{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1103","title":"\"Independent Investigation Report to the Board of Directors of 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":["Quattlebaum, Steven W., 1959-","Shannon, Michael N.","Moore, Benecia B."],"dc_date":["2006-11-21"],"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","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School board members"],"dcterms_title":["\"Independent Investigation Report to the Board of Directors of 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/1103"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nRECEIVED NOV 2 1 2006 INDEPENDENT INVESTI~NfoRINI REPORT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NOVEMBER 21, 2006 PREPARED BY STEVEN W. QUATTLEBAUM MICHAEL N. SHANNON BENECIA B. MOORE Q ATILEBAUM, GROOM 'Tuu \u0026amp; BURROW PLLC 111 Center Street, Suite 1900  Lmle Rock, Arl.ansas 72201 II (501) 379-1700 QGTB OUATTlEBAUM, GROOMS, lULL \u0026amp; BURROW PUC \u0026gt; Q. po .... REC 'iVED NOV 2 1 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION REPORT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REGARDING ALLEGATIONS MADE IN A GRIEVANCE BY DR. KAREN DeJARNETTE AND IN A DOCUMENT TITLED COMPLIANCE HISTORY 2004-2006: PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT NOVEMBER 21, 2006 BY STEVEN W. QUATTLEBAUM MICHAEL N. SHANNON BENECIA B. MOORE QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS, TULL \u0026amp; BURROWPLLC 111 CENTER STREET, SUITE 1900 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 501-379-1700 \u0026gt; Q. ?- N ,\nC. C. ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 5 REPORT ...................................................................................................................... 19 I. QGTB ENGAGEMENT ........................................ ...................... ......... 19 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................. 21 III. A. B. Introduction ............................................................................... 21 The Organizational Structure of the Pertinent Witnesses within LRSD and the Chain of Command ...................... ...... .... 21 C. The Compliance Remedy as Outlined by the District Court's June 30, 2004, Opinion ......................................... ....... 23 D. The Comprehensive Program Assessment Process and the Quarterly Updates ............................................................... 29 DR. DeJARNETTE'S GRIEVANCE AND THE NOVEMBER 3, 2006, COMPLIANCE HISTORY DOCUMENT .............. .............. 31 IV. INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE ..... ... ............................ ................... 35 A. Documents Reviewed ............................................................... 35 B. Persons Interviewed .................................................................. 42 V. INVESTIGATION RESULTS ............... .............................................. 44 A. Timeline of Events .................................................................... 44 B. Factual Issues Identified ............................................................ 58 C. Discussion oflssues ..... ....................... ....... ........ ..................... .. 59 1. The Dispute Regarding Content of the Eighth Quarterly Update ........................................................... 60 a. What is an \"Update?\" .................... ........... .......... 60 b. Historical Drafting and Filing Process ............... 60 2  Q. p. N  Q. p. l,\n.l 2. 3. c. Drafting of the Q8 Update ................................. 61 d. Posting of the Q8 Update on the Novus Agenda Website ................................................. 61 e. Review of the Draft Q8 Update Before the August 22, 2006, Meeting .................................. 64 f. August 22, 2006, Meeting .................................. 65 g. Events after the August 22, 2006, Meeting ........ 72 h. Instructed to Withhold Information ................... 76 Threats of Termination .................................................. 81 a. Communicating Within the Chain of Command ........................................................... 82 b. Direct Threats of Termination ............................ 85 I. ii. Threats following the June 29, 2006, Arkansas Democrat Gazette Article ..................................................... 85 Threats at Cabinet Meetings ................... 87 c. Indirect Threats of Termination ......................... 93 1. The Job Advertisement Incident.. ........... 93 11. The Cabinet Retreat Certificate Incident ................................................... 94 111. Threatening Telephone Calls from Dr. Brooks .............................................. 95 Hostile Work Environment.. .......................................... 97 a. Direction of the PRE Staff ................................. 97 b. LRSD Reorganization - Transition Team ......... 99 c. Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Department Moved into Dr. DeJarnette's Office .................................... 101 d. Painters in PRE Offices .................................... 102 e. November 6, 2006, Meeting between Counsel and PRE ............................................. 104 4. PRE Compliance History Document.. ......................... 105 3  Q. ?- N .,,,. Q. Q. (.,.I 5. Allegations Regarding the Accuracy of LRSD's Data .............................................................................. 109 6. Lack of Response to Dr. DeJarnette's Grievance ........ 113 VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 114 ADDENDUM Add. 1. Add. 2. Add. 3. Add. 4. Add. 5. Add. 6. Add. 7. Add. 8. QGTB Resume and Biographical Information Investigation Specific Organizational Chart Textual Comparison of the Eight Quruterly Updates Submitted to the District Court A Comparison of the Various Iterations of the Q8 Update Employee Relations Complaint Form (Grievance) - Ex. 127 Letter and attached PRE Compliance History Document -Ex. 147 PRE's Initial Draft of the Q8 Update - Ex. 69 Final and Filed Version of the Q8 Update - Ex. 123 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull \u0026amp; Burrow PLLC (\"QGTB\"), identified six major issues during its investigation. Although some factual overlap between them is unavoidable, those major issues are: 1. The Dispute Regarding the Content of the Eighth Quarterly Update\n2. 3. Alleged Threats of Termination\nClaims of a Hostile Work Environment\n4. The document titled Compliance History 2004-2006: Planning, Research and Evaluation Department\n5. Allegations Regarding the Accuracy ofLRSD's Data\nand 6. Lack of Response to Dr. DeJarnette's Grievance. This Executive Summary is intended to provide an abbreviated discussion of the factual disputes concerning these issues. A more detailed discussion of these disputes with accompanying cites to interview transcripts and exhibits can be found at section V. C. of this report. 1. The Dispute Regarding the Content of the Eighth Quarterly Update The United States District Court' for the Eastern District of Arkansas (\"the Court\") was tasked with overseeing the desegregation of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"). The Court ordered certain program evaluations as part of the desegregation compliance remedy. In its June 30, 2004, Order (\"2004 Compliance Remedy\"), the Court required the LRSD was to submit to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") eight Quarterly Updates regarding the status of the Court 1 The Honorable William R. Wilson, presiding. 5 ..... \u0026gt; Q. Q. N ordered program evaluations. A disagreement arose between the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department (\"PRE\") and administration officials regarding the Eighth Quarterly Update (\"Q8 Update\"), which was to be submitted to the Court on or before September I, 2006. The dispute within the LRSD regarding the Q8 Update centered on what information should be included in the Q8 Update and whether the removal of certain information from the draft Q8 Update was proper. PRE was of the opinion the information removed from the draft Q8 Update should be provided to the LRSD Board of Directors (\"the Board\") and the Court. LRSD administration officials and LRSD outside counsel were of the opinion that the information should not be included in the Q8 Update. Certain staff members in the PRE department, including Dr. Karen DeJarnette, the Director of PRE, believed that all of the information included in the draft Q8 Update was crucial for the Board and the Court's consideration. PRE viewed the Q8 Update as an opportunity to present a comprehensive report to the Board and the Court. PRE included information in the draft Q8 Update TetraData, a \"warehouse\" of student data that PRE recommended but LRSD decided not to purchase. PRE also included concerns about the accuracy of the student data gathered and whether LRSD had a comprehensive program to verify the accuracy of student data. Further, PRE included a discussion of its attempts to ensure timely receipt of data from the Arkansas Department of Education. Finally, additional \"programs\" other than the eight step 2 programs identified in the 2004 Compliance Remedy were included in PRE's draft Q8 Update. 6 ....  Q. Q. N ,\n,\nQ. Q. n Administration officials and LRSD counsel disagreed with PRE about whether these issues should be included in the Q8 Update submitted to the Board and the Court. The administration was concerned that PRE had chosen to air \"in-house\" disputes that were irrelevant to the evaluation process outlined in the 2004 Compliance Remedy, particularly the data \"warehouse\" issue and PRE's criticisms of the Arkansas Department of Education. Administration officials and Mr. Heller were also concerned that certain statements made by PRE were inaccurate and did not reflect the position of LRSD. Among these were statements regarding the accuracy of student data. Finally, administration officials and LRSD counsel were concerned that by including \"programs\" that were not among those being evaluated pursuant to the 2004 Compliance Remedy, LRSD could be creating an additional obligation to evaluate extra programs in the future. A meeting was held on August 22, 2006, in Deputy Superintendent Hugh Hattabaugh's office to discuss the concerns of the administration and PRE regarding the draft Q8 Update. Also in attendance at the meeting were Dr. Olivine Roberts, Dr. DeJarnette's immediate supervisor, Mr. Chris Heller, outside counsel for LRSD, Dr. DeJarnette, and three statisticians from PRE, Dr. Ed Williams, Mr. Jim Wohlleb, and Ms. Maurecia Robinson. Both sides shared their opinions about whether the information should be included, and, at the end of the meeting, PRE was charged with incorporating suggestions made by the administration and redrafting the Q8 Update. Opinions within PRE on redrafting were not unanimous. It appears Dr. DeJarnette and Mr. Wohlleb believed that the draft should remain as it had been presented by PRE and that it was critical that all information be given to the Board and the Court. Dr. Williams was of the opinion that the edits suggested by the 7 ,. ti administration were clear and should be made. Ms. Robinson's opinion lay between these two, and she described her input as \"minimal.\" Initially, PRE sent a second draft of the Q8 Update that removed references to the additional \"programs.\" However, PRE stated that it was \"fuzzy\" on what other edits the administration wanted. PRE later reinstated references to the additional \"programs\" in a third draft of the Q8 Update that was circulated to the administration. Ultimately, Mr. Heller edited PRE's draft of the Q8 Update and removed the discussions of concern to the administration. Mr. Heller's edited version was submitted to the Board on August 24, 2006, and was approved. The approved Q8 Update was then filed with the Court on September 1, 2006. After the Q8 Update was filed with the Court, Dr. DeJarnette filed a grievance with LRSD (\"the Grievance\"). In the Grievance, Dr. DeJarnette stated that she had been directed by Dr. Brooks, Mr. Hattabaugh, Dr. Roberts and Mr. Heller to withhold from the Board, ODM, Joshua and the Court the information that was removed from PRE's draft Q8 Update. In addition, Dr. DeJarnette alleged that, on several occasions, Dr. Brooks threatened to terminate her employment if she shared information with Joshua or ODM. She also cited an e-mail dated August 17, 2006, from Mr. Heller wherein he instructed PRE not to discuss issues that will be litigated in December with lawyers or paralegals representing any other party in the desegregation case without counsel present. Dr. DeJarnette provided a copy of PRE's draft Q8 Update to Joshua and ODM on or about August 8, 2006, when she says that she first posted the draft Q8 Update to the Board's 8 \u0026gt; Q. p. ....  Q. Q. n Novus Agenda website.2 Thus, the information that was removed by Mr. Heller had already been provided to ODM and Joshua. Dr. DeJarnette is of the opinion that PRE should openly share all information with Joshua and that the 2004 Compliance Remedy requires a free flow of information between PRE and Joshua. Regarding sharing information with ODM and Joshua, the administration's position is that all ODM requests should be honored without any need to involve counsel but that requests for information from Joshua should be coordinated through Mr. Hattabaugh or counsel. Also, the administration and Mr. Heller do not believe that drafts of the Q8 Updates were to be shared with Joshua until agreement on a final version for submission to the Board had been reached. Mr. Heller stated that no one was instructed to withhold information from the Court. According to Mr. Heller, information removed from PRE's draft of the Q8 Update could be presented to the Court through, for example, testimony at the hearing in December. 2. Threats of Termination Interviews conducted by QGTB revealed that LRSD personnel generally understand that following the designated \"chain of command\" is very important. LRSD personnel understand that information and concerns are to be presented to an individual's direct supervisor who, in turn, can then present that information to his or her supervisor. It is also clear that LRSD personnel have been told on several occasions by Dr. Brooks that issues 2 Items to be discussed at Board meetings are posted initially to the Board's Novus Agenda website by the persons in charge of the items. After posting, items are subject to approval by that person's immediate supervisor and then that person 's immediate supervisor and so on until approval by the Superintendent. !fall necessary approvals are obtained, the item becomes available for the Board's review and ultimately for review by the public at large. 9  Q. Q. N  Q. Q.  I. I. n discussed within LRSD should remain confidential and should be shared outside LRSD only through proper channels. Dr. DeJarnette's alleged threats of termination can be divided into direct and indirect threats. Dr. DeJarnette claims that she was directly threatened with termination (1) in a meeting with Dr. Brooks following an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette and (2) by statements made at meetings of the Superintendent's Cabinet. The Arkansas Democrat Gazette article referenced statements made by Joy Springer in an affidavit, a paralegal for Joshua's counsel, Mr. John Walker, that had been filed with the Court. Dr. DeJarnette states that Dr. Brooks called her into his office, showed her the Arkansas Democrat Gazette article and asked her to agree with him that Ms. Springer's statements were inaccurate. Dr. DeJarnette refused to do so and stated that she felt Ms. Springer had support for all the statements in her affidavit. Near the end of the meeting, Dr. DeJarnette recalled that Dr. Roberts entered the room whereupon Dr. Brooks stated to Dr. Roberts that anyone who shared information with Joy Springer should be fired. Dr. DeJamette reports that Dr. Roberts agreed. Dr. Brooks does not recall the meeting that Dr. DeJarnette describes or the specific article in the newspaper. He maintains that if he had had any concerns regarding an article, he would have expressed them to Mr. Hattabaugh or Dr. Roberts. Similarly, Dr. Roberts does not recall the article or meeting with Dr. DeJarnette about an article. Regarding threats allegedly made during the Superintendent's cabinet meetings, Dr. DeJarnette states that Dr. Brooks pointed his finger at her in front of all the cabinet members and said that he would fire her if she shared information with ODM or Joshua if it was the last thing he did. Dr. Brooks denies making any such statements. Dr. Brooks affirmed that 10 ,\nQ, Q, there is a general understanding that PRE staff members should not communicate the Court, Joshua or others extraneous information outside of the Updates to. Likewise, Dr. Roberts did not recall any threatening statements like those described by Dr. DeJamette being made at cabinet meetings. None of the cabinet members recalled Dr. Brooks making any statements about disclosure of information directly to Dr. DeJarnette in cabinet meetings. Some cabinet members recalled that Dr. Brooks generally expressed that termination was a possible consequence if information was improperly shared outside LRSD but did not recall those threats being made in connection with the desegregation litigation or Joshua. Some cabinet members did not recall any threats of termination by Dr. Brooks in cabinet meetings. The first indirect threat of termination reported by Dr. DeJarnette is her allegation that Dr. Brooks brought an advertisement for a position in the Buffalo, New York, school district into a cabinet meeting and, while handing it directly to her, suggested that \"someone\" from the cabinet should look into the job posting. Dr. Brooks did not recall giving a job description to Dr. DeJarnette specifically but stated that he frequently shared job openings at the cabinet meetings. No other cabinet member recalled any job advertisements being handed directly to Dr. DeJarnette. The next indirect threat reportedly occurred at a cabinet retreat held in the Regions Bank building. Dr. DeJarnette states that Dr. Brooks presented certificates to various cabinet members and when he presented hers, he stated to all cabinet members that he was sorry she had become an \"outsider.\" Dr. Brooks does not recall making these statements. Other cabinet members do not recall any negative statements being made to Dr. DeJarnette when the certificates were distributed at the cabinet retreat. However, one cabinet member recalled 11 \u0026gt; Q. Q. \u0026gt; Q. Q. N Q. Q. n Dr. Brooks saying something \"different\" to Dr. DeJarnette during the presentation of her certificate. Next, Dr. DeJarnette states that she suffered indirect threats of termination in telephone calls from Dr. Brooks on three Friday afternoons in late October and early November wherein Dr. Brooks was very loud and angry. Dr. Brooks does not recall any phone conversations with Dr. DeJamette on the Fridays before November 3, 2006, but does recall phoning her after receiving the document titled Compliance History 2004-2006: Planning, Research and Evaluation Department (\"PRE Compliance History Document\") via e-mail from her. Dr. Brooks admitted being very frustrated during this phone call and asking Dr. DeJarnette who had authorized her to send a letter and the PRE Compliance History Document directly to the Board. In summary, there is a factual dispute about whether any direct or indirect threats of termination were made to Dr. DeJarnette. However, it appears that it was generally understood that information should only be shared outside LRSD if done through appropriate channels. It also appears that there was a general understanding that disciplinary action could result from sharing LRSD information with Joshua other than through counsel or other appropriate means. 3. Claims of Hostile Work Environment Dr. DeJarnette's claims of a hostile work environment began with the reorganization of the district in 2005 that resulted in Dr. Roberts replacing Dr. Brooks as her direct supervisor. In addition to the alleged threats of termination discussed above, Dr. DeJarnette related several instances of inappropriate conduct by Dr. Roberts and/or Dr. Brooks that contributed to her allegations of a hostile work environment. 12 \u0026gt; Q. p. ,,,.. Q. Q. :::. p. n First, Dr. DeJarnette complained that administration officials directed PRE staff without her knowledge. Examples include administrative officials inviting Dr. Williams' to a cabinet meeting and referencing Dr. Williams as a manager or leader of certain PRE projects. Dr. DeJarnette also alleged that Dr. Brooks and Walter Hussman took Dr. Williams to dinner in May of 2006 to discuss a particular program. Also, Dr. DeJarnette stated that Dr. Roberts went directly to Dr. Williams for information about certain PRE programs. Dr. Brooks recalls speaking with Dr. Williams regarding certain PRE programs and evaluations. He also recalls that Dr. Williams attended a cabinet meeting to provide his expertise on a particular subject. Dr. Brooks stated that it is not necessary for him to inform Dr. DeJarnette of these matters because he has the authority to go directly to the source that he knows has information. Dr. Roberts stated that she may communicate directly with PRE staff if necessary but that this was not a regular occurrence. Dr. Roberts also recalled that Dr. Brooks invited Dr. Williams to attend a cabinet meeting and give a report. Next, Dr. DeJarnette complained that certain personnel positions were eliminated from PRE that have made it difficult for PRE to operate adequately. The administrative assistant was cut completely. The testing coordinator position was first reduced to an elevenmonth position which, according to Dr. DeJarnette, caused the person occupying that position to resign. According to Dr. DeJarnette, the testing coordinator position was not filled for fourteen months although Dr. Hattabaugh did reinstate the position to a twelve-month contract. Administration officials stated that Dr. DeJarnette was on the transition team charged with determining where personnel cuts would be made and that she recommended 13 ,\nQ. Q.  L, \" eliminating the administrative assistant position without hesitancy. Other members of the transition team do not recall any specific comments from Dr. DeJarnette regarding cutting the administrative assistant position although at least one member reported that Dr. DeJarnette did not have a good relationship with the administrative assistant. Administration officials also contradict Dr. DeJarnette's statement concerning why the person in the testing coordinator position left the LRSD. According to them, the testing coordinator left to take an assistant principal position in the Pulaski County Special School District. Dr. DeJarnette also alleged that Dr. Roberts unnecessarily moved persons from the Gifted and Talented department into her office despite an available office next door and that Dr. Roberts moved painters into a room that contained secured testing materials. According to Dr. DeJarnette, her department may be reprimanded because certain testing information was lost when she was forced to move the testing materials. Dr. Roberts states that she asked Dr. DeJarnette if it would be permissible to temporarily locate the Gifted and Talented personnel in her office and that they were moved out after Dr. DeJarnette complained. Dr. Roberts does not recall Dr. DeJarnette expressing any concern about the secured testing materials in the painters' room. Dr. Hattabaugh recalls mediating a dispute in his office on these issues between Dr. Roberts and Dr. DeJarnette. 4. The PRE Compliance History Document On November, 3, 2006, Dr. DeJarnette sent to the Board a letter with the PRE Compliance History Document attached. The PRE Compliance History Document contained detailed information regarding topics that were removed from PRE's draft of the Q8 Update. It also included discussions of errors in the Compliance Report submitted to the Court in October 2006, statement concerning difficulty in cooperation between LRSD and PRE, and 14 \u0026gt; Q. Q. \u0026gt; Q. Q. N  Q. Q. L. n allegations regarding threats of termination to Dr. DeJarnette. And recommendations for Board action were also included. According to Dr. DeJarnette and Mr. Wohlleb, the PRE Compliance History Document was prepared because it was imperative that the Board be advised of the obstacles to the LRSD's embedding and sustaining timely and accurate assessments of its programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. Dr. Williams stated that he would not have provided the PRE Compliance History Document to the Board and would have used it for internal discussions only. Dr. Williams also disagreed with many statements in the document. Ms. Robinson voiced some concerns with the document including her feelings that a lot of the information could not be supported with evidence and was based on hearsay. 5. Allegations Regarding the Accuracy of LRSD's Data One of the issues addressed in both PRE's draft of the Q8 Update and the PRE Compliance History Document concerns the accuracy ofLRSD's student-related data and the effect on the reliability of LRSD's eight step 2 program evaluations provided to the Board and the Court. PRE states that the extent of errors in LRSD data is unknown, and, therefore, any evaluations based on that data are unreliable. According to PRE, a comprehensive procedure needs to be developed by an outside consultant to address measuring and guarding the accuracy of the data. PRE also is concerned by the fact that LRSD elected not to purchase a data warehousing program titled TetraData that PRE claims would have been operational by the end of the Court's two-year monitoring period. According to PRE, it is unclear when the 15 11 data warehouse vendor selected by LRSD will be able to implement sufficiently its program to support PRE's data needs. Administration officials and certain persons within PRE take issue with the concerns about data accuracy. Generally, these persons state that the student data has never been perfect and that it is better now than it has been in the past. They also assert that PRE has been unable to identify any specific problems with the data. They suggest that PRE's complaints are not valid. Concerns from the administration about the TetraData product included (1) that the expert recommending the product to PRE was also on the Board of Directors of the company selling the software, (2) that the data would reside on space leased from the vendor instead of LRSD servers, and (3) that LRSD has had a long-standing relationship with the vendor chosen by LRSD to implement the requested data warehouse by expanding on data programs already in place at LRSD. One of the outside evaluators hired by LRSD to perform some of the step 2 evaluations required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy did not identify any significant problems with the data. That evaluator stated that the data had been substantially accurate and did not affect his findings in any meaningful way. 6. Lack of Response to Dr. DeJarnette's Grievance The final issue discussed in this report concerns Dr. DeJarnette's claims that LRSD was not responsive to the Grievance. According to Dr. DeJarnette, she filed the Grievance in order to get an audience with the Board to discuss the issues removed from the draft Q8 Update prepared by PRE. Dr. DeJarnette expected that her Grievance would be addressed within five days of filing. When her Grievance was not dealt with in a timely manner, PRE 16  0. 0. N  Q. Q. t..J drafted the PRE Compliance History Document. The PRE Compliance History Document was then sent to the Board on November 3, 2006. Mr. David Hartz, LRSD's Director of Human Resources, was charged with processing Dr. DeJamette's grievance because of her relatively high position in LRSD. He states that he first met with Dr. DeJarnette on October 12, 2006, but had to end the meeting early because of his mother's illness and hospitalization. Mr. Hartz later met with Dr. DeJarnette on October 18, 2006. During that meeting, Mr. Hartz obtained general information from Dr. DeJarnette about the nature of her Grievance in order to determine the process that his department would employ in resolving the Grievance. Again, due to his mother's health, Dr. Hartz was unable to address the Grievance other than to touch base with Dr. DeJarnette to state that he had not forgotten about her and would soon schedule a meeting. After the PRE Compliance History Document was provided to the Board on November 3, 2006, Mr. Hartz was informed that the Grievance would be investigated by outside counsel and he wrote a letter to that effect to Dr. DeJarnette. 7. Conclusion This investigation included the examination of many documents and e-mail messages and interviews of persons who had a significant role in the facts relevant to the issues identified. It is beyond our engagement in this investigation to make or suggest any \"findings\" or determinations, regarding which side is right and which side is wrong. It is clear, however, that significant disagreement exists between administration officials and some PRE staff members about whether the issues identified in the PRE Compliance History Document are material to compliance by LRSD with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. There is also disagreement about the accuracy of data utilized by PRE and the accuracy and 17 \u0026gt; Q. p. N \u0026gt; Q. Q. vJ veracity of Dr. DeJarnette's complaints of threats of termination and a hostile work environment. Resolution of these points of dispute rests with the Board. While our time was limited, we have diligently endeavored to provide the Board with the information necessary to make informed and knowledgeable decisions regarding the issues necessary for Board action. We have attempted to report the facts in a thorough and disciplined manner, but we also encourage the Board to examine the exhibits and interview transcripts with regard to any issue or fact about which the Board may have questions. 18 \u0026gt; Q. p. N \u0026gt; Q. Q. w REPORT I. OUR ENGAGEMENT Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull \u0026amp; Burrow PLLC (\"QGTB\") was retained on Monday, November 6, 2006, by the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") to conduct an independent investigation of the facts relevant to the following: ( 1) the circumstances underlying an Employee Relations Complaint Form (\"Grievance\"), Ex. 127 \u0026amp; Add. 5, filed by Dr. Karen DeJarnette, the director of LRSD's Planning, Research and Evaluation Department (\"PRE\")\n(2) allegations regarding the withholding of information in the Eighth Quarterly Update (\"Q8 Update\") submitted to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\"), the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\"), and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Ex. 123 \u0026amp; Add. 8\nand (3) the circumstances regarding allegations included in a document titled Compliance History 2004-2006: Planning, Research and Evaluation Department (\"PRE Compliance History Document\"). Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6. The LRSD Board of Directors (\"the Board\") voted on November 9, 2006, at its regularly scheduled Agenda Meeting to authorize QGTB to continue its investigation and complete a written report. The events giving rise to our engagement include the filing of Dr. DeJarnette's Grievance as well as the delivery to the Board on November 3, 2006, of the PRE Compliance History Document, which contained additional allegations regarding the conduct of senior administration officials within LRSD and outside legal counsel for LRSD. Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6. The purpose of this report is to provide the Board with a detailed description of the allegations asserted, the investigation conducted, and the facts developed during the 19 ....  Q. Q. N\n, Q. Q. ,.. ::.. ~ /1 investigation. It is our intention to provide in this report a comprehensive review of the facts discovered from the interviews of nineteen witnesses and the examination of numerous documents received from LRSD and individual witnesses. The interviews of witnesses were recorded and unofficial transcripts of the interviews have been prepared and attached to this report. The documents received from LRSD and individual witnesses have been sorted, placed in chronological order ( except where certain documents were combined due to related subject matter), and included in separate binders as exhibits to this report. Certain documents of particular significance have been attached to the report in an addendum. This report, the Addendum and the exhibits have been scanned as electronic files in Adobe .pdf format and placed on compact discs that accompany each paper copy of this report. The electronic copy of the report includes interactive references which are hyperlinked to the exhibits and documents in the Addendum, allowing the reader to view the documents referenced. QGTB's investigation in this matter has been independent and without influence from anyone connected with LRSD, PRE, Joshua or ODM. No persons outside of QGTB have been allowed to review this report or make any changes to it prior to its presentation to the Board. The investigation was conducted by Steven W. Quattlebaum, Michael N. Shannon and Benecia B. Moore. A copy of the firm 's resume and the biographical information of the individuals named above is included in the Addendum. Add. 1. 20 \u0026gt; 0. 0. ....  0. Q. ~ ,. /l II. BACKGROUND A. Introduction This investigation is focused on claims of misconduct by certain LRSD officials and LRSD's outside counsel that allegedly occurred in connection with the performance of certain obligations imposed upon LRSD in the desegregation litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Thus, a basic understanding of the structure of the school district and the nature and origin of the obligations and functions of certain departments and positions within the administration is necessary. The following addresses and explains this basic background information. B. The Organizational Structure of the Pertinent Witnesses within LRSD and the Chain of Command The following organizational chart depicts the chain of command for the relevant witnesses interviewed in connection with this report. This organizational chart is not intended to depict all persons in the LRSD structure, but only those persons relevant to this investigation. A full page version of this chart is included in the Addendum as Add. 2. 21\n.. Q. Q. N \u0026gt; Q. Q. ~ /l Add. 2. Chris Heller Outside Counsel LRSO Or Sadie 'v\\1tchell Assoc Superintendent Elementary Education Karen Carter President of Principals Roondtable INVESTIGATION SPECIFIC ORGANIZATIONAL CHART J~M1tt1ga Governmente,. Lagislet,ve. e. Pubhc Affairs Officer Sue11eri Venn Director Comm.1ntcat1ons tformer) Mark Milhollan Chief Fmancrdl orr1cer Dennis Glasgow SemorDlrector Curriculum Dr Ed W, 11ams Dstnct Sta11s11can cPREI Board of Directors LRSD Dr. Roy Brooks Supenntendent Hugh HattaMu!}h Deputy SUpenntendent Or Olivme Roberts Assoc \u0026amp;\np~mtendent Educa11onal SeMces Dr Karen DeJarnette Director Planning Research \u0026amp; Evalua11on Maurecia Robinson Oistnct Stat st1c1an (PRE1 Beverly Griffin Assistant to Dr Brooks Junious Bibbs Assoc Supenntendent Secondary Educat100 J1m\\l\\lohlleb Dio\ntnctSat1st1can tPREI [)f Linda Watson SeniorDtrtor Student Services The LRSD Board of Directors is at the top of the organizational hierarchy. Dr. Roy Brooks, LRSD Superintendent, is the chief executive officer of the school district. Persons reporting directly to Dr. Brooks include Mr. Hugh Hattabaugh, Deputy Superintendent, and Joseph Mittiga, the LRSD Governmental, Legislative and Public Affairs Officer. Beverly Griffin, Dr. Brooks' assistant, also reports to directly to Dr. Brooks. The Director of Communications, Suellen Vann, reported directly to Mr. Mittiga. She is no longer employed by LRSD. Several persons report directly to Mr. Hattabaugh, including Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent of Elementary Education\nMark Milhollen, the Chief Financial Officer ofLRSD\nDr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent of Educational Services\n22 \u0026gt; 0. 0. .... \u0026gt; 0. p. N \u0026gt; Q. Q. w C. p... /l David Hartz, Director of Human Resources\nJunious Babbs, Associate Superintendent of Secondary Education\nand Dr. Linda Watson, Senior Director of Student Services. At the next level are those who report through Dr. Roberts to Mr. Hattabaugh including Dr. Karen DeJarnette, Director of PRE, and Dennis Glasgow, Senior Director of Curriculum. Karen Carter, the principal at Meadowcliff Elementary and the current President of the Principals' Roundtable, reports directly to Dr. Sadie Mitchell. Each of the persons mentioned above currently serves on the Superintendent's Cabinet which meets weekly to discuss the operations of the various LRSD departments. In addition to these persons, our interviews included three statisticians on the PRE staff: Mr. Jim Wohlleb, Ms. Maurecia Robinson, and Dr. Ed Williams. We also interviewed Mr. Chris Heller, outside counsel for LRSD, and Dr. Steven Ross, one of the outside evaluators hired by the District to perform step 2 Evaluations in conjunction with the Compliance Remedy. The chain of command is also considered to be the proper line of communication within LRSD. Personnel of LRSD are expected to communicate upward through the structure, if possible. Complaints regarding one's immediate superior are to be communicated to that person's immediate superior. However, superiors occasionally communicate directly with persons multiple levels below. C. The Compliance Remedy as Outlined by the District Court's June 30, 2004, Opinion As stated by the United States District Court3 (\"the Court\") in its June 30, 2004, Opinion (\"2004 Compliance Remedy\"), LRSD has been involved in desegregation litigation since 1956. The obligations relevant to this investigation arise from certain plans filed in the 3 The Honorable William R. Wilson, presiding. 23 \u0026gt; Q. p. ....  Q. p. N ,. /l litigation and adopted by the Court and certain opinions issued by the Court. An understanding of the plans and opinions is necessary to this investigation. They are the 1998 Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), Ex. 1, the September 13, 2002, Opinion from the Court and the compliance remedy contained therein, and the June 30, 2004, Opinion from the Court and the supplemental and substituted compliance remedy contained therein. Ex. 2. On January 16, 1998, LRSD and Joshua entered into the Revised Plan that outlined the agreed obligations of LRSD necessary to obtain unitary status4 and release from court supervision. The Court entered an order on September 13, 2002, finding that LRSD had substantially complied with all of its desegregation obligations set forth in the Revised Plan except those obligations outlined in  2. 7 .1. That section required that: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to  2. 7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. Ex. 1. The Court set forth a Compliance Remedy (\"2002 Compliance Remedy\"), which contained three subparts (A, B, and C) with which the Court expected LRSD to comply. Subpart A required that LRSD devise and implement a comprehensive process for assessing, on a year-to-year basis, the effectiveness of each of the key 2.7 programs in remediating the academic achievement of African-American 4 \"Unitary Status\" is a term of art in school desegregation litigation and one that is difficult to accurately define. Courts have stated that unitary status is achieved when a wrongdoer proves that it has complied with the court decree in good faith and has done everything practicable to remedy the effects of prior discrimination. The idea of \"complete\" unitary status connotes a release from all judicial monitoring of a school district's efforts to remove the vestiges of prior discrimination. Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 88, 115 S.Ct. 2038, 2049, 132 L.Ed.2d 63, 81 ( I 995). 24 \u0026gt; C. C. .....  C. C. N  C. C. (.,J students. Subpart B required LRSD to maintain written records of its assessment of each 2.7 program. Subpart C required LRSD to complete and file fourteen Page 148 Evaluations. On March 12, 2004, LRSD filed a Compliance Report with the Court and sought a declaration of complete unitary status on the ground that it had complied with the requirements of 2.7.1. On June 30, 2004, however, the Court issued an Opinion, Ex. 2, finding that although LRSD had substantially complied with the requirements of subpart C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy, it had not demonstrated substantial compliance with subparts A and B. At the end of the Court's Opinion, it set forth another Compliance Remedy (\"2004 Compliance Remedy\") which reads as follows: A. LRSD must promptly5 hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations\nand (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of AfricanAmerican students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.\nto have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations\nand to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE depai1ment. B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process.6 It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make 5 At this point, the Court included the following footnote: By \"promptly hire,\" l mean, if possible, before school starts in August of this year. Because this team must consist of experienced and highly trained professionals, LRSD may not be able to accomplish this task by August. However, if LRSD believes that it needs more than ninety days to assemble this team of professionals, its attorneys should immediately notify me so that I can schedule a hearing on this matter. 6 At this point, the Court included the following footnote: By \"comprehensive program assessment process,\" I mean everything necessary to accurately assess the effectiveness of the key 2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African- 25  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. t.,J .. C. sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2. 7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key 2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Part ofLRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. I suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process\nthen be sure that he approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005- 06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. Each of the step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key 2.7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2. 7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key 2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross-to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year\nand (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations must answer the following essential research question: \"Has the 2.7 program being evaluated improved American students. As explained in detail in subpart C of this Compliance Remedy, part of the \"comprehensive program assessment process\" must include formal step 2 evaluations of certain key  2.7 programs, as they have been implemented in schools throughout the district. I also expect part of LRSD's \"comprehensive program assessment process\" to include preparing informal program assessments that involve interviews with teachers, informal evaluations oftest scores, and the other things normally associated with the more dynamic program assessment process. While it should already be crystal clear, I am not using the term \"assessment\" to mean \"testing.\" 26  Q. Q. N \u0026gt; Q. Q. ~ ll E. F. G. the achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district?\" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. PRE must: (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations\nand (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: (1) describes[] the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key 2.7 program being evaluated\n(2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\nand (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the 2.7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight  2. 7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31, 2004. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates much be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1 and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been 27 \u0026gt; Q. Q. N\n.. Q. Q. !,,,J completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. H. The ODM must actively assist LRSD in meeting its obligations under this Compliance Remedy. If problems arise, the ODM must work with LRSD to solve them. The ODM's primary mission is to do everything necessary to ensure that LRSD substantially complies with all of its obligations under this Compliance Remedy. I. J. K. I expect Joshua to continue to fulfill its traditional role of monitoring LRSD's compliance obligations. If problems arise between LRSD and Joshua regarding the formulation and implementation of the comprehensive program assessment process, the key  2. 7 programs that will be the subject of the eight step 2 evaluations, or any other aspect ofLRSD's compliance obligations, the parties must bring such problems to my attention so that I can resolve them. I want to be very clear on this point-if compliance problems arise, the parties must immediately bring them to my attention so that I can resolve them while there is still time for LRSD to make \"mid-course corrections.\" The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court not later than October 1, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. L. This Compliance Remedy is intended to supersede and replace the identical compliance obligations that I imposed on LRSD, albeit with less specificity, in subparts A and B of Section VIII of the September 13 Decision. Ex. 2. In summary, the Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy places the following duties upon LRSD:  Reinvigoration of PRE through the hiring of a highly trained team of professionals\n28  C. C. N  C. C. ~  Devising a comprehensive program assessment process which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program\n Hiring outside consultants to prepare a total of eight step 2 evaluations of programs designed to improve African-American achievement\n Overseeing the evaluations, working closely with the evaluators and providing them with all requested assistance and support\n Including within the evaluations ( 1) numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who contributed data to the evaluations, (2) recommended program changes necessary for improved academic achievement by African-American students, and (3) brief explanations of how each change will increase a program's effectiveness\n Notifying ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of the eight step 2 programs to be evaluated and providing a copy of the final draft comprehensive program assessment process to ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval\n Submitting eight quarterly written updates on the status of the step 2 evaluations to ODM and Joshua\n Submitting to the Court four step 2 evaluations by October 1, 2005, and four more by October 1, 2006\nand  Submitting a Compliance Report to the Court by October 15, 2006. D. The Comprehensive Program Assessment Process and the Quarterly Updates In accordance with the 2004 Compliance Remedy, LRSD hired and added three new professionals to the PRE team in the fall of 2004: Dr. Karen DeJarnette, Ms. Maurecia Malcolm (now Robinson), and Mr. James C. Wohlleb. Ex. 6. On December 1, 2004, LRSD filed its first Quarterly Update to ODM and Joshua. Id. This Quarterly Update, as well as each of the others that followed, was organized into sections that matched the subparagraphs in the 2004 Compliance Remedy. On December 16, 2004, the LRSD implemented and the Board adopted a written Comprehensive Program Assessment Process as referenced in subparagraphs 29 /1 Band F of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Ex. 7. The next seven required Quarterly Updates were filed on March l, 2005\nJune l, 2005\nAugust 31, 2005\nDecember 1, 2005\nMarch l, 2006\nJune 1, 2006\nand September l, 2006. Exs. 13A, 14, 16, 22, 24, 39 and 123. A discussion of the contents of the various updates and the differences between them can be found in a document attached hereto in the Addendum, as Add. 3. The contents of the Eighth (and final) Quarterly Update (\"Q8 Update\") drafted by PRE became an issue between certain PRE staff members, senior administrators, and LRSD outside counsel and is central to one aspect of this investigation. Each of the four iterations of the Q8 Update are included as Exhibits 69, 97, 108 and 123. A \"redlined\" version of the Q8 Update showing the modifications made by Mr. Heller to the PRE draft can be found at Ex. 121. Also, a document discussing the changes that occurred between the four iterations of the Q8 Update is provided in the Addendum as Add. 4. According to certain PRE staff, PRE's draft of the Q8 Update contained information concerning the comprehensive assessment process that had not been included in previous updates but which they felt was crucial to include. LRSD senior administrators and outside counsel believed that much of the additional information included by PRE was unnecessary and some was inaccurate. A meeting was held on August 22, 2006, in Mr. Hugh Hattabaugh's office between Mr. Hattabaugh, Dr. Roberts, Mr. Heller, Dr. DeJarnette, Dr. Williams, Mr. Wohlleb, and Ms. Robinson to discuss PRE's draft of the Q8 Update and whether certain information was necessary and accurate. After the meeting, PRE made certain minor deletions to its draft (which 30  Q. Q.  Q. Q. N  Q. Q, ~ \" it later requested be reinstated) but these changes did not satisfy the concerns of LRSD administrators and Mr. Heller. On August 24, 2006, Mr. Heller edited PRE's draft of the Q8 Update by deleting certain portions. As edited, the Q8 Update was presented to the Board for approval at its August 24, 2006, meeting. The Q8 Update was approved by the Board and ultimately filed with the Court on September 1, 2006. Certain PRE staff members disagreed strongly with the decision to delete portions of PRE's draft of the Q8 Update. These disagreements were later aired in Dr. DeJarnette's October 3, 2006, Grievance, Ex. 127 \u0026amp; Add. 5, and the PRE Compliance History Document delivered directly to the Board on November 3, 2006. Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6. III. DR. DeJARNETTE'S GRIEVANCE AND THE NOVEMBER 3, 2006, COMPLIANCE HISTORY DOCUMENT On October 3, 2006, Dr. DeJarnette filed the Grievance with the LRSD Human Resources Department. Ex. 127 \u0026amp; Add. 5. The allegations summarized below were included in the Grievance:  Senior administrators have created a hostile work environment by directing Dr. DeJarnette to withhold information from the District's Board, ODM, Joshua, and the Court, and if she did not withhold that information as directed, she would be terminated.  Withholding the information directly violates the Court's compliance remedy in its June 30, 2004, decision and is not in the best interests of the African-American students regarding their attaining academic achievement.  Dr. DeJarnette is unable to perform her job as Director of PRE because if she does, she will be terminated.  Dr. DeJarnette is unable to provide information to the Board, ODM, Joshua, and the Court that is mandated by the compliance remedy for fear of termination. 31 ....  Q. Q. tJJ  If Dr. DeJarnette does not provide the information to the Board, ODM, Joshua, and the Court, the Court could find her and the LRSD in contempt of its mandate in the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Id. In the Grievance, Dr. DeJarnette requested the following relief: Id.  That the hostile work environment created by senior administrators cease\n That the senior administrators stop threatening her with termination\n That she not be terminated by any senior administrator or the LRSD for performing her job as Director of PRE and for complying with the 2004 Compliance Remedy\n That she not be directed by any senior administrator to withhold information from the Board, ODM, Joshua, or the Court\nand  That the LRSD follow its policies, regulations and the 2004 Compliance Remedy related to the evaluation and assessment tasks pertaining to improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. On November 3, 2006, Dr. DeJarnette provided by letter to each Board member, Dr. Brooks, Mr. Heller, ODM, and Joshua, the PRE Compliance History Document. Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6. The PRE Compliance History Document contained a number of allegations and recommendations regarding compliance with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. The following is a summary of the allegations included in the PRE Compliance History Document under a section titled \"Difficulties with Compliance\":  Rejuvenation of PRE. o Reorganization eliminated PRE's secretary and its test coordinator. o LRSD decreased the test coordinator position to an 11 month position. Before restoring it to a 12 month position, the test coordinator resigned, and PRE was without a full-time test coordinator for more than 12 months resulting in test infractions.  Eight Evaluations by External Experts. 32  Q. p. ....  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. l,.I J\\ o The External Evaluators have discovered numerous errors in LRSD data. o No policy or comprehensive procedures for managing LRSD data exist. o The extent of data errors is unknown which leads to uncertainty in the accuracy and validity of results based upon the data. o PRE knows of no efforts to check and correct old data. o LRSD has not enlisted PRE to assess or develop a policy for its data.  Embedding assessments in LRSD operations. o PRE began planning a \"data warehouse\" in late 2004. o LRSD rejected PRE's plans and recommended software for the \"data warehouse and selected a firm which develops data warehouses for commercial applications. o It is unknown when the firm will complete enough of its \"data cube\" to support PRE's data needs. o LRSD enlisted PRE superficially and late in construction of this data warehouse. o LRSD has undermined PRE's efforts to operate professionally by refusing to implement surveys recommended by PRE. o LRSD opposed PRE's project to respond to Arkansas' new requirement for a wellness priority.  Q8 Update. o PRE's draft of the Q8 Update noted errors in LRSD's data, the absence of a data management system, and the threat to sound decisions based on such information. o LRSD and/or its counsel withheld PRE's version of the Q8 Update from the Board and eliminated portions of the draft version without the Board's knowledge. o PRE sent its original version to ODM and Joshua when originally posting the draft Q8 Update to the Board's Novus Agenda system.  Cooperation between LRSD and Joshua. o During the 2004-05 school year, relations between PRE and Joshua were professional but not cooperative. During the 2005-06 school year, the \"chill\" between PRE and Joshua began to thaw while PRE experienced less responsiveness from LRSD counsel. o LRSD's counsel directed PRE not to meet with Joshua in the absence of LRSD counsel and PRE's plea for clarification went unanswered. o PRE felt estranged from LRSD and its counsel's rapport and became progressively cooperative with ODM and Joshua. 33 \u0026gt; Q. Q. N  Compliance Report o LRSD's Compliance Report contained significant errors. After notification from PRE, counsel corrected some of these errors and submitted a revised report.  Behavior of PRE's director and LRSD's senior officials. o The relationship between LRSD and PRE's director has deteriorated. o The superintendent threatened Dr. DeJarnette' s dismissal if she shared information with ODM or Joshua. o Information from the administration to PRE about actions vital to PRE's duties has lessened. o Senior administrators have directed other PRE staff without Dr. DeJarnette's knowledge. o LRSD's counsel became unresponsive and evasive. o PRE's director engaged a law firm for advice in the absence ofLRSD's legal counsel. o PRE's Director filed a Grievance. o LRSD has not tried remediation nor informed the Board of the Grievance. The PRE Compliance History Document also made recommendations to remedy these difficulties which are summarized below:  Restoration of Administrative Support. o Add an administrative assistant and two assistant test coordinators.  Comprehensive Study of LRSD Data Accuracy and Policies and Procedures for managing data. o Hire consultants knowledgeable in public school data requirements.  More Resources Devoted to Completing the Data Warehouse. o Finish and test LRSD's data warehouse quickly. o Estimate error rates in previously collected data and correct errors. o Include additional information in the data warehouse needed by PRE. o If the data warehouse proves inadequate, reconsider using PRE's vendor.  Protection of PRE and LRSD from Senior Administrator's actions. o The Board should directly communicate with PRE similar to the internal auditor. 34 \u0026gt; Q. p. .... \u0026gt; Q. Q. N  Q. Q. w Q. Q. ~ Jl o The Board should determine PRE's budget. o LRSD's senior officials are not trustworthy with communicating expert opinions to the Board and they should be replaced. IV. INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE QGTB's investigation focused on the allegations contained in the Grievance and the PRE Compliance History Document. Documents were accumulated and interviews were conducted to develop, as fully as practicable in the limited time allowed, the facts relevant to the topics addressed in these two documents. A. Documents Reviewed QGTB received a number of documents initially from LRSD. In addition, many documents were obtained from various individual witnesses as a result of their interviews. The documents received and examined have been placed in chronological order in three volumes accompanying this report. The documents are also imaged on a compact disc in Adobe .pdf format. What follows is an index of the documents by date and a short description of each document: Ex.# Date Description 1 1/16/1998 Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan 2 6/30/2004 USDC Memorandum Opinion\nCase No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR 3 11/16/2004 E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: memo from Ross 4 11/22/2004 E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette, Subject: RE: response to ODM 5 11/23/2004 E-mail from Kampman to Wohlleb, Subject: RE: LRSD Quarterly Update 6 12/1/2004 Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Quarterly Update to Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua 7 12/16/2004 LRSD Comprehensive Program Assessment Process 8 1/18/2005 E-mail from Wohlleb to Heller, Subject: Fw: March 1 Update 9 2/4/2005 E-mail from Wohlleb to Heller, cc: DeJarnette 10 2/8/2005 E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: Quarterly Update 35 \u0026gt; Q. p. ....  Q. Q. N \u0026gt; Q. Q. l,.J 11 2/8/2005 12 2/16/2005 13 2/22/2005 13A 3/1/2005 14 6/1/2005 15 8/9/2005 16 8/31/2005 17 11/16/2005 18 11/16/2005 19 11/16/2005 20 11/17/2005 21 11/18/2005 22 12/1/2005 23 2/7/2006 24 3/1/2006 25 4/24/2006 26 5/1/2006 27 5/9/2006 28 5/10/2006 29 5/26/2006 30 5/31/2006 31 5/31/2006 32 5/31/2006 33 5/31/2006 34 5/31/2006 35 6/1/2006 36 6/1/2006 E-mail from Heller to Wohlleb, Subject: RE: Quarterly Update+ invitations to ODM \u0026amp; Joshua E-mail from Wohlleb to Heller, DeJarnette, Subject: RE: addition to update E-mail from Wohlleb to Heller, cc: DeJarnette, Williams, Malcolm, Wohlleb, Subject: RE: 2nd update ms LRSD's Notice of Filing Quarterly Update LRSD's Notice of Filing Quarterly Update E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette, Wohlleb, Subject: RE: 4th update LRSD's Notice of Filing Quarterly Update E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: quarterly report, Sent 4:04 PM E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: quarterly report, Sent 8:25 PM E-mail from DeJarnette to Wohlleb, Williams, Robinson, Subject: quarterly final E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: quarterly report Letter from Heller to Walker, Subject: RE: LRSD LRSD's Quarterly Update to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua [Notice of Filing Omittedl E-mail from Roberts to DeJarnette, Subject: RE: work assignments LRSD Quarterly Update to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua Intervenors [File-Marked] E-mail from Hattabaugh to Heller, cc: DeJarnette, Roberts, Williams, Wohlleb, Subject: FW: Program Evaluations for 2006 E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: quarterly update E-mail from Brooks to DeJarnette, Subject: PRE Team E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, Subject: Cabinet Notes 05-08- 06 Notes from Meeting with Gene Jones E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller Notes from Meeting with Chris Heller E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: Quarterly E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: E-mail from DeJarnette to Powell, Subject: FW: document enclosed E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: ODM concerns enclosed 36 \u0026gt; Q. p. ....  