Compliance report

LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: April 5, 2004 To: Board of Education From: Through: Karen E. Broadnax, ESL Supervisor Morris L. Holmes, Ed.D. Interim Superintendent Subject: Update on the final report on Compliance Review 06995008 conducted by the Office for Civil Rights. Summary: A review of the districts progress reports was submitted to the Little Rock School District on March 18, 2004. The review addressed specific actions taken by the Little Rock School District to ensure the provision of equal educational opportunities and services to national origin language-minority students, who are limited English proficient. The report received by the district provided specific details in each on of the compliance areas that OCR has determined that the Little Rock School District has satisfactorily fulfilled the terms specified in the Commitment to Resolve. Objective: To provide an update on the progress to date that the Little Rock School District has made in meeting the terms of the Commitment to Resolve Compliance Review 06995008. Expected Outcomes: N/A Population: National origin language-minority students, who are limited English proficient. ESL Report to Board April 22, 2004 Page 2 Budget Amount/Budget Source: ESL Department Manager: Karen E. Broadnax, Supervisor, ESL Department Long range: Continuation of the Little Rock School District ESL Program Other Agencies Involved: N/A Expectations of District: Continuation of the services provided to_national origin language-minority students, who are limited English proficient, to ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 42 U.S.C. 2000d, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), 29 U.S.C. 794, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), 42 U.S.C. 12131-12161, and their implementing regulations. Needed Staff: N/A Comments: None Recommendation: We request that the Board of Education accept this report.XT OF u 2, ^TtSO^^ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS SOUTHERN DIVISION, DALLAS OFFICE mar 1 8 200^ Ref: 06995008 Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Dr. Holmes: The U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Southern Division, Dallas Office has completed a review of the progress reports, which were submitted to OCR by the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Little Rock, Arkansas, to address the specific actions taken by the LRSD to ensure the provision of equal educational opporti^ties and services to national origin language-minority students who are limited English proficient (LEP). The LRSD voluntarily submitted a Commitment to Resolve (CTR), which was, acceped by OCR on September 30, 1999, to ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil ^ts Act of 1964 ( i e VI) 42 U.S.C. 2000d, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), 29 U.S.C. 794 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), 42 U.S.C. 12131- 12161, and their implementing regulations. In the progress reports, the LRSD provided OCR with documentation pertinent to the implementation of the CTR. Based on a review of the progress reports md additmnal information gathered during the on-site monitoring visits conducted by OCR on December 10- 11 2002 and March 11-13,2003, OCR has determined that the LRSD has satisfactorily fulfilled the terms specified in the CTR. Provided below, by commitment provision, is an explanation of how OCR reached this determination: Identification of Students With a Primary Home Language Other Than English The progress reports revealed that, at the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year the LRSD administered a Home Language Survey (HLS) to all students to identify those students who have a primary (first-learned) or home language (language influence) that is other than Enghs (PHLOTE). In addition, the information revealed that the LRSD directed staff (i.e., principals, counselors, registrars, and secretaries) at every school site and at the Student Assignment Center to secure a completed HLS for all students upon imtial enrollment. Further, the LRSD developed a procedure that allows for other methods of identifying 1999 BRYAN STREET. SUITE 2600. DALLAS. TEXAS 75201-6810 www.ed.gov Our mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation. Page 2 - Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent PHLOTE students based on teacher referral, counselor recommendation, and interviews with parents. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Assessment of PHLOTE Students A review of the progress reports revealed that the LRSD developed and implemented procedures for assessing PHLOTE students in all four English language proficiency areas (i.e., speaking, reading, writing, and comprehension) to determine which students are LEP. The information reviewed revealed that the LRSD assessed and/or reassessed all PHLOTE students by administering an assessment instrument (i.e.. Language Assessment Scales). The information further revealed that the LRSD provided training to all LRSD staff responsible for administering the assessment instrument to ensure proper test administration and interpretation of test scores. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Placement of LEP Students and Ensuring Appropriate Services The progress reports revealed that the LRSD developed and implemented a policy requiring the district to provide alternative language program (ALP) services to LEP students through a research-based English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) program. Information reviewed revealed that PHLOTE students who score at a level 1,2, and 3 on the Language Assessment Scales (LAS) are identified as LEP and are placed in the ESL program after obtaining consent from the parent/guardian of the student. The information showed that PHLOTE students who score at a level 4, and 5 on the LAS are considered fluent in the English language and are identified as non-LEP and, as a result, are placed in the regular education program. A review of information revealed that the Language Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC), which is comprised of at least one or more ESL teachers, a counselor, and a campus administrator, is responsible for making placement decisions. The information revealed that the LRSD provided training to LPAC members as follows: 1) OCR, state, and LRSD laws, policies, and regulations governing LEP programs and services
2) interpretation of language proficiency assessments
3) laws and rules governing confidentiality of records
and 4) procedures for identification, placement, and exiting students from the ALP. The LPAC is responsible for ensuring that the parents of LEP students placed in the ALP receive an explanation of the benefits of the ALP in a language they can understand. The information indicated that the LRSD ensures the delivery of language support services to LEP students whose parents have refused placement in the ALP by providing training to regular education teachers in ESL methodologies and instructional strategies, parental involvement, tutoring, summer school, and by monitoring the academic progress of such students. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements.Page 3 - Dr. Morris Holmes. Interim Superintendent Selected Alternative Language Services Model The progress reports revealed that the LRSD selected a research-based English-as-a-Second- Language (ESL) program to address the affective, linguistic, and cognitive needs of LEP students at all grade levels. The information showed that the goal of the ESL program is to enable LEP students to master English language skills (i.e., reading, wnting, speaking, and listening) and content area concepts and skills so that students are able to participate meaningfully in the regular education program. A review of the progress reports revealed that the LRSD established the same curriculum standards and grade-level/course benchmarks for all students, including LEP students. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Staffing and Staff Development The progress reports revealed that the LRSD developed procedures to ensure that the district has appropriate staff to implement the ALP. The information in the progress reports showed that the LRSD made significant progress with respect to the number of teachers who obtained an ESL endorsement through the Arkansas Department of Educations ESL Endorsement Program. In addition, the information revealed that the LRSD has developed an ESL Training Program to provide continuous training opportunities for all personnel (e.g., principals, regular education, special education, gifted and talented, etc.) responsible for delivering instruction to LEP students. Specifically, the LRSD provides training to staff on how to adapt the instructional strategies, materials, pacing, and assessments for the delivery of instruction to LEP students. Further, the progress reports revealed that the LRSD designed an appraisal instrument to assess the performance of teachers who deliver ALP services to LEP students. OCR reviewed documentation pertaining to the training provided to administrators on the use of the evaluation instnunent and on observation techmques to enable them to identify ESL methodologies. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Materials The LRSD developed procedures to ensure that materials and equipment are appropriate for the implementation of the ALP. The progress report revealed that the LRSD surveyed ALP staff to determine whether there was a need for additional materials and equipment. The information showed that the LRSD provided teachers with materials and equipment, which are appropriate to the curriculum, and comparable in quality, availability, and grade level to the materials provided for the instruction of non-LEP students. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Page 4 - Dr. Morris Holmes. Interim Superintendent Reclassification and Exit The progress reports revealed that the LRSD established and implemented procedures for the exiting, monitoring, and reclassification of LEP students. The information indicated that the criteria employed by the LRSD is based on objective criteria using the LAS test scores in reading, writing, speaking, and comprehension plus other criteria to determine whether students will be able to participate meaningfully in the regular education program. A review of the information showed that a LEP student must score a 3/4 or a 3/5 or at the Fully English Proficient Level on the LAS post-test prior to exiting the ALP. The information revealed that the LPAC monitors the academic progress of LEP students who exit the ALP for a period of two years to ensure academic success in the regular education program. Specifically, the LPAC ensures that exited students are successfully participating in the regular education program by reviewing the following: 1) grades in all core subject areas
