{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"aru_unequal_229","title":"Kathy Webb Campaign Button","collection_id":"aru_unequal","collection_title":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044"],"dcterms_creator":["Kathy Webb"],"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["Button issued by the Kathy Webb Campaign during her successful run to become the first openly lesbian member of the Arkansas House of Representatives in 2006.","Gays and Lesbians -- Homosexuality -- Politics and Government -- Women -- Little Rock (Ark.) -- Little Rock -- Pulaski"],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Fayetteville, Ark. : University of Arkansas Libraries"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Arkansas","Civil rights--Arkansas","Race discrimination--Arkansas","Segregation--Arkansas"],"dcterms_title":["Kathy Webb Campaign Button"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.uark.edu/cdm/ref/collection/Civilrights/id/229"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact Special Collections for information on copyright."],"dcterms_medium":["photographs"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"aru_unequal_1309","title":"Kathy Webb Campaign Literature","collection_id":"aru_unequal","collection_title":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["Campaign brochure for State Representative candidate Kathy Webb of Little Rock, the first openly homosexual member of the Arkansas legislature.","Women -- Civil Rights -- Little Rock (Ark.) -- Gays and Lesbians -- Little Rock -- Pulaski"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Fayetteville, Ark. : University of Arkansas Libraries"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Arkansas","Civil rights--Arkansas","Race discrimination--Arkansas","Segregation--Arkansas"],"dcterms_title":["Kathy Webb Campaign Literature"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.uark.edu/cdm/ref/collection/Civilrights/id/1309"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact Special Collections for information on copyright."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"aru_unequal_1310","title":"Kathy Webb Campaign Literature","collection_id":"aru_unequal","collection_title":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["Campaign brochure for State Representative candidate Kathy Webb of Little Rock, the first openly homosexual member of the Arkansas legislature.","Women -- Civil Rights -- Little Rock (Ark.) -- Gays and Lesbians -- Little Rock -- Pulaski"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Fayetteville, Ark. : University of Arkansas Libraries"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Arkansas","Civil rights--Arkansas","Race discrimination--Arkansas","Segregation--Arkansas"],"dcterms_title":["Kathy Webb Campaign Literature"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.uark.edu/cdm/ref/collection/Civilrights/id/1310"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact Special Collections for information on copyright."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"aru_unequal_1311","title":"Kathy Webb Campaign Literature","collection_id":"aru_unequal","collection_title":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["Campaign brochure for State Representative candidate Kathy Webb of Little Rock, the first openly homosexual member of the Arkansas legislature.","Women -- Civil Rights -- Little Rock (Ark.) -- Gays and Lesbians -- Little Rock -- Pulaski"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Fayetteville, Ark. : University of Arkansas Libraries"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Arkansas","Civil rights--Arkansas","Race discrimination--Arkansas","Segregation--Arkansas"],"dcterms_title":["Kathy Webb Campaign Literature"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.uark.edu/cdm/ref/collection/Civilrights/id/1311"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact Special Collections for information on copyright."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"nge_ngen_m-10465","title":"King Papers","collection_id":"nge_ngen","collection_title":"New Georgia Encyclopedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, New York, New York County, New York, 40.7142691, -74.0059729"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["Atlanta mayor Shirley Franklin (second from left) examines a display of Martin Luther King Jr.'s papers at Sotheby's auction house in New York City. Franklin led the effort in 2006 to raise $32 million to purchase the papers for Atlanta. Also pictured, from left, Xernona Clayton, Andrew Young, and Carolyn Young.","Photograph of Atlanta, Georgia, mayor Shirley Franklin (second from left) examining a display of Martin Luther King Jr.'s papers at Sotheby's auction house in New York City. The papers are displayed in an enclosed glass case. Franklin led the effort to raise thirty-two million dollars to purchase the papers for Atlanta. Also pictured, from left, Xernona Clayton, Andrew Young, and Carolyn Young."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/king-papers","Forms part of: New Georgia Encyclopedia"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/king-papers","Forms part of: New Georgia Encyclopedia"],"dcterms_subject":["Mayors--Georgia--Atlanta","African American mayors--Georgia--Atlanta","Women mayors--Georgia--Atlanta","Civic leaders--Georgia--Atlanta","African American civic leaders--Georgia--Atlanta","African American women civic leaders--Georgia--Atlanta","Civil rights workers--Georgia--Atlanta","African American civil rights workers--Georgia--Atlanta","Exhibitions--New York (State)--New York","Exhibit stands--New York (State)--New York","Auctions--New York (State)--New York","Sotheby's (Firm)","Men--New York (State)--New York","Women--New York (State)--New York","African American men--New York (State)--New York","African American women--New York (State)--New York","Politicians--New York (State)--New York","African American politicians--New York (State)--New York","Women politicians--New York (State)--New York","African American women politicians--New York (State)--New York"],"dcterms_title":["King Papers"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["New Georgia Encyclopedia (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/king-papers/m-10465/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["Reprinted with permission from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution","Atlanta Journal-Constitution"],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["color photographs"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Franklin, Shirley, 1945-","Clayton, Xernona","Young, Carolyn, 1944-","Young, Andrew, 1932-","King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","Young, Andrew, 1932-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"jfk_jfkcivilrights_leaders","title":"Leaders in the struggle for civil rights","collection_id":"jfk_jfkcivilrights","collection_title":"John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Southern States, 33.346678, -84.119434"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["Web site presenting information about African American civil rights workers who influenced president John F. Kennedy. Includes information about James Farmer of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE); Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC); John Lewis who led the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and later worked with the SCLC; A. Philip Randolph who was president of both the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and the Negro American Labor Council; Bayard Rustin, who was influential in organizing the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom; Roy Wilkins, executive secretary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); and Whitney Young, executive director of the National Urban League.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of the John F. Kennedy presidential library and museum Web site"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Presidents--United States","United States--Politics and government--1961-1963","Civil rights movements--United States","African American civil rights workers","African Americans--Politics and government"],"dcterms_title":["Leaders in the struggle for civil rights"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/education/students/leaders-in-the-struggle-for-civil-rights"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["web sites","articles","instructional materials"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Kennedy, John F. (John Fitzgerald), 1917-1963"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"nge_ngen_m-10464","title":"Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech","collection_id":"nge_ngen","collection_title":"New Georgia Encyclopedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["A handwritten copy of Martin Luther King Jr.'s acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize is included in the Morehouse College Martin Luther King Jr. Collection. King delivered the speech in Oslo, Norway, in 1964.","This photograph shows a handwritten copy of Martin Luther King Jr.'s acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize. This letter is included in the Morehouse College Martin Luther King Jr. Collection. King delivered the speech in Oslo, Norway, in 1964."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/king-papers","Forms part of: New Georgia Encyclopedia"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/king-papers","Forms part of: New Georgia Encyclopedia"],"dcterms_subject":["Nobel Prize winners","African American civil rights workers--Georgia--Atlanta","Civil rights workers--Georgia--Atlanta","Letters--Georgia--Atlanta","Speeches, addresses, etc., American--Georgia--Atlanta","Morehouse College (Atlanta, Ga.)"],"dcterms_title":["Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["New Georgia Encyclopedia (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/king-papers/m-10464/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["Reprinted with permission from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution","Atlanta Journal-Constitution"],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["speeches"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_560","title":"Program evaluation emails","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006-01/2006-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluation emails"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/560"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nMargie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;awgrehan@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;ghweems@ualr.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jstrahl@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;ajmcdnld@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;heller@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;dununnley1@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jbates2@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;JNunnery@odu.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;blktinzie1@yahoo.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;lwharrsn@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;rose.harris@ocse.state.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Young, Linda\" \u0026lt;Linda.Young@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Alexander, Sheneka\" \u0026lt;Sheneka.Alexander@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Davis, Suzi\" \u0026lt;Suzi.Davis@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Doyne, Angela\" \u0026lt;Angela.Doyne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Fletcher, Danny\" \u0026lt;Danny.Fletcher@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Olds, Arthur\" \u0026lt;Arthur.Olds@lrsd,org\u0026gt;\n\"Purtle, Sarah\" \u0026lt;Sarah.Purtle@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Riley, Cheryl\" \u0026lt;Cheryl.Riley@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Martha\" \u0026lt;Martha.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Shofner, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Shofner@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Underwood, Krista\" \u0026lt;Krista.Underwood@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Whittaker, Nona\" \u0026lt;Nona.Whittaker@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Wiiliams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wilson, Janice\" \u0026lt;Janice.Wilson@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Woole, Ricky\" \u0026lt;Ricky.Woole@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@aristotle.net\u0026gt; Tuesday, January 24, 2006 9:38 AM Year Two Evaluation Team Meeting To All\nA Year Two evaluation team meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, February 9th, 1 pm to 4pm, at the Distant Learning Lab at Metro Technical School. The purpose of this meeting is to review the proposed research design by the two outside evaluators. Since there are four teams, plus the Magnet team involved, I have scheduled the following times so that not all will need to be there the entire three hours\n21st Century: 1-1:40 Read 180: 1:40-2:15 Pre-K Literacy: 2:15 - 2:45 A+: 2:45 - 3:20 Magnet: 3:20-4:00 PRE will either LISPS mail or e-mail the respective team members the research design description. Please call, 447-3386, or e-mail if you have questions. Talk to you soon Dr. Ed R. Williams Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 1/24/2006Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Alexander, Sheneka\" \u0026lt;Sheneka.Alexander@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Doyne, Angela\" \u0026lt;Angela.Doyne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Purtle, Sarah\" \u0026lt;Sarah.Purtle@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Martha\" \u0026lt;Martha.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Underwood, Krista\" \u0026lt;Krista.Underwood@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Freeman, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Freeman@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Michelle Ellison\" \u0026lt;mellison@fsainc.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;laura@bnbstudio.com\u0026gt;\n\"Mccraw, Helen\" \u0026lt;Helen.Mccraw@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Olds, Arthur\" \u0026lt;Arthur.Olds@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;awgrehan@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;lwharrsn@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;ajmcdnid@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;heller@fec.net\u0026gt; Monday, February 27, 2006 5:57 PM RE: Pre-K evaluation team meeting Feb 13 The evaluation team for Pre-K Literacy will meet at 10 AM. Monday. March 13 at the IRC (3001 S Pulaski). The room number will be posted at the front desk. One of our team members could not attend until 10:30. but we will be able to devote enough time to accommodate any questions. In another week I'll send copies of the draft questionnaires and latest version of the evaluation plan, so you can be familiar with them before the team meets. Thanks for you interest and commitment to this evaluation. Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; 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 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 4:13 PM To: Alexander, Sheneka\nDoyne, Angela\nPurtle, Sarah\nRoberts, Martha\nUnderwood, Krista Cc: Williams, Ed\nRobinson, Maurecia\nOlds, Arthur\nDejarnette, Karen\n'James Catterall'\n'awgrehan@memphis.edu'\nlwharrsn@memphis.edu\najmcdnld@memphis.edu Subject: Another evaluation team meeting soon Dear team members for Pre-K Literacy. Dr. Grehan expressed interest in reviewing the evaluation with the team in more depth than was possible Feb 9. She and Dr. Harrison can meet with us in LR on 3 occasions soon: next Tuesday, February 28, as early as mid-morning the next morning, Wednesday, Marcy 1, or Monday, March 13, as early as mid-morning. The best date for benefiting the evaluation would be the earliestnext Tuesday. However, meeting on any of the days would be helpful. Would you please let us know whether you can meet and on which date? Martha, please forward this to Ms. Ellison. I will be out of the office for the remainder of this week but monitoring my messages. Thanks very much for your help. Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 2/28/2006HHH.21.2006 4:27PM JOHN W WALKER P ft NO.307 Fag=.20ti Joy Springer From\nTo: Sent\nSubject. \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \"Jim Wohlleb\" \u0026lt;jim.wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Friday, April 21.2006 5:26 PM LRSD Program Evaluations Would you kindly advise whether requests for information from the ODM regarding LRSD Program Evaluations are addressed to Hugh Hattabaugh? If not, I believe that this is an issue that needs to be brought to the attention of Judge Wilson. Please forward this email to Karen DeJamette, Olivine Roberts, Hugh Hattabaugh and Chris Heller. Joshua does not wish to communicate to Judge Wilson that LRSD has been uncooperative regarding this process. I 4/21/06I, HnK.dl.dUUb 4:27PM JOHN W WftLKER P fl NO,307 P.l JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 I FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Hate: April 21, 2006 To: Gene Jones, ODM Fax: 371-0100 Re\nLRSDvPCSSD, etal. Sender: John W. Walker I YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES. PLEASE CALL '\u0026lt;{501) 374-37S8\u0026gt;' The infoimation comainedialhis facsimile message is anomey privileged and confidential information intended only for die use of die individual or entity named above. If die reader of this message is not die intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have receiv^ this gowiimmication in eiror, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at die above address via the U.S, Postal Service. Thank you. I !Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, June 01, 2006 1:41 PM ODM Concerns.doc FW: document enclosed From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 1:41 PM To: 'mqpowell@admemail.com' Subject: document enclosed Mr. Jones and Ms. Powell, The document listing concerns heard in yesterdays discussion is enclosed. I met with Dr. Brooks, Dr. Roberts, and Mr. Hattabaugh today and shared these concerns. Mr. Hattabaugh says he will call you. Gene, thanks for attending the sessions yesterday. I will work to make the team meetings more meaningful for each member, as we discussed. Karen I 6/1/2006ODM Concerns: Is the Court Order of utmost importance to the District and PRE? Does PREs placement on the organizational chart allow us to command input from evaluation team members? When will the Testing Coordinator position be filled, amount of time PRE staff are spending on test administration? When will PRE enact the formative assessment process (data warehouse)? What is the amount of time PRE staff are spending on non-court related evaluation or assessment projects? Will the closing of schools affext programs being evaluated? Are we discussing the implications? Joshua concerns: Will SW students receive the same services at new schools? Will funding follow students? Is Brooks resegregating the district, i.e. closing of schools etc.Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Tuesday, June 06, 2006 3:12 PM FW: Letter of request I told Gene Id let him know when I received a response from Dr. Potter. Her response follows. From: Gayle Potter (ADE) [mailto:gpotter@arkedu.kl2.ar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:04 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Ken James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE) Subject: Letter of request Importance: High Karen, I have received your letter and packet of information requesting dates when ACTAAP results will be available in what you call \"computer-readable format.\" I have forwarded this information to both Riverside and Questar and will respond to you as soon as I hear back from them. However, I am wondering about your request for \"computer-readable format.\" I am not aware that testing data has ever been delivered to the Little Rock School District from the assessment contractors in a different format than that received by any other school district in the state. I would appreciate clarification on this matter. Also please remember, if the data which is needed is, or includes, AYP data, the source for those data and the delievery dates for those data will be different from the assessment data coming from the Curriculum, Assessment, and Research Section. You will need to contact Janinne Riggs for any information concerning AYP data, dates, and data format. Gayle Dr. Gayle Potter, Associate Director Curriculum, Assessment, and Research 4 Capitol Mall, Room 106-A Little Rock, AR 72201 (501)682-4558 qpotter@arkedu.ka12.ar.us received JUN 0^2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOMITORIHG 6/6/2006Margie From\nTo: Cc: Sent: Attach\nSubject: /T fe d Page 1 of 1 \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Wednesday, June 07, 2006 4:32 PM A+.parent.intvs.doc FW: parent interview protocol - final version Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 iim.wohlleb@,lrsd.org 501/447-3381 or 680-9244 (mobile) (fax) 501/447-7609 receded desegregation MOHITORIMG ------Original Message------ From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:56 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim Cc: Williams, Ed\nRobinson, Maurecia Subject: FW\nparent interview protocol Jim, Here is the final draft of the parent interview protocol. The one we sent to team members was a near final draft. ------Original Message------ From: James Catterall [mailto:jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu] Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 2:44 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: parent interview protocol Karen  here is the parent interview protocol. james Os WHS 6/8/2006Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: Karen, Page 1 of 2 \"Gayle Potter (ADE)\" \u0026lt;gpotter@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette. Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Ken James (ADE)\" \u0026lt;kjames@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Diana Julian (ADE)\" \u0026lt;djulian@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Janinne Riggs (ADE)\" \u0026lt;jriggs@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Scott Smith (ADE)\" \u0026lt;dssmith@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Donna Wolfe (ADE)\" \u0026lt;dwolfe@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Susan Gray (ADE)\" \u0026lt;sgray@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Margaret Crank-Amps (ADE)\" \u0026lt;mcrank@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts. Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Rober:s@ksd.on \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Brooks. Roy G\"\u0026lt;Royg.r \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.cl \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Friday. June 09. 2006 3:20 PM RE\nLetter of request JUN 1 2 2006 \u0026lt;Lr '^ttabaugh, Hugh\" Heller\" ih Walker\" OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Karen, All of the student assessment data from both Riverside ( K-2 is already there) and Questar (the Rapid Electronic School Rosters for Benchmarks in Grades 3-8 have been posted since May 31) will be in public school districts by July 1. All of the tests you listed in your request will be included in these score reports. These score reports will be sent by the testing contractors in the same format as last year to all school districts. Janinne Riggs and I will call you Monday afternoon after the State Board of Education meeting if you are available to discuss your request for access to data via the NORMES website. What would be the best telephone number at which we might reach you? Thanks. Gayle From: Dejarnette, Karen [mailto:Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org] Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 12:02 PM To: Gayle Potter (ADE) Cc: Ken James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE)\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G\nChris Heller\nMargie\nJoy Springer - John Walker Subject: RE: Letter of request Dr. Potter, This email message is to clarify fiirther our request for computer-readable ACTAAP test results. The Little Rock School Districts request for a date when the Districts ACTAAP data will be accessible is not to the test company but to the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). We have understood that ADE provides electronic data for the NORMES website, and then school personnel access the data from that site. This was the process last year when the District provided computer-readable data to the external evaluators who carried out the four court-mandated evaluations. It is the same process we are inquiring about now. To our knowledge, last years data was not delivered to the District from the assessment contractors in a different format than that received by any other school district as your email message of June 6 incorrectly implies. Because you seemed not to understand what I meant by computer-readable format, I am attaching an example excel file to this email. If you would like instruction about this, please contact us. We have two specific questions: When will the Little Rock School District have access to electronically formatted ACTAAP data of its 6/12/2006Page 2 of 2 individual students via the NORMES website (or any other source)? Is the process stated above correct? If not, please correct our understanding. You email message of June 6 mentioned AYP data. We are not requesting such data at this time. My letter to you, dated May 25, 2006, included a list of the exact data variables our evaluations need, and AYP was not among them. Please respond as soon as possible. I need to let the external evaluators know when they can expect the data, so a motion for an extension can be filed with the Court if the date for expected data is later than July 1,2006. Thank you for assisting us with obtaining this information. Karen DeJamette Ph.D. Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District From: Gayle Potter (ADE) [mailto:gpotter(aiarkedu.kl2.ar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 ll\n04 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Ken James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE) Subject: Letter of request Importance: High Karen, I have received your letter and packet of information requesting dates when ACTAAP results will be available in what you call \"computer-readable format.\" I have forwarded this information to both Riverside and Questar and will respond to you as soon as I hear back from them. However, I am wondering about your request for \"computer-readable format.\" I am not aware that testing data has ever been delivered to the Little Rock School District from the assessment contractors in a different format than that received by any other school district in the state. I would appreciate clarification on this matter. Also please remember, if the data which is needed is, or includes, AYP data, the source for those data and the delievery dates for those data will be different from the assessment data coming from the Curriculum, Assessment, and Research Section. You will need to contact Janinne Riggs for any information concerning AYP data, dates, and data format. Gayle Dr. Gayle Potter, Associate Director Curriculum, Assessment, and Research 4 Capitol Mall, Room 106-A Little Rock, AR 72201 (501)682-4558 qDOtter(S)arkedu.ka12.ar.us 6/12/2006Margie Page From: To: Cc\nSent: Attach: Subject: \"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Miller, Leticia\" \u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Menking, Mary\" \u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"W Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hobbs, Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Marjorie Powel \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;,' \u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschooi.com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Sunday, July 09, 2006 8:59 PM Magnet Evaluation Year I Report July 06.doc Draft Magnet Report Please review the enclosed draft Magnet Schools and Programs Report written by Jeanne D external evaluator of our Magnet Schools and Programs. An evaluation team meeting, with [ Dreyfus on conference call, will be held on July 14 at 10a.m. in Room 10 at the IRC. I hope attend and provide feedback on the draft report. Please call if you have questions, 447-3382 Please note: Remember it's still an early draft. Findings and recommendation still have to be composed for several sections. Thank You, Maurecia Maurecia Robinson, Statistician Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/447-3382 501/447-7609Page 1 of 3 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent\nSubject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Gayle Potter (ADE)\" \u0026lt;gpotter@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt; \"Ken James (ADE)\" \u0026lt;kjames@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Diana Julian (ADE)\" \u0026lt;djulian@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Janinne Riggs (ADE)\" \u0026lt;jriggs@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Scott Smith (ADE)\" \u0026lt;dssmith@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Donna Wolfe (ADE)\" \u0026lt;dwolfe@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Susan Gray (ADE)\" \u0026lt;sgray@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Margaret Crank-Amps (ADE)\" \u0026lt;mcrank@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh. Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Brooks. Roy G\" \u0026lt;Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;Jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt; Monday. July 10. 2006 2:03 PM RE: Letter of request Dr. Potter, We checked the NORMES website today and did not see the needed data posted. Please let me know when we should expect to be able to pull the data from the site to forward on to our external evaluators. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. Karen Dejarnette Karen Dejarnette Director Planning. Research, and Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 447-3387 or 425-3109 From: Gayle Potter (ADE) [mailto:gpotter@arkedu.kl2.ar.us] Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 3:20 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Ken James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE)\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G\nChris Heller\nMargie\nJoy Springer - John Walker Subject: RE: Letter of request Importance: High Karen, Karen, All of the student assessment data from both Riverside ( K-2 is already there) and Questar (the Rapid Electronic School Rosters for Benchmarks in Grades 3-8 have been posted since May 31) will be in public school districts by July 1. All of the tests you listed in your request will be included in these score reports. These score reports will be sent by the testing contractors in the same format as last year to all school districts. Janinne Riggs and I will call you Monday afternoon after the State Board of Education meeting if you are available to discuss your request for access to data via the NORMES website. What would be the best telephone number at which we might reach you? Thanks, Gayle From: Dejarnette, Karen [mailto\nKaren.Dejarnette@lrsd.org] Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 12:02 PM To: Gayle Potter (ADE) Cc: Ken James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE)\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G\nChris Heller\nMargie\nJoy Springer - John Walker Subject: RE: Letter of request 7/12/2006Page 2 of 3 Dr. Potter, This email message is to clarify further our request for computer-readable ACTAAP test results. The Little Rock School Districts request for a date when the Districts ACTAAP data will be accessible is not to the test company but to the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). We have understood that ADE provides electronic data for the NORMES website, and then school personnel access the data from that site. This was the process last year when the District provided computer-readable data to the external evaluators who carried out the four court-mandated evaluations. It is the same process we are inquiring about now. To our knowledge, last years data was not delivered to the District from the assessment contractors in a different format than that received by any other school district as your email message of Jxme 6 incorrectly implies. Because you seemed not to understand what I meant by computer-readable format, I am attaching an example excel file to this email. If you would like instruction about this, please contact us. We have two specific questions: When will the Little Rock School District have access to electronically formatted ACTAAP data of its individual students via the NORMES website (or any other source)? Is the process stated above correct? If not, please correct our understanding. You email message of June 6 mentioned AYP data. We are not requesting such data at this time. My letter to you, dated May 25, 2006, included a list of the exact data variables our evaluations need, and AYP was not among them. Please respond as soon as possible. I need to let the external evaluators know when they can expect the data, so a motion for an extension can be filed with the Court if the date for expected data is later than July 1, 2006. Thank you for assisting us with obtaining this information. Karen DeJamette Ph.D. Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District From: Gayle Potter (ADE) [mailto:gpotter@arkedu.kl2.ar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:04 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Ken James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE) Subject: Letter of request Importance: High Karen, I have received your letter and packet of information requesting dates when ACTAAP results will be available in what you call \"computer-readable format.\" I have forwarded this information to both Riverside and Questar and will respond to you as soon as I hear back from them. However, I am wondering about your request for \"computer-readable format.\" I am not aware that testing data has ever been delivered to the Little Rock School 7/12/2006Page 3 of 3 District from the assessment contractors in a different format than that received by any other school district in the state. I would appreciate clarification on this matter. Also please remember, if the data which is needed is, or includes, AYP data, the source for those data and the delievery dates for those data will be different from the assessment data coming from the Curriculum, Assessment, and Research Section. You will need to contact Janinne Riggs for any information concerning AYP data, dates, and data format. Gayle Dr. Gayle Potter, Associate Director Curriculum, Assessment, and Research 4 Capitol Mall, Room 106-A Little Rock, AR 72201 (501)682-4558 qpotter@arkedu.ka12.ar.us 7/12/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Tuesday, July 11, 2006 7:57 PM FW: extension of time request fyi From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 7:57 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Cc: Brooks, Roy G\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: extension of time request Chris, The PreK evaluation team met this afternoon with researchers from CREP to discuss a few pieces of data still needed. Because many of the types of data utilized in the PreK design have not previously been analyzed or maintained in a District database, PRE staff had to transfer data from a hard copy to an electronic format for evaluation use. For two such databases, we still have some cleanup and matching tasks to complete. We also discussed the importance of including the QELI data which we learned last week will not be available from NORMES at this time. NORMES was scheduled to post the data then determined it to be filled with errors and decided not to make available. So, we will have to construct a database and input the data ourselves from paper copy reports we received from the ADE. I do not know how long this will take but I do know Steve Ross requires 6-8 weeks from receipt of all data to produce a draft report. I think it will take us at least a week or two to make the data available in an electronic format to CREP. As for the other three evaluations, please file a formal request for an extension. In our last update to the Court we cited July 10 as the date ADE personnel expected the data to be available in an electronic format through the NORMES website. The data is not available as of today, the 11 th. Perhaps we could suggest due dates for all four evaluations to the Court after we have all placed of the needed data in the hands of evaluators. Thanks for assisting. Karen 7/12/2006Page 1 of 5 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Gayle Potter (ADE)\" \u0026lt;gpotter@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt; \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Ken James (ADE)\" \u0026lt;kjames@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Diana Julian (ADE)\" \u0026lt;djulian@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Janinne Riggs (ADE)\" \u0026lt;jriggs@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Scott Smith (ADE)\" \u0026lt;dssmith@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Donna Wolfe (ADE)\" \u0026lt;dwolfe@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Susan Gray (ADE)\" \u0026lt;sgray@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Margaret Crank-Amps (ADE)\" \u0026lt;mcrank@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemaii.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt; Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:17 AM Re: Letter of request Karen, You will remember from my last e-mail and from our telephone conference call that I am not responsible in any way for the work with NORMES. Janinne Riggs is the contact person for that work. She explained on the conferemce call with you the process followed by NORMES and districts in data verification for AYP purposes. She also talked about likely timeline if no problems whatsoever occur. All assessment data from contractors for which my office is responsible has been delivered to all districts in the state, to the best of my knowledge. You will need to communicate with Janinne Riggs henceforth about all matters concerning the posting of data on the NORMES website. Gayle Potter Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld ------Original Message------ From: Dejarnette, Karen \u0026lt;Karen.Dejamette@,lrsd.org\u0026gt; To: Gayle Potter (ADE) \u0026lt;gpotter@arkedu.k 12.ar.us\u0026gt; CC\nKen James (AdDE) \u0026lt;kiames@arkedu.k 12.ar.us\u0026gt;: Diana Julian (ADE) \u0026lt;diulian@,arkedu.kl2.ar.us\u0026gt;: Janinne Riggs (ABE) \u0026lt;jriggs@arkedu.kl2.ar.us\u0026gt;: Scott Smith (ABE) \u0026lt;dssmith@arkedu.kl 2.ar.us\u0026gt;\nDonna Wolfe (ADE) \u0026lt;dwolfe@arkedu.k 12.ar.us\u0026gt;: Susan Gray (ADE) \u0026lt;sgrav@arkedu.kl2.ar.us\u0026gt;: Margaret Crank-Amps (ADE) \u0026lt;mcrank@arkedu.kl2.ar.us\u0026gt;: Roberts, Olivine \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@,lrsd.org\u0026gt;: Hattabaugh, Hugh \u0026lt;HughJHattabaugh@lrsfrprg\u0026gt;\nBrooks, Roy G \u0026lt;Royg.Brooks(S,lrsd.org\u0026gt;\nChris Heller \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;: Margie \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;: Joy Springer - John Walker \u0026lt;ispringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;: James Catterall \u0026lt;iamesc@,gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;: smross@,memphis.edu \u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt; Sent: Mon Jul 10 14:03:38 2006 Subject: RE: Letter of request Dr. Potter, We checked the NORMES website today and did not see the needed data posted. Please let me know when we should expect to be able to pull the data from the site to forward on to our external evaluators. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. Karen DeJamette Karen DeJamette Director Plaiming, Research, and Evaluation Department 7/12/2006Page 2 of 5 Little Rock School District 447-3387 or 425-3109 From\nGayle Potter (ADE) [mailto:gpotter@arkedu.kl2.ar.us] Sent: Friday, Jime 09, 2006 3:20 PM To: DeJamette, Karen Cc\nKen James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE)\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G\nChris Heller\nMargie\nJoy Springer - John Walker Subject\nRE\nLetter of request Importance\nHigh Karen, Karen, All of the student assessment data from both Riverside (K-2 is already there) and Questar (the Rapid Electronic School Rosters for Benchmarks in Grades 3-8 have been posted since May 31) will be in public school districts by July 1. All of the tests you listed in your request will be included in these score reports. These score reports will be sent by the testing contractors in the same format as last year to all school districts. Janinne Riggs and I will call you Monday afternoon after the State Board of Education meeting if you are available to discuss your request for access to data via the NORMES website. What would be the best telephone number at which we might reach you? Thanks, Gayle From\nDeJamette, Karen [mailto:Karen.Dejamette@lrsd.org] Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 12:02 PM To: Gayle Potter (ADE) Cc: Ken James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE)\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G\nChris Heller\nMargie\nJoy Springer - John Walker Subject: RE\nLetter of request Dr. Potter, 7/12/2006Page 3 of 5 This email message is to clarify further our request for computer-readable ACTAAP test results. The Little Rock School Districts request for a date when the Districts ACTAAP data will be accessible is not to the test company but to the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). We have understood that ADE provides electronic data for the NORMES website, and then school personnel access the data from that site. This was the process last year when the District provided computer-readable data to the external evaluators who carried out the four court-mandated evaluations. It is the same process we are inquiring about now. To our knowledge, last years data was not delivered to the District from the assessment contractors in a different format than that received by any other school district as your email message of June 6 incorrectly implies. Because you seemed not to understand what I meant by computer-readable format, I am attaching an example excel file to this email. If you would like instruction about this, please contact us. We have two specific questions: When will the Little Rock School District have access to electronically formatted ACTAAP data of its individual students via the NORMES website (or any other source)? Is the process stated above correct? If not, please correct our understanding. You email message of June 6 mentioned AYP data. We are not requesting such data at this time. My letter to you, dated May 25, 2006, included a list of the exact data variables our evaluations need, and AYP was not among them. Please respond as soon as possible. I need to let the external evaluators know when they can expect the data, so a motion for an extension can be filed with the Court if the date for expected data is later than July 1,2006. Thank you for assisting us with obtaining this information. Karen DeJamette Ph.D. Director 7/12/2006Page 4 of 5 Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District From: Gayle Potter (ADE) [mailto\ngpotter@arkedu.kl2.ar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:04 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Ken James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE) Subject: Letter of request Importance: High Karen, I have received your letter and packet of information requesting dates when ACTAAP results will be available in what you call \"computer-readable format.\" I have forwarded this information to both Riverside and Questar and will respond to you as soon as I hear back from them. However, I am wondering about your request for \"computer-readable format.\" I am not aware that testing data has ever been delivered to the Little Rock School District from the assessment contractors in a different format than that received by any other school district in the state. I would appreciate clarification on this matter. Also please remember, if the data which is needed is, or includes, AYP data, the source for those data and the delievery dates for those data will be different from the assessment data coming from the Curriculum, Assessment, and Research Section. You will need to contact Janinne Riggs for any information concerning AYP data, dates, and data format. Gayle Dr. Gayle Potter, Associate Director Curriculum, Assessment, and Research 4 Capitol Mall, Room 106-A Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 682-4558 gpotter@arkedu.ka 12. ar. us 7/12/2006Page 5 of 5 7/12/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:28 PM FW\n2 Page Fax From 5016045149 From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:28 PM To: 'Chris Heller'\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nBabbs, Junious\nWatson, Linda\nMilhollen, Mark\nRoberts, Olivine\nMitchell, Sadie\nVann, Suellen Subject: RE: 2 Page Fax From 5016045149 Chris, this is what we need: Electronic formatted benchmark data for every student involved in one of the evaluated programs. So far, this data is not available. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 11:33 AM To: Brooks, Roy G Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nBabbs, Junious\nDejarnette, Karen\nWatson, Linda\nMilhollen, Mark\nRoberts, Olivine\nMitchell, Sadie\nVann, Suellen Subject: Fwd: 2 Page Fax From 5016045149 roy - our (hopefully) final hearing is scheduled for December 18. there will be no hearing on Joshuas issues before then, within the next few days (as soon as i can determine exactly what we will need), we will probably have to ask the court to extend the deadline for our last four evaluations, the extension request will be based on the unavailability of necessary benchmark results in the required format, i believe that we will have draft evaluations completed before October 1, but not final evaluations (although last year there was no significant difference between the draft and final evals), i will ask for the minimum time we absolutely need no as not to delay our hearing date, ch 7/12/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:26 PM FW: extension of time request From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:24 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Subject: RE: extension of time request What you saw in the paper are data fro groups of students showing how groups of students performed. What evaluators need is electronic data for each student that can be dumped into an excel or spss format for statistical analysis and triangulation with other data sets. Program evaluation or assessment tasks require data for every individual student in that program being assessed or evaluated. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:50 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Re: extension of time request karen - remind me about the difference between what our experts nees and the information in today's paper, thanks, ch \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/11/2006 7:56 PM \u0026gt; Chris, The PreK evaluation team met this afternoon with researchers from CREP to discuss a few pieces of data still needed. Because many of the types of data utilized in the PreK design have not previously been analyzed or maintained in a District database, PRE staff had to transfer data from a hard copy to an electronic format for evaluation use. For two such databases, we still have some cleanup and matching tasks to complete. We also discussed the importance of including the QELI data which we learned last week will not be available from NORMES at this time. NORMES was scheduled to post the data then determined it to be filled with errors and decided not to make available. So, we will have to construct a database and input the data ourselves from paper copy reports we received from the ADE. I do not know how long this will take but I do know Steve Ross requires 6-8 weeks from receipt of all data to produce a draft report. I think it will take us at least a week or two to make the data available in an electronic format to CREP. As for the other three evaluations, please file a formal request for an extension. In our last update to the Court we cited July 10 as the date ADE personnel expected the data to be available in an electronic format through the NORMES website. The data is not available as of today, the 11th. Perhaps we could suggest due dates for all four evaluations to the Court after we have all placed of the needed data in the hands of evaluators. Thanks for assisting. Karen 7/12/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:26 PM FW: extension of time request From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:25 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Subject: RE: extension of time request Also, when you have time please respond to my inquiry about confidentially. PRE staff do not want to upset Brooks and we do want to meet the requirements outlined in the Compliance Remedy. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:50 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Re: extension of time request karen - remind me about the difference between what our experts nees and the information in today's paper, thanks, ch \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/11/2006 7:56 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Chris, The PreK evaluation team met this afternoon with researchers from CREP to discuss a few pieces of data still needed. Because many of the types of data utilized in the PreK design have not previously been analyzed or maintained in a District database, PRE staff had to transfer data from a hard copy to an electronic format for evaluation use. For two such databases, we still have some cleanup and matching tasks to complete. We also discussed the importance of including the QELI data which we learned last week will not be available from NORMES at this time. NORMES was scheduled to post the data then determined it to be filled with errors and decided not to make available. So, we will have to construct a database and input the data ourselves from paper copy reports we received from the ADE. I do not know how long this will take but I do know Steve Ross requires 6-8 weeks from receipt of all data to produce a draft report. I think it will take us at least a week or two to make the data available in an electronic format to CREP. As for the other three evaluations, please file a formal request for an extension. In our last update to the Court we cited July 10 as the date ADE personnel expected the data to be available in an electronic format through the NORMES website. The data is not available as of today, the 11th. Perhaps we couid suggest due dates for ail four evaluations to the Court after we have all placed of the needed data in the hands of evaluators. Thanks for assisting. Karen 7/12/2006Margie c\nPage 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, July 13, 2006 3:11 PM database revised.doc timeline for database discussion Hi Margie, We have tried to outline our discussion and work efforts related to the database PRE needs to conduct program assessments. Karen 7/13/2006f C: 7 Comparison______________________ Crystal Database as of July 11, 2006 TetraData offered Student demographics Standardized test scopes 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 fon aats requested PRE imports data files into SPSS and Word for analyses and reports. PRE staff anange di Statistical features support analyses and reports. IOn the recommendation of Dr. Bernhardt, PRE staff engaged in design conversation wit 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, an\u0026lt; maintains data warehouses specifically for educational organizations. Its databases offe 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\n1) 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. Throug the end of 2005 she demonstrated to senior LRSD administrators the ability of TetraDat 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. Iron $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.In 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 contempora 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 base and provide it to Information Services Department and other departments\nso PR 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 Court 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 tl 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.Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Friday, July 14, 2006 2:46 PM FW: Scott Smith.... From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 2:33 PM To: 'Brenda Kampman' Cc: Wohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\n'Chris Heller' Subject: RE: Scott Smith.... If Scott does not know what we need at this point (after all of the letters, emails, phone conversations, etc.) then I have absolutely no hope that we will ever finish these evaluations on time. The group from ADE said they understand what we need in our last phone call which Chris was a part ofthey even said theyd give us what we need on July 10^. How could they now have forgotten what we need? I am so OVER running around this bush! From: Brenda Kampman [mailto:Brendak@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:07 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Scott Smith.... says LRSD keeps talking to his people regarding what they need in test scores data and he isn't sure what it is they want - if he could find out exactly what they want and in what format, he will go ahead and finalize a response. 7/17/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette. Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Friday, July 14. 2006 2:46 PM database revised.doc FW: Snapshot From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 2:44 PM To: Griffin, Beverly Subject: RE: Snapshot Compliance Remedy - External Evaluations On June 1PRE 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 10*^. 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\nAn update on the status of completing the compliance report? 7/17/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette. Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Tuesday, July 18, 2006 1:23 PM draftRec06jul18.doc\nnormes postings.pdf FW: letter to counsel Fyi, another request to Chris to file for an extension. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 1:22 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Cc: Roberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G\nGriffin, Beverly Subject: RE: letter to counsel Chris, Here is an updated letter. I am also including a scanned copy of postings pulled from the NORMES website that show their expectations for benchmark and QELI data (see starred paragraphs). Karen From: Chris Heller [maiito:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 5:14 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Fwd: letter to counsel karen - can you update this letter based on our latest information about when we will get the data we need and your best information about how long it will take from then to complete the evals, as we discussed on the phone, i don't want to ask for any more time than we absolutely need would like to hold on to the December 18 hearing date if at all possible, i plan to file our motion tomorrow, thanks, ch 7/18/2006Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 FAX 501/447-7609 July 18, 2006 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3522 Dear Chris\nPlease request from the U.S. District Court an extension for the four external evaluation reports due to the Court on October 1, 2006. We are experiencing unforeseen delays in obtaining the data needed for each of the studies. In a June conversation with officials of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), including Drs. Gayle Potter, Diana Julian, Janinne Riggs, Don Stewart, and Ellen Treadway, we learned that digitally formatted individual students ACTAAP benchmark test scores will be delayed past July 1. This data is necessary for three of the external evaluations\nA+, 2P Century Community Learning Centers, and Read 180. In that conversation, ADE projected electronic data to be available on July 10,2006. Now, a week past that date, we have neither the data nor a new projected date from ADE. Officials of NORMES, which stores and facilitates access to the test data, project making it available by early August. LRSDs Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department (PRE) will require approximately two weeks to find and correct errors in the data set, once we receive it. Data for the pre-kindergarten literacy evaluation has been delayed as well. Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI) data for individual kindergarten students is not available in an electronic format, according to Riverside Publishing, which processes and publishes this data. Originally, NORMES projected posting the QELI data in an Excel file for downloads available in early July. However, NORMES recently announced that posting has been delayed due to over 15,000 missing numbers and names. Instead, PRE is currently negotiating directly with Riverside Publishing to create a data set for this evaluation. PRE expects to provide the QELI database to evaluators by early August. The accompanying evaluators letters indicate that they require six to eight weeks past their receipt of individual student data to produce their draft reports. If external evaluators can receive all of the necessary data by the end of August, they can submit their draft reports to the District by October 15, rather than the originally stated September 1. Further delay of access to the data will result in like delay in the reports. I therefore recommend an adjustment of the due dates to not sooner than October 15 for the initial drafts and November 17 for board approval. Thank you for carrying our recommendation to the Court. We will be pleased to answer any questions about it. Sincerely yours, Karen DeJamette, Ph.D. Director EncPage 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Miller, Leticia\" \u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Menking, Mary\" \u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hobbs, Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Marjorie Powell\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell, Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Tuesday, July 18, 2006 3:16 PM Magnet Update PRE staff members are currently working to determine who the magnet students are at the schools with magnet programs and will supply this list as well as matching test scores for the magnet students so Dr. Dreyfus can meet the requirements set forth by the evaluation team. The deadline of the initial report will need to be extended for Dr. Dreyfus to accommodate the added analysis. Originally, we planned to provide the Board with a draft report on August 4** but now will need to provide the initial draft by September 8^. 