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. t-J 37 6/1/2006 38 6/1/2006 39 6/1/2006 40 6/7/2006 41 6/12/2006 42 6/12/2006 43 6/13/2006 44 6/13/2006 45 6/14/2006 46 6/19/2006 47 6/22/2006 48 6/23/2006 49 6/23/2006 50 6/26/2006 51 6/29/2006 52 6/30/2006 53 7/5/2006 54 7/7/2006 55 7/11/2006 56 7/12/2006 57 7/12/2006 58 7/14/2006 59 7/14/2006 60 7/18/2006 61 7/21/2006 E-mail from DeJamette to Hattabaugh, Subject: ODM contact name and number E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, cc: Brooks, Roberts, Subject: PRE snapshot LRSD's Notice of Filing Quarterly Update [File-Marked] E-mail from Roberts to DeJarnette, Subject: RE: meeting Monday at 1 E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Brooks, cc: Roberts, Subject: PRE snapshots E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: FW: Letter of request E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts and Williams, Subject: RE: Draft from this mornings comments E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: FW: Letter of request E-mail from DeJarnette to Brooks, Subject: RE: Room 14 is too crowded E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts, Subject: missing test book E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: statement to board members E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts, cc: Heller, Subject: statements last night E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts, Subject: letter Eighth Circuit Opinion News Article: LR violating order, motion says Attorney: School District not assessing programs as it should E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Hattabaugh, Roberts, Brooks, Subject: RE: foi E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller News Article: LR schools tell judge: No basis to hold hearing E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: need counsel on confidentiality E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: extension of time request E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Brooks, cc: Hattabaugh, Babbs, Watson, Milhollen, Roberts, Mitchell, Vann, Subject: RE: 2 Page Fax From 5016045149 E-mail from DeJarnette to Kampman, cc: Wohlleb, Robinson, Williams, Heller, Subject, RE: Scott Smith .... E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Subject: RE: Snapshot E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Roberts, Brooks, Griffin, Subject: RE: letter to counsel E-mail from DeJarnette to Brooks, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Heller, Eddings, Wohlleb, Williams, Robinson, Subject: counsel 37  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. ~ 62 7/24/2006 63 7/24/2006 64 7/24/2006 65 7/24/2006 66 8/7/2006 67 8/8/2006 68 8/9/2006 69 8/9/2006 70 8/9/2006 71 8/9/2006 72 8/9/2006 73 8/9/2006 74 8/9/2006 75 8/9/2006 76 8/9/2006 77 8/10/2006 78 8/10/2006 79 8/10/2006 80 8/10/2006 81 8/10/2006 82 8/10/2006 83 8/10/2006 E-mail from DeJarnette to Eddings, Brooks, cc: Heller, Williams, Hattabaugh, W ohlleb, Robinson, Roberts, Subject: RE: counsel, Sent: 7:00 AM E-mail from DeJarnette to Eddings, Brooks, cc: Heller, Williams, Hattabaugh, Wohlleb, Robinson, Roberts, Subject: RE: counsel, Sent: 2:51 PM E-mail from Wohlleb to DeJarnette, Heller, Eddings, Brooks, cc: Williams, Hattabaugh, Robinson, Roberts, Subject: RE: counsel E-mail from Heller to Wohlleb, cc: Hattabaugh, Subject: RE: counsel E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Subject: quarterly update for board agenda meeting E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: quarterly update E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: draft quarterly E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Subject: quarterly - Attachment: LRSD Quarterly Update, September 1, 2006 DRAFT E-mail from Griffin to Roberts, Subject: quarterly E-mail from Griffin to Roberts, Subject: quarterly - Attachments: updates ep06draft. doc E-mail from Griffin to Hattabaugh, Subject: FW: quarterly E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Brooks, Subject: RE: quarterly E-mail from Roberts to Griffin, Subject: RE: quarterly E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Brooks, Subject: RE: quarterly E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts, Subject: FW: quarterly - Attachments: updateSep06draft.doc E-mail from Hattabaugh to Heller, cc: Griffin, Brooks, Subject: FW: quarterly E-mail from Hattabaugh to Heller, cc: Griffin, Brooks, Subject: FW: quarterly E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Brooks, Wohlleb, Robinson, Williams, Subject: quarterly update E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette, cc: Williams, Hattabaugh, Robinson, Roberts, Brooks, Subject: Re: quarterly update E-mail from Roberts to Heller, cc: Brooks, Hattabaugh, Subject: RE: quarterly update E-mail from Roberts to Heller, cc: Brooks, Hattabaugh, Subject: RE: quarterly update - Attachments: Sep06 Quart. Draft.doc E-mail from Brooks to Griffin, Hattabaugh, Milhollen, Mittiga, Roberts, Subject: FW: quarterly update 38  C. C. N  C. ?- (.,.) 84 8/10/2006 85 8/14/2006 86 8/17/2006 87 8/17/2006 88 8/17/2006 89 8/21/2006 90 8/21/2006 91 8/21/2006 92 8/21/2006 93 8/21/2006 94 8/21/2006 95 8/21/2006 96 8/21/2006 97 8/21/2006 98 8/21/2006 99 8/21/2006 100 8/21/2006 101 8/21/2006 102 8/21/2006 103 8/21/2006 104 8/22/2006 105 8/22/2006 106 8/22/2006 E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts, cc: Griffin, Subject: agenda meeting E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette, Subject: joshua concerns\nqtrly report E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette, cc: Hattabaugh, Roberts, Brooks, Subject: assessment process E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Hattabaugh, Roberts, Brooks, Subject: assessment process E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Brooks, Subject: FW: Data for Evaluation E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: hello E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Roberts, Subject: RE: Quarterly Update E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Roberts, Subject: RE: Quarterly Update E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, cc: Roberts, Subject: RE: Quarterly Update E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, cc: Roberts, Subject: RE: Quarterly Update E-mail from Griffin to Heller, cc: Brooks, Subject: FW: Quarterly Update E-mail from Griffin to Heller, cc: Brooks, Subject: FW: Quarterly Update E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Griffin, Roberts, Subject: quarterly revised E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Griffin, Roberts, Subject: quarterly revised - enclosed file follows E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Griffin, Roberts, Subject: quarterly revised - FINAL DRAFT E-mail from Griffin to Heller, cc: Brooks, Subject: FW: Quarterly Update E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Griffin, Roberts, Subject: quarterly revised - Attachments: updateSep06draftfinal.doc E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, Heller, cc: Roberts, Subject: RE: quarterly revised E-mail from Griffin to Heller, Subject: RE: quarterly revised E-mail from Roberts to Heller, Subject: RE: quarterly revised E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Griffin, cc: Roberts, Subject: RE: quarterly revised E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Griffin, cc: Roberts, Subject: RE: quarterly revised E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: quarterly revised 39 \u0026gt; Q. p.. N 'Jl 107 8/22/2006 108 8/22/2006 109 8/22/2006 110 8/23/2006 111 8/23/2006 112 8/23/2006 113 8/23/2006 114 8/24/2006 115 8/24/2006 116 8/24/2006 117 8/24/2006 118 8/24/2006 1 I 9 8/24/2006 120 8/24/2006 121 9/ 1/2006 122 9/1/2006 123 9/1 /2006 124 9/5/2006 125 9/ 14/2006 126 9/19/2006 127 10/3/2006 E-mail from Griffin to Baker Kurrus and various e-mail addresses, Subject: Agenda E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Robinson, Wohlleb, Williams, Subject: Quarterly Update, Attachments: updateSep06draftwithedit.doc E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Robinson, Wohlleb, Williams, Subject: Quarterly Update, with attachment E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap E-mail from Kampman to Heller, Subject: Fwd: RE: Board Update E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap, Sent: 4:25 PM E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap, Sent: 4:45 PM E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Roberts, Subject: assessments of programs w/attachment, Sent: 10:56 AM E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Roberts, Subject: assessments of programs, Sent: 12:08 PM E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Roberts, Subject: FW: assessments of programs, Sent: 12:12 PM E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Roberts, Subject: FW: assessments of programs, Sent: 12:12 PM E-mail from DeJarnette to Wohlleb, Robinson \u0026amp; Williams, Subject: RE: comments on the update E-mail from Kampman to Griffin, Hattabaugh, DeJarnette, Roberts \u0026amp; Brooks, Subject: Quarterly Report E-mail from DeJarnette to Wohlleb, Robinson, Williams, Subject: FW: Quarterly Report DRAFT - LRSD's Quarterly Update (Red-lined Copy) FINAL DRAFT - LRSD's Quarterly Update LRSD's Notice of Filing Quarterly Update (File-Marked] E-mail from Kampman to Griffin, Hattabaugh, DeJarnette, Roberts \u0026amp; Brooks, Subject: LRSD Quarterly Update/Sept 1, 2006 ( enclosed file follows) E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette, cc: Brooks, Subject: Re: discussion about extensions for CREP E-mail from Heller to Brooks, Catterall, DeJarnette, Hattabaugh, Roberts, Robinson, Springer, Williams, Wohlleb, Subject: Re: discussion about extensions for CREP Memo from DeJarnette to Robinson, Subject: Employee Relations Complaint, Attachment: Complaint Form 40 \u0026gt; Q. .P..-. \u0026gt; Q. Q. N 128 10/5/2006 129 l 0/6/2006 130 10/10/2006 131 10/10/2006 132 10/10/2006 133 10/11/2006 134 10/11/2006 135 10/12/2006 136 10/16/2006 137 10/16/2006 138 10/18/2006 139 10/18/2006 140 10/19/2006 141 10/20/2006 142 10/20/2006 143 10/25/2006 144 10/31/2006 145 11/2/2006 146 11/2/2006 147 11/2/2006 148 11/6/2006 149 11/13/2006 150 E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: alleged violations of compliance remedy. Reply to 10/4/2006 e-mail from Heller to DeJarnette E-mail from DeJarnette to Robinson, Subject: next steps E-mail from Hartz to DeJarnette, Subject: Meeting to discuss complaint E-mail from Hartz to DeJarnette, Subject: Meeting to discuss complaint E-mail from DeJarnette to Hartz, Subject: Meeting to discuss complaint E-mail from Hartz to DeJarnette, Subject: Meeting to discuss complaint E-mail from Hartz to DeJarnette, Subject: Meeting to discuss complaint E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap / 10-09-06 LRSD's Compliance Report [File-Marked] Compliance History 2004 - 2006, Appendix C DeJarnette - Notes - Meeting with Hartz DeJarnette - Notes - Meeting with Hartz (Handwritten) E-mail from Brooks to Roberts, Subject: FW: UPS Ship Notification, Reference Number 1: AR0705 NRT Enrollment Mailing - Dis E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: Re: compliance report E-mail from Roberts to DeJarnette, Subject: FW: UPS Ship Notification, Reference Number 1: AR0705 NRT Enrollment Mailing - Dis LRSD's Revised Compliance Report [File-Marked] E-mail from DeJarnette to Hartz, Subject: meeting E-mail from Hartz to DeJarnette, Subject: meeting E-mail from Hartz to DeJarnette, Subject: meeting E-mail from DeJarnette, Attachment: Letter From DeJarnette to Mitchell, Attachment: Compliance History 2004 - 2006, Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department. 11/2/2006 E-mail from Roberts to DeJarnette, Subject: Agenda Meeting November 9 Letter from Hartz to DeJarnette regarding independent investigation Handwritten note regarding testing investigation notices, Attachment: 11/2/2006 Letter from Smith to Brooks Checklist of LRSD's progress in uploading analytic data into its Business Objects data warehouse as defined in November 2005 41 \u0026gt; C. C. .... \u0026gt; C. p.. N  Q. C. t,J 151 I Sign-In Sheets B. Persons Interviewed QGTB interviewed the following persons as part of its investigation: Administration/Counsel Roy Brooks Beverly Griffin Hugh Hattabaugh Chris Heller  Mark Milhollen Olivine Roberts PRE Staff Karen DeJarnette Maurecia Robinson Ed Williams Jim Wohlleb Cabinet Members Junius Babbs Karen Carter Dennis Glasgow Sadie Mitchell Joe Mittiga Linda Watson Suellen Vann Human Resources David Hartz Outside Experts/Evaluators Steve Ross - CREP November 7'h and November 13th November 10th November 7th and November 14th November 13th November 10th November 7'h and November 13th November gth November 8th November 7'h November 14th November 13th November 10th November 8th November 10th November 8th November 9th November 10th November 9th November 13th Due to Dr. DeJarnette's schedule and that of her counsel, Dr. DeJarnette was not the first interview as was planned. Instead, the interviews began on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, 42 .... \u0026gt; Q. p. N \u0026gt; Q. Q. ~ with Dr. Brooks, Dr. Roberts and Mr. Hattabaugh. Dr. DeJarnette was interviewed on Wednesday, November 8, 2006, after which it became clear that second interviews of Dr. Brooks, Dr. Roberts and Mr. Hattabaugh would be necessary. Those were accomplished on November 13 and 14, 2006. Each interview was conducted by two of the three QGTB investigation team members, except for the interview of Mr. Heller which was conducted by all three members of the investigation team. Each interview was recorded and the tapes were transcribed by QGTB staff persons as accurately as the recording quality would allow. The transcripts are included in two volumes accompanying this report which are divided by witness name and which include (1) the transcripts, (2) summary memoranda of each interview, and (3) copies of the documents received from each witness, if any. A court reporting service was not used during the interview procedure due to the expense involved. As with almost any investigation, there were additional persons who could have been interviewed in connection with this investigation if time and expense had permitted such as Mr. Khayyam Eddings, additional outside evaluators, the Board members and others. The same is true for documents as there are likely other documents that may have been discovered had more time been available. By way of example, witnesses were not required to produce copies of their daily calendars and no analysis of LRSD's database containing student information was conducted. Also, expert consultants were not employed to provide assistance with matters such as data accuracy. However, QGTB believes that its investigation has been thorough and that it has gathered sufficient information to make an informed report to the Board of the issues involved. 43  Q. Q. ....  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. t..,J :.n V. INVESTIGATION RESULTS A. Timeline of Events From the interviews and the documents reviewed, QGTB has created the following comprehensive timeline of relevant events: Date Event Reference Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and 1/16/1998 Education Plan Ex. 1 Memorandum Opinion from Judge William R. Wilson 6/30/2004 containing \"Compliance Remedy.\" Ex. 2 9/27/2004 Dr. DeJarnette hired by LRSD as Director of PRE Ex.6 Mr. Wohlleb hired by LRSD as Statistician in PRE 10/1/2004 department Ex.6 Ms. Robinson hired by LRSD as Statistician in PRE 10/4/2004 department Ex.6 E-mails between Wohlleb, Heller and DeJarnette regarding Heller's changes to draft reply to ODM regarding Quarterly 11/22/2004 Update. Ex. 4 E-mail from Kampman/Heller to Wohlleb enclosing draft 11/23/2004 with Heller's comments on Quarterly Update Ex. 5 12/1/2004 First Quarterly Update filed with Court Ex.6 Comprehensive Program Assessment Process (IL-R) 12/16/2004 approved Ex. 7 Wohlleb sends e-mail to Heller with copy to DeJarnette requesting to see comments and suggestions from Heller about draft of March 1 Quarterly Update before showing it to 2/4/2005 Dr. Brooks. Ex. 9 E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette stating that we should meet with Joshua if they have any concerns about the Quarterly Reports when they are filed, but that we don't need to meet about each report otherwise. DeJarnette responds (and copies Wohlleb) that she is happy not to meet about the Quarterly 2/8/2005 Update with Joshua. Ex. 10 Wohlleb responds to e-mail asking questions about changes to 2/8/2005 the Quarterly Update suggested by Heller. Ex. 11 E-mail from Wohlleb to Heller regarding draft of the second 2/22/2005 Quarterly Update and whether it needs any further changes Ex. 13 3/1/2005 Second Quarterly Update filed with Court Ex. 13A 44 \u0026gt; Q. p. .... \u0026gt; Q. Q. N  Q, Q, (.,.I ./l Board approves reorganization of district reporting responsibilities that results in DeJarnette reporting to Olivine 3/24/2005 Roberts instead of directly to Superintendent Brooks. 6/1/2005 Third Quarterly Update filed with Court E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette and Wohlleb suggesting a typographical revision to draft Quarterly Update and stating 8/9/2005 that PRE can \"fire away.\" 8/31/2005 Fourth Quarterly Update filed with Court 3:50 pm e-mail from Heller to DeJarnette stating that he has glanced at the draft Quarterly Update and will need to make 11/16/2005 some changes. 4:48 pm e-mail from Heller to DeJarnette with copy to Brooks 11/16/2005 suggesting several changes in Section D of Quarterly Update. 8:25 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Wohlleb, Williams and Robinson with copy to Heller enclosing final draft of Quarterly Update with Heller's edits. She states that she will 11/16/2005 print hard copies for the Board, ODM and Joshua. E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette stating that the Quarterly Report draft does not reflect the change he suggested in 1st paragraph of Section D. \"It still reads as if we still don't have any usable data.\" DeJarnette responds with a draft containing 11/17/2005 the changes. Letter from Heller to Walker with copies to Brooks, DeJarnette and Roberts requesting that Joshua's monitoring be done in a way that does not violate a legal ethics rule against direct contact with opposing counsel's clients. Heller states that if Walker will identify Joshua's monitors, he will make sure those persons have access to LRSD personnel and documents so that they can fulfill the Court's monitoring 11/18/2005 expectations. 12/1/2005 Fifth Quarterly Update filed with Court DeJarnette e-mail to Dr. Roberts asking that she keep her in the loop regarding work assignments for statisticians. Dr. 2/7/2006 Roberts agrees to do so. 3/ 1/2006 Sixth Quarterly Update filed with Court Springer sends e-mail to Wohlleb and requests notes of evaluation team meetings. Wohlleb says that the request should be directed to Mr. Hattabaugh. Springer requests that her e-mail be forwarded to Hattabaugh and states that the information should be provided without a formal request. Springer requests that it be treated as if ODM was requesting 4/21/2006 the information. 45 Ex. 14 Ex. 15 Ex. 16 Ex. 17 Ex. 18 Ex. 19 Ex. 20 Ex.21 Ex. 22 Ex. 23 Ex. 24 Ex.25  Q., -P-  Q., P-N  Q. Q., w ft Wohlleb forwards Springer's request for information to Hattabaugh who forwards it on to Heller asking him to inform Walker and Springer of the procedure regarding requests 4/24/2006 pertaining to the evaluations required by the court. E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller enclosing PRE draft of the 5/1/2006 Seventh Quarterly Report. DeJarnette e-mail to PRE Staff and Dr. Roberts re: expectations for PRE team members and process for handling data requests and projects assigned to department. She wants to be notified about requests from administration for 5/9/2006 information. Forwards e-mail to Dr. Brooks as an FYI. DeJarnette e-mail to Beverly Griffin asking whether Dr. Books will go forward with Ed Williams as project manager of Meadowcliff/Wakefield project. Griffin responds that this 5/10/2006 is not what Dr. Brooks told her but she will ask again. Meeting between DeJarnette and Gene Jones - Notes reflect ODM's concerns with issues such as PREs placement in the organizational chart, when the testing coordinator position will be filled and whether the closing of schools will affect 5/26/2006 programs being evaluated. DeJarnette says that she asked Heller to attend evaluation team meetings and told him that she will give Walker and 5/31/2006 Jones a copy of the Quarterly Update final draft. 10:26 am e-mail from DeJarnette to Heller stating that she will give Walker and Gene Jones a copy of the Quarterly 5/31/2006 today at the team meetings. Meeting between DeJarnette, Gene Jones (ODM), Roberts, 6/1/2006 and Hattabaugh regarding ODM concerns. DeJarnette e-mail to Griffin, Brooks and Roberts regarding PRE Snapshot. She says Dr. Brooks may want to omit the list 6/ 1/2006 of OD M's questions. 6/ 1/2006 Seventh Quarterly Update filed with Court. DeJarnette says that she sent Heller OD M's concerns and 6/1/2006 notes on her meeting with Brooks, Hattabaugh and Roberts. 46 Ex.25 Ex. 26 Ex.27 Ex.28 Ex. 29 Ex.31 Ex. 30 Ex.31 Ex.38 Ex.39 Ex. 39 ..... \u0026gt; Q. p. N  Q. Q. (\n.) :Fl DeJarnette states that a meeting was held about the \"dashboard\" database. DeJarnette claims that Dr. Roberts reported during the meeting that statisticians will not have access to this portion of the database but principals will. DeJarnette claims that Dr. Roberts, after the meeting, said \"the database is not for or about PRE.\" DeJarnette replied \"It should be since we are the department named in the compliance remedy.\" DeJarnette reports that she asked Dr. Roberts if she would meet with PRE staff to share the change of role in the PRE department. DeJarnette reports that she asked Heller to attend the meeting because she was concerned 6/7/2006 with the changes. E-mails between DeJarnette, Roberts and Heller regarding whether Heller would participate in meeting - she wants Heller's advice about the role of PRE in relation to Judge Wilson's order. Roberts states, \"He [Heller] will not attend 6/7/2006 this meeting.\" DeJarnette sends an e-mail to Ark. Dept of Education with copies to Roberts, Hattabaugh, Brooks, Joshua, Heller and 6/12/2006 others requesting a phone conference meeting. DeJarnette says that she called Heller to request that he meet with PRE regarding a call with Arkansas Department of Education about data. Heller says he will participate in the 6/12/2006 call. DeJarnette, PRE staff, and Heller (via phone) meet with Arkansas Department of Education staff regarding expected 6/12/2006 date for LRSD to receive electronic ACT AAP data. Joy Springer sends an e-mail to DeJarnette requesting a status 6/12/2006 report regarding telephone call with Ark. Dept of Education DeJarnette forwards Springer's e-mail to Heller asking 6/12/2006 whether he will take care of this or whether she should reply DeJarnette forwards Springer's e-mail to Heller again stating that Gene Jones with ODM has asked for a status report regarding Ark. Dept of Education phone conference. She asks whether it is appropriate for her to meet with Jones and Springer at 3:00 pm that day. DeJarnette states that Heller 6/13/2006 informed her not to meet. E-mails between Roberts, Williams and DeJarnette regarding 6/13/2006 Williams' involvement in report on Wakefield. 47 Exs. 31 \u0026amp; 40 Ex.40 Ex.42 Ex. 31 Ex.31 Ex.42 Ex.42 Ex.44 Ex. 43 \u0026gt; Q. p. - \u0026gt; Q. Q. N  Q. Q. l.,J ... ... :.n E-mails between DeJarnette, Roberts and Brooks re: \"Room 14 is too crowded\" and other working conditions that need to be addressed - particularly Dr. Roberts' overstepping 6/14/2006 DeJarnette's direction. Cabinet Retreat is held in the Regions Bank Building where DeJarnette claims that Brooks referred to her as an \"outsider\" during a ceremony where certificates were given to individual 6/15/2006 cabinet members. E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts concerning lost test book and need to search room where painters and paint materials 6/19/2006 are kept. DeJarnette states that she called Heller with concerns about 6/22/2006 statements made by Dr. Brooks to the Board members DeJarnette sends e-mail at 9: 16 pm to Heller regarding statements to the Board members by Dr. Brooks about when ACTAAP data will be received. Dr. Brooks said the data will be received by July 1st and the evaluations will not be delayed 6/22/2006 but this is not aligned with her conversations with others. DeJarnette sends e-mail to Roberts with copy to Heller regarding Dr. Brooks' statements to the Board on benchmark data. States that evaluators will receive the data at the end of July rather than July 1st and asks Heller to notify Judge Wilson that the final reports will be submitted to the Court after the October board meeting, not the original October 1 6/23/2006 due date. Eighth Circuit Opinion affirming June 30, 2004 Order from 6/26/2006 Judge William R. Wilson Article appears in Democrat Gazette regarding Affidavit from Joy Springer, Mr. Walker's paralegal, entitled \"LR violating order, motion says Attorney: School District not assessing 6/29/2006 programs as it should\" DeJarnette claims that Dr. Brooks summoned her to his office on her cell phone and asked her to agree with him that the statements in Ms. Springer's affidavit were not true. She claims that she would not agree to that and that Ms. Springer had evidence to support each of the allegations in her affidavit. DeJarnette alleges that when Dr. Roberts came into the office toward the end of the meeting, Dr. Brooks said, \"Dr. Roberts, I believe that anyone who shares information with Joy Springer should be fired.\" DeJarnette alleges that Dr. 6/29/2006 Roberts agreed. Dr. Brooks did not recall such a meeting. 48 Ex.45 Ex.46 Ex.31 Ex.47 Ex.48 Ex. 50 Ex.51 Brooks Tr II at 4- 6\nDeJarnette Tr at 3-4 \u0026gt; Q. p.. \u0026gt; Q. Q. N  Q. Q. ~ DeJarnette calls Heller about FOIA request from Walker. 6/30/2006 Assistant says that Heller is out of the office. DeJarnette sends Heller a copy of the FOIA request via e- 6/30/2006 mail. DeJarnette sends e-mail to Heller regarding her responses to 7/5/2006 the allegations in Springer's affidavit. DeJarnette states that she sent an e-mail to Heller and called 7/7/2006 but he was not in. Article appears in Democrat Gazette regarding response from LRSD to motion from Joshua entitled \"LR schools tell judge: 7/7/2006 No basis to hold hearing\" Cabinet meeting held where Dr. DeJarnette claims that Dr. Brooks pointed to her in front of all the cabinet members and said, \"I will fire you if it's the last thing I do if you share 7/11/2006 information with ODM or Joshua. They are the other side.\" DeJarnette e-mail to Heller with copies to Roberts, Hattabaugh and Brooks about Brooks mentioning on several occasions that a \"breach of confidentiality will lead to 7/11/2006 employee termination.\" DeJarnette states that she called Heller regarding Dr. Brooks' 7/11/2006 threats. DeJarnette states that she sent an e-mail to Heller asking that he please file an extension for the due date for filing evaluations with the Court and that she called him but spoke 7/11/2006 with Brenda Kampman DeJarnette sends an e-mail to Heller about data issues with NORMES and possibility that database will have to be constructed and data input internally. Heller responds asking to be reminded about the difference between what our expert needs and the information in today's paper. DeJarnette responds asking Heller to please respond to the inquiry about 7/12/2006 confidentiality. Heller sends e-mail to Brooks, Hattabaugh, Babbs, DeJarnette, Watson, Milhollen, Roberts, Sadie Mitchell and Vann regarding probable need for extension on last four evaluations if benchmark results are unavailable in the 7/12/2006 required format. DeJarnette sends e-mail to Heller forwarding letter from 7/12/2006 Steven Ross about format for data needed. 49 Ex.31 Ex. 52 Ex. 53 Ex. 31 Ex.54 DeJarnette Tr at 4\nEx. 55 Ex. 55 Ex.31 Ex.31 Ex.56 Ex.57 Ex. 57  0, 0, ....  0, 0, N  Q. Q. w Heller/Kampman send e-mail to DeJarnette regarding ADE's counsel's statements that he still is not sure what data LRSD 7/13/2006 needs and in what format. DeJarnette responds to Heller/Kampman e-mail stating that if ADE does not know what they need at this point, there is no 7/14/2006 hope of finishing evaluations by October deadline. E-mails between Griffin and DeJarnette regarding status on completing compliance report. DeJarnette states that Heller has provided an update to the court regarding the status of data but has not requested an extension. She includes a document regarding data issues and comparisons of Crystal 7/14/2006 Reports to TetraData E-mails between Heller and DeJarnette regarding update on 7/17/2006 filing a motion for extension of time. 2:59 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Brooks, Roberts, Hattabaugh, Heller, Eddings, Wohlleb, Williams and Robinson that Heller has not responded to PRE's questions about confidentiality and that there are urgent legal issues affecting our department. If district's counsel is not available, 7/21/2006 they would like to seek other counsel. 3 :31 pm e-mail from Eddings to same group stating he has spoken with DeJarnette and hopefully quelled any concerns 7/21/2006 that she has. DeJarnette e-mail to group that Eddings advised that if a document currently exists and is requested through FOIA that PRE should provide the document to counsel for review and that counsel will forward the documents to the persons making the request. This includes documents requested by 7/24/2006 ODM. Eddings responds that this is correct. Wohlleb asks whether Eddings advice agrees with Court's directive to LRSD in early l 990's. Heller states that Eddings advice was about FOIA requests and in the unlikely event that ODM makes any FOIA requests then Eddings' suggested process should be followed. He states that this has no effect 7/24/2006 on the typical ODM request for information. 50 Ex. 58 Ex.58 Ex. 59 Ex.60 Ex. 61 Ex.62 Ex. 62 Ex. 63  Q. .P..-.  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. (\nJ .:.: . 'JI Wohlleb asks whether Eddings advice applies to non-FOIA requests by Joshua. Heller responds that counsel needs to know about all Joshua requests for information. LRSD is still in litigation and there are several issues at stake. Legal ethics rules do not allow direct contact of Heller's clients by an opposing attorney in litigation. Heller needs to know what the opposing lawyers in the case know. Heller states, \"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.\" DeJarnette responds stating that Joshua usually makes an FOIA request and then ODM 7/24/2006 asks informally for the same information. E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin stating that she was on vacation last week and did not think she could post the draft Quarterly Report to Novus Agenda by noon. She asks if she 8/7/2006 will be able to post it at the end of the day. 9:51 am e-mail from DeJarnette to Heller enclosing draft copy 8/8/2006 of the Quarterly Update DeJarnette claims to have posted PRE's draft Quarterly 8/8/2006 Update to the Novus Agenda Website DeJarnette provides copies of PRE's draft Quarterly Update to 8/8/2006 ODM and Joshua 4:51 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Heller enclosing a new draft of the Quarterly Update. She states that it is the one that went to Griffin for the board agenda packet. Additional 8/9/2006 sentences added to the first version sent to Heller on 8/8/06. 4:52 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin enclosing Quarterly 8/9/2006 Update draft 4:56 pm e-mail from Griffin to Roberts forwarding Quarterly 8/9/2006 Update draft received from DeJarnette 4:57 pm e-mail from Griffin to Hattabaugh forwarding 8/9/2006 Quarterly Update draft received from DeJarnette 51 Ex.63 Ex.66 Ex.67 Ex. 75 DeJarnette Tr at 21, 53\nEx. 147 \u0026amp;Add. 6 Ex.68 Ex. 69 \u0026amp; Add. 7 Exs. 70 \u0026amp; 71 Ex. 72  0, p. .....  0, 0, N 5:05 pm e-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette stating that the \"cover sheet\" is posted at the Novus site which gives it a place on the action agenda for August. \"Per my phone conversation with Dr. Roberts, I will wait and post the actual report sometime prior to the meeting on the 24th. That gives everyone another week for reading, reviewing, revising. If any of the board members ask why it's not posted, I will have to say that it was not complete prior to the agenda deadline of 8/9/2006 August 8th.\" 5:23 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin stating that she posted the agenda item and draft report on 8/8. It's okay with PRE if the Board does not consider the report tomorrow as long as it is approved by the end of the month so Heller can 8/9/2006 file it with the Court. 5:29 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts forwarding draft 8/9/2006 Quarterly Update. E-mail from Hattabaugh to Heller with copies to Griffin and Brooks stating that he wants PRE's draft Quarterly Report reviewed by legal counsel to ensure objective and concise information is reported. Wants \"biased comments\" 8/ 10/2006 eliminated. E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller regarding posting of the draft Quarterly Update for the agenda meeting and whether Board members will have an adequate opportunity to read and discuss the update. Heller says that we have three weeks and 8/10/2006 did not see a problem. E-mail from Roberts to Heller with copies to Brooks and Hattabaugh attaching draft Quarterly Update from PRE and 8/ 10/2006 requesting that Heller please note pages 3, 4, 6, and 9. Brooks forwards Roberts' e-mail to Heller to Griffin, 8/10/2006 Hattabaugh, Milhollen, Mittiga and Roberts DeJarnette sends an e-mail to Roberts and Griffin stating that she will not be able to attend the agenda meeting but that 8/ 10/2006 Wohlleb will be there. Heller sends an e-mail to DeJarnette re: \"joshua concerns\nqtrly report\". States that he is sorry for delay but that they found out Thursday about an injunction hearing concerning an issue at Central scheduled for Monday, now Tuesday. He 8/14/2006 says he will call as soon as that gets under control. 52 Ex. 73 Ex. 75 Ex. 76 Ex. 77 Ex. 79 Ex. 81 Ex. 83 Ex. 84 Ex. 85 \u0026gt; Q. p. .....  Q,. p. (\n.I :JI E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette stating \"please do not discuss issues which will likely be litigated in December, including our implementation of the compliance remedy, with lawyers or paralegals representing any other party in this case outside my presence.\" DeJarnette responds and says, \"Will 8/17/2006 do, Thanks.\" DeJarnette states that she left a voice mail message for Heller requesting clarification and did not receive a return call. Heller states in his interview that he does not recall such a 8/17/2006 voice mail. E-mail from Springer to DeJarnette, Powell (ODM) and Walker stating that it appears the data being provided to evaluators is not valid or is fraught with errors especially relating to student identity and attendance. Springer requests that DeJ arnette explain the process used by PRE for 8/17/2006 submitting data to experts. DeJarnette forwards Springer's e-mail to Heller with copies to Roberts, Hattabaugh and Brooks stating that she would not 8/17/2006 respond to the e-mail upon Heller's advice. E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette and Roberts asking whether Quarterly Update is ready to be attached to the board agenda. DeJarnette responds saying that Wohlleb is amending the report to reflect the receipt of electronic data and that PRE has not heard from Heller yet about the Quarterly Update. Griffin responds saying that she needs the Quarterly Update by noon 8/21/2006 on August 22nd. E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Griffin and Roberts attaching an amended Quarterly Update reflecting receipt of electronic data and that the data has been passed on to 8/21 /2006 external evaluators. E-mail from Griffin to Heller and Brooks asking whether the Quarterly Update can be posted to the board agenda by noon 8/21 /2006 on the 22nd 10: 15 am Meeting in Mr. Hattabaugh's office between Hattabaugh, Roberts, Heller, DeJarnette, Wohlleb, Robinson and Williams. Discussions are had concerning whether certain information in the draft Quarterly Update is 8/22/2006 appropriate for the report and/or inaccurate. 1 :02 pm e-mail from Griffin to Board members that agenda for 8/24 meeting has been posted but is not complete. The PRE is fine-tuning the Quarterly Report and it will be attached 8/22/2006 as soon as the revisions are made. 53 Exs. 86 \u0026amp; 87 DeJarnette Tr at 35\nHeller Tr at 23 Ex.88 Ex.88 Ex.92 Ex.96 Ex.95 Ex. 107  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. (.,.) 3:23 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Roberts, Hattabaugh and PRE staff that three of the PRE members put their notes together about the suggested edits. They have a clear understanding about the changes in section F regarding listing of programs and have struck all but the first sentence from that paragraph. They are fuzzy on exactly what else Heller, Roberts and Hattabaugh wanted to strike from the 8/22/2006 report. E-mails between Griffin and DeJarnette regarding status of the Quarterly Update and being able to post it for the Board. DeJarnette states that Heller suggested major edits yesterday but was not specific. PRE will make any edits the Board sees fit but feels it is inappropriate for Heller or senior administrators to exclude the Board from the review process. Griffin responds by stating that she thought that when PRE left the meeting on the 22nd that it would make the suggested revisions and that any report given to the board is subject to administrative/cabinet level review and that the attorneys have the option of making suggested changes before it is presented to the board. \"We are trying to comply with the court's order and get out of court. Chris is the one who should guide us in that endeavor.\" DeJ arnette responds stating that PRE made the specific edits suggested but Heller was not clear on the other edits. She states that if Heller, Roberts or Hattabaugh 8/23/2006 are clear on the needed edits, they can make the revisions. Griffin sends e-mail to Heller/Kampman stating that DeJarnette tells her that she hasn't received the final version of the Quarterly report. Griffin states that it needs to be posted 8/23/2006 to the board before she leaves today. 10:56 am E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Hattabaugh and Roberts requesting further conversation related to program assessments. After further reflection, she is uncomfortable removing the names of the programs from the Quarterly 8/24/2006 Update. 12: 12 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Hattabaugh, Roberts, Brooks, Wohlleb, Williams and Robinson stating that she has given all the reflection and input she feels necessary regarding the Quarterly Update and that she defers to counsel 8/24/2006 to amend any portion of the report necessary. 54 Ex. 108 Ex. 110 Ex. 111 Ex. 114 Exs. 115 \u0026amp; 116 \u0026gt; C. p. .... \u0026gt; C. C. N \u0026gt; Q. C. c.,.i 1: 15 e-mail from DeJarnette to Wohlleb, Robinson and Williams thanking Wohlleb for preparing comments on update but that she did not think PRE would need it as she planned to follow counsel's advice and defer any questions to 8/24/2006 Heller. 1 :37 e-mail from Heller/Kampman to Griffin, Hattabaugh, DeJarnette, Roberts and Brooks attaching Quarterly Report with his most recent suggested changes. DeJarnette forwards 8/24/2006 to Wohlleb, Robinson and Williams at 4:05 pm. Board Meeting held where Heller's edited version of Eighth 8/24/2006 Quarterly Update is approved. 9/1/2006 Eighth Quarterly Update filed with Court Heller/Kampman e-mail filed copy of Eighth Quarterly Update to Griffin, Hattabaugh, DeJarnette, Roberts and 9/5/2006 Brooks DeJarnette e-mails Heller and others (possibly Joshua) stating that she has scheduled a conference call with Steven Ross to discuss his request for an extension of the deadline for reports. Heller responds stating that he sees no reason for an open conference call with Dr. Ross before LRSD has determined the status of the evaluation and reports to the Court, ODM and Joshua. Heller claims that DeJarnette held open conference 9/14/2006 call anyway. Heller e-mail to DeJarnette, Brooks, Catterall, Hattabaugh, Powell (ODM), Roberts, Robinson, Springer, Williams and Wohlleb stating that there is no reason for a conference call 9/ 19/2006 with Dr. Ross today. 10/3/2006 Grievance filed by Dr. DeJarnette E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette requesting \"what information 'mandated by the compliance remedy' [she] was 10/4/2006 directed to withhold and who directed rherl to withhold it.\" E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller in response to request for information stating that she was directed by Mr. Hattabaugh, Dr. Roberts and Mr. Heller to withhold information in Subsection B and Subsection F of the September 1, 2006 10/5/2006 Quarterly Update and enclosing a file of documents. E-mail from DeJarnette to Robert Robinson regarding next 10/6/2006 steps in process for written grievance. 55 Ex. 118 Exs.119\u0026amp; 120 Ex. 123 \u0026amp; Add. 8 Ex. 124 Ex. 125 Ex. 126 Ex. 127 \u0026amp; Add. 5 Ex. 128 Ex. 128 Ex. 129  Q. p. N  Q.. Q.. ~ Q.. p. ... 2:03 pm E-mail from Hartz to DeJamette stating that he would like to have a meeting with her to discuss issues cited 10/10/2006 in her complaint and requesting dates and times for a meeting. 6:38 pm Response from DeJarnette to Hartz regarding request for meeting. She asks what the procedure for the meeting will be, whether other people will attend and whether it will 10/10/2006 include an informal conversation between Hartz and her. Phone conversation between DeJarnette and Hartz where Hartz explained that the meeting would be to establish the 10/10/2006 process and procedure of the grievance 8:38 am Response from Hartz to DeJarnette confirming a meeting at 1 :30 pm on 10/12/06. DeJarnette notes that when she arrived, Mr. Hartz said his mother was ill and he needed 10/11/2006 to leave and would reschedule. 20 minute meeting between Hartz and DeJarnette that had to be cut short because of the fact that Hartz's mother was in the 10/12/2006 hospital. DeJarnette sends an e-mail to Beverly Griffin asking that PRE be reorganized so as to report directly to the Board of 10/12/2006 Directors rather than to senior administrators. Little Rock School District's Compliance Report is filed with 10/16/2006 the Court. E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller stating that PRE has concerns about statements in Compliance Report regarding school portfolios, accuracy of data, and readable reports. Heller/Kampman respond be asking (I) who at PRE is concerned and what is the concern, (2) to quote the language that is a concern and (3) an explanation in detail of the basis 10/18/2006 for each concern. 40 to 45 minute meeting between DeJarnette and Hartz - 10/18/2006 Typewritten and handwritten notes produced by Hartz. E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller stating that PRE can provide the information requested by Heller. Kampman responds that Heller would like to meet on October 20th but would like a 10/19/2006 written response in advance of any meeting. PRE creates document of its comments regarding the l 0/19/2006 Compliance Report submitted on 10/16/06 to the Court. 10/20/2006 DeJarnette e-mails Heller two documents created by PRE DeJarnette claims Brooks made a phone call to her that she 10/20/2006 considered a subtle threat of termination. 56 Ex. 130 Ex. 132 Hartz Transcript at 3. Exs. 133 \u0026amp; 134 Hartz Transcript at 3. Ex. 135 Ex. 136 Ex. 141 Hartz Transcript at 3. Ex. 141 Ex. 137 Exs. 141 \u0026amp; 137 DeJarnette Tr at 17 \u0026gt; Q. p. .... \u0026gt; Q. Q. N  Q. Q. ~ .. ... :::. Little Rock School District's Revised Compliance Report is 10/25/2006 filed. Hartz reports that he spoke with DeJarnette during board meeting break and explained that mother was recently released from the hospital. DeJarnette reportedly stated \"no problem\" and that she was busy and probably would not have 10/26/2006 had the time until then anyway. DeJarnette claims Brooks made a phone call to her that she 10/27/2006 considered a subtle threat of termination. E-mail from DeJarnette to Hartz checking on potential date to 10/31/2006 discuss her complaint. Brooks e-mails Griffin, Hartz, Hattabaugh, Milhollen, Mittiga, Roberts, Heller, Mitchell and Babbs asking Dr. Roberts to notify Dr. DeJarnette that the board has requested a compliance history update at the November 9th agenda meeting and the presentation should involve other members of the PRE Department. Dr. Roberts forwards the e-mail to 11 /2/2006 DeJarnette. Response from Hartz to DeJarnette stating that he will be in touch with a date very soon and has been out due to continued 11 /2/2006 family illness. Two letters from Scott Smith, counsel for Ark. Dept of Education, to Dr. Brooks regarding investigations of a missing test booklet at Central High and missing student answer sheets 11 /2/2006 from McClellan High DeJarnette responds to 11/2/06 e-mail from Brooks/Roberts by stating that both Robinson and Wohlleb are scheduled to be on vacation on the 9th but PRE would be happy to meet with the Board and answer any questions. She attaches 11/3/2006 Compliance History documents 2004-2005 Compliance History Document sent to Board of 11/3/2006 Directors by Karen DeJarnette Dennis Glasgow had a conversation with Wohlleb regarding the Compliance History document and took issue with certain portions. W ohlleb asked Glasglow whether he thought that PRE should report directly to the Board and Glasgow 11 /3/2006 responded that he did not think that should happen. Dr. Brooks phones Dr. DeJarnette after receiving the 11/3/2006 Compliance History Document. 57 Ex. 143 Hartz Transcript at 9. DeJ arnette Tr at 17 Ex. 144 Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6 Ex. 145 Ex. 149 Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6 Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6 Glasgow Transcript p. 9- 10 Brooks Transcript II at p. 1 \u0026gt; Q. p. .... \u0026gt; Q. Q. N 'JI Hartz reports that he phoned DeJarnette and informed her of 11/6/2006 the decision to have an outside counsel review her complaint. Hartz Tr at 10 Letter from Hartz to DeJarnette informing her that the Quattlebaum firm would conduct an independent investigation 11/6/2006 of her concerns Ex. 148 Fax from Dr. Brooks to Karen DeJarnette enclosing two November 2, 2006 letters from Scott Smith, counsel for Ark. Dept of Education regarding investigations of a missing test booklet at Central High and missing student answer sheets 11/13/2006 from McClellan High Ex. 149 B. Factual Issues Identified From the Grievance and the PRE Compliance History Document, the following general categories and subcategories of factual issues were identified: 1. The Dispute Regarding Content of the Eighth Quarterly Update a. What is an \"Update?\" b. Historical Drafting and Filing Process c. Drafting of the Q8 Update d. Posting of the Q8 Update on the Novus Agenda Website e. Review of the Draft Q8 Update Before the August 22, 2006, Meeting f. August 22, 2006, Meeting g. h. Events after the August 22, 2006, Meeting Instructions to Withhold Information 58  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. ~ 2. Threats of Termination a. Communicating Within the Chain of Command b. Direct Threats of Termination 1. Threats following the June 29, 2006, Arkansas Democrat Gazette Article. 11. Threats at Cabinet Meetings c. Indirect Threats of Termination 1. The Job Advertisement Incident ii. The Cabinet Retreat Certificate Incident iii. Threatening Telephone Calls from Dr. Brooks 3. Hostile Work Environment a. Direction of PRE Staff b. LRSD Reorganization - Transition Team c. Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Department Moved into Dr. DeJarnette's Office d. Painters in PRE Offices e. November 6, 2006, Meeting between Counsel and PRE 4. PRE Compliance History Document 5. Allegations Regarding the Accuracy of LRSD's Data 6. Lack of Response to Dr. DeJarnette's Grievance The investigation results regarding each of these categories are addressed and the statements of various witnesses summarized below. C. Discussion of Issues This section of the report addresses the facts discovered in the investigation of the issues raised in the Grievance and the PRE Compliance History Document, as well as issues raised during witness interviews. 59 \u0026gt; Q, P- ..... ::. \" 'JI 1. The Dispute Regarding the Content of the Eighth Quarterly Update (\"Q8 Update\") Issue: LRSD Administration and Mr. Heller disagreed with PRE regarding the topics and initiatives to be included in the Q8 Update. The primary issue in this investigation concerns the events leading to the preparation and filing of the Q8 Update. Dr. DeJarnette, in her November 3, 2006, letter to Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Chairperson of the Board, states that PRE believes that the Board has not received important information directly from PRE on some occasions. Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6. Dr. DeJarnette states in this letter, \"[o]ne of the occasions when we fear the Board did not receive this department's thoughts was the last quarterly written update (September 1, 2006).\" Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6. This section addresses the facts as they relate to the Q8 Update. a. What is an \"Update?\" According to paragraph G of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, at page 65, \"PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year.\" Ex. 2. Thus, for the two school years at issue, PRE was required to submit a total of eight \"Updates\" concerning the step 2 program evaluations. b. Historical Drafting and Filing Process The basic outline for the Updates was taken from the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Ex. 2. Initial drafts of the Updates were created wholly by PRE staff. DeJarnette Tr. at 19. Mr. Wohlleb was the primary drafter of the Updates for PRE. Id. at 19-20. His initial draft was then circulated within PRE for comment. Id. at 20. PRE commonly had the Updates ready for review by the cabinet and Mr. Heller thirty days before they were to be submitted to the 60 \u0026gt; Q. P- ~ \u0026gt; Q. P-N \u0026gt; Q. Q. t.,.l .. :i. 'Jl Board. Id. After an Update was submitted to the Board and approved by the Board, Mr. Heller would file it with the Court. Id. c. Drafting of the Q8 Update A more comprehensive report titled \"Compliance Report\" 7 was scheduled to be filed on October 15, 2006. Dr. DeJarnette stated that she asked Mr. Heller in June 2006 if PRE would be responsible for writing the Compliance Report due to the Court on October 15, 2006. Id. at 23. When Mr. Heller stated that he would be drafting the Compliance Report, Dr. DeJarnette decided that the Q8 Update should be PRE's version of the Compliance Report, and it should include a detailed summary of the activities that PRE performed in the years 2004-2006. Id. d. Posting of the Q8 Update on the Novus Agenda Website The Board's agenda is prepared using the Novus Agenda website. Griffin Tr. at 5. Departments within LRSD prepare their agenda items and post their attachments for Board review. Id. at 6. Initially, agenda items are available on the Novus Agenda website for internal review through the chain of command. Id. at 7-8. Once an agenda item has been reviewed through the chain of command and approved by Dr. Brooks, Ms. Griffin posts that agenda item for Board review and review by the public at large. Id. There is some uncertainty about when the draft Q8 Update was posted to on the Novus Agenda website. However, it is undisputed that the draft Q8 Update was e-mailed to 7 LRSD was obligated under Paragraph K of the 2004 Compliance Remedy to file a Compliance Report, documenting its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. Section 2.7.1 requires that \"LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program.\" 61 \u0026gt; Q, p. .... \u0026gt; Q, p. N  Q, p. \\,,I Ms. Griffin, Dr. Roberts, Mr. Hattabaugh, and Mr. Heller by August 10, 2006. Bxs. 69, 70, 71, 72, 77, 81, 83. i. Dr. DeJarnette's Recollection Dr. DeJarnette says that on August 8, 2006, she posted on the LRSD Novus Agenda website, which is an internal LRSD website that allows LRSD employees to post and review documents for the Board's agenda meeting, a draft of the Q8 Update. Ex. 75\nDeJarnette Tr. at 25. Dr. DeJarnette also provided copies of the draft Q8 Update to ODM and Joshua on or about the same day. Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6\nDeJarnette Tr. at 53. Dr. DeJarnette believes that Ms. Griffin removed the draft Q8 Update from the Novus Agenda website, leaving only the cover page. DeJarnette Tr. at 25. ii. Ms. Griffin's Recollection Ms. Griffin does not recall removing the draft Q8 Update from the Novus Agenda website. Griffin Tr. at 9. However, she has in the past removed an item from the Novus Agenda website when asked to do so. Id. at 9-10. Ms. Griffin provided e-mails showing that Dr. DeJarnette sent her the draft Q8 Update on August 9, 2006. Ex. 69 \u0026amp; Add. 7. Ms. Griffin then forwarded the draft to Dr. Roberts and Mr. Hattabaugh. Bxs. 70 \u0026amp; 72. Also, on August 9, 2006, Ms. Griffin e-mailed Dr. DeJarnette to inform her that the cover sheet for the Q8 Update was posted at the Novus Agenda website, giving it a place on the Board's agenda. Ex. 73. Ms. Griffin recalls that although Dr. DeJarnette stated that she had posted the draft Q8 Update on the Novus Agenda website on August 8, 2006, she told Ms. Griffin that approval by the Board of the Q8 Update by the end of the month would be acceptable. Ex. 75. 62 \u0026gt; 0, p. .... \u0026gt; 0, p. N  0, 0, w iii. Dr. Roberts' Recollection Dr. Roberts stated that the Q8 Update was on the agenda for the Board meeting, but the draft Q8 Update was not attached on the Novus Agenda website when she first looked for it. Roberts I Tr. at 4. Dr. Roberts asked Dr. DeJarnette for a copy of the draft Q8 Update. Id. When Dr. Roberts did not receive a copy of the Q8 Update from Dr. DeJarnette, Dr. Roberts obtained a copy of the draft Q8 Update from Ms. Griffin. Ex. 70. Dr. Roberts asked that the draft Q8 Update not be presented to the Board before she had a chance to review it. Roberts I Tr. at 4. Dr. Roberts stated Dr. DeJarnette seemed surprised that only the cover page of the draft Q8 Update was posted on the Novus Agenda website. Id. at 10. Normally, the full text of the Updates would be on the LRSD Novus Agenda website for the cabinet members to review. The Updates are not public until the Board reviews the agenda. Id. at 6-7. When she received and reviewed a copy of the draft Q8 Update, Dr. Roberts had questions. Id. at 4. Dr. Roberts and Mr. Hattabaugh sent the draft Q8 Update to Mr. Heller for his review. Exs. 77 \u0026amp; 81. iv. Mr. Hattabaugh's Recollection Mr. Hattabaugh stated that he either received a draft of the Q8 Update from Mr. Heller or Dr. Roberts\nhe does not recall receiving the draft from Ms. Griffin. Hattabaugh II Tr. at 5. He does not recall going to the Novus Agenda website and pulling down a draft of the Q8 Update. Id. He has no recollection of anyone taking down or instructing someone else to take down a draft of the Q8 Update from the Novus Agenda website. Id. 63 \u0026gt; Q., p. .... \u0026gt; Q., p. N \u0026gt; Q., Q., (.,.) '.Jl e. Review of the Draft Q8 Update Before the August 22, 2006, Meeting i. Dr. Roberts' Recollection Dr. Roberts was concerned that the draft Q8 Update mentioned TetraData and addressed \"programs\" that were not required to be evaluated under the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Roberts I Tr. at 8. Dr. Roberts stated that the \"programs\" referred to in Section F of the draft Q8 Update went beyond the \"programs\" specified by the Court for inclusion in the Updates. Id. at 8-9. Some of the \"programs\" included in the draft Q8 Update were actually interventions and strategies. Id. These interventions and strategies were not intended to be evaluated under the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Id. For example, the \"program\" titled CRISS is actually a compilation of reading strategies, according to Dr. Roberts. Id. at 9. Dr. Roberts noted that prior Updates did not include the type of information included in the draft Q8 Update. Id. ii. Mr. Heller's Recollection Mr. Heller received an e-mail from Mr. Hattabaugh expressing his concern that the draft Q8 Update included items about which there was an internal dispute and that inclusion of the items was unnecessary. Ex. 77\nHeller Tr. at 7. Mr. Heller recalled that Dr. Roberts also suggested changes to the draft Q8 Update. Heller Tr. at 7. Mr. Heller was concerned that the draft Q8 Update did not reflect LRSD's position regarding the status of compliance, presented issues that were not required to be included in the Update, and was inaccurate in some respects. Id. at 8-9. He noted the identification of certain initiatives as \"programs\" that were not \"programs\" as that term was used by the Court as an example of an inaccuracy. Id. 64  Q. p. N  Q. C. c.., :ll f. August 22, 2006, Meeting A meeting was held in Mr. Hattabaugh's office on August 22, 2006, to address the concerns of all persons involved in the draft Q8 Update. Present at this meeting were Mr. Hattabaugh, Dr. Roberts, Mr. Heller, and the PRE staff, consisting of Dr. DeJarnette, Dr. Williams, Mr. Wohlleb and Ms. Robinson. This meeting lasted about one or two hours. At this meeting, PRE staff, LRSD administrators, and Mr. Heller discussed the draft Q8 Update and each side expressed its position regarding the disputed topics. i. Dr. DeJarnette's Recollection of the Meeting At the meeting, Dr. DeJarnette recalls Mr. Heller stating that he wanted to remove substantial portions from the draft Q8 Update. DeJarnette Tr. at 23. Dr. DeJarnette stated this was the first time Mr. Heller ever suggested edits to any Update. 8 Id. According to Dr. DeJarnette, Mr. Heller agreed with PRE that perhaps the Board should be made aware of the disputed information contained in the draft Q8 Update, but Mr. Heller explained that the Q8 Update was not the proper vehicle to discuss those disputes. Id. However, Dr. DeJarnette stated that the Q8 Update was the only way she knew to share such information with the Board. Id. at 23-24. In addition to Mr. Heller's comments about the draft Q8 Update, Dr. DeJarnette recalls that Dr. Roberts had concerns about Section F of the draft Q8 Update. Id. at 24. Dr. Roberts stated that Section F included a discussion of \"programs\" that did not need to be assessed. Id. Other than the information in Section F, Dr. DeJarnette stated that Mr. Heller was not specific about what other information should be deleted. Id. at 27. Therefore, at the 8 Mr. Heller provided e-mails which indicate that he suggested edits to previous versions of the Updates. See Exs. 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 26. 65 \u0026gt; C. ?...-. \u0026gt; C. C. N  C. Q. (\n.I cJl conclusion of the meeting, Dr. DeJarnette was not clear about what should or should not be deleted from the draft Q8 Update. Id. She recalls Mr. Heller stating that he believed that the 2004 Compliance Remedy only required PRE to report on the eight program evaluations specifically mentioned in the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Id. at 28. Dr. DeJarnette disagreed, stating that the Court's use of \"deeply embedded\" in the 2004 Compliance Remedy was an overarching term that included more than the eight program evaluations ordered by the Court. Id. She also recalls Mr. Heller stating that he thought the disputed information included in the draft Q8 Update was critical of LRSD. Id. at 31. Dr. DeJarnette recalls that most of the conversation regarding what should be included in the Q8 Update came from Mr. Heller. Id. at 28. Dr. DeJarnette stated that there. was no resolution on what the Q8 Update should address when the meeting ended. Id. ii. Mr. Hattabaugh's Recollection of the Meeting Mr. Hatta\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\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eQuattlebaum, Steven W., 1959-\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eShannon, Michael N.\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eMoore, Benecia B.