Program evaluation emails

Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> <mqpowell@odmemail.com> "Wohlleb, Jim" <Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org>
"Robinson, Maurecia" <Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org> Monday, August 07, 2006 4:14 PM meeting toorrow at 1:30 Chris called this afternoon and said PRE staff members are not to attend the meeting scheduled for tomorrow. 8/8/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Wednesday. August 09, 2006 4:59 PM updateSep06draft.doc Margie, This is a new draft of the Quarterly that is supposed to go to Board members this evening. There are just a couple of minor additions to the text you saw in the draft sent to you yesterday. Karen RECEIVED AUG 1 0 2006 office OF desegregation monitoring 8/10/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Chris Heller" <HELLER@fec.net> "Williams. Ed" <Ed.Williams@lrsd.org>
"Hattabaugh, Hugh" <Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org>
"Wohlleb, Jim" <Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org>
"Robinson, Maurecia" <Maurecia.Maicolm@lrsd.org>
"Roberts, Olivine" <Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org>
"Brooks, Roy G" <Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org>
"Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:08 AM RE: quarterly update Thanks. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:00 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Williams, Ed
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Wohlleb, Jim
Robinson, Maurecia
Roberts, Olivine
Brooks, Roy G
Margie Subject: Re: quarterly update karen - we've got three weeks - i don't see any problem, ch > "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> 8/10/2006 10:58:24 AM > Chris, I posted PRE's quarterly update, due Sep 1 to the Court, and the topic is on the agenda for tonight's agenda meeting of the Board. However, late yesterday Beverly notified me that the Board will not get copies of the report itself. Instead, she posted only the cover or title page for the Board members to see. A couple of issues concern me about this: 1. Will the Board members have adequate opportunity to read and discuss the update before they approve it, so we can deliver it to the Court by Sep 1 ? 2. What if anything should the PRE department do to get the update to the Board members and answer any questions prior to their vote and assure compliance with the Court's remedy? We're able to work on this today and during the remainder of August, since it's a high priority for the department. Thanks for your counsel. Karen 8/10/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Wednesday, August 16, 2006 7:15 AM training with pricipals PRE will be working with principals today -4 sessions- at the Tech Center beginning at 8:30, 10:00,12:30, and 2:00. The focus is on ACSIP plan development. Dr. Roberts assigned development of ACSIPs to PRE as part of the deeply embedded assessment process. You are invited to attend. Also tomorrow Janine Riggs will meet with PRE and principals at Bale Elementary at 9am to discuss ayp processes. Again, you are welcome to join us. About Chris, we have not met with him yet. He says he is busy with the case related to Central. 8/16/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: "Joy Springer" <jspringer@gabrielmail.com> "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> <mqpowell@odmemail.com>
"John W. Walker" <johnwalkeratty@aol.com> Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:16 PM Data for Evaluation Before I loose my thoughts after attending the meeting re AYP being conducted by Janine Riggs from ADE, I am thoroughly confused regarding the data that is being provided to the experts for program evaluations. Based upon the responses from Ed Williams and several of the principals at the meeting, it appears that the data being provided to the evaluators is not valid, or is fraught with errors, especially as it related to student identity and attendance. Would you kindly explain the process being used by PRE for submitting the electronic data to the experts for their evaluations. Please advise what was done last year, what was done this year and how you plan to obtain the data for future assessments and evaluations. Your attention to this request is appreciated. 8/17/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Wohlleb, Jim" <Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org>
"Robinson, Maurecia" <Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org>
"Williams, Ed" <Ed.Williams@lrsd.org> <mqpowell@odmemail.com>
"Joy Springer" <jspringer@gabrielmail.com> Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:13 PM FW: assessment process fyi From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:28 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh
Roberts, Olivine
Brooks, Roy G Subject
assessment process karen - please do not discuss issues which will likely be litigated in December, including our implementation of the compliance remedy, with lawyers or paralegals representing any other party in this case outside my presence, please ask the rest of the pre staff to do the same, thank you. ch 8/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> <mqpowell@odmemail.com>
"Joy Springer" <jspringer@gabrielmail.com> Thursday, August 17, 2006 3:43 PM FW: AYP Appeals, Password for Ed. Stats and data you can pull for ACSIP Related to the questions posed today about incorrect data. From: Williams, Ed Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 3:15 PM To: Zeigler, Gwendolyn
Anderson, Barbara
Barksdale, Mary
Brooks, Jill
Brooks, Sharon
Carson, Cheryl
Carter, Karen
Carter, Lillie
Cox, Eleanor
Dunbar, Ethel
Hall, Donna
Harris, Tyrone
Hobbs, Felicia
Jones, Beverly
Keown, Ada
Ketcher, Theresa
Mangan, Anne
Mannon, Roberta
Menking, Mary
Mitchell, Deborah
Morgan, Scott
Mosley, Betty
Ramsey, Becky
Ray, Katina
Richardson, Shoutell
Scull, Lillie
Smith, Darian
Swaty, Nancy
Taylor, Leslie
Tucker, Janis
Whitehorn, Daniel
Blaylock, Ann
Boykin, Patricia
Burton, Marvin
Fields, Frederick
Price, Deborah
Smith, David M.
Thrasher, Eunice
Todd-Hamilton,Gloria
Allen, Brenda
Bacon, John
Brown, Linda
Laurent, Ronald
Rousseau, Nancy Cc: Dejarnette, Karen
Robinson, Maurecia
Roberts, Olivine
Wohlleb, Jim
Mitchell, Sadie
Babbs, Junious Subject: AYP Appeals, Password for Ed. Stats and data you can pull for ACSIP Per your request: A clarification Their is a tremendous amount of information / data that can be pulled down from the NORMES web page, via the orange Ed.Stats icon on that page. All you need a user name and password. You user name is your lea #, (e.g., 6001000). However, the password is a random bunch of numbers and letters. The password is the same that you were assigned to access EnterprizeGuide. So, many of you should know what your password is. If you do not have a password, then go to the NORMES site as you will need to fax a signed request to NORMES, http://normes.uark.edu/. This site is also where the IRI data is accessed. Okay, I need your help. ADE has advised us that if you feel that the AYP report on percent tested is wrong on the combined population then an appeal is in order. The reason that the AYP report has you testing less than 95% is that the mainframe computer shows students registered at your school that did not take the Benchmark or EOC test. This list of students is accessed through the orange Ed.Stats icon on the NORMES website, thus the importance of the password. I am asking that you print off this apscan nonmatch report and determine why these students were not tested. I will also be sending you an excel file of these students, but would appreciate your help. Pleas call me if you have any questions. Dr. Ed, 7-3386 8/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Joy Springer" <jspringer@gabrielmail.com> <mqpowell@odmemail.com>
"John W. Walker" <johnwalkeratty@aol.com>
"Roberts, Olivine" <Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org>
"Hattabaugh, Hugh" <Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org>
"Brooks, Roy G" <Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org>
"Chris Heller" <HELLER@fec.net>
"Wohlleb, Jim" <Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org>
"Robinson, Maurecia" <Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org>
"Williams, Ed" <Ed.Williams@lrsd.org> Thursday, August 17, 2006 7:15 AM RE: Assessment Process Joy, The ACSIP plans are public documents and you may have access to them. As for the other questions posed, I will send a response from the PRE Department after further discussion with the statisticians. I certainly have my opinion but would rather respond as a department since we are a team and work from group consensus. And yes, we have had extensive discussions with Vicky Bernhardt. I will send a more detailed and specific response to both of your questions as soon as the department can meet. This may take a few days since we are facilitating training sessions for principals related to Annual Yearly Progress and the NORMES website today and tomorrow. Karen From: Joy Springer [mailto:jspringer@gabrielmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 7:10 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: mqpowell@odmemail.com
John W. Walker Subject: Assessment Process Good morning.. I wanted to let you know that I have been reflecting on the meeting on yesterday and the one at the Embassey Suites. In doing so, several questions comes to mind: 1) Do you and members of your staff believe that the district can deeply embed a comprehensive assessment process as a permanent part of the curriculum and instruction program through the use of ACSIP? 2) Have you had any discussions with Dr. Bernhardt regarding this approach? and if so, what comments has she made regarding the use of this approach/process? Would you kindly share copies of the ACSIP plans? or allow us to view them as they are being develop? Thank you for your cooperation. 8/17/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: "Joy Springer" <jspringer@gabrielmail.com> "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> <mqpowell@odmemail.com>
"John W. Walker" <johnwalkeratty@aol com> Thursday, August 17, 2006 7:10 AM Assessment Process Good morning.. I wanted to let you know that I have been reflecting on the meeting on yesterday and the one at the Embassey Suites. In doing so. several questions comes to mind: 1) Do you and members of your staff believe that the district can deeply embed a comprehensive assessment process as a permanent part of the curriculum and instruction program through the use of ACSIP? 2) Have you had any discussions with Dr. Bernhardt regarding this approach? and if so, what comments has she made regarding the use of this approach/process? Would you kindly share copies of the ACSIP plans? or allow us to view them as they are being develop? Thank you for your cooperation. 8/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: "Joy Springer" <jspringer@gabrielmail.com> <wes.whitley@arkansas.gov>
<wwhitley@arkedu.k12.ar.us> "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org>
"John W. Walker" <johnwalkeratty@aol.com>
<mqpowell@odmemail.com> Thursday, August 17, 2006 7:18 AM ACSIP - LRSD Good morning... I am reflecting on our meetings the last few weeks. I have several questions for you: 1) Are you familiar with the LRSD's obligation to embed a comprehensive assessment process into its curriculum and instruction program? 2) Do you have an opinion regarding the district's use of ACSIP for this process? Finally, correct me if I am in error, but I understand that your role (ADE) regarding school improvement (ACSIP) is to actually develop the ACSIP for schools who are in Year 5 improvement. How do you specifically plan to do this with respect to schools in LR who are in year 5? Thank you for your attention to this inquiry. 8/17/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> <mqpowell@odmemail.com>
"Joy Springer" <jspringer@gabrielmail.com> Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:35 PM FW: An additional database if you choose to use Update: Ed has sent additional data to evaluators. From: Williams, Ed Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:03 PM To: JNunnerY@odu.edu
(Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu) Cc: Steve Ross (smross@memphis.edu)
Dejarnette, Karen
Wohlleb, Jim
Robinson, Maurecia
Roberts, Olivine Subject: An additional database if you choose to use James and John
The attached database is what the State uses for the NCLB Annual Yearly Progress reports. There is much less data on this file than the one I sent Tuesday. However, there are some points you may want to consider. In past years the outside evaluators (i.e., you guys) have deferred to the Districts mainframe data for demographic data (e.g., free and reduced lunch) rather than use the test data information. There is a slight change to that. Schools, this past year, had the option to change demographic test data where it was found to be incorrect and not use the pre-printed labels provided via the District's mainframe. In looking at what is on the mainframe v. test booklet for race, it was decided to defer to the test booklet thus there were some changes. The attached data file is a melding of the mainframe and school level data and my advice would be to use the attached data file for demographic data as in represents the most current information we have on student demographics. Since the attached data file only has the level of performance, you will need to link it to the data file I sent on Tuesday if you want more types of data. Call if you need info on the various codes. Talk to you soon Dr. Ed 501-447-3386 8/17/2006Margie -Oed. O Page From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> <mqpowell@odmemail.com>
"Joy Springer" <jspringer@gabrielmail.com> Monday, August 21, 2006 4:48 PM updateSep06draftfinal.doc quarterly draft revised The Quarterly was revised to reflect our receipt of needed electronic data and that we passed the data on to external evaluators. I have sent this amended document on to Chris Heller and Dr. Roberts. 8/22/20066 Margie Page 1 of 2 From: To: Sent: Subject
"Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Wednesday, August 23, 2006 3:34 PM FW: Cabinet Recap From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 3:31 PM To: Griffin, Beverly Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap As you know we met yesterday and afterwards I sent Chris (and cc: Roberts and Hattabaugh) a copy of the report with an edit requested by Dr. Roberts. I let Chris know we were fuzzy on the other edits mentioned but not specifically discussed. I have not heard back from anyone. From: Griffin, Beverly Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 3:24 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap Karen
Any word on the quarterly report? From
Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 1:28 PM To: Griffin, Beverly
Adams, Wayne
Babbs, Junious
Carter, Karen
Glasgow, Dennis
Hartz, David
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Milhollen, Mark
Mitchell, Sadie
Mittiga, Joseph
Roberts, Olivine
Vann, Suellen
Watson, Linda Cc: Brooks, Roy G Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap Also, the Magnet Evaluation Report is scheduled for the September meeting. From: Griffin, Beverly Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:13 AM To: Adams, Wayne
Babbs, Junious
Carter, Karen
Dejarnette, Karen
Glasgow, Dennis
Hartz, David
