263.9 C 526.7 C 37 FARMINGTONSD 261.6   263.9 C 525.5 C 38 DIERKS SD 261.3   263.5 C 524.8 C 39 FORT SMITH SD 259.8 C 264.7 C 524.5 C

 

 

40 SPRINGDALE SD 260.1 C 264.3 C 524.4 C 41 BISMARCK SD 260.3 C 264.0 C 524.3 C 42 CEDAR RIDGE 261.4 C 262.8 C 524.2 C 43 SOUTHSIDE SD 260.0 C 263.5 C 523.5 C 44 COUNTY LINE SD 259.9 C 263.3 C 523.2 C 45 OMAHA SD 261.9 C 261.1 C 523.0 C 46 FOREMAN SD 263.1 C 259.9 C 523.0 C 47 VIOLA SD 258.3 C 264.5 C 522.8 C 48 MAGNET COVESD 259.0 C 263.0 C 522.0 C 49 ALMA SD         . 257.8 C 264.0 C 521.8 C 50 PIGGOTT SD 257.3 C 264.4 C 521.7 C 51 GUYPERKINS SD 257.9 C 263.6 C 521.5 C 52 FOUKE SD 257.8 C 263.4 C 521.2 C 52 PERRYVILLE SD 256.3 C 264.8 C 521.1 C 54 SOUTH CONWAYCO SD 261.0 C 260.1 C 521.1 C 55 CAVE CITY SD 256.8 C 264.2 C 521.0 C 56 DEQUEEN SD 256.2 C 263.8 C 520.0 C 57 SPRING HILL SD 261.7 C 258.3 C 520.0 C 58. MOUNTIDASD 256.6 C 263.1 •           C 519.7 C ..59 YELLVILLESUMMITSD 255.2 C 263.6 C 518.8 C 60 DANVILLE SD 250.1 D 268.3 B 518.4 C 61 lWIN RIVERS 256.7 C 261.4 C 518.1 C 62 MAYFLOWER SD 257.9 C 260.1 C 518.0 C 63 CARLISLE SD 254.9 C 262.8 C 517.7 C . 64 PARAGOULD SD 256.1 C 261.0 C 517.1 C 65 MOUNTAIN PINESD 256.2 C 260.5 C 516.7 C 66 CROSSETT SD 256.3 C 260.1 C 516.4 C 67 HOXIE SD 255.7 C 260.6 C 516.3 C 68 MULBERRY SD 257.7 C 258.3 C 516.0 C 69 WESTSIDE SD 255.5 C 260.4 C 515.9 C 70 LOCKESBURG SD 255.1 C 260.1 C 515.2 C 71 BRINKLEY SD 259.2 C 255.9 C 515.1 C 72 BRADFORD SD 255.2 C 259.6 C 514.8 C 73 LONOKE SD     . 256.5 C 258.2 C 514.7 C 74 BEARDEN SD 258.7 C 255.7 C 514.4 ·c 75 MARKED TREE SD 255.0 C 259.0 C 514.0 C 76 QUITMAN SD 256.1 C 257.9 C 514.0 C 77 HARMONY GROVECamden SD 254.3 C 259.6 C 513.9 C 78 WATSON CHAPELSD 260.7 C 253.2 C 513.9 C 79 BUFFALO ISCENTRAL SD 253.8 C – 260.0 C 513.8 C 80 WEST FORK SD 257.2 C 256.6 C 513.8 C 81 WOODLAWN SD 256.5 C 256.7 C 513.2 C

 