\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\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":"tws_oid16_33557","title":"Fayth Hill Washington, 2006","collection_id":"tws_oid16","collection_title":"Crossroads interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006-11-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/mp4","application/pdf","image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Memphis, Tenn. : Rhodes College"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["https://vimeo.com/278541290"],"dcterms_subject":["Interviews","Oral history","Memphis (Tenn.)","Civil rights","Hoxie (Ark.)","Education","Segregation"],"dcterms_title":["Fayth Hill Washington, 2006"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Rhodes College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/10267/33557"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"hbcula_becu_296","title":"Conversation with Albert Bethune, Jr., November 12, 2006","collection_id":"hbcula_becu","collection_title":"Bethune-Cookman University Digital Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, Volusia County, Panama Beach, 28.86832, -81.22778"],"dcterms_creator":["Bethune-Cookman University"],"dc_date":["2006-11-12"],"dcterms_description":["This audio recording features footage from a four day interview between Cathy Kershaw, Janice Walton, and Albert Bethune, Jr., Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune's grandson, Bethune-Cookman College's archivist, and the founder of the Bethune-Cookman College Gospel Choir. This audio consists of conversations with Albert Bethune regarding his book, detailing the history and life of Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune. Conversations also include the schedule of events for his book presentation, the history of Bethune-Cookman College, segregation, and Black history."],"dc_format":["audio/mp3"],"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":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","College presidents","African American students","Interviews","Oral history","African American authors"],"dcterms_title":["Conversation with Albert Bethune, Jr., November 12, 2006"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/becu/id/296"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["All rights to images are held by the respective holding institution. This image is posted publicly for non-profit educational uses, excluding printed publication. For permission to reproduce images and/or for copyright information contact University Archives, Bethune-Cookman University, Daytona Beach, FL 32114 (386) 481-2186. http://www.cookman.edu/academics/library/index.html"],"dcterms_medium":["audiocassettes"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tws_oid16_33553","title":"Rev. Billy Kyles, 2006","collection_id":"tws_oid16","collection_title":"Crossroads interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006-11-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/mp4","application/pdf","image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Memphis, Tenn. : Rhodes College"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["https://vimeo.com/278540513"],"dcterms_subject":["Interviews","Oral history","Memphis (Tenn.)","Civil rights","Religion","Sanitation Workers Strike, Memphis, Tenn., 1968"],"dcterms_title":["Rev. Billy Kyles, 2006"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Rhodes College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/10267/33553"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"nge_ngen_coretta-scott-king-1927-2006","title":"Coretta Scott King (1927-2006)","collection_id":"nge_ngen","collection_title":"New Georgia Encyclopedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, Perry County, Heiberger, 32.75818, -87.28667","United States, Alabama, Perry County, Marion, 32.63235, -87.31917","United States, District of Columbia, Washington, 38.89511, -77.03637","United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","United States, Massachusetts, Suffolk County, Boston, 42.35843, -71.05977","United States, Ohio, Greene County, Yellow Springs, 39.80645, -83.88687","United States, Southern States, 33.346678, -84.119434"],"dcterms_creator":["McCarty, Laura"],"dc_date":["2006-11-03"],"dcterms_description":["Encyclopedia article about Coretta Scott King, a proponent of civil and human rights, who helped her husband, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., lead the modern civil rights movement. During their life together, she was his helpmate, raising their four children while supporting his efforts to promote nonviolent social change in race relations during the 1950s and 1960s. Born in 1927 in Heiberger, Alabama, she graduated from Lincoln Normal School, a private school in Marion, Alabama, supported by the American Missionary Association. She then studied music education and sang with choirs at Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio, graduating in 1951. Her excellence as a singer earned her a scholarship to New England Conservatory of Music in Boston where she received further music training. She often used her singing talents to raise funds for various civil and human rights causes and activities. She and Martin Luther King, Jr., met in Boston and were married in 1953.After her husband's assassination in 1968, she articulated a vision of his nonviolence expressed internationally through the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change that she founded in Atlanta as a memorial to her slain husband.To foster remembrance of his life and work, she advocated a federal holiday to celebrate his January birthday. She died in January 2006 at a holistic health hospital in Mexico and was both the first woman and the first African American to lie in state at the state capitol rotunda in Atlanta, Georgia.She was buried with her husband at the King Center.","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.","GSE identifier: SS8H11, SS2H1"],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of the New Georgia Encyclopedia."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of the New Georgia Encyclopedia."],"dcterms_subject":["African American singers--Georgia","Singers--Georgia","African American women singers--Georgia","Women singers--Georgia","African American musicians--Georgia","Musicians--Georgia","African American women musicians--Georgia","Women musicians--Georgia","African American civil rights workers","Civil rights workers","African American women civil rights workers","Women civil rights workers","African American civic leaders","Civic leaders","African American women civic leaders","Women civic leaders","African American social reformers","Social reformers","African American women social reformers","Women social reformers","African Americans--Civil rights","Civil rights--United States","Civil rights--Georgia","Civil rights--Alabama","Civil rights movements--United States","Civil rights movements--Georgia","Civil rights movements--Alabama","Civil rights demonstrations--United States","Civil rights demonstrations--Georgia","Civil rights demonstrations--Alabama","Protest marches--Alabama","Protest marches--Washington (D.C.)","Education--Alabama--Marion","Education--Ohio--Yellow Springs","Women--Education--Alabama--Marion","Women--Education--Ohio--Yellow Springs","Women--Education--Massachusetts--Boston","African American women--Education--Alabama--Marion","African American women--Education--Ohio--Yellow Springs","African American women--Education--Massachusetts--Boston","Universities and colleges--Graduate work","New England Conservatory of Music--Graduate work","African Americans--Education--Alabama","African Americans--Education--Ohio","African Americans--Education (Graduate)--Massachusetts--Boston","Music--Study and teaching (Graduate)","Concerts--United States","Fund raising--United States","Montgomery Improvement Association","Boycotts--Alabama--Montgomery","Buses--Alabama--Montgomery","Bombings--Alabama--Montgomery","Dynamite--Alabama--Montgomery","Mass meetings--Alabama--Montgomery","Segregation--Alabama--Montgomery","Segregation in transportation--Alabama--Montgomery","Discrimination--Alabama--Montgomery","Race discrimination--Alabama--Montgomery","Race relations","Montgomery (Ala.)--Race relation--History--20th century","Montgomery (Ala.)--Politics and government--20th century","Holidays--United States","Holidays--Georgia","Nonviolence--United States","Passive resistance--United States","Women Strike for Peace","Nobel Prizes","Nobel Prize winners--United States","Civil disobedience","Disarmament","Peace","Peace--Awards","Assassination--Tennessee--Memphis","Sanitation workers--Tennessee--Memphis","Strikes and lockouts--Sanitation--Tennessee","Wages--Sanitation workers--Tennessee--Memphis","Poor People's Campaign","Southern Christian Leadership Conference","Social justice--United States","Social justice--Southern States","Equality--United States","Equality--Southern States","Justice","Fairness","Liberty","National Organization for Women","Equal rights amendments","Equality before the law","Sex discrimination against women--Law and legislation","Affirmative action programs--United States","Discrimination in employment--United States","Busing for school integration--Massachusetts--Boston","Anti-apartheid activists--United States","Anti-apartheid movements--United States","Assassination--Investigation--Tennessee--Memphis","Assassination--Investigation--United States","Governmental investigations--Tennessee--Memphis","Governmental investigations--United States","Conspiracies--United States","Political crimes and offenses--United States","Political violence--United States","Violence--United States","Rotundas--Georgia--Atlanta","Crypts--Georgia--Atlanta","Human rights","Jim's Grill (Memphis, Tenn.)","Georgia State Capitol (Atlanta, Ga.)","New Birth Missionary Baptist Church (Lithonia, Ga.)","Lorraine Motel (Memphis, Tenn.)","Sanitation Workers Strike, Memphis, Tenn., 1968","Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change","Dexter Avenue Baptist Church (Montgomery, Ala.)","Ebenezer Baptist Church (Atlanta, Ga.)","Montgomery Bus Boycott, Montgomery, Ala., 1955-1956","March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, Washington, D.C., 1963","Martin Luther King, Jr., Day--United States","Martin Luther King, Jr., Day--Georgia"],"dcterms_title":["Coretta Scott King (1927-2006)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["New Georgia Encyclopedia (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/coretta-scott-king-1927-2006/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["If you wish to use content from the NGE site for commercial use, publication, or any purpose other than fair use as defined by law, you must request and receive written permission from the NGE. Such requests may be directed to: Permissions/NGE, University of Georgia Press, 330 Research Drive, Athens, GA 30602."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: \"[article name],\" New Georgia Encyclopedia. Retrieved [date]: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org."],"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["King, Coretta Scott, 1927-2006","King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","Ray, James Earl, 1928-1998","Jowers, Loyd, -2000","Gandhi, Mahatma, 1869-1948","Mandela, Nelson, 1918-2013","Mandela, Winnie","King, Coretta Scott, 1927-2006--Death and burial","King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968--Assassination","King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968--Death and burial"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tnn_npldl_nbljonese1011clip1","title":"Oral history interview with Edward F. Jones, 2006 November 03, excerpt 17","collection_id":"tnn_npldl","collection_title":"Nashville Public Library Digital Collections Portal: Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":["Pyle, Cabot Pollard"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Davidson County, Nashville, 36.16589, -86.78444"],"dcterms_creator":["Jones, Edward F., 1924-"],"dc_date":["2006-11-03"],"dcterms_description":["An excerpt from an oral history interview with Nashville business and civic leader Edward F. (Eddie) Jones, conducted on 03 November 2006 by Cabot Pyle as part of the Nashville Public Library's Nashville Business Leaders Oral History Project:  The Turner Interviews.  Jones discusses the civil rights movement in Nashville.  The complete interview, as well as an index, is available in the repository."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Civil Rights Online Collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Excerpted from:  NBLJonesE digital recording converted from wav to mp3 format in 2006.","Nashville Business Leaders Oral History Project, Special Collections Division, Nashville Public Library."],"dcterms_subject":["Businesspeople--Tennessee--Nashville","Civic leaders--Tennessee--Nashville","Civil rights movements--Tennessee--Nashville","African Americans--Civil rights--Tennessee--Nashville","Nashville (Tenn.)--History--Sources","Nashville (Tenn.)--Race relations","Nashville (Tenn.)--Social conditions"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Edward F. Jones, 2006 November 03, excerpt 17"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Nashville Public Library (Tenn.). Special Collections Division"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.library.nashville.org/u?/nr,689"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["U.S. and international copyright laws protect this digital content, which is provided for educational purposes only and may not be downloaded, reproduced, or distributed for any other purpose without written permission. Please contact the Special Collections Division of the Nashville Public Library, 615 Church Street, Nashville, Tennessee, 37219. Telephone (615) 862-5782."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["audio/mp3 (3 min.)"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Jones, Edward F., 1924- --Interviews"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_441","title":"21st Century Community Learning Centers Evaluation, 2005-2006, Final Technical Report","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":["Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee"],"dc_date":["2006-11"],"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","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["21st Century Community Learning Centers Evaluation, 2005-2006, Final Technical Report"],"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/441"],"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\nCREP V ftaearck M Educaaonai Policy Little Rock School District Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 21 ** Century Community Learning Centers Evaluation FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT CREP * Center for Research in Educational Policy Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 Little Rock School District 21^ Century Community Learning Centers Evaluation 2005-2006 Final Technical Report November 2006 Heidi Kenaga, PhD Jerry A. Bates, EdS Fethi Inan, MS Center for Research in Educational Policy John Nunnery, PhD Old Dominion University Table of Contents: 21 CCLC Technical Report iiTable of Contents Executive Summary Technical Report Introduction 1 10 10 Evaluation Questions Evaluation Design and Measures Evaluation Instrumentation 10 12 14 Procedure 18 Results 20 Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ) Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ) Student Questionnaire (CCLCPQ) K-2 Students 21 28 33 34 3-5 Students 36 6-12 Students 39 Interviews 42 Site Coordinators 42 School Principals Mabelvale Case Study Classroom Observations 52 56 56 Student Focus Group Results Student Achievement Results 62 64 Conclusions 79 Evaluation Questions Compliance Remedy Questions References 79 84 90 Appendices Appendix A: Survey Instruments Appendix B: Teacher Survey Comments by School Appendix C: Parent Survey Comments by School 91 92 97 104 Table of Contents: 2 CCLC Technical Report hiTables Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5: Table 6: Table 7. Table 8. Description of 2L CCLC Program Components at the Six Study Schools Demographics of the 2L' CCLC Schools in the Study Summary of Instruments, Participants, and Data Sources by Evaluation Question Data Collection Summary 21st CCLC Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ) Results: Implementation 21st CCLC Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ) Results: Impact 21st CCLC Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ) Results 21st CCLC Student Questioimaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades K-2 11 12 13 19 22 23 30 35 Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Table 12. Table 13. Table 14. 21st CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades 3-5: Implementation . 21 st CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades 3-5: Impact . 21 st CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades 6-12: Implementation . 21st CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades 6-12: Impact . Race of Students Enrolled in 21st CCLC Programs in Study Schools, 2006-07 . Gender of Students Enrolled in 21st CCLC Programs in Study Schools By Grade Level, 2006-07 37 38 40 42 66 66 Table 15: Adjusted Means and Effect Size Estimates by School, Grade, and Treatment Level, 2006 ITBS Scores Table 16. Percentage of Students (Treatment and Control) Proficient in Literacy and Mathematics on the Arkansas Benchmark Exams by School, Grade, and Treatment Level 73 76 Figures Figure 1. Proportion of Male 21st CCLC Participants, Broken Down by Grade Level 67 Figure 2. Number of 21st CCLC Sessions Attended by Students at Henderson Middle School 69 Table of Contents: 2P CCLC Technical Report ivFigure 3. Number of 21 st CCLC Sessions Attended by Students at Mabelvale Middle School 70 Figure 4. Number of 21 st CCLC Sessions Attended by Students at McClellan High School Figure 5. Number of 21st CCLC Sessions Attended by Students at Southwest Middle School Figure 6. Number of 21st CCLC Sessions Attended by Students at Woodruff Elementary School Figure 7. Proportion of 21st CCLC Participants Substantially Served, by Grade Level Figure 8. Percentage of Students Obtaining Proficiency on the Arkansas Benchmark Exams in Literacy and Mathematics by Treatment Level Figure 9. Standardized Residuals of ITBS Total Reading NCE Scores vs. Total Days Attended Figure 10. Standardized Residuals of ITBS Total Math NCE Scores vs. Total Days Attended 70 71 71 72 75 77 78 Table of Contents: 2P CCLC Technical Report VEXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results of an evaluation of the 2005-06 Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) 2P Century Community Learning Centers (2L CCLC). The overall purpose of the evaluation was threefold: (1) to assess the effects of the 2L CCLC on raising the academic achievement of African Americans, (2) to examine implementation of the 2L CCLC program in the study schools, and (3) to document the perceptions of students, teachers, principals, and school staff regarding the 21' CCLC program. BACKGROUND Seven schools in the Little Rock School District host 21' Century Community Learning Centers, which offer academic support\nmath/science activities\nmusic/arts/drama\nentrepreneurial programs\ndrug/violence prevention, counseling, and character education\ntutoring/mentoring\nparent involvement\ntechnology and communication\nfamily literacy/education\nrecreational programs\nextended library hours\nand services for truant, suspended or expelled students. Individual centers provide a subset of the possible activities. Each school develops a slate of activities specific to the needs of the student population. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Have the 21 ** Century Community Learning Center (21 CCLC) programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What is the nature and level of implementation of the 2 CCLC programs? 2. What is the level of participation in 2U CCLCs by African American students? 3. What are the perceptions of teachers and school administrators regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians and students of program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 2U CCLC Technical Report 1DESIGN Participants. LRSD identified 6 schools implementing a 21' CCLC program to participate in the evaluation: 1 elementary school, 3 middle schools, and 2 high schools. Collectively, the schools enrolled approximately 4,200 students and employed approximately 410 classroom teachers. Over 84% of the student enrollment was African American. Design. The evaluation design was based on both quantitative and qualitative data collected from the participating schools. Quantitative analyses examined district test scores to determine the effect of the 21' CCLC on Afncan American students learning as compared to non-21' CCLC students. In order to identify the level and quality of program implementation, the quantitative results of surveys distributed to teachers, parents, and student participants were descriptively analyzed, and qualitative analysis examined interviews conducted with 21' CCLC site coordinators and principals. One school was selected for a more focused case study, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School. INSTRUMENTATION Teacher, Student, and Parent Survey  Teacher survey. This instrument was used to collect teacher knowledge of and perceptions about the 21' CCLC program as it operated at their school.  Parent survey. This instrument was designed to capture parent perceptions regarding their childs participation in the 2L' CCLC program.  Student surveys. Because the evaluation assessed students in elementary, middle, and high schools, different surveys were developed for each of three age groups: K-2, 3- st 5, and 6-12. These surveys were used to gauge student perceptions about the 21 CCLC program activities at their school. Interviews  The site coordinator and principal interviews focused on basic features, implementation, support, and strengths and weaknesses of the 2P CCLC program at the participating school. Classroom Observation Measure (case study school only)  An observation instrument (Classroom Observation Tool) was used to record student and teacher activities during a typical 2 CCLC classroom meeting at the case study school, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School. 2 CCLC Technical Report 2Student Focus Group (case study school only)  The student focus group protocol was used to document student impressions of the nature of 2P CCLC program activities\nthe usefulness of the program\nand student satisfaction with the range of activities offered. The focus group was conducted at the case study school, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School. Student Achievement  Researchers used scores from the following standardized achievement tests to examine the effect of the 2P CCLC program on African American students learning: Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) (ITBS, 2002) and Arkansas Benchmark Exams (Arkansas Benchmark Exams, 2005). PROCEDURE The evaluation involved the collection of a variety of information at the 6 schools by researchers who had no association with LRSD or the 21* CCLC program. Surveys were distributed to students who were participating in the program and their parent or guardian, and to all teachers at each school in order to obtain their perceptions of the 21* CCLC program. In addition, researchers conducted interviews with the site coordinator and principal at each school. At Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, the case study school, researchers observed 21* CCLC classrooms during prearranged sessions and also conducted a student focus group. Analyses of student achievement on the ITBS and the Arkansas Benchmark Exams were conducted to determine the impact of the 21* CCLC on the academic achievement of African American as compared to non-African American students. RESULTS Key results of the study are presented by measurement strategy. In the conclusion section, findings are synthesized across instruments in order to address each research question. Survey Results Teacher Survey. A total of 187 teachers at the participating LRSD schools completed surveys, the 21* CCLC Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ). (Results are summarized below.) Parent Survey. A total of 82 parents/guardians of primarily African American children completed surveys, the 2L CCLC Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ). (Results are summarized below.) Student Survey. A total of 270 students (50 elementary, 140 middle school, and 80 high school) completed surveys, the 21* CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ). (Results are summarized below.) 21  CCLC Technical Report 3Interview Results Site Coordinators. Nearly all the site coordinators had high praise for the 21 CCLC program and the afterschool staff and affiliates working at their schools. They consistently identified three strengths of the program: (1) that it provided a safe, secure environment for children at a time (after school) when they were most at risk, even those working at or above proficiency who found a place to further enhance their skills\n(2) that it afforded students many opportunities (the community activities, access to technology) which they otherwise may not have had\nand (3) that it constituted a psychological reward, as the students were made more acutely aware that there was a group of adults devoting their extra time and energies toward helping them achieve academic success as well as improve their classroom behaviors. st While the site coordinators never experienced problems recruiting students into the 21 CCLC program at their school, all except one (at Woodruff) identified student retention/ attendance rates as an ongoing challenge. In general, those days following the administration of standardized tests saw less frequent attendance, and as the warmer weather returned in the spring semester there were general declines in participation rates as well. Another area for improvement identified by the coordinators (except at Woodruff Elementary and Southwest Middle School) was parental involvement, particularly in the upper grades. The high school coordinators in particular tried several strategies for eliciting parents participation, without too much success. However, the site coordinators at Woodruff and Southwest reported that any public performance or display (e.g., music, drama, art) by their child/ren in the 21 CCLC program was guaranteed to bring out the parents. Principals. Most of the principals responses to questions during interviews were similar to those provided by the site coordinators, reiterating the major themes described above. Classroom Observation Results On the basis of the three 21 CCLC sessions observed at Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, both Afidcan American and non-African American students participated equally in activities and with a fairly high level of engagement. The academic relevance of the range of activities was generally clear\nthe quality of instruction and classroom environment was usually good\nand the commitment and enthusiasm of the teaching staff was much in evidence. Student Focus Group The student focus group conducted at the case study school, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, comprised 6 students. They liked having useful activities in which to engage after the close of the regular school day, and most felt that participation was having a positive impact on their schoolwork. In terms of areas for improvement, student indicated that greater variety and perhaps more creative development of 21 CCLC program activities (e.g., recreation, enrichment or arts instruction) would enhance student enjoyment of afterschool, and also contribute to higher attendance rates. In addition, although most students felt that afterschool activities were improving their academic performance, it did not cause them to like school more. 2P CCLC Technical Report 4Student Achievement Results According to Federal guidelines, students must attend a program at least 30 days to be considered substantially served. The three groups assessed in CREPs statistical analysis  control, not substantially served, and substantially served students  performed equally on ITBS Reading and Mathematics after controlling for prior achievement, free or reduced-price lunch status, special education status, and gender. There was no relationship between student attendance of the 21^ CCLC program nor numbers of days attended and student achievement scores. CONCLUSIONS The conclusions of this study are presented in association with each of the major research questions in the respective sections below. Primary Evaluation Question Have the 21^ Century Community Learning Center (21^ CCLC) programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? Although CREP employed rigorous methods to estimate 2L CCLC effects, the small number of students who were substantially served mitigate against ascribing the observed effects to the 2L CCLC programs. The available evidence suggests that there was no relationship between student achievement on standardized tests and attendance of 2L CCLC programs. No relationship was observed between the number of sessions attended and student achievement in reading or mathematics. A significant negative relationship was observed between treatment and literacy proficiency on the Arkansas benchmark examination, but given the preponderance of students who were not substantially served, it is quite plausible that this effect is attributable to students self-selecting out of the program, rather than to the interventions themselves. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions What is the nature and level of implementation of the 21^ CCLC programs? On the basis of survey results as well as observations conducted at the case study school Mabelvale Middle, it would appear that many participants are highly engaged with 2L' CCLC activities. The academic relevance of the classes was generally clear\nthe level of instruction and quality of classroom environment was usually good\nand instructor preparation, commitment, and enthusiasm were clearly evident. Most of the teachers were very positive in their comments about the programs efficacy and impact on their students, as were the parents of 2L CCLC program participants. However, in regard to the level of implementation, the attendance rates for the majority of 2 L' CCLC participants were quite low. Only two of the six schools that received 2L CCLC funding substantially served a majority of the students who enrolled in the program. The two exceptions were Woodruff Elementary, where essentially all participants were 2P CCLC Technical Report 5substantially served, and Southwest Middle, where slightly more than half of participants were substantially served. Thus, while the quality of the observed implementation of the 2L CCLC program was good, the level of implementation (on the basis of attendance rates) fell far short of expectations, especially at the middle and high school levels. Overall, only about 20% of students in grades 6- 12 who enrolled in 2P CCLC programs attended 30 or more sessions, which is comparable to the 16.4% who attended no sessions at all. What is the level of participation in 21^ CCLCs by African American students? Since the majority of students in the study schools were African American, the level of participation by this ethnic group in 2L CCLC activities was quite high: 87% of the K-2 respondents, 85% of the middle school, and 82% of the high school identified themselves as Afncan American. Interviews with site coordinators and principals confirmed this level of participation. What are the perceptions of teachers and school administrators regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Staff at the 6 study schools were generally very positive about and supportive of the program. In terms of implementation, nearly all agreed that the CCLC offered students a safe place to be after school and that it offered academic help to students who needed it. Large proportions also felt that the CCLC program appealed to a wide variety of students and that the program offered students enough choice of activities. Also, many teachers praised the afterschool staff for their commitment and dedication to helping students improve their skills. In their survey responses, teachers were somewhat more ambivalent about the programs positive impact on participants in terms of changes in academic and social domains. A little less than half agreed that almost all or many 2L CCLC participants were performing better academically, and on average approximately 40% saw improved behaviors in terms of how they related to classmates and teachers as well as in-class conduct. In terms of students facility in using technology, almost half reported that almost all or many participants showed improvements in computer literacy skills. In general, school staff identified three strengths of the 2L CCLC program. First and foremost, the provision of safe and secure environment in which to build skills was seen by most respondents as crucial. Second, participants now had multiple opportunities (such as computer access and arts enrichment), to which they otherwise may not have had access. Third, students were reaping the psychological rewards of knowing that teachers cared enough about their development and progress to work in the afterschool program. These responses by administrative persoimel, who are in the best position to observe the operation and impacts of the 2P' CCLC on students, acknowledge a salient aspect of the program: oversight of participants activities beyond the regular school day may have had positive impacts not easily captured nor sufficiently measurable by standard survey methods. The two most commonly noted areas for improvement included increasing students rates of attendance and expanding efforts to reach and engage the parents of program participants. In addition, some of the site coordinators noted that they had occasional problems finding qualified and available staff, especially in math and science. 21  CCLC Technical Report 6What are the perceptions of parents/guardians and students of program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? st A majority of parents who returned the surveys responded very positively to the 21 CCLC program at their child/rens school. They felt that the center was a safe place for their children to be and that the 21 CCLC had good programs with different activities from which to choose. A large proportion would sign their child up again and would encourage other children to attend as well. More than three quarters of responding parents thought that the CCLC program was having a positive impact on their child/rens academic performance. There were some differences between the parents responses and the school staff responses. Higher percentages of parents than teachers thought that their child/ren were exhibiting improvements in other areas: feeling better about her/himself, more clearly understanding the importance of graduating from high school, and working better with other students. No parent identified the same areas for improvement - student attendance and parental engagement - as did the teachers and administrators. In fact, when asked whether they had attended any of the 2L CCLC programs for parents, almost two thirds said that they had, which did not match data gathered from school staff. These results should be viewed with caution, since (1) there were fewer parent responses (n = 82) than teacher responses (n = 187) and (2) this data set comprises less than 10% of all parents of participants. Thus, the parent responses constitute a self-selected sample and may be biased (that is, it is more likely that parents who returned surveys were more engaged with the program and had children who attended more often). In regard to student perceptions of the 2P' CCLC, the elementary school children (all at Woodruff) appear to be enjoying and benefiting from the program. For both the younger cohort (K-2) and the older cohort (3-5), the afterschool teachers and staff are strong features of the program\nthey also like the range and variety of activities offered, although the older children were somewhat less satisfied with some of the programs. The safety issue was broached in the surveys: approximately three quarters of both cohorts said that they felt safe at the center. These children identified participation with having a positive impact on their self-image, as a large majority said that the program made them feel better about themselves. Almost two thirds of the older cohort felt that participation had helped them behave better at school and understand the importance of graduating from high school. Like the two younger cohorts, the participant respondents in grades 6-12 identified the teachers and staff in their 21^ CCLC as a real strength. Similarly, a majority of the older students indicated that they felt safe in the afterschool program. Approximately two thirds liked the programs offered, would sign up again, and would recommend the program to other kids. Still, as perhaps might be expected of this age group, only about half said that being in the program was better than other things they could be doing after school. Although in general the responses of the older students indicate they believe the 21 St CCLC to be of much benefit, they were less sure than the younger students of its impact on their academic performance: raising their grades, doing better at school, talking to teachers more, and simply wanting to attend school. At the same time, a little less than three quarters of students said that participation in the center had helped them understand the importance of graduating from high school, a very positive impact of the program. 2P CCLC Technical Report 7COMPLIANCE REMEDY QUESTIONS Teacher and Administrator Involvement The evaluation involved 6 LRSD schools that were implementing the 2L CCLC Program. At each of these schools, the site coordinator of the program as well as the principal was interviewed. Survey instruments were also distributed to all faculty at each of the schools, those who were involved with the 2L CCLC and those who were not. Recommended Program Modifications The 2L CCLC program was generally praised by teachers, faculty, parents, and students in the study as a valuable supplement to the schools. There may be important benefits of the program beyond the overtly measurable outcomes. As discussed above, 2U CCLC program participants reap the rewards of a safe learning environment during the afterschool hours, the knowledge that teachers and administrators care enough about their progress to expend time and effort on their behalf, and the many extracurricular and enrichment activities probably not otherwise available to them. At the same time, statistical analysis of standardized test scores conducted by CREP did not show a correlation between improved achievements in math and literacy and student participation in the program. Possible program modifications that might produce better gains in achievement scores are described below: 1. 2. 3. 4. Staff and administrators consistently identified low student attendance as a key problem, and attendance records confirm that, with the exception of Woodruff Elementary and Southwest Middle School, the average 2P CCLC participant is attending the program only sporadically. Site coordinators and school administrators should focus on effective ways of encouraging students to attend more frequently and regularly. Possible options include (1) providing incentives or rewards for good attendance and (2) the addition of more enrichment activities, such as arts or drama-oriented events, in order to gamer more student interest, as well as parental involvement. Closer attention should be paid by 2L CCLC site coordinators to the mandated attendance record-keeping, so that during the evaluation process more accurate and specific assessments can be developed regarding the impacts of the program on student achievement scores and other domains. Greater efforts should be made to identify those students who are consistently working below proficiency levels and encourage them to attend the 2P CCLC program as much as possible. Interviews with staff indicated that primarily mid-range students and those who didnt need the extra help constituted the majority of participants. Especially at the high schools, school staff felt that the 2L CCLC provided such crucial academic assistance to the many students who needed it that it should not be voluntary but in fact compulsory. At the same time, both the qualitative and quantitative data collected for this report indicate that the 2P CCLC program is most effectively implemented at the elementary and middle school levels\n85% of 21 CCLC participants 21^ CCLC Technical Report 8in grades 6-12 survey were in the 6* through 9* grades. Correspondingly, mandatory attendance might be most practical and feasible for high school freshmen only, assuming compliance measures were acceptable to relevant stakeholders. 5. Staff at the study schools had a fairly high degree of success in eliciting community involvement in their 21 CCLC program. However, they had little luck in involving the parents of participants in center activities. Site coordinators might explore innovative tactics, such as offering continuing education courses in skills or career development, to involve more parents in their 21 CCLC program. 6. Implementation of a self-evaluation by each of the schools receiving a 21 CCLC grant may be a good way for individual schools to pinpoint specific areas for improvement and develop workable solutions for addressing problem areas. CREP recommends that the LRSD consider partnerships with local universities to institute a structured evaluation component for each school in the district receiving a 21 CCLC grant. Expectations of Program Modifications The 21 CCLC holds promise for addressing the gaps in the academic achievement of African American students, even if the statistical analysis revealed no relationship between participation and attendance of the program and standardized test scores. As noted by teachers and staff at the study schools, there are social and psychological benefits of program participation which may be as equally valuable as test outcomes. CREP believes that if the recommendations outlined above are followed, 21 CCLC program staff can expect 1. Progressive gains in all participants scores on standardized literacy and mathematics tests, but particularly those students working at or below proficiency levels and who have been attending the afterschool program regularly. 2. Higher rates of attendance by participants in the middle and high schools, or at least higher proportions of those who, following Federal guidelines, would be considered substantially served. If participation by high school freshmen were rendered mandatory, school staff might see gains in math and literacy in this cohort which are extended through subsequent years of these students secondary school education, as well as (given the socialization function of the 21 CCLC program in the first year of high school) improved high school graduation rates. 3. Greater parental involvement in the 21 CCLC programs, with potentially the positive outcomes associated with such engagement. Further, the initiation of continuing education courses specifically for parents would have multiple educational and prosocial benefits, not the least of which would include additional reinforcement of the value of education for their children. 4. Improved program implementation in the study schools via the incorporation of a selfevaluation component. 21 CCLC Technical Report 9LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2C CCLC Community Learning Centers Evaluation TECHNICAL REPORT Introduction This report summarizes the results of an evaluation of the 2005-06 Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) 2P' Century Community Learning Centers (2P' CCLC). The overall purpose of the evaluation was threefold: (1) to assess the effects of the 2P CCLC on raising the academic achievement of African Americans, (2) to examine implementation of the 2P CCLC program in the study schools, and (3) to document the perceptions of students, teachers. principals, and school staff regarding the 2P CCLC program. st This evaluation study examined the following 6 schools who were implementing a 21 CCLC program in LRSD\nWoodruff Elementary\n-Henderson, Southwest, and Mabelvale Magnet Middle Schools\nand Hall and McClellan High Schools. Mabelvale was selected as the case study school. More detailed descriptions of the 2P CCLC program at each study school can be found in Table 1. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The 21* CCLC evaluation was structured around one overarching, primary question concerning the impact of the program on student achievement. Four supplemental questions addressed contextual factors related to the implementation of the 21* CCLC program. 21* CCLC Technical Report 10Table 1. Description of 21 CCLC Program Components at the Six Study Schools School Woodruff Elementary Henderson Middle Southwest Middle Mabelvale Middle Hall High McClellan High ______________Description of 2L CCLC Program______________  Before and afterschool, on Saturdays, and during intersessions (Woodruff is a year-round school)  Visual and performing arts enrichment  Cultural activities and educational and recreational field trips  Educational technology  Parent and family services____________________________________________  Before and afterschool\nsummer camp  Before school provides homework help, extended access to the library, and technology resources.  Tutoring Club afterschool designed to assist students academically  Enrichment opportunities are coordinated with community partners  Summer camp focuses on mathematics, literacy and science, with technology a strong component____________________________________________  Afterschool, Saturday Sojourns  Focus on improving standardized test scores in literacy and math  Homework Club  Community partnerships for cultural enrichment activities  Parent and family services____________________________________________  Before and afterschool program\nsummer camp  Homework Club before school provides homework assistance and extended library hours  Tutoring Club afterschool offers computer-based programs and personalized instruction for algebra preparation and literacy development  Enrichment Club provides extended learning opportunities relating to magnet programs of Environmental Science, Medical Studies, and Technology . Summer camp focuses on mathematics and literacy, primarily through the use of technology  Parent programs and family services____________________________________  Before and afterschool\nSaturdays\nsummer camp  Drug and violence prevention program and a youth development component emphasizing counseling, service learning, mentoring, and employment opportunities . Summer camp offers a six-week Algebra 1 program and a two-week transition program for students entering 9* grade  Arts enrichment  Parent/family sessions_______________________________________________  Before and afterschool\nSaturdays\nsummer camp  Drug and violence prevention program and a youth development component emphasizing counseling, service learning, mentoring, and employment opportunities  Summer camp offers a six-week Algebra 1 program and a two-week transition program for students entering 9' grade  Arts enrichment  Parent/family sessions 2P CCLC Technical Report 11Primary Evaluation Question'. 1. Have the 2P Century Community Learning Center (2L' CCLC) programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 2. What is the nature and level of implementation of the 2P CCLC programs? 3. What is the level of participation in 2L CCLCs by African American students? 4. What are the perceptions of teachers and school administrators regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians and students of program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? EVALUATION DESIGN AND MEASURES Participants LRSD identified 6 schools with a 2L CCLC program to participate in the evaluation: 1 elementary school, 3 middle schools, and 2 high schools. Collectively, the schools enrolled approximately 4,400 students and employed approximately 340 classroom teachers. Over 84% of the overall student enrollment was African American. LRSD data indicated a total of 859 students registered for the program (see Table 2). Table 2. Demographics of the 21 st CCLC Schools in the Study School Name Elementary School Woodruff Elementary Middle Schools Mabelvale Middle School Southwest Middle School Henderson Middle School High Schools Hall High School McClellan High School Grade Level Percentage of African American Students* Number of 21 * CCLC registrants K-5 6-8 6-8 6-8 9-12 9-12 89% 74% 96% 80% 73% 93% Total 55 260 167 107 6 264 859 * Common Core of Data, 2006 2L' CCLC Technical Report 12Design The evaluation was conducted during the spring of 2006. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from the 6 participating schools using survey instruments and established research procedures (Ross, Smith, Alberg, \u0026amp; Lowther, 2004) (see Table 3). Table 3. Summary of Instruments, Participants, and Data Sources by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Primary Question Have the 21 Century Community Learning Center (21  CCLC) programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? Supplemental Questions What is the nature and level of implementation of the 21 CCLC programs? What is the level of participation in 21 CCLCs by African American students? What are the perceptions of teachers and school administrators regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of parents/guardians and students of program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Participants Data Sources  Students participating in 21 CCLC programs in 6 LRSD schools  Control group matched to participating students  21  CCLC Program/School administrators  21 CCLC Teachers  21 CCLC Students 21 CCLC Students  21 CCLC Teachers  21 CCLC Program/School Administrators Parents of 21 CCLC students 21 CCLC Students ITBS and Arkansas Benchmark Reading and Math Subtests  Principal Interviews (phone and on site)  Site Coordinator Interviews (phone and on site)  Teacher Survey (administered at faculty meetings)  Student Survey  Student Focus Group (case study)  21  CCLC Observations (case study)  School records/participation rosters  21  CCLC Observations (case study)  Teacher Survey (administered at faculty meetings)  Principal Interviews (phone and on site)  Site Coordinator Interviews (phone and on site)_______________  Parent Survey  Student Survey  Student Focus Group (case study) Quantitative analyses examined district test scores to determine the effect of the 21 CCLC on African American students academic achievement. In order to identify the level and quality of program implementation, the quantitative results of surveys distributed to teachers, parents, and 21 CCLC Technical Report 13student participants were descriptively analyzed. Qualitative analyses were conducted on information gained during staff interviews conducted at the 6 study schools. The evaluation design also included a case study of an individual school, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School. The case study approach was selected so that a comprehensive understanding of that instance obtained by extensive description and analysis taken as a whole and in its context (GAO, 1990) would provide richer contextual detail regarding the implementation of the community learning center concept. Researchers employed a triangulated method, which entailed multiple classroom observations and a focus group in addition to the surveys and staff interviews. The one school chosen for the case study was regarded by district personnel as having an exemplary 2P CCLC program. EVALUATION INSTRUMENTATION Five strategies were used to collect evaluation data from all 6 schools\nteacher. parent/guardian, and student surveys\nstaff interviews\nand assessment of student achievement scores. In addition, direct classroom observations and a focus group were conducted at the case study school, Mabelvale. Copies of the instruments can be found in Appendix A. Teacher, Parent/guardian, and Student Surveys Teacher survey. The 21' Century Community Learning Center Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ) was used to collect teacher knowledge of and perceptions about the 21' CCLC program as it operated at their school. The first section of the survey asked teachers to identify whether they were part of the 21' CCLC program at their school. The second section asked them for their opinion of the program by rating their level of agreement with 5 general 21' CCLC Technical Report 14statements, using a 5-item Likert-type scale that ranged from Strongly Agree/Agree/ Neutral/Disagree/Strongly Disagree. The third section of the CCLCTQ section asked teachers to assess how many students had been impacted by the program in a variety of areas, including academic performance, classroom and school behavior, interpersonal and social development. and computer literacy, using a 5-item Likert-type scale that ranged from Almost all of them/Many of them/Some of them/A few of them to Almost none of them. The final section asked teachers to list the strengths of the program and ways it might be improved. (See the example of the teacher survey in Appendix A.) Parent/guardian survey. The 2L Century Community Learning Center Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ) instrument was designed to capture perceptions of parents or guardians regarding their child or childrens participation in the 2L CCLC program. The first section of the instrument asked parents or guardians to identify their child/rens ethnic group. The second section asked respondents to indicate which (if any) clubs or activities affiliated with the 2P CCLC their child/ren participated in (Yes/No/Dont Know). The list of possible programs (e.g.. Enrichment, Tutoring, Saturday program. Summer Camp) was compiled from the schools grant applications, which described the various activities implemented at the schools. The third section of the CCLCPQ asked parents opinion of the program by rating their level of agreement (5-item Likert-type scale that ranged from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree) with a list of 6 statements. The fourth section asked respondents to indicate their agreement with any of 8 general statements describing the programs potential impact on their child/rens views about school, schoolwork, and interpersonal and social behavior. The final section asked parents to list the strengths of the program and ways it might be improved. (See the example of the parent/guardian survey in Appendix A.) 21* CCLC Technical Report 15Student surveys. The 21' Century Community Learning Center Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) was used to gauge student perceptions about the 21 CCLC program activities at their school. Because the evaluation assessed students in elementary, middle, and high schools. different surveys were developed for each of three grade cohorts: K-2, 3-5, and 6-12. (See the examples of these surveys in Appendix A.) All students were asked to identify their grade. gender, and ethnic group membership\nthe wording of these questions was altered to fit the age level of the respondent. The K-2 instrument. This questioimaire contained fewer items (12) and used more simple language than the other student surveys. Students were asked to fill in the appropriate 3- st point Likert bubble (Agree/Dont Know/Disagree) regarding statements about aspects of the 21 CCLC program at their school. To aid the children in understanding the 3 options, the instrument contained small face icons, e.g., a smiley face next to Agree, a nonsmiling face next to Dont Know, and a frowning face next to Disagree. Teachers were also instructed to read the statements out loud as necessary, and they were advised that they might also explain the question about ethnicity. (See the sample survey found in Appendix A.) The 3-5 and 6-12 instruments. These two versions were the same except for the initial questions about gender and grade (see the sample surveys found in Appendix A). The first section asked students to indicate (Yes/No) whether they participated in clubs or activities affiliated with the 21* CCLC, such as Enrichment, Saturday program, or Summer Camp. The next section asked students to rate their level of agreement with 9 statements about the program. using a 5-point Likert-type scale (Strongly Agree/Agree/Neutral/Disagree/Strongly Disagree). The final section asked students to complete a set of statements assessing the programs impact 21' CCLC Technical Report 16on their views about school, schoolwork, and interpersonal and social behavior, using a 4-point Likert-type scale (A great deal/Somewhat/A little/Not at all). Interviews An interview protocol was developed for both the site coordinators and principals of all 6 schools in the study. Six of the interviews were conducted in person onsite, and six via telephone. Some of the protocol was designed to gather basic information from staff, such as questions about their role in the operation of the 2L CCLC program\nwhom the program serves\nand the types of approaches and scheduling used (e.g., meeting times. Homework or Enrichment Club, Saturday program. Summer Camp). Most of the protocol required staff to elaborate on the specific implementation of the 21' CCLC at their school: the programs primary purpose. recruiting and retention rates, typical participant, school and parental support, community partnerships, and strengths and weaknesses. At the conclusion of the interview, staff were asked to contribute any additional comments. Classroom Observation Tool The Classroom Observation Tool was custom-designed to document the processes and practices evident in the 21' CCLC classrooms in the case study school. The instrument was used to record contextual data (e.g., number of students observed participating in the afterschool program, number by ethnicity, number of teachers, number of parents) and the type of activities and materials in use. Data were also recorded regarding student involvement or engagement in the activities, how well the period observed represented a learning center. While this tool guided the observations in ensuring key data were observed, qualitative field notes were also to be used as part of the data collection process. 21' CCLC Technical Report 17Student Focus Group The student focus group protocol was used to document student impressions regarding 21 CCLC program activities\nthe usefulness and effectiveness of the program\nsatisfaction with the range of activities offered\nand strengths and areas for improvement. At the conclusion of the focus group, students were asked to contribute any additional comments. The focus group protocol was designed for use in the case study school. Student Achievement CREP used scores from the following standardized achievement tests to examine the effect of the 2L CCLC program on African American students learning\n(1) Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS, 2002), and (2) Arkansas Benchmark Exams (Arkansas Benchmark Exams, 2005). PROCEDURE The ten data collection measures are summarized in Table 4 by type of measure. instrument, number completed, and the data collection procedure. Surveys. There were three types of survey instruments: the 2L* CCLC Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ), the 2L' CCLC Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ), and 21 CCLC Student Questionnaire (subdivided into K-2, 3-5, and 6-12). In March 2006, packets containing instruments, instructions, and return envelopes were sent to the site coordinators at each study school, who administered and then collected all instruments for return via mail to the evaluator. The site coordinator distributed the teacher questionnaires at the faculty meeting\nprovided each student participating in the 2L CCLC program with a parent/guardian questionnaire (enclosed in envelopes with an instruction label)\nand administered the student questioimaires to program 2L CCLC Technical Report 18participants. In some instances, researchers picked up completed instruments at the school itself. All three surveys were received from each site, with one exception: parent surveys were not received from Southwest Middle School. Interviews. The 2P CCLC site coordinator and the principal at each study school were interviewed, either via telephone or in person on site, using a standard interview protocol. The site coordinator interviews usually took about 45 minutes and the principal interviews about 30 minutes. Each interview was audiotaped and then a detailed transcription made that incorporated both interview notes and the audiotape version. Twelve interviews were completed and transcribed by May 2006. Table 4. Data Collection Summary Type of Measure Instruments Number Completed Data Collection Procedure Surveys 1) 21st Century Community Learning Center Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ) 187 Administered during faculty meetings at each of the 6 study schools Interviews Classroom Observations Student Focus Group Student Achievement Analysis 2) 21st Century Community Learning Center Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ) 3) 21st Century Community Learning Center Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) 1) Site Coordinator Inten/iew Protocol 2) Principal Interview Protocol Site Classroom Observation Tool Student Focus Group Protocol 1) ITBS 2) Arkansas Benchmark Exams 82 270 (30 K-2,20 3- 5,220 6-12) Distributed by site coordinators at all 6 study schools. Surveys were returned to the schools by the parent/guardian and then mailed to the evaluator. Distributed to all students participating in the 2V CCLC at all 6 of the study schools. There were 3 different surveys developed for grade cohorts: K-2,3-5, and 6-12. Researchers individually interviewed site coordinators and principals at all 6 of the study schools\nthe inten/iews lasted between 30 and 45 minutes One morning and two afternoon sessions were observed at the case study school, Mabelvale Middle School. Additional visits were scheduled but canceled by the site coordinator 1 focus group conducted at the case study school, Mabelvale Middle School: 6 students (3 in the 6*', 2 in the 7** grade, and 1 in the 8 grade) Analyses of student achievement on the ITBS and the Arkansas Benchmark Exams were conducted to determine the impact of the 21  CCLC on the academic achievement of African Americans 2P' CCLC Technical Report 19 6 6 3 1Classroom Observations. There were three observations (two in the afternoon and one in the morning) of 2P' CCLC classrooms in operation at the case study school, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School. The researcher prearranged these visits with the site coordinator. In the afternoon session, the researcher observed the activities of separate groups of 6*, 7*, and 8* graders, and in the morning session all grades were observed in one classroom. Student Focus Group. One focus group was conducted by the researcher at Mabelvale Magnet Middle School using a focus group protocol\nthere were 6 students, 3 in the 6*, 2 in the 7**, and 1 in the 8* grade. The students selected for the focus group were those for whom parental consent had been received. The discussion lasted approximately 30 minutes and took place in the site coordinators office. Achievement Tests. The results of two tests taken in April by LRSD students, the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) and the Arkansas Benchmark Exams, were forwarded to the evaluator for analysis. The ITBS scores arrived in July and the Benchmark scores in September. Researchers examined scores of those African Americans who participated in the 2P' CCLC program and matched them to control students within the same grade and school in order to discern the possible impact of the program on participants academic achievement. Researchers also compared the results of students who were enrolled in the program and substantially served to those who were enrolled but not substantially served. Substantially served was defined according to Federal guidance for such programs, based on program attendance of at least 30 days over the course of the year. RESULTS The results of the study are presented in the section below. In the Conclusion section, the findings are synthesized across instruments to address each research question. 