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Milhollen, Mark
Mitchell, Sadie
Mittiga, Joseph
Roberts, Olivine
Vann, Suellen
Watson, Linda Cc: Brooks, Roy G Subject: Cabinet Recap Since some of you missed the meeting yesterday morning, thought I would provide a brief recap and a list of Snapshot assignments. Snapshots: Dennis Glasgow - - Southwest Learning Academy Junious Babbs - - Summer School Summary Wayne Adams - - Completed Summer Projects 8/23/2006Page 2 of 2 Olivine Roberts - - ACT Results Updates & Other Assignments: Dejarnette / Roberts - - report to the board at September agenda meeting / Measuring the Vision Watson - - enrollment status report to the board at September agenda meeting / Final October enrollment report at October agenda meeting Hattabaugh / Mittiga / Roberts - - report to Board in July 2007 / 2"** annual Superintendents Monitoring Report Roberts - - status report! Evaluation of magnet programs Hattabaugh / Watson - - parent notification / school improvement status letters Mittiga - - writing and revising of policies / coordinate with Linda Young Babbs - - have Coach McGee present for introduction at board meeting Glasgow - - have Barbara Williams present for introduction at board meeting Milhollen - - establish date for budget worksession in early September FYI Vann - - Board Candidate Forum / Wednesday, September 6, 6:30 p.m. LRSD board room. Next meeting: Monday, August 28, 9:00 a.m. 8/23/2006August 24, 2006 The Update, which is due September 1 to ODM and Joshua, is the last of eight required of the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department in the remedy issued by the US District Court (June 30, 2004). After this, the Courts remedy calls for reports of the last four evaluations and a final compliance hearing in the coming months. This update may be the last opportunity for the Department to convey its observations about progress toward the first task assigned to PRE by the court-to devise a comprehensive program assessment process which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction .... The purpose of this "'deeply embedded" process, which was adopted by the Board of Directors in January 2005, is to gauge the Districts progress in improving the academic achievement of African- American students. The Court anticipated a decade or more for LRSD to improve their academic achievement and clearly did not desire to supervise the District that long. At the next compliance hearing, the court explicitly wrote, LRSD "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. The four professionals of the rejuvenated PRE Department undertook this challenge with enthusiasm and vigor in the autumn of 2004, and they continue to do so. PRE has reported its progress to the Board of Directors in its seven previous updates, all of which the Board has approved before their submission to ODM and Joshua. This one, however, was withheld from the board so legal counsel could edit it, a puzzling action. As a result of the remedy issued by the US District Court (June 30, 2004), the Little Rock School District has advanced its ability to assess its programs and activities. Several critical obstacles have been identified, and the District has embarked on removing them. They are appropriate for consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. After hiring qualified people to assess and evaluate programs, LRSD must allow them unrestricted access to the data they need for assessments and evaluations. This the District did, putting highest priority on PREs requests for data from Information Services Department, which has quickly responded to requests, and moving toward making the data more directly accessible to PRE. However, PRE did not participate in designing a data warehouse, which it recommended to the District
and the District rejected the best known software product for this purpose, which probably could have been operating by now. Instead, software is being adapted from a commercial retail application, and no date for its completion has been set. The importance of an efficiently operated, comprehensive data warehouse is evident when one remembers that the PRE Department has only four people assessing LRSD activities, compared to the dozens employed by the external experts who carried out the eight evaluations required by the Court.A greater impediment to assessment which has become evident during the past two years is incorrect data. How many errors (or the error rate) are unknown, since apparently no one has studied the matter. However, PRE and the external evaluators have found much wrong information. PRE has found no individual or department responsible for correct data. So an obvious recommendation is to implement a universal data management system which checks new data, edits it during its lifetime, oversees its use, and deletes wrong and outdated information. Until the District accomplishes that, decisions based on its data will be less uncertain than they should. These are prominent findings by PRE, which the District can now address. PRE remains enthusiastic about the prospect of providing correct and useful evidence on which LRSD can act to become the highest achieving urban school district. The District will be quite unusual if not unique in this respect, which is an accomplishment LRSD can proudly present to the US District Court as well to its patrons.Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:12 PM Ed Services Program Assessments.pdf FW
assessments of programs From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:12 PM To: 'Chris Heller'
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Roberts, Olivine Cc: Brooks, Roy G
Wohlleb, Jim
Williams, Ed
Robinson, Maurecia Subject: FW: assessments of programs I have given all of the reflection and input I feel necessary related to the Quarterly Update. I defer to counsel to amend any portion of the report necessary. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:56 AM To: 'Chris Heller'
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Roberts, Olivine Cc: Wohlleb, Jim
Williams, Ed
Robinson, Maurecia Subject: assessments of programs Chris, Mr. Hattabaugh, and Dr. Roberts, I have called each of you this morning to request further conversation related to program assessments requested by Dr. Roberts and reported in the eighth quarterly update. After further reflection, I am very uncomfortable taking the names of the programs we have been asked to assess out of the quarterly update. The enclosed document was written by Dr. Roberts and given to me as well as other directors attending the February 2006 Ed Services Directors' Meeting. Dr. Roberts and I discussed progress on these assessments many times since the initial February meeting. Now, 6 months later, after we have disclosed in the eighth quarterly report the names of the programs we are assessing we are being counseled and directed to take the names out of the report. Further, we are told to understand that we have not ever received direction to assess any of these programs. Again, I am uncomfortable with amending the report in this way. I hope we can discuss this further. Karen 8/24/2006Program Curriculum Mapping SOAR Voyager CRISS Educational Services Program Assessment 2005-2006 Measures Survey, Lesson Plans, Anchor Assess, SOAR Survey Pre/Post Data Attitudinal Survey Survey Target Group Curriculum-Council Math Coaches Literacy Coaches Subgroups: Parents, Teachers, Students, Principals Students Teachers Participating Teachers When April 30 June 1 June 1 February 18Educational Services Program Assessment 2005-2006 New K-12 Literacy Adoption Survey Focus Group Teachers May 30 Transition to Advanced Mathematics (TAM) Coaches (Instructional, CCSTs, Math, Literacy, Curriculum) Inclusion Attendance Grades Attitudinal Survey ACTAAP Survey Focus Group Focus Group (Middle/High) Students Teachers Coaches Teachers Principals Teachers Principals May 30 May 30 May 30Educational Services Program Assessment 2005-2006 SAPI Module Evaluations Exit Conference Participants May 30 IMargie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Miller, Leticia" <Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org>
"Menking, Mary" <Mary.Menking@lrsd.org>
"Hobbs, Felicia" <Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org>
"Mitchell, Sadie" <Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org>
"Donna Creer" <donnacreer@magnetschool.com>: <brigette@abpg.com>
"Williams, Ed" <Ed.Williams@lrsd.org>
"Wohlleb, Jim" <Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org>
"Robinson, Maurecia" <Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org>
<mqpowell@odmemail.com>
"Joy Springer" <jspringer@gabrielmail.com>
"James Catterall" <jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu>
"Roberts, Olivine" <Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org>
"Morgan, Nancy" <Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org> <Jpdrey@aol.com> Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:41 PM Magnet Team Meeting The following email is sent to you by Karen Dejarnette because Maurecia Robinsons email is currently not working: Hello Team, An evaluation team meeting with Dr. Jeanne Dreyfus, the external evaluator of our Magnet Schools and Programs, will be held on August 30^ at 11a.m. in Room 10 at the IRC. I hope you will attend and provide feedback on the draft report. The draft report will be hand delivered for your review. Please call if you have questions, 447-3382. Thank you, Maurecia 8/24/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: "Robinson, Maurecia" <Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org> "Miller, Leticia" <Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org>
"Menking, Mary" <Mary.Menking@lrsd.org>
"Hobbs, Felicia" <Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org>
"Mitchell, Sadie" <Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org>
<brigette@abpg.com>
<mqpowell@odmemail.com>
<jspringer@gabrielmail.com>
"Roberts, Olivine" <Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org>
"Morgan, Nancy" <Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org>
"Donna Greer" <donnacreer@magnetschool.com>
"Jeanne Dreyfus" <jpdrey@aol.com>
<Catterall@gseis.ucla,edu> "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org>
"Williams, Ed" <Ed.Williams@lrsd.org>
"Wohlleb, Jim" <Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org> Monday, August 28, 2006 3:05 PM Reminder - Magnet Team Meeting Jeanne Dreyfus, the external consultant and technical writer for the Magnet Evaluation, will hold a conference call to get feedback on the draft of the Magnet report. The meeting will be held on August 30*^ at 11a.m. in Room 10 at the IRC. I hope you will attend and provide feedback on the draft report. Please call if you have questions, 447-3382. Thank you, Maurecia Maurecia Robinson, Statistician Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/447-3382 501/447-7609 8/28/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: "Joy Springer" <jspringer@gabrielmail.com> "John W. Walker" <johnwalkeratty@aol.com> <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Monday, August 28, 2006 10:51 AM Joshua Concerns regarding LRSD program evaluation Good morning.... After attending the LRSD Board meeting on Thursday evening, I have some additional concerns that I would like to bring to the attention of the district's administration: The Board voted to continue an incentive program for teachers regarding improving student achievement and it was expanded to additional schools. It is my understanding that PRE has evaluated this program??? It does not seem equitable in that all schools need help in improving student achievement. Additional questions are
1) why is the district spending thousands of dollars to an external evaluators to do what the court and Joshua envisioned PRE would do
2) would this money be better spent purchasing the educational program that was recommended by Dr. Bernhardt for embedding program assessments rather than the program used by retail businesses being developed by the district that has no tentative date for completion
and 3) why was there no attached quarterly report to the Board Agenda package? 3) 8/28/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> <mqpowell@odmemail.com> "Joy Springer" <jspringer@gabrielmail.com> Friday, September 01, 2006 4:32 PM LRSD Evaluation Report Status.doc FW: Request for extension Margie and Gene, Looks like Chris will be asking for another extension for three of the evaluation reports. Just wanted to let you know. See enclosed document received from Steve Ross today. Karen From: smross@memphis.edu [mailto:smross@memphis.edu] Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 4:09 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: ajmcdnld@memphis.edu
dslawson@memphis.edu Subject: Request for extension Hi Karen, Based on the current status of the available data, we need to request extensions to be sure that we can satisfy timelines. Please see the attached explanation. Thanks, and rest up this weekend! Steven M. Ross. Ph.D. Faudree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340 Direct Line: 901-678-3413 Center Toll Free: 866-670-6147 Fax: 901-678-4257 http://crep.memphis.edu 9/5/2006LRSD Evaluation Report Status September 1, 2006 21- Century Community Learning Centers and READ 180 CREP received confirmation on September 1,2006 from PRE that the benchmark data we received is complete. As we established in previous extension requests, CREP needs 6-8 weeks to analyze the achievement data and write the final reports using both achievement and Step 2/Qualtitative data sources. The projected timeline for sending the 2P CCLC and READ 180 reports to PRE is October 23'^. PRE will need to conduct reviews of the reports before they send them to the court, so they should back up the court due date extension request accordingly. o Important Note - The above timeline presumes that we will analyze the data that we have on hand as of September 1. With regard to the recently discovered unprocessed McClellan High School Algebra 1 tests, CREP will see if there are any systematic concerns that can be teased out with the data that we have. After we get the data for those missing students, the analysis can be rerun if desired by PRE. Pre-K The district and CREP are still awaiting the QELI data from Riverside Publishing. We will need 6-8 weeks from the date we receive the data before sending the draft reports to PRE.Page 1 of 1 Margie From
To: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com>
"Joy Springer" <jspringer@gabrielmail.com> Monday, September 11, 2006 7:55 PM FW: foia fyi From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 7:53 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh
Roberts, Olivine Subject: foia Chris, I reviewed the four foi requests received today from Mr. Walker. I believe I gave you all of the documents requested in these four foi requests to you in early July. I delivered them to your office and we discussed the items briefly. Afterwards, Khayaam called to discuss some of the items and then he sent me a letter (hard copy) indicating he had passed them on to Mr. Walker. The emails and other items were in response to the June 28* foi received from Mr. Walker. Let me know if I need to provide another copy or if you kept a copy of the file I delivered to your office. It was quite large. Karen 9/12/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Monday. September 11, 2006 1:24 PM request from Mr. Walker sept 8.pdf