2) teacher observations
3) counselor comments
and 4) assessment results. When the LPAC determines that a student needs to re-enter the ESL program, the student is placed back, into the ALP after obtaining approval from the parent of the student. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Parental Notice The LRSD developed procedures for providing notice to the parents of PHLOTE students of school activities in a language they can understand. The progress reports revealed that the schools mainUin a list of all PHLOTE students whose parents are limited English proficient and require communication in another language. OCR reviewed the documents which have been translated by the LRSD, to include but not limited to the following: Home Language Survey, Notice of School Placement, Notice of ESL Program Services, Notice of Testing Exemption, Exit Letter to Parents, K-8 Curriculum Standards and Grade-Level/Course Benchmarks, Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbooks, Summer School Applications, Parent Involvement Conference Notices, and the LRSDs Parent/Student Handbook. In addition, the information showed that bilingual staff at the schools translated newsletters, notices, letters, and flyers into other languages. Further, the LRSD advertises information in local publications in Spanish. The information showed that the LRSD disseminated a list of translators/interpreters to the school sites. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Special Education The progress reports showed that the LRSD revised its policies and procedures pertaining to the process for referring, identifying, evaluating, and placing LEP students with disabilities. The progress reports revealed that ALP staff and Special Education Department staff share information to ensure that LEP students with disabilities receive special education and alternative language services concurrently. A review of the progress reports revealed that thePage 5 - Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent LRSD provided training to special education staff (i.e., speech pathologists, resource teachers, and psychological examiners) in ESL methodologies to ensure the proper delivery of both ALP and special education services. Further, the progress reports revealed that the LRSD provides information to parents in a language they can understand pertaining to their rights and procedural safeguards by utilizing an interpreter or by providing information that has been translated into a language they can understand. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Special Opportunity Programs The progress reports revealed that the LRSD implemented procedures to ensure that LEP students are afforded an equal opportunity to participate in the Gifted and Talented (GT) program at the elementary level and in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses at the secondary level. The information reviewed revealed that the LRSD provided information about the GT program to parents in their native language. In addition, the progress reports revealed that the LRSD staff administered a nonverbal assessment instrument (i.e., Torrance Thinking Creatively) to test LEP students who had been referred for placement in the GT program. The progress reports further revealed that the LRSD provided cultural sensitivity training, training in identifying the characteristics of language minority gifted students, and ESL instructional strategies to LRSD staff. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Program Evaluation and Modification A review of the progress reports revealed that the LRD has adopted procedures to conduct an annual longitudinal performance evaluation of the ALP and make modifications to the ALP based on the results as required by the results of the program evaluation. The information showed that the LRSD evaluated its ALP on an annual basis in which it reviewed the following
1) curriculum service delivery
2) materials and resources
3) staffing and staff development
4) student academic progress
5) longitudinal data comparing LEP students to non-LEP students, and LEP students in the program to LEP students not in the program with respect to academic achievement, attendance, drop-out rate, graduation rate, retention rate, gifted and talented program placement, and specid education program placement of LEP, and students who have exited the ALP, and LEP students not served in the ALP. The information showed that the LRSD made the necessary program modifications and improvements as required by the results of each program evaluation. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Maintenance of Records for LEP Students The progress reports revealed that the LRSD apprised all staff of the importance of maintaining accurate records regarding the implementation of the ALP and documenting actions pertaining to students participating and exiting the ALP. A review of student recordsPage 6 - Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent Maintenance of Records for LEP Students The progress reports revealed that the LRSD apprised all staff of the importance of maintaining accurate records regarding the implementation of the ALP and documenting actions pertaining to students participating and exiting the ALP. A review of student records revealed that the LRSD maintains, at a minimum, the following documentation in student cumulative folders: Home Language Survey, LAS assessment data
commumcations with parents in a language they can understand
placement decisions
report cards
modifications
decisions to exit student
and decisions for students to reenter the ALP. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR andcomplied with the OCR reporting requirements. After analyzing the above information provided by the LRSD, OCR has determined that the LRSD has met all of the commitments as specified in the CTR. Therefore, OCR is closing tiiis compliance review contingent upon the LRSDs continued implementation of the terms delineated in the September 30, 1999. While no further progress reports are required, OCR understands that the LRSD will continue to conduct qualitative and quantitative program evaluations in accordance with its civil rights responsibilities. OCR is available to provide technical assistance to the LRSD and will work with you and LRSD staff to ensure continued compliance with the regulatory requirements imder Title VI, Section 504, and Title IL Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this document and related correspondence and records upon request. In the event that OCR receives such a request, it will seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personally identifiable information which, if released, could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwananted invasion of personal privacy. We appreciate your cooperation and that of your staff, especially the assistance provided by Ms. Karen Broadnax, ESL Supervisor. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. John F. Stephens at 214/880-2464 or Ms. Maria H. Gonzalez at 214/880-4918. Sincerely, Office for Civil Rights Southern Division, Dallas Office C: Ms. Karen E. Broadnax, ESL Supervisor Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURtR ECEIVED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 1 7 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICTS COMPLIANCE REPORT I For its Compliance Report, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This Compliance Report is filed pursuant to paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy contained in this Courts June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. This compliance is documented below, as well as in the eight Quarterly Updates which were filed between December 1, 2004 and September 1, 2006, the evaluations of Compass Learning, Smart/Thrive, Reading Recovery and Year-Round Education which were previously filed, and the evaluations of A+, 21* Century Community Page 1 of 19Case 4
82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 2 of 30 Learning Centers and READ 180 which are filed with this Compliance Report. 3. The progress of LRSDs efforts to comply with the requirement for an eighth step 2 program evaluation, the Pre-K Literacy evaluation, has been shown in LRSDs Quarterly Updates and status reports to the Court. The final evidence of LRSDs compliance with that requirement will be the evaluation itself, which the evaluator, Dr. Ross, expects to have completed on or before November 15,2006. 4. LRSD will separately describe below its compliance with each of the requirements of the Compliance Remedy except those which set out the responsibilities of the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 5. The requirements of paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy are
A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in
(a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations
and (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.