21  CCLC Technical Report 20Survey Results This section contains the results of the 2P Century Community Center Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ), the 2L' Century Community Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ), and the 2L Century Community Student Questioimaire (CCLCSQ). 2r CCLC Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ) The CCLCTQ was completed by a total of 187 teachers working at the 6 schools implementing a 2L CCLC program, out of a possible 410 (the total number of teachers at all six schools), which represents a 46% response rate. Approximately 69% of the respondents were teachers at the school but not affiliated with aftercare program, and approximately 25% were st both teachers and involved with the program\nonly 1 respondent was employed only by the 21 CCLC program and not a faculty member at the school. Eleven did not respond to the question about their role in the program. The first section was used to gauge teacher perception of the 2P CCLC as it was implemented in their school. As shown in Table 5, two of the statements were rated very highly on the survey (as indicated by the combination of the categories Strongly Agree and Agree). A large majority strongly agreed or agreed that the CCLC offered students a safe place to be after school (91.4%) and that it offered academic help to students who needed it (88.2%). Two other statements were rated highly: almost three quarters (74.9%) strongly agreed or agreed with the statement that The CCLC program appeals to a wide variety of students and more than two thirds (66.8%) with the statement that The CCLC program offers students enough choice of activities. This last statement about the range of program activities elicited the highest percentage (9.6%) of respondents who strongly disagreed or disagreed, although the level of disagreement was still quite low. Respondents were more clearly ambivalent about the last 2L CCLC Technical Report 21statement, The CCLC program reaches student families\na little more than half (56.1 %) agreed or strongly agreed, with about a third (34.2%) responding neutral about their agreement with this statement. Table 5. 2V CCLC Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ) Results (all schools combined)\nImplementation Responses(%) Items The CCLC program offers students enough choice of activities. The CCLC program offers academic help to students who need it. The CCLC program offers students a safe place to be after school. The CCLC program appeals to a wide variety of students The CCLC program reaches Strongly Agree and Agree 66.8 88.2 91.4 74.9 56.1 Neutral 21.9 8.6 5.3 18.7 34.2 Disagree and Strongly Disagree 9.6 2.7 1.6 4.8 8.0 Mean (SD) 3.86(.99) 4.38(79) 4.52(.67) 4.08(88) students' families_______________________________________________________________________________ Notes. Percentages for responses may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents, n = 187 3 All items measured using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree\n5 = strongly agree 3.73(.95) The concluding section of the CCLCTQ asked teachers to assess the extent of the CCLC programs effect on student participants by indicating whether Almost all of them, Many of them, Some of them, or Almost none of them exhibited positive changes in a variety of academic, social, and technological domains. As shown in Table 6, teachers responses indicate that less than half of them think that the CCLC program is having a positive impact, as indicated by the combination of the Almost all of them and Many of them categories. For example, 47.6% of respondents agreed that almost all or many students in the program exhibited improved academic performance, and 39.6% thought that at least some were exhibiting improvement. Slightly more than two fifths (41.2%) of teachers said that almost all or many participants attendance had improved, with a similar proportion (43.9%) noting better attendance during the regular school day by some of the students. In addition, several teachers 2P CCLC Technical Report 22saw improved behaviors for 2P' CCLC participants in terms of how they related to classmates (38.5%) and teachers (40.6%) and how they behaved in class (36.3%) (see Table 6). Table 6. 21st CCLC Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ) Results (all schools combined): Impact How many students that you know who participate in the 2V CCLC program exhibit... Improved academic performance? Increased school attendance? Improvement in how they relate to classmates? Improvement in how they relate to teachers? Improvement in how they behave in class? Almost All of Them and Many of Them 47.6 41.2 38.5 40.6 36.3 Responses (%)\u0026gt; Some of Them 39.6 43.9 43.3 40.6 43.3 A Few of Them and Almost None of Them 9.6 11.8 13.3 15.0 16.5 Mean (SD)^ 3.50 (.90) 3.39 (.98) 3.33 (.99) 3.37(1.01) 3.25 (.98) Greater self-worth and self-esteem? Involvement in community services? Development as leaders? Greater awareness of health issues? Greater awareness of drug and violence issues? Improvement in computer skills/ 44.4 26.7 27.3 27.8 32.1 38.5 39.6 41.2 39.0 37.4 12.8 27.2 26.7 27.2 23.6 3.41 (.94) 2.93 (1.09) 2.98 (1.04) 2.98 (1.07) 3.10(1.04) 45.5 38.5 10.2 computer literacy?_______________________________________________________________ Note: Percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents, n = 187 All items measured using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = almost all of them, 5 = almost none of them. 3.49 (.94) Percentage response calculated after collapsing points. b In terms of students psychosocial lives, 44.4% of teachers responded that almost all or many 2L CCLC participants were exhibiting greater self-worth and self-esteem, and another 38.5% responded that some students were exhibiting improvements in this area. For other items. somewhat lower percentages and a wider distribution range were found. For example, while 41.2% of respondents observed that some students exhibited greater development as leaders. 17.6% said that only a few did so, and another 9.1 % said that none did so. Taken together. this means that more than a fourth (26.7%) of teachers thought that few or none of the program participants exhibited development as leaders. Further, while 39.0% of respondents said that 2L CCLC Technical Report 23some of the students were more aware of health issues as a result of participation, again well over a fourth (27.2%) of teachers said that few or almost none exhibited heightened awareness. In terms of students use of technology, however, almost half (45.4%) of teachers reported that almost all or many and nearly two fifths (38.5%) that some students showed improvements in computer literacy skills (see Table 6). The teachers also responded to 2 open-ended questions on the CCLCTQ which asked them to identity the strongest aspects of the 2P CCLC program as it operated at their school, as well as suggest areas for improvement. In the main, the tenor of the comments reflects the survey results shown in Tables 5 and 6, although there are some divergences. A full transcription of teacher comments to the open-ended questions can be found in Appendix B. A summary of these comments follows, presented in grade-level order (elementary school, middle school, high school). Elementary School Teacher Comments. At Woodruff Elementary School, the teachers who responded to the survey ( = 13) were quite positive about the program. One was effusive\n[The program] is a safe, vibrant place for students to grow. Two others commended the enrichment activities which form the core of Woodruffs 2P CCLC program, specifically mentioning the piano classes, chess club, and Tae Kwon Do as strengths. They also thought students extra time in the computer lab was helpful and mentioned the health and nutrition class as benefits. Another respondent liked how the program attended to the individual needs of the students, and one commended the leadership and organizational skills of the site director. Only one respondent out of the 7 from Woodruff who included comments noted an area for improvement: adding new activities each semester that will encourage and enhance thinking skills.' 55 2P CCLC Technical Report 24Middle School Teacher Comments. Faculty respondents who taught in the middle schools (Southwest [zi = 23], Henderson [n = 21], and Mabelvale [n =36]) were generally quite positive about and supportive of the program, in terms of its academic impact, student engagement, and teacher commitment. Many teachers commended the academic assistance provided to students who were benefiting from the reinforcement of skills and concepts taught during the regular school day. As one put it, the program provides valuable help for students who have potential to succeed but need additional support, and another noted that the program gives students some extra incentives to work harder in class. Several mentioned homework help and the assistance with core subjects, literacy and math, as well as test-taking skills as strengths. Two respondents observed that the program improved students grades. These responses to the open-ended questions are in accord with the surveys quantitative results about the programs provision of academic assistance and its effect on school performance (see Tables 5 and 6). Another common theme in middle school teacher responses was students enjoyment of the afterschool activities, which respondents thought enhanced participants desire to attend regularly and improve their skills. As one respondent offered anecdotally, when the announcement comes over the intercom No After School [today] there is a groan, because Kids St Love It! Some individuals commented on the level of commitment and involvement in the 21 CCLC program by the teachers at their school (e.g., very dedicated). Comments from these respondents indicate that not only were students benefiting academically from more individualized attention, they reaped the psychological rewards of knowing that teachers cared enough about their development and progress to work in the afterschool program. This is in accord with the response to the survey item concerning the programs impact on student 21 ** CCLC Technical Report 25 participants (see Table 6), which indicated that nearly 45% of faculty thought that almost all/many exhibited greater self-worth and self-esteem. As one respondent put it, the potential to positively influence students was seen as a real strength of the program. One aspect seen often in the middle-school teacher comments (also a common feature of the staff interviews) was that the 2P CCLC gives our students a safe place to stay after school, providing a secure environment in which to engage in CCLC activities and concentrate on their academic work, which may not have been available in students neighborhoods, and perhaps in their homes. One respondent phrased this more negatively: the CCLC gives the students a place to go after school instead of getting into trouble. Still, this acknowledges a very salient aspect of the CCLC program as it operated in the LRSD study schools, that greater oversight of students activities beyond the regular school day was seen as a potential benefit both academically and behaviorally. In terms of areas for improvement, two areas were by far most commonly cited by middle school respondents: expansion of the program entailing more student participation and attendance, and greater parental engagement. There were few specific suggestions for how to achieve higher attendance rates, but one suggested additional incentives or rewards for coming to afterschool' regularly. Several others opined that their schools program should include more of an enrichment component to encourage greater attendance, such as crafts, art. or PE component,' 95 44, more camp-like/social activities, or just a more educationally fun dimension. Conversely, some teachers felt there should be more homework time, a greater focus on basic skills, or use of test scores to identify and focus on problem areas. Other respondents simply observed that a greater variety of activities with more flexible scheduling would improve the 2V CCLC at their school, which reflects the quantitative survey result * Afterschool was the term commonly used by respondents to refer to the 2L' CCLC program 21^ CCLC Technical Report 26indicating less satisfaction with the choice of activities (see Table 5). No respondent had a concrete suggestion for how to improve parental involvement\nagain, the quantitative survey results confirm that the program has had only measured success in reaching students families (see Table 5). High School Teacher Comments. The comments of those high school faculty who returned the questiormaires (at Hall [n = 36] and McClellan (n = 58]) to the open-ended questions on the CCLCTQ were generally close to those expressed by the middle school teachers, although there was more frequent address of the CCLCs impact on students academic achievement. The following are sample responses: Students are provided with a place in which they can improve their skills and grades to succeed academically. Students who take advantage of this service almost always do better in class and on tests. The strengths of the tutoring program are offering help to students who are behind academically, access to computers, and individual help with assignments. I think that this program has helped many borderline students to become academically successful. Reinforces classroom teaching in an alternative setting. Addresses a need for No Student Left Behind. Helps guide our students toward proficiency. Provides a vital service to students needing help with academics. CCLC Technical Report 27The central importance of the CCLC to the performance of students at Hall and McClellan is indicated by the last comment, and these others: should be mandatory for students who are failing, and if students with low academic performance could be required to attend the tutoring program, it would greatly benefit our students and our school. Other respondents cited as strengths of the program the 2L CCLC faculty and staff\nits convenience and accessibility (on-site location)\navailability before and after school\nand, like the middle school teachers, the provision of a safe environment for students, although all of these were noted less often than the academic benefit of the program. In terms of improvement, again greater student and parental involvement was cited, and at one school (McClellan) more instructors (especially in science and foreign languages) to teach in the program. 21 CCLC Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ) St The CCLCPQ was completed by 82 parents (or guardians) of participants in the 21 CCLC program. The number is especially low because (1) parent surveys were not returned by Southwest Middle School and (2) only 1 parent returned a survey to Hall High School. Thus, the parental response rate can be estimated as just under 10% (9.55%), assuming a total possible 859 responses from one parent of the 859 students who, according to district enrollment data, were registered in the program. Thirty-three were parents of elementary school students, 22 were parents of middle school students, and 27 were parents of high school students. With the low response rate (9.55%) to the parent survey, its findings are to be regarded with caution, as they may not be entirely representative of the perceptions of parents of children participating in the program. The first section of the questionnaire was primarily devoted to gathering basic information about their child/rens activities in the program, such as whether they belonged to a 21 CCLC Technical Report 28 particular afterschool club, attended a Saturday program, or would participate in the Summer Camp. Parents responses indicated that more students were involved in academic groups such as the Homework Club (54.9%) and the Tutoring Club (62.2%) than in the Enrichment Club (39.0%), and that the typical 2P CCLC student in the study schools attended the program after school, during the week. Participation in before-school, Saturday program, and Summer Camp was low (approximately 10%, 2%, and 7%, respectively), a result that accords with information provided by 21** CCLC staff during interviews. In the first section, respondents were also asked if they had attended any of the 21** CCLCs programs for parents. While almost two thirds (64.6%) said that they had, this does not accord with staff interviews. Site coordinators and principals frequently commented on the lack of parental engagement and involvement, which sometimes resulted in discontinuing such activities. Given the low response rate to the parent survey, the picture of parental involvement drawn from other data sources may be the more accurate. The first section concluded with a question asking parents to identify which ethnic group they belonged to. The largest proportion of respondents (86.6%) identified their ethnic group as African American\n7.3% as Caucasian American\n1.2% as Hispanic American\nand 1.2% as other. No respondent was identified as either Native American or Asian American. The second and third sections of the CCLCPQ were designed to elicit parents perceptions of the 21** CCLC as it was being implemented at their child/rens school and gamer a sense of how participation may have helped students academically and psychosocially. As shown in Table 1, the majority of parents responded very positively to the Centers programs and its impact on their children. They indicated a high level of agreement with all statements on the survey (as indicated by the combination of the categories Strongly Agree and Agree): that the 21** CCLC Technical Report 29Center was a safe place for their children to be (90.2%), that they would sign their child up again (90.2%), and that overall they were pleased with the CCLC at their school (89.0%). Two other statements were rated almost as highly: 85.4% strongly agreed or agreed that My childs Community Learning Center has good programs and that I would encourage other children at my childs school to join the Center. More than three quarters (80.5%) agreed with the statement that My child has enough different activities to choose from the Centers programs. The third section of the CCLCPQ asked parents to indicate the impact of the CCLC program on student participants in academic and social areas. Respondents clearly thought that the CCLC program is having a positive impact on academic performance, as more than three quarters (79.3%) responded that participation had helped their child get better grades. Table 7. 21 st CCLC Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ) Results Responses(%) Items My child's school Community Learning Center has good programs My child has enough different activities to choose from the Centers programs I feel my child is safe in the afterschool program I would sign my child up again for the program I would encourage other children at my childs school to join the Center Overall, I am pleased with the Strongly Agree And Agree 85.4 80.5 90.2 90.2 85.4 89.0 Neutral 9.8 13.4 4.9 7.3 12.2 8.5 Disagree and Strongly Disagree 0.0% Mean (SD) 4.58(.67) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Community Learning Center_______________________________________________________ Note. Percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents, n = 82  All items measured using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree\n5 = strongly agree 4.39(.72) 4.56(.59) 4.58(.63) 4.44(.7O) 4.55(.65) More than half of parent respondents indicated a positive impact of the program in other areas. For example, when asked to select all those ways in which they felt participation in the 2L CCLC had positively impacted their child/ren, 57.3% responded that that he/she felt better 21 CCLC Technical Report 30about her/himself\n56.1% that their child better understood the importance of graduating from high school\nand 54.9% that their child worked better with other students as a result of the program. A little less than half (48.8%) of respondents thought that participation had helped their child to talk more to their teachers, and 41.5% said it helped him or her to like school more. However, considerably fewer parents thought that participation in the program had helped their child behave better at school (32.9%) and come to school more often (23.2%). The CCLCPQ also asked parent'guardians to respond to 2 open-ended questions which asked them to identify the strongest aspects of the 2P CCLC program as it operated at their school, as well as suggest areas for improvement. A full transcription of these comments can be found in Appendix C. A summary of these comments follows, presented in grade-level order (elementary school, middle school, high school). Comments by Parents of Elementary School Children. The survey responses indicate that responding parents {n = 33) of children attending the 2L CCLC at Woodruff are generally satisfied with the program. Many identified additional help with homework as the best thing about the program. Like the teacher respondents, several parents liked its safe and secure environment, and one said that the program makes [students] do positive things that keep them out of trouble. Others mentioned the enrichment activities and field trips as the best aspect of the 2L' CCLC at Woodruff, with some commending the computer, chess, Tae Kwon Do, keyboard/piano, and exercise and nutrition classes in particular. In the program, noted one parent, students get to experience things and learn about things they wouldnt [otherwise] get a chance to do. Another parent praised the CCLC staff as very helpful and passionate about their work. They work closely with the student as well as with the parents in order to improve St the students work habits and learning abilities. Not all parents were pleased with the 21 2L CCLC Technical Report 31CCLC staff, however\nin response to the question concerning areas for improvement, one respondent cited the after school workers and another wished that the teachers/caregivers [were] more patient. One respondent asked for more positive reinforcing. In terms of the activities offered, one parent asked for more variety, another felt more math was warranted. St and two others would have preferred more field trips. Finally, one respondent hoped that the 21 CCLC would receive money to keep the program going and alive. So many programs start and stop even though it is working for kids and really makes a difference. Comments by Parents of Middle School Children. The following summary is based on parent responses from Henderson (n = 9) and Mabelvale ( = 13)\nSouthwest did not return parent surveys to the researchers. In general, the parents of middle school children attending the 2P CCLC were positive about the program, although they did not seem as familiar with its activities as did the parents of elementary school children. Several respondents focused on the academic help offered by the 2P CCLC at their childs school, citing assistance with homework and getting better grades, more exposure to math and science, and improvement of students 'overall learning skills as strengths. Some parents praised the interaction between the teachers and students and the individualized attention students received, which was facilitated by the smaller groups attending the various afterschool activities. There were few recommendations for improvement from the parents of middle school students in the 2L CCLC, other than more structure and one on one tutoring. However, one parent felt that the various components of the 2L CCLC program at their childs school were not sufficiently publicized: I didnt know anything about any clubs, summer camp, or programs for parents. Comments by Parents of High School Children. Only one parent survey was returned by Hall High School, so the following summary largely reflects the responses of parental 2CCLC Technical Report 32 responses returned by McClellan High School (n = 26). Like the elementary and middle-school survey responses, parents of high schoolers attending the 2P CCLC were quite supportive of the program. Most respondents praised the academic assistance it provided their children: responses commonly referred to the help with homework and specific subjects like algebra, the improvement of grades, and the individualized work with teachers. Several commended the teaching staff, the way the teachers stay late just to work with my children. Once more, a number of parents mentioned the safety and security issue\nfor example, one parent liked the fact that the 2L CCLC provided children [with] an environment they can work efficiently in. The social and psychological benefits of the program (a theme seen also in the teacher survey comments) were praised by these parents, who commended the staffs concern for and reaching out to help their children not just to do better in school but to affect how they view the long-term benefits of education. For example, one parent described the best thing about the 2L CCLC this way: My child realizes how important his grades are to be able to graduate and have a good life, better job and go to college. The 2L CCLC program, commented another parent, gives the children a future when they think no one cares. In terms of areas of improvement, the parents of high schoolers had few recommendations. One parent mentioned greater variety of classes (especially more science and algebra), more staff for different subjects. and longer hours, but in general these respondents were quite happy with the 2L CCLC at their childs school. 2r CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCPQ) A total of 270 surveys were completed by 2L CCLC participants in the 6 study schools: Woodruff Elementary (n = 50, with 30 K2 surveys and 20 3-5 surveys), Mabelvale 2L' CCLC Technical Report 33Magnet Middle School (n = 56), Southwest Middle School ( = 58), Henderson Middle School (n = 26), Hall High School {n = 26), and McClellan High School {n = 54). This represents an overall 31% response rate, based on district information reporting that 859 students were registered for the program. A summary of the quantitative survey results, subdivided by grade level (K-2, 3-5, and 6-12), is presented below. Kindergarten Through 2^ Grade. All 30 respondents to the K-2 survey (see Appendix A) attended the only elementary school in the study. Woodruff. Two questions were designed to collect demographic data: grade (4 were kindergarteners, 6 in the 1* grade, and 20 in the 2\"** grade)\ngender (12 were boys, 15 were girls, with 3 not responding)\nand ethnic group membership (26 were African American, 1 Asian American, 1 Caucasian American, and 1 Native American, with one not responding). One question asked if they would attend Summer Camp (19 Yes, 11 No). The majority of the survey asked respondents to mark bubbles labeled Agree/Dont Know/Disagree in regard to a set of 12 statements, simplified to match the reading comprehension level of the younger student. As indicated by a high level of agreement with all statements on the survey (see Table 8), these children appear to be enjoying and benefiting from the 21* CCLC activities. A discussion of each of the survey items follows. The afterschool teachers and staff are strong features of the program at the elementary school (Woodruff): a large majority of students (93.3%) Agreed with the statement I like the teachers who work with me and the statement Teachers give me help when 1 ask for it. In addition, more than three quarters (76.7%) agreed with the statement Teachers and other grownups in the program make me feel good. A majority of respondents liked the CCLC program (80.0%) and the range of activities offered (83.3%). More than three quarters (76.7%) 21* CCLC Technical Report 34agreed that I would sign up for the program next year and I think other kids should join the community learning program. Table 8. 2V CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades K-2 Items 1 like the CCLC programs I can choose from different activities I like the teachers who work with me Teachers give me help when I ask for it I feel safe in this program Teachers and other grownups in the program make me feel good I would sign up for the program next year I think other kids should join the community learning program The program has helped me to like school more The program has helped me to do better in school The program has helped me to behave better at school The program has helped me to feel better about Agree 80.0 83.3 93.3 93.3 76.7 76.7 76.7 76.7 63.3 63.3 76.7 86.7 Responses (%) Dont Know 6.7 16.7 6.7 6.7 23.3 16.7 13.3 16.7 26.7 26.7 16.7 6.7 Disagree 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 Mean (SD) 2.67(71) 2.83(.37) 2.93(.25) 2.93{.25) 2.77(.43) 2.70(.59) 6.7 3.3 10.0 10.0 6.7 6.7 myself__________________________________________________________________________ Note. Percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents, n = 30 a All items measured using a 3-point Likert scale: 1 = disagree, 2 = don't know, 3 = agree 2.72{.59) 2.76{.51) 2.53(.68) 2.70(.59) 2.80(.55) 2.70(.59) The afterschool teachers and staff are strong features of the program at the elementary school (Woodruff): a large majority of students (93.3%) Agreed with the statement 1 like the teachers who work with me and the statement Teachers give me help when I ask for it. In addition, more than three quarters (76.7%) agreed with the statement Teachers and other grownups in the program make me feel good. A majority of respondents liked the CCLC program (80.0%) and the range of activities offered (83.3%). More than three quarters (76.7%) agreed that I would sign up for the program next year and I think other kids should join the community learning program. The safety and security issue was also broached in these quantitative results: more than three quarters (76.7%) agreed that 1 feel safe in this program and The program has helped me behave better at school. And again, participation in the 2L CCLC appears to have a positive impact on students self-image, as 86.7% agreed that The program has made me feel better 21 CCLC Technical Report 35about myself. On two items, The program has helped me to like school more and The program has helped me to do better in school, the K-2 students were somewhat more ambivalent\n63.3% of respondents agreed with these statements, but 26.7% responded Dont Know, and 10% Disagreed. However, these response rates still indicate that the 2P' CCLC is having a positive impact on how many elementary student participants regard school. Third Grade Through 5^ Grade. All 20 respondents to the 3-5 survey (see Appendix A) attended the one elementary school in the study. Woodruff. The first part of the survey was designed to gather demographic data: grade (6 were in the 3^* grade, 8 in the 4* grade, and 4 in the 5* grade, with 2 not responding)\ngender (13 were boys, 7 were girls)\nand ethnic group membership (17 were Afiican American, 2 Caucasian American, and 1 other). Next, students were asked 7 questions about their activities in the program, such as whether they belonged to a particular afterschool club, attended a Saturday program, or would participate in the Summer Camp after school was over. Reflecting the structure of the 21* CCLC at Woodruff, all students in this age cohort reported that they belonged to the Homework Club and nearly all (89.5%) reported that they belonged to the Enrichment Club, with one half reporting that they were also in the Tutoring Club. All students attended the program after school, and as there was no before school or Saturday program, none of the Woodruff respondents reported attending either of these. The main components of the 3-5 survey were designed to elicit students perceptions of the 21* CCLC as it was being implemented at their school and to provide a sense of how participation might be benefiting them academically and psychosocially (see Table 9). Like the K-2 cohort, these older elementary students felt that the afterschool teachers and staff were a strong feature of the program. A large majority (85.0%) of the respondents Strongly Agreed or 21* CCLC Technical Report 36Agreed with the statement that Teachers in the program give me help when I need it and 70.0% Strongly Agreed or Agreed that I like the teachers who work in the community learning center program. Almost two thirds (65.0%) Strongly Agreed or Agreed with the statement that Teachers and other adults in the program make me feel comfortable. Once again, the safety and security of the program is a prominent aspect of its appeal\nthree quarters of students reported that they felt safe in the program, and 70.0% liked the variety of activities from which to choose. Other responses from the 3-5 cohort suggest that these students are less satisfied with some aspects of the 2P CCLC at their school. Only a little more than half (55.0%) of respondents Strongly Agreed or Agreed with the statements 1 like the programs the community Table 9. 21 CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades 3-5: Implementation Responses(%) Items I like the programs the community learning center offers There are enough different activities from which to choose I like the teachers who work in the community learning center program Being in this program is better than other things I could be doing after school Teachers in the program give me help when I ask for it 1 feel safe in the after-school program Teachers and other adults in the program make me feel comfortable 1 would sign up again for the program I would tell other kids to sign up for the community learning center activities Strongly Agree And Agree 55.0 Neutral 15.0 Disagree and Strongly Disagree 30.0 Mean (SD) 3.60(1.5) 70.0 70.0 55.0 85.0 75.0 65.0 50.0 65.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 20.0 10.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 30.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 40.0 30.0 3.75(1.2) 3.70(1.3) 3.20(1.5) 4.35(.87) 3.75(1.3) 3.80(1.4) 3.10(1.4) 3.55(1.7) Note. Percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents, n = 20 a All items measured using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree 2L CCLC Technical Report 37learning center offers and Being in this program is better than other things I could be doing after school. In addition, only half (50.0%) of students would sign up for the program again, and 30.0% of students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the statement I would tell other kids to sign up for the community learning center activities. The final section of the 3-5 survey asked students to indicate the extent to which participating in the 2P CCLC program had helped their academic performance, relationship with teachers, and other issues related to school. As shown in Table 10, three quarters of these respondents felt that it had helped improve their grades, and 70.0% said that it had contributed to greater self-esteem. Almost two thirds (65.0%) responded that participation had helped them behave better at school and understand the importance of graduating from high school. Half said that they worked better with other students. Table 10. CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades 3-5: Impact Responses(%) The Center has helped me to... Like school more Come to school more often Gel better grades Behave belter at school Work belter with other students Feel better about myself Talk to my teachers more Understand the importance of A Great Deal 45.0 60.0 75.0 65.0 50.0 70.0 45.0 65.0 Somewhat 35.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 35.0 15.0 A Little 5.0 30.0 10.0 10.0 20.0 0.0 10.0 15.0 Not At All 15.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 Mean (SD) 3.10(1.0) 3.20 (1.0) 3.55 (.88) 3.35(1.0) 3.00(1.1) 3.40 (1.0) 3.15 (.98) 3.40 (.94) graduating from high school______________________________________________________ Note, Percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents, n = 20  All items measured using a 4-point Likert scale: 1 = not at all, 4 = a great deal The potentially positive impact of the 2P CCLC was less clear in two areas. When asked if they talked to teachers more, 45% responded A Great Deal and 35% Somewhat. Although there was some divergence on this issue, responses still indicate that a large proportion of the 3-5 respondents (80.0%) were interacting with teachers more than before. Survey results 21^ CCLC Technical Report 38also indicated that participation in the 2P CCLC appeared to have less impact on whether students liked school more, with 45.0% responding A Great Deal and 35% Somewhat. Despite this divergence, responses once again do indicate that a large segment of the 3-5 students (80.0%) felt that participation had helped them enjoy the learning process more than previously. Sixth Grade Through Grade. All 220 respondents to the 6-12 survey (see Appendix A) attended one of the middle or high schools in the study (Mabelvale [n = 56], Henderson [n = 26], Southwest [ = 58] Middle Schools, and Hall [n = 26] and McClellan [n = 54] High Schools). More students in the lower grades completed surveys than those in the higher grades: 85% were in the 6* through 9* grades, and the remainder in the 10* or 11* grades. No respondent was in the 12* grade. A little more than half (114) were male, 100 were female, and 6 did not specify gender. In terms of ethnic group membership, 82.3% of students identified themselves as African American, 4.1% as Native American, 1.8% as Caucasian American, 1.8% as Hispanic American, 3.2% as other, and 15 did not respond to the ethnicity question. Like the 3-5 students, the 6-12 students were asked about their activities in the program. such as whether they belonged to a particular afterschool club, attended a Saturday program, or would participate in the Summer Camp. Three quarters of students in this age cohort reported that they belonged to the Tutoring Club, and a little over a half reported that they belonged to the Homework Club (54.5%) and the Enrichment Club (52.7%). Nearly all (91.4%) students attended the program after school, with approximately a fifth (19.5%) attending the before school program (if available) at their school. Large proportions reported not attending either the Saturday program (87.7%) or the Summer Camp (78.6%). 2CCLC Technical Report 39The major part of the 6-12 survey sought to elicit student perceptions of the 21* CCLC as it was being implemented at their school and to provide a sense of how participation might be benefiting them academically and psychosocially. The highest percentage of students who Strongly Agreed or Agreed was found for the statement Teachers in the program give me help when 1 ask for it (77.7%), a result similar to that seen in the K-2 and 3-5 surveys. High percentages for the combined categories Strongly Agree and Agree were also found for the other statements about teachers and staff: 1 like the teachers who work in the community learning center program (63.6%) and Teachers and other adults in the program make me feel comfortable (61.8%). Once again, the majority of students indicated that they felt safe in the after school program (75.0%), another result quite similar to that seen in the K-2 and 3-5 surveys. Overall, a large proportion of the 6-12 respondents (72.7%) liked the programs offered by the 21* CCLC at their school (see Table 11). Approximately two thirds (67.7%) would sign Table 11. 2V\u0026lt; CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades 6-12 (middle and high school responses combined): Implementation Items I like the programs the community learning center offers There are enough different activities from which to choose I like the teachers who work in the community learning center program Being in this program is better than other things I could be doing after school Teachers in the program give me help when I ask tor it I feel safe in the afterschool program Teachers and other adults in the program make me feel comfortable I would sign up again for the program Strongly Agree And Agree 72.7 61.8 63.6 47.3 77.7 75.0 61.8 67.7 Responses(%) Neutral 21.8 24.1 24.5 29.1 14.1 18.6 28.2 23.6 Disagree and Strongly Disagree Mean (SD)= 5.5 13.2 10.5 23.2 7.3 5.9 9.1 8.2 Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% because of missing input from some respondents, n = 220 3 All items measured using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree 3.94(.94) 3.72(1.05) 3.80(1.09) 3.39(1.29) 4.14(1.00) 4.08(.94) 3.77(1.00) 3.89(1.07) 21* CCLC Technical Report 40up again for the program while 62.3% would recommend the program to other kids. Nearly the same percentage (61.8%) Strongly Agreed or Agreed that there was enough variety in the programs offered by the 2P CCLC. Like the 3-5 cohort, students in the 6-12 group expressed less agreement with the statement that Being in this program is better than other things I could be doing after school, with less than a half (47.3%) agreeing. The last section of the 6-12 survey asked students to indicate the extent to which participating in the 21 CCLC program had improved their academic performance or relationship with teachers and students and other similar school-related areas (see Table 12). The most positive impact of the program was found in students response to whether the program had helped them understand the importance of graduating from high school: 70.0% said A great deal. In regard to other items, however, the 6-12 students were more ambivalent in their responses than the 3-5 students had been, although the results still indicate that this cohort St perceives the program to be of much benefit. When asked whether participation in the 21 CCLC had raised their grades, slightly less than half of these respondents (48.2%) responded A Great Deal and approximately a third (30.5%) responded Somewhat. Likewise, 46.4% responded A great deal and 25.5% Somewhat when asked whether the program made them want to attend school often, and 45.5% said it improved their self-esteem A great deal and 27.3% Somewhat. There was broader disagreement reported for three other items: only 39.1% felt that the program helped them A great deal to do better at school, 39.5% to work better with other students, 35.5% to talk to teachers more. And only a little more than a fourth (25.9%) of students thought that participation in the 2P CCLC made them like school more\nslightly more (37.3%) responded Somewhat to this item. 2P CCLC Technical Report 41Table 12. 2V\u0026lt; CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades 6-12 (middle and high school responses combined): Impact The Center has helped to... Like school more Come to school more often Get better grades Behave better al school Work better with other students Feel better about myself Talk to my teachers more Understand the importance of graduating from high school A Great Deal 25.9 46.4 48.2 39.1 39.5 45.5 35.5 70.0 Responses(%) Somewhat 37.3 25.5 30.5 26.4 32.3 27.3 27.7 16.4 A Little 25.0 13.6 15.5 19.5 20.0 15.0 25.5 7.3 Not At All 10.9 12.7 4.5 13.2 7.3 10.5 10.0 5.0 Mean (SD)^ 2.79(.95) 3.07(1.06) 3.24(.88) 2.93(1.06) 3.05(.94) 3.10(1.01) 2.90(1.00) 3.53(.83) Note. Percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents, n = 220  All items measured using a 4-point Likert scale: 1 = not at all, 4 = a great deal Interviews The interview results are presented in two sections: (1) interviews with the 6 site coordinators, those directly responsible for administering the implementation of the 2P CCLC program activities at their school, and (2) interview results from the 6 principals whose schools were selected for the study. The responses of both site coordinators and principals are summarized below. Site Coordinators The 6 site coordinators interviewed for this evaluation had a range of experience in directing the 2L CCLC program at their school\nin one case, the coordinator had been responsible for program oversight only since January 2006, and in another case the coordinator had been the first and only director since the inception of the program at that school 4 years ago. In general, however, the researcher found the site coordinators to be seasoned education professionals (a number of whom had had much administrative experience at their current school and elsewhere) who were also quite knowledgeable about the CCLC as it operated at their school. Some of the site coordinators were also teachers at the school or held other positions. 2L CCLC Technical Report 42such as Title I facilitator, technology or reading specialist, or dual enrollment program administrator. Responsibilities. All of the coordinators reported that they performed basic administrative tasks to ensure the smooth operation of the program: hiring and assigning teachers for appropriate subject areas\ndeciding upon a schedule of activities\nkeeping a variety of records (student attendance, instructor, payroll)\nordering and providing snacks\nand securing transportation at the end of the day. Some respondents also regularly monitor the classrooms in which activities are taking place and address complaints or discipline problems as they arise. Other respondents noted that they were responsible for promoting and publicizing the CCLC program around the school as well as in the community. Goals of the CCLC at Their School. Most of the coordinators responded that the primary goal of the program was to provide students who were struggling academically (sometimes in a number of areas) with a safe environment in which to improve their skills. Some specifically mentioned that the program targeted students who were not performing at the proficient or advanced level on standardized achievement tests. However, any student attending the school was eligible to participate, and on occasion students from other schools who lived near a study school would attend. One coordinator observed that since the CCLC was designed as a community based program, she welcomed participants from the neighborhood. Typical 2T CCLC Student. Most commonly, coordinators described the typical participant as a student working at below grade level who needed extra help, and often a child without a structured learning environment in the home. One coordinator noted that the program provided a vital diversion for those students who were getting into trouble a lot, although no respondent characterized the CCLC as a haven for those with discipline problems. At the same 2 P' CCLC Technical Report 43 time, some respondents said that proficient or advanced students, particularly those who were self-motivated, would attend the CCLC as a secure and safe place to expand their skills and have ready access to technology (e.g., computer and printer) that may not have been available at home. At one school, such students would act as peer tutors, assisting their classmates in various academic areas. None of the site coordinators reported any significant differences in participation by students of various ethnicities in any of the 2P CCLC activities. Most said that they had observed approximately the same demographic makeup in the afterschool program as was evident in the school as a whole (predominantly Afiican American\nsee Table 1). Two coordinators noted that there had been some problems recruiting and retaining Hispanic students. which they attributed to language difficulties (nonnative English speakers) and also to heightened parental concern about their child being out after dark. In terms of gender, about half of the site coordinators felt that more females than males were attending afterschool, but the other half had observed no majority of girls. Student Recruitment and Retention. The site coordinators described a variety of ways of encouraging participation in the 21 CCLC at their school. Nearly all developed some sort of flyer or application for dissemination at student orientation meetings prior to the start of school. usually August. Some coordinators continued to promote the program throughout the year at student or parent events, such as an Open House or Parent-Teacher Association meetings\nothers made the program a constantly visible part of the school by putting up notices or posters about afterschool activities at various locations on campus\nmany would routinely make announcements at faculty meetings and/or provide teachers with 2L CCLC information in preparation for conferences with parents. The high school site coordinators seemed especially 21* CCLC Technical Report 44 involved in 2P CCLC promotion and recruitment. In addition to the strategies mentioned above, Hall maintained a website detailing activities in the program, and the coordinator sent out weekly emails to the entire student/parent email list. The coordinator at McClellan used a PhoneMate system that sends automated messages about the Center to parents\narranged for the local carwash to run an LCD display message about the Center\nand will be adding an announcement about after school activities to the new school marquee on the street. Several of the site coordinators stated that they targeted students who were performing below proficiency, on the basis of standardized test scores and/or teacher recommendations. In some cases, attendance was mandatory\nat Woodruff Elementary, for example, the site coordinator noted that any student who scores below grade level in reading and math is automatically put into the afterschool program, after the parent approves. At McClellan, any student who had a GPA below 2.0 and was involved in any competitive extracurricular activity (e.g., band, choir, athletics) was required to attend 100 minutes a week in a tutoring program. Attending the schools 21' CCLC program was the most common way of satisfying this requirement. Implementation. Most of the CCLC programs offered activities afterschool, although a few included a before-school component. For example, at the case study school Mabelvale, there was an hour of activity (7:30 a.m. - 8:30 a.m.) prior to the start of the regular school day. Students went to the environmental lab to do homework or other independent seatwork until about 8:10 a.m., when they left to eat breakfast in the cafetorium. Others could stay until 8:30 a.m. Some of the site coordinators observed that when they offered a beforeschool program, attendance was consistently too low to justify its continuation. Others noted 21' CCLC Technical Report 45st that their school already had a before-school program funded by sources other than the 21 CCLC grant. The majority of the CCLC after school activities began about 15 minutes after the conclusion of the regular school day, usually 3:30 or 4 and running until 5:30 or 6. As expected, there was variability in terms of which activities were done at what time, since it was a basic supposition of the 21 CCLC grant that the schools would design the program in ways that best met the needs of their students. For example, at Woodruff Elementary the afterschool program began with a half-hour of outside play, followed by a snack\nthe Homework Club met for an hour\nand the day concluded with various enrichment activities, such as violin, cello, piano, or Tae Kwon Do lessons\nexercise and nutrition classes\nchess and computer work\nor Boy Scout meetings. At Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, afterschool students were subdivided into grades (6-8) and then directed to individual classrooms for academic work during the first hour and enrichment (art or music, crafts) during the remaining 45 minutes to an hour, although there was variation depending on the schedule. The basic schedule (academic work followed by enrichment activities) was similar in the high schools, although Hall was more oriented toward the three primary areas (algebra, geometry, and literacy) of the Arkansas Comprehensive, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP), whereas at McClellan students were subdivided by the specific area in which they needed improvement (e.g., computers, math. English, civics/history). In regard to the relationship between the school and its 2P CCLC, it was apparent that students and staff alike made little distinction between the regular school day and afterschool program activities. Site coordinators gave several reasons for this: frequently students were engaged in homework or other seatwork that built upon those literacy and math skills that were 2P CCLC Technical Report 46the focus of exercises during the regular school day. In addition, at all of the schools except the elementary school (Woodruff), members of the 2P CCLC staff were also teachers at the school. Also, although neighborhood children who did not attend the local school offering a 2P CCLC program were permitted to attend the afterschool activities, the vast majority of program participants were students at the school. Finally, there was little or no geographic separation. since no school reported having a distinct location for program activities\nfor example, in the case of Mabelvale (the case study school), students would meet in common central areas such as the library, cafetorium, or the computer lab. All of these aspects helped cement the relationship between the 2L CCLC and the school as continuous rather than simply contiguous. In some of the schools, arts enrichment was a regular feature of the 2L CCLC program. This was especially true of Woodruff Elementary, because in 2005-06 it became a member of the Arkansas A+ Schools Network, a consortium dedicated to comprehensive school reform. A+ schools combine interdisciplinary teaching with daily arts instruction, offering children opportunities to learn through multiple pathways (Arkansas A-Plus Network, 2006). Thus, the arts focus during the regular school day is just continued into afterschool activities, incorporating ballet, musical instruction (piano and strings), art, acting and drama, and also sports, such as Tae Kwon Do, tennis, and golf. Woodruff has initiated a number of partnerships with local cultural and recreational groups\nfor example, members of the Arkansas Symphony Orchestra were recruited to conduct violin and cello classes for the 2P CCLC students\nduring the first year, the musicians were paid, but they now do it for free. The principal noted that weve found that these arts classes help the kids in all areas of academics. Woodruff also regularly hosted Parents Nights, at which the children would perform for their families and friends (and on one 21 CCLC Technical Report 47 occasion, for Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee). These events helped build students self- esteem and also resulted in improved school behavior. St At Hall High School, in 2004-05 an arts enrichment component was added to the 21 CCLC program, in which students did crafts projects such as tie-dye and jewelry, and even a larger stained-glass mural depicting the school logo (a Native American peace pipe) for placement outside Halls main office. They also did more traditional arts like painting, although here too the students were encouraged to express their creativity. For example, the site coordinator at Hall showed the researcher a still life made entirely using various concentrations of coffee as paint. 2r CCLC Involvement with the Community. Every school in the study sought community involvement in their 2P CCLC programs by initiating partnerships with local organizations, businesses, civic and cultural centers, or universities and colleges. Nearly all the site coordinators reported an ongoing affiliation between their CCLC and Let Our Violence End (LOVE), a Little Rock-based nonprofit organization that uses peer volunteers to speak with students about the causes and implications of school and neighborhood violence. Aside from LOVE, however, the schools arranged CCLC extra-program activities derived from a variety of community partnerships. Woodruff Elementary has an active association with Big Brothers and Big Sisters, who help students in the before- and afterschool program with reading, math, and social science. Other schools partnered with groups such as the Audubon Society or with local colleges and universities to conduct classes or workshops in natural or biomedical science. For example, students at Remington College (Little Rock Campus) who were enrolled in a workstudy program helped Woodruffs 2L CCLC participants in areas related to their majors (education, pre-med, computers). At Henderson Middle School, afterschool students learned 21 CCLC Technical Report 48about water ecosystems and methods of conservation while working on a water sampling project at the University of Central Arkansas. Hall High School developed a partnership with Junior Achievement, a national organization that sponsors local business leaders to speak to students about business fundamentals. Development of students physical skills was also a feature of some of the afterschool programs. A parent of a student at Mabelvale offered karate classes, not (as the principal was quick to point out) to teach students how to fight but rather to learn basic self-defense techniques as a means to enhance their confidence and self-esteem. Every Thursday afternoon was drum day at Southwest, where a local percussionist taught the students using a variety of traditional African drums. Most Successful Aspects of the 2f CCLC. Nearly all of the site coordinators reported that one of the key strengths of the program was that it provided safe, secure environment for children at a time (after school was out and before parents arrived home) when they were most at risk. This was assumed to be especially true of this study population, since many students were from lower SES backgrounds, lived in transient housing, and were being raised by a single parent or parents with multiple jobs. Often the afterschool setting was the only structured environment to which the student would have access during that time. Having a quiet place to complete homework, with individualized assistance provided as needed, was very important, if not critical to addressing childrens academic deficits. Even those 2U CCLC students who were working at or above proficiency reaped the benefits of the secure setting as a place to develop their math and literacy skills. The second positive aspect of the afterschool program often mentioned by the site coordinators was the many opportunities (the community activities, access to technology, arts enrichment) afforded the students which they otherwise may not have had. Several stressed the 2 U'CCLC Technical Report 49 academic benefit of these activities, in that the experiential, hands-on nature of such projectbased learning developed skills and abilities in ways that traditional approaches such as direct classroom instruction or seatwork perhaps could not. At the same time, some of the site coordinators noted that it was these activitiesthe arts enrichment in particularthat tended to pull the students in and help keep attendance rates high. Those children who were struggling academically, particularly in the middle and high schools, were enticed by the prospect of learning in a fun way, rather than avoiding those subjects (math and reading) which had seemed daunting in the past. A third positive aspect cited by a number of the site coordinators concerned the psychological reward of simply having a program for the students, who were made more acutely aware that there was a group of adults, other than family, who were devoting their extra time and energies toward helping them achieve academic as well as social and behavioral success. As one site coordinator put it, you cant measure the importance to kids of knowing that someone cares. In this regard, most of the site coordinators had high praise for and satisfaction with the afterschool staff and all those affiliates who coordinated activities and projects for the 2P' CCLC at their school. Areas for Improvement in the 2f CCLC Program. Nearly all the site coordinators mentioned two areasstudent retention and attendance rates and parental involvementas ongoing challenges. Of all 6 schools in the study, only Woodruff Elementary reported no problems either attracting participants to the program or maintaining steady attendance (97% or above, each day). This might be expected, given the younger age of the Woodruff students (K-5). However, all other site coordinators said that while recruitment efforts at the start of the year generally were successful, and initial enrollment figures were quite high, maintaining 2L CCLC Technical Report 50regular attendance by participants was a challenge. In general, attendance rates tended to drop most in the spring semester as warmer weather returned and the days grew longer, but even in the late fall and winter parents were anxious about their children being out after dark. Problems with irregular or infrequent attendance were more associated with the older students (9*-12* grades), because as these children matured there were more demands on their time (sports, other clubs, friends and social life, or even a job) which likely interfered with their participation in activities associated with schoolwork and academic life. This is likely why the Hall and McClellan site coordinators were so active in year-round promotion of 2P CCLC activities at their high schools, as a hedge against declining attendance rates. Except for Woodruff Elementary and Southwest Middle School, parental involvement in 21\" CCLC activities was another area for improvement reported by the site coordinators. One estimated that approximately 65% of parents in his school could be described as having low engagement with the program and their child, another 25% medium engagement, and the remainder (10%) high engagement. Several mentioned various strategies they attempted to elicit greater parental involvement, such as Parents Nights, meetings on Saturdays, partnerships with the PTA, and so on, without much success. Still, most of the coordinators noted that gamering parents interest and participation in any of their preteens and teens school activities was difficult. Woodruff staff attributed the younger student ages and the schools arts focus as likely reasons for their more frequent parent involvement, and Southwest cited the field trips in which parents accompanied their children as an important factor in this regard. In addition, both site coordinators at these schools reported that any public performance by their child/ren in the 21\" CCLC program was guaranteed to bring out the parents. 