second request from Mr. Walker sept 8.pdf from PRE Update
-We received two requests from Mr. Walker last week (enclosed), have sent on to Roberts, Hattabaugh, and Heller -Chris has not yet responded about Ross request for an extension. I sent him Ross' email on September 1 and reminded him twice since then. -Another draft of the Magnet Report is ready for you. Want to pick it up or should I drop it off to your office? 9/11/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Chris Heller" <HELLER@fec.net>
"Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com>
"Joy Springer" <jspringer@gabrielmail.com>
"Hattabaugh, Hugh" <Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org>
"Roberts, Olivine" <Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org>
"James Catterall" <jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu>
"Wohlleb, Jim" <Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org>
"Williams, Ed" <Ed.Williams@lrsd.org>
"Robinson, Maurecia" <Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org>
"Brooks, Roy G" <Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org> Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:07 PM discussion about extensions for CREP I have scheduled a conference call with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss his September 1 request for an extension of court-mandated evaluation reports. The conversation will focus on potential dates for PRE to receive the three studies being conducted by CREP. My understanding is the Read 180 and 21* Century reports will likely arrive to PRE around October 23''* and the PreK study may arrive around mid-November. CREP has not yet received all of the needed data for the PreK analysis. You are all invited to join this conversation. The call will take place in my office at the IRC. Please let me know if you plan to join us. 9/14/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> <smross@memphis.edu>
"James Catterall" <jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu>
"Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com>
"Robinson, Maurecia" <Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org>
"Wohlleb, Jim" <Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org>
"Joy Springer" <jspringer@gabrielmail.com> Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:52 PM FW: discussion about extensions for CREP fyi From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:49 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Cc: Brooks, Roy G Subject: RE: discussion about extensions for CREP Dr. Ross is not available for a call until Tuesday at 1p.m. And, your secretary says you are not in today. Dr. Ross has discussed the status of his evaluations with me and I have relayed the information to you by email and voice mail on September 1' and thereafter. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:24 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Brooks, Roy G Subject: Re: discussion about extensions for CREP when is the call w/ dr ross and what happened to the meeting jim was going to schedule for us to meet today to discuss this same topic? dr ross is our expert and we have an obligation to determine the status of his evaluation and report to the court, odm and Joshua, i don't see any reason for an open conference call w/ dr ross before we have done that, ch > "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> 9/14/2006 12:07 PM > I have scheduled a conference call with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss his September 1* request for an extension of court-mandated evaluation reports. The conversation will focus on potential dates for PRE to receive the three studies being conducted by CREP. My understanding is the Read 180 and 21' Century reports will likely arrive to PRE around October 23'^'' and the PreK study may arrive around mid-November. CREP has not yet received all of the needed data for the PreK analysis. You are all invited to join this conversation. The call will take place in my office at the IRC. Please let me know if you plan to join us. 9/15/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:27 PM RE: discussion about extensions for CREP I understand the District is not interested to request an extension and feels Ross should get it done". This is the reason for setting up the call. From: Margie [mailto:mqpowell@odmemail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:32 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Re: discussion about extensions for CREP Karen, Do you know what length of time the district is expecting to ask for in the request for an extension? Do you have a date and time yet for the conference call? Gene plans to attend for ODM. MP Original Message From: Dejarnette, Karen To: Chris Heller
Marqie
Joy Sprinqer
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Roberts, Olivine
James Catterall
Wohlleb, Jim
Williams, Ed
Robinson, Maurecia
Brooks, Roy G Sent: Thursday. September 14, 2006 12:07 PM Subject: discussion about extensions for CREP I have scheduled a conference call with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss his September 1 request for an extension of court-mandated evaluation reports. The conversation will focus on potential dates for PRE to receive the three studies being conducted by CREP. My understanding is the Read 180 and 21* Century reports will likely arrive to PRE around October 23"* and the PreK study may arrive around mid-November. CREP has not yet received all of the needed data for the PreK analysis. You are all invited to join this conversation. The call will take place in my office at the IRC. Please let me know if you plan to join us. 9/15/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org>
"Chris Heller" <HELLER@fec.net>
"Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com>
"Joy Springer" <jspringer@gabrielmail.com>
"Hattabaugh, Hugh" <Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org>
"Roberts, Olivine" <Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org>
"James Catterall" <jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu>
"Wohlleb, Jim" <Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org>
"Williams, Ed' <Ed.Williams@lrsd.org>
"Robinson, Maurecia" <Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org>
"Brooks, Roy G" <Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org> Thursday. September 14, 2006 12:26 PM RE: discussion about extensions for CREP I meant to include the date and time of the call: Tuesday September 19*^ at 1p.m. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:07 PM To: 'Chris Heller'
'Margie'
'Joy Springer'
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Roberts, Olivine
'James Catterall'
Wohlleb, Jim
Williams, Ed
Robinson, Maurecia
Brooks, Roy G Subject: discussion about extensions for CREP I have scheduled a conference call with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss his September 1* request for an extension of court-mandated evaluation reports. The conversation will focus on potential dates for PRE to receive the three studies being conducted by CREP. My understanding is the Read 180 and 21 Century reports will likely arrive to PRE around October 23'' and the PreK study may arrive around mid-November. CREP has not yet received all of the needed data for the PreK analysis. You are all invited to join this conversation. The call will take place in my office at the IRC. Please let me know if you plan to join us. 9/15/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: "Chris Heller" <HELLER@fec.net> <johnwalkeratty@aol.com>
<mqpowell@odmemail.com> Friday, September 15, 2006 5:07 PM meet and confer John and margie - i spoke today with Steve ross and aaron mcdonald regarding the three evaluations which they are in the process of preparing, i've got some information which, given judge wilson's expectation that we continue to meet and confer, i would like to discuss with you as i prepare a report for the court, i am also prepared to respond to the Joshua concerns raised at our last meeting, my schedule is fairly open for the next week or so. please let me know when you would like to meet, thanks, ch Jones - i could not find his email address. ps- please forward this to gene 9/21/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: "Chris Heller" <HELLER@fec.net> "John W. Walker" <johnwalkeratty@aol.com>
<mqpowell@odmemail.com> "Joy Springer" <jspringer@gabrielmail.com> Monday, September 18, 2006 12:27 PM Re: meet and confer i'll do it. ch > "John W. Walker" <Johnwalkeratty@aol.com> 9/18/2006 6:48 AM >>> Dear Chris, Please put your concerns in writing so there will be no misunderstanding about the issues. I am aware that the district remains out of compliance. You and I are both aware that you have not met the previous commitment made in the presence of Gene Jones and Margie Powell regarding program evaluation. That was more than a month ago in the ODM office (conference room). Further, if we "meet and confer" I prefer that it be in the presence of Jones and Powell. -----Original Message------ From: Chris Hellei To: iohnwalkeratty@aol.com
mqpowell@odmemail.com Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 5:07 PM Subject: meet and confer John and margie - i spoke today with Steve ross and aaron mcdonald regarding the three evaluations which they are in the process of preparing, i've got some information which, given judge wilson's expectation that we continue to meet and confer, i would like to discuss with you as i prepare a report for the court, i am also prepared to respond to the Joshua concerns raised at our last meeting, my schedule is fairly open for the next week or so. please let me know when you would like to meet, thanks, ch ps- please forward this to gene Jones - i could not find his email address. 9/26/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: "Chris Heller" <HELLER@fec.net> "Joy Springer" <jspringer@gabrielmail.com>
"James Catterall" <jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu>
"Ed Williams" <Ed.Williams@lrsd.org>
"Hugh Hattabaugh" <Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org>
"Jim Wohlleb" <Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org>
"Karen Dejarnette" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org>
"Maurecia Robinson" <Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org>
"Olivine Roberts" <Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org>
"Roy G Brooks" <Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org>
"Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Tuesday, September 19, 2006 9:09 AM Re: discussion about extensions for CREP karen (and everyone) - i spoke last week w/ Steve ross and aaron mcdonald regarding the evaluations, i emailed joshua and odm to let them know that i had information to discuss with them and to suggest another meeting, mr walker requested that i put my concerns in writing, which i will do today, following any discussion with odm and joshua, i will prepare a report to the court, there is no reason for a conference call w/ dr ross today, ch >>> "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> 9/14/2006 12:07 PM >>> I have scheduled a conference call with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss his September 1' request for an extension of court-mandated evaluation reports. The conversation will focus on potential dates for PRE to receive the three studies being conducted by CREP. My understanding is the Read 180 and 21 Century reports will likely arrive to PRE around October 23^ and the PreK study may arrive around mid-November. CREP has not yet received all of the needed data for the PreK analysis. You are all invited to join this conversation. The call will take place in my office at the IRC. Please let me know if you plan to join us. 9/26/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Chris Heller" <HELLER@fec.net>
"Joy Springer" <jspringer@gabrielmail.com>
"James Catterall" <jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu>
"Williams, Ed" <Ed.Williams@lrsd.org>
"Hattabaugh, Hugh" <Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org>
"Wohlleb, Jim" <Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org>
"Robinson, Maurecia" <Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org>
"Roberts, Olivine" <Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org>
"Brooks, Roy G" <Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org>
"Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com>
<smross@memphis.edu> Tuesday, September 19, 2006 9:55 AM RE: discussion about extensions for CREP I plan to call Dr. Ross at 1p.m. today to learn what is going on. This email does not have details about what was discussed, whether or not an extension will be requested. If so, when? What was written to ODM and JOSHUA, etc. Chris, please provide details. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 9:10 AM To: Joy Springer
James Catterall
Williams, Ed
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Wohlleb, Jim
Dejarnette, Karen
Robinson, Maurecia
Roberts, Olivine
Brooks, Roy G
Margie Subject: Re: discussion about extensions for CREP karen (and everyone) - i spoke last week w/ Steve ross and aaron mcdonald regarding the evaluations, i emailed Joshua and odm to let them know that i had information to discuss with them and to suggest another meeting, mr walker requested that i put my concerns in writing, which i will do today, following any discussion with odm and Joshua, i will prepare a report to the court, there is no reason for a conference call w/ dr ross today, ch >>> "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.DeJarnette@lrsd.org> 9/14/2006 12:07 PM >>> I have scheduled a conference call with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss his September 1* request for an extension of court-mandated evaluation reports. The conversation will focus on potential dates for PRE to receive the three studies being conducted by CREP. My understanding is the Read 180 and 21 Century reports will likely arrive to PRE around October 23''' and the PreK study may arrive around mid-November. CREP has not yet received all of the needed data for the PreK analysis. You are all invited to join this conversation. The call will take place in my office at the IRC. Please let me know if you plan to join us. 9/26/2006Margie Page 1 of 3 From: To: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Thursday, September 21, 2006 6:12 PM FW: evaluations From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 6:12 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Cc: Williams, Ed
Wohlleb, Jim
Robinson, Maurecia