to have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations
and to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. Page 2 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 3 of 30 6. LRSD met the requirements of paragraph A by adding to the PRE team three new professionals who have knowledge and experience in assessment, evaluation, and statistical analysis. The qualifications of the seven people who were employed by PRE as of November 1, 2004 are shown at pages 3 through 5 of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. The resumes of PRE Director Dr. Karen DeJamette and statisticians Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams are found in Appendix A to the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This highly trained team of professionals has the qualifications required by paragraph A of the Comphance Remedy. 7. There have been a few changes in personnel since the first Quarterly Update, but PRE has maintained a highly trained team of professionals. Administrative Assistant Irma Shelton took medical leave in May of 2005. The Administrative Assistant position was eliminated on July 1, 2005. Testing Coordinator Yvette Dillingham left PRE in August, 2005. Dr. Ed Williams temporarily assumed her responsibilities until she was replaced in November 2005 by Arthur Olds. Olds resume can be found in Appendix A to the March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. As reported in the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, Olds sought reassignment to a teaching possession at Dunbar Magnet Middle School on April 14, 2006. Dr. Williams again temporarily assumed the Testing Coordinator Page 3 of 19 ICase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 4 of 30 responsibilities. LRSD posted the Testing Coordinator position in June, 2006 and interviews were scheduled for August, 2006. See September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A new testing coordinator, Danyell Cummings was hired October 1, 2006. Her resume is attached as Exhibit A to this Compliance Report. 8. The current PRE staff has all of the qualifications listed in paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD complied with paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 9. The requirements of paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy are
B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific 2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key 2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-American students. Part of LRSDs proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. I suggest at LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process
then be sure that he approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. 10. LRSD has devised and deeply embedded a comprehensive program Page 4 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 5 of 30 assessment process in accordance with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in developing the comprehensive program assessment process. By the time of the first Quarterly Update on December 1, 2004, PRE and Dr. Ross hadj'developed and shared with ODM and the Joshua Intervenors a program assessment process to be deeply embedded in LRSDs educational operations. } December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 6. The final draft of that process is found at Appendix B of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This final draft was furnished to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors more than a month in advance of its consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004. March 1,2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process has become deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction program. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included the development of school portfolios. School portfolios assemble comprehensive data about classrooms, schools, and districts from disparate sources into data bases that are accessible and informative particularly to teachers and administrators as well as to board members, parents, and other stakeholders. September 1, 2005 Page 5 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 6 of 30 Quarterly Update, p. 3. School portfolios are useful for formative evaluations of student achievement and educational programs. LRSD began implementing school portfolios during the 2005-06 school year. Id. As part of the process of the development and implementation of portfolios, four PRE department members attended an institute for data analysis during the summer of 2005, and a consultant visited LRSD and reviewed its data collection procedures and resources. Id. 12. LRSD has continued to develop the infrastructure to support its comprehensive assessment process. School and district data portfolios are an important part of this infrastructure. These portfolios allow PRE staff as well as others to more easily analyze data and intersect various types of data sets to answer research questions about comprehensive school improvement efforts. December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. During April of 2006, an expert on school portfolios provided professional development for LRSD principals, administrators. and the PRE staff regarding the creation and use of school portfolios. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 13. As of December 1,2005, PRE had identified the data to be included in the district portfolio and had designed a draft district portfolio. Id. District administrators and principals were making use of the portfolio and steps were being taken to allow a more efficient collection of data related to educational Page 6 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 7 of 30 processes. Id. Dr. Catterall used data from LRSDs portfolio in his step 2 evaluation of the Year-Round Education program. March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 14. The development of portfolios is a continual process. As new data becomes available {e.g. new test results) they are added to the data base. The infrastructure is in place, and LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolios. See March 1,2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 15. LRSD has also sought to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process by hiring a consultant, the Janis Group, to help develop a data warehouse. The Janis Group has expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently accessing data. March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. The data warehouse will support frequent updates of the portfolio and allow timely data reports for purposes of planning, research, evaluation and developing policy. Reports can be generated by program, classroom, school, grade, or district-wide. Id. 16. There was some debate within LRSD about whether to purchase an internet-based data warehouse from a company called TetraData or to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse using the Business Objects software and the database already available to LRSD. LRSD decided, with some dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. Page 7 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 8 of 30 Business Objects is state of the art software which can be effectively used in the assessment of academic programs. The capabilities of the Business Objects data warehouse, including updating and reporting student data, are shown in the Business Objects Reporting Tools document attached as Exhibit B to this Compliance Report. 17. The process of developing school and district portfolios, and creating a data warehouse, has revealed the need for LRSD to take steps to insure that the data entered into its database is accurate. The accuracy of the data would be a concern whether the district used the Business Objects system, the TetraData system or some other software system. To improve the accuracy of data reporting within LRSD, LRSD has increased the number of error checking routines in its computer software. LRSD also has a full time training coordinator whose job it is to train school registrars and other LRSD personnel in the proper entry of student data, to work with those people to identify and correct recurring data entry errors, and to generally assure the accuracy and completeness of student data wiin the LRSD database. The accuracy of the data in LRSDs database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. 18. Finally, as another part of embedding the comprehensive program assessment process, PRE has designed feasible, ongoing assessments of the four Page 8 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 9 of 30 programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross subjected to step 2 evaluations last year. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD also plans to have PRE conduct ongoing assessments of the programs currently being evaluated by Drs. Ross and Catterall. 19. LRSD has devised a comprehensive program assessment process as required by paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. That process has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum program. LRSD has complied with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. 20. The requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy are: C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key 2.7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key 2.7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing. Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key 2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of African- American students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross - to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year