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 7/19/2006Page 1 of 2' Margie From: To: Cc: \"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Miller, Leticia\" \u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Menking, Mary\" \u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hobbs, Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Marjorie Powell\" Sent: Subject: Nancy, \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemaii.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell, Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer-John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Milhollen, Mark\" \u0026lt;Mark.Milhollen@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd orq\u0026gt; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 11\n06 AM RE\nMagnet Update No. this is not a request for CIS to provide data. Our department (PRE) will supply the matching test scores for the magnet students. Once the general enrollment data (Radar request #688) has been fulfilled we will take it from there. Thanks Maurecia From: Morgan, Nancy Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:24 AM To: Robinson, Maurecia Cc: Robinson, Maurec:a\nMiller, Leticia\nMenking, Mary\nWilliams, Ed\nHobbs, Felicia\n- 'Marjorie Powell'\nbrigettetgJabpg.com'\n'donnacreer@magnetschool.com'\n' (gjones@aristotle.net)'\nWohlleb, Jim\nMitchell, Sadie- 'Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu'\n'Joy Springer - John Walker'\nMilhollen, Mark\nRoberts' Olivine\nDejarnette Karen Subject: FW\nMagnet Update Hi Maurecia, Is this a request for CIS to provide data? If so, I will need specific instructions from your department. How does this request relate to your radar request #688 for \"General Enrollment Data, 2004-2005 bv school by groups\"?  You indicated you are currently working to determine who the magnet students are at the schools with magnet programs and will supply this as well as matching test scores forthe magnet students. Has PRE provided us with magnet scores to be included in ourwarehouse for reporting purposes? Please advise as soon as possible for us to meet your deadline of July 21, 2006. Nancy Morgan Coordinator of Application Development Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 447-1050 Fax: (501) 447-1157 -----Original Message------ From: Robinson, Maurecia. Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 3:16 PM To:-Miller, Leticia\nMenking, Mary\nWilliams, Ed\nHobbs, Felicia\nMarjoriePOwell\nbrigette@abpg.com\ndonnacreer@magnet5chool.com\n' (gjones@aristotle.net)'\nWohlleb, Jim\nMitchell, Sadie, Morgan-,. Nancy\n- T/j.9-/20\n0ffPage 2 of 2 Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\nJoy Springer - John Walker Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nWohlleb, Jim\nWilliams, Ed Subject: Magnet Update PRE staff members are currently working to determine who the magnet students are at the schools with maqnet programs and will supply this list as well as matching test scores for the magnet students so Dr. Dreyfus can meet the requmements set forth by the evaluation team. The deadline of the initial report will need to be extended for Dr. Dreyfus to accommodate the added analysis. Originally, we planned to provide the Board with a draft report on August A* but now will need to provide the initial draft by Septembers'*'. Thank you, Maurecia Maurecia Robinson, Statistician Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 3001S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/447-3382 501/447-7609 r! 13-/ 20 OSPage 1 of 2 Margie From\nTo: Sent\nAttach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday. July 20, 2006 4:25 PM foias july20.pdf FW: another foia fyi ------Original Message------ From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent\nThursday, July 20, 2006 4:23 PM To: 'Chris Heller'\n'Khayyam Eddings' Cc: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: FW: another foia Here are the two foias I meant to enclose with the last email. ------Original Message------ From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 4:09 PM To: 'Chris Heller'\n'Khayyam Eddings' Subject\nRE: another foia Okay, I am including Khayyam on this email too since he is working on the most recent foias. As I stated in the earlier email I believe I gave you all of the emails requested by Mr. Walker as of a couple of weeks ago. Nearly all of our recorded communications are via email. As you know, an efficient way to capture all of this is to \"dump\" the contents of our email on the LRSD server. PRE staff are scheduled to attend workshops outside of the IRC every day next week. The following week (July 31 -August 4) I am taking a week of vacation out of state. I am enclosing the two most recent foias\n1) renewed request and 2) a request for emails between the three PRE statisticians, district staff, and outside consultants that arrived today. Also, I really need counsel on information that is confidential and caimot be shared with ODM and JOSHUA. This is my third request on this topic. I sent a copy of the 1993 Order that seemed to relate to this issue to you and asked advice but have not yet received any. Please respond. 7/21/2006Page 2 of 2 ------Original Message------ From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 9:18 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Re: another foia Karen - I'm in Colorado until Saturday - khay is handling the latest round of foia requests. Thanks. CH \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejamette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/19 5:25 pm \u0026gt; Chris, I received this fax today. I believe I have given you most of the emails related to this request. However, he is now asking for emails with PRE staff. I will call you tomorrow. Thanks. Karen 7/21/2006JUL.\n. 9.2306 10:41AM JOHN M WALKER P A NO.360 P.l Ikte: Tci 1'6 Ki i'.e' Sauierr 70/SVIV. IVALKER, P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 VKK TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Jufy]7,200d Karen DeJametie 447-76Q9 Renewed Request far Emails John W. Wailcer 'OU SHOULD SSCEIVE f ----------Oficluding cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PT.PAfiR r.AT,T, \u0026lt;(S0D374^37SS\u0026gt; Thei^r^\u0026lt;cMtainfidmthBfi\u0026lt;simi]amessagelsaoraeypriviI^mdami5d(mtialinfonnai(mint^^ on^ the use of liie individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended OTihe employee or agent rei^xmsible to deliver it to die intended recipient, you are hereby notified tuat any dusemmatton, diSribution or copying of tJiis comnnraication is strictly prohibited If you have received this commiinicatian in eiror. please immediate notify us by telephone, andretnmttseorigiiialmessaao to os at the above address via the U.S, Postal Service. Thank you.JUL, 19.2 506 JOHN M WALKER P R NO,360 P,2 JOIN w. walk\nh SKAmiCHILD3 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Lmpu! Rock, Arkansas 72206 TEIEPHONS (501) 374-3758 PAX (SOI) 3744187 l^ail: johnwallttratty@aoLcom Via Facsimile - 447-7609 July 19.2006 ___ OP COUNSEL ROBERT McHENBY. PA DONNAJMcHENRY 8210 Hbns\u0026amp;ksoh Limu Rock, Arkansas 72210 PenNE (501) 37S.342B  Pax (501) 372.8428 OsAAil: Dr. \u0026lt;aien DeJamette Din ctor of PRE Licti s Rjock School District 300\nPulaski Lili\nRock,AR 72206 D\u0026lt;a-Dr. DeJamette: I ata renewing my request of June 22,2006 regarding emails related to the work of your deal rtment. Would you kindly provide all emails between and among you, Dr, Brooks, Hugh Hafl jbaugh. Dr, Olivine Roberts, Chris Heller, members of ODM, all outside and mt ji .bers of PRE staff for the period between August 1,2005 and the present. This request is being made pursuant to the Arkansas FOIA and the LRSDs coir pliance remedy. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Tnkn U7 John W, Walker JWWzjs cc: Chris HellerJUL..20.2)06 1:29PM JOHN W WALKER P A NO.393 P.l JOZCV W, WALKER, P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 VAX. TRANSMISSION COVER SBEET r DM!: Tc: July 20. 2006 Karm DeJameite Fax 447-7609 Rt: LSSD Seniltr: John W. Wtdktr 7 lUSHOULD RECEIVE [ Oncluang cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-375S\u0026gt;* The mifacmaxian u'^iueined b this facsimile mesa age is attotiiey privileged and confideiuial infimwaTinn intended only for the use of the mdividDBl ai eulily named above. If the madw of this message is not the blended recipient, or die employee or t^nt responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disseminarion, distribution or copying of Ais communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication m error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via die U.S. Postal Service. Thank you.JUL. 20.3506 1:30PM JOHN M WALKER P A NO.393 p.2\" johnw.wal:q R SHAW cntixiii JOHN W. WALKER, P. A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Limji Rocs, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374.S758 FAX (501) 3744187 Email: johnwalkenittytSaiol.com. Via Facsimile - July 20,2006 OPCOUNSHL ROBERT MeHZNSy, PA DOWAJ.MoHBNSY 8210 HZNDtRSQN ROaD LnriB Rocs, Abswsas 72210 PBOne\n(SOI) 372.3425 \u0026lt; Pax (501) 372.3428 Bmali: mcheoiydSsvbtlLliat Dr. F area DeJamette Little Rock School District SOC l Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 De^ir Or. DeJamette\nThis request is to secure all emails between and among your three statisticians, outside const dtants and LRSD district staff regarding any subject related to program assessment and/or cvalt adon for the period between August 1,2005 and the present This request is pursuant to the Arkansas FOIA and pursuant to the LRSD Compliance Remi dy. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Dictated but not read John W. WalkerPage 1 of 1 I Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Friday, July 21,2006 2:59 PM FW: counsel fyi From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 2:59 PM To: Brooks, Roy G Cc: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\n'Chris Heller'\n'Khayyam Eddings'\nWohlleb, Jim\nWilliams, Ed\nRobinson, Maurecia Subject: counsel Dear Dr. Brooks, I'd like to alert you that LRSD's (neither Chris nor anyone else in his firm) counsel has not responded to our questions about confidentiality and ... We feel urgently that there are important legal issues affecting our department. So if the District's counsel is not available to us, we would like to seek other counsel. Thanks for your interest and appreciation for our department. Sincerely, Karen 7/21/2006Margie Page 1 of 2 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, July 24. 2006 11:41 AM FW: counsel From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 7:19 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel yes Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddinqs@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE: This e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 6:59 AM \u0026gt; Khayyam has advised that if a document (including email) currently exists and is requested through the FOIA process then we should provide the document to counsel for review. Then, counsel will forward the requested document(s) on to the person(s) who made the request. This includes documents requested by ODM. Chris and Khayyam, is this correct? From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 3:31 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: Re: counsel All- I have spoken with Dr. Dejarnette and have hopefully quelled any concerns she has. Please do not hesitate to call me if either of you have any questions. Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 7/24/2006Page 2 of 2 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddinqs@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE: This e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/21/2006 2:59 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Dear Dr. Brooks. I'd like to alert you that LRSD's (neither Chris nor anyone else in his firm) counsel has not responded to our questions about confidentiality and ... We feel urgently that there are important legal issues affecting our department. So if the District's counsel is not available to us, we would like to seek other counsel. Thanks for your interest and appreciation for our department. Sincerely. Karen 7/24/2006Margie Page 1 of 3 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, July 24, 2006 2:47 PM FW: counsel From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:34 PM To: Khayyam Eddings\nWohlleb, Jim\nDejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Williams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel we need to know about all joshua requests for information and review the responses, we are still in litigation and there are several issues at stake, first, the rules of legal ethics do not allow direct contact of our clients by an opposing attorney in litigation, second, we believe that the foia should not be used to conduct discovery in litigation, we can only prevent abuses if we know what's going on. finally, it should be obvious that we need to know what the opposing lawyers in the case know, i can't imagine a situation in litigation where it would be a good idea for a client to provide information to the other side without involving their own lawyers. ch\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 2:22:47 PM \u0026gt; Thanks for the clarification. Does Khay's advice apply as well to non-FOIA requests by Joshua? Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; 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 From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:15 PM To: Khayyam Eddings\nWohlleb, Jim\nDejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Williams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel khay was asked about foia requests and his advice applies to foia requests, in the unlikely event that odm makes an foia request, then the process khay suggested should be followed, this will have no effect upon the typical odm request for information, ch \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 1:36:12 PM \u0026gt; Does this agree with the Court's directive to LRSD in the early 1990s? \u0026gt; Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; 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 7/24/2006Page 2 of 3 From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 7:19 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel yes Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddinqs@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE: This e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 6:59 AM \u0026gt; Khayyam has advised that if a document (including email) currently exists and is requested through the FOIA process then we should provide the document to counsel for review. Then, counsel will forward the requested document(s) on to the person(s) who made the request. This includes documents requested by ODM. Chris and Khayyam, is this correct? From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 3:31 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: Re: counsel All- I have spoken with Dr. Dejarnette and have hopefully quelled any concerns she has. Please do not hesitate to call me if either of you have any questions. Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddinqs@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE: This e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior 7/24/2006Page 3 of 3 message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen,Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/21/2006 2:59 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Dear Dr. Brooks, I'd like to alert you that LRSDs (neither Chris nor anyone else in his firm) counsel has not responded to our questions about confidentiality and . .. We feel urgently that there are important legal issues affecting our department. So if the District's counsel is not available to us, we would like to seek other counsel. Thanks for your interest and appreciation for our department. Sincerely, Karen 7/24/2006Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, July 24, 2006 7:00 AM FW: counsel From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 7:00 AM To: 'Khayyam Eddings'\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel Khayyam has advised that if a document (including email) currently exists and is requested through the FOIA process then we should provide the document to counsel for review. Then, counsel will forward the requested document(s) on to the person(s) who made the request. This includes documents requested by ODM. Chris and Khayyam, is this correct? From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 3:31 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: Re: counsel All- I have spoken with Dr. Dejarnette and have hopefully quelled any concerns she has. Please do not hesitate to call me if either of you have any questions. Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddinqs@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE: This e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/21/2006 2:59 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Dear Dr. Brooks, I'd like to alert you that LRSD's (neither Chris nor anyone else in his firm) counsel has not responded to our questions about confidentiality and ... We feel urgently that there are important legal issues affecting our department. So if the District's counsel is not available to us, we would like to seek other counsel. 7/24/2006Margie Page 1 of 4 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemaiLcom\u0026gt; Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:34 AM FW: counsel From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:40 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Robinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed Subject: FW: counsel Karen, This is the last communication from Chris. I dont remember receiving anything about responding to the FOIA request involving us statisticians. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; 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 From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 3:13 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh Subject: RE: counsel i don't want to change any internal procedures, mr hattabaugh has been forwarding the foia requests to us, and that's fine, ch \u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 3:01:47 PM \u0026gt; Thanks, Chris. We'll continue fon/varding Joshua's FOIA requests. A few months ago, I understood that we were to send them all to Mr. Hattabaugh. Should we now send them all to counsel again (as we did before that new instruction)? Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; 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 From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:51 PM 7/26/2006Page 2 of 4 To: Chris Heller\nKhayyam Eddings\nWohlleb, Jim\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Williams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel Usually Joshua makes a foi request and then ODM asks informally (not through foi) for the same information. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:34 PM To: Khayyam Eddings\nWohlleb, Jim\nDejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Williams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel we need to know about all joshua requests for information and review the responses, we are still in litigation and there are several issues at stake, first, the rules of legal ethics do not allow direct contact of our clients by an opposing attorney in litigation, second, we believe that the foia should not be used to conduct discovery in litigation, we can only prevent abuses if we know what's going on. finally, it should be obvious that we need to know what the opposing lawyers in the case know, i can't imagine a situation in litigation where it would be a good idea for a client to provide information to the other side without involving their own lawyers. ch\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 2:22:47 PM \u0026gt; Thanks for the clarification. Does Khay's advice apply as well to non-FOIA requests by Joshua? Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 iim.wohlleb@lrsd.org 501/447-3381 or 680-9244 (mobile) (fax) 501/447-7609 From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:15 PM To: Khayyam Eddings\nWohlleb, Jim\nDejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Williams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel khay was asked about foia requests and his advice applies to foia requests, in the unlikely event that odm makes an foia request, then the process khay suggested should be followed, this will have no effect upon the typical odm request for information, ch \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 1:36:12 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Does this agree with the Court's directive to LRSD in the early 1990s? Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 iim.wohlleb@lrsd.org 501/447-3381 or 680-9244 (mobile) (fax) 501/447-7609 From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 7:19 AM 7/26/2006Page 3 of 4 To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE\ncounsel yes Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddlnqs@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE\nThis e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 6:59 AM \u0026gt; Khayyam has advised that if a document (including email) currently exists and is requested through the FOIA process then we should provide the document to counsel for review. Then, counsel will forward the requested document(s) on to the person(s) who made the request. This includes documents requested by ODM. Chris and Khayyam, is this correct? From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 3:31 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: Re: counsel All- I have spoken with Dr. Dejarnette and have hopefully quelled any concerns she has. Please do not hesitate to call me if either of you have any questions. Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddinqs@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE\nThis e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you 7/26/2006Page 4 of 4 \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/21/2006 2:59 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Dear Dr. Brooks, I'd like to alert you that LRSD's (neither Chris nor anyone else in his firm) counsel has not responded to our questions about confidentiality and .. . We feel urgently that there are important legal issues affecting our department. So if the District's counsel is not available to us, we would like to seek other counsel. Thanks for your interest and appreciation for our department. Sincerely, Karen 7/26/2006d! Page 1 of 3 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:34 AM FW: foia From: Robinson, Maurecia Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 4:46 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: RE: foia Below are the latest emails. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:34 PM To: Khayyam Eddings\nWohlleb, Jim\nDejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Williams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel we need to know about all joshua requests for information and review the responses, we are still in litigation and there are several issues at stake, first, the rules of legal ethics do not allow direct contact of our clients by an opposing attorney in litigation, second, we believe that the foia should not be used to conduct discovery in litigation, we can only prevent abuses if we know what's going on. finally, it should be obvious that we need to know what the opposing lawyers in the case know, i can't imagine a situation in litigation where it would be a good idea for a client to provide information to the other side without involving their own lawyers. ch\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 2:22:47 PM \u0026gt; Thanks for the clarification. Does Khay's advice apply as well to non-FOIA requests by Joshua? Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 iim.wohlleb@lrsd.org 501/447-3381 or 680-9244 (mobile) (fax) 501/447-7609 From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:15 PM To: Khayyam Eddings\nWohlleb, Jim\nDejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Williams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel khay was asked about foia requests and his advice applies to foia requests, in the unlikely event that odm makes an foia request, then the process khay suggested should be followed, this will have no effect upon the typical odm request for information, ch \u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 1:36:12 PM \u0026gt; Does this agree with the Court's directive to LRSD in the early 1990s? 7/26/2006Page 2 of 3 Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; 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 From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 7:19 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel yes Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddinqs@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE: This e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredqe \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 6:59 AM \u0026gt; Khayyam has advised that if a document (including email) currently exists and is requested through the FOIA process then we should provide the document to counsel for review. Then, counsel will forward the requested document(s) on to the person(s) who made the request. This includes documents requested by ODM. Chris and Khayyam, is this correct? From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 3:31 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: Re: counsel All- I have spoken with Dr. Dejarnette and have hopefully quelled any concerns she has. Please do not hesitate to call me if either of you have any questions. Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddinqs@fec.net 7/26/2006Page 3 of 3 Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE: This e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/21/2006 2:59 PM \u0026gt; Dear Dr. Brooks, I'd like to alert you that LRSD's (neither Chris nor anyone else in his firm) counsel has not responded to our questions about confidentiality and .. . We feel urgently that there are important legal issues affecting our department. So if the District's counsel is not available to us, we would like to seek other counsel. Thanks for your interest and appreciation for our department. Sincerely, Karen From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 3:44 PM To: Robinson, Maurecia\nWohlleb, Jim\nWilliams, Ed Subject: foia Statisticians, Have you heard back from Chris about the foia directed to the three of you last week? I have not heard from him. The last email sent to him from' me indicated Mr. Walker could access the email database rather than us spending time to print the emails. Please let me know where you are in responding to the foia. Thanks, Karen 7/26/2006Page 1 of 3 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt; \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;ajmcdnld@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;awgrehan@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jstrahl@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;dlowther@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;JNunnery@odu.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;hkenaga@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;dslawson@memphis.edu\u0026gt; Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:27 AM RE: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Eds email reports the electronic file sent to you is correct, however, Diane reports otherwise and says a new set of electronic data is being sent. Perhaps the code book that is embedded in the CD is incorrect. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:09 AM To: 'smross@memphis.edu'\njamesc@gseis.ucla.edu Cc: HELLER@fec.net\nmqpowell@odmemail.com\njspringer@gabrielmail.com\najmcdnld@memphis.edu\nawgrehan@memphis.edu\njstrahl@memphis.edu\ndlowther@memphis.edu\nJNunnery@odu.edu\nhkenaga@memphis.edu\ndslawson@memphis.edu Subject: RE: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Diane just called and reported the electronic data will be shipped to us with the paper copies. She thinks we will receive the data by August 4*^. As soon as we receive it we will email a new database. From: smross@memphis.edu [mailto:smross@memphis.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:52 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen\njamesc@gseis.ucla.edu Cc: HELLER@fec.net\nmqpowell@odmemaiLcom\njspringer@gabrielmail.com\najmcdnld@memphis.edu\nawgrehan@memphis.edu\njstrahl@memphis.edu\ndlowther@memphis.edu\nJNunnery@odu.edu\nhkenaga@memphis.edu\ndslawson@memphis.edu Subject: RE: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Ok... Im notifying the researchers here so that theyre up to date. 