'Steve Ross (smross@memphis.edu)' Subject: RE: evaluations The best thing we could do is have a meeting with everyone together to answer your questions. I set up such a meeting for last Thursday. Then, you emailed and said you had talked to people and the meeting did not need to happen. Now, you have lots of questions. All of us have pieces of answers to your questions, together we could provide you with a more complete response. Many phone calls have taken place as well as emails. Not all of PRE staff or CREP staff were on each call or included in every email. The important outcome is that CREP needs an extension of time for each of their three studies. They realized and communicated that on September 1 yet the request had not been forwarded to the Court. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 2:31 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Williams, Ed Subject: RE: evaluations i have reviewed the emails you just sent, they do not answer most of the questions i sent on Tuesday, would you please review my questions and either answer them or direct me to the particular document which you believe provides the answer, also, after reviewing what ed sent to crep on August 15 and 17, i don't understand why dan at crep did not seem to know on August 21 that crep had received any data, finally, it looks like ed advised crep on August 17 that crep should use the data file he attatched because it "represents the most current information we have on student demographics", but that it could be linked with the August 15 file if the evaluators wanted "more types of data", i don't see where ed indicated that there was any problem with the data in either the August 15 or August 17 data files, was james confused by this? maybe i'm missing something, but i don't see much sense of urgency, if crep had a problem or a question, why didn't someone contact us when they got the data from ed? from the correspondence i've seen, it looks like they didn't know they had any data until maurecia checked with them, ch > "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> 9/21/2006 1:50 PM > 9/26/2006Page 2 of 3 Chris, We have met and I am forwarding a number of emails to you now that show the line of conversation. The forwarded emails include one sent from Ed on August 15'^, another from Ed on August 171^, one from Debbi Lawson on August 31*, and one from me to Ed today. I am also sending the NORMES posting printed on June 22'^'*. Let me know if you have additional questions after you review these documents. I would have scanned these and sent in one file but our copier is jammed today. Karen From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 1:38 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: RE: evaluations karen - i've reviewed the documents you sent this summer and don't find clear answers to my questions, have you had a pre meeting yet to prepare a response? ch >>> "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrscl.org> 9/20/2006 1:25 PM > I would like to meet with PRE staff before responding because I may not know of all of the communications that have happened between PRE and CREP. Two statisticians are moving among schools today providing test training. We can meet and provide answers tomorrow morning or you can meet with us tomorrow morning to hear the answers. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 4:19 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh
Roberts, Olivine
Brooks, Roy G Subject: RE: evaluations karen - did someone from pre tell crep that the mid-august data file was either incomplete or possibly inaccurate? if so, would you please send me a copy of that document, did someone from pre tell crep on September 1 that the data was complete? if so, i'd like that document, too. are you saying that the mid-august data was good data but crep did not begin its analysis because they were waiting for us to tell them that? was there any communication between pre and crep in the last two weeks of August? is the data we sent in mid- august the data that crep is now using? regarding the pre-k evaluation, when did we contract with riverside to produce the qeli data? can i get a copy of that contract (or is it already in a quarterly report)? who at normes declined to produce the qeli data? when? are you saying that the Irsd data had 15,000 errors (we can't have had that many students tested, i don't think)? what happened between the time we filed our motion to extend time in July, where we said that pre expected the qeli data in early August, and now? this may be a question better directed to Steve ross but, if you know, what are the prospects that crep can get their work done in six weeks, rather than eight weeks, so we can meet the current deadline, if it can't be done otherwise, could we authorize the use of more people or do anything else to expedite this work? these are a few of the questions i must be in a position to answer, thanks for your help, ch > "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> 9/19/2006 10:02 AM > 9/26/2006Page 3 of 3 Chris, Here are answers to your questions. Karen first, what happened between the time we sent benchmark data to crep in mid-august and the time "crep received confirmation on September 1, 2006 from pre that the benchmark data we received from pre is complete"? Ed sent two files in mid-August and did not verify which on to use until September l^ who said the data may not be complete? what was the problem? NORMES posted incorrect data for the month of August and PRE (Ed, Jim, and Maurecia) worked with schools to clean and correct misinformation for students who showed on the NORMES mismatch and nomatch databases, why didn't crep begin to analyze the data two weeks earlier? They were waiting on us to tell them which file to use and that the data had been verified. second, when was qeli data added to the pre - k evaluation design? In January I believe-at the eval team meeting. why was it added? Steve and Anna felt it necessary. why has it taken so long to get the qeli data from riverside publishing? Riverside did not offer it in an electronic format, NORMES said it would but then determined it had over 15,000 errors and decided not to offer it. PRE then contracted with Riverside to get it. finally, i understand that dr catterall will be on time with his evaluation, is that correct? Yes i understand that the algebra 1 tests recently found at mcclellan will not further delay the 21st century evasluation. is that correct? Yes, Ross proposes to use what he has. We are not sure the McClellan tests will be scored. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 9:39 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh
Roberts, Olivine
Brooks, Roy G Subject: evaluations karen - a couple of questions so that i can report to odm, joshua and judge wilson. first, what happened between the time we sent benchmark data to crep in mid-august and the time "crep received confirmation on September 1, 2006 from pre that the benchmark data we received from pre is complete"? who said the data may not be complete? what was the problem? why didn't crep begin to analyze the data two weeks earlier? second, when was qeli data added to the pre - k evaluation design? why was it added? why has it taken so long to get the qeli data from riverside publishing? finally, I understand that dr catterall will be on time with his evaluation, is that correct? thanks, ch ps - i understand that the algebra 1 tests recently found at mcclellan will not further delay the 21st century evasluation. is that correct? 9/26/2006Margie Page 1 of 2 From: To: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Friday, September 22, 2006 1:32 PM FW: three evaluations From: smross@memphis.edu [mailto:smross@memphis.edu] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 1:04 PM To: HELLER@fec.net Cc: Dejarnette, Karen
ajmcdnld@memphis.edu
JNunnery@odu.edu
dslawson@memphis.edu
awgrehan@memphis.edu
dlowther@memphis.edu
jstrahl@memphis.edu Subject: RE: three evaluations Chris, We just had a long meeting with the key researchers. I can tell you, and would certainly be willing to convey this to judge Wilson if deemed appropriate, that extraordinary efforts are already being made to analyze the data and complete the reports. These efforts include weekends and late nights, and concern about stakeholder understanding (assuming quick turnaround is desired or being encouraged) about the complexity of the data bases, the anomalies that are discovered AS WE WORK WITH THE DATA, and the critical importance of informing the district, the court, and the research community of how the targeted programs impact students, especially African Americans. Even for 21* Century, we have recently uncovered anomalies (uninterpretable) data for one of the schools regarding attendance and enrollment. Now is not the time for details, but wed be happy to participate in a conference call with anyone from the district, Joshua, or ODM to describe how challenging it is to work through these problems, and produce a credible report. Six weeks is a very constrained, but potentially achievable deadline, if it assumed that the data sets contain no anomalies or unusual complexities. That is NOT the case here for 21 Century and Pre-K Literacy, respectively. So, its essential that you request an extension, as we requested for Read 180 and 21 Century, until October 15. However, if you want 21 Century by the 15*, there will not be sufficient time to work with PRE and the school in question to resolve the (major) discrepancies in the data for those schools. So, well need to qualify those findings in the report. (If LRSD wanted an amended report, involving re-analysis once the anomalies for that school, are resolved, wed need to discuss and negotiate the additional time involved.) My staff informs me that they hope to be able to verify by Oct 1, all the Pre-K Literacy data sets, to ensure that we have what we need to start the analyses. If so, we will try, by making extraordinary efforts, to complete that report by November 15*. So, for now Read 180 and 21 will be in on Oct 15, and Pre-K by November 15. Well inform you if issues or problems arise that would preclude meeting those projected deadlines. Perhaps there is some flexibility at the district end in reviewing the reports? Steve 10/2/2006Page 2 of 2 We, again, are fully open to conference calls with you or any stakeholders to explain what needs to be done to produce meaningful, accurate, and scientifically valid evidence for LRSD. Steven M. Ross. Ph.D. Faudree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340 Direct Line: 901-678-3413 Center Toll Free: 866-670-6147 Fax:901-678-4257 http://crep.memphis.edu From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 2:58 PM To: Steven M Ross (smross) Cc: Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org
roy.g.brooks@lrsd.org
Aaron Jeffrey Mcdonald (ajmcdnid) Subject: three evaluations Steve - i've reviewed many of the documents concerning the availability of data for the three evaluations being prepared by crep. i did this with the expectation that i would report to Joshua and odm that additional time would be necessary, and then file a request with the court, it is in Irsd's best interest to do everything possible to meet the current deadline before we consider requesting another extension, please let me know if there is anything that can be done, even at an increased cost, to get the evaluations, or any of them, drafted by October 15. if not, can you assure me that there is nothing that crep or pre could have done to get the evaluations done on time, thanks, ch 10/2/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Monday, September 25, 2006 4:28 PM FW: deadline fo October 1st From: James Catterall [mailto:jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 3:31 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Re: deadline fo October 1st Hi Karen Oops. 1 thought we had discussed on the phone a couple of weeks ago that October 10th would suffice as OK. Sorry if I mis-heard this. I'll assume I did. At this point, I should be able to hand a draft to FedEX on the morning of October 4th, and perhaps earlier by a day or two. So you would get the report between the 3rd and 5th. Sorry about my confusion. James I am at home today if we should talk. 310-455-2720 On Sep 25, 2006, at 9:57 AM, Dejarnette, Karen wrote: Hi James, Just checking in on youre A+ report draft. When will I receive the initial draft? We should file it with the court on Friday if it is to make the October 1* deadline. Karen 10/2/2006Margie Page 1 of 5 From: To: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Monday, September 25, 2006 4:29 PM FW: evaluations From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 11:27 AM To: 'Chris Heller' Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh
Roberts, Olivine
Brooks, Roy G Subject: RE: evaluations Chris, I thought I answered your questions. Here goes again
did someone from pre tell crep that the mid-august data file was either incomplete or possibly inaccurate? When Ed sent the file to CREP as soon as he received it-without PRE verifying the dataI told everyone it needed to be verified. Then, when Ed sent the 2"' file it looked to me like he sent it because the demographics were incorrect on the first file. Also, we all had discussion that the first ITBS file was incorrect and being resent from Riverside. did someone from pre tell crep on September 1 that the data was complete? if so, i'd like that document, too. We had a phone call with CREP on September 1^. are you saying that the mid-august data was good data but crep did not begin its analysis because they were waiting for us to tell them that? No. We all had concerns about the file being sent to CREP during mid-August because PRE had not verified the data as we told CREP we would. was there any communication between pre and crep in the last two weeks of August? Yes. is the data we sent in mid-august the data that crep is now using? Yes, but CREP had found errors in the data and even today we are trying to work those errors out. regarding the pre-k evaluation, when did we contract with riverside to produce the qeli data? Jim has provided the PreK dates and copies of contract. can i get a copy of that contract (or is it already in a quarterly report)? 9/26/2006Page 2 of 5 who at normes declined to produce the qeli data? when? Ed received some data from NORMES but not the detailed data Anna needed. are you saying that the Irsd data had 15,000 errors (we can't have had that many students tested, i don't think)? No. what happened between the time we filed our motion to extend time in July, where we said that pre expected the qeli data in early August, and now? this may be a question better directed to Steve ross but, if you know, what are the prospects that crep can get their work done in six weeks, rather than eight weeks, so we can meet the current deadline. In Ross' email last Friday, he said he can provide the Readl80 report by October 15^, the 21stCLC report by October 15* with a disclaimer about the data (WHICH I WOULD DEFINITELY NOT RECOMMEND) and the PREK report by mid-November. if it can't be done otherwise, could we authorize the use of more people or do anything else to expedite this work? No. Chris. I do not understand the delay in seeking an extension for these studies. When we called Dr. Ross last Tuesday at 1p.m. (the call you said we did not need to have) he shared with the group his concern that an extension has not been requested. He then asked me to write a letter to Judge Wilson to notify him of the problems. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 3:27 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh
Roberts, Olivine