and (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary Page 9 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 10 of 30 to prepare those evaluations. 21. In accordance with paragraph C, LRSD hired Dr. Ross to identify the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year, and to prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. 22. Dr. Ross was provided a copy of the Compliance Remedy and he endorsed the first Quarterly Update as representing an accurate portrayal of accomplishments to date and a viable plan for addressing the requirements of the Remedy. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, Appendix C (p. 45). Dr. Ross assumed responsibility for preparing six of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations. Three of those cover the 2004-05 school year and were filed on February 6, 2006. Two others are for the 2005-06 school year and will be filed today. The sixth step 2 evaluation being prepared by Dr. Ross, Pre-K Literacy, has been delayed due to the unavailability of necessary data and is expected to be completed no later than November 15,2006. 23. Two of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations were prepared by Dr. James Catterall. One covered the 2004-05 school year and was filed on February 6, 2006. The other will be filed today. Page 10 of 19Case 4
82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 11 of 30 24. PRE, in collaboration with Dr. Ross, selected Reading Recovery, Smart/Thnve, Compass Learning and Year-Round Education to be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 7-9. Those evaluations have been completed. 25. Dr, Ross initially identified the following four 2.7 programs for step 2 evaluations in the 2005-06 school year: Arkansas A+ School Network
KnowledgePoints
PLATO Learning and Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Development. June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. At the request of the Joshua Intervenors, and with the agreement of Dr. Ross, 2U Century Community Learning Centers was substituted for PLATO Learning as the subject of an evaluation for the 2005- 06 school year. September 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4 and Appendix C, (pp. 19-21). KnowledgePoints was also replaced as the subject of evaluation by the READ 180 program because the supplier of KnowledgePoints withdrew its support of the program in Arkansas. December 1,2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. 26. Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall possess the experience and ability necessary to prepare the eight required step 2 evaluations. Their qualifications are found in Appendix C to the first Quarterly Update (pp. 46-54). They are both familiar with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy and have agreed to prepare their evaluations in accordance with those requirements. LRSD has Page 11 of 19Case 4
82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 12 of 30 complied with the requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, 27. The requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy are: D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations must answer the following essential research question: Has the 2.7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of Afiican-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district? The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person, I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation, PRE must: (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations
(2) work closely with Dr, Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations
and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. 28. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations answers the essential research question of whether the program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of Afiican-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations also answers other important research questions. Each is organized and written so that it can be readily understood by a lay person. In each case, the outside experts and the evaluation teams determined the evaluation design, including the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data necessary to the utility of each Page 12 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 13 of 30 evaluation. 29. PRE has overseen the preparation of all eight step 2 evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and those associated with them, to support their work and provide any and all requested assistance. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp.6-7
March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 4
June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 5-6
September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 6 and Appendix A. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 30. The requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy are: E. In order to streamline LRSDs record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of e eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: (1) describes the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key 2.7 program being evaluated
(2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the 2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students
and (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the 2.7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. 31. In accordance with paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy, each of the eight step 2 evaluations contains a section concerning data collection which Page 13 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 14 of 30 describes the number of teachers and administrators at various grade levels who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the program being evaluated. Each of the eight evaluations also contains recommended program modifications and explains how the recommended modifications can be expected to increase the effectiveness of the program. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 4-5. 32. On April 18, 2006, LRSD convened the four evaluation teams which worked on the 2004-05 evaluations to consider the feasibility and the timeframe for implementing the external evaluators recommendations. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A summary of LRSDs commitments to the modifications recommended by the external evaluators is found in Appendix A (pp. 7-11) to the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. LRSD will follow the same process of reviewing the evaluators recommended modifications following receipt of the evaluations for the 2005-06 school year. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy. 33. The requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy are: F. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight 2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. _ addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive In program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must Page 14 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 15 of 30 provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSDs comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31,2004. 34. In accordance with paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, PRE notified ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of the eight 2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 8. PRE also provided to ODM and Joshua a final draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented to the Board for approval. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 6 and 11. The LRSD Board of Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004, in advance of the December 31, 2004 deadline. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy. 35. The requirements of paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy are: G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. 36. In accordance with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy, Page 15 of 19Case 4