21\" CCLC Technical Report 51Some of the site coordinators mentioned occasional problems not having enough teachers (especially in math and science). In addition, one felt that not the number but the commitment of instructors in the 2P' CCLC could be better, that occasionally staff was lax in their duties. At the same time, most site coordinators believed that students in the afterschool program became closer and more responsive to their teachers, since the student-teacher ratio was lower and students and staff alike tended to be more casual than during the regular school day. Two site coordinators wished that they could offer a greater variety of activities and experiences to the students, but felt constrained by both budget and available staff. School Principals In general, the principals interviewed for the evaluation tended be somewhat less familiar with the day-to-day operation and activities of the 2P CCLC at their school than the site coordinators, and this was particularly so if the site coordinator had been administering the afterschool program for more than a year. Also, some of the principals themselves were new to the school (in one case, hired in June 2006). Still, all of the principals had valuable insights to offer. having been employed in administrative or supervisory positions in LRSD and elsewhere. Responsibilities. Most of the principals had a supervisory role in the daily operation of the 21* CCLC centers, working with the site coordinator on the basic schedule\nhiring certified teachers in the core areas (which in the elementary school meant math and literacy, and in the middle and high schools English, science, and math)\ndeveloping programming appropriate to the centers goals\nand ensuring that the necessary supplies were available. Some of the principals took on other responsibilities, such as helping to write the initial grant and making sure that students were utilizing technology in the 21* CCLC classrooms. 21* CCLC Technical Report 52Goals of the CCLC at Their School. Principals identified a number of goals specific to the needs of their student population, but the purpose most commonly noted was enrichment and extension of those subjects taught during the regular school day. Elementary school children often lacked supervision and assistance with homework in the evenings, and as there was seldom a skilled adult reader at home, many of the Woodruff children had no opportunity to practice reading. We just needed the funds and materials to address the problem, said the Woodruff principal, and thats what the 21 CCLC [grant] does. At the middle and high school levels, focus on math and literacy skills was paramount, with an eye toward improving student achievement scores. However, a number of the principals noted that their program included enrichment activities in music, art, drama, science as well. One high school principal commented that their program also had a social/behavioral component, as it primarily served incoming 9* graders who often needed assistance making the transition from a middle to a high school environment. Typical 2f CCLC Student. The principals said that their program was primarily designed for students performing at or below proficiency, although it was open to all those desiring additional assistance. However, like the site coordinators, they described the typical attendee as a child academically on the bubble, who just needed an extra push, extra time, the one-on-one work, as one put it. They also echoed the coordinators view that the 2 CCLC offered students a supervised place to study, without distractions, as well as access to technology (computer and printer) and print resources not often available to them. One middle school principal commented that probably 20-25% of their students had a computer at home. Again several of the principals mentioned that the high-performing participants (who really didnt 2L' CCLC Technical Report 53need to be there) often acted as tutors, benefiting from the added responsibility and extra challenge of learning how to explain concepts to their peers. Student Recruitment and Retention. Like the site coordinators, principals at the middle and high schools noted that while initial recruitment was seldom a problem, maintaining steady. frequent attendance across the course of the school year was an ongoing challenge. When queried about the possible reasons for this, one middle school principal responded that parents are not knowledgeable about the importance of keeping their kid in the program, were not fully committed\nothers said that social activities and athletic events took precedence. Another middle school principal said that the shift to Daylight Savings Time in the fall caused attendance to decline across the winter months, because the parents of the younger students (6* and 7'* graders) did not want their children out after dark. One high school principal speculated that the increasing number of Hispanic students, many of whom were English language learners, were reluctant to participate in the 2P CCLC program because they feared problems in communication. At the same time, he felt that this could be addressed with special outreach to this community. Overall Strengths and Weaknesses of the CCLC Program. Most of the principals echoed the observations made by the site coordinators about the best aspects of the 2L CCLC program at their school: (1) the provision of safe, supervised setting for students at a time when they were perhaps most vulnerable\n(2) access to many opportunities (especially assistance with building literacy and math skills and the arts enrichment activities)\nand (3) the psychological benefits of knowing that there are caring adults who want to help them succeed, as one principal put it. One middle school principal cited the programs success in improving math skills via their Algebra Camp, which helped prepare 7* and 8* graders for the basic, required 21  CCLC Technical Report 54 algebra course in 9* grade (the first year of high school). Another thought that one of their programs best features was its facility in helping students make a transition from the behavioral and social norms of an elementary school to those of the middle school. One of the high school principals also mentioned that since their 2P CCLC served predominantly 9* graders, the program served the same useful function: students see middle school as a social place, versus the culture of a high school, which is academic, and potentially a place from which they will continue their studies, he noted. One respondent summarized the general tenor of the high school principals responses regarding the significant contribution made by the 2L CCLC to their educational objectives: [It is an] extremely valuable part of our school\nwe need opportunities to work with kids, specifically in smaller settings, but also where we can really target assistance. whether its in literacy, or whether its in algebra or geometry, or whether its some kind of social skill, whatever it is\nwe need those opportunities. There is oftentimes so much crammed into the normal school day, that if we didnt have the extended program, before and after school, we would not be able to meet all of our needs as effectively as we can now. With regard to areas for improvement, once again achieving steady and frequent attendance and fomenting parental involvement were most commonly mentioned. Only Woodruff reported few problems with these issues\nin fact, the principal identified as one challenge trying to get enough people [staff] to accommodate all the kids, [since] the payroll was full. But this response was atypical, and probably in some measure attributable to the fact that Woodruff, the only elementary school in the study, has a younger student population. The other principals noted that, in order to increase rates of participation, they had to confront the 21* CCLC Technical Report 55multiple concerns and distractions faced by the average middle and high school student. Even those who were academically well focused had some difficulty keeping on task after being in school all day. Gamering parents commitment, to make sure that their children were coming to the 2P' CCLC every day as well as engagement with advertised center activities, was an ongoing challenge. At one school, developing connections between the Parent-Teacher Association and the 2P CCLC to promote the centers activities and benefits helped improve parental involvement, and as noted above any public performance (e.g., involving music, drama) by their child/ren was certain to bring out the parents. Several of the principals lamented the loss of their summer bridge program, which in the main had been quite successful in helping students transition into a middle or high school and addressing the potential loss of skill development that often occurs over the summer months (described by one respondent as grade recovery camp). They hoped that it would be re-funded in the future, either by the 21* CCLC grant or via other sources. Mabelvale Case Study Classroom Observations The researcher observed three 2 CCLC sessions (two afternoon sessions and one morning session) on two separate days at the case study school, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School. In each of the two afternoon sessions, the researcher watched activities in three different classrooms, because students were divided by grade (6*, 7*, and 8*). Instructors were always present (all of whom were teachers at Mabelvale), but no parent was observed at any session. Monday, April 17. The researcher observed 6*-grade students working in a computer lab doing two activities: half the children used the interactive PLATO system on Playstations 2P CCLC Technical Report 56and half were working on PCs. Three adults were present, all teachers at Mabelvale, who were directing and supervising the students. The staff described the students activity as an extension of school day skills. There were 20 students in attendance, of whom 18 were African American, one Caucasian, and one biracial, and most were clustered into small groups of 2-4 students, who appeared to be friends. A few students (2-3) were isolated from their peers and worked alone. Most of the students were involved in the PLATO activity and computer work the majority of the time, and these activities appeared to be engaging for them most of the time. The students would choose which area (e.g., math, literacy, geography) to work on. Teachers provided individual attention when asked, and interacted in a friendly way with students, often joking with them. The researcher did not observe any significant conflicts among students\nany minor difficulties were quickly and amicably resolved. There was much intergroup discussion and a generally high level of positive energy in the lab, which reflected the students level of engagement with their work, and perhaps also the lab environmental conditions - it was very cold. On April 17, the researcher also observed the 7* grade CCLC session, which took place in the schools cafeto\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\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eCenter for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\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":"bcas_bcmss0837_70","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","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"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2006-11"],"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":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"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/70"],"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\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth .James, Commissioner .EducatiWn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org November 30, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones ill RECEIVED DEC -4 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MON/TORJNG Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of November 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, /eud~ - Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier 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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED DEC - 4 2006 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for November 2006. Respectfully Submitted, General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on November 30, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 's\u0026amp;rifsmith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED DEC - 4 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT. ET AL PLAINTIFoiEGREGr1iw:a~NITORING V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 B_ased on the,infoi:miti6n available at-Octc56er 31,:_~006 t e ADE calculate the State Foundation Funaing for FY:o67DI7 subjectto Ri3riodic adjustrnem.sl B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. l. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006  r 31 : 2:00'6, distributionsqf State Fouodatio'q Fundin'g'for FY 06/07 were 9 675~62Q if te Foundatio F..!J.b.gln~ :calculatedj or F.Y b6/07 at O.cto6'en B eriodic affustments were as follows D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 ffase 'on the information available, therfr,DE calculafed a't October 31, 2006 foo FY 06/07~ suojed to ,periodic adjustme ts E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing , as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 ~sed on thgihfo@mion:av~ilable,\nthe ADE calculated.at O.ctober 31, 2006.forl EY 06/07, suoject to periodic adjust e ts G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 Qistri64tL9ns for F'? 06.L07 9t 1 ,2.906 'tot tment alculated for FY06/07 was 4 sub'ect to H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 Calculated for FY 06/07, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 Distri6ut1orfs,\n(of(E\nY{0:6ZO].iatrGct'dl5efIB1m2-00tl$werm [6e:::'.~llo calciJ@ed'.fofFY 06/07 a't' Oclo6er:3J,-2006\n:S:ubject to'per1fill@ acfustm re J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 In January 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In September 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In September 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 06/07 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 In February 2006, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $2,831,266.66 NLRSD - $569,433.04 PCSSD-$1,948,253.16 In September 2006, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $4,200,321.00 NLRSD - $975,891.96 PCSSD - $3,062,606.93 In September 2006, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 06/07 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2006, the following had been paid for FY 06/07: LRSD - $1,413,384.34 NLRSD - $333,217.73 PCSSD - $1,074,447.23 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001 , paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2006, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 06/07 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001 . The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) IriJune 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1 . . Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01 /02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring'Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and.prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Ac\ntual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed . It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. A(::\ntual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11 , 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 18 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. A_ctual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p. m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 20 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE.  On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported . There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 21 - Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. 8. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 A. committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing , no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11 , 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) T_he ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 27 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMTwas the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the AD E's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the lmplementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the AD E's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas. State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkan~as State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 9\n2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11 , 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September.  On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 39 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. 40 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. o'\"n Novemo~r.,13:2006. t5e.Ad$ai:i~a{SfatiiBO:afd][Egucat[o:n reviewed and'.aborov:eg tie PMT and its executive summary or tne montn o Octo e 41 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed , and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCNCOE peer team visits. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipl ine data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed , and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 43 VI. REMEDIATJON (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) lri February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 The information for th is item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature compensatory education programs. (Continued) search for research evaluating D. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facil itate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training . In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's P.artnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulatlon of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training . Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training , Dr. Reynolds addressed the following : 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACT MP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing . Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training . Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling . On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading , writing , and mathematics skills. The following tra ining has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child 's learning .\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, tra ining was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001 , Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented . Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig , Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001 . Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach . This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning , and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel tra ined Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided train ing for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001, there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31 , 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading , writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching . This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001 . Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001 . The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001 . Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions) . LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0 . Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 58 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geome\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\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\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":"bcas_bcmss0837_1775","title":"Court filings regarding the Joshua intervenors' objections to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report and prayer for release from Court supervision, two notices of deposition and rescheduling, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","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":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2006-11"],"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","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Education--Evaluation","School administrators","School employees","African Americans--Education"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding the Joshua intervenors' objections to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report and prayer for release from Court supervision, two notices of deposition and rescheduling, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"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/1775"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["63 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, the Joshua intervenors' objections to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report and prayer for release from Court supervision; District Court, two notices of deposition; District Court, letter rescheduling deposition; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. CASE NO. 4:82CV0866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT, NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE WRJGHT KNIGHT, ET AL. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS TO LRSD'S COMPLIANCE REPORT AND PRAYER FOR RELEASE FROM COURT SUPERVISION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS For the reasons which follow, the JoshuaJntervenors object to the LRSD Compliance Report and request to be released from court supervision. See 2004 Compliance Remedy, para. K. 1. The LRSD has not at all relevant times provided the staff in its PRE department required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. [Compliance Remedy, para. A] 2. LRSD administrators .have during the period of the Compliance Remedy assigned additional duties to PRE staff. This factor has played a role in LRSD's failure to complete tasks required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy and necessary to embed a comprehensive assessment process as a permanent part of the LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. [Compliance Remedy, para. A.; see para. 3 below regarding \"school portfolios\", \"district portfolio\", and \"data 1 warehouse.\") ; see also Attachments hereto A-6, para. 6-7 (Springer Aff., 6-28-06) 3. In the preparation of the 8 \"formal step 2 evaluations,\" PRE staff have not been involved in observing programs, formulating the content of questionnaires, or writing the evaluation reports. See Attachments at 1-3 (cover pages of three draft evaluations for 2005-06 do not include PRE staff among authors of any evaluation).1 These failures violate multiple aspects of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, considered alone or in combination. [Compliance Remedy, para. A (court concerns about abilities of PRE staff with respect to designing and preparing program evaluations); para. B (\"comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a part permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program\"); other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations; .. . \") It was at all times apparent that 1:milding the abilities of PRE staff to conduct program evaluations without the - assistance of outside evaluators (or to supplement the efforts of outside evaluators; was necessary to embed the program assessment process in the operations of LRSD. 4. LRSD has failed to make feasible and adequate progress in the creation of computer data bases needed to embed the comprehensive program assessment process in the district's instructional programs. [Compliance Remedy, para. BJ a. It is and has been feasible for LRSD to create one or more computer bases allowing ,. compilation and manipulation of at least the following data and variables: [i] student's name; [ii] student's date of birth; [iii] sex; [iv] race; [v] date(s) entering the system; [vi] school(s) attended, by date and grade, including participation in pre-K program; [vii] student absences by date and school year; [viii] free and reduced price lunch status by school year; [ix] special education 1 The fourth evaluation for 2005-06 (of Pre-K literacy program) is not yet available. 2 status, if any, by date and school year; [x] whether limited English proficient by date and school year; [xi] for elementary students, teachers(s) by date and school year; [xii] for elementary students, special programs, such as Recovery, by date and school year; [xiii] for other students, ,.courses and teachers by year; [xiv] for other students, special programs, such as Read 180, by date and school year; [xv] teacher absences by date and school year; [ xvi] results of all standardized assessments by date and school year. b. The data identified in (a) could be manipulated to prepare assessments/evaluations. For example, one could compare test outcomes for similar elementary students from two schools expos~d to two different reading programs, taking into account as well the student and teacher absences in the relevant period. [Additional work might be necessary, such as preparation of program descriptions and observations to determine levels of implementation.] c. The use of questiormaires, which the Court expected ( Page 62, Footnote 39, Compliance Remedy) to be a part of the comprehensive assessmerit process will not be undertaken until the fall of 2006. [Compare Compliance Report of March 1, 2006 at 3 with Compliance Report of June 1, 2006 at 3. (use of questionnaire postponed) See also Attachments at A-6, para. 6 (Springer Aff.) d. PRE's \"quarterly written updates\" show work on \"school\" and \"district portfolios\" -- compilations of some of the data listed above in paragraph 4 (a). [E.g., 9-1-05 at 3; 12-1-05 at 3; 6-1-03 at 3] [i] Although LRSD first mentioned \"school portfolios\" in its quarterly report of 9- 1-05 at 3, corrections in the ~'Little Rock School District's Revised Compliance Report\" of October 25, 2006,\" early in the 2006-07 school years,\" show that \"LRSD expects to ,., .J ~ the creation of school portfolios during the 2007-2008 school year.\" [At 7, para. 15; emphasis added] [ii] The quarterly report dated 12-1-05 states: \"Data to be included in the district portfolio was identified during the last quarter and a draft district portfolio was designed. As new data becomes available, PRE staff members add them to the portfolio.\" [At 3] At present, one can not determine the state of completeness of the \"district portfolio,\" compared to what needs to be accomplished. [See Revised Compliance Report, 10-25-06 at 6-7] _ e. The quarterly report of 12-1-05 states (at 3): \"PRE is also investigating the costs and benefits of an internet-based data warehouse system that would store all data collected by the district within one database, support its tabulation and analysis, and enable its electronic access at any time. The data warehouse would advance the district portfolio that PRE staff members are currently developing.\" The quarterly report of3-1-06 states (at 3): \"To support the portfolio 's expansion, frequent updates, and future utility, PRE is designing a 'data warehouse' which LRSD staff and others can consult on a 'real-time' basis.\" PRE identified a data warehouse system which could have been functioning as of the LRSD's recent submission of its compliance reports. See Attachment at A-15 [\"Compliance History\" prepared by PRE at page 2, para. 3 (a)]. Upper level LRSD administrators rejected this proposal. One consequence of this action is that facts about students and teachers participating in particular programs continue to be difficult to retrieve. [Id., A-15 at para. 3 ( c )] f. Additional work is necessary to insure the accuracy of LRSD data needed for assessments and evaluations. [Id., A-14, para. 2; A-15 at para. 4 (PRE Compliance History\")] 4 g. Professional development in the area of program assessments and evaluations has not been and is not now a high priority for the district. See Attachments at A-5 to A-6, para. 5 (Springer Aff.). 5. With regard to the 2005-06 evaluations, at least the evaluations of the Read 180 program and the 21 st Century Community Learning Centers program contain insufficient description of the program being evaluated to meet LRSD's own standards and the court's order. [See 2004 Compliance Remedy, paras. C and D (\"Has the Section 2.7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African American students; as it has been implemented in sch?ols throughout the district?\" [emphasis added)]; Attachments A-19 to A-22 (Joshua Intervenors 's Comments on inadequate program descriptions in these evaluations)] 6.  While the LRSD submitted eight quarterly reports, some LRSD representatives censored the eighth report prepared by PRE to minimize notice of compliance problems noted in this docm.ent. See 2004 Compliance Remedy, para. G; and Attachments at A-15 [\"Compliance History\" prepared by PRE a:t page 2, para, 4] 7. The LRSD superintendent interfered with the flow of information to ODM, in violation of paragraph H of~he 2004 Compliance Remedy. See Attachments at A-16 [\"Compliance History\" prepared by PRE at 3, para. 7 (a) \"The Superintendent threatened . . . [the] dismissal [ of PRE Director] if she shared information with ODM and Joshua.\"] 8. LRSD impeded Joshua Intervenors' ability to monitor the remedy.  See Attachments at A-22 (no response made to this letter seeking information on PRE staff); see also paragraph 7 of this submission (threat of PRE's Director). [Compliance Remedy, para. I] 9. The LRSD reorganization in 2005 created a conflict situation for PRE staff and the 5 school system regarding the content and priority of assessments/evaluations. PRE previously - reported directly to the Superintendent. As a result of the reorganization, PRE now reports to the Associate Superintendent in charge of instructional programs. This violates the district's policy regarding evaluations. 10. The LRSD administration also has de-emphasized the importance of its policy with respect to evaluations. Members of evaluation teams have been coached, if not instructed, not to actively participate in the evaluation team meetings. Members have been instructed not to communicate concerns regarding the evaluation process in the presence of Joshua repres~ntatives. Moreover, team member part1cipation has been sporadic to nonexistent over the past year. See Attachments, k7, para. 10 (Springer Aff.). 11 . The work of PRE staff has been frustrated by the failure of senior administrators and counsel to communicate and provide direction regarding how to proceed in meeting commitments within the Compliance Remedy. See Attachments, A-16, para. 7 (PRE \"Compliance.History\"). For example, we understand the view of Dr. Roberts, Associate Superintendent for Instructional Programs, to be that some of the key Section 2.7 programs were not included in those evaluated. If correct, _this evidences a significant area of non compliance as the court stated that: \"LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key Section 2.7 programs as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. ( Compliance Remedy, Part C, page 63) 12. The Compliance Remedy required the filing of four (4) step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-2005 school year with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four program 6 evaluations for the 2005-2006 school were to be filed with the Court no later than October 1, .!. 2006. The Court reluctantly granted the LRSD extensions of time for filing of the latter group of evaluations. Joshua submits that the draft evaluation documents for 2005-2006 school year filed by the LRSD to date do not comply with the requirements of the remedy. 13 . The LRSD, under the current school administration, has refused to implement fully the Compliance Remedy, thereby minimizing the extent to which key LRSD educational programs can be expected to improve the achievement of African American students compared to white students. The administration of the LRSD undertook a major administrative reorganization without consideration of its impact on the Compliance Remedy. The reorganization has had a negative effect on the implementation of the Compliance Remedy. Release from court supervision is inappropriate for this reason and those previously stated. There is the prospect of a premature release from court supervision adversely affecting the LRSD financial resources at a time when the achievement of African American students continues to be less than desired. 14. As shown by the foregoing discussion, the implementation of the 2004 Compliance Remedy by LRSD representatives has been marked by bad faith. 15. The LRSD is submitting the draft Pre-K literacy evaluation on or about November 15, 2006 (today). By letter of October 31, 2006, Joshua representatives requested counsel of the LRSD to provide certain information bearing upon compliance with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. While counsel agreed to provide the requested information, it has yet to be received. Given these two factors, Joshua Intervenors request the opportunity to supplement these objections should the content of information later received indicate the need for supplementation. 7 CONCLUSION Respectfully, the Court should reject LRSD's request for a finding of substantial compliance with the 2004 remedy and its prayer for release from court supervision and the Court should require the LRSD to show cause why it is not in contempt of Court. Joshua points up that the LRSD Board of Directors have not been fully informed of the requirements of the Court by counsel and are not fully aware of their obligations under the Order or the authority which they have to take action and direct their administration with respect to the agreed upon remedy. Accordingly, Joshua requests that the school administration and district counsel be enjoined to fully i\"'.1form the Board of Directors of the Court's orders, the duties and expectations ofthe Board and that LRSD administrators with respect to the Compliance Remedy. In addition, the Court is also requested to enjoin the LRSD administration and the Board of Directors from' punishing PRE staff for attempting to in'iplement the court ordered remedy in good faith. Finally, the Joshua Intervenors request that PRE, after the court hearing, report directly to the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District for the next two years while the process of program assessments and evaluations is being embedded as directed by the Court. LRSD should remain under court supervision for a minimum of two additional years and be required to comply fully with those aspects of the 2004 remedy to which compliance has been inappropriate. ls/Robert Pressman Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 8 ls/John W. Walker John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that on this 15th day of November, 2006 a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to all counsel of record and in addition a copy has been mailed by U.S . mail to: Mr. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl John W. Walker 9 - ATTACHMENTS TO JOSHUA OBJECTIONS TO LRSD'S COlVIPLIANCE REPORT A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 . A-10 A-11 A-12 A-13 A-14 A-15 A-16 A-17 A-18 A-19 A-20 A-21 A-22 Cover Page of Draft Evaluation for Read 180 Cover Page of Draft Evaluation for 21 st Century Community Learning Centers Cover Page of Draft Evaluation for A+ Springer Affidavit of June 28, 2006 Dr. Karen DeJarnette's Letter to Dr. Mitchell dated November 3, 2006 PRE Compliance History starting with Cover Page Joshua Comments regarding the 20005-2006 Draft Evaluations Letter to Dr. DeJarnette dated December 1, 2005 Case 4)32-cv-00866-WRW Document 4051 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 2 of 132 '- CREP C,mtu for R~earch in Etlucadonai Polir:y Center for Research in Educational Pciicy The Universily of Memphis 325 Brownin all Memphis Tennessee 3 52 Toll ree Little Rock School District Read 180 Evaluation DRAFT TECHNICAL REPORT October 2006 Clif Mims, Ph. D. Deborah L. Lowther, Ph .D. J. Daniel Strahl, M.S. Center for Research in Educational Policy John Nunnery, Ph.D. Old Dominion University  Attachment 1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4051 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 112 CREP Cilnter for Rueardr in EducationaJ Policy Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Brownin all Memphis Tennessee 3 52 Toll ree -------- Evaluation of 21 st Century Community Learning Center, Little Rock School District, 2005-06 Technical Report DRAFT October 2006 Heidi Kenaga Jerry A. Bates Fethi lnan Center for Research in Educational Policy John Nunnery Old Dominion University Attachment 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4052 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 56 The A+ Education Program At Woodruff Elementary, Little Rock School District An .Assessment of Educational Effectiveness With a Focus on African-American Student Achievement Draft-Report for Review and Comments Only October 16, 2006 .James S. Catterall Professor UCLA Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies .Los Angeles~ CA 90095-1521 jamcsc/@.gscis.ucla.edu Note: The opinions expressed in this report Dre t ho~e of the author and not necessarily tho5e of Little Rock School District or Woodruff School personnel. The profes~iona l schools find colle~es or the Univer~ity ofCallfornin do not tnke official positions 011 prog!\"llm cvnluntion stlltements of faculty ~nd do not officinlly endorse nonaffilh1tc.d progn1ms. Attachment 3 IN THE UNITED STATES D.ISTRICT COURT EASIBRN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERJNE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. CASE NO. 4:82cv00866WRW/JTR AFFIDAVIT OF JOY SPRINGER Comes now the affiant, Joy Springer, who states under oath: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. My name is Joy Springer and I have been assigned by counsel for the Joshua Intervenors to monitor the Little Rock School District's compliance with. the court's order.of June 30, 2004 (iater referred to as the Compliance Remedy). 2. I have previously submitted affidavits herein indicating that I have a two Bachelors degrees, one in General Business and the other in Elementary Education. I have a Masters degree in Education Administration fro:rn U ALR. I have monitored the district's compliance with its various commitments in this case for the past 15 years .. 3. I have been regularly monitoring program evaluation compliance before and especially since the court's order of June 30, 2004. My monitoring has involved the following activities: 1 Attachment 4 a) attendance at meetings when given notice by the LRSD on the subject of program  .:. evaiuations; b) conversations with PRE staff , the ODM and CREP headed by Dr. Steven Ross; c) review of PRE's quarterly reports regarding the compliai.,ce remedy; d) review ofLRSD's board agendas and minutes; e) conversations with board members; f) discussions with teachers and administrators; and g) discussions with counsel for Joshua, John W. Walker and Robert Pressman, regarding the program assessment and evaluation in the LRSD. 4. I.have regularly bought to the attention of the PRE, in the presence of ODM; what I understood to be a court directive, that program assessment be comprehensive, focused and ' ' deeply embedded into the district's curriculum and instruction programs. 5. In my work, I have had an occasion to review district publications which report activities underway with respect to professional development. I observed that professional ' ' deveiopment in the ar.ea of program assessments and evaluations has 'hot been and is not now a high priority for the district. This is demonstrated, for example, by the district's professional development calendar for the year's 2004-2005. The first mention by LRSD in the periodic reports required by the court remedy of the offering of professional development for district staff on program assessment and evaluation occurs in the sixth report citing an event of April 18-20, 2006, approximately three weeks before the end of the second school year addressed in the compliance remedy [and almost two years after entry of the remedy]. Moreover, while the LRSD in the quarterly report to the court dated June 1, 2006 alludes to this training [at 3], even for those 2 Attachment 5 dates, it does not mention the number of staff who received professional development with ~ respect to embedding program assessment and evaluation into the district's curriculum: This leads me to believe that relatively few staff have received professional development in the area. 6. It is further noted that the use of questionnaires, which the Court expected (Page 62, Footnote39 of the Compliance Remedy) to be a part of the comprehensive assessment process will not be undertaken until the fall of 2006. Compare Compliance Report March 1, 2006 at 3 with Compliance Report of June 1, 2006 at 3. (Use of questionnaire postponed) 7. I have further observed that the PRE contemplated the use of a \"data warehouse\" to either ~upplant or complement the use of the portfolio assessment for embedding the comprehensive assessment process into the instruction programs. LRSD Compliance Ryport March 1, 2006 at 3 .. It is uncertain this data base will be readily available for the PRE's use. [Interview with Dr. DeJarnette on June 13, 2006] This eventuality will frustrate the court's requirement that the district have a PRE department i..11 the foreseeable future that would oversee the 2.7.1 program assessment/evaluation process (Page 68, of the Compliance Remedy). 8. Various factors suggest that the vision of the current administration of the LRSD de-emphasizes the importance of PRE and the compliance remedy. Before March, 2005, PRE reported directly to the Superintendent. The purpose of that was to ensure that district staff would realize the importance of the compliance remedy ordered by the Court. In March 2005, Dr. . Brooks assigned Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, Dr. Olivine Roberts, to supervise PRE. Thereafter, Dr. Roberts and Dr. Brooks imposed additional responsibilities upon PRE that diminish the ability of the PRE staff to make the compliance remedy their major focus .. These responsibilities included the preparation school improvement plans for a large 3 Attachment 6 number of schools as well as developing and carrying out surveys required as part of the school improvemeii.t effort. I understand PRE's major focus to relate to the devising of a comprehensive assessment process, the carrying .out of required assessments and evaluations, and the embedding of a comprehensive assessment process in LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. 9. In the two years post decree Joshua monitoring, to my observation, Dr. Olivine Roberts has seldom been present at PRE meetings to which Joshua was given notice. The first meeting I recall her to be present was on April 18, 2006. I have never seen LRSD Superintendent Dr. Roy Brooks at a PRE meeting. I am not aware of any writings that Dr. Broo~ has made -i1th respect to PRE and program assessment/evaluation. 10. Another example of the district's de-emphasizing the importance of the PRE was reflected during evaluation team meetings. For the_2005-2006 Step 2 evaluations, district participation consisted, for the most part, of only members from PRE and the outside evaluators. During the comparable 2004-2005 meetings, there was relatively active pa..rticipation by other district staff who had the responsibility of actually implementing the programs being evaluated. 11. A third example of PRE' s diminished importance by the district is the failure of the district to maintain a strong PRE staff. The Testing Coordinator of the PRE, Ms. Yvette Dillingham, left the district prior to the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year after having her contract diminished from 11 months to 10 months as a result of the district's \"reorganization.\" Almost six months later, the district later hired a replacement Testing Coordinator (November, 2006, Mr. A.i-thur Olds).[Compliance Report March 1, 2006] He resigned a.i-\"t:er approximately 3 months on the job.[Compliance Report June 1, 2006 at 3] The Testing Coordinator's position  has not been filled. It is my understanding that one of PRE's statisticians, Dr. Ed Williams, has 4 Attachment 7 been assigned the added responsibilities of the Testing Coordinator. In checking the district's website for job vacancies, the Testing Coordinator position has not been posted as of June 15, 2006. 12. On Tuesday, June 13, 2006, I met with members of PRE and Gene Jones of the ODM at the Instructional Resource Center (IRC) of the LRSD. The purpose of the meeting was for PRE staff to update Joshua and the ODM regarding the status of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) providing the necessary test data for the Step 2 evaluations due on October 1, 2006. PRE Director, Dr. DeJarnette reported that the timing of ADE's provision of the data would be such that an extension of the date for submitting the Step 2 Evaluations would likely be needed. Dr. DeJarnette stated that she would provide the necessary information to the LRSD counsel for the filing of a Motion for Extension of Time of the October 1,. 2006 deadline. While at this meeting, I inquired regarding the status of the district embedding the assessment process into its curriculum and instruction programs. I learned that members of PRE were not sure that they would have liberal access to the \"data warehouse\" in formulating future assessments/ evaluations of the programs referenced in 2.7.1_. Based upon this communication and information contained in paragraphs 5,6, 8, 9, 10 and 11, supra, I communicated to the LRSD's PRE staff members and the ODM representative, Gene Jones, that because the district was not in -compliance in \"embedding program assessments\" into its curriculum and instruction programs as contemplated by the Compliance Remedy, Joshua would bring these matters to the attention of the Court for review and appropriate relief. 13. I am informed that ODM staff has communicated similar reservations to the LRSD's  PRE staff. 5 Attachment 8 14. Following informing Dr. DeJarnette, PRE Director, that Joshua would invoke the court's att~ntion, the district's three top administrators, Dr. Roy Brooks, Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh and Dr. Olivine Roberts sought a meeting with ODM to explain its activities and intentions regarding the PRE. They met vvith l\\tfr. Jones thereafter. It is noteworthy that they did not include PRE Director D_eJarnette in the meeting. Although I have repeatedly asked that Joshua be fully involved iri. these discussions, the district chose to involve only ODM. 15. I am of the view that the LRSD has continued to violate the letter and spirit of the court's order of June 30, 2004 in the matters set forth above and in other respects that will likely be disclosed during a hearing. For example, it appears to me that Dr. DeJamette is no longer involved in PRE decisions. She has indicated as rri.uch during our meetings. It also appears that LRSD h~ no definitive plan for the use of \"assessments\" being generated by the Compass Learning programs. Furthermore, the school district's administration has not acted in keeping Joshua and the court informed through timely reports, of the necessity for more time, and for . modifi(?~tion of the schedule for finalizing the Sep 2 evaluations which are on October 1, 2006. In this respect, on June 13, 2006, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) did not have the data expected for use by the experts for completion of their evaluations and assessments. The district has yet to request relief from the court which appears to be warranted by the ADE's failure t? provide the necessary data. Affiant saith nothing further.  6 Attachment 9 7 Attachment 10 November 3, 20Q6 Dr. Katherine Mitchell, President Board of Directors Little Rock School District 1605 Welch St. Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Dr. Mitchell: Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 FAX 501/447-7609 In preparation for the session you have requested regarding compliance status, PRE has written the accompanying summary of our experience during the past two years. Since we believe that the Board of Directors has not received important information directly from PRE on some occasions, this unusual delivery should insure that our thoughts are delivered for this session with some time for thorough review prior to the meeting. One of the occasions when we fear the Board did not receive this department's thoughts 'was the last quarterly written update (September 1, 2006). The version delivered to the Superintendent's office for the Board's review at the August agenda meeting is Appendix A of the accompanying document. The version submitted to ODM (Appendix B) omitted nearly all of section Band much of section C, (pp. 3-6 of PRE's version). On these pages PRE described obstacles to the District's \"embedding\" and sustaining timely and accurate assessments of its programs. The description demonstrated the District's critical, earnest effort at achieving this responsibility required by the Court; and it provided a basis for actions leading to the District's full compliance. Its omission from the update allows a reader's false impression that the District has progressed further than it in fact has. Another reason for submitting this document to you is the probable absence by two of our department's members on November 9 due to previously scheduled leave. If the board desires, they might join the discussion via a telephone connection. Our department engaged enthusiastically when we began two years ago to carry out the compliance remedy, and we sustained our energy since then. Due to this effort and its results, the District can demonstrate its sincere engagement in removing barriers and Attachment 11 introducing procedures which will establish trustworthy assessments as usual procedures. We ar.~ therefore eager to d.is_!?uss these matters with the Board. P: .....-.'-..-~- Karen DeJarnette Director xc: Board of Directors Mr. Heller Office of Desegregation Monitoring Joshua intervenors Attachment 12 - ------- -------------- Compli~nce History 2004 - 2006 Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department November 3, 2006 Attachment 13 PRE' s Compliance History 2004-2006 Background The Compliance Remedy of June 30, 2004 issued by the U.S. District Court (USDC) established the main tasks and orientation for the Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department (PRE). The Remedy's requirements included the following: 1. Rejuvenation of PRE, which LRSD initially accomplished by hiring an additional PhD-level statistician as director and adding two master-level statisticians 2. Eight \"step-2\" evaluations of LRSD programs, which external evaluators have undertaken under PRE's oversight 3. Embedding assessment into the operations ofLRSD, which PRE started with a new assessment policy (approved by Board of Directors), first draft of a LRSD portfolio (with three of five types of desired information), and a plan for a data warehouse which a leading vendor represented could be implemented by summer 2006 with corrected data 4. Eight quarterly updates by PRE to ODM, which PRE prepared in time for Board consideration and approvals 5. Cooperation (non-adversarial relations) with Joshua by LRSD, which has increasingly occurred between Joshua and PRE 6. Compliance Report by LRSD; which it submitted October 16 when due. Difficulties with compliance There have been multiple challenges to complying with these requirements: 1. Rejuvenation of PRE , While LRSD initially boosted PRE staff, PRE's resources subsequently dwindled: a. Reorganization in 2005 eliminated both PRE's secretary and its test coordinator assistant, so PRE became the only department with professional staff who enjoy no secretarial support. b: LRSD in 2005 decreased the test coordinator to 11 months (rather than 12), and the seasoned test coordinator resigned. LRSD next reduced the position to nine months then restored it to 12 again. PRE went without a full-time person for more than 12 months (with a half FTE for a few months). Many test infractions-unprecedented in recent LRSD history-occurred during that period, due probably to inadequate staff. Investigations by the state will likely continue throughout this school year with threats to some employees' certifications. 2. Eight evaluations by external experts External evaluators have .undertaken the eight required evaluations but discovered numerous errors in LRSD data. a. Not surprising, no policy and no comprehensive procedures for managing LRSD data exist. Very competent people input and process data for LRSD, but they work without a coordinated plan which seeks out errors, corrects them, and guards use and integrity of LRSD information. b. The extent of data errors is unknown, so results based on LRSD information have uncertain accuracy and validity. c. In the October 2006 compliance report, filed with the USDC, LRSD disclosed that it has begun efforts to monitor more closely for errors new information entering the Pagel of5 Attachment 14 LRSD data base. However, PRE knows of no efforts to check and correct old data. d. LRSD has not enlisted PRE to assess or develop a policy for its data. 3. Embedding assessments-in LRSD operations For supporting LRSD's obligation to embed assessment, PRE began planning a \"data warehouse\" late in 2004 with nationally eminent experts in school information and launched additional assessments not mandated by the Compliance Remedy. a. LRSD rejected PRE's plans, which would have had the data warehouse functioning by the due date of the Compliance Report required by the Court. b. Instead, LRSD chose a firm which develops data warehouses for retail commercial applications. That firm's software, Crystal Objects, was implemented in schools in Orange County, Florida, which do not assess programs as LRSD has committed to do. c. When the vendor will finish enough of its \"data cube!' to support PRE's data needs is unknown, although it is partially ready and easily usable in its incomplete state. d. LRSD enlisted PRE superficially and late in construction of this data base but not in its design. A simple example is PRE's ongoing request, starting in January 2006, for tagging student and teacher records (allowing LRSD to identify their participation in key programs and track their progress later). LRSD has not tagged records. e. LRSD has also undermined PRE's efforts to operate professionally. For example, LRSD refused PRE' s scientifically valid surveys of stakeholder opinions, which are important information for the dis.trict portfolio. f. With the aid of a consultant and encouragement from a state ACSIP coordinator, PRE positioned LRSD to lead the state's school districts in responding to Arkansas' newrequirement for a wellness priority in its annual ACSIPs. Yet, LRSD opposed  this project without reason. g. Thus, during the past two years, LRSD has impeded compliance with embedding  assessment in itsoperations. 4. Eighth quarterly update In its final quarterly update, PRE noted errors in LRSD's data, the absence of a data management system, and their threat to sound decisions based on such info1mation. a. LRSD and/or its counsel withheld PRE's version (Appendix A) from the Board at its scheduled agenda meeting, when the Board would have normally considered it, and eliminated this and other parts from PRE's final update without the Board's knowledge. (Appendix B has the revised version submitted to ODM and Joshua.) b. Unaware of any changes and apparently without reading the revised update, Board members approved the revised quarterly update at its regular meeting. c. However, PRE sent its original version to ODM and Joshua when sending it to the Board for its review and discussion. So ODM and Joshua know that LRSD altered PRE's update, but the Board may not know it. 5. Cooperation between LRSD and Joshua During the 2004-05 year, relations between PRE and Joshua were professional but not very cooperative--consistent with the history of the two parties. a. However, during the next school year, the \"chill\" between PRE and Joshua began to thaw on one hand, while PRE experienced less and less responsiveness from LRSD counsel on the other hand. b. A directive from LRSD's counsel not to meet with Joshua in the absence of LRSD counsel seemed at odds with USDC's 2004 remedy, but PRE's plea to LRSD and its Page 2 of 5 Attachment 15 counsel for clarification of this directive went unanswered. c. Moreover, LRSD and its counsel attended few evaluation sessions, of which PRE notified Joshua, ODM, LRSD, and its counsel. d. In these circumstances, PRE felt estranged (if not driven) from LRSD's and its counsel's rapport and progressively cooperative with both ODM and Joshua: e. With encouragement from ODM, PRE shared openly with ODM its efforts and discussed them. 6. Compliance report While LRSD counsel submitted on its due date the compliance report mandated by USDC's 2004 remedy, the report contained significant errors. a. After PRE's prompt notice (with documentation) of the report's errors (Appendix C), counsel corrected some of them and submitted a revised report to USDC. 7. Behavior of PRE's director and LRSD's senior officials Quite regrettably, the relation between LRSD and PRE's director has deteriorated. a. The superintendent threatened her dismissal if she shared information with ODM or Joshua. b. Informatiop from the administration to PRE about actions vital to PRE's duties has lessened. c. Senior administrators have directed other PRE staff without her knowledge. d. LRSD's counsel became unresponsive and evasive. e. She engaged a law firm for advice in the absence of LRSD's legal counsel. f. She filed a grievance through LRSD's Human Resources Department. The grievance alleged (and documented) interference on the part ofLRSD with her duties understood from the Compliance Remedy and from interviews at the time of her hiring. She expressed her fear of possible penalties by the USDC as a result of noncompliance by LRSD. g. Violating its.policy for prompt attempts to resolve grievances, LRSD has neither tried remediation nor informed its Board of the situation. Recommendations Several possibilities for resolution of these difficulties include the following. A Restoration of administrative support and addition of test coordinators, based on a review of responsibilities: i. An administrative assistant will expedite much processing of department business, inciuding preparing reports and processing surveys.  