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: Dejarnette, Karen [mailto:Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org] 7/27/2006Page 2 of 3 Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:28 AM To: Steven M Ross (smross)\nJames Catterall Cc: Chris Heller\nMargie\nJoy Springer Subject: FW: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Steve and James, Riverside Publishing Company, the provider of ITBS tests and results, has issued an email stating the Math Total results we received on paper reports are incorrect because all of the subtests were not included. I called Dianne Al-Tikriti to inquire about the accuracy of the electronic data we have received. She could not answer but said she will talk with a Program Manager and get back to me. I will keep you posted. Karen From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 6:39 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: FW: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Please note. From: Brooks, Roy G Sent: Mon 7/24/2006 3:42 PM To: Roberts, Olivine Subject: FW: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Dear Arkansas Educator: Re: AR NRT 3-9 District, Building, and Student Reports In June 2006, you received score reports for the results of the ITBS (grades 3-8) and the ITED (grade 9) from the spring 2006 statewide administration. These results were accurate, but did not include all three math subtests in the math total section. This was noted on the reports that you received by an asterisk (*) and the following associated verbiage\n*Math computation is not included in the Math Total or in any score that includes the Math Total. The math total should have included all three subtests that were administered. Due to this, new score reports will be run which will produce a new math total. The new reports will not have the asterisk (*) or verbiage mentioned above. Please note that the only change to the score reports will be the math total score. All of the subtest results were originally reported correctly. If additional information is needed regarding this, please feel free to contact Riverside directly. The revised reports for your district that include math computation in the math totals will be shipped starting today through next week. They will be marked with sticker's with the wording: \"Revised July Reports\". There will be a folder for each school in your district and one folder for the district. These reports are a replacement for ALL of the 3-9 score reports that were sent in June (GRADES 3-9 REPORTS ONLY). A letter with this information will be included in box 1 of your new report boxes as well. Please destroy the original Grades 3-9 scorereports you were sent in order to assure that the correct results for the math totals are being distributed. The K- 2 reports are correct. Please do not destroy these. We apologize for any confusion this has caused. For questions about the materials, interpreting the reports or 7/27/2006Page 3 of 3 ordering additional materials and reports, please call Dianne Al-Tikriti at 800-323-9540 extension 6737. If you have any additional questions regarding the Arkansas state testing program, or the reports, please contact me directly at extension 6094. Sincerely, Meredith A. Durgin Senior Program Manager Riverside Publishing 7/27/2006Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt; \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:51 AM RE: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Seems to me the electronic data we have sent to you would have to be incorrect but I wanted to verify with Riverside. I have asked Diane to also inquire about a timeline for republishing the electronic data if it is in fact incorrect. If I do not hear back from her by mid afternoon I will call her again. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:28 AM To: 'smross@memphis.edu'\n'James Catterall' Cc: Chris Heller\n'Margie'\n'Joy Springer' Subject: FW: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Steve and James, Riverside Publishing Company, the provider of ITBS tests and results, has issued an email stating the Math Total results we received on paper reports are incorrect because all of the subtests were not included. I called Dianne Al-Tikriti to inquire about the accuracy of the electronic data we have received. She could not answer but said she will talk with a Program Manager and get back to me. I will keep you posted. Karen From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 6:39 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: FW: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Please note. From: Brooks, Roy G Sent: Mon 7/24/2006 3:42 PM To: Roberts, Olivine Subject: FW: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Dear Arkansas Educator: Re: AR NRT 3-9 District, Buiiding, and Student Reports In June 2006, you received score reports for the results of the ITBS (grades 3-8) and the ITED (grade 9) from the spring 2006 statewide administration. These results were accurate, but did not include all three math subtests in the math total section. This was noted on the reports that you received by an asterisk (*) and the following associated verbiage: *Math computation is not included in the Math Total or in any score that includes the Math Total. The math total should have included all three subtests that were administered. Due to this, new score reports will be run which will produce a new math total. The new reports will not have the asterisk (*) or verbiage 7/27/2006Page 2 of 2 mentioned above. Please note that the only change to the score reports will be the math total score. All of the subtest results were originally reported correctly. If additional information is needed regarding this, please feel free to contact Riverside directly. The revised reports for your district that include math computation in the math totals will be shipped starting today through next week. They will be marked with sticker's with the wording: \"Revised July Reports\". There will be a folder for each school in your district and one folder for the district. These reports are a replacement for ALL of the 3-9 score reports that were sent in June (GRADES 3-9 REPORTS ONLY). A letter with this information will be included in box 1 of your new report boxes as well. Please destroy the original Grades 3-9 scorereports you were sent in order to assure that the correct results for the math totals are being distributed. The K- 2 reports are correct. Please do not destroy these. We apologize for any confusion this has caused. For questions about the materials, interpreting the reports or ordering additional materials and reports, please call Dianne Al-Tikriti at 800-323-9540 extension 6737. If you have any additional questions regarding the Arkansas state testing program, or the reports, please contact me directly at extension 6094. Sincerely, Meredith A. Durgin Senior Program Manager Riverside Publishing 7/27/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmaiLcom\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Friday, July 28, 2006 10:00 AM SFX3F1.pdf FW: Availability of test information Fyi, the ADE confirms early August as the expected date for needed data. From: Brenda Kampman [mailto:Brendak@fec.net] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 9:48 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller Subject: Availability of test information Letter from ADE with attachment. Brenda Kampman Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 direct line: 501-370-1444 fax: 501-376-2147 7/31/2006ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Education Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasE(l.org OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL July 25, 2006 Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 RE: Little Rock School District Dear Chris: It is my understanding that your client, the Little Rock School District, has asked for information as to what dates certain criterion reference test information might be available to Arkansas school districts. To that end, please find attached the requested information. I will assume this information is sufficient to answer the school districts questions, absent any further notice directly to my office. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sinc^ly, .Scott Smii General Counsel SS:law Attachment cc: Dr. Ken James Janinne Riggs Dr. Gayle Potter STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton * MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Smith FROM: Janinne Riggs DATE: July 17,2006 RE: Follow-up on a memo from your office regarding Request from Dr. Karen Dejarnette, LRSD A conference call was held on June 12,2006 with parties from the LRSD and staff of ADE (Dr. Stewart, Dr. Potter and Ms. Riggs) for the purpose of discussing score reports for the district. A tentative timetable for posting the school improvement reports was discussed as follows:  Benchmark school roster data posted to district May 31  All student assessment data no later than July 1  July 7 data corrections excel spreadsheets posted to allow student demographic changes to be made (see Commissioners Memo COM-07-001 dated 7-7-06)  Data corrections submitted to NORMES by July 14  School Reports posted by early August (tentative date)\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"gych_rogp","title":"Reflections on Georgia Politics Oral History Collection","collection_id":null,"collection_title":null,"dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","United States, Southern States, 33.346678, -84.119434"],"dcterms_creator":["Short, Bob, 1932-","Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies"],"dc_date":["2006/2013"],"dcterms_description":["This oral history collection consists of 120 video interview programs with politically prominent Georgians, hosted by Bob Short. The programs include public oral histories recorded at Young Harris College in 2006 and 2007, and one-on-one interviews recorded in the homes and offices of interviewees around the state of Georgia from 2007 to 2010. The range of Georgia politics is covered, particularly the gubernatorial contests from 1946 to 2002, the U.S. Senate races of 1972, 1980, 2002, and 2008, the Civil Rights Movement, reapportionment, the development of Atlanta, political journalism, and the careers of key Georgia politicians not available for interview or deceased, particuarly Richard B. Russell, Jr., Herman E. Talmadge, S. Ernest Vandiver, Paul Coverdell, Jimmy Carter, Newt Gingrich, Sam Nunn, Lester Maddox, and Marvin Griffin.","Charles Robert \"Bob\" Short was born in Clayton, Georgia on April 17, 1932 and educated at Young Harris College, Georgia Southern University, and the Woodrow Wilson College of Law. Upon discharge from the Air Force in 1956 he began his career as a sports writer for the Atlanta Journal, and then served in various capacities in the administrations of Georgia Governors Marvin Griffin, Ernest Vandiver, and Carl Sanders. Short coordinated the campaign of Jimmy Carter when Carter ran for governor of Georgia in 1966, and later worked as press secretary for Carter's opponent in that race, Governor Lester Maddox, in 1967 and 1968. In 1968 he was appointed regional director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness -- the forerunner of FEMA -- by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Entering the private sector in the early 1970s, Short worked for Hoffman LaRoche and Hospital Corporation of America, and for his own firm, Investmart, Inc., a marketing consulting business. Short remained active politically, consulting on a limited scale and serving as special assistant to Governor and Senator Zell Miller and Senator Johnny Isakson. Short retired to Blairsville, Georgia. Bob Short wrote the only biography of Lester Maddox titled, Everything is Pickrick (Mercer University Press, 1999), which won him the title \"Author of the Year\" from the Georgia Writers Association. In 2006 he began a lecture and discussion program at neighboring Young Harris College entitled, Reflections on Georgia Politics. He then partnered with the Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies to make Refelections on Georgia Politics an oral history series.","Related materials available in the following collections of this repository: Zell B. Miller Papers; Carl E. Sanders Papers; Bob Short Audiovisual Materials Collection; Richard B. Russell Library Oral History Documentary Collection; Erwin Mitchell Papers; J. Roy Rowland Papers; Larry Walker Papers; David Gambrell Papers; Ben Blackburn Papers; Williamson S. Stuckey Papers; T. Rogers Wade Collection of Herman E. Talmadge Materials; Mack F. Mattingly Papers; Saxby Chambliss Papers; Cathy Cox Papers; Tommy Irvin Papers; Doug Barnard, Jr. Papers; George W. Darden Papers; Michael L. Thurmond Papers; M. Louise McBee Papers; James L. Gillis, Sr. Papers; John C. Foster Papers; Helen M. Lewis Collection of James V. Carmichael Campaign Material; Eurnice L. Mixon Papers; Harold L. Murphy Papers; Jim Martin Papers; Harold G. Clarke Papers; George J. Berry Papers; Fletcher Thompson Papers; Charles E. Campbell Papers; Max Cleland Papers; Aubrey Morris Collection of Richard B. Russell, Jr. Materials; Steve Wrigley Papers; Keith Mason Papers; Harry D. Dixon Papers; Reid Harris Papers related to the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act; Pete Wheeler Papers; Bill Shipp Papers; Joe Frank Harris Papers; Roy E. Barnes Papers.","Related collections held by Georgia State University Special Collections and Archives: Georgia Government Documentation Project; State University of West Georgia: Georgia's Political Heritage Program.","Finding aid available in repository.","Disc user copies and transcripts are available for use at the Russell Library. Apple Quicktime files and transcripts are available online via the Russell Library website."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Georgia. General Assembly","Civil rights--United States--History","Civil rights--Georgia--History","Journalism--Georgia","Political campaigns--Georgia","Political campaigns--United States","Segregation--Georgia","Civil rights","Journalism","Political campaigns","Politics and government","Segregation","Georgia--Politics and government","Georgia--History","Atlanta (Ga.)--History","United States--History"],"dcterms_title":["Reflections on Georgia Politics Oral History Collection"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://sclfind.libs.uga.edu/sclfind/view?docId=ead/RBRL220ROGP.xml"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Reflections on Georgia Politics oral history collection, Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies, University of Georgia Libraries, Athens, Georgia 30602-1641."],"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)","interviews","moving images"],"dcterms_extent":["219 mini-dv videotapes","18 DVDs","120 digital master files","120 digital user copies","120 transcripts and administration files"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Baker, Thurbert E.","Barnes, Roy E. (Roy Eugene), 1948-","Blackburn, Benjamin B. (Benjamin Bentley), 1927-","Carter, Jimmy, 1924-","Chambliss, Saxby, 1943-","Clarke, Harold G., 1927-","Cleland, Max, 1942-","Coverdell, Paul Douglas, 1939-2000","Fowler, Wyche, 1940-","Gambrell, David Henry, 1929-","Gingrich, Newt","Griffin, Marvin, 1907-1982","Harris, Joe Frank","Isakson, Johnny, 1944-","Lance, Bert, 1931-2013","Maddox, Lester, 1915-2003","McBee, Mary Louise","Miller, Zell, 1932-2018","Nunn, Sam","Russell, Richard B. (Richard Brevard), 1897-1971","Sanders, Carl, 1925-2014","Shipp, Bill","Short, Bob, 1932-","Talmadge, Herman E. (Herman Eugene), 1913-2002","Vandiver, S. Ernest (Samuel Ernest), 1918-2005","Vandiver, Betty Russell","Nunn, Sam"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_953","title":"Report: Annual report, North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School enrollment","School facilities","Education--Finance","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["Report: Annual report, North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/953"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"fda_houck_685428","title":"Research and Correspondence on the Case of Emmett Till and the Civil Rights Movement pulled from FBI file","collection_id":"fda_houck","collection_title":"Davis Houck Papers","dcterms_contributor":["Houck, Davis W."],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["Summary: Newspaper clippings, typed correspondence, and handwritten notes regarding the Civil Rights Movement and the case of Emmett Till"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Davis Houck Papers--http://purl.fcla.edu/fsu/MSS_2015-007"],"dcterms_subject":["Research"],"dcterms_title":["Research and Correspondence on the Case of Emmett Till and the Civil Rights Movement pulled from FBI file"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Florida State University Libraries. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_MSS_2015007_B06_F04"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","Use of this item is provided for non-commercial, personal, educational, and research use only. Florida State University Libraries is providing access to these materials for educational and research purposes and makes no warranty with regard to their use for other purposes. The written permission of the copyright owners and/or other rights holders (such as holders of publicity and/or privacy rights) is required for distribution, reproduction, or other use of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use or other statutory exemptions (see Title 17, U.S.C.). For information about the copyright and reproduction rights for this item, please contact Special Collections \u0026 Archives, Florida State University Libraries, Tallahassee, Florida: https://www.lib.fsu.edu/department/special-collections-archives."],"dcterms_medium":["records (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Till, Emmett, 1941-1955"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_787","title":"'Research Brief: SMART/THRIVE in the Little Rock School District''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Student assistance programs","Literacy","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["'Research Brief: SMART/THRIVE in the Little Rock School District''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/787"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nCREP \\cmitrfar iaE^htcatuaudPaiiey Center for Research in Educational Policy Research Brief The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38t 52 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 Reading Recovery in the Little Rock School District\\M^^ T0 ssS*^*^ WffWWIIIffltfiTglTrTWgl 1^ R CREP crater Jaf Ratarck ia EJueatiaaai Miey Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 Research Brief Reading Recovery in the Little Rock School District fl fl January 2006  Anna W. Grehan Steven M. Ross Lynn Harrison Center for Research in Educational Policy fl John Nunnery Old Dominion University fl IRESEARCH BRIEF: READING RECOVERY IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Background Reading Recovery is an internationally used intervention program, designed by noted literacy expert Dr. Marie M. Clay. It is a short-term intervention program for first grade students who are struggling in learning to read. The goal of Reading Recovery is to provide early, effective interventions, through one-on-one tutoring, which not only empowers struggling readers and increases their chances of continued success, but also reduces the cost of these learners to educational systems. In 1995. the Little Rock School District (LRSD) began implementing Reading Recovery in two elementary schools. Over the years the LRSD has expanded the Reading Recovery program and developed a partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) to conduct training and provide professional assistance for Reading Recovery specialists. At the end of the 2004-2005 school year the LRSD had 28 trained Reading Recovery teachers who were serving 18 of the 34 elementary schools in the district. In February 2005. researchers from the Center for the Research in Educational Policy (CREP) at the University of Memphis presented an evaluation plan for the Reading Recovery program to principals, representatives of the LRSD and other stakeholders. The evaluation plan for Reading Recovery was presented as part of a larger district study in which Reading Recovery and three other programs were evaluated. The evaluation plan for Reading Recovery included: (1) analyses of Reading Recovery student achievement and program data. (2) principal, teacher, and parent surveys and interviews, and (3) observations of Reading Recovery tutoring sessions. The evaluation plan was approved and researchers from CREP immediately began implementation. Purpose, Plan and Participants Purpose V The major goal of the study was to understand the impact Reading Recovery has had on African American students in the Little Rock School District. Specifically, through Reading Recovery, are African American students showing improvement in academic achievement? With that goal in mind, the primary research question for this evaluation was:  Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? In order to gain an even clearer picture of how well the Reading Recovery program has been used in the schools and the impact it has had on African-American students, six other questions were addressed. The information gathered to answer these questions provided a more complete understanding of how well the program has been carried out in the district. These additional questions were: I  What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the 18 schools implementing in 2004-2005? . What is the level of participation in Reading Recovery by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school?  What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other student participants in Reading Recovery in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued? What proportion of scheduled sessions are actually held, and what are the reasons for missed sessions? [NOTE: A 1 LI Reading Recovery student is discontinued when he/she demonstrates, through the appropriate assessments, ability to read on grade level with the regular class.]  What are the perceptions of Reading Recovery teachers regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of principals, regular first grade teachers, and other teachers in the school regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Reading Recovery students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Plan To answer these questions a research plan that collected a variety of information from numerous sources was required. Researchers used scores from the following standardized achievement tests or in- class assessments: H  Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS)  Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA)  Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)  An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement\nReading Recovery Subtests The CREP researchers also needed to determine how well the Reading Recovery teachers understood their tasks as teachers and how well they were able to follow the Reading Recovery program design. To answer these questions, data was collected data by using a Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire and a Reading Recovery observation tool. The questionnaire contained items for teachers to rate on an agreement-disagreement scale and open-ended items soliciting comments about the program. With the observation tool, trained Reading Recovery specialists monitored Reading Recovery teachers as they worked with students and recorded how well they followed Reading Recovery guidelines. CREP researchers interviewed, via telephone, four Reading Recovery teachers who were currently being trained to understand how effectively their training was being conducted. To determine how the program was thought of by principals, other teachers, and parents, questionnaires were specifically designed for each group. Classroom teachers from kindergarten through third grade in schools that had a Reading Recovery program were surveyed and asked both ratings items and open-ended questions. Parents with children currently in the Reading Recovery program were given a questionnaire to complete, also containing both types of items. Ten principals from Reading Recovery schools were randomly selected to participate in a phone interview in which their comments were recorded and transcribed. All of the data from observations were collected in March through May of 2005. Copies of all the instruments used and a complete breakdown of all results can be found the technical report. Participants Students: The overall sample of students that was used in this research included 1,094 first graders in the schools with Reading Recovery programs (18 schools) for the school year 2004-2005. Of this larger sample, 230 students were referred to the Reading Recovery program and became the Reading Recovery Group and 864 students who were not in the Reading Recovery program became the Comparison Group. There were similar numbers of African-Americans in both groups, but students in the Reading Recovery group were more likely to be male, in a lower income bracket, and to receive special education services. 2 ' -Principals: Ten principals from Reading Recovery schools were randomly selected to participate in a phone interview. The phone interview lasted approximately 45 minutes and responses to questions regarding the Reading Recovery program and its effectiveness were recorded and transcribed. Reading Recovery Teachers in-Training: Four randomly selected teachers currently being trained to become Reading Recovery specialists were interviewed through a 45-minute phone interview. These teachers provided insight into the current training efforts and professional development needs for new n teachers. Reading Recovery Teachers: There were 22 Reading Recovery Teachers who were surveyed through a specially designed questionnaire. In addition, 14 Reading Recovery Teachers were observed as they worked with their students. Classroom Teachers: Kindergarten through third grade teachers, working in schools with Reading Recovery programs, were also surveyed and 156 responded. Parents: Parents of students currently participating in a Reading Recovery program were sent a questionnaire and 95 were completed and returned. A survey in Spanish was sent when necessary, and 9 of those returned were completed in Spanish. n n Findings Researchers spent the summer and early fall compiling the information learned from the phone interviews, surveys, and observations. In late fall, achievement data and assessment records were obtained. Through careful analysis and with the use of statistical techniques, a thorough analysis of the Reading Recovery program was completed. The findings are best understood in context of the questions that were asked in the evaluation plan. Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? The impact of the Reading Recovery program on African-American students was comparable to students of other ethnicities. This impact, as it regards reading success, was more significant when students completed the entire program and were successfully discontinued. In addition, the benefits were more noticeable in areas of beginning reading skills that included basics such as hearing and recording sounds (Observation Survey) and phoneme segmentation (DIBELS), than in more advanced reading skills, such as text reading (DIBELS \u0026amp; DRA). However, there were no noticeable gains on statewide standardized tests (ITBS) for Reading Recovery students.  What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-2005? Reading Recovery appeared to be well implemented and there was a high degree of consistency in the way the Reading Recovery teachers carried out the program. Classroom observations, conducted by outside experts in Reading Recovery, agreed that in the majority of areas, teachers were well prepared and were following the guidelines outlined by the Reading Recovery program. In addition, when looking at students achievement information, there was no difference between those students who had a more experienced teacher and those having a teacher with less experience. This outcome suggested that teachers were well trained and were using the Reading Recovery model appropriately.   What is the level of participation in Reading Recovery by African-American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Most of the students participating in Reading Recovery were African-American, which was expected given that African-American students were the majority in the 18 schools being studied. 3 g| What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other student participants in Reading Recovery in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued ? What proportion of scheduled sessions are actually held, and what are the reasons for missed sessions? There are three categories in which a Reading Recovery student may be placed at the end of the program year: (1) Discontinued: successful completion of the program\n(2) Incomptete^stilHn the program without having enough time to complete the program\nand (3) Recommended for Further Action: Reading Recovery teachers believe that the student is in need of some other instructional support to be successful. African American students in Reading Recovery were as likely as other ethnic groups to be placed in the Discontinued or Incomplete categories\nand were slightly more likely to be Recommended * . .. .  .  . ... I'l__I. . iL .. AO rvlor'orJ fhn for Further Action. African-American students were more likely than other ethnicities to be placed in the Low/Lower Middle reading group by their classroom teachers, after completing Reading Recovery. Reading Recovery is a program designed to be a daily intervention. However, about one-fourth 4 of sessions were missed due to either teacher or student absence or teacher or student being unavailable. So. on average, there were 3.5 sessions held per week, instead of 5. B V  What are the perceptions of Reading Recovery teachers regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Reading Recovery teachers were extremely positive about the Reading Recovery program and were eager to see it continued. Teachers appeared to be very knowledgeable about the program- well- trained, prepared, and supported by their school and district. Reading Recovery teachers thought the program was having a positive impact on their students, including their African-American students. Reading Recovery teachers expressed a need for greater planning time and for more opportunities to continue to monitor their students after they completed the program. Teachers in-training were equally positive and committed to the Reading Recovery program. These teachers reported being well prepared by their training.  What are the perceptions of principals, regular first grade teachers, and other teachers in the school regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Principals were very supportive of Reading Recovery and reported being actively involved in ensuring that it was carried out correctly. Most principals agreed that, through Reading Recovery, the achievement gap was being bridged for their African American students. Classroom teachers at Reading Recovery schools had a clear understanding of the Reading They praised the program and felt it had a very positive impact on student Recovery program, achievement.  What are the perceptions of parents/ guardians or Reading Recovery students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents were generally very pleased with the Reading Recovery program and believed that the program was helping their child become a successful reader. Nearly all of the parents indicated a clear understanding of the program and appreciated the one-on-one attention their child was receiving. 4Compliance Remedy Questions Recommended Program Modifications Reading Recovery was extremely well received by parents, teachers and administrators and all reported a positive impact on those students who were in the program. It would be expected that higher achievement scores would also be detected\nyet this was not the case. However, given the focus of the program in improving reading performance, it might also be unrealistic to expect highly noticeable inrrM-sPs on norm-referenced multiole-choice standardized tests. Possible program modifications increases on norm-referenced multiple-choice standardized tests. needed to produce greater achievement gains are:  An expanded program that would include more Reading Recovery teachers. With more teachers, there could be greater monitoring of students after they discontinue the program to ensure that their momentum is maintained. There are many students in need of Reading Recovery in the Little Rock School District and Reading Recovery teachers may be pressed to discontinue one qroup of students in order to begin assisting another group. The necessary follow-up contact can not occur, and therefore the slippage in achievement that has been noted in the program in other states and districts may be found among students in the Little Rock School District. With an expanded program, these students could be more closely monitored and their gains could be maintained. In addition to an expanded program, a transitional plan for students who have discontinued  in aaoiiion lo an expanueu progiam, ci uciieiuuiiai ------------  ---------------  should be explored. Such a plan could involve daily monitored reading that would provide n another buffer against slippage.  Increased professional development of classroom teachers would enable them to understand how to integrate their Reading Recovery students back into the classroom once they have been discontinued, and how to provide the appropriate instruction and feedback so that students would continue to improve.  Increased partnership with University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) to help with the development of transitional plan and professional development for classroom teachers. n  Many of the principals, as well as Reading Recovery teachers, cited examples of profound student achievement and continued noteworthy success of former Reading Recovery African- American students. Although evidence of these success stories were not detected by analyzing standardized test scores as a whole, some African-American students are reported to be experiencing continued, sustained high levels of achievement. Future studies might provide a more in-depth analysis of a small number of students whose gains were maintained to determine what factors contributed to their successes and how these factors can be generalized to the Hi I  population as a whole. Expectations of Program Modifications Reading Recovery has valuable components that, with adaptation and modification, can be even more effective. With program modifications, the Little Rock School District could expect:  Progressive gains on standardized test scores over time.  An increased number of students involved in the Reading Recovery program.  A greater adherence to Reading Recovery guidelines, especially those relating to the number of sessions required for optimum benefits. 5  More teachers throughout the district better able to serve students at-risk in the areas of literacy and reading.  Sustained achievement of students upon completion of the Reading Recovery program. A stronger relationship with UALR professionals that would continue to provide the Little Rock School District with the most up-to-date research findings and best practices for reading and literacy instruction. a I 6 e I i-\n *CREP ' CenUrf^r Httevek ui Educational ^oEcy Center for Research in Educational Policy The Univetsity of Memphis 325 Browning Hal Memphis. Tennessee 38152 Tol Free 1-866-670-6147 Evaluation of Reading Recovery In the Little Rock School District TECHNICAL REPORT 9 A n nn H CREP xca/er ieutrci itt Educational policy Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, T ennessee 38152 Toll Free 1-866^70-6147 Evaluation of Reading Recovery In the Little Rock School District ai TECHNICAL REPORT 91 January 2006 -r ,1.\n Anna W. Grehan Steven M. Ross Lynn Harrison Center for Research in Educational Policy John Nunnery Old Dominion UniversityEXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION ^1 The Little Rock School District began implementing Reading Recovery during the 1995-1996 school year in two schools. During the first four years of implementation, the Little Rock School District was part of the Pulaski County Reading Recovery Site. By 1998 there were eight trained Reading Recovery teachers in seven schools in the Little Rock School District. In July 1999 the district became a Reading Recovery Site hiring a full-time teacher leader. In 2000-2001 the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) began conducting the Reading Recovery teacher training for the district. Between the 2000-2001 and 2004-2005 school years UALR trained 17 Reading Recovery teachers for the district. At the end of the 2004-2005 school year the Little Rock School District had 28 trained Reading Recovery teachers serving 18 of the 34 elementary schools in the district. Reading Recovery is one of eight literacy programs, interventions, and/or models used by Little Rock schools. Currently, Little Rock School District funds are used to support the program. The goal of Reading Recovery is to dramatically reduce the number of first grade students who have difficulty learning to read and write and to reduce the cost of these learners to educational systems. Reading Recovery is a short-term intervention program of one-to-one tutoring for the lowest-achieving first graders. The intervention is most effective when it is available to all students who need it and is used as a supplement to good classroom teaching. Individual students receive a half-hour lesson each school day for 12 to 20 weeks with a specially trained Reading Recovery teacher. As soon as students can read within the average range of their class and demonstrate that they can continue to achieve, their lessons are discontinued and new students begin individual instruction. The evaluation plan for the Reading Recovery program in Little Rock School District included: (1) analyses of Reading Recovery student achievement and program data, (2) principal, teacher, and parent surveys and interviews, and (3) observations of Reading Recovery tutoring sessions. This report is part of a larger district study of four programs evaluating the effectiveness in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students. This report includes results from 18 elementary schools participating in the Reading Recovery program. RESEARCH QUESTIONS The major goals of this research study were to evaluate African-American student achievement outcomes, program implementation fidelity, and principal, teacher, and parent perceptions concerning the Reading Recovery tutoring program for first grade students. Student achievement results on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement were analyzed to compare the progress of first graders enrolled in the Reading Recovery intervention program and comparison students in 2004-2005. Program implementation ratings were obtained from observations of 14 tutoring sessions in nine schools. The survey and interview results are based on the perceptions of 156 classroom teachers in grades K-3, 22 experienced Reading Recovery teachers, four teachers in-training, 10 principals, and 95 parents. The Reading Recovery evaluation was structured around the following seven primary and supplemental research questions. Primary evaluation question:  Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? 1n Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) evaluation questions: E  What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-2005?  What is the level of participation in Reading Recovery by African-American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school?  What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other student participants in Reading Recovery in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued?  What are the perceptions of Reading Recovery teachers regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of principals, regular first-grade teachers, and other teachers in the school regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Reading Recovery students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? DESIGN 4 The evaluation period extended from February 2005 through May 2005. The evaluation design was based on both quantitative and qualitative data collected from Reading Recovery intervention observations, principal and teacher in-training interviews, classroom teachers, Reading Recovery teachers, parent surveys, and Reading Recovery program data. Reading Recovery student-level achievement data on the ITBS, DRA, DIBELS, and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement was received in fall 2005 and incorporated in this report. The primary data collectors in this study were Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) trained site researchers. Site researchers: (1) conducted Reading Recovery intervention observations, (2) administered the Reading Recovery teacher survey, (3) conducted principal and teacher in-training interviews, and (4) collected program data. Principals at Reading Recovery schools were responsible for administering the classroom teacher and Reading Recovery parent surveys. Participants Little Rock School District is located in Central Arkansas and serves approximately 26,500 students, with African-Americans representing approximately 67% of the district student population, in 49 schools in an urban area with a population of 184,000. In the 2004-2005 school year 18 w elementary schools and 230 first grade students, of which 173 are African-American, 27 are Caucasian, 22 are Hispanic, and the remaining 8 are other ethnicities, participated in the Reading Recovery program in the district. Three schools were in their first year of program implementation (Bale, Stephens, and Terry) and survey and observation data were not collected from these schools. However, randomly selected teachers in-training and principals from these three schools were interviewed for this study. INSTRUMENTATION Six instruments were developed by CREP to collect the evaluation data: a classroom observation tool, a principal interview, a teacher in-training interview, a Reading Recovery teacher questionnaire, a classroom teacher questionnaire, and a parent survey. 2 Program Data Reading Recovery program information was obtained from data submitted to the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University in 2004-2005. Each year the schools and district submit program data and receive a site report. The report represents an examination of Reading Recovery student outcomes for Little Rock and accounts for all children served by Reading Recovery within the site during the 2004-2005 school year. In addition, attention is given to implementation factors that may be supporting or hindering the success of the intervention at the site. Student Achievement Results In addition to the program data, interviews, survey, and observation tools cited above, reading achievement data are derived from scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement. PROCEDURE Data for the evaluation were collected March-May for the 2004-2005 school year. On February 16, 2005 principals were given an overview of the evaluation and timelines for collecting data. On March 3-4 and April 14-15, 14 tutoring observations were conducted in nine randomly 91 selected experienced Reading Recovery schools by two Reading Recovery content experts from Georgia State and The Ohio State Universities. Only experienced Reading Recovery teachers were observed. On March 23 a CREP trained site researcher administered the Reading Recovery teacher survey to experienced teachers at a regularly scheduled monthly meeting at UALR. In April and May principals in experienced Reading Recovery schools administered the classroom teacher questionnaire to K-3 grade teachers. Principals also administered the parent survey to parents whose children were currently receiving first grade intervention services in the 15 experienced Reading Recovery schools. Four teachers in-training and 10 principals were randomly selected from the 18 Reading Recovery schools to participate in a phone interview in April and May conducted by CREP researchers. Reading Recovery program data were received in summer 2005 from the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University. Student achievement data were received from the district in fall 2005. METHODS - STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Sample. The sample included 1,094 first grade students who attended one of 18 schools that implemented the Reading Recovery program during the 2004-2005 school year. Of these, 230 were referred to the Reading Recovery program, and 864 were in the comparison group. The percentages of students who were African-American or of Limited English Proficiency were similar between the comparison and Reading Recovery groups (73.6% versus 75.6% and 7.3% versus 8.7%, respectively). However, Reading Recovery students were more likely to be eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (84.3% versus 73.1%), to receive special education services (15.7% versus 8.6%), and to be male (58.1 % versus 48.0%). Reading Recovery Treatment Level. In the Reading Recovery program, students who are deemed to have attained a reading level equivalent to their peers are assigned an end-of-program status of discontinued. Children who received 20 or more weeks of Reading Recovery services, but who do not attain a reading level equivalent to their peers are assigned a status of recommended action. Children who have received fewer than 20 weeks were assigned incomplete program status. Children designated as unknown status were removed from the program in fewer than 20 weeks due to reasons other than the school year ending. Other children were designated as having moved during the school year. The median number of sessions of recommended action (Md = 68.50\nn = 68) children was actually higher than the median for discontinued students (Md = 57.00\nn 3 = 90). The medians for incximplete students {n = 46) and unknown\" students (n = 12) were very similar (Md = 44.63 versus 46.08, respectively). For the purposes of this study, recommended action and discontinued students were categorized as complete program\n incomplete and 158 with a unknown students were categorized as incomplete program\n and students who moved were eliminated from the analyses. This left a total of 216 Reading Recovery students\n133 ...3.  4 4 complete program, and 58 with an incomplete program. Measures. Pretest (covariate) measures included: (a) Spring, 2004 Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) scores, (b) fall 2005 Observation Survey: Reading Recovery program subtests that included Letter Identification, Word Test, Concepts About Print, Writing Vocabulary, Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words, and Text Reading, and (c) the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) subtests in Letter Naming Fluency, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency, and Word Use Fluency. Outcome measures included Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading Normal Curve Equivalent Scores, DRA subtests. Observation Survey: Reading Recovery subtests, and DIBELS subtests administered in Spring 2005. To achieve some parsimony in the analyses, pretest measures were subjected to a principal components analysis, and regressionbased factors scores were constructed for pretest DRA, Observation Survey\nReading Recovery subtests, and DIBELS subtests. A single factor accounted for 60.1% and 60.5% of the variance in the DRA and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery subtests, and DIBELS subtests, respectively. Outcome measures included the DRA and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery, DIBELS subtests, and ITBS Reading. Student achievement analyses. A 3 (Program Status) by 2 (African-American versus other) multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was performed on two test batteries, using student gender, the pertinent pretest factor score, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status as covariates. One test battery included the DRA and subscales of the Observation Survey: Reading Recovery. The second test battery included subtests from the DIBELS. A similar 3 by 2 analysis of covariance was performed on ITBS Reading NCE scores using the 2003-2004 DRA score as a pretest covariate. For the multivariate analyses, Wilks lambda was used as the criterion of multivariate significance. Where Wilks lambda indicated a significant multivariate effect, follow-up univariate analyses were performed on each outcome variable using the Bonferroni procedure to control for experimentwise alpha. When significant univariate results were found, post hoc analyses were performed using Scheffes procedure. Effect size estimates were computed for all posttests by subtracting the adjusted mean for the comparison group from the adjusted mean from the Reading Recovery group within levels of race, then dividing by the total standard deviation of the posttest (Cohen, 1988\nHedges \u0026amp; Olkin, 1985). For ITBS Reading NCE effect size estimates, the population standard deviation of 21.06 was used. The effect size estimate (ES) represent the standardized difference between treatment and comparison group means, which allows for comparison across measures that have different metrics. Exploratory and supplementary analyses. Impact of teacher experience and number of sessions. The number of years experience with Reading Recovery was recorded for each teacher. Years experience ranged from 1 to 10 years. ITBS Reading NCE scores and DRA test scores for 2004-2005 were regressed on 2003-2004 DRA/RR Observation Survey factor scores and dummy- coded variables representing student ethnicity, free lunch status, gender, special education status, and LEP status. Standardized residuals were saved from each of these analyses, and plotted against teacher years of experience to graphically assess the nature of the relationship between teacher experience and teacher effectiveness in Reading Recovery for students who received a Complete program. Standardized residuals for each of these 2004-2005 tests were also plotted against number of Reading Recovery sessions received for all students (i.e., those who received either a Complete or Incomplete program). 4 r.iRESULTS Classroom Observation Results Reading Recovery Implementation Assessment Instrument (RRIAI) As indicated in the description of the RRIAI, the observation procedure primarily focuses on Reading Recovery Program Components and Program Strategies. The site observers used a four-point rubric (1 = poor or unacceptable, 2 = below average in comparison to other programs observed, 3 = meets nearly all standards of program quality, and 4 = above average in comparison to other programs) to rate the frequency and application of components and strategies of Reading Recovery instruction. m Reading Recovery Program Components The overall mean rating for the Reading Recovery Program Components was 3.46 which suggests a high level of program implementation. Of the six subcategories the highest observed ratings were: assembling a cut-up story and introducing and reading a new book observed to be above average in 85.7% of tutoring sessions. The program component subcategory with the lowest observed rating was working with letters and/or words using magnetic letters observed to be above average in only 35.7% of tutoring sessions. The six program components were observed in at least 92.9% of 14 tutoring sessions. m Reading Recovery Program Strategies The overall mean rating for the Reading Recovery Program Strategies was 3.61 which also indicates a high level of instructional effectiveness. Of the eight During Tutoring Lesson subcategories, the highest observed rating was for appropriate text selected throughout the lesson observed to be above average in 85.7% of tutoring sessions. The During Tutoring Lesson subcategory with the lowest observed rating was echo of focus throughout the lesson observed to be above average in just 42.9% of tutoring sessions. For the After Tutoring Lesson, has high expectations for the child and articulates child's strengths and needs were observed to be above average in 78.6% of tutoring sessions and accurate and up-to-date records were observed to be above average in 71.4% of tutoring sessions. The Reading Recovery Program Strategies were observed in at least 85.7% of tutoring sessions. Observer Perceptions of Reading Recovery Program Implementation Site observers reported being impressed with the dedication and commitment of the Reading Recovery teachers to the fidelity of the teaching procedures and the integrity of the implementation of the program. Almost all teachers observed were meeting all the standards, guidelines, and expectations of the Reading Recovery Council of North America and the North American Trainers Group. Since observations occurred in March and April, most of the students observed were second-round students, since teachers had discontinued their first-round students. Teachers reported that students who did not discontinue from Reading Recovery during the first-round were being considered for further intervention services. Site observers also reported that the Reading Recovery program in the Little Rock district receives an adequate allocation of time, materials, and other resources. However, several teachers and principals expressed the need for additional Reading Recovery teachers in their schools. Reading Recovery teachers also reported teaching literacy small groups the rest of the day, which enables them to give their Reading Recovery students more attention during the instructional day. By teaching these literacy groups, site observers suggested that the Reading Recovery 5 teachers expertise and knowledge gained from their training and practice benefits children across several grade levels. During visits site observers suggested areas in which some Reading Recovery teachers needed improvement. These instructional areas included: (1) hearing and recording sounds in words\n(2) making and breaking\n(3) doing away with the helping hand\nand (4) maintaining up-to-date records on each child as a basis for instruction. INTERVIEW RESULTS Reading Recovery Principal Interview 4 Principals at 10 of the Reading Recovery schools were randomly selected to participate in a 45-minute phone interview. Principals were asked a series of questions regarding general program implementation, classroom-level changes, program results, professional development opportunities and parental and community involvement. 81 Overall, principals were positive about the Reading Recovery program and the impact it has had on their schools. Most of the schools have been utilizing Reading Recovery for several years and faculty and staff are very comfortable with the program. Nearly all of the principals interviewed were instrumental in bringing Reading Recovery to their schools, and the decision to utilize Reading Recovery was made after considerable research and thoughtful consideration. Principals reported that Reading Recovery is a wonderful complement to the schools balanced literacy programs. The one-on-one attention the reading Recovery students receive is overwhelmingly the most effective of the strategies that the program employs. Other effective strategies mentioned included push-ins, literacy groups, running records, and the writing component. Principals reported being active advocates in their Reading Recovery programs. They described their roles as one of support and involvement, ranging from oversight of the program to more direct involvement including student selection for the program, review of student progress, and ongoing meetings and collaboration with the Reading Recovery specialists. 