82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 16 of 30 LRSD submitted quarterly written updates to the Court and delivered them to ODM and Joshua on or before December 1, 2004, March 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, September 1, 2005, December 1, 2005, March 1, 2006, June 1, 2006 and September 1,2006. Those quarterly written updates reported the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations prepared during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. The quarterly updates also provided information on the status of compliance with other components of the Compliance Remedy. 36. As soon as the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were completed and approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD provided them to ODM and Joshua. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on October 16, 2006. The fourth will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on or before November 15, 2006. As soon as the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year are approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD will provide final copies of those evaluations to ODM and Joshua. LRSD has complied with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy. 37. The requirements of paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy are
Page 16 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 17 of 30 J. The four step program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006. 38. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were filed with the Court on February 6, 2006 in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005- 06 school year will be filed on today in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Dr. Ross requires additional time to complete the Pre-K Literacy evaluation because of the delayed availability of necessary testing data. LRSD has requested an extension of time for the filing of that step 2 evaluation to and including November 15, 2006, and expects to file that evaluation by that date. LRSD has substantially complied with paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy. 39. The requirements of paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy are: K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSDs substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. 40. LRSD is filing this Compliance Report on October 16, 2006 in accordance with paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy and the Courts July 12, Page 17 of 19Case 4
82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 18 of 30 2006 letter to the parties (docket no, 4027). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the eight Quarterly Updates which have been filed with the Court, and on the basis of the completion of eight step 2 program evaluations by Drs. Ross and Catterall, LRSD prays for an order finding it to be in substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy contained in the Courts June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion, declaring LRSD to be a unitary school district, and releasing LRSD from all supervision and monitoring by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge & Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 /sZ Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 16, 2006,1 have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: Page 18 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 19 of 30 mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw.com siones@ili.com iohnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr, Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 /s/ Christopher Heller Page 19 of 19Case 4
82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 20 of 30 Danyell Crutchfleld Cummings 5 Ben Hogan Cove Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 (501)407-8097 (501) 447-1737 Career Objective: To utilize proven academic and professional experience to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contribute to a progressive educational environment. Professional Experience: 2004-Prescnt High Schools That Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet Hi^ School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal 1998-Pre8eiit English Teacher J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Education: May, 2005 Educadonal Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervision, University of Arkansas at Little Rock December, 1998 Master of Education, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock May, 1997 Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Professionally Related Activities: Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Stakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher of the Year Educational Specialist I 3 I I EXHIBIT ACase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 21 of 30 References: Linda Young Granta Coordinator (501)447-3372 work (501)225-5439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elementary (501)447-4300 work (501)680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed.D Student Hearing (501)447-3582 work (501)407-0817 home Sharon Cauley, Ed.0 Assistant Principal J.A. Fair Systems Magnet High School (501) 447-1700 ext. 1710 work <501) 666-6216 homeCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 22 of 30 Danyell Crutchfield Cummings 5 Ben Hogan Cove Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 (501)407-8097 (501) 447-1737 Career Objective: To utilize proven academic and jxofessional experience to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growdi and an opportunity to contribute to a progressive educational environment, Professional Experience: 2004-Present High Schools That Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal 1998-Present English Teacher L A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Education: May, 2005 Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervision, University of Arkansas at Little Rock December, 1998 Master of Education, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock May, 1997 Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Professionally Related Activities: Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Stakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher of the Year Educational SpecialistCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 23 of 30 References
Linda Young Granta Coordinator <501)447-3372 work <501)225-5439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elementary (501)447-4300 work (501)680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed.D Student Hearing <501)447-3582 work (501)407-0817 home Sharon Cauley, Ed.D Assistant Principal J. A, Fair Systems Magnet High School (501) 447-1700 ext 1710 work <501) 666-6216 homeCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 24 of 30 Little Rock School District Business Objects Reporting Tools Bl Platform Business Objects Enterprise is a scalable, adaptive platform that delivers insight and corporate information to all your end users. With a platform designed to help you confidently deploy and manage your Business Intelligence (BI) implementations. Business Objects provides the Little Rock School District with the extreme insight you need to extend your competitive advantage. The BI Platform provides a set of common services to simplify deployment and management of BI tools, reports, and applications. The reporting system at the Little Rock School District includes information delivery in subject areas including Student Demographics, Student Performance, Budget and Finance, Employee Attendance, Child Nutrition, Human Resources, Accounts Payable, Payroll, Procurement, and Procurement Warehouse, to name a few. Flexible Services-Oriented Platform By building the Little Rock School Districts BI solutions with Business Objects Enterprise, we have the flexibility to deploy a solution for a single information challenge, while being able to simultaneously expand the deployment as our needs evolve. Designed for Scalability and High Performance Business Objects Enterprise is designed for scalability, reliability, fault-tolerance, extensibility, and 24/7 availability. This platform recognizes the importance of diverse global deployments, supports Unicode, and is compliant with Microsoft Windows, Sun Solaris, IBM AIX, HP-UX, and Linux. So you can start with a single BI project on one platform, and easily grow to support an enterprise-wide standardization initiative on multiple platforms. With BI content now being