ii. Testing seems to require at least a full-time administrative assistant and two assistant test coordinators.  iii. These needs ~ould be substantiated and clarified by an expert audit. B. Comprehensive study of LRSD data accuracy and implementation of policy and procedures for managing LRSD information and guarding its accuracy, use, and fidelity: i. Since LRSD does not seem to employ data system experts, it may need to hire consultants, who should be knowledgeable about public school data requirements from cybernetic, legal, organizational, community, and possibly other viewpoints. ii. The comprehensive system intended here is not the same as data processing, which the Computer Information Services Department performs very well. This Page 3 of5 Attachment 16 department understandably has consistently denied responsibility for quality of  the information it' processes. -  iii. Data input has been well coordinated by a single employee without sufficient resources to check and correct new data.  iv. Blaming any department or employee for incorrect data is inappropriate. The failure has been in not addressing information issues globally. C. More resources devoted to completing the data warehouse: i. The current difficulty of assembling data (as well as its unknown validity) hampers the capacity to assess programs efficiently and confidently. Therefore, finishing and testing the ambitious construction of LRSD's data warehouse should proceed quickly. ii. Of equal importance is estimating error rates in previously collected data and proceeding systematically with correcting it as indicated by investigation. iii. The data warehouse should include the additional information needed by PRE for assessments, portfolio, ACSIPs, and other functions. iv. If the application now under construction proves inadequate, LRSD should reconsider PRE's vendor or another which satisfies current and anticipated needs. _ D. Protection of PRE and LRSD from senior administrators' actions: i. Because assessing LRSD's programs is parallel to auditing its finances, the Board will benefit from direct communication with and directi_on of PRE, similar to the internal auditor's. ii.Accordingly, the Board would directly detennine PRE's budget. iii_ LRSD's senior officials have demonstrated that they are not trustworthy with this essential function of faithfully communicating expert opinion to the Board. iv. Their behavior has also rendered the Board at risk of non-compliance. v. The Board could protect itself from such behavior by replacing senior officials. E. Transparency: i. While its operations have grown more open over the past decades, LRSD must maintain and increase its accountability to all stakeholders regardless of historical conflicts, political alignments, personal conflicts, and other influences. ii. Its Board may set an example of enthusiastic compliance and insist on like practices throughout the organization. Posturing and abuse of regulations are not consistent with transparency. iii. A question which seems not to have been asked often enough, \"Do we want to teach our students this kind of behavior?\" Page 4 of 5 Attachment 1 7 : \\l~ Summary of Compliance and Recommendations USDC requirements Compliance Status Recommendations LRSD hired another PhD-level evaluator as director and two masters-level Rejuvenate PRE. statisticians but ended a support position and failed to hire a full-time test Hire an administrative assistant and coordinator for more than_ a year. Unprecedented numbers oftest vio_lations two assistant test coordinators. occurred during that period. External evaluators undertook all eight, finding many errors in dat_a from Review needs for comprehensive data PRE oversee eight management. Implement a policy and step-2 evaluations. LRSD and encountering delays in access to \"high-stakes\" test results. . procedures with sufficient resources. Board approved new assessment policy written by PRE. Complete currently partially complete PRE produced a draft district \"portfolio\" with three of five intended kinds of information. data warehouse, with more resources if Embed assessments PRE began plans for a \"data warehouse'.' to support :frequent assessments, necessary. Test and further develop in LR.SD operations. but LRSD substituted an inferior alternative. warehouse for usability. LRSD stopped PRE's stakeholder surveys, intended for the portfolio, and PRE report directly to Board (parallel plans for wellness data. with internal auditor). PRE write eight . PRE wrote each in time for the Board's consideration and approval, but PRE report directly to Board (parallel quarterly updates. LRSD deleted critical comments about LRSD information in the eighth. with internal auditor) . LR.SD cooperate with LRSD maintained its adversarial relations with Joshua, while PRE gradually Reform LRSD's effo1ts toward Joshua. became cooperative. transparency. LRSD submit LRSD submitted on due date, October 16, 2006, with significant errors Reform LRSD's efforts toward compliance report. which it corrected the following week. transparency. ...... 00 Page 5 of 5 - - - - - - - - --------------- JOSHUA COMMENTS REGARDING LRSD'S DRAFT EVALUATIONS One purpose of Section 2. 7 .1 is to assess [ or evaluate] programs to determine whether they work to \"[improve] African American achievement .. \" In the eight court-required evaluations, the principal method for determining such effectiveness of programs is to consider changes in the test scores of students served, compared to similar students not in the programs . Other information provided about the programs evaluated is more subjective ( the opinions of principals, teachers, students and parents about the programs). . The evaluations recognize the importance of descriptions of the programs and the extent ofimplementation. E.g., Read 180 evaluation at 3; 21 st Century Community Learning Centers _ Evaluation at 5. There are some shortcomings in this regard. The value of the evaluations would be greatly enhanced if these matters were addressed. It has been noted previously that without such information there is a limited basis for attributing the observed pattern of student outcomes to the program.being evaluated.  Read 180 The problem is most clear with regard to the Read 180 evaluation. There is no one place in the evaluation where a comprehensive description of the program is found. Thus, there is no basis for a reader to consider v..rhether the content of this program would, logically, be expected to improve a student's scores on either the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, or the Arkansas Benchmark examinations or both. An answer to this question in the light of a strong program description, by a person(s) knowledgeable about the skills and knowledge addressed in the two varieties of standardized tests , would be most helpful. Attachment 19 One problem with the Read 180 program description appears on page 50. The text reads: \"The Read 18 0 program was equally used to replace or to supplement Standard English courses.\" This would see1:1 to mean that in one-half of the 10 participating schools ( at 12, 10 schools in the study), Read 180 operates as what could be termed a \"pull out\" program, replacing the regular curriculum. In the other five, it seemingly supplements the regular program. It is hard to understand the latter answer given the time involved in the Read 180 program. The exposure of students to the regular curriculum content (or lack thereof) is of great importance. We understand that the Arkansas Benchmark exams are designed to test mastery of that curriculum. If, in tact, Read 180 is a pull out program, the test result analysis suggests that exposure to the regular curriculum is a better option. Without a good description of the Read 180 program, however, one can't tell .if this outcome is due to a disconnect between Read 180 content and test content. In brief, we are unclear about these matters: is the Read 180 program a pull out program replacing the regular curriculum? Is it a supplemental program so that students receive both the regular curriculum and Read 180? How does the content of Read 180 compare with the regular curriculum and the content of the relevant tests? The Read 180 evaluation at page 89 states: \"The design employed to assess Read 180 effects, while quite rigorous, cannot rule out the possibility of selection effects because students were not randomly assigned to treatment conditions.\" We understand this to mean that despite the overall success of the matched pair approach, statistical.ly, the method of selecting students might have placed weaker students in the Read 180 program. The discussion of how students were selected is very terse. [Draft at 50; one 3-line sentence] It is also problematical. It begins [at 2 Attachment 20 I I I I I I I I I 50] \"Students were primarily selected on the basis of Benchmark scores (77%) . .. \" We understarid that there were other.students with the same scores in each school. Thus some other selection criteria were seemingly employed. The matter of the selection criteria requires more attention due to the caution about \"selection effects.\" 21st CCLC A dominant feature of this evaluation is the content showing that in most schools student participation was insufficient to allow strong conclusions on the program's effectiveness in improving African American achievement as shown by test scores. [Evaluation at 68-76] Beyond this, the evaluation could be strengthened with regard to description of the content of the program at each school, particularly as it related to content which could be expected to contribute directly to improved test scores. 1 The initial description of program content is very general. It identifies a slate of possible activities and then states: \"Each school develops a slate of activities specific to the needs of the student population.\" [At 1] There is additional description of program content at pages 45-47. However, it appears to be insufficient to allow a judgment of whether students ' skills and test outcomes could be e;xpected to grow due to the content of the program, it attendance were adequate. There is here no description of program content at Southwest Middle School where somewhat more than one-half of the participants were \"substantially served.\" [At 69] The impact of the program at Southwest [at 72, 75] must be read in this light. 1 . Participation might have indirect effects on achievement, if, for example, it lead to positive feelings on individual worth, or to good feelings about school, leading in turn to better attendance, more attention in the classroom, greater diligence regarding homework, etc. 3 Attachment 21 ., f\\lOV 14 uo IL:4.UP Kooen 1-'ressman JORN\" ~r. 1rVALKER., P.A. ATTOR.L\"\\i'\"EYS AT L~ W . 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, AR...CU.NSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FA.,X (50 i) 3'7.i-4187 p.11 JOENW. WALKER OFCOUNSEI. SHA \\v-::{ CHILDS Via. Facsimile - 447-7609 December 1, 2005 ROBERT McHEl'l\"R.Y, ? .A 3210 ? .. BfDERSCN csOAI LlTTLE ROCK, A.R ..'Z ..\u0026gt;,NSAS 7221 ( ?HC-NE: (:50l ) 374-3425  ?A..:((501) J-;2-342~ E~i(A.Il : m:h,m-...ctr.:r1s-.vbcU .n~ Dr. Karen DeJ an1ette Director, PRE Little Rock School Disu-ict 80 West Mar.kham Little Rock, .AR 72201 Dear Dr. DeJ a.mette: \\Ve note that tn your first quarterly report to the Court, you have identified seven persons including their positions. as members of the team of highly trained professionals for the PRE. Would you, therefore, please provide the following: l) the period of time each PRE staff person b.:;s served in their position; 2) whether any additional persons have been hired since June 30, 2005; 3) whetherthere have been any replacements since June 30, 2005; 4) whether any persons have left and the reasons therefor since June 30, 2005; 5) whether any vacated position was a result of an administrative decision to do,,;,,nsize PRE; and 6). whether there are currently any vacancies in PRE, if so, what position, Thank you for your attention to this request. Jv,rrN :j s c::: l\\'fr Gene Jones, ODivI Nrr. Chris Heiler Attachment 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF DEPOSITION RECEIVED TO: Mr. John W. Walker, Attorney 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 NOV 3 0 2006 OfflCEOF IRtGRE6ATION IIONITOBING You are hereby notified that we will take the deposition of Gene Jones, Office of Desegregation Monitor, on December 6, 2006 at I :30 p.m. at the offices of Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000, Little Rock, Arkansas, by stenographic means before a certified court reporter. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 By:~ jjJ}L b'l~ ChristophrHeller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 29, 2006, I have electronically sent the above notice to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones(cv,mwsgw.com siones@jlj.com j ohnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Mr. John W. Walker, Attorney 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Gene Jones and Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 [~~ Chri; herHeller 2 RECEIVED NOV 3 o 2006 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OFflCEOF EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DESEGREGATION MONITORING WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Mr. John W. Walker, Attorney 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 You are hereby notified that we will take the deposition of Margie Powell, - Office of Desegregation Monitor, on December 6, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. at the offices of Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000, Little Rock, Arkansas, by stenographic means before a certified court reporter. \\ Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 ~ fJ,JL 1;, t;e,,.. Christopherelle . . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 29, 2006, I have electronically sent the above notice to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com jolmwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Mr. John W. Walker, Attorney 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Gene Jones and Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray  U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 2 HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922- 1994) BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICKS. URSERY, P.A. E CLARX, JR., P.A. P. LEGGETT, P.A. WY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM 111, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. )AMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSEU Ul, P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., P.A. ELLZABETH ROBBEN Ml/RRAY, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMlnt, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WlLUAM M. GRlmN Ill, P.A MICHAELS. MOORE, P.A. WALTER M. EBn Ill, P.A. KEVlN A. CRASS, P.A. WILUAMA. WADDELi.JR., P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH, JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. )AMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. HARRY A. UGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDN'ER, P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID D. WILSON, P.A. JEFFREY H, MOORE, P ,A, DA VtD M. GRAF, P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, P.A. JONANN C. CHILES, P.A. R.. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P.A. DEITY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH, P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT, P.A. DANIELL HERRINGTON, P.A. VIA HAND DELIVERY Ms. Joy Springer John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: Deposition Dear Joy: FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.frldayflrm.com 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 2000 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3522 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-3762147 3  25 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 727034111 TELEPHONE 4711152011 November 30, 2006 J, MICHAEL PICKENS, P.A. MAR VIN L. CHlLOERS K. COLEMAN WESTIIROOK, JR., P.A. AULSON J. CORNWELL P.A. ELLEN OWENS SMITH. P.A. JASON B. HENDREN, P.A. BRUCE B. TLDWEU, P.A. JOSEPH P. MCKAY, P.A. ALEXANDRA A. lFRAH, P.A. JAY T. TAYLOR. P.A. MARTIN A. KASTEN, P.A. BRYAN W. DIJJCE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHEUE ATOR. P.A. KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON KRISTEN S. ROWLANDS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM LORENCE KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERICH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE STEVEN L BROOKS H, WAYNE YOUNG, JR. JAMIE HUFFMAN JONES KlMBERLY D. YOUNG JASON N. BRAMJ.ETT ORI.AN C. SMITH D. MICHAEL MOYERS SETH M. HAINES ERIN E. CULLUM KRISTOPHER B. KNOX KATHRYN A. KIRKPATRICK 1, ADAM WELLS LAt.TRA I. ASBURY Of COUNSll W1I.LlAM H. SUTTON, P.A. WILLLAM L TERRY WtLUAM L PATTON, JR. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JIL, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL S0l ,J70-1506 FAX S01-2H-Sl\"1 heller@ftc.ne:c RECEIVED J)e,v ) 2006 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING . I understand December 7, 2006 is a more convenient day for your deposition. We will change the date and time to December 7, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. Enclosed please find a deposition notice and subpoena for that day. Christopher Heller CJH/bk  ~Hclosw:--es oc w/enc. Notice: All counsel ofrec,oni IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Mr. John W. Walker, Attorney 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 You are hereby notified that we will take the deposition of Joy Springer on - Dece~ber 7, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. at the offices of Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000, Little Rock, Arkansas, by stenographic means before a certified court reporter. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol A venue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 @.~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 30, 2006, I have electronically sent the above notice to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Mr. John W. Walker, Attorney 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Gene Jones and Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U, S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 2 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth .James, Commissioner CducatiWn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /ArkansasEd.org November 30, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones ill RECEIVED DEC -4 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: 'Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of November 2006 in the above-referenced case.  If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, 2eu4~ ~6JSmith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier 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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED DEC -4 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for November 2006. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smith, Bar General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on November 30, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000  Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M.SamuelJones,ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~Smith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED DEC - 4 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFD~EGREGffi~:~bNITORING V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the AD E's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS .f.. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_668","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":["2006-11/2007-01"],"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","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/668"],"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\nPage 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc\nSent: Attach: Subject: \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@irsd.org\u0026gt; \"Fletcher, Danny\" \u0026lt;Danny.Fletcher@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Ray, Katina\" \u0026lt;Katina.Ray@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Riley, Cheryl\" \u0026lt;Cheryl.Riley@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Cummings, Danyell\" \u0026lt;Danyell.Cummings@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia,Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;heller@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail,com\u0026gt; Thursday, November 02, 2006 10:12 AM team06oct30A+c.doc A+ evaluation team notes These are draft notes from our conversation Wednesday. Please let me know any errors or omissions. Thanksi (I do not have an address for Donna Moore.) a Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 11/6/2006Page'll of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Fletcher, Danny\" \u0026lt;Danny.Fletcher@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Ray, Katina\" \u0026lt;Katina.Ray@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Riley, Cheryl\" \u0026lt;Cheryl.Riley@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Cummings, Danyell \u0026lt;Danyell.Cummings@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;heller@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, November 02, 2006 10:12 AM team06oct30A+c.doc A+ evaluation team notes These are draft notes from our conversation Wednesday. Please let me know any errors or omissions. ThanksI (I do not have an address for Donna Moore.) Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq received NOV - 6 2006 OFRCEOF desegregation monitoring 11/6/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Brooks, Roy G\" \u0026lt;Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh. Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;KPMITCHELL@PHILANDER.EDU\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;rmdaugherty@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\"Fox, Melanie\" \u0026lt;Melanie.Fox@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;bkurrus@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Larry Berkley\" \u0026lt;LARRY@CARTI.com\u0026gt;\n\"Armstrong, Charles\" \u0026lt;Charles.Armstrong@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Curry, Dianne\" \u0026lt;Dianne.Curry@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Cummings, Danyell\" \u0026lt;Danyell.Cummings@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Griffin, Beverly\" \u0026lt;Beverly.Griffin@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Friday, November 03, 2006 12:04 PM document for board of directors meeting nov 9.pdf RE: Agenda Meeting November 9 Well be happy to meet with the board and answer any questions. However, both Maurecia Robinson and Jim Wohlleb are scheduled to take vacation days next week. Both will be out of town on the 9* but they might be available by phone. For the boards preparation, we have condensed our comments (in the attachment). From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:47 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: FW: Agenda Meeting November 9 Please note. Thank you. Olivine Robeits, Ed.D. Associate Superintendent, Educational Services Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski St. Little Rock, AR 72206 Phone: 501.447.3320 Fax: 501.447.3321 From: Brooks, Roy G Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 2:40 PM To: Griffin, Beverly\nHartz, David\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMilhollen, Mark\nMittiga, Joseph\nRoberts, Olivine Cc: 'Chris Heller'\nMitchell, Sadie\nBabbs, Junious Subject: Agenda Meeting November 9 Olivine: Would you please notify Dr. DeJarnette that the board has requested a compliance remedy update at the November 9 agenda meeting? This presentation should also involve other members of the PRE department. Everyone in the department should be available that evening. 11/6/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent\nSubject: \"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"To:\" \u0026lt;jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Miller, Leticia\" \u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Menking, Mary\" \u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hobbs, Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell, Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, November 06, 2006 4:45 PM Magnet Meeting 'S . I Hello Team, Jeanne Dreyfus, the external consultant and technical writer for the Magnet Evaluation, will be here on November 8, 2006 at 1:30 P.M., to begin and discuss year two of the Magnet report. The meeting will be held in Room 18 at the IRC. I hope you will be able to attend. Please call if you have questions, 447-3382. I have received confirmation for those who will not be able to attend\nbut I just wanted to remind everyone. Thank you, Maurecia Maurecia Robinson, Statistician Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/447-3382 11/7/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Tuesday, November 07, 2006 9:22 AM FW\nindependent investigation From: Brooks, Roy G Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 6:45 PM To: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine\nDejarnette, Karen\nWilliams, Ed\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWohlleb, Jim Cc: heller@fec.net\n'quattlebaum@qgtb.com' Subject: FW: independent investigation You will be contacted shortly by Steve Quattlebaum or Mike Shannon of the Quattlebaum Law Firm. Please provide them with your full cooperation. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 5:05 PM To: Brooks, Roy G Cc: mshannon@qgtb.com\nSteve Quattlebaum Subject: independent investigation roy - now that we have engaged the quattlebaum firm to conduct an independent investigation of issues raised by pre in the \"compliance history\" we received on November 3, 2006, please let all of the Irsd employees who may be contacted by steve quattlebaum or mike shannon know that they should give them their full cooperation and that it is a high priority for Irsd to have these issues resolved as quickly as possible, thanks, ch 11/7/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, November 08, 2006 8:25 AM FW: pre meeting testerday From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:40 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: pre meeting testerday karen - just a reminder about the documents i requested at our meeting yesterday -1. the draft document you worked on w/ dr ross to develop a plan to meet the \"deeply embedded\" requirement\n2. a list of districts around the country comparable in size to Irsd which have research, evaluation or accountability departments similar to or larger than pre\n3. any documents you may have that reflect the opinion of anyone from odm about the meaning of any of the compliance remedy requirements\n4. the list of items that you believe should be contained in the data warehouse which you gave to hugh hattabaugh\nand 6. a list of school districts which use tetradata, please send documents as soon as you locate them rather than wait until you have all of them, thanks, ch 11/8/2006Margie Page 1 of 2 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:41 PM FW: pre meeting testerday From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:41 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Subject: RE: pre meeting testerday Chris, Here is an update on the items listed in your email: 1.1 could not locate the draft document. It was located on a temporary computer I used the first 3 weeks of my employment with LRSD and is not on the computer I received during my 4*i^ week here. It may not be very important though since in the early phase of that document Dr. Ross approved Vicki Bernhardt to assist PRE with the implementation of the comprehensive assessment process and the draft was not completed. After Ross' approval, we worked with Dr. Bernhardt to develop a scope of work which I provided to you again on Monday. 2. A list of districts with PRE departments can be compiled as soon as we have time to do so. As you know we have been overwhelmed with meetings this week including meetings with the Quattlebaum law firm that you and Dr. Brooks asked us to make time for. 3. I could not locate any documents from ODM. 4. I will forward an email I sent months ago to Mr. Hattabaugh that contained the list of data needed in the database. 6. I have asked Tetradata to provide a list of districts they work with and will forward it to you as soon as I receive it. Karen From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:40 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: pre meeting testerday 11/13/2006Page 2 of 2 karen - just a reminder about the documents i requested at our meeting yesterday -1. the draft document you worked on w/ dr ross to deveiop a plan to meet the \"deeply embedded\" requirement\n2. a list of districts around the country comparable in size to Irsd which have research, evaluation or accountability departments similar to or larger than pre\n3. any documents you may have that reflect the opinion of anyone from odm about the meaning of any of the compliance remedy requirements\n4. the list of items that you believe should be contained in the data warehouse which you gave to hugh hattabaugh\nand 6. a list of school districts which tetradata, please send documents as soon as you locate them rather than wait until you have ail of them, thanks, ch use 11/13/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt; \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, November 09, 2006 11:47 AM unitary status issues John - if you will let me know what issues you would like to discuss, i'll be happy to meet with you (and odm) in the morning, i'll be talking with my clients today about various aspects of our compliance, and will gather what information i can to respond to your concerns, i just called crep in memphis to check on the status of the pre-k literacy evaluation, which is due Wednesday, and learned that it will be close but they still expect to get it in on time, ch 11/9/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;Jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, November 09, 2006 9:01 AM FW\nromine From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 6:23 PM To: Williams, Ed\nDejarnette, Karen\nmaurecia.malcom@lrsd.org\nRobinson, Maurecia Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nMitchell, Sadie Subject: romine i've reviewed the 1998 revised desegregation and education plan and don't see how the listing of designated magnet programs in the student assignment section of that document could form the basis for an assumption that none of those programs were school-wide programs, perhaps \"magnet program\" is a term of art in the field of education research which always means something other than a magnet school, if so, the technical meaning was not intended in the revised plan, also, the revised plan lists romine as an interdistrict school, but not as a school with a magnet program, reliance on the revised plan would not have led to the conclusion that romine is a magnet school, ch 11/9/2006Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell, Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Menking, Mary\" \u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hobbs, Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan. Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Cole. Chris\" \u0026lt;Chris.Cole@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt; Thursday. November 09. 2006 9:35 AM _ -x RE: Notes from year II Magnet evaluation ( r. ICd rrag tvat. ) Ed, Why didnt you send the notes to the entire team as we usually do? My feedback follows, I think the notes need to be amended in the following points: Section D (page 1) - Jeanne said she responded to questions from the board, but did not receive any feedback from the board. Section B (page 2) ~ These questions were not posed as possible research questions but as questions senior administrators or Board memtjers need to answer. Section D1. (page 2) - The discussion regarding tags included columnar and simple tags. My suggestion included IT department to proceed with whichever would be the most speedy and I noted the need to pull data we now have on tagged students (discipline, attendance, etc.) and to provide it to Jeanne as soon as possible. Four schools were named to test tags, not two. Mr. Hattabaugh was asked to provide a timeline for tags to be completed. Section D4 (page 2) -1 recommended for Jeanne to share revised or new protocols with the evaluation team members, not just Maureica. Thanks for taking notes during the meeting! I hope you receive feedback from others so all thoughts are included in the final draft. From: Williams, Ed Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 8:07 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nMitchell, Sadie\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\n'Chris Heller' Subject: Notes from year II Magnet evaluation To All: Attached is an inital draft of notes from yesterday's meeting. Please review and comment. Thanks Dr. Ed 11/9/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette. Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:46 PM FW: meeting? From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:46 PM To: Brooks, Roy G Subject: meeting? Dr. Brooks, I was informed by a Cabinet member that you announced to Cabinet on Monday that I was not present in the Cabinet meeting because I was in a meeting with Sandy Becker, the Districts internal auditor. I am not aware of any meeting with Sandy Becker. I was not in Cabinet because I was meeting with Chris Heller, Khayaam Eddings and the PRE team to discuss court-related issues. Please let me know why you said I was meeting with Sandy Becker. No one has ever mentioned a meeting with Sandy to me. Thanks for providing me with clarification on your announcement to Cabinet members. Karen 11/9/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, November 09, 2006 4:15 PM database revised.doc FW: From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:51 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Subject: FW: A second email. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 10:11 AM To: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: Dr. Roberts and Mr. Hattabaugh, First, I'd like to say thanks for the meeting this morning. I was encouraged. For your files, I am enclosing a document that outlines the history of PRE's thinking and planning for the data warehouse. This document makes more specific the needs of PRE, I think. Karen 11/13/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen,Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, November 09, 2006 4:15 PM FW: PRE database needs From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:48 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Subject: FW: PRE database needs Chris, This is one of two emails sent to Mr. Hattabaugh related to database needs. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:07 AM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMilhoilen, Mark Subject: PRE database needs Dr. Roberts and Mr. Hattabaugh, This is the list of PRE needs for the database being developed (based on June 7^^ Presentation): The database being developed seems to have four of the five needed areas defined: 1. Demographics 2. Student Learning 3. Perceptions 4. Financial A fifth area is not yet defined: 5. School Processes PRE really needs a database with School Processes data included. We also need all of the data within the four areas listed above to be tagged by School Processes so the data can be triangulated to conduct program assessment and evaluations. School Process data includes: Interventions (e.g. Reading Recovery, Special Education), Program Participation (e.g. Professional Development, Extra Curricular Activities), Iimovative Process (Team Teaching), Calendars (Year Round Education), Standards, and Curriculum Objectives In addition to the fifth data set, PRE will need statistical analysis tools with preloaded formulas to allow for time efficient analysis. If you would like additional information, please let me know. Karen 11/13/2006Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, November 13, 2006 10:10 AM FW\nPlease proof From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:10 AM To: Griffin, Beverly\n'Chris Heller'\nBrooks, Roy G\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine Cc: Wohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\n'smross@memphis.edu'\n'James Catterall' Subject: RE: Please proof Beverly, I think it should be written as follows. Four external evaluations were conducted in accordance with the District Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). Drs. Steve Ross and James Catterall have submitted three of the four final draft evaluation reports presented for the Board's review and approval: Read 180 21st Century Learning Centers A+ The initial draft of PreK Program evaluation has been submitted by the external evaluators however it has not been reviewed by the evaluation team. Cabinet, or Board of Directors at this time. After the Board of Directors approves each final evaluation report, evaluation teams will meet with the Director of PRE to evaluate the processes and products and to make recommendations for future program evaluations. From: Griffin, Beverly Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:58 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Please proof LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 11/13/2006Page 2 of 2 A DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: November 16, 2006 5:30:00 PM Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools Four External Evaluations A BACKGROUND: Four external evaluations were conducted in accordance with the District Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). Drs. Steve Ross and James Catterall have submitted three of the four draft evaluation reports presented for the Board's review and approval: Read 180 21st Century Learning Centers Pre-Kindergarten.A The A+ Program evaluation has not been submitted by the external evaluators. After the Board of Directors approves each program evaluation, teams will meet with the Director of PRE to evalulate the processes and products and to make recommendations for future program evaluations. RATIONALE: The Court's remedy requires LRSD to approve all step-2 evaluations. At the time of the November 16th board meeting three evaluations have been completed: FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the three external evaluations provided at this time. PREPARED BY: Dr. Karen DeJamette 11/13/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:35 PM a+ final.pdf\nletter reA+.doc FW: A+ report From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:35 PM To: Griffin, Beveriy\n'Chris Heller' Cc: 'James Catterall'\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: A+ report Beverly and Chris, I received the enclosed A+ report today from Dr. Catterall. I removed one page from the report and enclosed a letter of explanation. Please send the report and letter on to board members so they may review the report before Thursdays board meeting. Thanks, Karen 11/15/2006Page 1 oi 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucia.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt;: \"Hobbs, Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Menking. Mary\" \u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Miller. Leticia\" \u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell. Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan. Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Cummings, Danyell\" \u0026lt;Danyell.Cummings@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:29 PM RE: Magnet Team Notes from 11/8 Meeting Ed. A reminder: all of the notes from evaluation team meetings also go to ODM and JOSHUA. From: Williams, Ed Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:16 PM To: (Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu)\nBrigette Williams (brigette@abpg.com)\nDonna Creer (donnacreer@magnetschool.com)\nHobbs, Felicia\nJeanne Dre^us (jpdrey@aol.com)\nMenking, Mary\nMiller, Leticia\nMitchell, Sadie\nMorgan, Nancy\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nWohlleb, Jim\nCummings, Danyell Subject: Magnet Team Notes from 11/8 Meeting Magnet Team Members: The attached file are the notes from the 11/8/06 meeting. If need be, please reply with your comments. Thanks Dr. Ed 11/14/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \u0026lt;Jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabriel mail .com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;: \u0026lt;Danyell.Cummings@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Tuesday, November 14, 2006 2:21 PM Meeting Notes Nov 9 06.doc Re: Magnet Team Notes from 11/8 Meeting Dear Team Members, I put together input from my notes that I thought would be helpful to have included in the Magnet Team Notes of 11/08/06. Be sure and e-mail me if you have any problems opening the attachment or have questions or thoughts about the content All the best. Jeanne (Dreyfus) 11/15/2006Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: Page 1 of 1 \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Nugent, Glenda\" \u0026lt;Glenda.Nugent@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mccraw, Helen\" \u0026lt;Helen.Mccraw@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Cole, Chris\" \u0026lt;Chris.Cole@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Alexander, Sheneka\" \u0026lt;Sheneka.Alexander@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Doyne, Angela\" \u0026lt;Angela.Doyne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Filiatreau, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Filiatreau@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Freeman, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Freeman@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Purtle, Sarah\" \u0026lt;Sarah.Purtle@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Martha\" \u0026lt;Martha.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;laura@bnbstudio.com\u0026gt;\n\"Michelle Ellison\" \u0026lt;mellison@fsainc.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrieimail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Cummings. Danyell\" \u0026lt;Danyell.Cummings@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette. Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson. Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams. Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh. Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Anna Grehan - U Memphis\" \u0026lt;aw/grehan@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;lwharrsn@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;ajmcdnld@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;fpayton@memphis.edu\u0026gt; Wednesday. November 15. 2006 8:24 AM Pre-kindergarten literacy evaluation for LRSD Dear members of the evaluation team for pre-K literacy. Dr. Ross informed us to expect delivery of his reports initial draft evaluation report by today. We will forward it to you when it arrives. Please let me know ASAP\n1. Can you meet to discuss it in the next few days (within a week)? 2. Should we deliver a printed copy (in case you usually have difficulty accessing large attachments to e-mail messages)? Thanks very much for serving on this important team. Jim Wohlleb. Statistician Planning. Research. \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock. AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 11/15/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Miller, Leticia\" \u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Menking, Mary\" \u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hobbs, Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell, Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"gjones@aristotle.net\" \u0026lt;'gjones@aristotle.net'\u0026gt;\n\"brigette@abpg.com\" \u0026lt;'brigette@abpg.com'\u0026gt;\n\"mqpowell@odmemail.com\" \u0026lt;'mqpowell@odmemail.com'\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:39 PM meeting.ics Magnet Evaluation Team Meeting When: Friday. December 01, 2006 12:30 PM-2:30 PM (GMT-06:00) Central Time (US \u0026amp; Canada). Where: IRC Conference Room The next Magnet Evaluation Team Meeting is scheduled for December 1, 2006 from 12:30-2:30 in the Conference Room at the IRC. Please schedule this date on your calendar to attend. Thank you, Maurecia Robinson 11/15/2006Magnet Evaluation Team Meeting Wednesday, November 8% 2006 IRC Room 18,1:30 p.m. Lead by: Jeanne Dreyfus Those present: Ed Williams, Chris Cole, Nancy Morgan, Gene Jones, Maurecia Robinson, Hugh Hatabaugh, Mary Menking, Jeanne Dreyfus, Felicia Hobbs, Sadie Mitchell, Joy Springer, John Walker, Charles Bolden, Donna Creer, Chris Heller, and Karen DeJamette Review of Feedback on Year One Evaluation Report Descriptive in nature. A total of 17 schools (i.e.. Stipulation, MSAP, \u0026amp; Program), in which 38% (10,200) of the student body attend. A. What are the schools and programs all about? 1. Sustainability 2. Community support 3. Standard based Instruction B. Goals of Magnet Schools / Programs 1. Diversity 2. Equity 3. Academic excellence C. Impact of Magnet schools/Programs 1. 2. 3. Achievement by all students and by race De-isolation Achievement is the result of multiple variables a. b. c. d. e. f. Instruction Mixture of activities Attendance Mobility Graduation rate Magnet seal D. Where are we? 1. Year one report submitted in September to the District and accepted by the Board in October. 2. Have responded to questions from the Board.Year two Design A. Schools to include: Proceed with all schools, except clarify the status of Romine. B. Research questions: Additional questions that could be proposed. C. Year Two evaluation team: Maurecia Robinson will recruit additional Principals and parents from the non-stipulation magnet schools. D. Data Needs 1. Demographics a. b. c. d. e. 2. 3. 4. Columnar tagging will insure that data is captured historically, but the speediness of tagging should also be considered. Magnet columnar tags are developed and set-up in the as400. A columnar tag field test will be conducted at Mabelvale MS and McClellan HS. Protocol will flow from Mr. Hattabaugh thru Junious Babbs to building Principals to school level personnel If needed, appropriate personnel from Information services (IS) will provide training to school level persoimel 5. Process: Changes in magnet status and level of resources Student learning: Formative and summative data Perceptions: Interviews, observations, questionnaires, and focus groups to be conducted with any changes in protocol from year one to be reported to the Magnet Team and Team Leader Maurecia Robinson. Financial a. Budget allocation formula. b. Specific magnet expenditures. c. How are budgets derived, processed, and changes made.Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, November 15, 2006 9:22 PM depositions margie - now that i have received the Joshua objections to our compliance report, i believe that i will have to depose you and gene Jones in order to prepare for the hearing, i would like to do this during the first week of December, if possible, it will take less than a day to do both depositions, please let me know when you and gene can be available (the depositions do not have to be on the same day), and i'll work with mr walker to establish a schedule, thanks, ch 11/16/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, November 15, 2006 11:03 AM 21 stCCLC-evaluation-11 -14-FINAL.doc FW: 21st CCLC Report I can also provide hard copies of the report if the electronic files are too large to download. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 8:49 AM To: Griffin, Beverly\n'Chris Heller' Cc: Wohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G\n'Steven M Ross (smross)' Subject: FW: 21st CCLC Report Beverly and Chris, I am forwarding CREPs 21 CCLC report. Their research brief for this report should arrive today. I will send it along as soon as I receive it. The research brief should set on top of the final technical report. Please pass along to board members for tomorrows meeting. Thanks, Karen From: Aaron McDonald [mailto:ajmcdnld@memphis.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:16 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: 'Heidi Kenaga (hkenaga)'\njbates2@memphis.edu\nWilliams, Ed Subject: 21st CCLC Report Karen, Attached is the final 21 CCLC report. The Research Brief is undergoing one more review, so I will send that document to you tomorrow. Best, Aaron McDonald Center for Research in Educational Policy 11/15/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, November 15, 2006 11:06 AM 21st CCLC ResearchBrief.doc FW: 21st CCLC Research Brief /'/-\n/ci/ J Add this research brief to the final technical draft already sent. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 10:42 AM To: Griffin, Beverly\n'Chris Heller' Cc: Wohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G\n'Steven M Ross (smross)' Subject: FW: 21st CCLC Research Brief Beverly and Chris, This email includes the research brief for the 21stCCLC technical report sent earlier this morning. Karen From: Aaron McDonald [mailto:ajmcdnld@memphis.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 10:15 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Williams, Ed\n'Heidi Kenaga (hkenaga)'\njbates2@memphis.edu Subject: 21st CCLC Research Brief Karen, Attached is the 21 CCLC Research Brief as a follow-up to the full report that I sent yesterday. The hardcopies of the READ 180 and 21 CCLC reports will be sent to you via FedEx today (they should arrive tomorrow). We are also still planning on sending the draft Pre-K report today via email. Please let me know if you need anything else in the interim. Best, Aaron McDonald 11/15/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \u0026lt; J pd rey@aol .com \u0026gt; \u0026lt;Mattie.Ruth.Tipton@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.orgDanyell.Cummings@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Thursday. November 16, 2006 4:25 PM Re: FW: Magnet Tags I went back to my notes from the meeting regarding the questions you have. I do have notes of another team member, not Dr. Dejarnette, making an observation.about my doing a study .. .\"on those students who elected to come to these schools from outside of the regular attendance zone so they could participate in the magnet program\" However, that is not the case I am doing a broader study of the magnet schools and magnet programs and first need to know who is a magnet student in each of the 17 schools in my studying, regardless of their attendance zone or district of origin. In the case of these two schools, what they often call the \"Wheel\" magnet component is part of the schools' magnet programs. And, since it is the 6th and 9th grade classes that participate in the \"Wheels\" or something like them, I will need the Sth (Mabelvale) and 9th (McClellan) grade magnet students tagged as well as the 7th and Sth grade magnet students at Mabelvale and the 10th, 11th and 12th grade magnet students at McClellan High School. (This is not to say that I am not going to need data on their zone or district of origin later when I go into depth on difference aspect of the schools and programs.) Hope this helps. Please know that I really appreciate what you are doing. All the best. Jeanne (Dreyfus). 11/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: \u0026lt;Jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;Mattie.Ruth.Tipton@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Sent: Subject: \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Danyell.Cummings@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd,org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; com\u0026gt;\nThursday, November 16. 2006 5:13 PM Re: Your inquiries Sorry, team. Some of the addresses bounced back on me becuase of my typos. So, this is a second try at sending this e-mail. Jeanne Dear Ms. Tipton, I went back to my notes from the meeting regarding the questions you have. I do have notes of another team member, not Dr. Dejarnette, making an observation.about my doing a study.. .\"on those students who elected to come to these schools from outside of the regular attendance zone so they could participate in the magnet program\" However, that is not the case I am doing a broader study of the magnet schools and magnet programs and first need to know who is a magnet student in each of the 17 schools in my studying, regardless of their attendance zone or district of origin. In the case of these two schools, what they often call the \"Wheel\" magnet component is part of the schools' magnet programs. And, since it is the 6th and 9th grade classes that participate in the \"Wheels\" or something like them, I will need the 6th (Mabelvale) and 9th (McClellan) grade magnet students tagged as well as the 7th and Sth grade magnet students at Mabelvale and the 10th, 11th and 12th grade magnet students at McClellan High School. (This is not to say that I am not going to need data on their zone or district of origin later when I go into depth on difference aspect of the schools and programs.) Hope this helps. Please know that I really appreciate what you are doing. All the best. Jeanne (Dreyfus). 11/17/2006Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@irsd.org\u0026gt; \"Nugent, Glenda\" \u0026lt;Glenda.Nugent@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mccraw, Helen\" \u0026lt;Helen.Mccraw@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Cole, Chris\" \u0026lt;Chris.Cole@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Alexander, Sheneka\" \u0026lt;Sheneka.Alexander@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Doyne, Angela\" \u0026lt;Angela.Doyne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Filiatreau, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Filiatreau@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Freeman, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Freeman@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Purtle, Sarah\" \u0026lt;Sarah.Purtle@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Martha\" \u0026lt;Martha.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;laura@bnbstudio.com\u0026gt;\n\"Michelle Ellison\" \u0026lt;mellison@fsainc.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Cummings, Danyell\" \u0026lt;Danyell.Cummings@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Anna Grehan - U Memphis\" \u0026lt;awgrehan@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;lwharrsn@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;ajmcdnld@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;fpayton@memphis.edu\u0026gt; Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:51 PM Pre-Kdraft06nov16.doc RE\nPre-kindergarten literacy evaluation for LRSD Meeting within a week doesnt seem feasible. Can we all live with early afternoon on Friday, December 1, say 1:30? The 322 page evaluation report has arrived. Ill distribute printed copies to the few people who requested them. Thanks for your help and support. Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 8:25 AM To: Nugent, Glenda\nMccraw, Helen\nCole, Chris\nMorgan, Nancy\nAlexander, Sheneka\nDoyne, Angela\nFiliatreau, Ann\nFreeman, Ann\nPurtle, Sarah\nRoberts, Martha\n'James Catterall'\nRoberts, Olivine\nLaura Lewis (laura@bnbstudio.com)\nMichelle Ellison Cc: Marjorie Powell (mqpowell@odmemail.com)\nJohn W Walker Esq (johnwalkeratty@aol.com)\nJoy Springer - John Walker\nCummings, Danyell\nDejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nAnna Grehan - U Memphis\nlwharrsn@memphis.edu\nAaron J McDonald (ajmcdnld@memphis.edu)\n'fpayton@memphis.edu' Subject: Pre-kindergarten literacy evaluation for LRSD Dear members of the evaluation team for pre-K literacy, Dr. Ross informed us to expect delivery of his reports initial draft evaluation report by today. We will forazard it to you when it arrives. Please let me know ASAP: 1. Can you meet to discuss it in the next few days (within a week)? 2. Should we deliver a printed copy (in case you usually have difficulty accessing large attachments to e-mail messages)? Thanks very much for serving on this important team. 11/16/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Friday, November 17, 2006 9:32 AM AERAconference presentation.doc FW: presentation at national conference I meant to include both of you on this email. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 8:53 AM To: Griffin, Beverly Cc: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G\nChris Heller\nMargie\n'awgrehan@memphis.edu'\nWohlleb, Jim\nWilliams, Ed\nRobinson, Maurecia\nCummings, Danyell\n'Steven Ross'\n'James Catterall'\nJeanne Dreyfus (jpdrey@aol.com)\n'Bernhardt, Vickie' Subject: presentation at national conference Hi Beverly, Hopefully this announcement will be included in a snapshot to the Board of Directors and in the districts newsletter to employees. The enclosed document shares accomplishments of the Center for Research in Education Policy (Dr. Steven Ross/University of Memphis) and the PRE Department related to last years evaluation of the Reading Recovery program. Karen 11/17/2006Evaluators of Reading Recovery Will Present Results at International Conference with Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department Results from the evaluation of Reading Recovery, a program in many elementary schools of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) which identifies slow readers and boosts their reading skills, will be presented at the next annual conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) in April 2007. Dr. Anna Grehan, a researcher at the Center for Research on Educational Policy (CREP) at the University of Memphis, led the evaluation, which the LRSD authorized as part of its compliance with the 2004 order of the US District Court. Experts from CREP, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Georgia State University, and Ohio State University and the LRSD Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department worked together. Jim Wohlleb of the PRE Department coordinated the evaluation and will attend the conference. Dr. Grehan and her colleagues observed Reading Recovery sessions, questioned parents and school staff, and used information from standardized tests. Evaluators found that the District implemented the program well, and the participating students generally improved their skills. Compared to another group who did not take part in Reading Recovery, students who completed the program performed better on several measures but not as well on two measures. All groups of students, including African Americans, improved similarly after completing the 12 to 20 lessons of the program. The web address https://umdrive.memphis.edu:443/xvthoswfs/webui/ xv-6374700 docstorel-t OGMTQ72K has the full report. AERA, founded in 1916, is the most prominent international professional organization whose primary goal is advancing educational research and its practical application. AERAs 25,000 members are educators, administrators, directors of research, test experts, counselors, evaluators, graduate students, and behavioral scientists. More information can be found at http://www.aera.net/, the web site of AERA.Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette. Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Friday, November 17, 2006 7:11 PM quattlebaum report According to this weeks snapshot from the Superintendent to the Board of Directors, the Quattiebaum Report shouid be received on Tuesday and a special board meeting will be held on November 30^ beginning at 5p.m. 11/20/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Williams. Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Miller, Leticia\" \u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Menking, Mary\" \u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hobbs, Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell. Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan. Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;: \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"gjones@aristotle.net\" \u0026lt;'gjones@aristotle.net'\u0026gt;\n\"brigette@abpg.com\" \u0026lt;'brigette@abpg.com'\u0026gt;\n\"mqpowell@odmemail.com\" \u0026lt;'mqpowell@odmemail.com'\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt;\n\"Mcdonald. Dorothy\" \u0026lt;Dorothy.Mcdonald@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Ross. Suzanne\" \u0026lt;Suzanne.Ross@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;brendabarker77@yahoo.com\u0026gt;\n\"Babbs. Junious\" \u0026lt;Junious.Babbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Wednesday. November 29. 