Brooks, Roy G Subject: RE: evaluations karen - you told me yesterday that pre has already met to prepare responses to my questions, i still don't have the responses, just a few emails that don't directly address my questions, please provide responses, if you want to have another meeting "with everyone together" to answer my questions, please do that as quickly as possible and then provide me a written response, please understand that i cannot just forward a request to the court without knowing the reasons for it. finally, you say the the "important outcome is that crep needs an extension of time for each of their three studies", the court has established a schedule for resolving the remaining issues in this case and its important that we stick to that schedule if at all possible, if we must seek more time, we should have very good reasons, i'm asking to to give me the information i need to explain those reasons, my latest information from dr ross is that, depending on verification of certain data," read 180 and 21st century will be in on oct 15, and pre-k by November 15". what, then, would be the basis for a request to extend the current deadline for all three evaluations? ch 9/26/2006Page 3 of 5 > "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> 9/21/2006 6:11 PM >>> The best thing we could do is have a meeting with everyone together to answer your questions. I set up such a meeting for last Thursday. Then, you emailed and said you had talked to people and the meeting did not need to happen. Now, you have lots of questions. All of us have pieces of answers to your questions, together we could provide you with a more complete response. Many phone calls have taken place as well as emails. Not all of PRE staff or CREP staff were on each call or included in every email. The important outcome is that CREP needs an extension of time for each of their three studies. They realized and communicated that on September 1 yet the request had not been forwarded to the Court. From: Chris Heller [maiito:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 2:31 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Williams, Ed Subject: RE: evaluations i have reviewed the emails you just sent, they do not answer most of the questions i sent on Tuesday, would you please review my questions and either answer them or direct me to the particular document which you believe provides the answer, also, after reviewing what ed sent to crep on August 15 and 17, i don't understand why dan at crep did not seem to know on August 21 that crep had received any data, finally, it looks like ed advised crep on August 17 that crep should use the data file he attatched because it "represents the most current information we have on student demographics", but that it could be linked with the August 15 file if the evaluators wanted "more types of data", i don't see where ed indicated that there was any problem with the data in either the August 15 or August 17 data files, was james confused by this? maybe i'm missing something, but i don't see much sense of urgency, if crep had a problem or a question, why didn't someone contact us when they got the data from ed? from the correspondence i've seen, it looks like they didn't know they had any data until maurecia checked with them, ch >>> "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> 9/21/2006 1:50 PM >>> Chris, We have met and I am forwarding a number of emails to you now that show the line of conversation. The forwarded emails include one sent from Ed on August 15^, another from Ed on August 17*^, one from Debbi Lawson on August 31 and one from me to Ed today. I am also sending the NORMES posting printed on June 22'^'. Let me know if you have additional questions after you review these documents. I would have scanned these and sent in one file but our copier is jammed today. Karen From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 1:38 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: RE: evaluations karen - i've reviewed the documents you sent this summer and don't find clear answers to my questions, have 9/26/2006Page 4 of 5 you had a pre meeting yet to prepare a response? ch > "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> 9/20/2006 1:25 PM > I would like to meet with PRE staff before responding because I may not know of all of the communications that have happened between PRE and CREP. Two statisticians are moving among schools today providing test training. We can meet and provide answers tomorrow morning or you can meet with us tomorrow morning to hear the answers. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 4:19 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh
Roberts, Olivine
Brooks, Roy G Subject: RE: evaluations karen - did someone from pre tell crep that the mid-august data file was either incomplete or possibly inaccurate? if so, would you please send me a copy of that document, did someone from pre tell crep on September 1 that the data was complete? if so, i'd like that document, too. are you saying that the mid-august data was good data but crep did not begin its analysis because they were waiting for us to tell them that? was there any communication between pre and crep in the last two weeks of August? is the data we sent in mid- august the data that crep is now using? regarding the pre-k evaluation, when did we contract with riverside to produce the qeli data? can i get a copy of that contract (or is it already in a quarterly report)? who at normes declined to produce the qeli data? when? are you saying that the Irsd data had 15,000 errors (we can't have had that many students tested, i don't think)? what happened between the time we filed our motion to extend time in July, where we said that pre expected the qeli data in early August, and now? this may be a question better directed to steve ross but, if you know, what are the prospects that crep can get their work done in six weeks, rather than eight weeks, so we can meet the current deadline, if it can't be done otherwise, could we authorize the use of more people or do anything else to expedite this work? these are a few of the questions i must be in a position to answer, thanks for your help, ch > "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> 9/19/2006 10:02 AM >>> Chris, Here are answers to your questions. Karen first, what happened between the time we sent benchmark data to crep in mid-august and the time "crep received confirmation on September 1, 2006 from pre that the benchmark data we received from pre is complete"? Ed sent two files in mid-August and did not verify which on to use until September 1^. who said the data may not be complete? what was the problem? NORMES posted incorrect data for the month of August and PRE (Ed, Jim, and Maurecia) worked with schools to clean and correct misinformation for students who showed on the NORMES mismatch and nomatch databases, why didn't crep begin to analyze the data two weeks earlier? They were waiting on us to tell them which file to use and that the data had been verified. second, when was qeli data added to the pre - k evaluation design? In January I believe-at the eval team meeting. why was it added? Steve and Anna felt it necessary. why has it taken so long to get the qeli data from riverside publishing? Riverside did not offer it in an electronic format, NORMES said it would but then determined it had over 15,000 errors and decided not to offer it. PRE then contracted with Riverside to get it. 9/26/2006Page 5 of 5 finally, I understand that dr catterall will be on time with his evaluation, is that correct? Yes i understand that the algebra 1 tests recently found at mcclellan will not further delay the 21st century evasluation. is that correct? Yes, Ross proposes to use what he has. We are not sure the McClellan tests will be scored. From
Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 9:39 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh
Roberts, Olivine
Brooks, Roy G Subject: evaluations karen - a couple of questions so that i can report to odm, Joshua and judge wilson. first, what happened between the time we sent benchmark data to crep in mid-august and the time "crep received confirmation on September 1, 2006 from pre that the benchmark data we received from pre is complete"? who said the data may not be complete? what was the problem? why didn't crep begin to analyze the data two weeks earlier? second, when was qeli data added to the pre - k evaluation design? why was it added? why has it taken so long to get the qeli data from riverside publishing? finally, i understand that dr catterall will be on time with his evaluation, is that correct? thanks, ch ps - i understand that the algebra 1 tests recently found at mcclellan will not further delay the 21st century evasluation. is that correct? 9/26/2006Page 1 of 3 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Friday, September 29, 2006 8:55 AM FW: data elements for program assessment From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 8:33 AM To: Roberts, Olivine Cc: Wohlleb, Jim Subject: RE: data elements for program assessment Okay. Also, Id like more discussion on the comments you made yesterday about PRE does not have the authority to determine the types of data to collectthose decisions need to go through Cabinet. I was very surprised by your statement and need clarification as to what you meant. From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 7:29 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: RE: data elements for program assessment Lets meet on Monday following Cabinet to discuss the Monitoring Report and the Climate Survey. Please ask Jim to attend. Thank you. Olivine Roberts. Ed.D. Associate Superintendent, Educational Services Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski St. Little Rock, AR 72206 Phone: 501.447.3320 Fax: 501.447.3321 From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:36 AM To: Milhollen, Mark
Wohlleb, Jim
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Roberts, Olivine Cc: Morgan, Nancy
Crawford, Kevin
Cole, Chris
Tipton, Mattie Ruth
Robinson, Maurecia
Williams, Ed Subject: RE: data elements for program assessment In addition to examples provided by Jim, Catterall found the highest error rate in parent contact information. From: Milhollen, Mark Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 7:37 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen
Wohlleb, Jim
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Roberts, Olivine Cc: Morgan, Nancy
Crawford, Kevin
Cole, Chris
Tipton, Mattie Ruth
Robinson, Maurecia
Williams, Ed Subject: RE: data elements for program assessment When you say inaccurate data would you provide specific examples so that we can investigate From: Dejarnette, Karen 9/29/2006Page 2 of 3 Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 7:05 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim
Milhollen, Mark
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Roberts, Olivine Cc: Morgan, Nancy
Crawford, Kevin
Cole, Chris
Tipton, Mattie Ruth
Robinson, Maurecia
Williams, Ed Subject: RE: data elements for program assessment Thanks for the thoughtful comments Jim. I agree. I left the meeting thinking that we also need to focus on cleaning all data thoroughly before entering it into a data warehouse. PRE staff members, as well as external evaluators, have noted a high error rate in some data sets. For example. Dr. Dreyfus could not carry out her full study last year because data was either not available, not coded properly, or not accurate. Dr. Catteralls upcoming report on the A+ program notes that he found a 65% error rate in the parent data during his study of YRE during the 2004-05 school year and a 70% error rate in the same database during his study of A+ in the 2005-06 school year. And, Dr. Ross informed us on September 1* that reports will be late because of problems with inaccurate data. We really need to focus on cleaning the data. And, the District needs to develop a comprehensive process (with the responsible department or positions named) for maintaining accurate data. Thanks for including PRE in the discussion. From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 5:19 PM To: Milhollen, Mark
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Roberts, Olivine Cc: Morgan, Nancy
Crawford, Kevin
Cole, Chris
Tipton, Mattie Ruth
Dejarnette, Karen
Robinson, Maurecia
Williams, Ed Subject: data elements for program assessment Mark, Thanks for arranging this afternoons meeting. It was helpful to see what data is ready for use and hopeful to learn we can recommend more. Some thoughts still fresh in my mind follow. Although the measures presented by Larry are important and appropriate for getting started, there is more I would recommend in the near future and long term: Soon, we should be able to connect multiple years test scores so we can assess students progress longitudinally (rather than compare different groups/cohorts of students as they pass through the same grades). That means at least several years results for ITBS, benchmark, AP, and others mentioned today. These, of course, are not available for all students for all grades. Because were moving fonward with wellness for the ACSIP, well soon want to use health-related data. The attached Excel file has 04-05 data from nurses reports to the health services director. (A disclaimer is that I was the keypuncher, and Ive not thoroughly checked the data.) Margo just delivered last years reports this week, and Ive begun keying them into another Excel file. This will do as a stopgap measure. Long-term, devising a friendly data-entry and management program for the nurses & their helpers would make their data collection efficient and more quickly useful to the nurses, administrators, and others. Such software probably exists somewhere. LRSD can no doubt devise something much better than the states painfully slow and inconvenient web-based data entry for BMI (another measure well want to include in the ACSIPs). I hope to learn more about school health at a public health meeting in November where many school health researchers will present studies and vendors will show their products. At least two aspects of this data interests us(1) the number & variety of services provided to students and staff by nurses et al and (2) the patterns of health events and traits among our students and staff. The first should help administer needed services, while the second should help us discover students needs and understand possibly why some have difficulty learning. Another kind of information is environmental, both social and physical. We have been planning for the past year or more to survey students, parents, teachers, and administrators with the help of Vicky Bernhardts group (with whom Ed, Maurecia, & I studied for a week in July 2005 and who has consulted with us over that period). We want to introduce it as an on-line questionnaire, realizing that we might need to supplement it with paper questionnaires or suffer low participation in early years. This climate survey asks for impressions about the quality of operations and human relations in the schools. It will provide soft but consistent clues for improving 9/29/2006Page 3 of 3 the schools and assessing such efforts. Weve begun exploring what physical environmental information might exist and in what format. This is probably as important as the other information, but we cant be certain until we look at it. It might include data from property inspections, air and other sampling, injuries, etc. Finally, financial information was not mentioned (that I heard) today. An interest we explored with some researchers allied with Vicky Bernhardt is efficiency estimates. Much forethought, of course, will be required with this kind of analysis, but per capita and per program costs are certainly interesting. I hope these notes are helpful. Theyre going to everyone in todays meeting I can remember except Larry (because I dont have an address for him). Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, & Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 501/447-3381 or 680-9244 (mobile) (fax) 501/447-7609 9/29/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From