delivered via intranet and extranet, BI platform scalability is a key issue. Business Objects Enterprise has the scalability you need to accommodate increasing numbers of users, process growing volumes of information, and scale on a single machineor clusters of machines while maintaining high performance. Proven Reliability This platform s key attributesperformance, reliability, and scalabihtyare proven by extensive, real- world testing and third-party certification. Enterprise is the only BI platform to achieve Microsoft Windows 2003 Datacenter certification. Business Objects Enterprisi covered by a 24/7 technical customer supporthas demonstrably installed and run on a 32-processor system, remained stable through rigorous stress testing, and stayed available after being subject to extensive failover conditions. We also continually conduct extensive benchmarking and performance testing to ensure our platform scales to meet the needs of the Little Rock School District today and tomorrow. EXHIBIT LRSD B/ Tools 3 I Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 25 of 30 Reporting Fundamentals The fundamental requirements of any reporting system are a normalized database and a reporting tool. Data from disparate systems and formats is collected in a centralized database platform and transformed into a consistent, well orgamzed reporting database. Many reports have been created and delivered from this reporting database using Crystal Reports as the reporting tool. Normalized Data Ihis data, securely housed at the Little Rock School District Technology Center, has been normalized to 3 normal form on a Microsoft SQL Server database server. The original database management software is DB2 residing on an IBM AS/400 application server, which houses a majority of the studentbased data. Other student data resides in Microsoft Access or is provided to the CIS department via Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Automated processes have been developed and scheduled to update the student data nightly, where required. Processes have also been designed and implemented to update data in key financial, human resources and accounting subject areas. Business Objects provides the industrys leading suite of integrated business intelligence products. The products are categorized into three groups: Reporting allows all levels of the Little Rock School District to access, format, and deliver data as meamngful information to large populations of information consumers like teachers and school administrators both inside and outside the organization. This is provided through detailed reports created using Crystal Reports and accessed via a web browser using the Business Objects Enterprise Info View application. Query and Analysis tools allow end users to interact with District information and answer ad hoc questions, without advanced knowledge of the underlying data sources and structures. This is provided through a product called Web Intelligence or WEBI. This allows users to create dynamic reports from their desks with little or no required knowledge of the underlying database schema. In-depth analysis is performed using OLAP Intelligence, a powerful OnLine Analytic Processing tool that provides detailed, fast, multidimensional data for sophisticated comparative analysis and reporting. Performance Management products help users align with strategy by tracking and analyzing key business and educational metrics and goals via management dashboards, scorecards, and alerting. This is provided through Performance Manager and Dashboard Manager products that present Key Performance Indicators in user-friendly, interactive graphical tools. Crystal Reports A world standard for enterprise reporting, Crystal Reports is an intuitive reporting solution that helps customers rapidly create flexible, feature-rich, high-fidelity reports and tightly integrate them into web and Windows applications. The Crystal Reports enterprise reporting solution consists of: LRSDBlToois Page 2 of!Case 4
82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 26 of 30 Powerful report design: Report authors can use the visual report designer (with a complete set of layout and design controls), to design highly formatted, interactive, and professional-looking reports. And they can design within the leading .NET and Java development tools without having to step out of their chosen development environment. Flexible application development: Developers can leverage cross-platform support for Java, .NET, and COM development technolo^es. HTML is generated directly by Crystal Reports, allowing developers to focus on application business logic, rather than tedious, time-intensive hand coding. Separation of appEcation development and report design tasks allow developers to focus on application development, while the report authors can focus on report design. Report management and delivery
Reports are easily published to the web, for better business decisions in all areas of the Little Rock School District. Reports can be exported and repurposed to the electronic formats used by most end users (e.g. PDF and Excel). IT can centralize the management of operational reporting while distributing the report authoring function out to departments of the District that need them. The following themes are an overview of what features are available in Crystal Reports XI: Powerful data access and report design Enhanced productivity and maintenance Report management and delivery Dynamic and Cascading Prompts Report prompts can be based on dynamic values. This means that report designers no longer have to maintain static prompt value lists within individual reports. Instead, they can reuse existing prompts stored in the repository. HTML Preview The iterative report design/view process is streamlined, with a new HTML preview that allows report authors to see how reports will look when published to the web. Editable RTF Format This new feature is ideal for report export editing. It delivers reports to end users in a new RTF format, so they can easily make their own document modifications. Report Export Configuration The report designer can save report export configuration infonnation within the report itself so that the end user forgoes the time and trouble of reconfiguring the export each time a report is mn Dependency Checker With the new dependency checker, report authors can quickly find broken links, formula errors, and dependency issues. This greatly reduces the time spent on QA. Business Views Speed Report Design and Maintenance Cycles Crystal Enterprise Business Views helps you better manage reporting across multiple data sources and applications by simplifying data access, change management, and data-Ievel security processes. An LRSD BI Tools Page i of!Case 4
82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 27 of 30 optional service in Crystal Enterprise, Business Views allow you to integrate data from disparate sources, handle promotion/demotion between development and production environments, and control security at both the row and column level. Simplified Data Access Data access is one of the most fundamental, yet difficult aspects of designing a report. Locating the right data, joining tables appropriately, and filtering the data to focus on a specific subject area requires an indepth knowledge of the underlying data structures. The Business View Manager allows you to simplify data access for your report designers by insulating them from the raw data structures. You can build connections to multiple data sources, join tables, alias field names, create calculated fields, and then surface this simplified structure as a Business View in Crystal Enterprise. Your report designers can then connect to Crystal Enterprise and use the Business View as the basis for their report, rather than accessing the data directly and building their own queries. Business Views helps administrators pull data together from disparate sources. Data Connections (created visually or with complex SQL statements) can be integrated into a Data Foundation. Once the Data Foundation is built. Business Elements (a collection of related fields from the Data Foundation) can be created and combined into a Business View, The modular architecture of Business Views also allows you to readily re-use various components of one Business View to build other Business Views. A single, broad data foundation can serve as the basis for multiple, specialized Business Views. Used carefully, these capabilities allow you to minimise the number of changes required to introduce new data, fields, or formulas into your system. Granular Data-Ievel Security Many reporting scenarios involve complex security requirements. Each user is entitled to see a slightly different slice of District