4  All principals noted that teachers were very supportive of the Reading Recovery program and appreciated the impact it has had on overall student achievement. Most of the resources needed for effective program implementation are available\nhowever, principals reported an ongoing need for books, additional teachers and tutors, and more planning time. Principals described the African- American population as being well-served by Reading Recovery, and most agreed that through Reading Recovery the achievement gap is being bridged for their African-American students. In most of the schools, African-American students are a large percentage of the Reading Recovery program, and the early intervention provided by Reading Recovery allows the student to be encouraged by being successful at a younger age. Teacher In-Training Interview q  In the spring 2005, four teachers in their first year in the Reading Recovery program were contacted by phone for a 30 to 45-minute phone interview. The teachers in-training were attending classes concerning Reading Recovery instruction, as well as working in their schools implementing the Reading Recovery strategies. Feedback from the teachers was solicited regarding general program information, classroom level changes, results, professional development, and parental involvement and support. All teachers described the process of integrating Reading Recovery into the schools literacy program as well planned and organized. Reading Recovery teachers work individually with the lowest performing students and then follow up individual instruction with literacy groups. Reading Recovery 6^1 teachers reported a thorough selection process that involved collaboration with the classroom teacher and comprehensive testing and assessment. In general, the Reading Recovery teachers reported strong support from the classroom teachers, that classroom teachers appreciated the effectiveness of the one-on-one approach, and the fact that Reading Recovery is able to provide this type of support, freeing the classroom teacher to work more effectively with the other students. The Reading Recovery teachers in-training strongly felt that Reading Recovery helped to equalize learning and achievement opportunities for African-American students at their schools. Most of the students in Reading Recovery are African-American, and these teachers were able to see positive gains. Reading Recovery helps all struggling readers by actively engaging them in reading and allowing them to feel successful at reading. The Reading Recovery teachers in-training reported a significant increase in self-confidence and improvement in overall attitude among the Reading Recovery students. As the students begin to experience success, they are less frustrated and angry. This improvement in attitude improves their classroom behavior and relationships with other teachers and students. Some of these teachers have seen dramatic increases in test scores and other achievement data, while others have not yet been able to see these gains. Reading Recovery teachers in-training reported professional training that ranged from adequate to thorough. Changes in Reading Recovery course instructors led to some confusion for some of the teachers in training, and some reported the need for increased classroom hours. However, overall, these teachers reported feeling well-prepared to work with the students. The strategies they have learned have been very helpful. Although the teachers in-training reported having significant classroom experience, they are learning unique techniques that have been very beneficial. Survey Results 4 Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ) Descriptive results. Reading Recovery teachers had extremely favorable attitudes toward the program at their schools. All of the teachers strongly agreed or agreed that they have a thorough understanding of the program, teachers in their school are generally supportive of the program, ongoing communication exists between Reading Recovery tutors and classroom reading teachers, Reading Recovery monthly meetings are effective and useful, instructional materials needed to implement the Reading Recovery program are readily available, and the Reading Recovery program is aligned with state and district reading and language arts standards. There was also strong agreement that Reading Recovery teachers received support, with 86.4% of the teachers reporting that the school administration and Reading Coach supported their efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher. Almost 75% (72.7%) of teachers reported receiving extensive district support. The items with the highest level of disagreement (disagree and strongly disagree) concerned Reading Recovery teachers having sufficient planning time (36.4%) and enough tutors to fully implement the Reading Recovery program (18.2%). Demographic data. All Reading Recovery teachers (100%) reported having at least six years of teaching experience and 31.8% reported at least six years experience as a Reading Recovery teacher. Approximately 85% (86.4%) of Reading Recovery teachers reported having a Masters Degree and beyond. The majority of Reading Recovery teachers were Caucasian (72.7%) and 13.6% reported their ethnicity as African-American. H Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (RRCTQ) Descriptive results. For the classroom teachers, the three items on which 80% or higher agreed included: teacher support of the program (93.6%), positive impact on student achievement 1(87.8%), and improving achievement of African-American students (82.1%). The two items on which classroom teachers expressed the strongest disagreement or disagreement included: sufficient faculty and staff to fully implement the program (23.1%) and because of Reading Recovery, parents are more involved in the literacy program (14.7%). Demographic data. K-3 classroom teachers reported less teaching experience and education attainment than Reading Recovery teachers. Close to 30% (28.9%) reported less than one year to five years teaching experience in any school and 57.7% reported having a Bachelors degree. However, more classroom teachers reported their ethnicity as African-American (28.9%) than Reading Recovery teachers with the majority (68.6%) reporting ethnicity as Caucasian. Reading Recovery Parent Survey (RRPS) 4 Descriptive results. 4 Descriptive results. Generally, parents had favorable attitudes toward the Reading Recovery program. A majority of the parents (90.5%) reported that, because of Reading Recovery tutoring, they believed that their child would be successful in school and 86.3% reported that Reading Recovery had improved their child's reading skills. However, less than 75% (66.3%) of parents strongly agreed or agreed that they have many opportunities to talk with the Reading Recovery teacher about their childs progress. Demographic data. Almost 70% (68.4%) of parents reported the ethnicity of their child as African-American and 13.7% reported their childs ethnicity as Hispanic and 7.4% reported the ethnicity of their child as Caucasian. m Reading Recovery Level of Participation and Program Measures African-American students were in the majority in all of the 18 schools in the study. Not surprisingly, at 72.5% of the comparison student population and 75.0% of the Reading Recovery student population, African-American students were also a majority of the Reading Recovery students in this study. In 10 of the 18 schools, the percentage of African-American students in Reading Recovery exceeded their percentage of the comparison population. How meaningful this difference is may be debatable given instances where 100% of the Reading Recovery students are African-American in a school in which 98.3% of the comparison students are African-American (Watson Elementary) or where there are just 8 Reading Recovery students in a school with more than 100 first grade students (Terry Elementary School). Reading Recovery End of Program Status by Race A comparison of the total African-American Reading Recovery student population to the total other students involved in Reading Recovery indicates that the students were nearly equally represented in two of the three program specific measures. The percentage of African-American students Discontinued (43.3%) was not considerably different from the percent of other students Discontinued (46.3%). In addition, in the Incomplete status, the percentage of African-American students (21.3%) was not very much different than that of the other students (25.9%). Only in the Recommended status did the percentage of African-American students considerably exceed the percentage of other students (34.5% vs. 27.8%). fl Reading Recovery Year End Reading Group by Race With-in school comparisons are again difficult to make due to the unequal number of African- American students compared to other students participating in the program. On an overall basis however, the percentage of African-American students in the high/upper-middle group at 25.7% was 8 I fl fl fl fl lower than the percent of other students in this group (38.2%). In addition, almost 75% of the African-American students were in the low/lower-middle group compared to less than 66% of other students. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT RESULTS DRA and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery Subtests. A total of 142 Reading Recovery students (66% pretest-posttest match rate) and 562 comparison students (65% rate) had matching 2005 DRA subtest scores, demographic information, and 2004 DRA/Observation Survey factor scores. Wilks lambda indicated significant multivariate effects for Reading Recovery status (Fa 1380 = 6.83, p \u0026lt; .001), special education status ( Ft.ego = 3.93, p \u0026lt;.01), and 2003-2004 DRA/Observation Survey factor scores (F4 ego = 111.32, p \u0026lt;.001). Follow-up univariate tests indicated significant Reading Recovery status effects on Hearing and Recording Sounds (^2,093 = 6.34. p \u0026lt;.01) and DRA scores (F2,693 = 9.99, p \u0026lt; 001). Post hoc analyses revealed that: (a) Reading Recovery students in both the Incomplete Program = 36.32\nS =+0.43) and the Complete Program (M = 35.96\nES =+0.37) had a significantly higher adjusted mean Hearing and Recording Sounds score than students in the comparison condition (Ivf = 33.82)\nand (b) students in the comparison condition //Vf = 17.64) and the Complete program 16.42\nES = -0.18) had a higher mean DRA score than students receiving the Incomplete Program (M = 13.02\nES = -0.68). No program by race interaction effect occurred, indicating that African-American and other students were equally affected by participation in Reading Recovery. DIBELS Subtests. A total of 67 Reading Recovery students (31%) and 53 comparison students (28%) had matching 2005 DIBELS subtest scores, demographic information, and 2003-2004 DIBELS factor scores. Wilks lambda indicated significant multivariate effects for Reading Recovery status (3212 = 4.12. p \u0026lt; .001). special education status ( E4.106 = 3.50. p \u0026lt;.01). and 2003-2004 DRA factor scores (4,106 = 3.69. p \u0026lt;.01). Follow-up univariate tests indicated significant Reading Recovery status effects on Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (2,109 = 3.39. p \u0026lt;.O5) and Oral Reading Fluency (2109 = 6.59, p \u0026lt; .01). Post hoc analyses revealed that: (a) Reading Recovery students in both the Incomplete Program (M = 54.81\nES = +0.65) and the Complete Program {M = 54.02\nES = +0.58) had a significantly higher adjusted mean Phoneme Segmentation Fluency score than students in the comparison condition (M = 47.23 )\n(b) students in the comparison condition (M = 40.35) and the Complete program (M- 33.45) had a higher mean Oral Reading Fluency score than students receiving the Incomplete Program {M = 21.62\nES = -0.91)\nand (c) students in the comparison condition had a higher adjusted mean Oral Reading Fluency score (A/f = 40.35) than students receiving the Complete program (Af = 33.45\nES =-0.33). No program by race interaction effect occurred, indicating that African-American and other students were equally affected by participation in Reading Recovery. ITBS Reading NCE. A total of 140 Reading Recovery students (65%) and 562 comparison students (65%) had matching 2004-2005 Reading Recovery subtest scores, demographic information, and 2003-2004 DRA factor scores. The ANCOVA indicated statistically significant effects for Reading Recovery status (2,591 = 6.62. p \u0026lt;.001). free lunch status (1,591 = 7.83. p \u0026lt;.01). and 2003-2004 DRA/Observation Survey factor scores (1,591 = 195.81. p \u0026lt;.001). No program by race interaction effect occurred, indicating that African-American and other students were equally affected by participation in Reading Recovery. Post hoc analyses showed that comparison students (M = 53.82) had a significantly higher adjusted mean ITBS Reading NCE score than students receiving the Complete program (AT = 46.65\nES = -0.34). The effect size for African-American students receiving a complete program was -0.46. versus 0.09 for those receiving an incomplete program. Exploratory and supplemental results. Exploratory analyses of second and third grade results showed no effects on 2004-2005 DRA and effect sizes ranged from -0.16 to -1.34 on ITBS for Reading Recovery students. These results need to be viewed with caution, however, due to low matching rates in second grade and the lack of a true pretest measure. There was no relationship between number of teacher years of experience with Reading Recovery and ITBS standardized 9n residuals or DRA standardized residuals for students receiving a complete program, after controlling for 2003-2004 DRA factor scores and student ethnicity, gender, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status. Likewise, there was no relationship between number of sessions attended and ITBS residuals. A statistically significant, small positive relationship was observed between total number of sessions attended and DRA residuals (r = 0.21, p \u0026lt;.O5). The median effect size estimate across all posttests for African-American students with a complete program was Md = +0.17, with a range from -0.25 to +0.52. For African-American students receiving an incomplete program, effect size estimates ranged from -0.78 to +0.50, with a median of -0.23. Thus, receiving a complete program yielded a directional advantage for African-American students, whereas the reverse occurred for receiving an incomplete program. FINDINGS Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? 4 m  The Reading Recovery program had equal effects on African-American and other students.  Students receiving the complete program had significantly higher adjusted means than comparison students on Phoneme Segmentation (ES = +0.58) and Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words (ES = +0.36)  Students receiving an incomplete program had significantly higher adjusted means than comparison students on Phoneme Segmentation (ES = +0.65).  Students in the comparison condition had significantly higher adjusted means than students receiving a complete program on Oral Reading Fluency (ES = -0.33) and on ITBS Reading NCE scores (ES = -0.34).  Students in the comparison condition had significantly higher adjusted means than students receiving an incomplete program on DRA test scores (ES = -0.68) and Oral Reading Fluency (ES = -0.91).  No relationship was observed between teacher experience with Reading Recovery and 2004- 2005 student achievement outcomes after controlling for 2003-2004 achievement, student ethnicity, gender, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status.  No relationship was observed between number of Reading Recovery sessions and 2004- 2005 ITBS Reading NCE scores, after controlling for 2003-2004 achievement, student ethnicity, gender, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status.  A small but statistically significant positive relationship was observed between number of Reading Recovery sessions and 2004-2005 DRA test scores, after controlling for 2003-2004 achievement, student ethnicity, gender, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status.  The median effect size estimate across all posttests for African-American students receiving a complete program was +0.16\nfor students receiving an incomplete program, the median effect size estimate was -0.09.  Positive effects of Reading Recovery tended to be associated with lower-order or beginning reading skills like phoneme segmentation and hearing and recording sounds, while less positive effects tended to be associated with more complex, higher-order skills like Oral Reading Fluency and DRA scores. n What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-2005? Classroom observations indicate that Reading Recovery teachers instructional practices conform to the recommendations and requirements of the program throughout the district. Given that there are no national comparisons or benchmarks for the RRIAl, a mean of approximately 3.50 on a 4.00 scale suggests a high level of Reading Recovery implementation in the district. Site researchers noted only three areas in which some teachers were observed below average to some degree, reading familiar stories, appropriate pacing of the lesson components, and working 10 with letters and or/words. However, the observed lack of quality implementation in some classrooms in reading familiar stories and appropriate pacing of the lesson components might begin to explain the lack of oral reading fluency, text reading, and ITBS effects for Reading Recovery students. There appears to be a high level of consistency of program delivery across the district. This suggests that generally teachers have a high degree of fidelity to the model. In addition, the student achievement analysis found that there was no relationship between teacher experience with Reading Recovery and 2005 achievement scores after controlling for 2004 achievement and other variables. What is the level of participation in Reading Recovery by African-American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? The data indicate that African-American students made up a majority of the students participating in Reading Recovery in the 18 schools included in this study. This finding shouldnt be surprising since African-Americans are the majority of the students in each of the participating schools. Information compiled from the student achievement analyses also indicates the percentage of African-American students receiving Reading Recovery services (75.2%) is very similar to the ethnic makeup of the students used for comparison purposes (73.6%). However, Reading Recovery students were more likely to receive free or reduced-price lunch (84.3% vs. 73.1%) and special education services (15.7% vs. 8.6%) than comparison students, and were more likely to be male (58.1% vs. 48.0%). What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other student participants in Reading Recovery in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued? What proportion of scheduled sessions are actually held, and what are the reasons for missed sessions? Table 11 indicates that African-American students, when compared with Reading Recovery students of other ethnicities, were nearly equally represented in two of the three program specific measures examined. The percentage of African-American students Discontinued at 43.3%, was not considerably different than the percentage of students Discontinued of other ethnic backgrounds, 46.3%. In addition, in the Incomplete status, the percentage of African-Americans (21.3%) was, again, not much different than students from other ethnicities (25.9%). African- American students, at 34.5%, were more likely to be Recommended for further actions than other students (27.8%). 4 African-American students were, however, more likely to be in the Low/Lower Middle reading group at the end of the school year than other students (74.3% vs. 61.8%). This finding may present a dilemma for the program and the district. While African-American students are generally progressing similarly to other students on program-specific measures, at the end of the school year, the majority of African-American students are still struggling to maintain or falling below grade level in reading. About 22% of scheduled sessions were missed due to the teacher being unavailable (7%), student absence (6%), teacher absence (5%), or the student being unavailable (4%). These missed sessions could contribute to the mean number of sessions per week being 3.5. What are the perceptions of Reading Recovery teachers regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Reading Recovery teachers had extremely favorable attitudes toward the Reading Recovery program. Teachers reported a thorough understanding of the program, that they received adequate professional development which was valuable for improving the achievement of African- American students, and that they had the support from teachers in the school. The majority of Reading Recovery teachers also reported receiving extensive administrative, Reading Coach, 114 - V and district support. The items and areas of most concern were sufficient planning time, enough tutors to fully implement the program, and time to routinely monitor first grade students progress after they were discontinued from Reading Recovery tutoring. Additionally, Reading Recovery teachers indicated that only 63.6% of faculty, staff, and administration believe that all children can read at grade level or above by the end of third grade and that parents are more involved in the literacy program of this school as a result of the program. Reading Recovery teachers, on average, appear to be more experienced and better educated. Eighty percent had a Masters degree or beyond in educational attainment and 100% reported at least six year or more years of teaching experience. In addition, the majority (68.18%) reported one to five years of experience as a Reading Recovery teacher. The four teachers in-training were equally committed and positive about the program and overall, felt they were well prepared to work with students. The teachers in-training also felt strongly that Reading Recovery helped to equalize learning and achievement opportunities for African-American students. Teachers in-training emphasized the importance of using data to monitor the progress of the students to develop effective teaching strategies based on the individual needs of each student. Finally, teachers in-training also reported the need for more time to plan and implement as well as for continuing support to understand Reading Recovery components more thoroughly. What are the perceptions of principals, regular first-grade teachers, and other teachers in the school regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A review of Reading Recovery principal interview responses indicates that principals are very supportive and actively involved in the program. All of the principals interviewed reported that they understood the program and were advocates of their program having a positive impact on overall student achievement. Principals indicated that the one-on-one tutoring program supplements and enhances the schools balanced literacy program. Most principals agreed that, through Reading Recovery, the achievement gap is being bridged for their African-American students. Principals also noted that teachers were very supportive of the program. K-3 classroom teachers shared the principals enthusiasm for the Reading Recovery program, as evidenced by responses on the RRCTQ. A majority of the classroom teachers reported that they had an understanding of the program, were generally supportive, and that student achievement had been positively impacted. Principals and teachers also agreed that most of the resources and support needed for effective program implementation was available\nhowever, they also reported an ongoing need for additional teachers and tutors to support more students and time to plan, review student progress, and collaborate together. All (102) of the teachers responding agreed that their school should continue the Reading Recovery program. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Reading Recovery students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents were generally very pleased with the results of the Reading Recovery program. Approximately 90% of the parents responding to the parent survey agreed that: Reading Recovery tutoring had improved their childs reading skills and because of Reading Recovery their child will be successful in school. Less than three percent of those who responded reported that they did not know or understand the program. In the three open-ended responses parents indicated a very good understanding of the program, appreciation of one-on-one tutoring sessions, and the improvement in their childs reading skills. However, a few parents did express the need for longer and more frequent tutoring sessions and more opportunities to talk with the Reading Recovery teacher about their childs progress. 12 RECOMMENDED PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS In summary, the Little Rock School District has a strong Reading Recovery program implementation. Teachers, principals, and parents appear to be actively engaged in the program and the district tries to provide adequate levels of resources and support. However, the lack of clear program effects may be the result of factors that have been identified in prior studies of Reading Recovery. Possible factors and recommended program modifications to produce greater achievement gains include:  It would be expected that Reading Recovery students would perform better on assessments more closely aligned with the instructional program (DRA, DIBELS, Observation Survey) than the norm-referenced, group-administered ITBS. In m particular, Reading Recovery enhanced learning for complete program students tests involving Phoneme Segmentation and Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words, However, it had less positive effects on tests assessing Oral Reading Fluency and ITBS Reading NCE scores. Reading Recovery is also most likely serving as a first line of defense for students who many later be referred for special education services. While classroom teachers are receiving help for their neediest students, this may put an extra burden on the program that was designed to help students who could benefit quickly from quality instruction in 20 weeks. w  The district should examine the feasibility of expanding the program to provide tutoring support to all incoming first grade students who need services. In the 2004- 2005 school year, the 18 Reading Recovery schools indicated that 365 students needed tutoring services and approximately half of this number received a complete round of lessons and were discontinued. The Reading Recovery program guidelines state that if a school has more children who need services than one teacher can provide, then it will never realize the full benefit of Reading Recovery for later school achievement. It is especially difficult for classroom teachers to continue to scaffold discontinued students learning while supporting a large number of other at-risk students reading below grade level. q q q  In addition to an expanded program, a transitional plan for students who have discontinued should be explored. The data suggest that after Reading Recovery students are discontinued and return to the classroom at the same reading level as their peers, they may not maintain the same growth rate and achievement does not keep pace with their peers. Although research indicates that former Reading Recovery students perform well in their classes, some slippage in achievement can occur (Clay, 1993). Although Clay (1993) provides guidelines for transition back to the classroom after the student is discontinued\nit is possible that students were returned to the classroom without benefit of a transition plan. As noted by Reading Recovery teachers, few teachers have the opportunity to routinely monitor discontinued students progress. Such a plan could involve daily monitored reading RI that would provide another buffer against slippage. Also in tutoring sessions, children have opportunities to read texts at their instruction level on a daily basis, but they may not have adequate time for daily reading in the regular classroom. q q  The quality of instruction that Reading Recovery students receive once they return to the classroom is an important factor that was not examined in this study. Increased professional development of classroom teachers would enable them to understand how to integrate their Reading Recovery students back into the classroom once they have been discontinued, and how to provide the appropriate instruction and feed back so that students would continue to improve. 13m9 4 Bl  Increased partnership with UALR to help with the development of a transition plan and professional development for classroom teachers would seem to be warranted given these study results.  Additional research could provide critical insight into the optimum classroom environment for discontinued, recommended, and incomplete Reading Recovery students. Further studies might also provide a more in-depth analysis of a small number of students whose gains were maintained to determine what factors contributed to their success and how these factors can be generalized to all Reading Recovery schools. EXPECTATIONS OF PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS Reading Recovery has valuable components that, with adaptation and modification, can be even more effective. With the recommended program modifications, the Little Rock School District could expect: Progressive gains on standardized test scores for African-American students over time. An increased number of students involved in the Reading Recovery program. A greater adherence to Reading Recovery guidelines, especially those relating to transition services and the number of sessions required for optimum benefits. More teachers throughout the district better able to serve students at-risk in the areas of literacy and reading. Sustained achievement of students upon completion of the Reading Recovery program. A stronger relationship with UALR professionals that would continue to provide the Little Rock School District with the most up-to-date research findings and best instructional practices for reading and literacy instruction. 