To: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Friday. September 29, 2006 8:55 AM FW: Report to Court From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 8:28 AM To: 'Brenda Kampman' Cc: Chris Heller Subject: RE: Report to Court I have not received any report from Chris by email or other. From
Brenda Kampman [mailto:Brendak@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 4:30 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Chris Heller Subject
Re: Report to Court Karen: Chris Heller asked me to check on the status of the report to the court that he emailed you about late yesterday. He needs to provide a response to Judge Wilson tomorrow and would like to review that information first thing. Please see if you can get it to him as early as possible tomorrow. Thanks. Brenda Kampman Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 direct line: 501-370-1444 fax: 501-376-2147 9/29/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: "Joy Springer" <jspringer@gabrielmail.com> <HELLER@fec.net> "John W. Walker" <johnwalkeratty@aol.com>
"Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org>
"Margie Powell" <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:54 PM Requests for Information from Dr. DeJarnette Chris, On yesterday I asked Khayyam to have the documents that I requested from Dr. Dejarnette on September Sth available for my review as well as the documents he was providing to me from another request. It is my understanding from Khayyam that those documents consist of 277 pages and were emailed to you by Dr. Dejarnette as an attachment. Great!! Would you kindly email those documents to me and there would be no need for your office to copy them. Thank you for your cooperation. Joy Springer ) 9/29/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com>
"Wohlleb, Jim" <Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org> Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:49 PM database revised.doc
request from Mr. Walker sept 8.pdf FW: response to foi fyi From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:49 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Subject: response to foi Chris, The following email and enclosed file was requested by Mr. Walker on September 8^. The foi is also enclosed. Karen From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 2:44 PM To: Griffin, Beverly Subject: RE: Snapshot Compliance Remedy - External Evaluations On June 12'^ PRE and Chris Heller were told by ADE staff that electronic benchmark data for individual students would be available to us (and evaluators) from NORMES on July 10'^. So far, the data is not available. Chris Heller has provided an update to the Court saying we expected to receive data by July lO**^. However, he has not filed a motion for an extension. On Monday, the 10^, and again yesterday I let Chris know the data was not available and asked him to file a motion for an extension. To my knowledge he has yet to file a motion. I wish he would file one immediately. I am concerned the Judge will look harshly on a late motion. What else can I do? Compliance Remedy - Deeply Embedded Assessment Process See document enclosed that outlines the timeline and work efforts of PRE to meet this requirement. From: Griffin, Beverly Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 11:06 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Snapshot Karen: An update on the status of completing the compliance report? 10/2/2006In the fall of 2004, three new staff members joined the PRE Department to carry out the Compliance Remedy ordered by the US District Court in the spring of that year. This included developing policy for assessing LRSD programs and overseeing well designed evaluations of eight LRSD programs. The Court also clearly directed LRSD to weave assessment and evaluation into the fabric of its operations, so that programs would start, continue, and end based on evidence of their performance. Consistent with contemporary practice, continuous improvement depends on sound knowledge of effectiveness. The biggest obstacle to fulfilling challenges of the Compliance Remedy was access to current, reliable data related to LRSD and its programs. Both content and process were (and remain) problems: 1) Content - LRSD collects little data other than demographic information and student outcomes such as standardized tests scores, this data is not related to specific programs, and no one checks its accuracy. 2) Process - Individual departments collect data, assemble much of it into data bases, and provide it to Information Services Department and other departments
so PRE depends on other sources for unchecked data in various stages of automation. On October 5, less than two weeks after PREs new hires, Drs. DeJamette and Roberts discussed a plan of action with Dr. Steve Ross to address the tasks outlined in the Courts Compliance Remedy-developing a comprehensive assessment policy for LRSD and identifying the first four key programs for evaluations. (The Court named Dr. Ross as a preferred consultant.) This policy assumed timely access to reliable information about individual students, staff, resources, and programs. A plan and three experts to carry it out were approved by Dr. Ross, as required by the Compliance Remedy. By the end of October, the three consultants agreed to assist: Dr. Ross would conduct the first three external evaluations. Dr. James Catterall one external evaluation, and Dr. Victoria Bernhardt would assist with development of a comprehensive assessment process to be deeply embedded in our day-to-day educational operations. The work outlined with Dr. Victoria Bernhardt included phases such as 1) 2) 3) determining useful data sets for program assessment, creating a district portfolio in printed format so LRSD staff could immediately access key data for assessment purposes without requesting it, and designing a data warehouse to store all data needed for program assessment. Dr. Bernhardt worked with PRE staff during 2005 to accomplish these tasks. She met with PRE staff during visits to Little Rock, and three PRE staff attended her week-long workshop in Chico, California. The first draft of a printed portfolio, a collection of data collected by October 1, 2005, was helpful to PRE staff and external evaluators. However, other data collected after October 1 and additional data related to other measures were needed.On the recommendation of Dr. Bernhardt, PRE staff engaged in design conversation with personnel from TetraData to determine the type of data warehouse that would be most useful for LRSD program assessments. TetraData is a company that designs, builds, and maintains data warehouses specifically for educational organizations. Its databases offer up-to-the-minute triangulation of multiple measures of data-a time-efficient model for conducting ongoing program assessments. During this same period, PRE encountered two primary deficiencies with current data sent to the Information Services Department and in turn provided to PRE: 1) incorrect, duplicated, and missing data and 2) lack of tags to instructional programs. For example, two external evaluators reported 60-65% error rates in parent contact information as they tried to conduct parent phone interviews for the first round of evaluations. PRE recommended to Cabinet members and the Information Services Department cleaning the data and relating it to programs. Gena Magaruh, a representative of TetraData, met with PRE staff in July 2005. Through the end of 2005 she demonstrated to senior LRSD administrators the ability of TetraData to design, build, and maintain a database tailored to PREs needs. Her forecast for its completion was summer 2006. After these meetings, PRE requested of Dr. Roberts, Mr. Hattabaugh, and Mr. Milhollen that LRSD purchase a TetraData warehouse. Estimated costs varied depending on how much LRSD wished to service or maintain the data, from $250,000 on up. By early 2006, PRE learned that LRSD would not engage TetraData, but instead its Information Services Department would design and build a Crystal Objects database. PRE would have access to the same type of data and services as TetraData proposed to offer. At least one senior programmer of the Department expressed doubts about its capacity to accomplish this task in a reasonable time frame. PRE offered input into the design of the Crystal Objects database. Information Services Department offered a glimpse into the development of the new database. In July 2006, Information Services Department announced that three pieces of student data-demographics, standardized test scores, and transcriptsare available in the new database, but there is no schedule for completion. Thus, PRE faces the same set of problems as in the fall of 2004.Comparison______________________ Crystal Database as of July 11, 2006 TetraData offered Student demographics Standardized test scofes Student Transcripts Student and staff demographics Standardized test scores Perceptions from surveys of students, parents, staff et al. Discipline, graduation, etc. Instructional Programs School resources School finances PRE requests, and CISD supplies data in fonaats requested PRE imports data files into SPSS and Word p)r analyses and reports. PRE staff arrange data Statistical features support analyses and reports.Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: "Joy Springer" <jspringer@gabrielmail.com> <HELLER@fec.net> "Margie Powell" <mqpowell@odmemail.com>
"John W. Walker" <johnwalkeratty@aol.com>
"Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> Monday, October 02, 2006 12:02 PM Fw: Requests for Information from Dr. Dejarnette Chris, would you please advise whether you intend to forward the requested information via email. Please advise. If the documents are in an email, I do not see the need for me to come to your office in order to review them. Thank you for your attention to this request. Joy Springer Original Message From: Joy Springer To: HELLER@fec.net Cc: John W. Walker
Dejarnette, Karen
Margie Powell Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:54 PM Subject: Requests for Information from Dr. Dejarnette Chris, On yesterday I asked Khayyam to have the documents that I requested from Dr. Dejarnette on September Sth available for my review as well as the documents he was providing to me from another request. It is my understanding from Khayyam that those documents consist of 277 pages and were emailed to you by Dr. Dejarnette as an attachment. Great!! Would you kindly email those documents to me and there would be no need for your office to copy them. Thank you for your cooperation. Joy Springer 10/2/2006Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Monday, October 02, 2006 3:50 PM FW: qeli data From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:50 PM To: 'Chris Heller'
Williams, Ed
Wohlleb, Jim
Robinson, Maurecia Cc: Roberts, Olivine Subject: RE: qeli data We expect initial/draft reports from James and Steve, these reports should go to evaluation team members, Cabinet and Board for feedback. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:40 PM To: Williams, Ed
Wohlleb, Jim
Dejarnette, Karen
Robinson, Maurecia Cc: Roberts, Olivine Subject: RE: qeli data thanks, on a related matter, would the pre-k eval filed on November 15 be considered a "draft"? if so, how quickly could it be finalized? ch > "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> 10/2/2006 3:36:56 PM >>> CREP decided they needed more detailed QELI data than Normes could provide. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:23 PM To: Williams, Ed
Wohlleb, Jim
Dejarnette, Karen
Robinson, Maurecia Cc: Roberts, Olivine Subject: qeli data we told the court on July 18 that qeli data from normes was "delayed due to over 15,000 missing numbers and 10/3/2006Page 2 of 2 names", but that pre expected "to provide the qeli database to dr ross by early August", can someone please explain, right away (this is my third request) what happened, also, i understand from aaron that jim is currently working with riverside on the qeli data, what is the status of that effort and when will usable data get to crep? ch 10/3/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Monday, October 02, 2006 3:40 PM FW: compliance report fyi From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:41 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh
Roberts, Olivine
Brooks, Roy G Subject: RE: compliance report Chris, Please review all of the Quarterly Updates we have provided thus far and let me know what else you would expect to be included. I believe PRE has fully informed the Court, through the Quarterly Reports we have sent to you, all of our compliance efforts. Karen From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 2:27 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh
Roberts, Olivine
Brooks, Roy G Subject: compliance report karen - as you know, our compliance report to judge wilson is due in two weeks, we must document our compliance with the section 2.7.1 of the revised plan as specified in the June 30, 2004 compliance remedy (pp. 61 - 67 of the memorandum opinion), although much information has been provded in our quarterly reports, we will want to include everything necessary to fully document our compliance in this final report, in that regard, would you please provide me a summary of the things we have done to comply with each requirement of the compliance remedy and, for each separate requirement, either a list or copies of the documents which demonstrate our compliance, once i have the summary and the documents, we can discuss final preparation of our compliance report, please call if you have any questions, thanks for your help, ch 10/3/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: "Chris Heller" <HELLER@fec.net> "Joy Springer" <jspringer@gabrielmail.com> "John W. Walker" <johnwalkeratty@aol.com>
"Karen Dejarnette" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org>
"Margie Powell" <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Monday, October 02, 2006 4:36 PM Re: Fw: Requests for Information from Dr. Dejarnette i just checked w/ khay. he is in the process of having the documents numbered and expects to provide them today, ch > "Joy Springer" <jspringer@gabrielmail.com> 10/2/2006 12:02:40 PM >>> Chris, would you please advise whether you intend to forward the requested information via email. Please advise. If the documents are in an email, I do not see the need for me to come to your office in order to review them. Thank you for your attention to this request. Joy Springer -----Original Message------ From: Joy Springer To: HELLER@fec.net Cc: John W. Walker
Dejarnette, Karen