2006 4:05 PM Magnet Evaluation Team Meeting Agenda.doc\nYear II Evaluation Questions.doc: Magnet Equitable Ac..pdf\nMagnet Parents Revi..pdf Magnet Team Meeting: Agenda and Protocol tPvJ, Hello Everyone, In the attachments you will find the following\nAgenda for the Magnet Evaluation Team Meeting, Opening Discussion Questions for the Year II Evaluation, and the Draft Data Collection Tools. One is the Equitable Access Observation Protocol and the other is the Parent Phone Interview Protocol', both are pdf files. Please review for the Magnet Evaluation Team Meeting scheduled for December 1, 2006 at 12:30 P.M. Thank you, Maurecia Maurecia Robinson, Statistician Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/447-3382 11/30/2006Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Nugent, Glenda\" \u0026lt;Glenda.Nugent@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mccraw, Helen\" \u0026lt;Helen.Mccraw@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Cole, Chris\" \u0026lt;Chris.Cole@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Alexander, Sheneka\" \u0026lt;Sheneka.Alexander@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Doyne, Angela\" \u0026lt;Angela.Doyne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Filiatreau, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Filiatreau@lrsd.org\u0026gt;: \"Freeman, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Freeman@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Purtle, Sarah\" \u0026lt;Sarah.Purtle@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Martha\" \u0026lt;Martha.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;laura@bnbstudio.com\u0026gt;\n\"Michelle Ellison\" \u0026lt;mellison@fsainc.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Cummings, Danyell\" \u0026lt;Danyell.Cummings@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette. Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson. Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Anna Grehan - U Memphis\" \u0026lt;awgrehan@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;lwharrsn@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;ajmcdnld@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;fpayton@memphis.edu\u0026gt; Thursday, November 30, 2006 1:20 PM Reminder: evaluation team for pre-kindergarten literacy The evaluation team meets tomorrow, Friday, December 1 at 2 PM to review the draft report by the external evaluators. We will convene in the conference room at the IRC (3001 S Pulaski). External evaluators will participate by longdistance conference call. Please let me know of any questions or concerns. Thanks very much for participating. Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 8:25 AM To: Nugent, Glenda\nMccraw, Helen\nCole, Chris\nMorgan, Nancy\nAlexander, Sheneka\nDoyne, Angela\nFiliatreau, Ann\nFreeman, Ann\nPurtle, Sarah\nRoberts, Martha\n'James Catterall'\nRoberts, Olivine\nLaura Lewis (laura@bnbstudio.com)\nMichelle Ellison Cc: Marjorie Powell (mqpowell@odmemail.com)\nJohn W Walker Esq (johnwalkeratty@aol.com)\nJoy Springer - John Walker\nCummings, Danyell\nDejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nAnna Grehan - U Memphis\nlwharrsn@memphis.edu\nAaron J McDonald (ajmcdnld@memphis.edu)\n'fpayton@memphis.edu' Subject: Pre-kindergarten literacy evaluation for LRSD Dear members of the evaluation team for pre-K literacy. Dr. Ross informed us to expect delivery of his report's initial draft evaluation report by today. We will forward it to you when it arrives. Please let me know ASAP: 1. Can you meet to discuss it in the next few days (within a week)? 2. Should we deliver a printed copy (in case you usually have difficulty accessing large attachments to e-mail messages)? Thanks very much for serving on this important team. Jim Wohlleb, Statistician 11/30/20069 Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Nugent, Glenda\" \u0026lt;Glenda.Nugent@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mccraw, Helen\" \u0026lt;Helen.Mccraw@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Cole, Chris\" \u0026lt;Chris.Cole@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy,Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Alexander, Sheneka\" \u0026lt;Sheneka.Alexander@lrsd.org\u0026gt;: \"Doyne, Angela\" \u0026lt;Angela.Doyne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Filiatreau, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Filiatreau@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Freeman, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Freeman@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Purtle, Sarah\" \u0026lt;Sarah.Purtle@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Martha\" \u0026lt;Martha.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;laura@bnbstudio.com\u0026gt;\n\"Michelle Ellison\" \u0026lt;mellison@fsainc.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Cummings, Danyell\" \u0026lt;Danyell.Cummings@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;dejarn@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Anna Grehan - U Memphis\" \u0026lt;awgrehan@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;lwharrsn@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;ajmcdnld@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;fpayton@memphis.edu\u0026gt; Tuesday, December 05, 2006 7:16 AM 06dec1 preKteamJW.doc RE: Pre-kindergarten literacy evaluation for LRSD Here are notes from last Fridays session of the evaluation team. Please note they are incomplete, since I didnt capture everything everyone said. Please help me out! 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 12/5/2006Little Rock School District (LRSD) Pre-K Literacy Evaluation Team Review of Evaluation Report Center for Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis Friday, December 01, 2006 2 PM Participating: CREP: Grehan Grehan (Evaluation Director), Lynn Harrison, Aaron McDonald Joshua: Joy Springer and Corey Thomas Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM): Gene Jones Old Dominion University: John Nunnery (whom the group in the conference room could not hear) LRSD: Sheneka Alexander, Chris Cole, Angela Doyne, Kevin Crawford, Ann Freeman, Sadie Mitchell, Nancy Morgan, Glenda Nugent, Olivine Roberts, Maurecia Robinson, Jim Wohlleb, and Ed Williams District counsel Chris Heller [entered at 2:43 PM] [Ed Williams began dialing participants about 2:30 PM but experienced trouble linking everyone. Apparently, phone conferences on this phone system are limited to three parties. Mitchell offered her mobile phone, and Walker Nunnery participated through it.] Williams started with an invitation to Grehan for a brief summary. Grehan: Evaluations focus was to evaluate effectiveness of African American (AA) students achievement. Lynn will tell findings of qualitative instruments. Harrison: There were only a few negative comments from teachers. Positive responses came from parents. Evaluators interviewed 10 principals. In April, 17 classroom observations: Positive environments, good classroom management, but more uniformity and more literacy links needed. Grehan: Achievement results-3 assessments. Most students reached proficiency by spring on all 54 indicators. PreK result-effect sizes (ES) for Qualls were moderate. AA preK students performed higher than AA non-preK students. [Grehan repeated results above for Catterall when he joined after difficulty finding him.] Student achievement: There was a significant difference in performance of preK and a negative relation between preK \u0026amp; risk of special education needs. Students who enrolled in preK were more likely to remain on grade level through their LRSD careers. According to ITBS, preK experiences had significant effect up to 10 years after participation and more effect on performance of AA students. Catterall: What do you know about who gets into preK and who doesnt? There are probably some systematic differences. Guess preK experience brings positive results, but they are probably related to the traits of students who enter Roberts their families. Nugent: LRSD offers universal access. Majority of preK students are low-income andqualify for ABC funding. Springer: Did transportation matter? Grehan: A recommendation. Walker: There might be selection bias, but the students mirror the communitys/districts composition. Nugent: DHS has additional requirements for transport preK students, so LRSD opts not to transport them. Grehan: You cant put pre-K students on bus with older children without teachers (1:10 ratio). Catterall: Transportation ... Springer: Where is program deseription? Grehan: It was not included, because ours was not an evaluation of the program itself. We can include one which the District provides. Springer: What is meant by general literacy effectiveness? Grehan: We evaluated literacy for pre-K students. Roberts: Noted on page 14. Corey: Is goal for students to reach proficiency or to reach measurable improvement? Heller: Nugent: Purpose is to prepare or K with readiness skills. PreK doesnt teach reading. : We address interaction, social skills, Nugent: We embed literacy in those domains. Thomas: Someone mentioned proficiency. Grehan: Some teachers might talk about Ann F: Each period they collect data from e student. With that data teachers instruct around individual student needs. They collect it at least 3 times (fall, winter, \u0026amp; spring), so its consistent. By the 3\"*, they usually show proficiency (always consistent in a given skill/domain). Thomas: Out of AA students, what proportion reaches proficiency based on this definition? Ed: This is given by domain (page 96/). Thomas: Goals? Arm: Always-every day-strive for 100%. Catterall: Looking back at proposal of CREP, its a traditional evaluation. An earlier question, about describing program and its elements-some of this is evident from results. Program should be well described in report. Nugent et al: Well supply it. Roberts: Which to describe-total preK program or its literacy part? Heller: We should describe both. Nugent: Are you asking for one with bullets? Grehan: PreK program has changed considerably. We need to document last years. Ed: Describe the year evaluated, not this year. Jim: This is possibly a difficult answer, since evaluation included past 10 years. Springer: Any documentation from earlier years (back 10 years)?Ed: Move to recommendations: Grehan: is some type of more professional development (PD), so teachers engage in more interactions during their learning center times. Teachers do not engage enough in oral language etc. We also recommend more staff. Only one person in LRSD supports the program. It should have more than one. A monitoring system, too, is needed to provide feedback. Robinson: Not enough literacy PD? Grehan: We didnt see evidence of PD. Little literacy was incorporated in play time. Roberts: Would you amend your recommendation accordingly? Staff says they get much PD. Springer: Maybe you need more monitoring. Grehan: We wouldnt have known if PD was directed toward literacy. We assume that. Focus more on implementation. Nugent: State requires early child education training, and all receive that. Also, Tuesday teas are an occasion for... Catterall: Its not clear whether PD didnt include something, or whether the teachers didnt implement it. Robinson: Some teachers expressed need or more PD. Nugent: Maybe they didnt complete it prior to the questionnaires, but they have all had PD. Plans this year include paraprofessionals to have same. Roberts: Can we hear the recommendation again? Grehan: LRSD believes that teachers have received adequate PD, but CREP observed a lack of implementation. [There was general agreement about this.] Are there any controls to assure effective implementation? There seems to be a gap. Instructional coaches do this. There are coaches in every building. Grehan: 2\"'^ recommendation-LRSD investigate present mix of preK \u0026amp; K assessment tools so theyre friendlier to teachers and they can use results. Also, a person in PRE should become an expert so he/she can monitor these assessments. Nugent: Teachers uniformly use of Early Screening Inventory (ESI) and Work Sampling (WS). Ann and I monitor them 3 times per year. If not completed conectly, we prompt teachers. Grehan: There wasnt much evidence that teachers used the data to inform their teaching. The difficulty of getting data implied that its not available at the district level. Ann: Teachers can pull up their own WS data. Jim: There were several data sources for this evaluation. PRE converted paper records of ESI kept by every teacher into a data file in Excel (probably the first such data file for LRSD). The teachers sent them to PRE. So ESI data is available to teachers for their own students. LRSD received Qualls scores in the fall in printed format, but PRE could not get it in electronic format in the spring. After weeks of discussion. Riverside relented and retrieved the data and supplied it in an Excel file (at a high price). Again, teachers and the district had Qualls results, but they were not in a format usable by evaluators.Work Sampling information was supplied by Pearson which was retrievable by teachers. Roberts: Grehan: ESI data was not available at the district level. Springer: Grehan: Not evident in evaluators observations that the teachers used ESI. Roberts: Teachers used this data while they werent observed by evaluators. Grehan: Page 87. Springer: There were problems with data collection, so 1 understand what youre saying. Thomas: What were you getting at with data manipulation? Grehan: Many providers have interfaces, e.g., DIBELS. There is an Oregon website used by many. There are systems available that are not used. DIBELS is for kindergarten (not preK). Thomas: What led to your comment? Grehan: Jim verbalized it. It took months to get the data. There are so many programs e.g., Riverside. Heller: QELI was added later to the design. It was unusual circumstances which created this situation. Grehan: Nugent: All of our tools are statewide, except one. Ed: Wheres the issue? Grehan: Page 88, approaches to assessment. Catterall: DIBELS is administered in K or first grade, so its not diagnostic or 4 V2 - 5 year-old students. Is this the kind of data you want or rather data with fast turnaround? E.g., reassess in January. Recommend maybe seek the kind of test which can yield results fast. [CH left at 3:48 PM.] Roberts: Please repeat recommendation. Grehan: The recommendation is that there be someone who is a preK specialist in LRSD who can receive data and interpret it. Robinson: Roberts: There is someone who helps teachers interpret and use data. Springer: Are we having a personnel discussion? If so, then we should move on. Ann: Its already in place to do that (me). Springer: Then that needs to be better explained in report. Grehan: Recommendation 3 is offer preK for everybody. Were not providing preK to all eligible children. Parents struggle to get their children to school. Parents not only want communication, but they want strong academic program for their children. They want preK to be a strong literacy program. Comment: They want work sheets, but we dont do them any more.Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Chris Heller \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt; \"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Thursday, December 07, 2006 8:54 AM LRSD Pre-K Report 12.6.06.doc\nExecutive Summary.doc Pre-K Literacy Report To All: There are two attached files (i.e., executive summary and full report), the former is six pages and the latter is 330 pages long. Per the team meeting this past Friday, the program description has been added as Appendix E. Please respond if you did not get both documents. Ed Williams 12/7/2006 Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Nugent, Glenda\" \u0026lt;Glenda.Nugent@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mccraw, Helen\" \u0026lt;Helen.Mccraw@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Cole, Chris\" \u0026lt;Chris.Cole@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Alexander, Sheneka\" \u0026lt;Sheneka.Alexander@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Doyne, Angela\" \u0026lt;Angela.Doyne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Filiatreau, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Filiatreau@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Freeman, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Freeman@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Purtle, Sarah\" \u0026lt;Sarah.Purtle@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Martha\" \u0026lt;Martha.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;laura@bnbstudio.com\u0026gt;\n\"Michelle Ellison\" \u0026lt;mellison@fsainc.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Cummings, Danyell\" \u0026lt;Danyell.Cummings@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;dejarn@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Anna Grehan - U Memphis\" \u0026lt;awgrehan@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;lwharrsn@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;ajmcdnld@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;fpayton@memphis.edu\u0026gt; Thursday, December 07, 2006 11:13 AM 06dec1preKteam.doc RE: Pre-kindergarten literacy evaluation for LRSD Here are notes from last Fridays session of the evaluation team edited by our department. Please let me know of any further editing. Thanks very much for everyones participation and interest. Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 7:17 AM To: Nugent, Glenda\nMccraw, Helen\nCole, Chris\nMorgan, Nancy\nAlexander, Sheneka\nDoyne, Angela\nFiliatreau, Ann\nFreeman, Ann\nPurtle, Sarah\nRoberts, Martha\n'James Catterall'\nRoberts, Olivine\n'Laura Lewis (laura@bnbstudio.com)'\n'Michelle Ellison' Cc: 'Maijorie Powell (mqpowell@odmemail.com)'\n'John W Walker Esq (johnwalkeratty@aol.com)'\n'Joy Springer - John Walker'\nCummings, Danyell\nDejarnette, Karen\n'dejarn@aol.com'\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\n'Anna Grehan - U Memphis'\n'lwharrsn@memphis.edu'\n'Aaron J McDonald (ajmcdnld@memphis.edu)'\n'fpayton@memphis.edu' Subject: RE: Pre-kindergarten literacy evaluation for LRSD Here are notes from last Fridays session of the evaluation team. Please note they are incomplete, since I didnt capture everything everyone said. Please help me out! 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 12/7/2006Little Rock School District (LRSD) Pre-K Literacy Evaluation Team Review of Evaluation Report Center for Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis Friday, December 01, 2006 2 PM Participating: CREP: Anna Grehan (Evaluation Director), Lynn Harrison, Aaron McDonald Joshua: Joy Springer and Corey Thomas Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM): Gene Jones Old Dominion University: John Nunnery (whom the group in the conference room could not hear) LRSD: Sheneka Alexander, Chris Cole, Angela Doyne, Kevin Crawford, Ann Freeman, Sadie Mitchell, Nancy Morgan, Glenda Nugent, Olivine Roberts, Maurecia Robinson, Jim Wohlleb, and Ed Williams District counsel Chris Heller [entered at 2:43 PM] [Williams began dialing participants about 2:30 PM but experienced trouble linking everyone. Apparently, phone conferences on this phone system are limited to three parties. Mitchell offered her mobile phone, and John Nunnery participated through it.] Williams started with an invitation to Grehan for a brief summary. Grehan: Evaluations focus was to evaluate effectiveness of Afiican American (AA) students achievement. Lynn will tell findings of qualitative instruments. Harrison: There were only a few negative comments from teachers. Positive responses came from parents. Evaluators interviewed 10 principals. In April, 17 classroom observations: Positive environments, good classroom management, but more uniformity and more literacy links needed. Grehan: Achievement results-3 assessments. Most students reached proficiency by spring on all 54 indicators. PreK result-effect sizes (ES) for Qualls were moderate. AA preK students performed higher than AA non-preK students. [Grehan repeated results above for Catterall when he joined after difficulty finding him.] Student achievement: There was a significant difference in performance of preK students, and students who formerly enrolled in preK were less often needed special education. Students who enrolled in preK were more likely to remain on grade level through their LRSD careers. According to TTBS, preK experiences had significant effect up to 10 years after participation and more effect on performance of AA students. Catterall: What do you know about who gets into preK and who doesnt? There are probably some systematic differences. Guess preK experience brings positive results, but they are probably related to the traits of students who enter or of their families. Nugent: LRSD offers universal access. Majority of preK students are low-income and qualify for ABC funding. Springer: Did transportation matter? Grehan: A recommendation. There might be selection bias, but the students mirror the communifys/districts composition. Nugent: DHS has additional requirements for transport preK students, so LRSD opts not to transport them. Grehan: You cant put pre-K students on bus with older children without teachers (1:10 ratio). Catterall: Transportation ... Springer: Where is the program description? Grehan: It was not included, because ours was not an evaluation of the program itself. We can include one which the District provides. Springer: What is meant by general literacy effectiveness? Grehan: We evaluated literacy for pre-K students. Roberts: Noted on page 14. Thomas: Is goal for students to reach proficiency or to reach measurable improvement? Heller: Nugent: Purpose is to prepare for kindergarten with readiness skills. PreK doesnt teach reading. We address interaction, social skills ... Nugent: We embed literacy in those domains. Thomas: Someone mentioned proficiency. Grehan: Some teachers might talk about Freeman: Each period they collect data from each student. With that data teachers instruct around individual student needs. They collect it at least 3 times (fall, winter, \u0026amp; spring), so its consistent. By the 3'^^, they usually show proficiency (always consistent in a given skill/domain). Thomas: Out of AA students, what proportion reaches proficiency based on this definition? Williams: This is given by domain (page 96/). Thomas: Goals? Freeman: Always-every day-strive for 100%. Catterall: Looking back at proposal of CREP, its a traditional evaluation. An earlier question, about describing program and its elements-some of this is evident from results. Program should be well described in report. Nugent et ai. Well supply it. Roberts: Which to describe-total preK program or its literacy part? Heller: We should describe both. Nugent: Are you asking for one with bullets? Grehan: PreK program has changed considerably. We need to document last years. Williams: Describe the year evaluated, not this year. Wohlleb: This is possibly a difficult answer, since evaluation included past 10 years. Springer: Any documentation from earlier years (back 10 years)?Williams: Move to recommendations\nGrehan: is some type of more professional development (PD), so teachers engage in more interactions during their learning center times. Teachers do not engage enough in oral language etc. We also recommend more staff. Only one person in LRSD supports the program. It should have more than one. A monitoring system, too, is needed to provide feedback. Robinson: Not enough literacy PD? Grehan: We didnt see evidence of PD. Little literacy was incorporated in play time. Roberts: Would you amend your recommendation accordingly? Staff says they get much PD. Springer: Maybe you need more monitoring. Grehan\nWe wouldnt have known if PD was directed toward literacy. We assume that. Focus more on implementation. Nugent: State requires early child education training, and all receive that. Also, Tuesday teas are an occasion for ... Catterall: Its not clear whether PD didnt include something, or whether the teachers didnt implement it. Robinson: Some teachers expressed need or more PD. Nugent: Maybe they didnt complete it prior to the questionnaires, but they have all had PD. Plans this year include paraprofessionals to have same. Roberts: Can we hear the recommendation again? Grehan: LRSD believes that teachers have received adequate PD, but CREP observed a lack of implementation. [There was general agreement about this.] Are there any controls to assure effective implementation? There seems to be a gap. Instructional coaches do this. There are coaches in every building. Grehan\n2'* recommendation-LRSD investigate present mix of preK \u0026amp; K assessment tools so theyre friendlier to teachers and they can use results. Also, a person in PRE should become an expert so he/she can monitor these assessments. Nugent: Teachers uniformly use of Early Screening Inventory (ESI) and Work Sampling (WS). Ann and I monitor them 3 times per year. If not completed correctly, we prompt teachers. Grehan: There wasnt much evidence that teachers used the data to inform their teaching. The difficulty of getting data implied that its not available at the district level. Freeman: Teachers can pull up their own WS data. Wohlleb\nThere were several data sources for this evaluation. PRE converted paper records of ESI kept by every teacher into a data file in Excel (probably the first such data file for LRSD). The teachers sent them to PRE. So ESI data is available to teachers for their own students. LRSD received Qualls scores in the fall in printed format, but PRE could not get it in electronic format in the spring. After weeks of discussion. Riverside relented and retrieved the data and supplied it in an Excel file (at a high price). Again, teachers and the district had Qualls results, but they were not in a format usable by evaluators. Work Sampling information was supplied by Pearson which was retrievable by teachers. Roberts: Grehan: ESI data was not available at the district level. Springer\nGrehan: Not evident in evaluators observations that the teachers used ESI. Roberts: Teachers used this data while they werent observed by evaluators. Grehan\nPage 87. Springer: There were problems with data collection, so I understand what youre saying. Thomas: What were you getting at with data manipulation? Grehan\nMany providers have interfaces, e.g., DIBELS. There is an Oregon website used by many. There are systems available that are not used. DIBELS is for kindergarten (not preK). Thomas: What led to your comment? Grehan: Jim verbalized it. It took months to get the data. There are so many programs e.g., Riverside. Heller: QELI was added later to the design. It was unusual circumstances which created this situation. Grehan: Nugent: All of our tools are statewide, except one. Williams: Wheres the issue? Grehan: Page 88, approaches to assessment. Catterall: DIBELS is administered in K or first grade, so its not diagnostic or 4 'A - 5 year-old students. Is this the kind of data you want or rather data with fast turnaround? E.g., reassess in January. Recommend maybe seek the kind of test which can yield results fast. [Heller left at 3:48 PM.] Roberts: Please repeat recommendation. Grehan\nThe recommendation is that there be someone who is a preK specialist in LRSD who can receive data and interpret it. Robinson: Roberts: There is someone who helps teachers interpret and use data. Springer\nAre we having a personnel discussion? If so, then we should move on. Ann: Its already in place to do that (me). Springer: Then that needs to be better explained in report. Grehan: Recommendation 3 is offer preK for everybody. Were not providing preK to all eligible children. Parents struggle to get their children to school. Parents not only want communication, but they want strong academic program for their children. They want preK to be a strong literacy program. Comment\nThey want work sheets, but we dont do them any more.Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:11 AM Re-Schedule of the Prekindergarten literacy evaluation meeting To All\nThree of the four teachers have a conflict this Friday. As a result, we are re-scheduling the meeting for after Winter break. Would you please respond to this e-mail as to available days and time in January 2007. Thanks Ed Williams 12/13/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Ray, Katina\" \u0026lt;Katina.Ray@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Fletcher, Danny\" \u0026lt;Danny.Fletcher@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Riley, Cheryl\" \u0026lt;Cheryl.Riley@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;blktin2iel@yahoo.com\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Nugent, Glenda\" \u0026lt;Glenda.Nugent@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mellison@fsainc.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;laura@bnbstudio.com\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Martha\" \u0026lt;Martha.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"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\"Davis, Suzi\" \u0026lt;Suzi.Davis@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Whittaker, Nona\" \u0026lt;Nona.Whittaker@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Shofner, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Shofner@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;rose.harris@ocse.state.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;msjakfine@hotmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;dnunnley1@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;drwilliams2@uams.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;knewby150@comcast.net\u0026gt;\n\"Young, Linda\" \u0026lt;Linda.Young@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Woole, Ricky\" \u0026lt;Ricky.Woole@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Smithson, Laura\" \u0026lt;Laura.Smithson@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wynne, Cristen\" \u0026lt;Cristen.Wynne@lrsd.org\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;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;helter@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, December 11,2006 2:58 PM Year 2 Evaluations: A meeting to review external evaluator recommendations To All: The Superintendent's conference room has been reserved for this Friday, December 15th to hold meetings on the four year 2 evaluations. The purpose is to discuss the recommendations made by the external evaluators. Meeting times by evaluation are: 9 -10 / Prekindergarten Literacy 10-11 / A+ 11 -12/Read 180 12 -1 / 21st Century The aforementioned times are estimates as time will be taken to adequately discuss all of the recommendations. The room is reserved well into the afternoon. The conference room is located on the top floor of the District's main administration building. Please call me, 447-3386, if you have questions or concerns. See you soon Ed Williams 12/11/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Williams. Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Miller, Leticia\" \u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Menking, Mary\" \u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hobbs, Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell, Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"gjones@aristotle.net\" \u0026lt;'gjones@aristotle.net'\u0026gt;\n\"brigette@abpg.com\" \u0026lt;'brigette@abpg.com'\u0026gt;\n\"mqpowell@odmemail.com\" \u0026lt;'mqpowell@odmemail.com'\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt;\n\"Mcdonald, Dorothy\" \u0026lt;Dorothy.Mcdonald@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Ross, Suzanne\" \u0026lt;Suzanne.Ross@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;brendabarker77@yahoo.com\u0026gt;\n\"Babbs. Junious\" \u0026lt;Junious.Babbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Swinney. Joyce\" \u0026lt;Joyce.Swinney@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt; Tuesday. December 19, 2006 9:20 AM Year II Principals Survey 12 06.doc FW: Principal's Survey 12 06 Please see the note below from Dr. Dreyfus on the Year II Principals Surveys. Thank you, Maurecia From: Jpdrey@aol.com [mailto:Jpdrey@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 8:25 AM To: Robinson, Maurecia Subject: Re: Principal's Survey 12 06 Dear Maurecia, Please send this principal's suvery off today, December 19th, 2006, to the entire magnet evaluation team for comments. I would need their input, if any, back by January 11th. Thank you. Jeanne 12/19/2006Little Rock School District Magnet School and Magnet Program Evaluation Year II - 2006 - 2007 Principal's Survey As part of our continuing study of the magnet schools and magnet programs in 2006 -2077,1 will be sending you short surveys on particular topics throughout the year. The information you have provided in the past has been invaluable in understanding how the magnet schools and programs work and their challenges and success. This one-page survey focuses on three areas - magnet professional development, Campus Leadership Teams and impediments and aids to program implementation. Name School 1. Professional Development. If you can, please list and briefly describe three magnet- related professional developments that your or your teachers participated in during 2005- 2006 and/or this current year. Professional Development + Number Participated Theme/Program Relationship to Magnet 2. In some detail, please describe the role that your Campus Leadership Team plays in your school.3. What do you find impedes and promotes full implementation of your magnet program. Please be specific. Promotes Impedes 1. 2. 3. Please choose one of the above (an aid or an impediment) that you believe is especially important to the welfare of your program and write a little bit more about it.VIA EMAIL January 10.2007 Dr. Katherine Mitchell, President Little Rock School Board 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 received JAN 10 2006 desegregS monitoring Re: Dr. Karen Dejarnette Dear Dr. Mitchell: I am writing as the attorney for Dr. Karen DeJamette. I read with dismay today the comments of Superintendent Roy Brooks regarding his decision to delay the actual return to work of Dr. DeJamette following the Boards decision not to uphold his recommendation of termination. While Dr. DeJamette has no particular problem with such an administrative decision (and I understand that the Board may well have an issue with it), she decidedly will not abide his inflammatory comments about her having caused strife, dissension, and trouble within her department and staff. These comments are untrue and formed no part of any of the numerous bases relied upon by Brooks in his recommendation, nor were they otherwise addressed at the hearing. These comments are defamatory to Dr. DeJamette, as they cast her in a very unfavorable public light and are potentially injurious to her professional working relationships across the District and the community. Part of Dr. DeJarnettes decision to have a private hearing was to protect the interests of the District and the Board as various delicate matters are addressed in detail. If Superintendent Brooks persists in these sorts of statements, however. Dr. DeJamette will have no choice but to, and will not hesitate to, publicly defend herself against these untrue and maliciously calculated accusations. I call upon you and the Board to put a stop to further untrue public comments by Superintendent Brooks about Dr. DeJamette. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, John L. Burnett JLB:js cc: Superintendent Roy Brooks, via E-mail Leon Johnson, via E-mailPage 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Nugent, Glenda\" \u0026lt;Glenda.Nugent@lrsd.org\u0026gt;: \"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Martha\" \u0026lt;Martha.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"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, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mellison@fsainc.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;laura@bnbstudio.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;heller@fec.net\u0026gt;\n.\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\"Glasgow, Dennis\" \u0026lt;Dennis.Glasgow@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Davis, Suzi\" \u0026lt;Suzi.Davis@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:47 PM January Date for the Prekindergarten literacy evaluation meeting To All: See e-mail below but this is a reminder of the meeting this Friday. Ed Williams From: Williams, Ed Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:08 PM To: Williams, Ed\nWohlleb, Jim\nNugent, Glenda\nMorgan, Nancy\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Martha\nAlexander, Sheneka\nDoyne, Angela\nPurtle, Sarah\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\n'Michelle Ellison (mellison@fsainc.org)'\n'Laura Lewis (laura@bnbstudio.com)'\n'Chris Heller (heller@fec.net)'\nMaijorie Powell (mqpowell@odmemail.com)\n(gjones@aristotle.net) Subject: January Date for the Prekindergarten literacy evaluation meeting To All: I got good feedback from many. I have scheduled the Prekindergarten literacy evalaution team meeting to discuss the external evaluator recommendsations and modifications for Friday, January 12th at 3PM in the 3rd floor conference room at the main administration building. Ed Williams 1/10/2007Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n'Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Sent: Attach: Subject: '  ..............  ~ I  \u0026lt; w Iiisy will) 'Wllll.f \u0026gt;VI 111^ OU . VI y j  WMVl lO, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell, Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Fletcher, Danny\" \u0026lt;Danny.Fletcher@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Ray, Katina\" \u0026lt;Katina.Ray@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:04 PM A+ Recomendations Meeting.doc A+ Recommendations To all: Attached are the notes from the A+ recommendations meeting. I am sending them to those who attend this meeting and after your feedback will send them to all members and other stakeholders. Talk to you soon Ed Williams 1/10/2007A+ Recommendations Meeting: December IS***, 2006 Present: Ed Williams, Margie Powell, Olivine Roberts, Sadie Mitchell, Maurecia Robinson, Jim Wohlleb, Hugh Hattabaugh, Danny Fletcher, Chris Heller, and Katina Ray Hire a full time art teacher. Duties to include coordinating the A+ program at Woodruff Elementary\nworking with faculty and administrative staff at Woodruff to integrate arts into the Math and Literacy curriculum\ntrain new teachers\nprovide ongoing support to all teachers and instructional aides\nmodel appropriate teaching to all teachers and instructional aides\nplan A+ activities for during and after school activities. Determine the cost of materials, supplies, and consumable items needed to implement A+ at Woodruff and add this cost as a line item on the school's budget. An external consultant will be hired to provide A+ professional development to Woodruff teachers and instructional aides. This consultant will be interviewed prior to hiring to insure that the integration of arts into the Math and Literacy curriculum is paramount. Stipends will be paid to teachers and instructional aides to encourage attendance at professional development activities either after school or on weekends. Woodruff faculty and administrative staff will connect A+ activities during school to after school activities. Woodruff faculty and staff will increase efforts to inform parents about A+.Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent\nAttach: Subject: \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Shofner, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Shofner@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Whittaker, Nona\" \u0026lt;Nona.Whittaker@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Davis, Suzi\" \u0026lt;Suzi.Davis@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:15 PM Read 180 Recommendations Meeting.doc Read 180 recommendation notes To all: Attached are the notes from the Read 180 recommendations meeting. I am sending them to those who attend this meeting and after your feedback will send them to all members and other stakeholders. Talk to you soon Ed Williams 1/10/2007Read 180 Recommendations Meeting: December 15% 2006 Present\nEd Williams, Margie Powell, Olivine Roberts, Maurecia Robinson, Jim Wohlleb, Hugh Hattabaugh, Chris Heller, Karen Shofher, Nona Whitaker, and Suzie Davis Increase the computer flag of time-on-task from 15 to 20 minutes. The District's Department of Computer Information Services will determine the computer hardware requirements for the new Read 180 software and insure that all computers used in the Read 180 program meet those software requirements. Curriculum audits will be performed, beginning in early 2007, to monitor the use of Read 180 reports by teachers and the use of strategies recommended by Read 180. Curriculum coaches will instruct teachers on the use of the Read 180 reports and the use of Read 180 instructional strategies. Building Principals are responsible for monitoring the use of Read 180 reports by teachers, the utilization of strategies recommended, and implementing Read 180 for achieving improved academic achievement. Read 180 professional development will focus on the utilization of Read 180 strategies. Voyager should recruit the lowest performing students, as Read 180 does not serve this population as well as Voyager.Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh. Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Blaylock, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Blaylock@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wynne, Cristen\" \u0026lt;Cristen.Wynne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Bacon, John\" \u0026lt;John.Bacon@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Young, Linda\" \u0026lt;Linda.Young@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:18 PM 21st Century Recommendations Meeting.doc 21st Centruy recommendations meeing To all: Attached are the notes from the 21st Century recommendations meeting. I am sending them to those who attend this meeting and after your feedback will send them to all members and other stakeholders. Talk to you soon Ed Williams 1/10/200721st Century Recommendations Meeting\nDecember 15*^, 2006 Present: Ed Williams, Margie Powell, Olivine Roberts, Maurecia Robinson, Jim Wohlleb, Hugh Hattabaugh, Chris Heller, Marvin Burton, Ann Blaylock, Linda Young, Cristen Wynne, and John Bacon. Contracts will be implemented to increase student attendance towards the minimum 30 hours and parental involvement. Contracts will reflect rewards \u0026amp; incentives for program participation, as well as consequences for lack of participation. For appropriate students, Academic Improvement Plans (AIP's) will include 21st Century as an intervention. All students completing the minimum 30 hours will be tagged. Schools will identify and recruit all students and in particular those students who are not proficient on the Benchmark tests. The District will continue the strong relationship already established with the Arkansas Department of Educational 21 Century coordinator.Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"John W. Walker\" \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt; \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;heller@fec.net\u0026gt; \"Scott Richardson\" \u0026lt;Scott.Richardson@arkansasag.gov\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Friday, January 12, 2007 7:52 AM LRSD Depositions and Heairngs Chris, In preparation for the hearings this month, I would like to meet and interview Dr. DeJamette regarding her testimony. I would like to do this on Tuesday, January 16, 2006. Please let me hear from you. 1/12/2007Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Alexander, Sheneka\" \u0026lt;Sheneka.Alexander@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Crawford, Kevin\" \u0026lt;Kevin.Crawford@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Davis, Suzi\" \u0026lt;Suzi.Davis@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Doyne, Angela\" \u0026lt;Angela.Doyne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Glasgow, Dennis\" \u0026lt;Dennis.Glasgow@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Nugent, Glenda\" \u0026lt;Glenda.Nugent@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Purtle, Sarah\" \u0026lt;Sarah.Purtle@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Young, Summer\" \u0026lt;Summer.Young@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpoweli@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;roddycaroll@uams.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, January 17, 2007 9:41 AM teamRecs07jan12.doc\nteamDisc07jan12.doc pre-K literacy evaluation Here are recommendations with backup notes from last Fridays review of evaluators recommendations. Ill be happy to edit them. Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 1/17/2007 Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Alexander, Sheneka\" \u0026lt;Sheneka.Alexander@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Crawford, Kevin\" \u0026lt;Kevin.Crawford@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Davis, Suzi\" \u0026lt;Suzi.Davis@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Dejarn@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Doyne, Angela\" \u0026lt;Angela.Doyne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Glasgow, Dennis\" \u0026lt;Dennis.Glasgow@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;-  \"Nugent, Glenda\" \u0026lt;Glenda.Nugent@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Purtle, Sarah\" \u0026lt;Sarah.Purtle@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Young, Summer\" \u0026lt;Summer.Young@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpoweil@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;roddycaroll@uams.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt; Friday, February 09, 2007 3:06 PM teamRecs07jan 12.doc RE: pre-K literacy evaluation Attached are recommendations from the team meeting last month. My delay in sending them was partly to some members wanting more time. However, after not hearing any further comments. Im sending them with the few changes offered so far. Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 11:08 AM To: Alexander, Sheneka\nCrawford, Kevin\nDavis, Suzi\nDejarnette, Karen\n'Dejarn@aol.com'\nDoyne, Angela\nGlasgow, Dennis\nMorgan, Nancy\nNugent, Glenda\nPurtle, Sarah\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nYoung, Summer Cc: 'Marjorie Powell (mqpowell@odmemail.com)'\n'Carol Roddy (roddycaroll@uams.edu)'\n'Joy Springer - John Walker'\n'John W Walker Esq (johnwalkeratty@aol.com)' Subject: RE: pre-K literacy evaluation By the end of the day, Id like to send the recommendations, if you intend to comment on them, please let me know today. Thanks for participating in this evaluation! Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 9:41 AM To: Alexander, Sheneka\nCrawford, Kevin\nDavis, Suzi\nDoyne, Angela\nGlasgow, Dennis\nMorgan, Nancy\nNugent, Glenda\nPurtle, Sarah\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nYoung, Summer Cc: Marjorie Powell (mqpowell@odmemail.com)\nCarol Roddy (roddycaroll@uams.edu)\nJoy Springer - John 2/12/2007Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Monday, February 05, 2007 12:50 PM FW: FW: upcoming meetings Consider the invitations recanted... From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 12:47 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh Subject: FW: FW: upcoming meetings In light of the below email, please recant the invitations extended to Joshua and ODM. Thank you. Olivine Roberts, Ed.D. .Associate Superintendent, Educational Service,s Little Rock School District 3001 S, Pulaski St. Little Rock, AR 72206 Phone\n501.447.3320 Fax: 501.447.3321 From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 5:38 PM To: Hattabaugh, Hugh Cc: Milhollen, Mark\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: Re: FW: upcoming meetings i've spoken with olivine about this, there is no reason for odm and Joshua to participate in or observe every meeting we have within the district regarding the data warehouse, school portfolios or anything else that might be related to the compliance remedy, it may be helpful to advise Joshua and odm about important decisions related to program evaluations and assessments, but i know of no requirement to allow them to sit in meetings of Irsd administrators, we established a compliance team to implement the revised plan in 1998 and we declined Joshua's request to attend compliance team meetings. Judge wilson will decide whether or not we were in compliance with the 2004 remedy as of January 2007. if so, we will continue to improve our ability to assess and evaluate programs because its important to our students that we do that, if not, Judge wilson will probably issue a new compliance remedy, in the meantime, we're not required to invite Joshua and odm to meetings of irsd staff, ch \u0026gt; \"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 2/2/2007 2:54 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 11:10 AM To: 'mqpowell@odmemail.com'\n'jspringer@gabrielmail.com' Cc: Roberts, Olivine Subject: upcoming meetings Hello ODM and Joshua: You may want to attend two meetings upcoming scheduled for next week related to deeply embedding the assessment process: 1. Mark has set a meeting to discuss perceptual data to be housed in the warehouse for Tuesday, Feb. 6*^ at 9:30a.m. at the admin, building and 2. Olivine has set a meeting to discuss school portfolios for Monday, the 12^ from 1-3:30 at the IRC 2/5/2007Page 2 of 2 conference room. Hope all is well with you! Karen 2/5/2007Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"John W. Walker\" \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt; \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;heller@fec.net\u0026gt; \u0026lt;dejarnette.karen@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;katherine.mitchell@lrsd.ord\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;roberts.olivine@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Monday, February 05, 2007 5:40 PM Meetings related to Compliance Remedy Chris, I understand that you do not think that members of Joshua and ODM should participate \"in or observe\" district meetings related to the data warehouse or portfolios. Why don't we have a discussion about this subject in a public meeting. By copy of this email, I am asking her what she thinks about this. In the meantime, I have asked Ms. Springer to be present at the meeting on tomorrow morning. John W. Walker 2/6/2007Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:14 AM canceled meeting.doc: perceptual data handouts.pdf meeting this morning Jim, Maurecia, Joy Springer and I arrived in the third floor conference a few minutes before 9. Carol (Marks secretary) arrived shortly after and said the meeting was canceled at the last minute because Mark was in another meeting and could not attend. I told her the four of us would go ahead and discuss PREs needs in relation to perceptual data. We looked through the enclosed handouts and discussed briefly. After I returned to my office I received the enclosed cancellation notice. Hopefully we will meet sometime soon to further discuss the warehouse and our needs to include more than just student demographics and standardized test scores. I cannot imagine why the District would not want ODM and Joshua to observe a meeting about the data warehouse, doesnt seem top secret to me. 2/6/2007L Page 1 of 1 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent\nTo\nCc: Dejarnette, Karen Friday, February 09, 2007 12:27 PM Roberts, Olivine Robinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nWohlleb, Jim Subject\norganizational problems Dr. Roberts. Maurecia requested a meeting this morning to discuss direction she received from Dr. Brooks yesterday afternoon involving Ed. These directions from Dr. Brooks conflicted with earlier directions from me. We met with Ed this morning to resolve the difficulties informally until Anita interrupted to summons Ed to your office to talk with Dr. Brooks. I concluded that Maurecia's complaints have merit and to resolve it I have assigned the Measuring the Vision project to Jim. I would like to discuss this and other matters referred to in the letter delivered on February 7,2007. Thank you. Karen Karen Dejarnette Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department 2/9/2007Linda Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Quenan Ellis\" \u0026lt;QEIIis@holtlunsford.com\u0026gt; \"Linda\" \u0026lt;lfbryant@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, February 12, 2007 10:49 AM Building Access Cards Hey Linda! Man! I hate to bug you with this, but Ive been ORDERED  to get the after-hours security access system updated. Would you please get me a list of names and numbers, including basement parking remote numbers, of any and all ODM employees that have after-hours access? I HATE being a pain in the butt! Would you do this for me? I would appreciate it a bunch! Quenan Ellis HOLT LUNSFORD COMMERCIAL (501)801-0208 2/12/2007Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \u0026lt;Dejarn@aol.com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Tuesday. February 13, 2007 9:58 AM meeting mon Monday Hello Margie and Gene, I have not been feeling well and stayed home yesterday and today. But, I wanted to update you on the meeting held yesterday to discuss current working conditions of the PRE department. All PRE staff attended except me. Dr. Roberts advised PRE staff that Dr. Brooks may undermine the department in any way he chooses since he is the Superintendent. According to Jim and Maurecia, Dr. Brooks entered the room while the meeting was underway and stated that you can get all the attorneys and tape recorders you want\" while focusing eye contact on Jim Wohlleb. Jim asked if Dr. Brooks was talking to him. Dr. Brooks added everyone should be about the business of taking care of the children, not concerned with adult issues. He left the room only to reenter a few minutes later. This time he summoned Jim to his office and Jim followed. While in Dr. Brooks office. Dr. Brooks said he noticed that Jim became agitated and asked what can 1 do to help you? Jim explained that it agitated him to hear Dr. Brooks speak as if he is the only one who cares about the kids and Jim asked him to refrain from such comments. The majority of PRE staff feel dismayed. Three weeks after the hearing when board members and everyone else in the court room heard all the stories about how the PRE Department has been undermined, the majority of PRE staff feel our working conditions remain the samethat our work efforts are undermined by an incomplete database and continued lack of professional interaction by the Superintendent with PRE staff members. It seems evident that Dr. Brooks does not wish to have a professional working relationship with the PRE department. But PRE does not know what we can do about this. The Board members and the Superintendent are the only ones who can change the situation. And the Board learned exactly what has been going on during the hearing a couple of weeks ago but so far have not felt prompted to change anything. Will keep you posted. Karen 2/13/2007page i or i Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, February 14, 2007 8:52 AM Magnet Study Fall Quarter Report.pdf magnet evaluation team meeting next Tuesday Hi Margie and Gene. Im feeling a bit better and back at my desk. Heres Jeannes quarterly report on the magnet study, received it today. A team meeting has been set for next Tuesday, the 20^ at 8:30a.m. We will discuss the report then. Hope you can make it. Karen 2/14/2007Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Robinson. Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette. Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts. Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\" \u0026lt;'Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu'\u0026gt;\n\"Williams. Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb. Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;: \"Williams. Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Miller. Leticia\" \u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Menking. Mary\" \u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hobbs. Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell. Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan. Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"gjones@aristotle.net\" \u0026lt;'gjones@aristotle.net'\u0026gt;\n\"brigette@abpg.com\" \u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com'\u0026gt;\n\"mqpowell@odmemail.com\" \u0026lt;'mqpowell@odmemail.com'\u0026gt;\n\"donnacreer@magnetschool.com\" \u0026lt;'donnacreer@magnetschool.com'\u0026gt;\n\"Babbs. Junious\" \u0026lt;Junious.Babbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Ross. Suzanne\" \u0026lt;Suzanne.Ross@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mcdonald. Dorothy\" \u0026lt;Dorothy.Mcdonald@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Rousseau. Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Rousseau@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:28 AM meeting.ics Magnet Evaluation Team Meeting When: Tuesday. February 20. 2007 8:30 AM-9:30 AM (GMT-06:00) Central Time (US \u0026amp; Canada). Where: Room 18 - IRC The next Magnet Evaluation Team Meeting is scheduled for February 20. 2007 from 8:30-9:30 in Room 18 at the IRC. Please schedule this date on your calendar to attend. Thank you. Maurecia Robinson 1/30/2007\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":"fqr_asm0650_10","title":"Resolution of Tribute for Aubrey Watkins Simms","collection_id":"fqr_asm0650","collection_title":"Bob Simms Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, Miami-Dade County, Miami, 25.77427, -80.19366"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006-10-27"],"dcterms_description":["Memorial tribute from the University of Miami to commemorate Aubrey Watkins Simms, wife of Bob Simms"],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"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":["Bob Simms Collection","ASM0650"],"dcterms_subject":["University of Miami","African American leadership--Florida"],"dcterms_title":["Resolution of Tribute for Aubrey Watkins Simms"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Miami. Library. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.library.miami.edu/cdm/ref/collection/asm0650/id/10"],"dcterms_temporal":["2000/2009"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This materials is protected by copyright. Copyright is held by the University of Miami. For additional information, please visit: https://digitalcollections.library.miami.edu/digital/custom/copyright-guidelines"],"dcterms_medium":["certificates"],"dcterms_extent":["1 page"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Simms, Aubrey Watkins, 1924-2006"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1148","title":"Little Rock School District's Revised Compliance Report","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":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2006-10-25"],"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","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District's Revised Compliance Report"],"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/1148"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED OCT 2 7 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S REVISED COMPLIANCE REPORT For its Revised Compliance Report, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This Compliance Report is filed pursuant to paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy contained in this Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion. The reason for revising the Compliance Report is to correctly reflect the fact that school portfolios, as opposed to the district portfolio, have not been implemented in LRSD. The substantive changes from the initial Compliance Report are found in paragraphs eleven through sixteen. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. This Page 1 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 2 of 30 compliance is documented below, as well as in the eight Quarterly Updates which were filed between December 1, 2004 and September 1, 2006, the evaluations of Compass Learning, Smart/Thrive, Reading Recovery and Year-Round Education which were previously filed, and the evaluations of A+, 21 st Century Community Leaming Centers and READ 180 which are filed with this Compliance Report. 3. The progress of LRSD's efforts to comply with the requirement for an eighth step 2 program evaluation, the Pre-K Literacy evaluation, has been shown in LRSD's Quarterly Updates and status reports to the Court. The final evidence of LRSD's compliance with that requirement will be the evaluation itself, which the evaluator, Dr. Ross, expects to have completed on or before November 15, 2006. 4. LRSD will separately describe below its compliance with each of the requirements of the Compliance Remedy except those which set out the responsibilities of the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 5. The requirements of paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy are: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations\nand (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American Page 2 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 3 of 30 students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.\nto have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations\nand to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. 