data, based on their School, Department or level of seniority. Data in the Little Rock School District is commonly segregated by School and Teacher-based information. Business Views allow teachers to view data regarding their students and prevents them form seeing data regarding students that are NOT assigned to them. Rather than creating a number of different reports to meet this need, we can create a single report and use the security features of Business Views to filter data appropriately for each user. Using the Business View Manager, you can set up row- or column-level filters and map these filters to users or user groups stored in your existing LDAP, Active Directory, or Windows authentication provider. This security is then consistently applied at the data level, ensuring that any report design based on a Business View will respect the underlying data security. You can then choose to schedule the report to run regularly. Or you can allow users to refresh it on demand. Regardless, Crystal Enterprise can generate a master instance of the report (with all the data included if you run the report under an administrator context) and then filter the report every time a user views iL All exporting, printing, and report modification requests will also return only the data the user is entitled to see. LRSD 31 Tools Page 4 of!Case 4
82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 28 of 30 Change Management and Re-use Maintaining a large set of reports is often more time-consuming and complex than new development. Activities such as making small changes in response to user needs, updating business calculations, changing formatting, and moving your reports between development and production data sources all delay you from addressing new requirements. Business Views includes two key features to help you spend less time on report maintenance. First, you can use Dynaimc Data Connections to store connections to multiple instances of the same database (e.g., development, test, and production). By passing a parameter when youre designing (or scheduling) the report, you can select which data source the report runs against. Second, you can store commonly-used functions, text objects, and logos directly in your data foundation. This allows you to easily roll changes across multiple reports by changing the object once. Business Objects Enterprise Info View Business Objects InfoView is a completely redesigned web interface that enables user to navigate, create, and interact with District mformation. Integrated search and navigation tools allow users to easily find the information they need. Users can also personalize their interactions to simplify consumption of District information. InfoView is built to support Java and Microsoft based web servers, to easily fit within youre the Little Rock School District IT infi:astructure. Web Intelligence Many organizations find it difficult to access information not contained in standard reports. And requests to IT for new information simply add to the report backlog. Even when ad hoc query capabilities are available, theyre typically difficult to use and dont provide your non-technical with a simple method of exploring information, to really understand the business issue at hand. users With Business Objects Web Intelligence, both self-service access to information and data analysis are available in one product, helping your users turn educational analysis into effective decisions. Users can create a query from scratch, format the information retrieved, and analyze it to understand underlying trends and root causes. If the frill power of query capabilities is not required, users can simply analyze information in existing reportsformatting and exploring them to meet specific needs. OLAP Intelligence Business Objects OLAP Intelligence is a powerful and easy-to-use tool that allows you to access and analyze data stored in the leading OLAP servers. It uniquely satisfies the analysis requirements of both information analysts (power users) and less sophisticated knowledge workers (business users). With OLAP Intelligence, power users can slice and dice, drill, rank, sort, filter, create calculations on the fly, and perform speed-of-thought data exploration. And business users can interact with pre-built OLAP workbooks that contain highly intuitive, graphical views of educational activity, guided navigation and workflows, and flexible ad hoc analysis. Its advanced analysis capabilities, shared security, and relational drill-through allow you to standardize on Business Objects for all of your BI needs. OLAP Intelligence delivers: Best-of-breed ad hoc OLAP Managed OLAP authoring and distribution Integration with the market leading, trusted BI platform UtSD Bl Tools Pages o/7Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 29 of 30 Best-of-Breed Ad Hoc OLAP The primary driver for implementing an OLAP database is to provide users with fast access to multidimensional data. IT develops focused OLAP cubes to provide users with a structured data environment, optimized for analysis. But in order for users to take advantage of the pre-aggregated data within an OLAP cube, they require an interface that allows them to drill, slice, and dice while leveraging the response times that the predefined OLAP cube environment offers. Specd-of-Thought Analysis clap Intelligence provides an intuitive, web-based interface that allows users to select dimensions and members from a query panel as well as perform similar analysis from integrated Windows, Microsoft Excel, and ActiveX client interfaces. Users can interact with their data and ask spontaneous questions to uncover trends and identity anomalies. And because OLAP Intelligence takes advantage of the power of the OLAP cube, users are guaranteed speed-of-thought response time. Intuitive, Function-Rich Interface The OLAP Intelligence interface is both intuitive and function-rich. Common functions such as ranking, filtering, highlighting, quick calculations, zero suppression, and axis swapping are available with a single click of e mouse. More advanced analyses are only a few mouse clicks away and provide an uncluttered, intuitive user interface that requires minimal training. With OLAP Intelligence, users can also asymmetrically display data and hide specific dimensions that are irrelevant to data exploration. Deep, Open .Access to Microsoft, Hvperion, and SAP OLAP Servers With OLAP Intelligence, you get best-of-breed, ad hoc OLAP for todays leading, multidimensional database serversMicrosoft SQL Server Analysis Services, Hyperion Essbase, IBM DB2 OLAP, and SAP BW. For example, native Hyperion Essbase 7.x support for free-form calculations and cube actions means that orgamzations are maximizing their OLAP server investments and taking advantage of key enhancements and optimizations. Managed OLAP Authoring and Distribution OLAP Intelligence goes further than most OLAP clients on the market today by not only providing powerful ad hoc analysis, but also delivering a flexible, managed OLAP environment. With OLAP Intelligence, you can easily create sophisticated workbooks that exploit the power of the underlying OLAP server, and enable users to build in predefined navigation paths and workflows. Then you can securely deploy and deliver the workbooks live to business users who dont necessarily fit the powerdata analyst profile. These OLAP workbooks may contain custom buttons and multi-page reports that recipients can view and interact with over the web. Publish Live OLAP Workbooks to Business Users When users view an OLAP Intelligence workbook over the web, it may appear as a dashboard with custom functionality specific to one area of the business, or as an ad hoc interface that allows them to perform advanced analysis. Because OLAP Intelligence has a flexible design and was created to meet powerful ad hoc and managed analysis needs, the deployment possibilities are limitless. Built-In Guided Navigation and Data Exploration LRSDBlToois Page 6 of?Case 4
82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 30 of 30 With OLAP Intelligence you can guide users through the OLAP data navigation and exploration process. For example, a user can highlight a group of cells in a report, click a custom analysis button and view a new graph that has drilled down on the chosen group, displaying variances as a worksheet and chart. A show trend analysis button could then be made available that displays a new page in the workbook with a year-over-year comparison. Open drill-through capabilities in OLAP Intelligence empower users to drill from aggregated OLAP data down to relational details. This means that users can navigate and explore summarized informatinn and drill through and pass context to more detailed Crystal Reports or Business Objects Web Intelligence documents. This contextual drill-through technology provides users with intelligent navigation without the need to understand the complexities of underlying data and metadata structures. LRSDBIToois Page 7 of 7Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Friday, October 20, 2006 7:06 AM CompRepoct06.doc: ComplyRep06oct19.doc FW: Re: compliance report From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 7:05 AM To: HELLER@fec.net Cc: Brooks, Roy G