82	MIDLAND SD	256.9	C	255.8	C	512.7		C
83	MONTICELLOSD	254.0	C	255.5	C	509.5		C
84	WEINER SD	253.6	C	255.2	C	508.8		C
85	CENTERPOINTSD	253.6	C	255.1	C	508.7		C
86	WICKES SD	253.8	C	254.4	C	508.2		C
-87	LEADHILL SD	252.5	D	264.3	C	516.8		C-
88	GREENFOREST SD	251.3	D	263.8	C	515.1		C-
89	LAVACA SD	252.6	D	262.1	C	514.7		C-
90	IZARDCOUNTYCONS SD	253.2	D	261.4	C	514.6		C-
91	HECTORSD       .	252.1    •	D	261.3	C	513.4 512.7		C-
92	HOT SPRINGSSD	253.3	D	259.4	C			C-
93	SOMISSISSIPPICO SD	253.1	D	258.9	C	512.0		C-
94	EAST END SD	253.2	D	257.8	C	511.0		C-
95	GREENLANDSO	251.1	D	259,9	C	511.0		C-
96	ROSE BUD SO	248.4	0	262.2	C	510.6		C-
97	MARION SD	250.6	0	259.8	C	510.4		C·
98	CONCORD SD	249.8	D	260.5	C	510.3		C-
99	JUNCTIONCITY SD	251.5	.        0	258.8	C	510,3		C·
100	EASTPOINSETT SD	250.3	D	259,6	C	509,9		C-
101	ELDORADOSD	252.2	D	256.7	C	508.9		C-
102	PULASKICOUNTY SD.	255.9	C	252.9	D	508,8		C-
103	TWORIVERS	250.8	D	257.7	C	508.5		C-
104	TRUMANN SD	253.1	D	255.1	C	508.2		C-
105	CUTTER MRNGSTAR SD	252.3	D	255.8	C	508.1		C-
106	HACKETT SD	247.2	D	260.9	C	508.1		C-
107	HAMPTON SD	249.9	D	257.7	C	507.6		C-
108	LINCOLN SD	247.8	D	259.7	C	507.5               .		C-
109	STUTTGARTSD	250.6	D	256.6	C	507.4		–C-
110	PRESCOTT SD	251.4	D	254.0	C	505,4		C-
111	CORNING SD	245.7	D	259.2	C	504.9		C-
	Grade C+, CandC-Avl!_raaes	266.4		262.3		518.7

 

PageSb(. Appendix Two

 

No.	School DistrictNames with Combined D+Grade “AcademicAlert”		DistrictLanguageStandard Scores	District •          V11rbal Grades	DistrictMath Standard Scores	District. Math Grades	Combined DistrictStandard Scores	Combined District Grade
1	HAMBURG SD		250.6	D	255.7	C	506.3	D+
2	MURFREESBOROSD		256.4	C	250.0	D	506.4	-D+ D+
3	NORPHLET SO		249.5	D	255.8	C	505.3
4	NEWPORT SD		249.6	D	255.5	C	505.1	D+
5	WESTSIDE SD		246.0	D	259.1	C	505.1	D+
6	WALDRON SD		248.9	D	256.0	_C.,,.	504.9	O+
7			246.6	·D			504.7	D+
	GURDONSD_				258.1	C
B		·-	247.9	D	256.7	C	504.6	D+
	GOSNELLSD
9	DEWITTSD		249.7	D	254.5	C	504.2	D+
10	BRADLEY SO		248.1	D	256.0	C	504.1	D+
11	ASHDOWN SD		245.5	D	255.8	C	501.3	D+
12	MALVERN SO		246.0	D	254.4	C	500.4	D+
	Grade D+ Averaaes		248.7		25 .6		504.4

• Pave Seven, Appe,,db< Two

 

No. School District Namn with Combined Dand D- Grade$ “Academic Distress” District Language StandardScores District Verbal Grades DistrictMath Standard Scores District Math Grades • Combined District StandardSeOl’ff Combined District Grade 1 SHIRLEY SD 253.1 D 251.8 D 504.9 D 2 CAMOENFAIRVIEW SD 248.2 D 252.3 D 500.5 D 3 LITTLE ROCK SD 251.1 D 248.9 D 500.0 D 4 HARTFORD SD 242.8 F 256.9 C 499.7 D 5 HARRISBURG SD 249.5 D 250.2 D 499.7 D 6 WONDERVIEW SO 249.1 D 250.3 D 499.4 D 7 NASHVILLE SD 246.5 D 252.7 D 499.2 D 8 NEVADA SD 245.0 F 253.9 C 498.9 .D 9 PINE BLUFF SD 2505 D 248.2 D 498.7 D 10 HORATIO SO 243.9 F 254.7 C 498.6 D 11 DECATUR SD 243.2 F 255.1 C 498.3 D 12 DES ARC SD 246.0 D 252.1 D 498.1 D 13 WESTERN YELL CO§b        – 245.4 D 251.8 D 497.2 D 14 BAUXITE SD 245.6 D 251.4 D 497.0 D 15 MANILA SD 249.3 D 247.3 D 496.6 D 16 WARREN SD 248.1 D 246.8 D 494.9 D 17 MCGEHEE SD 246.1 D 247.9 D 494.0 D 18 FORDYCE SD 248.5 D 244.8 D 493.3 D 19 LAFAYETTE SD 240.2 F 253.1 C 493.3 D 20 CROSS COUNTY SD 234.6 F 255.8 C 490.4 D 21 DUMAS SD 244.7 F 250.3 D 495.0 0- 22 DELIGHT SD 2426 F 251.8 D 494.4 D- 23 DREW CENTRAL SD 244.2 F 249.5 D 493.7 I).. 24 STRONG SD 244.9 F 248.5 D 493.4 D- 25 TEXARKANA SO 243.0 – F 248,2 D 491.2 D- 26 NORTH LITTLE ROCKSD 243.8…… _. F 246.5 D 490.3 D- 27 VI/EST MEMPHIS SD 242.4 F 246.7 D 489.1 0- 28 HERMITAGE SD 243.5 F 245.5 D 489,0 0- 29 CLARENDON SD 242.4 F 246.0 D 488.4 D- 30 SMACKOVER SD 241,2 F 246.9 D 488.1 D- -31 ENGLAND SD 241.7 F 246.2 D 487.9 D- 32 ALTHEIMER UNIFIED SD 239.8 F 246.6 D 486.4 D- 33 AUGUSTA SD 239.5 F 245.9 D 485.4 D- 34 BLEVINS SD 239.2 F F 246.1 D 485.3 D- 35 PALESTINEWHEATLEYSD 235.7 248.1 D 483.8 0-   Grade D and D-Avaraaea 244.4   249.7   ,494.1