14 4 4 EVALUATION OF READING RECOVERY IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: 2005 AGGREGATE REPORT INTRODUCTION The Little Rock School District began implementing Reading Recovery during the 1995-1996 school year in two schools. During the first four years of implementation, the Little Rock School District was part of the Pulaski County Reading Recovery Site. By 1998 there were eight trained Reading Recovery teachers in seven schools in the Little Rock School District. In July 1999 the district became a Reading Recovery Site hiring a full-time teacher leader. In 2000-2001 the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) began conducting the Reading Recovery teacher training for the district. Between the 2000-2001 and 2004-2005 school years UALR trained 17 Reading Recovery teachers for the district. At the end of the 2004-2005 school year the Little Rock School District had 28 trained Reading Recovery teachers serving 18 of the 34 elementary schools in the district. Reading Recovery is one of eight literacy programs, interventions, and/or models used by Little Rock schools. Currently, Little Rock School District funds are used to support the program. The goal of Reading Recovery is to dramatically reduce the number of first grade students who have difficulty learning to read and write and to reduce the cost of these learners to educational systems. Reading Recovery is a short-term intervention program of one-to-one tutoring for the lowest-achieving first graders. The intervention is most effective when it is available to all students who need it and is used as a supplement to good classroom teaching. Individual students receive a half-hour lesson each school day for 12 to 20 weeks with a specially trained Reading Recovery teacher. As soon as students can read within the average range of their class and demonstrate that they can continue to achieve, their lessons are discontinued and new students begin individual instruction. Reading Recovery was developed by New Zealand educator and researcher Dr. Marie M. Clay over 20 years ago. More than one million first graders have been served in 49 states since Reading Recovery was introduced in the United States in 1984. Professional development is an 15 essential component of the Reading Recovery program. Training utilizes a three-tiered approach that includes teachers, teacher leaders, and university trainers. In schools, special trained teachers work with children. At the site level, teacher leaders work with children, train teachers, and assist and monitor implementation with the help of a site coordinator. In university training centers, trainers work with children, train teacher leaders, engage in research, and support program implementation at affiliated sites. Professional development for teachers and teacher leaders begins with year-long graduate level study and is followed by ongoing training in succeeding years. Since 1984, the program reports that 80% of students who completed the full 12 to 20 week series of lessons, and 59% of all students who have any lessons in Reading Recovery, can read and write with the average range of performance of their class. Program follow-up studies also indicate 4 that most Reading Recovery students also do well on standardized tests and maintain their gains in later years. The evaluation plan for the Reading Recovery program in Little Rock School District included: (1) analyses of Reading Recovery student achievement and program data, (2) principal, teacher, and 4 parent surveys and interviews, and (3) observations of Reading Recovery tutoring sessions. This 4 report is part of a larger district study of four programs evaluating the effectiveness in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students. This report includes results from 18 elementary schools participating in the Reading Recovery program. RESEACH QUESTIONS The major goals of this research study were to evaluate African-American student achievement outcomes, program implementation fidelity, and principal, teacher, and parent perceptions concerning the Reading Recovery tutoring program for first grade students. Student achievement results on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), Developmental Reading Assessment a (DRA), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement were analyzed to compare the progress of first graders enrolled in the Reading a Recovery intervention program and comparison students in 2004-2005. Program implementation ratings were obtained from observations of 14 tutoring sessions in nine schools. The survey and a 16interview results are based on the perceptions of 156 classroom teachers in grades K-3, 22 experienced Reading Recovery teachers, four teachers in-training, 10 principals, and 95 parents. The Reading Recovery evaluation was structured around the following seven primary and supplemental research questions\nPrimary evaluation question:  Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) evaluation questions:  What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-2005? q  What is the level of participation in Reading Recovery by African-American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school?  What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other student participants in Reading Recovery in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued? What proportion of scheduled sessions are actually held, and what are the reasons for missed sessions?  What are the perceptions of Reading Recovery teachers regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of principals, regular first-grade teachers, and other teachers in the school regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Reading Recovery students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 17EVALUATION DESIGN AND MEASURES The evaluation period extended from February 2005 through May 2005. The evaluation design was based on both quantitative and qualitative data collected from Reading Recovery intervention observations, principal and teacher in-training interviews, classroom teachers, Reading Recovery teachers, parent surveys, and Reading Recovery program data. Reading Recovery student-level achievement data on the ITBS, DRA, DIBELS, and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement was received in fall 2005 and incorporated in this report. The primary data collectors in this study were Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) trained site researchers. Site researchers (1) conducted Reading Recovery intervention observations, (2) administered the Reading Recovery teacher survey, (3) conducted principal and teacher in-training interviews, and (4) collected program data. Principals at Reading Recovery schools were responsible for administering the classroom teacher and Reading Recovery parent surveys. Participants Little Rock School District is located in Central Arkansas and serves approximately 26,500 students, with African-Americans representing approximately 67% of the district student population, in 49 schools in an urban area with a population of 184,000. In the 2004-2005 school year 18 elementary schools and 230 first grade students, of which 173 are African-American, 27 are Caucasian, 22 are Hispanic, and the remaining 8 are other ethnicities, participated in the Reading Recovery program in the district. However, the schools indicated that 365 first grade students needed Reading Recovery services. Three schools were in their first year of program implementation (Bale, 1 Stephens, and Terry) and survey and observation data were not collected from these schools. However, randomly selected teachers in-training and principals from these three schools were interviewed for this study. A profile of the Reading Recovery schools and participants included in this study is shown in Table 1. The profile data were obtained from either the 2003-2004 Common Core of Data from the National Center for Education Statistics, the 2004-2005 Reading Recovery Site Report for Little Rock from the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University, or provided by the district. As indicated in Table 1, the number of years schools have implemented the 18 Reading Recovery program ranged from one to 10. The Reading Recovery schools were predominately African-American, ranging from 50% of the student population to 99%. The district reported that four Reading Recovery schools did not receive Title I funding and the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced price lunch ranged from a low of 33% to a high of 94% at all Reading Recovery schools. Table 1 Reading Recovery Participating Schools: 2004-2005 School Name Students Teachets Aftican- Ametican Bale Elementary School 319 27 87% School Wide Populalion Asian 0% Hispanic Caucasian 7% 5% %Freeand Reduced Lurch 88.4% ReaiiTgRecowiyParticiMnlWaTOlion % Below Proficient* Number of RR Teachets Number of K-3 Teachers Nutter of RR Yeats n RR Students Piogram 45% 10 Bi Booker Arts Magnet ES 605 55 55% 1% 4% 40% 63.3% 22% 20 32 Bl Carver Magnet Elem School Chicot Elem School David ODodd El School Franklin Incentive Elem School Geyer Springs El School 496 536 261 387 299 43 44 27 35 23 54% 75% 58% 97% 89% 3% 3% 40% 53.0% 18% 16 16 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 10% 86.6% 38% 17 26 10% 32% 68.9% 30% 10 0% 2% 943% 51% 12 18 4% 7% 806% 48% Bl Gibbs Magnet El School Meadowdiff Elem School Mitchell Incentive Elem School Otter Creek El School Rightsell Incentive Elem School Stephens Elem School 310 349 156 511 262 499 30 24 22 31 26 39 52% 77% 98% 56% 99% 95% 4% 3% 41% 43.9% 11% 14 1% 9% 13% 85.1% 44% 0% 0% 2% 91.7% 59% 1% 6% 36% 55.7% 19% 14 10 0% 0% 1% 876% 49% 1% 3% 2% 90.6% 59% 18 B! Terry Elem School 577 36 51% 7% 5% 36% 475% 12% 18 Wakefield Elem School 451 29 83% 0% 15% 2% 920% 33% 13 18 Watson Elem School 456 34 95% 0% 3% 2% 932% 64% 15 10 Williams Magnet Elem School 461 36 52% 9% 1% 38% 33.6% 10% 13 13 Wilson Elem School 285 27 89% 1% 4% 6% 91.9% 36% H 4 * Proficiency levels are based on 2003-2004 school year ACTAAP Grade 4 Reading, Language, and Writing data. 1 8 1 4 7 2 3 3 5 1 8 9 2 7 1 8 8 7 2 8 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 9 5 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8 3 2 3 1 1 3 3 9 5 4 19Instrumentation Six instruments were developed by CREP to collect the evaluation data: a classroom observation tool, a principal interview, a teacher in-training interview, a Reading Recovery teacher questionnaire, a classroom teacher questionnaire, and a parent survey. A detailed description of each instrument follows. Classroom Observation Measure Reading Recovery Implementation Assessment Instrument (RRIAl) 4 The RRIAl was designed for observation in Reading Recovery classrooms and was developed by researchers at CREP and Reading Recovery faculty at UALR. Ratings are organized Ql around two categories: Reading Recovery Program Components and Reading Recovery Program Strategies. The RRIAl observation tool provides an overall rating for each category based on a rubric that ranges from (1) poor or unacceptable\n(2) below average in comparison to other programs observed\n(3) meets nearly all standards of program quality\nand (4) above average in comparison to other programs. The RRIAl has been aligned to the essential components of the Reading Recovery program. Sub-categories of the program components include: reading familiar stories, reading a story that was read for the first time the day before, working with letters, writing a story, assembling a cut-up story, and introducing and reading a new book. The tool was designed to be utilized by experienced Reading Recovery trainers during the 30-minute tutoring session with additional time allocated for observer questions and examination of student records after the session. Site observers received observation protocol training in February 2005 and a copy of the observation guidelines are included in Appendix A. Site observers were also asked to provide overall perceptions of Reading Recovery program implementation in the Little Rock schools. Interviews Reading Recovery Principal Interview Randomly selected principals from 10 Reading Recovery schools participated in approximately 45-minute phone interviews with CREP researchers. Interview questions addressed 20 the principals general experiences and reactions to the Reading Recovery implementation and the associated outcomes for the school, students, teachers, and parents. A copy of the principal interview protocol with summary responses is included in Appendix B. Reading Recovery Teacher in-Training Interview In the 2004-2005 school year, six teachers were beginning their first year as a Reading Recovery teacher and considered as teachers in-training. Three were located in experienced schools and three were located in the schools beginning their first year of implementation: Bale, Stephens, and Terry. Four randomly selected teachers in-training participated in an approximately 45-minute phone interview with CREP researchers. Interview questions addressed the teachers in-training experiences with and perceptions of the Reading Recovery program implementation with regard to such areas as q resources, professional development, parent involvement, support, and student outcomes. A copy of the teacher in-training interview protocol with summary responses is included in Appendix C. Surveys Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (RRCTQ) 4 Reading Recovery teachers in the 15 experienced Reading Recovery schools were asked to complete the RRTQ, which includes four sections. Section I contains 20 items to which teachers respond using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed the general impressions of the Reading Recovery program, professional I development, support for the program, impacts on student achievement, and alignment of state and district reading and language arts standards. In a second section, teachers were asked to indicate to what degree the listed items occurred. The focus of the four items were (1) administration support of Reading Recovery teacher efforts\n(2) Reading Coach support of Reading Recovery teacher efforts\n(3) district support of Reading Recovery teacher efforts\nand (4) the time to routinely monitor first n grade students progress after they were discontinued from tutoring. Open-ended questions asked Reading Recovery teachers to respond to the statements: Whaf are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? What are the weakest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? Do 21 you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? A final section of the RRTQ contained general questions regarding years of teaching experience, race, and level of education. Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (RRCTQ) All K-3 teachers who taught in experienced Reading Recovery schools were asked to complete the RRCTQ, which contains 13 items to which teachers respond using a five-point Likert- type scale that ranges from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed the specific program elements of Reading Recovery such as: understanding of the program, impacts on student achievement, teacher support for the program, and parent involvement. Open-ended questions asked classroom teachers to respond to the statements: Please describe your understanding of the Reading Recovery program in your school. What are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery Bl program? Do you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? final section of the RRCTQ contained general questions regarding years of teaching experience, race, and level of 4 education. Reading Recovery Parent Survey (RRPS) Parents whose first grade children were currently receiving Reading Recovery tutoring services were asked to complete the RRPS, that contains six items to which parents respond using a five-point Likert-type scale that ranges from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed general impressions of the program such as: improvement in childs reading skills, childs enjoyment of tutoring sessions, and opportunities to communicate with the Reading Recovery teacher. Both English and Spanish versions were made available to schools. Open-ended questions asked parents to respond to the statements: Please describe your understanding of the Reading Recovery tutoring program at your childs school. What is the BEST thing about your childs involvement with the Reading Recovery tutoring program? What CHANGES would you like to see in the Reading Recovery tutoring program? A final section of the RRPS asked parents to indicate the race, grade, and age of their child. 22Program Data Reading Recovery program information was obtained from data submitted to the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University in 2004-2005. Each year the schools and district submit teacher, school, and student program data and receive a site report. The report represents an examination of Reading Recovery student outcomes for Little Rock and accounts for all children served by Reading Recovery within the site during the 2004-2005 school year. In addition, attention is given to implementation factors that may be supporting or hindering the success of the intervention at the site. Student Achievement Results ^1 In addition to the program data, interviews, survey, and observation tools cited above, reading achievement data are derived from scores on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS), Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement. A description of each assessment follows. Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS). The ITBS Form A is a norm-referenced group administered test that measures the skills and achievement of students in grades K-8 and was developed at The University of Iowa. The ITBS provides an in-depth assessment of students achievement of important educational objectives. Tests in Reading, Language Arts, Mathematics, Social Studies, Science, and Source of Information yield reliable and comprehensive information both about the development of students skills and about their ability to think critically. The emphasis of the K-1 assessment is on academic skills found in the early childhood curriculum. These tests are neither measures of readiness for school nor readiness to read. Rather, they assess the extent to which a child is cognitively prepared to begin work in the academic aspects of the curriculum. Test materials have been extensively field tested for psychometric soundness and evaluated for fairness to gender. racial, ethnic, and cultural groups. Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA). The Developmental Reading Assessment provides teachers with a method for assessing and documenting primary students development as readers over time with a literature-based instructional reading program. The DRA is designed to be 23used in K-3 classrooms with rich literacy environments. The assessments are conducted during one- on-one reading conferences as children read specially selected assessment texts. A set of 20 stories, which increase in difficulty, are used for the assessment. The DRA evaluates two major aspects of reading\naccuracy of oral reading and comprehension through reading and retelling of narrative stories. Questions pertaining to concepts about print are also included in the assessment with lower leveled texts. Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). DIBELS is a tool for early identification of children with potential literacy problems and an assessment of response to instruction. The assessment is individually administered to K-3 children at least three times per year. The DIBELS assessment is designed to enable educators to modify their approach if a student is not on course to achieve reading goals. The Early Childhood Research Institute on Measuring Growth and Development at the University of Oregon constructed DIBELS (2000). The Institute reports it has validated the instruments ability to predict outcomes and has tested its reliability with young children across the country. Reading Recovery schools that have received Reading Excellence Act or Reading First grant funding use the DIBELS assessment in Little Rock. An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement: Reading Recovery Subtests. Six tasks in Marie Clays (2002) An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement (Observation Survey) were used as pretest and posttest measures. The Survey tasks have the qualities of sound assessment instruments with established reliabilities and validities. The purpose of the assessment is to determine 4 r an appropriate level of text difficulty and to record, using a running record, what the child does when reading continuous text. All six tasks of the Observation Survey were administered to Reading Recovery students in the fall (start of the school year) and/or at entry to the intervention. These scores served as pretest measures in the evaluation design. The six tasks were also administered to Reading Recovery students upon discontinuing or exiting from the program. In the spring (end of school year), the six tasks were again administered to all students who received Reading Recovery services during the year. Year-end scores served as the posttest measures in comparing the progress made by Reading Recovery children in the various end-of-program status groups. 24PROCEDURE Data for the evaluation were collected March-May 2005 for the 2004-2005 school year. On February 16, 2005 principals were given an overview of the evaluation and timelines for collecting data. On March 3-4 and April 14-15, 14 tutoring observations were conducted in nine randomly selected experienced Reading Recovery schools by two Reading Recovery content experts from Georgia State and The Ohio State Universities. Only experienced Reading Recovery teachers were observed. On March 23 a CREP trained site researcher administered the Reading Recovery teacher survey to experienced teachers at a regularly scheduled monthly meeting at UALR. In April and May principals in experienced Reading Recovery schools administered the classroom teacher q questionnaire to K-3 grade teachers. Principals also administered the parent survey to parents whose children were currently receiving first grade intervention services in the 15 experienced Reading Recovery schools. Four teachers in-training and 10 principals were randomly selected from the 18 Reading Recovery schools to participate in a phone interview in April and May conducted by CREP researchers. Reading Recovery program data were received in summer 2005 from the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University. Student achievement data were received from the district in fall 2005. METHODS - STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Sample. The sample included 1,094 first grade students who attended one of 18 schools that implemented the Reading Recovery program during the 2004-2005 school year. Of these, 230 q were referred to the Reading Recovery program, and 864 were in the comparison group. The percentages of students who were African-American or of Limited English Proficiency were similar q between the comparison and Reading Recovery groups (73.6% versus 75.6% and 7.3% versus 8.7%, respectively\nsee Figure 1). However, Reading Recovery students were more likely to be eligible for q free or reduced-price lunch (84.3% versus 73.1%), to receive special education services (15.7% versus 8.6%), and to be male (58.1% versus 48.0%\nsee Figure 1). A random sample of about 11 comparison students was selected from each school (total n = 189) for administration of the DIBELS and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery test batteries. 25I Figure 1. Percentage of Students with Selected Demographic Characteristics by Reading Recovery Status 100.0 90.0------- 84.3 80.0 70.0 - 60.0 - 50.0 - 40.0 - 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 73.6 75.6 ft l?\u0026gt;( if African American 73.1 15.7 p. 7.3 8-7 8.6p^ 48.0 58^1 S Free lunch LEP Special Education Male  o 7- ??  B Comparison  Reading Recovery a Reading Recovery Treatment Level. In the Reading Recovery program, students who are deemed to have attained a reading level equivalent to their peers are assigned an end-of-program status of discontinued. Children who received 20 or more weeks of Reading Recovery services, but who do not attain a reading level equivalent to their peers are assigned a status of recommended action. Children who have received fewer than 20 weeks were assigned incomplete program status. Children designated as unknown status were removed from the program in fewer than 20 weeks due to reasons other than the school year ending. Other children were designated as having moved during the school year. As shown in Figure 2, the median number of sessions of recommended action {Md = 68.50\nn = 68) children was actually higher than the median for discontinued students {Md = 57.00\nn = 90). The medians for incomplete students {n = 46) and unknown students (n = 12) were very similar {Md = 44.63 versus 46.08, respectively\nsee Figure 2). a For the purposes of this study, recommended action and discontinued students were categorized as complete program\n incomplete and unknown students were categorized as incomplete 26program\n\" and students who moved were eliminated from the analyses. This left a total of 216 Reading Recovery students: 158 with a complete program, and 58 with an incomplete program. Figure 2. Boxplot of Number of Reading Recovery Sessions by Student Status Upon Exiting the Program 80- (A C o w (A Q s Ct  40- M o o I- 20- Discontinued T T T Incomplete Moved Unknown Recommended action o o o T * T Status  Note. Heavy dark lines indicate median. Gray boxes indicate interquartile range. 'Whiskers indicate range, excepting extreme values. Extreme values denoted by circles or asterisks. n 21 Measures. Pretest (covariate) measures included: (a) Spring. 2004 Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) scores, (b) Fall 2005 Observation Survey: Reading Recovery program subtests that included Letter Identification, Word Test, Concepts About Print, Writing Vocabulary, Hearing and 4 Recording Sounds in Words, and Text Reading\nand (c) the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) subtests in Letter Naming Fluency. Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency, and Word Use Fluency. Outcome measures included Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading Normal Curve Equivalent Scores. DRA scores. Observation Survey: Reading Recovery subtests, and DIBELS subtests administered in Spring 2005. To achieve some parsimony in the analyses, pretest measures were subjected to a principal components analysis, and regressionbased factors scores were constructed for pretest DRA and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery 4 4 subtests, and the DIBELS subtests. A single factor accounted for 60.1% and 60.5% of the variance in the DRA and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery subtests, and the DIBELS subtests, respectively. Outcome measures included the DRA and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery. DIBELS subtests, and ITBS Reading. Student achievement analyses. A 3 (Program Status) by 2 (African-American versus other) multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was performed on two test batteries, using student gender, the pertinent pretest factor score, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status as covariates. One test battery included the DRA and subscales of the Observation Survey: Reading Recovery. The second test battery included subtests for the DIBELS. A similar 3 by 2 analysis of covariance was performed on ITBS Reading NCE scores using the 2003-2004 DRA score as a pretest covariate. For the multivariate analyses, Wilks lambda was used as the criterion of multivariate significance. Where Wilks lambda indicated a significant multivariate effect, follow-up univariate analyses were performed on each outcome variable using the Bonferroni procedure to control for experimentwise alpha. When significant univariate results were found, post hoc analyses were performed using Scheffes procedure. Effect size estimates were computed for all posttests by subtracting the adjusted mean for the comparison group from the adjusted mean from the Reading Recovery group within levels of race, then dividing by the total standard deviation of the posttest (Cohen. 1988: Hedges \u0026amp; Olkin. 1985). For ITBS Reading NCE effect size estimates, the population 28 standard deviation of 21.06 was used. The effect size estimates (ES) represent the standardized difference between treatment and comparison group means, which allows for comparison across measures that have different metrics. Exploratory and supplementary analyses: Impact of teacher experience and number of sess/ons. The number of years experience with Reading Recovery was recorded for each teacher. Years experience ranged from 1 to 10 years. ITBS Reading NCE scores and DRA test scores for 2004-2005 were regressed on 2003-2004 DRA/RR Observation Survey factor scores and dummy-coded variables representing student ethnicity, free lunch status, gender, special education status. and LEP status. Standardized residuals were saved from each of these analyses and plotted against teacher years of experience to graphically assess the nature of the relationship between teacher experience and teacher effectiveness in Reading Recovery for students who received a Complete program. Standardized residuals for each of these 2004-2005 tests were also plotted against number of Reading Recovery sessions received for all students (i.e., those who received either a Complete or Incomplete program). DATA COLLECTION Table 2 provides the type of measures, instrument names, administration timeline, and a brief data collection description for each of the instruments. 29 4 Table 2 Data Collection Summary t-fl Type of Measure Site Visits Surveys Interviews Data Analysis and Reporting Instrument RR Implementation Assessment Instrument RR Teacher Questionnaire RR Classroom Teacher Questionnaire RR Parent Survey Principal Interviews Teacher In-Training Interviews ITBS, DRA. DIBELS, \u0026amp; Observation Survey\nRR Little Rock School District Reading Recovery Aggregate Report Timeline Spring 2005 Spring 2005 Spring 2005 Spring 2005 Spring 2005 Spring 2005 Fall 2005 Description/ _____ Response rate  14 conducted  22 respondents/100%  156 respondents/  approximately 90%  95 respondents/9 Spanish  approximately 86%_____  10 conducted  4 conducted  1,094 first grade students . 230 RR  864 comparison group  1 Final Report RESULTS The results of the Reading Recovery evaluation are presented below by instrument. A copy of each instrument is included in Appendix I. In the Conclusion section, findings are synthesized across instruments to address each research question. J -i Reading Recovery Implementation Assessment Instrument (RRIAl) As indicated in the description of the RRIAl, the observation procedure primarily focuses on Reading Recovery Program Components and Program Strategies. The site observers used a four-point rubric (1 = poor or unacceptable, 2 = below average in comparison to other programs observed. 3 = meets nearly all standards of program quality, and 4 = above average in comparison to other programs) to rate the frequency and application of components and strategies of Reading Recovery instruction. More precise data regarding observed Reading Recovery instructional practices measured by the four-point rubric for the 14 observations are presented in Table 3. 