Roberts, Olivine
Hattabaugh, Hugh Subject: RE: Re: compliance report Okay. I am enclosing two documents compiled by myself and the statisticians. From: Brenda Kampman [mailto:Brendak@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 4:26 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Chris Heller Subject: RE: Re: compliance report Chris Heller will be in the office tomorrow. He would like to schedule a meeting but would like to be provided a written response in advance of any meeting. Brenda >>> "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> 10/19/2006 2:52 PM > Brenda/Chris, PRE has further discussed our concerns and we can provide the information requested. Let us know if you want to meet. Karen From: Brenda Kampman [mailto:Brendak@fec.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 4:38 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Brooks, Roy G Subject: Fwd: Re: compliance report Karen: I spoke with Chris again and he said to tell you he finds it hard to understand that PRE would have concerns about the Compliance Report when most of the report came from the Quarterly Updates that PRE prepared. In order to respond to the concerns PRE has, he would like to have the following as soon as possible: 1) Who exactly is concerned at PRE and what specifically is their concern
2) Quote the language that is a concern
3) Explain in detail the basis for each concern. It would also be helpful if you have any information or documents which supports PRE's concerns. 10/20/2006Page 2 of 2 Brenda > "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> 10/18/2006 3:33 PM Chris, > PRE staff members have concerns about your statements on the following topics included in the Compliance Report submitted to the Court on Monday: 1) 2) 3) Karen school portfolios, accuracy of data, and readable reports. 10/20/2006Paragraph & Subject Comments on Compliance Report October 19, 2006 Comments 2. Compliance demonstrated by [updates & evaluation^ irocess (mentioned below). 5-8 Personnel independence. Only dept without administrative support. 7. Testing coordinators Errors Omits deeply embedded evaluation I Net loss of personnel since fall 04. On^its demotion of PRE & lack of ] ___________________________ Olds was 0.5 FTE. LRSD has had non
FT from Aug 05 to Oct 06. 10. Deeply embedded assessmerjt process LRSD lessened PREs independence (reorganization) & its resources. LRSD violated policy by keeping much of PREs S* update & Dr. Dreyfus magnet 3 report from B/D. [ 11. Portfolios poi Q irtfolios. 12. Portfolios portfolios. [ 13. Portfolio content LRSD has not deeply embedded assessment process.___________ I Any school portfolios? Dr. Bemhardtb name omitted. There are no school I Any school portfolios? Dr. Bernhardt^ name omitted. There are no school ___________________I Portfolio design includes validated clijnate surveys, which LRSD stopped, and wellness data, which LRSD opposes. 14. Portfolio infrastructure 15. Janis Group 16. Election of BO which PRE reacted. [ 17. Data errors What infrastructure? What did it accomplish? This was not in-house. There was no debate, only a decision to removing/correcting, deleting, & protecting data. I What has been the error rate, & what ib it now? LRSD has no overall plan for Is there any evidence for claiming that errors have decreased?______________________________________________ [ 28. Essential research question [ Evaluators & PRE chose programs whjich were not district-wide. ] ] Evaluated | programs were not implemented in schools throughout the district. Evaluations were not readily understood by a lay person. _______________________________________________ I 34. Disclosure of evaluations & [approval of assessment process failed to enroll new policy in its official file of policies. I Although B/D approved the process, LRSD [ Exhibit A Exhibit B quality of neither LRSD data nor its use. Included tvidce Why so much about a matter not in th<
2004 compliance remedy? BO affects theDRAFT Comments Re: Compliance Report of October 2006 October 19,2006 After review of the Compliance Report, submitted to the U.S. District Court on October 16, 2006 by LRSD, members of the PRE Department have the following comments. School portfolios 11. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included the development of school portfolios. [p. 5] 12. School and district data portfolios are an important part of the infrastructure. [p. 6] 14. ... LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolios. [p 7] 16. ... to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse ... [p. 7] 16. LRSD decided, with some dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. [p. 7] PRE has no documents to support assertions about school portfolios. PRE produced only a single draft portfolio of the district in 2005 and anticipates a second in 2006. PRE has prepared no LRSD school portfolios and knows of none prepared by anyone else for any schools of the district. During the workshop attended by three PRE staff at EFE, conducted by Dr. Vicky Bernhardt in summer of 2005, they took part in exercises related to school portfolios then launched the first draft of a portfolio for LRSD with the help of Dr. Bernhardt and her staff at EFF. Dr. Bernhardt described school portfolios and their utility to principals and others during her visit to Little Rock, arranged by PRE as part of embedding assessment in e districts operations. However, in reply to a principals desire to send a school team to EFFs 2006 Summer Institute to learn more about developing a school portfolio. Dr. Roberts stated, in Dr. DeJamettes hearing, No, schools are not yet ready to begin portfolios. The data warehouse design and construction appears to be carried out for the district by an external contractor rather than in-house. PRE has not dissented from use and improvement of Business Objects software. PRE did not participate in the decision to use Business Objects products for the data warehouse. Rather, as part of its plan for deeply embedding assessment, begun in October 2004, PRE recommended TetraData, which develops data warehouses for school districts, edits old data incorporated into them, and interfaces with the variety of software programs in use. TetraDatas proposal gave summer of 2006 as an expected completion date. PRE did express its opinion that this seemed superior to the districts choice.Accuracy of LRSD data 17. The accuracy of the data in LRSDs database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. [p. 8] PRE knows of no evidence which would support this claim. On the contrary, external evaluators impressions are that errors encountered during 2005-2006 evaluations exceed those of the previous year. In her recent magnet report. Dr. Jeanne Dreyfus remarked, The academic achievement of students enrolled in the schools with embedded magnet programs could not be tracked in Year I because the available data are not consistent and appear umeliable. [Executive Summary, p. 2] Moreover, during the same week of this compliance reports submission, two LRSD departments discovered that their counts of the current years enrolled students differed by several hundred. PRE is aware of neither a district policy nor a district plan for comprehensively managing its data and ensuring their accuracy, integrity, and security. Consistent with this, no evidence has come to light of attempts by LRSD to quantify the accuracy of its data
although recent action possibly involved them. Absent results of such efforts, verifying the above claim is very difficult. While evidence might exist to support the statement, PRE is unaware of any
and updates submitted to ODM and Joshua included none. Readability of evaluations 28. Each is organized and written so that it can be readily understood by a lay person. [p. 12] PRE staff found the evaluation reports submitted in 2005 by CREP to be written on a professional level. During the reviews of these reports with the evaluation teams and the authors, PRE asked CREP to simplify their language. CREP revised the reports with the addition of nearly equally complex summaries inserted at their beginnings. The reports were not formally rated for their reading levels, so far as PRE knows
thus, how readily they were understood by lay persons is not known.
This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.