 

No.	SchoolDistrictName• with Combined FGrade “AcademicDistress”	District Language StandardScore•	District Verbal Grades	DistrictMath Standard Scorea	District Math Gtades	Combined District StalldlitdScore•	Combined District Grade
1	MARVELLSD	244.5	F	239.7	F	484.2	F
2 3	OSCEOLASD STEPHENSSD	239.5 237.1	F F	241.9 244.3	F F	481.4 481.4	F F

4      LAKESIDE SO – LakeVillaae                    242.2 F   F 480.1 F

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11	DERMOTT SD	233.5	F	235.1	F	468.6
12	DOLLARWAY SD	232.8	F	235.4	F	468.2
,J.L	TURRELL SO	232.9	F	235.0	F	467.9	F
14	MINERALSPRINGS SO	229.9	F	236.7	F	466.6	F

 

	DistrictLanguage Startdard Scores	0-istrictMathStandard Score	DistrictCombined Score
StateAveraaes	256.1	261.5	517.7

 

P-seNI…,Y,-:,

 

Appendix Two: Not Mod!fied

,.           .

Analysls of 2006 Iowa Test of Buie Sklll 5’aftdanl Scores

for Oracll1.t9 Adcanaas• 251 Publlo Sehool Dletrlcts

BMed on Ninth Grades ITBS StandudSc-

And a Modified Standard Normal Bell Curve Shape Distribution

Modified Grade Proportion Probabllltles Relying onNonna! Dlltr1butionProperties and their Associated z Values

 

 

90to100 • A

Greater than +1.282

70 to 89.9,. B

Greeter than+.524

30 to 89.11• C

Greater than-0.524

10to 29.9 =D

Greater than-1.282

0 to 9.9 • F

Leu than -1.282

 

 

 

National Langua e and Math Standard ScoreMeans	259.0
Lanauaae Standard Score StandardDeviation	10.735
Math Standard Score Standard Deviation	11.207

 

 

 

Greater than or eaual to”A” 272.8   Greater than or eaual to “A”        ,•273.4 Greater than or eauaito“B” 264.6 to272.7   Greater than or Anualto “8” 264.9 to 273.3 Greater than or eaual to”C” 253.4 to264.5   Greater than or eaual to”C” 253.1 to 264.8 Greater than or eaual to “D” 245.2 to253.3   Greater than or eaualto “D” U4.6to253.0 Less than eaual to “F” 245.2   Less than eaual to “F” 244.6

Language BN     “SS” Values

Math Break “SS” Values

More than or eaual to for A- for A and B aradea, or otherwise B+ 546.2 More than or eaual to for B- for B and C grades. or otherwise C+ 629.5 More than or eaual to for C- for C and D aradea, or otherwise D+ 499.8

Combined SS Language anc!Jlatl’l Sc<>t’e Breaks for + or – Grade Determlnatlon1

• /TBS Scores were available at the Web Site for the ArkansasDepartment of Education.

P-Ton,Appendix Two