Margie Powell Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:54 PM Subject: Requests for Information from Dr. Dejarnette Chris, On yesterday I asked Khayyam to have the documents that I requested from Dr. Dejarnette on September 8th available for my review as well as the documents he was providing to me from another request. It is my understanding from Khayyam that those documents consist of 277 pages and were emailed to you by Dr. Dejarnette as an attachment. Great!! Would you kindly email those documents to me and there would be no need for your office to copy them. Thank you for your cooperation. Joy Springer 10/3/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Wednesday, October 04, 2006 6:24 PM FW: alleged violations of compliance remedy From: Chris Heller [mailto:HEIJ.ER@fec.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 5:40 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: alleged violations of compliance remedy karen - i have been made aware of your allegation, made in an employee relations complaint, that you have been required to withhold information from the court, the monitors and the parties in violation of the compliance remedy, please tell me what information "mandated by the compliance remedy" you were directed to withhold and who directed you to withhold it. if the information is in document form, please send me copies of the documents, if not, please summarize the information which you believe must be shared with the court, the parties and odm. in order to address this issue with the court, if necessary, i need a response from you as soon as possible, please understand that i do not make this request as a part of the process for resolving your complaint, but in order to fulfill my responsibilities in Irsd v. pcssd. ch 10/11/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Thursday, October 05, 2006 1:01 PM documents related to withheld information.pdf FW: alleged violations of compliance remedy From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 1:01 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Subject: RE: alleged violations of compliance remedy Chris, In response to your email about information being withheld from the Court, monitors, and parties (and omitting material relating to my allegation that I have been directed to withhold information from the Districts Board), PRE was directed by Mr. Hattabaugh, Dr. Roberts, and yourself to withhold the following information from the September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update: 1) Information included in Section B that relates to the comprehensive assessment process (see Section B of the Compliance Remedy for evidence LRSD must include) 2) Information included in Section F, specifically a list of programs currently being assessed by PRE I am enclosing a file of documents that can provide more details. Karen From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 5:40 PM To
Dejarnette, Karen Subject: alleged violations of compliance remedy karen -1 have been made aware of your allegation, made in an employee relations complaint, that you have been required to withhold information from the court, the monitors and the parties in violation of the compliance remedy, please tell me what information "mandated by the compliance remedy" you were directed to withhold and who directed you to withhold it. if the information is in document form, please send me copies of the documents, if not, please summarize the information which you believe must be shared with the court, the parties and odm. in order to address this issue with the court, if necessary, i need a response from you as soon as possible, please understand that i do not make this request as a part of the process for resolving your complaint, but in order to fulfill my responsibilities in Irsd v. pcssd. ch 10/11/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Tuesday, October 10, 2006 3:26 PM foia October 3.pdf
foia October 3 response.pdf FW: foia October 3rd From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 3:24 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Subject
foia October 3rd Enclosed you will find two files. First, an foia from Mr. Walker dated October 3, 2006. And second, scanned emails in response to the October 3^*^ foia. 10/11/2006Page 1 of 1 Dejarnette, Karen From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent
To: Cc: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM Roberts, Olivine
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Mittiga, Joseph Dejarnette, Karen
Robinson, Maurecia
Williams, Ed
Paradis, Darral Mr. Hattabaugh & Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate" survey designed for LRSD by EPF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true, Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. . Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, & Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) j i m, wo h 11 eb @ I rsd. o rg 10/17/2006Notes of discussion about the second annual survey for the monitoring report October 2, 2006 Attending: Mr. Hugh Hattabaugh, Dr. Olivine Roberts, Mr. Joe Mittiga, Dr. Karen Dejarnette, Ms. Maurecia Robinson, Dr. Ed Williams, and Mr. Jim Wohlleb Olivine summoned Jim and Karen to the administration building for a conference, and Karen invited Ed and Maurecia. PRE Department members thought it would be about the authority of PRE to determine what it assesses. Instead, Dr. Roberts led discussion about this years survey of teachers, parents, and students for the monitoring report. Mention of on-line surveys by Education for the Future (EFF), ready for administration now, was met by Mr. Hattabaughs declaration that any services by outside organizations require RFPs. Dr. DeJamette noted that EFF is so busy it does not consider RFPs. In her opinion, LRSD is turning away from the best methods and services and instead using its own unvalidated measures. Given this, she prefers that Mr. Mittigas office rather than PRE conduct the survey for the monitoring report. All agreed on a more attractive survey instrument than last years and distribution by some means other than USPS. Showing high priority to the survey is a way to increase participation. For ES parents, teachers can ask them to answer questionnaires at the start of conferences with teachers. This might not work so well with parents of middle & high school students. There was agreement by both Dr. Roberts and Mr. Mittiga that last years questions were ambiguous. They also endorsed stakeholder participation in the design. Martha Hill was mentioned as a good participant. Afterwards, Mr. Wohlleb sent copies of the four EFF questionnaires to Mr. Mittiga, and he sent around a copy of the survey he designed with UALR but did not administer due to lack of funds. Comments sent with the EFF documents noted the intended application of them in PREs assessment of the teacher performance challenge as step 2 evidence.Page 1 of 1 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Roberts, Olivine Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:01 PM Wohlleb, Jim
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Mittiga, Joseph Dejarnette, Karen
Robinson, Maurecia
Williams, Ed
Paradis, Darral Subject: RE: Mr. Wohlleb, I do not know what was told to the PRE staff regarding the purpose of the meeting, but my sole intended purpose was to discuss the monitoring report. Please correct the minutes to reflect that. Thank you. Olivine OCivine 'Roberts, 'PRD. .Associate Superintendent, 'Educational'Servires Eittl'e Rock School''District. 3001 S. Eufastii. St. Little 'Rock, J47< 72406 Pfione: 501.44
0 fax: 501.447-332I MWi IW11 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Mittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen
Robinson, Maurecia
Williams, Ed
Paradis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh & Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate" survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true, Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, & Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) jim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 10/17/2006Page 1 of2 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Wohlleb, Jim Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:16 PM Roberts, Olivine
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Mittiga, Joseph Dejarnette, Karen
Robinson, Maurecia
Williams, Ed
Paradis. Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Certainly, Ill correct my notes. They are silent on the matter of not proceeding with the survey prepared by EFF. Do you recall whether it was resolved during that discussion? Thanks. From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:01 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Mittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen
Robinson, Maurecia
Williams, Ed
Paradis, Darral Subject: RE: Mr. Wohlleb, I do not know what was told to the PRE staff regarding the purpose of the meeting, but my sole intended purpose was to discuss the monitoring report. Please correct the minutes to reflect that. Thank you. Olivine OR-vine 'Roberts, Rif'D. -Associate. Supermtendent, IdiicationaCServices Little 'Rocfi School 'District 3001 S. 'PuLaslii St. Little sA'Rpzeofi 'Pfione: 561.44-.3320 fax: 501.447-3321 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Mittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen
Robinson, Maurecia
Williams, Ed
Paradis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh & Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate" survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true, Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, & Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 10/17/2006Page 2 of 2 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) jim. woh I leb@lrsd.orq 10/17/2006Page 1 of 2 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Roberts, Olivine Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:18 PM Wohlleb, Jim
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Mittiga, Joseph Dejarnette, Karen
Robinson, Maurecia
Williams, Ed
Paradis, Darral Subject: RE: climate survey The group agreed to use a locally developed instrument. Olivine 'Roberts, 'Dtf.'D. Associate Su/)enn tencfent, 'Lducatianal Services RittCe Rocli Scfiool District 3001 S. 'Pulh.-iki SI. Rock, SPR 722 RIitmp.: 301.447.3320 fax: 501.447-3321 00' From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:16 PM To: Roberts, Olivine
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Mittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen
Robinson, Maurecia
Williams, Ed
Paradis, Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Certainly. Ill correct my notes. They are silent on the matter of not proceeding with the survey prepared by EFF. Do you recall whether it was resolved during that discussion? Thanks. From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:01 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Mittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen
Robinson, Maurecia
Williams, Ed
Paradis, Darral Subject: RE: Mr. Wohlleb, I do not know what was told to the PRE staff regarding the purpose of the meeting, but my sole intended purpose was to discuss the monitoring report. Please correct the minutes to reflect that. Thank you. Olivine OCh'me Roberts, 'RfiJ. .'Associate Superhitendent, 'Rdiicat umal Services Lit Ue. Rocii Scl'woC'District 3001 S. 'Rulas/ii. St. PittLe 'Rocli., 7\'R 7'2206 Tlione: 501.44, 3320 fax: 501.447.3321 r< ................ k ... From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Mittiga, Joseph 10/17/2006Page 2 of 2 Cc: Dejarnette, Karen
Robinson, Maurecia
Williams, Ed
Paradis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh & Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true. Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, & Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 10/17/2006Page 1 of 2 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Dejarnette, Karen Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:43 PM Wohlleb, Jim
Roberts, Olivine
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Mittiga, Joseph Robinson, Maurecia
Williams, Ed
Paradis, Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Jim, I understood there were two purposes for the meeting. See the following email I received from Dr. Roberts on Friday September 29*^ at 9:29a.m: Lets meet on Monday following Cabinet to discuss the Monitoring Report and the Climate Survey. Please ask Jim to attend. Thank you. Olivine. 'Roberts, 'fd.'D. dissociate Superintendent, XtiiicationaCServices Xittle 'Rock School District 3001 S. 'Put'oski St. Xtttie Rock, SVR 72206 Rkone: 501.447.3320 J'ax: 501.447.3321 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:16 PM To: Roberts, Olivine
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Mittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen
Robinson, Maurecia
Williams, Ed
Paradis, Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Certainly, Ill correct my notes. They are silent on the matter of not proceeding with the survey prepared by EFF. Do you recall whether it was resolved during that discussion? Thanks. ijunorjiiK From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:01 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Mittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen
Robinson, Maurecia
Williams, Ed
Paradis, Darral Subject: RE: Mr. Wohlleb. I do not know what was told to the PRE staff regarding the purpose of the meeting, but my sole intended purpose was to discuss the monitoring report. Please correct the minutes to reflect that. Thank you. Olivine Olivine 'Roberts, 'Ecti'D. dissocia te S upe. rin ten den I, Educat ionatServ ices Eittle 'Ri)ck .SdiooC'District 10/17/2006Page 2 of 2 SOO I S. 'PuCaski St. ittCe 'KocH, A'R -2206 THme: 501.44/.332o fax: 5O].447.S3:^ From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Mittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen
Robinson, Maurecia
Williams, Ed
Paradis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh & Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate" survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true, Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb. Statistician Planning, Research, & Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 10/17/2006Page 1 of 2 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Roberts, Olivine Thursday. October 12. 2006 3:07 PM Dejarnette. Karen
Wohlleb. Jim
Hattabaugh. Hugh
Mittiga. Joseph Robinson. Maurecia
Williams. Ed
Paradis. Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Karen, you are right. That is why it was a part of the discussion. OCivine 'Roberts, Rd.!). .Associate Superintendent, ducatirmul'Servire.s Rittte 'Roca Scfiool District sooi S. 'Pulaski St. ittfe Rock, RX'R recob 'Rhone: 501.447.^'320 Fax: 5O1.44R-3321 From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:43 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim
Roberts, Olivine
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Mittiga, Joseph Cc: Robinson, Maurecia
Williams, Ed
Paradis, Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Jim. I understood there were two purposes for the meeting. See the following email I received from Dr. Roberts on Friday September 29*^ at 9:29a.m: Let's meet on Monday following Cabinet to discuss the Monitoring Report and the Climate Survey. Please ask Jim to attend. Thank you. Olivine 'Roberts, 'cC.D. Associate Sujierintendent, RdiicatumaCServices fittbe Rock Seboot'District 3001 S. 'Pulaski St. Fittbe Rock, A'R 72206 Rhone: 501.447.3320 fax: 501.447-3321 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:16 PM To: Roberts, Olivine
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Mittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen
Robinson, Maurecia
Williams, Ed
Paradis, Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Certainly. Ill correct my notes. They are silent on the matter of not proceeding with the survey prepared by EFF. Do you recall whether it was resolved during that discussion? Thanks. From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:01 PM 10/17/2006Page 2 of 2 To: Wohlleb, Jim
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Mittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen
Robinson, Maurecia
Williams, Ed