30 Reading Recovery Program Components The overall mean rating for the Reading Recovery Program Components was 3.46 which suggests a high level of program implementation. Of the six subcategories the highest observed ratings were\nassembiing a cut-up story and introducing and reading a new book observed to be above average in 85.7% of tutoring sessions. The program component subcategory with the lowest observed rating was working with tetters and/or words using magnetic tetters observed to be above average in only 35.7% of tutoring sessions. Reading a famitiar story and reading a story that was read for the first time the day before was observed to above average in 64.3% of visits. The six program components were observed in at least 92.9% of 14 tutoring sessions. Reading Recovery Program Strategies Cl The overall mean rating for the Reading Recovery Program Strategies was 3.61 which also indicates a high level of instructional effectiveness. Of the eight During Tutoring Lesson subcategories the highest observed rating was for appropriate text setected throughout the tesson 4 observed to above average in 85.7% of tutoring sessions. The During Tutoring Lesson subcategory with the lowest observed rating was echo of focus throughout the tesson observed to be above average in just 42.9% of tutoring sessions. For the After Tutoring Lesson, has high expectations for the chiid and articutates chitds strengths and needs were observed to be above average in 78.6% of tutoring sessions and accurate and up-to-date records were observed to be above average in 71.4% of tutoring sessions. The Reading Recovery Program Strategies were observed in at least 85.7 of tutoring sessions. Observer Perceptions of Reading Recovery Program Implementation Site observers reported being impressed with the dedication and commitment of the Reading Recovery teachers to the fidelity of the teaching procedures and the integrity of the implementation of the program. Almost all teachers observed were meeting all the standards, guidelines, and expectations of the Reading Recovery Council of North America and the North American Trainers m Group. Since observations occurred in March and April, most of the students observed were second- round students, since teachers had discontinued their first-round students. Teachers reported that students who did not discontinue from Reading Recovery during the first-round were being considered 31for further intervention services. Site observers also reported that the Reading Recovery program in the Little Rock district receives an adequate allocation of time, materials, and other resources. However, several teachers and principals expressed the need for additional Reading Recovery n w teachers in their schools. Reading Recovery teachers also reported teaching literacy small groups the rest of the day which enables them to give their Reading Recovery students more attention during the instructional day. By teaching these literacy groups, site observers suggested that the Reading Recovery teachers expertise and knowledge gained from their training and practice benefits children across 4 q q several grade levels. During visits site observers suggested areas in which some Reading Recovery teachers needed improvement. These instructional areas included: (1) hearing and recording sounds in words\n(2) making and breaking\n(3) doing away with the helping hand\nand (4) maintaining up-to-date records on each child as a basis for instruction. A summary of observers general findings for each classroom observation is included in Appendix D. q q q q q 32 ATable 3 Reading Recovery Implementation Assessment Instrument: Spring 2005 N=14 1. II. Please check: Observed: 0 Not Observed: N Please rate each of the following items in terms of the quality of implementation by using the appropriate number according to the following scales: Quality 1 = Poor or unacceptable 2 = Below average in comparison to other programs obsen/ed 3 = Meets nearly all standards of program quality 4 = Above average in comparison to other programs Obseived Not Observed Reading Recoveiy Progtam Components % Poor 4 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 92.86 7.14 Reading familiar stories Reading a story that was read for the first time the day before - incorporates nmning record Working with letters and /or words using magnetic tetters 0.0 0.0 0.0 92.86 7.14 Writing a story 0.0 92.86 7.14 Assembling a cut-up story 0.0 92.86 7.14 Introducing and reading a new book 0.0 4 (Overall rating: Follows the Reading Recovery lesson frameworks Observed Not Obsen/ed Reading Recovery Program Strategies % Poor 92.86 7.14 Appropriate pacing of lesson components 0.0 4 92.86 7.14 100.0 0.0 Appropriate text selected throughout the lesson Appropriate prompts are used for scaffolding the child to problem solve 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Child is engaged in constaictive problem solving 7.14 92.86 7.14 Echo of focus throughout the lesson 0.0 92.86 7.14 Procedures are adjusted according to child's needs 0.0 92.86 7.14 Balance of fluency phrasing practice and problem solving 0.0 85.71 7.14 Opportunities to develop phonological awareness within the lesson 0.0 85.71 85.71 7.14 7.14 Accurate up-to-date records Articulates childs strengths and needs 0.0 0.0 85.71 7.14 Has high expectations for the child 0.0 % Below Average 1429 7.14 4286 0.0 0.0 0.0 % Below Average 21.43 7.14 7.14 0.0 7.14 0.0 7.14 7.14 7.14 0.0 0.0 Quality % Meets 21.43 28.57 1429 21.43 7.14 7.14 Quality % Meets 7.14 0.0 1429 21.43 42.86 1429 7.14 21.43 14.29 14.29 14.29 Overall Rating: \"NOTE: Item percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from observers. % Above Average 6429 6429 35.71 71.43 85.71 85.71 Mean:3.46 SD\n0.54 % Above Average 64.29 85.71 78.57 71.43 42.86 78.57 78.57 64.29 71.43 78.57 78.57 Mean: 3.61 SO: 0.66 33 INTERVIEW RESULTS Reading Recovery Principal Interview Principals at 10 of the Reading Recovery schools were randomly selected to participate in a 45-minute phone interview. Principals were asked a series of questions regarding general program implementation, classroom level changes, program results, professional development opportunities and parental and community involvement. A summary of the principal responses can be found in Appendix B. Overall, principals were positive about the Reading Recovery program and the impact it has had on their schools. Most of the schools have been utilizing Reading Recovery for several years and faculty and staff are very comfortable with the program. Nearly all of the principals interviewed were instrumental in bringing Reading Recovery to their schools, and the decision to utilize Reading Recovery was made after considerable research and thoughtful consideration. Principals reported that Reading Recovery is a wonderful complement to the schools balanced literacy programs. The one-on-one attention the reading Recovery students receive is overwhelmingly the most effective of the strategies that the program employs. Other effective strategies mentioned included push-ins, literacy groups, running records, and the writing component. Principals reported being active advocates in their Reading Recovery programs. They described their roles as one of support and involvement, .ranging from oversight of the program to more direct involvement including student selection for the program, review of student progress, and i - ongoing meetings and collaboration with the Reading Recovery specialists. All principals noted that teachers were very supportive of the Reading Recovery program and appreciated the impact it has had on overall student achievement. Most of the resources needed for effective program implementation are available\nhowever, principals reported an ongoing need for books, additional teachers and tutors, and more planning time. Principals described the African- American population as being well-served by Reading Recovery, and most agreed that through Reading Recovery the achievement gap is being bridged for their African-American students. In most of the schools, African-American students are a large percentage of the Reading Recovery program. 34and the early intervention provided by Reading Recovery allows the students to be encouraged by being successful at a younger age. Teacher in-Training Interview In the spring 2005, four teachers in their first year in the Reading Recovery program were contacted by phone for a 30 to 45-minute phone interview. The teachers in-training were attending classes concerning Reading Recovery instruction, as well as working in their schools implementing the Reading Recovery strategies. Feedback from the teachers was solicited regarding general program information, classroom level changes, results, professional development, and parental involvement and support. A summary of the teacher in-training responses can be found in Appendix C. All teachers described the process of integrating Reading Recovery into the schools literacy program as well planned and organized. Reading Recovery teachers work individually with the lowest performing students and then follow up individual instruction with literacy groups. Reading Recovery teachers reported a thorough selection process that involved collaboration with the classroom teacher and comprehensive testing and assessment. In general, the Reading Recovery teachers reported strong support from the classroom teachers, that classroom teachers appreciate the effectiveness of the one-on-one approach, and the fact that Reading Recovery is able to provide this type of support. freeing the classroom teacher to work more effectively with the other students. 4 The Reading Recovery teachers in-training strongly felt that Reading Recovery helped to equalize learning and achievement opportunities for African-American students at their schools. Most 4 of the students in Reading Recovery are African-American, and these teachers were able to see positive gains. Reading Recovery helps all struggling readers by actively engaging them in reading and allowing them to feel successful at reading. Through detailed daily records and periodic testing all inherent in the Reading Recovery programstudent progress is effectively monitored and lessons can be planned that are tailor made for each individual child. Additionally, the Reading Recovery program often serves as a first line of defense in determining special education needs. Often, Reading Recovery will be used prior to special education referral. 4 Teachers in-training emphasized the importance of the daily data reports they collect and 4 view them as essential to the success of the program. Reading Recovery teachers collect and use 35 data to monitor the progress of the students and to help develop appropriate, effective teaching strategies based on the individual needs of the student. Data are often shared with the classroom teacher and the principal so that a collaborative team develops to help plan and implement instruction for the student. The Reading Recovery teachers in-training report a significant increase in self-confidence and improvement in overall attitude among the Reading Recovery students. As the students begin to experience success, they are less frustrated and angry. This improvement in attitude improves their classroom behavior and relationships with other teachers and students. Some of these teachers have seen dramatic increases in test scores and other achievement data, while others have not yet been able to see these gains. Again, from the perspective of the teachers in-training, the Reading Recovery program is helping to close the achievement gap of African-American students. Reading Recovery teachers in-training reported professional training that ranged from adequate to thorough. Changes in Reading Recovery course instructors led to some confusion for some of the teachers in-training, and some reported the need for increased classroom hours. However, overall, these teachers reported feeling well-prepared to work with the students. The strategies they have learned have been very helpful. Although the teachers in training reported having significant classroom experience, they are learning unique techniques that have been very beneficial. 4 There is considerable support from the district teacher, and all teachers expressed a desire and need for continuing support in the upcoming school year. Parental support has been mixed. although all the teachers reported active attempts at engaging the parents in the Reading Recovery program. Reading Recovery teachers in-training concurred that the exposure to print and the one-on-one attention were the most critical elements of the Reading Recovery program. Teachers reported the need to understand several components better, including the make and break lesson and the writing component\nand the need for time to plan and implement the program is always a factor. Overall, the components of Reading Recovery were well understood and effective. r,1 36 SURVEY RESULTS Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ) Descriptive results. The results of the RRTQ are summarized in Table 4. Reading Recovery teachers had extremely favorable attitudes toward the program at their schools. As 4 illustrated in Table 4,100% of teachers strongly agreed or agreed that they have a thorough understanding of the program, teachers in their school are generally supportive of the program, ongoing communication exists between Reading Recovery tutors and classroom reading teachers, Reading Recovery monthly meetings are effective and useful, instructional materials needed to implement the Reading Recovery program are readily available, and the Reading Recovery program is aligned with state and district reading and language arts standards. There was also strong agreement that Reading Recovery teachers received support, with 86.4% of the teachers reporting that the school administration and Reading Coach supported their efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher. Almost 75% (72.7%) of teachers reported receiving extensive district support. The items with the highest level of disagreement (disagree and strongly disagree) concerned Reading Recovery teachers having sufficient planning time (36.4%), enough tutors to fully implement the Reading Recovery program (18.2%), and time to routinely monitor first grade students progress after they were discontinued from Reading Recovery (9.1 % not at all, and 72.7% somewhat). Demographic data. All Reading Recovery teachers (100%) reported having at least six years of teaching experience and 31.8% reported at least six years experience as a Reading Recovery teacher. Approximately 85% (86.4%) of Reading Recovery teachers reported having Masters Degree or beyond. The majority of Reading Recovery teachers were Caucasian (72.7%) R R and 13.6% reported their ethnicity as African-American. Open-ended responses. Reading Recovery teachers were asked to respond to three open-ended questions in addition to the 24 items on the questionnaire. Respondents were instructed to list the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery program, the weakest aspects of the Reading Recovery program, and reasons for continuing or discontinuing Reading Recovery at their school. There were 22 Reading Recovery teachers who filled out the questionnaire, and 21 of those also answered the open-ended questions. Many of the Reading Recovery teachers answered in detail. 37 listing multiple responses for each of the questions. The open-ended responses are summarized in Table 5, and a verbatim listing of teacher responses can be found in Appendix E. Of the 21 who listed strong aspects of the Reading Recovery program, the two most popular answers were individualized, one-on-one instruction, 57.1%, and the ability to reach the lowest performing students and bridge the achievement gap for these students, 47.6%. Reading Recovery teaching strategies and components were listed in 19% of the responses, and both the early intervention element and the support from the other teachers were listed in 14.3% of the responses. Respondents were also asked to list what they considered the weakest elements of the Reading Recovery program. Time was a factor in many of the responses with lack of planning time most frequently mentioned at 33.3%. Lack of time to complete the lesson was mentioned in 19.0% of 4 the responses. Teachers' inability to help all the students who need help was also mentioned in 19.0% of the responses. All of the 21 teachers responded positively to the question Do you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? Why?\"\nand 20 teachers elaborated on their positive response listing reasons for continuing Reading Recovery. The ability of Reading Recovery to help J struggling readers was listed in half of the responses (50.0%), and strong progress and results were mentioned in 40.0% of the responses. The fact that Reading Recovery decreases the number of special education referrals was listed in 15.0% of the responses. There was one respondent who pointed out that although he/she felt Reading Recovery should be continued at the school, there needed to be better implementation to make it effective. Overall, as reflected in the other items on the questionnaire, the open-ended responses were very positive. Reading Recovery teachers appear knowledgeable and committed to their roles as Reading Recovery teachers and believe strongly in the positive impact the program is having at their schools. Based on survey response and comments provided through the open-ended questions. Reading Recovery teachers are able to see a strong impact from the individualized instruction they provide. 38 Table 4 Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ): 2004-2005 N = 22 ______________________________________________ RRTQ Items 1. a 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. I have a thorough understanding of the schools Reading Recovery program. I have received adequate initial and ongoing professional development/training for implementation of the Reading Recovery program. Our Reading Recovery program has positively impacted student achievemenl Because ot Reading Recovery, Literacy Group interventions occur for students in grades K-3. Overall, this program seems valuable for improving the achievement of African-American students. Reading Recovery teachers are given sufficient planning time to implement the program. Our school has enough tutors to fully implement its Reading Recovery program. The administration protects the time for daily uninterrupted Reading Recovery tutoring and Literacy Small Group interventions. Because of our Reading Recovery program, parents are more involved in the literacy program of this school. This school has a plan for evaluating aU elements of our Reading Recovery program. Teachers in this school are generally supportive of the Reading Recovery program. Ongoing communication exists between Reading Recovery tutors and classroom reading teachers. Reading Recovery teachers are encouraged to communicate concerns, questions, and constnictive ideas regarding the program. Our Reading Recovery program adequately addresses the requirements of children with special needs. Reading Recovery teachers participate in the special education referral process to provide early literacy intervention. Because of Reading Recovery, teachers in this school spend more time working togethrer to plan instruction and review student progress. Reading Recovery monthly meetings (continuing contact) are effective and useful. Instructional materials (books, assessments, and other resources) needed to implement our Reading Recovery program are readily available. The faculty, staff, and administration believe that all children can read at grade level or above by the end of third grade. The Reading Recovery program is aligned with state and district reading and language arts staiidards. Percent Strongly Agree And Agree 100.00 95.45 95.45 95.45 86.36 54.55 59.09 7727 63.64 86.36 100.00 100.00 81.82 7727 86.36 81.82 100.00 100.00 63.64 100.00 1. 3. Percent Neutral 0.00 4.55 0.00 0.00 4.55 9.09 18.18 22.73 18.18 13.64 0.00 0.00 18.18 13.64 9.09 18.18 0.00 0.00 31.82 0.00 4. RRTQ Items To what degree did your school administration support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? To what degree did your school Reading Coach support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? To what degree does the district support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? To what degree did your schedule allow the time to routinely monitor first grade students' progress after they were discontinued from Reading Percent Extensively 86.36 86.36 72.73 18.18 Percent Somewtiat 13.64 4.55 2727 72.73 Percent Disagree and Strongly Disagree 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.55 0.00 36.36 18.18 0.00 13.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.09 4.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.55 0.00 Percent Not at all 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.09 ________Recovery tutoring?________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NOTE: Item percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents. 39Table 4, continued Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ): 2004-2005 N = 22________________________________________ Total Years of Experience in this School Less than 1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years More than 15 years Number of Respondents Total Years of Experience in any School Less than 1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years More than 15 years ______________Number of Respondents How many years experiences have you had as a Reading Recovery teacher? Less than one year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years More than 15 years ______________Number of Respondents Educational Attainment Bachelor's degree Master's degree Master's plus 20 hrs Education Specialist's Doctoral ______________ Number of Respondents ______________________ Ethnicity/Race Asian or Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaskan Native Black, not of Hispanic origin Hispanic, regardless of race White, not of Hispanic origin Multi-racial / Other Number of Respondents Percent 0.00 36.36 31.82 18.18 9.09 22 Percent 0.00 0.00 18.18 13.64 68.18 22 Percent 0.00 68.18 31.82 0.00 0.00 22 Percent 13.64 36.36 40.91 9.09 0.00 22 Percent 0.00 0.00 13.64 0.00 72.73 9.09 22 NOTE: Item percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents. 40 Table 5 Open-Ended Responses on the RRTQ Question Positive Comments 1. What are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery Program? 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. 9. Teacher Selection_________________ __________Responses_________________ One-on-one intervention/ Individualized lessons Bridging achievement gap by reaching lowest performing students Reading Recovery teaching strategies and components of instnjction Early intervention Support from other RR teachers Continuing contact with students Professional training and development Addresses both reading and writing Increases students' confidence Frequency Percent 12 10 57.1 47.6 10. Collaboration with classroom teacher 11. Close contact with parents_________ Total Responses N = 21 43 32 221 11 19.0 14.3 14.3 9.5 9.5 9.5 4.8 4.8 4.8 Sample responses  Working one-on-one with an at-risk child. \nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":277,"next_page":278,"prev_page":276,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":3312,"total_count":81191,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40200},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35114},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4552},{"value":"Sound","hits":3248},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9441},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8347},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5895},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5607},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4436},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3530}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1809},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1282},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1909},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":431}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1763},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":965},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":704},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17820},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5428},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4862},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4610},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4177},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3943},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2579},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2430},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2387}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12843},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11307},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10219},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8503},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4583},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3770},{"value":"Florida","hits":2601},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2391},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1893},{"value":"New York","hits":1667}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10514},{"value":"1963","hits":10193},{"value":"1965","hits":10119},{"value":"1956","hits":9832},{"value":"1955","hits":9611},{"value":"1964","hits":9268},{"value":"1968","hits":9243},{"value":"1962","hits":9152},{"value":"1967","hits":8771},{"value":"1957","hits":8460},{"value":"1958","hits":8242},{"value":"1961","hits":8241},{"value":"1959","hits":8046},{"value":"1960","hits":7940},{"value":"1954","hits":7239},{"value":"1969","hits":7235},{"value":"1950","hits":7117},{"value":"1953","hits":6968},{"value":"1970","hits":6743},{"value":"1971","hits":6337},{"value":"1977","hits":6280},{"value":"1952","hits":6161},{"value":"1972","hits":6144},{"value":"1951","hits":6045},{"value":"1975","hits":5806},{"value":"1976","hits":5771},{"value":"1974","hits":5729},{"value":"1973","hits":5591},{"value":"1979","hits":5329},{"value":"1978","hits":5318},{"value":"1980","hits":5279},{"value":"1995","hits":4829},{"value":"1981","hits":4724},{"value":"1994","hits":4654},{"value":"1948","hits":4596},{"value":"1949","hits":4571},{"value":"1996","hits":4486},{"value":"1982","hits":4330},{"value":"1947","hits":4316},{"value":"1985","hits":4226},{"value":"1998","hits":4225},{"value":"1997","hits":4202},{"value":"1983","hits":4174},{"value":"1984","hits":4065},{"value":"1946","hits":4046},{"value":"1999","hits":4018},{"value":"1945","hits":4017},{"value":"1990","hits":3937},{"value":"1986","hits":3919},{"value":"1943","hits":3899},{"value":"1944","hits":3895},{"value":"1942","hits":3867},{"value":"2000","hits":3808},{"value":"2001","hits":3790},{"value":"1940","hits":3764},{"value":"1941","hits":3757},{"value":"1987","hits":3657},{"value":"2002","hits":3538},{"value":"1991","hits":3507},{"value":"1936","hits":3506},{"value":"1939","hits":3500},{"value":"1938","hits":3465},{"value":"1937","hits":3449},{"value":"1992","hits":3444},{"value":"1993","hits":3422},{"value":"2003","hits":3403},{"value":"1930","hits":3377},{"value":"1989","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3306},{"value":"1933","hits":3270},{"value":"1934","hits":3270},{"value":"1988","hits":3269},{"value":"1932","hits":3254},{"value":"1931","hits":3239},{"value":"2005","hits":3057},{"value":"2004","hits":2909},{"value":"1929","hits":2789},{"value":"2006","hits":2774},{"value":"1928","hits":2271},{"value":"1921","hits":2123},{"value":"1925","hits":2039},{"value":"1927","hits":2025},{"value":"1924","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2009},{"value":"1920","hits":1975},{"value":"1923","hits":1954},{"value":"1922","hits":1928},{"value":"2016","hits":1925},{"value":"2007","hits":1629},{"value":"2008","hits":1578},{"value":"2011","hits":1575},{"value":"2019","hits":1537},{"value":"1919","hits":1532},{"value":"2009","hits":1532},{"value":"1918","hits":1530},{"value":"2015","hits":1527},{"value":"2013","hits":1518},{"value":"2010","hits":1515},{"value":"2014","hits":1481},{"value":"2012","hits":1467}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":500952,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10708},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9437},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2740},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41178},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17554},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8828},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":6864},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":197},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8146},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4024},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3212},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2633},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":80736},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":80994},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}