Paradis, Darral Subject: RE
Mr. Wohlleb, I do not know what was told to the PRE staff regarding the purpose of the meeting, but my sole intended purpose was to discuss the monitoring report. Please correct the minutes to reflect that. Thank you. Olivine Olivine 'd:D. y^ssociale Superint<md&iit, hfucalional Services Utle 'Rocli Scbool 'District 5()()i S. 'Putasbi St. LUlLe 'Rock, SAR 72206 'RIione: 501.447.3320 J'ax: 501.44 21 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Mittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen
Robinson, Maurecia
Williams, Ed
Paradis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh & Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate" survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true, Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, & Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 10/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh Monday, October 16, 2006 7:11 PM Wohlleb, Jim Dejarnette, Karen
Robinson, Maurecia
Williams. Ed
Paradis, Darral
Roberts, Olivine
Mittiga, Joseph Subject: I stated that a RFP needed to be processed through LRSD Procurement, if we proceed with EFF. It was stated that EFF is to busy to be subjected to the RFP process. If a RFP for the survey instrument and services is not processed, your conclusion is correct. Sincerely, Hugh E. Hattabaugh, Deputy Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72210 (W) 501-447-1009 (C) 501-580-6815 (FAX) 501-447-1159 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Mittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen
Robinson, Maurecia
Williams, Ed
Paradis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh & Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true. Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, & Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim,wohlleb@l.rsd,org 10/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Dejarnette, Karen Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:35 PM Hattabaugh, Hugh
Mittiga, Joseph
Roberts, Olivine Wohlleb, Jim
Williams, Ed
Robinson, Maurecia Subject: superintendent's report PRE will attend the meeting about the Superintendents monitoring report on Thursday afternoon. However I will not be bringing a detailed budget to the meeting. I cannot create such until I have the details of the project. At this time, I am unclear on the number of questionnaires, cover letters, and how they will be administered. Will all questionnaires be administered by hard copy? Or, will any surveys be mailed? If questionnaires will be administered to all parents (26,000), most students (3''' -12* would be about 20,000), all teachers (2000) and all community partners (200) then the printing part of this project will likely be large enough to go through the bidding process. We are talking about almost 50,000 questionnaires. And, I am assuming you will want cover letters to go with each questionnaires so that means about 100,000 total pages printed. Last year only 12,000 pages (questionnaires and letters) were printed. If you are planning to include open response items on each questionnaire then there will be need to be discussion about who will transcribe the written comments, likely a group of consultants will need to do this. Last year Metros print shop printed the questionnaires and many parents, staff and students complained that the forms were too hard to read, bubbles printed so lightly they could not see which bubble to fill in. The questionnaires may need to be in two colors (not just black and white) so they are more easily readable. For example, bubbles can be printed in light blue for more easy reading and scanning. Also, last year Metro printed many unusable/unscannable questionnaires, their registration on printing was off. These are just some of the points to be discussed before a budget can be detailed. As you know PRE worked with Dr. Bernhardt last year to draft questionnaires. However, Dr. Bernhardts group does not recommend administering any hard copy questionnaires. They do however have an online system that will provide questionnaires to respondents, quantify the responses as they are collected, and provide a report at any time during or after administration. The cost for online administration of parent, student and staff questionnaires to all LRSD is 45,000 total (about 900 per school site). 10/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:37 AM FW: reports from James and Steve From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:37 AM To: 'Chris Heller' Subject: reports from James and Steve Chris, I received the following emails from James and Steve last night. Karen Hi Karen, I'm planning to get it all into PDF and e-mailing it to you. I might be ready to do that on Friday, but I might need some weekend time. Hope things are good there. james Karen, The two reports (Read 180 and 21* Cent) are almost ready and the researchers in charge plan to email them to you on Oct 15. You can then forward them to Chris. No delays are expected, so check your email on the 15*^. Busy time for all of us! Steve 10/12/2006Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:28 AM FW: Cabinet Recap /10-09-06 From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:29 AM To: Griffin, Beverly Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap / 10-09-06 Beverly, You have asked for each Cabinet member to send recommended revisions for the organizational chart. As you know, last summer I met with Dr. Brooks to request for PRE to be moved from the Educational Services Division, from where the reorganization of the District moved it, and instead report directly to the Superintendent again. Afterwards, I also sent this request to him by email. It is still the desire of PRE to move from Ed Services, since it seems a conflict of interest for the same division to assess the programs that it selects and supervises. At the least, this arrangement deprives PRE of independent assessments, which the District and its Board require. As we understand the US District Courts opinion, PRE should operate independently without influence from possible self-interest of a department or division. When I began as Director of PRE two years ago, the department reported to Dr. Brooks. Since last years reorganization, PRE has experienced barriers and obstacles from both Ed Services and the Superintendents office. The Board of Directors, which is ultimately accountable for the Districts operations, has not received some reports needed for it responsibility. In the light of its experience, PRE should report directly to the Board of Directors, parallel to the internal auditors position. This arrangement would keep the assessment function within the District but distance it from interests of any one division or department. Karen From: Griffin, Beverly Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 9:55 AM To: Griffin, Beverly
Adams, Wayne
Babbs, Junious
Carter, Karen
Dejarnette, Karen
Glasgow, Dennis
Hartz, David
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Milhollen, Mark
Mitchell, Sadie
Mittiga, Joseph
Roberts, Olivine
Vann, Suellen
Watson, Linda Cc: Brooks, Roy G Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap / 10-09-06 One additional reminder - - please review the org chart for your line of authority and get those revisions to me before Friday. We will probably go over the updated charts at cabinet on Monday. Thanks to those of you who have already submitted your changes. They have been made and Ive sent the revised pages to you to check. From: Griffin, Beverly Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 5:25 PM To: Adams, Wayne
Babbs, Junious
Carter, Karen
Dejarnette, Karen
Glasgow, Dennis
Hartz, David
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Milhollen, Mark
Mitchell, Sadie
Mittiga, Joseph
Roberts, Olivine
Vann, Suellen
Watson, Linda Cc: Brooks, Roy G 10/12/2006Page 2 of 2 Subject: Cabinet Recap / 10-09-06 Snapshots: - Dennis Glasgow - Foreign Language / AP Credit for Middle School courses Updates & Other Assignments: - Joe Mittiga / policies drafted re: campaigning on school district properties. Will be presented to the board in November for first reading. - Joe Mittiga! discussed drafting a charter school proposal to provide remedial catch up instruction for fifth through seventh graders, chronically low-performers. Project Management Matrix - Suellen Vann - PTA Officers Breakfast scheduled 11-17-06 - Hugh Hattabaugh / David Hartz - completion of Cycle Reports to Arkansas Department of Education prior to October 15 deadline FYI: Media Event at Central High School at 3:00 on Friday - - ceremony retiring Joe Johnsons jersey Next meeting: Monday, October 16, 2006, 9:00 a.m. Beverly J. Griffin Sr. Executive Assistant Little Rock School District 501-447-1005 10/12/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: "Williams. Ed" <Ed.Williams@lrsd.org> <Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu>
<smross@memphis.edu>
<blktinzie1@yahoo.com>
"Riley, Cheryl" <Cheryl.Riley@lrsd.org>
<mqpowell@odmemail.com>
<gjones@aristotle.net>
<heller@fec.net>
"Roberts. Olivine" <Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org>
"Robinson. Maurecia" <Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org>
"Wohlleb. Jim" <Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org>
"Dejarnette. Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org>
"Ray. Katina" <Katina.Ray@lrsd.org>
"Fletcher. Danny" <Danny.Fletcher@lrsd.org> Monday. October 16. 2006 1:53 PM A+ Evaluation Meeting To All: The A+ evaluation team meeting has been rescheduled for the afternoon of the 30*^ at 1p.m, Room 18 of the IRC. Please call me if you have any questions, 447-3386. Ed R. Williams, ph.D. 10/16/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: "Robinson. Maurecia" <Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org> <jpdrey@aol.com>
"Wohlleb. Jim" <Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org>
"Williams. Ed" <Ed.Williams@lrsd.org>
"Dejarnette. Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Miller. Leticia <Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org>
"Menking. Mary" <Mary,Menking@lrsd.org>
"Hobbs. Felicia" <Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org>
"Mitchell. Sadie" <Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org>
"Roberts. Olivine" <Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org>
"Morgan. Nancy" <Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org>
"Joy Springer - John Walker" <jspringer@gabrielmail.com>
<gjones@aristotle.net>
<brigette@abpg.com>
<mqpowell@odmemail.com> Monday. October 16. 2006 2:52 PM meeting.ics Magnet Team Meeting When: Wednesday, November 08. 2006 1:30 PM-2:30 PM (GMT-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada). Where: Room 18 IRC Hello Team, Jeanne Dreyfus, the external consultant and technical writer for the Magnet Evaluation, will be here on November 8, 2006 at 1:30 P.M., to begin and discuss year two of the Magnet report. The meeting will be held in Room 18 at the IRC. I hope you will be able to attend. Please call if you have questions, 447-3382. Thank you, Maurecia Maurecia Robinson, Statistician Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/447-3382 10/16/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail.com> Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:41 AM database training today PRE will attend a training session offered by the Janis Group today at the Tech Center form 8:30-3 to learn more about data access. 10/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: "Dejarnette, Karen" <Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org> "Margie" <mqpowell@odmemail,com> Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:34 AM disc06oct2.doc FW: From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine
Hattabaugh, Hugh
Mittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen
Robinson, Maurecia
Williams, Ed
Paradis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh & Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true. Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, & Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 10/17/2006Notes of discussion about the second annual survey for the monitoring report October 2, 2006 Attending: Mr. Hugh Hattabaugh, Dr. Olivine Roberts, Mr. Joe Mittiga, Dr. Karen DeJamette, Ms. Maurecia Robinson, Dr. Ed Williams, and Mr. Jim Wohlleb Olivine summoned Jim and Karen to the administration building for a conference, and Karen invited Ed and Maurecia. PRE Department members thought it would be about the authority of PRE to determine what it assesses. Instead, Dr. Roberts led discussion about this years survey of teachers, parents, and students for the monitoring report. Mention of on-line surveys by Education for the Future (EFF), ready for administration now, was met by Mr. Hattabaughs declaration that any services by outside organizations require RFPs. Dr. DeJamette noted that EFF is so busy it does not consider RFPs. In her opinion, LRSD is turning away from the best methods and services and instead using its own unvalidated measures. Given this, she prefers that Mr. Mittigas office rather than PRE conduct the survey for the monitoring report. All agreed on a more attractive survey instrument than last years and distribution by some means other than USPS. Showing high priority to the survey is a way to increase participation. For ES parents, teachers can ask them to answer questionnaires at the start of conferences with teachers. This might not work so well with parents of middle & high school students. There was agreement by both Dr. Roberts and Mr. Mittiga that last years questions were ambiguous. They also endorsed stakeholder participation in the design. Martha Hill was mentioned as a good participant. Afterwards, Mr. Wohlleb sent copies of the four EFF questionnaires to Mr. Mittiga, and he sent around a copy of the survey he designed with UALR but did not administer due to lack of funds. Comments sent with the EFF documents noted the intended application of them in PREs assessment of the teacher performance challenge as step 2 evidence.Page 1 of 1 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Dejarnette, Karen Tuesday. October 17, 2006 1:50 PM Roberts. Olivine
Hattabaugh. Hugh
Brooks. Roy G
HELLER@fec.net Subject
timeline for evaluation reports As you know three of the draft evaluation reports were submitted yesterday to the court. Final drafts are to be submitted by November 17. I need your assistance to define a timeline for Board members to review the draft and provide feedback to evaluators so they can produce final drafts for submission to the court on Nov. 17^. Based on feedback from board members attending last weeks board meeting they seem to want hard copies of lengthy reports. Therefore. I am printing copies of the reports this afternoon and tomorrow and will bring enough copies to Beverly tomorrow for Board members. I will also send copies of each report to Cabinet members via interdistrict mail as soon as they are printed. I need your assistance to complete the timeline below, see number 4: 1. Copies of draft reports delivered to evaluation team members. Cabinet and Board members as soon as possible, or by Friday. 2. Evaluation teams will meet at the IRC (with evaluators on conference call) to give feedback on October 25 (Read 180 and 21 Century) and October 30 (A+). 3. Cabinet members to provide feedback by or during October 30 Cabinet me
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.