6. LRSD met the requirements of paragraph A by adding to the PRE team three new professionals who have lrnowledge and experience in assessment, evaluation, and statistical analysis. The qualifications of the seven people who were employed by PRE as of November 1, 2004 are shown at pages 3 through 5 of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. The resumes of PRE Director Dr. Karen DeJamette and statisticians Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams are found in Appendix A to the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This highly trained team of professionals has the qualifications required by paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 7. There have been a few changes in personnel since the first Quarterly Update, but PRE has maintained a highly trained team of professionals. Administrative Assistant Irma Shelton took medical leave in May of 2005. The Administrative Assistant position was eliminated on July 1, 2005. Testing Coordinator Yvette Dillingham left PRE in August, 2005. Dr. Ed Williams temporarily assumed her responsibilities until she was replaced in November 2005 Page 3 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 4 of 30 by Arthur Olds. Olds' resume can be found in Appendix A to the March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. As reported in the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, Olds sought reassignment to a teaching possession at Dunbar Magnet Middle School on April 14, 2006. Dr. Williams again temporarily assumed the Testing Coordinator responsibilities. LRSD posted the Testing Coordinator position in June, 2006 and interviews were scheduled for August, 2006. See September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A new testing coordinator, Danyell Cummings was hired October 1, 2006. Her resume is attached as Exhibit A to this Compliance Report. 8. The current PRE staff has all of the qualifications listed in paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD complied with paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 9. The requirements of paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy are: B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Part of LRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive Page 4 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 5 of 30 program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. I suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process\nthen be sure that he approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. 10. LRSD has devised and deeply embedded a comprehensive program assessment process in accordance with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in developing the comprehensive program assessment process. By the time of the first Quarterly Update on December 1, 2004, PRE and Dr. Ross had \"developed and shared with ODM and the Joshua Intervenors a program assessment process to be deeply embedded in LRSD's educational operations.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 6. The final draft of that process is found at Appendix B of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This final draft was furnished to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors more than a month in advance of its consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process has become deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included Page 5 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 6 of 30 the development of a school district portfolio. As part of the process of the development and implementation of the portfolio, four PRE department members attended an institute for data analysis during the summer of 2005, and a consultant \"visited LRSD and reviewed its data collection procedures and resources.\" Id. 12. LRSD has continued to develop the infrastructure to support its comprehensive assessment process. A district portfolio is an important part of this infrastructure. The portfolio will \"allow PRE staff as well as others to more easily analyze data and intersect various types of data sets to answer research questions about comprehensive school improvement efforts.\" December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 13. As of December 1, 2005, PRE had identified the data to be included in the district portfolio and had designed a draft district portfolio. Id. District administrators and principals were making use of the portfolio and steps were being taken \"to allow a more efficient collection of data related to educational processes.\" Id. Dr. Catterall used data from LRSD's portfolio in his step 2 evaluation of the Year-Round Education program. March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 14. The development of the district portfolio is a continual process. As new data becomes available ( e.g. new test results) they are added to the data base. Page 6 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 7 of 30 The infrastructure is in place, and LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolio. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 15. During April of 2006, an expert on school portfolios provided professional development for LRSD principals, administrators, and the PRE staff regarding the creation and use of school portfolios. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD expects to begin the creation of school portfolios during the 2007-08 school year. 16. LRSD has also sought to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process by hiring a consultant, the Janis Group, to help develop a \"data warehouse.\" The Janis Group has \"expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently accessing data.\" March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. The data warehouse will support frequent updates of the portfolio and allow timely data reports for purposes of planning, research, evaluation and developing policy. The data warehouse will allow reports to be generated by program, classroom, school, grade, or districtwide. Id. 17. There was some debate within LRSD about whether to purchase an internet-based data warehouse from a company called TetraData or to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse using the Business Objects software and the database already available to LRSD. LRSD decided, with some Page 7 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 8 of 30 dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. Business Objects is state of the art software which can be effectively used in the assessment of academic programs. The capabilities of the Business Objects data warehouse, including updating and reporting student data, are shown in the \"Business Objects Reporting Tools\" document attached as Exhibit B to this Compliance Report. 18. The process of developing school and district portfolios, and creating a data warehouse, has revealed the need for LRSD to take steps to insure that the data entered into its database is accurate. The accuracy of the data would be a concern whether the district used the Business Objects system, the TetraData system or some other software system. To improve the accuracy of data reporting within LRSD, LRSD has increased the number of \"error checking routines\" in its computer software. LRSD also has a full time training coordinator whose job it is to train school registrars and other LRSD personnel in the proper entry of student data, to work with those people to identify and correct recurring data entry errors, and to generally assure the accuracy and completeness of student data within the LRSD database. The accuracy of the data in LRSD's database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. 19. Finally, as another part of embedding the comprehensive program Page 8 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 9 of 30 assessment process, PRE has designed \"feasible, ongoing assessments of the four programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross subjected to step 2 evaluations last year.\" June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD also plans to have PRE conduct ongoing assessments of the programs currently being evaluated by Drs. Ross and Catterall. 20. LRSD has devised a comprehensive program assessment process as required by paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. That process has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum program. LRSD has complied with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. 21. The requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy are: C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key  2. 7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2. 7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross -- to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year\nand (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the Page 9 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 10 of 30 step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. 22. In accordance with paragraph C, LRSD hired Dr. Ross to \"identify the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year,\" and to \"prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible.\" 23. Dr. Ross was provided a copy of the Compliance Remedy and he endorsed the first Quarterly Update \"as representing an accurate portrayal of accomplishments to date and a viable plan for addressing the requirements of the Remedy.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, Appendix C (p. 45). Dr. Ross assumed responsibility for preparing six of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations. Three of those cover the 2004-05 school year and were filed on February 6, 2006. Two others are for the 2005-06 school year and will be filed today. The sixth step 2 evaluation being prepared by Dr. Ross, Pre-K Literacy, has been delayed due to the unavailability of necessary data and is expected to be completed no later than November 15, 2006. 24. Two of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations were prepared by Dr. James Catterall. One covered the 2004-05 school year and was filed on Page 10 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 11 of 30 February 6, 2006. The other will be filed today. 25. PRE, in collaboration with Dr. Ross, selected Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, Compass Leaming and Year-Round Education to be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year. December l, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 7-9. Those evaluations have been completed. 26. Dr. Ross initially identified the following four  2.7 programs for step 2 evaluations in the 2005-06 school year: Arkansas A+ School Network\nKnowledgePoints\nPLATO Leaming and Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Development. June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. At the request of the Joshua Intervenors, and with the agreement of Dr. Ross, 21 st Century Community Leaming Centers was substituted for PLATO Leaming as the subject of an evaluation for the 2005- 06 school year. September 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4 and Appendix C, (pp. 19-21 ). KnowledgePoints was also replaced as the subject of evaluation by the READ 180 program because the supplier of KnowledgePoints withdrew its support of the program in Arkansas. December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. 27. Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall possess the experience and ability necessary to prepare the eight required step 2 evaluations. Their qualifications are found in Appendix C to the first Quarterly Update (pp. 46-54). They are both familiar with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy and have agreed to Page 11 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 12 of 30 prepare their evaluations in accordance with those requirements. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. 28. The requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy are: D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations must answer the following essential research question: \"Has the  2.7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district?\" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. PRE must: (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations\nand (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. 29. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations answers the essential research question of whether the program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations also answers other important research questions. Each is organized and written so that its findings and recommendations can be readily understood by a lay person. In each case, the outside experts and the evaluation teams determined the evaluation design, Page 12 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 13 of 30 including the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data necessary to the utility of each evaluation. 30. PRE has overseen the preparation of all eight step 2 evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and those associated with them, to support their work and provide any and all requested assistance. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp.6-7\nMarch 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 4\nJune 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 5-6\nSeptember 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 6 and Appendix A. LRSD has substantially complied with the requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 31. The requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy are: E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: ( 1) describes the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key  2.7 program being evaluated\n(2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\nand (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2. 7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. 32. In accordance with paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy, each of Page 13 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 14 of 30 the eight step 2 evaluations contains a section concerning data collection which describes the number of teachers and administrators at various grade levels who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the program being evaluated. Each of the eight evaluations also contains recommended program modifications and explains how the recommended modifications can be expected to increase the effectiveness of the program. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 4-5. 33. On April 18, 2006, LRSD convened the four evaluation teams which worked on the 2004-05 evaluations to consider the feasibility and the timeframe for implementing the external evaluators' recommendations. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A summary of LRSD's commitments to the modifications recommended by the external evaluators is found in Appendix A (pp. 7-11) to the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. LRSD will follow the same process of reviewing the evaluators' recommended modifications following receipt of the evaluations for the 2005-06 school year. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy. 34. The requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy are: F. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In Page 14 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 15 of 30 addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31, 2004. 35. In accordance with paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, PRE notified ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations. See June l, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 8. PRE also provided to ODM and Joshua a final draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented to the Board for approval. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 6 and 11. The LRSD Board of - Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004, in advance of the December 31, 2004 deadline. March I, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy. 36. The requirements of paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy are: G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. Page 15 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 16 of 30 37. In accordance with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy, LRSD submitted quarterly written updates to the Court and delivered them to ODM and Joshua on or before December 1, 2004, March 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, September 1, 2005, December 1, 2005, March 1, 2006, June 1, 2006 and September 1, 2006. Those quarterly written updates reported \"the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations\" prepared during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. The quarterly updates also provided information on the status of compliance with other components of the Compliance Remedy. - 38. As soon as the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were completed and approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD provided them to ODM and Joshua. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on October 16, 2006. The fourth will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on or before November 15, 2006. As soon as the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year are approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD will provide final copies of those evaluations to ODM and Joshua. LRSD has complied with paragraph G of Page 16 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 17 of 30 the Compliance Remedy. 39. The requirements of paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy are: J. The four step program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October l, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006. 40. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were filed with the Court on February 6, 2006 in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005- 06 school year will be filed on today in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Dr. Ross requires additional time to complete the Pre-K - Literacy evaluation because of the delayed availability of necessary testing data. LRSD has requested an extension of time for the filing of that step 2 evaluation to and including November 15, 2006, and expects to file that evaluation by that date. LRSD has substantially complied with paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy. 41. The requirements of paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy are: K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. Page 17 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 18 of 30 42. LRSD is filing this Compliance Report on October 16, 2006 in accordance with paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy and the Court's July 12, 2006 letter to the parties (docket no. 4027). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the eight Quarterly Updates which have been filed with the Court, and on the basis of the completion of eight step 2 program evaluations by Drs. Ross and Catterall, LRSD prays for an order finding it to be in substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy contained in the Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion, declaring LRSD to be a unitary school district, and releasing LRSD from all supervision and - monitoring by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Page 18 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 19 of 30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 25, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com i ohnwalkeratty@aol .com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 /s/ Christopher Heller Page 19 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 20 of 30 -----------------~-------------- Career ObJe\\ltlve: Pro!ouionaJ Experimce: 2004-Preseot 1998-Prolont Education: May,2005 Dccombor, 1998 May, 1997 Proteulonally .Related AclJvitla: Danyell Crutchneld Cummlnt1 5 Ben HOi\u0026amp;JI Cove Llttle Rockt ArkaDSU 72210 (501) 407.8497 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven ac\u0026amp;demic and professiODll experience to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for srowth and an opportunif)' to contribute to 1. prosroslivo cducatiooal onviron:mCllt. High Schools That Wotk Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Engliah Tc~hcr ]. A. Fair Symllll Magnet Hiib School Littlo Rock, Arlcanw 72210 Randy Rutherford, Priocip\u0026amp;I Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supetviuoo, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Maler ofBducation, Secondary EdUC\u0026amp;tio11, University of Arbmu at Little Roca: Bachelor of Arts, .English, Univerdty of Arkansas at Little ~k Actina Assistant Prinolpal Section 504 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Slakcboldcr Southern Regional \u0026amp;lucation Board Literacy Team mcrnbcr Teacher of the Year Educational Spcclallst Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 21 of 30 ---- _.. -------- . .-.- ---- ----. -.- -- -------. Refueuca: Linda YO\\IJlg Gntnta Coordinator (501) 447.3372 work (501) 225-5439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Blcmentary (501)447-4300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed,D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 wod: {501) 4070817 homo Sharon Cauley, Ed.D A.5sistant Principal J.A. Fair Systems Megnot High School (S-01) 447-1700 ext. 1710 work (501)~66-6216 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 22 of 30 ---- ---------------------- Career ObJe~tlve: Pr.Cealonal ~erienco: 2004-Present 1998-PRKnt Edll(:ttlon: May,2005 Dectmbor, 1998 May, 1997 Prufeulcmally Rt1atcd ActMtlu: Dallyell Crutchfield Cummlup 5 Bea Hogan Cove LUtle Rock, Arwuu 7l210 (501) 407--8097 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and professional cicpcricnce lo obcain a challenging position as 1111 administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contn'butc to a pl'OjTClsaive educational cnvlromncnt. High Schools That Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Syalcrrui Magnet Hlgb School Little ~0k. Arb.mu 72210 Randy Ruthcdord, Principal English Teacher J. A. Fair Syskins Magnet Hi\u0026amp;h School Littlo Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford. Priucipal Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supemsiotl, University of Arkansas at Little Rook Mas1CII\" ofBducatioa. S:onduy Ea.ioation, U'nivonity of Arlcaasu al Uttlc Rook Bachelor of Art\u0026amp;, English, University of Arlcansa.s at Little Rocle Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Stakeholder Southcm Regional Bducatloo Board Ltter,cy Team rnomber Teacher of' the Year Bduoatlonal Spcclalist Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 23 of 30 __ ........ ----- llaferences: Linda Young Grants Coordinator {501) 447-3372 work {501) 22S-S439 home JmBrooks Principal David O'Dodd Elc:mcntary (,501) 447-4300 WOJX (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax. Ed,D Student Hearing (501) 4473S82 work (501)407.0817 homo Sharon Cauloy, Bd.D Aasistant Principal J.A. Falr S)'ltClllS Ma,snct High School (SOI) 44M700 \"t. 1710 work (SOI) 666-621_6 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 24 of 30 Bl Platform Little Rock School District Business Objects Reporting Tools Business Objects Enterprise is a scalable, adaptive platform that delivers insight and corporate information to all your end users. With a platform designed to help you confidently deploy and manage your Business Intelligence (BI) implementations, Business Objects provides the Little Rock School District with the extreme insight you need to extend your competitive advantage. The BI Platform provides a set of common services to simplify deployment and management ofBI tools, reports, and applications. The reporting system at the Little Rock School District includes information delivery in subject areas including Student Demographics, Student Performance, Budget and Finance, Employee Attendance, Child Nutrition, Human Resources, Accounts Payable, Payroll, Procurement, and Procurement Warehouse, to name a few. Flexible Services...Orlented Platform By building the Little Rock School District's BI solutions with Business Objects Enterprise, we have the flexibility to deploy a solution for a single infonnation chaJlenge, while being able to simultaneously expand the deployment as our needs evolve. Designed for ScalabiUty and High Performance Business Objects Enterprise is designed for scalability, reliability, fault-tolerance, extensibility, and 24n availability. This platfonn recognizes the importance of diverse global deployments, supports Unicode, and is compliant with Microsoft Windows, Sun Solaris, illM AfX, HP-UX, and Linux. So you can start with a single BI project on one platform, and easily grow to support an entelJ)rise-wide standardization initiative on multiple platfonns. With Bl content now being delivered via intranet and extranet, BI platform scalability ls a key issue. Business Objects Enterprise has the scalability you need to accommodate increasing numbers of users, process growing volumes of infonnation, and scale on a single machin~r clusters of machines-while maintaining high performance. Proven RellabUlty This platfonn's key attributes-performance, reliability, and scalability-are proven by extensive, real world testing and third-party certification. Enterprise is the only BI platform to achieve Microsoft Windows 2003 Datacenter certification. Business Objects Enterpris~ covered by a 24/7 technical customer support-has demonstrably installed and run on a 32processor system, remained stable through rigorous stress testing, and stayed available after being subject to extensive failover conditions. We also continually conduct extensive benchmarking and perfonnance testing to ensure our platform .,..~~cal~ c,~ 81 :-::~~m-e_e_tt h_e_n_ccd_s_o_f_th_e_Li_tt1_e_R_oc_k_S_ch_oo_l D_is_tn_c_t_to_d_a_y_an_d_t_o_m_o_rr_o_w_. __~ (. I._ _B EXHJ-BIT--\"] Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 25 of 30 Reporting Fundamentals The fundamental requirements of any reporting system are a normalized database and a reporting tool. Data from disparate systems and formats is collected in a centralized database platform and transformed into a consistent, well organized reporting database. Many reports have been created and delivered from this reporting database using Crystal Reports as the reporting tool. Normalized Data This data, securely housed at the Little Rock School District Technology Center, has been normalized to 3rd nonnal form on a Microsoft SQL Server database server. The original database management software is DB2 residing on an IBM AS/400 application server, which houses a majority of the studentbased data. Other student data resides in Microsoft Access or is provided to the CIS department via Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Automated processes have been developed and scheduled to update the student data nightly, where required. Processes have also been designed and implemented to update data in key financial, human resources and accounting subject areas. Business Objects provides the industry's leading suite of integrated business intelligence products. The products are categorized into three groups: Reportln2 allows all levels of the Little Rock School District to access, format, and deliver data as meaningful infonnation to large populations of information consumers like teachers and school administrators both inside and outside the organization. This is provided through detailed reports created using Crystal Reports and accessed via a web browser using the Business Objects Enterprise Info View application-  Query aad Analysis tools allow end users to interact with District infonnation and answer ad hoc questions, without advanced knowledge of the underlying data sources and structures. This is provided through a product called Web Intelligence or WEBL This allows users to create dynamic reports from their desks with little or no required knowledge of the underlying database schema. Jn-\u0026lt;iepth analysis is performed using OLAP Intelligence, a powerful OnLine Analytic Processing tool that provides detailed, fast, multidimensional data for sophisticated comparative analysis and reporting. Performance Management products help users align with strategy by tracking and analyzing key business and educational metrics and goals via management dashboards, scorecards. and alerting. This is provided through Perfozmance Manager and Dashboard Manager products that present Key Perfonnance Indicators in user-friendly, interactive graphical tools. Crystal Reports A world standard for enterprise reporting, Crystal Reports is an intuitive reporting solution that helps customers rapidly create flexible, feature-rich, high-fidelity reports and tightly integrate them into web and Windows applications. The Crystal Reports enterprise reporting solution consists of: lRSDBITooll l'c,Zo/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 26 of 30  Powerl'ul report design: Report authors can use the visual report designer (with a complete set of layout and design controls), to design highly fonnatted, interactive, and professional-looking reports. And they can design within the leading .NET and Java development tools without having to step out of their chosen development environment.  Flexi'ble application development: Developers can leverage cross-platform support for Java, .NET, and COM development technologies. HTML is generated directly by Crystal Reports, allowing developers to focus on application business logic, rather than tedious, time-intensive hand coding. Separation of application development and report design tasks allow developers to focus on application development, while the report authors can focus on report design.  Report management and delivery: Reports are easily published to the web, for better business decisions in all areas of the Little Rock School District. Reports can be exported and repurposed to the electronic fonnats used by most end users (e.g. PDF and Excel). IT can centralize the management of operational reporting while distributing the report authoring function out to departments of the District that need them. The following themes are an overview of what features are available in Crystal Reports XI:  Powerful data access and report design  Enhanced productivity and maintenance  Report management and delivery Dynamic and Cascading Prompts Report prompts can be based on dynamic values. This means that report designers no longer have to maintain static prompt value lists within individual reports. Instead, they can reuse existing prompts stored in the repository. HTML Preview The iterative report design/view process is streamlined, with a new HTML preview that allows report authors to sec how reports will look when published to the web. Editable RTF Format This new feature is ideal for report export editing. It delivers reports to end users in a new RTF format, so they can easily make their own document modifications. Report Export Configuration The report designer can save report export configuration infonnation within the report itself so that the end user forgoes the time aod trouble of reconfiguring the export each time a report is run. Dependency Checker With the new dependency checker, report authors can quickly find broken Jinks, formula errors. and dependency issues. This greatly reduces the time spent on QA. Business Views Speed Report Design and Maintenance Cycles Crystal Enterprise Business Views helps you better manage reporting across multiple data sources and applications by simplifying data access, change management, and data-level security processes. An l.RSDB/Too/1 Pq,Jo/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 27 of 30 optional service in Crystal Enterprise, Business Views allow you to integrate data from disparate sources, handle promotion/demotion between development and production environments, and control security at both the row and column level. Simplified Data Access Data access is one of the most fundamental, yet difficult aspects of designing a report. Locating the right data, joining tables appropriately, and filtering the data to focus on a specific subject area requires an indepth knowledge of the underlying data structures. The Business View Manager allows you to simplify data access for your report designers by insulating them from the raw data structures. You can build connections to multiple data sources, join tables, alias field names, create calculated fields, and then surface this simplified structure as a Business View in Crystal Enterprise. Your report designers can then connect to Crystal Enterprise and use the Business View as the basis for their report, rather than accessing the data directly and building their own queries. Business Views helps administrators pull data together from disparate sources. Data Connectiqns (created visually or with complex SQL statements) can be integrated into a Data Foundation. Once the Data Fowidation is built, Business Elements (a collection ofrelated fields from the Data Fowidation) can be created and combined into a Business View. The modular architecture of Business Views also allows you to readily re-use various components of one Business View to build other Business Views. A single, broad data foundation can serve as the basis for multiple, specialized Business Views. Used carefully, these capabilities allow you to minimize the number of changes required to introduce new data, fields, or formulas into your system. Granular Data-level Security Many reporting scenarios involve complex security requirements. Each user is entitled to see a slightly different slice of District data, based on their School, Department or level of seniority. Data in the Little Rock School District is commonly segregated by School and Teacher-based infonnation. Business Views allow teachers to view data regarding their students and prevents them form seeing data regarding students that are NOT assigned to them. Rather than creating a number of different reports to meet this need, we can create a single report and use the security features of Business Views to filter data appropriately for each user. Using the Business View Manager, you can set up row- or column-level filters and map these filters to users or user groups stored in your existing LDAP, Active Dirootory, or Windows authentication provider. This security is then consistently applied at the data level, ensuring that any report design based on a Business View will respect the underlying data security. You can then choose to schedule the report to run regularly. Or you can allow users to refresh it on demand. Regardless, Crystal Enterprise can generate a master instance of the report (with all the data included if you run the report under an administrator context) and then filter the report every time a user views it. All exporting, printing, and report modification requests will also return only the data the user is entitled to see. LRSD Bl Toob Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 28 of 30 Change Management and Re-use Maintaining a large set of reports is often more time-consuming and complex than new development. Activities such as making small changes in response to user needs, updating business calculations, changing formatting, and moving your reports between development and production data sources all delay you from addressing new requirements. Business Views includes two key features to help you spend less time on report maintenance. First, you can use Dynamic Data Connections to store connections to multiple instances of the same database (e.g., development, test, and production). By passing a parameter when you're designing (or scheduling) the report, you can select which data source the report runs against. Second, you can store commonly-used functions, text objects, and logos directly in your data fowidation. This allows you to easily roll changes across multiple reports by changing the object once. Business Objects Enterprise Info View Business Objects Info View is a completely redesigned web interface that enables user to navigate, create, and interact with District information. Integrated search and navigation tools allow users to easily find the infonnation they need. Users can also personalize their interactions to simplify consumption of District information. Info View is built to support Java and Microsoft based web servers, to easily fit within you're the Little Rock School District IT infrastructure. Web Intelligence Many organizations find it difficult to access information not contained in standard reports. And requests to IT for new infonnation simply add to the report backlog. Even when ad hoc query capabilities are available, they're typically difficult to use and don't provide your non-technical users with a simple method of exploring infonnation, to really understand the business issue at hand. With Business Objects Web Intelligence, both self-service access to information and data analysis are available in one product, helping your users turn educational analysis into effective decisions. Users can create a query from scratch, format the information retrieved, and analyze it to understand underlying trends and root causes. If the full power of query capabilities is not required, users can simply analyze information in existing reports-fonnatting and exploring them to meet specific needs. OLAP lntelllgence Businen Objects OLAP Intelligence is a powerful and easy-to-use tool that allows you to access and analyze data stored in tbe leading OLAP servers. It uniquely satisfies the analysis requirements of both information analysts (power users) and less sophisticated knowledge workers (business users). With OLAP Intelligence, power users can slice and dice, drill, rank, sort, filter, create calculations on the fly, and perfonn. speed-of-thought data exploration. And business users can interact with pre-built OLAP workbooks that contain highly intuitive, graphical views of educational activity, guided navigation and worktlows, and flexible ad hoc analysis. Its advanced analysis capabilities, shared security, acd relational drill-through allow you to standardize on Business Objects for all of your BI needs. OLAP Intelligence delivers:  Best-of-breed ad hoc OLAP  Managed OLAP authoring and distribution  Integration with the market leading, trusted BI platfonn LRSDBlTooll Pa,, S o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 29 of 30 Best-of-Breed Ad Hoc OLAP The primary driver for implementing an OLAP database is to provide users with fast access to multidimensional data. IT develops focused OLAP cubes to provide users with a structured data environment, optimized for analysis. But in order for users to take advantage of the pre-aggregated data within an OLAP cube, they require an interface that allows them to drill, slice, and dice while leveraging the response times that the predefined OLAP cube environment offers. Speed-of-Thought Analysis OLAP Intelligence provides an intuitive, web-based interface that allows users to select dimensions and members from a query panel as we11 as perfonn similar analysis from integrated Windows, Microsoft Excel, and ActiveX client interfaces. Users can interact with their data and ask spontaneous questions to uncover trends and identify anomalies. And because OLAP Intelligence takes advantage of the power of the OLAP cube, users are guaranteed speed-of-thought response time. Intuitive, Function-Rich Interface The OLAP Intelligence interface is both intuitive and function-rich. Common functions such as ranking, filtering, highlighting, quick calculations, zero suppression, and axis swapping are available with a single click of the mouse. More advanced analyses are only a few mouse clicks away and provide an uncluttered, intuitive user interface that requires minimal training. With OLAP Intelligence, users can also asymmetrically display data and hide specific dimensions that are irrelevant to data exploration. Deep, Open Access to Microsoft, Hyperion, and SAP OLAP Servers With OLAP Intelligence, you get best.of-breed, ad hoc OLAP for today's leading, multidimensional database servers-Microsoft SQL Server Analysis Services, Hyperion Essbase, IBM DB2 OLAP, and SAP BW. For examplei native Hyperion Essbase 7.x support for free-fonn calculations and cube actions means that organizations are maximizing their OLAP server investments and taking advantage ofkey enhancements and optimizations. Managed OLAP Authoring and Distribution OLAP Intelligence goes further than most OLAP clients on the market today by not only providing powerful ad hoc analysis, but also delivering a flexible, managed OLAP environment. With OLAP Intelligence, you can easily create sophisticated workbooks that exploit the power of the underlying OLAP server, and enable users to build in predefined navigation paths and workflows. Then you can securely deploy and deliver the workbooks live to business users who don't necessarily fit the powerdata analyst profile. These OLAP workbooks may contain custom buttons and multi-page reports that recipients can view and interact with over the web. Publish Live OLAP Workbooks to Business Users When users view an OLAP Intelligence workbook over the web, it may appear as a dashboard with custom .functionality specific to one area of the business, or as an ad hoc interface that allows them to perform advanced analysis. Because OLAP Intelligence has a flexible design and was created to meet powerful ad hoc and managed anaJysis needs, the deployment possibilities are limitless. Built-In Guided Navigation and Data Exploration UISD Bl Tooh Pq,60/1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 30 of 30 With OLAP Intelligence you can guide users through the OLAP data navigation and exploration process. For example, a user can highlight a group of cells in a report, click a custom analysis button, and view a new graph that has drilled down on the chosen group, displaying variances as a worksheet and chart. A show trend analysis button could then be made available that displays a new page in the workbook with a year-over-year comparison. Open drill-through capabilities in OLAP Intelligence empower users to drill .from aggregated OLAP data down to relational details. This means that users can navigate and explore summarized information, and drill through and pass context to more detailed Crystal Reports or Business Objects Web Intelligence documents. This contextual drill-through technology provides users with intelligent navigation without the need to understand the complexities of Wlderlying data and metadata structures. LRSDB/Toob Pqlo/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coUR-rRECEIVED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 1 7 2006 OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S COMPLIANCE REPORT For its Compliance Report, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This Compliance Report is filed pursuant to paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy contained in this Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. This compliance is documented below, as well as in the eight Quarterly Updates which were filed between December 1, 2004 and September 1, 2006, the evaluations of Compass Learning, Smart/Thrive, Reading Recovery and Year-Round Education which were previously filed, and the evaluations of A+, 21st Century Community Page 1 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 2 of 30 Learning Centers and READ 180 which are filed with this Compliance Report. 3. The progress ofLRSD's efforts to comply with the requirement for an eighth step 2 program evaluation, the Pre-K Literacy evaluation, has been shown in LRSD's Quarterly Updates and status reports to the Court. The final evidence of LRSD's compliance with that requirement will be the evaluation itself, which the evaluator, Dr. Ross, expects to have completed on or before November 15, 2006. 4. LRSD will separately describe below its compliance with each of the requirements of the Compliance Remedy except those which set out the responsibilities of the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 5. The requirements of paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy are: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations\nand (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.\nto have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations\nand to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. Page 2 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 3 of 30 6. LRSD met the requirements of paragraph A by adding to the PRE team three new professionals who have knowledge and experience in assessment, evaluation, and statistical analysis. The qualifications of the seven people who were employed by PRE as of November 1, 2004 are shown at pages 3 through 5 of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. The resumes of PRE Director Dr. Karen DeJarnette and statisticians Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams are found in Appendix A to the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This highly trained team of professionals has the qualifications required by paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 7. There have been a few changes in personnel since the first Quarterly - Update, but PRE has maintained a highly trained team of professionals. Administrative Assistant Irma Shelton took medical leave in May of 2005. The Administrative Assistant position was eliminated on July 1, 2005. Testing Coordinator Yvette Dillingham left PRE in August, 2005. Dr. Ed Williams temporarily assumed her responsibilities until she was replaced in November 2005 by Arthur Olds. Olds' resume can be found in Appendix A to the March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. As reported in the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, Olds sought reassignment to a teaching possession at Dunbar Magnet Middle School on April 14, 2006. Dr. Williams again temporarily assumed the Testing Coordinator Page 3 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 4 of 30 - responsibilities. LRSD posted the Testing Coordinator position in June, 2006 and interviews were scheduled for August, 2006. See September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A new testing coordinator, Danyell Cummings was hired October 1, 2006. Her resume is attached as Exhibit A to this Compliance Report. 8. The current PRE staff has all of the qualifications listed in paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD complied with paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 9. The requirements of paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy are: B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD' s curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Part of LRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. I suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process\nthen be sure that he approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. 10. LRSD has devised and deeply embedded a comprehensive program Page 4 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 5 of 30 - assessment process in accordance with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in developing the comprehensive program assessment process. By the time of the first Quarterly Update on December 1, 2004, PRE and Dr. Ross had \"developed and shared with ODM and the Joshua Intervenors a program assessment process to be deeply embedded in LRSD's educational operations.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 6. The final draft of that process is found at Appendix B of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This final draft was furnished to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors more than a month in advance of its consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 11. The comprehensive program - assessment process was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process has become deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included the development of school portfolios. \"School portfolios assemble comprehensive data about classrooms, schools, and districts from disparate sources into data bases that are accessible and informative particularly to teachers and administrators as well as to board members, parents, and other stakeholders.\" September 1, 2005 Page 5 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 6 of 30 Quarterly Update, p. 3. School portfolios are useful for formative evaluations of student achievement and educational programs. LRSD began implementing school portfolios during the 2005-06 school year. Id. As part of the process of the development and implementation of portfolios, four PRE department members attended an institute for data analysis during the summer of 2005, and a consultant \"visited LRSD and reviewed its data collection procedures and resources.\" Id. 12. LRSD has continued to develop the infrastructure to support its comprehensive assessment process. School and district data portfolios are an important part of this infrastructure. These portfolios \"allow PRE staff as well as others to more easily analyze data and intersect various types of data sets to answer - research questions about comprehensive school improvement efforts.\" December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. During April of 2006, an expert on school portfolios provided professional development for LRSD principals, administrators, and the PRE staff regarding the creation and use of school portfolios. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 13. As of December 1, 2005, PRE had identified the data to be included in the district portfolio and had designed a draft district portfolio. Id. District administrators and principals were making use of the portfolio and steps were being taken \"to allow a more efficient collection of data related to educational Page 6 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 7 of 30 processes.\" Id. Dr. Catterall used data from LRSD's portfolio in his step 2 evaluation of the Year-Round Education program. March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 14. The development of portfolios is a continual process. As new data becomes available (e.g. new test results) they are added to the data base. The infrastructure is in place, and LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolios. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 15. LRSD has also sought to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process by hiring a consultant, the Janis Group, to help develop a \"data warehouse.\" The Janis Group has \"expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently - accessing data.\" March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. The data warehouse will support frequent updates of the portfolio and allow timely data reports for purposes of planning, research, evaluation and developing policy. Reports can be generated by program, classroom, school, grade, or district-wide. Id. 16. There was some debate within LRSD about whether to purchase an internet-based data warehouse from a company called TetraData or to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse using the Business Objects software and the database already available to LRSD. LRSD decided, with some dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. Page 7 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 8 of 30 - Business Objects is state of the art software which can be effectively used in the assessment of academic programs. The capabilities of the Business Objects data warehouse, including updating and reporting student data, are shown in the \"Business Objects Reporting Tools\" document attached as Exhibit B to this Compliance Report. 17. The process of developing school and district portfolios, and creating a data warehouse, has revealed the need for LRSD to take steps to insure that the data entered into its database is accurate. The accuracy of the data would be a concern whether the district used the Business Objects system, the TetraData system or some other software system. To improve the accuracy of data reporting within LRSD, LRSD has increased the number of \"error checking routines\" in its computer software. LRSD also has a full time training coordinator whose job it is to train school registrars and other LRSD personnel in the proper entry of student data, to work with those people to identify and correct recurring data entry errors, and to generally assure the accuracy and completeness of student data within the LRSD database. The accuracy of the data in LRSD's database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. 18. Finally, as another part of embedding the comprehensive program assessment process, PRE has designed \"feasible, ongoing assessments of the four Page 8 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 9 of 30 - programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross subjected to step 2 evaluations last year.\" June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD also plans to have PRE conduct ongoing assessments of the programs currently being evaluated by Drs. Ross and Catterall. 19. LRSD has devised a comprehensive program assessment process as required by paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. That process has been deeply embedded as a permanent part ofLRSD's curriculum program. LRSD has complied with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. 20. The requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy are: C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four ( 4) fonnal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key  2. 7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2.7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross -- to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year\nand (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary Page 9 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 0 of 30 - to prepare those evaluations. 21 . In accordance with paragraph C, LRSD hired Dr. Ross to \"identify the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year,\" and to \"prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible.\" 22. Dr. Ross was provided a copy of the Compliance Remedy and he endorsed the first Quarterly Update \"as representing an accurate portrayal of accomplishments to date and a viable plan for addressing the requirements of the Remedy.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, Appendix C (p. 45). Dr. Ross assumed responsibility for preparing six of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations. Three of those cover the 2004-05 school year and were filed on February 6, 2006. Two others are for the 2005-06 school year and will be filed today. The sixth step 2 evaluation being prepared by Dr. Ross, Pre-K Literacy, has been delayed due to the unavailability of necessary data and is expected to be completed no later than November 15, 2006. 23. Two of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations were prepared by Dr. James Catterall. One covered the 2004-05 school year and was filed on February 6, 2006. The other will be filed today. Page 10 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 11 of 30 24. PRE, in collaboration with Dr. Ross, selected Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, Compass Leaming and Year-Round Education to be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 7-9. Those evaluations have been completed. 25. Dr. Ross initially identified the following four 2.7 programs for step 2 evaluations in the 2005-06 school year: Arkansas A+ School Network\nKnowledgePoints\nPLATO Leaming and Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Development. June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. At the request of the Joshua Intervenors, and with the agreement of Dr. Ross, 21 st Century Community Leaming Centers was substituted for PLATO Leaming as the subject of an evaluation for the 2005- - 06 school year. September 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4 and Appendix C, (pp. 19-21). KnowledgePoints was also replaced as the subject of evaluation by the READ 180 program because the supplier of KnowledgePoints withdrew its support of the program in Arkansas. December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. 26. Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall possess the experience and ability necessary to prepare the eight required step 2 evaluations. Their qualifications are found in Appendix C to the first Quarterly Update (pp. 46-54). They are both familiar with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy and have agreed to prepare their evaluations in accordance with those requirements. LRSD has Page 11 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 12 of 30 - complied with the requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. 27. The requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy are: D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations must answer the following essential research question: \"Has the  2.7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district?\" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. PRE must: ( 1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations\nand (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. 28. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations answers the essential research question of whether the program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations also answers other important research questions. Each is organized and written so that it can be readily understood by a lay person. In each case, the outside experts and the evaluation teams determined the evaluation design, including the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data necessary to the utility of each Page 12 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 13 of 30 - evaluation. 29. PRE has overseen the preparation of all eight step 2 evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and those associated with them, to support their work and provide any and all requested assistance. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp.6-7\nMarch 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 4\nJune 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 5-6\nSeptember 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 6 and Appendix A. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 30. The requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy are: E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: (1) describes the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key  2.7 program being evaluated\n(2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\nand (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2.7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.l of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. 31. In accordance with paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy, each of the eight step 2 evaluations contains a section concerning data collection which Page 13 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 14 of 30 - describes the number of teachers and administrators at various grade levels who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the program being evaluated. Each of the eight evaluations also contains recommended program modifications and explains how the recommended modifications can be expected to increase the effectiveness of the program. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 4-5. 32. On April 18, 2006, LRSD convened the four evaluation teams which worked on the 2004-05 evaluations to consider the feasibility and the timeframe for implementing the external evaluators' recommendations. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A summary of LRSD's commitments to the modifications recommended by the external evaluators is found in Appendix A (pp. 7-11) to the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. LRSD will follow the same process of reviewing the evaluators' recommended modifications following receipt of the evaluations for the 2005-06 school year. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy. 33. The requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy are: F. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must Page 14 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 15 of 30 provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31, 2004. 34. In accordance with paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, PRE notified ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update\np. 8. PRE also provided to ODM and Joshua a final draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented to the Board for approval. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 6 and 11. The LRSD Board of Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004, in advance of the December 31, 2004 deadline. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy. 35. The requirements of paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy are: G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. 36. In accordance with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy, Page 15 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 16 of 30 LRSD submitted quarterly written updates to the Court and delivered them to ODM and Joshua on or before December 1, 2004, March 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, September 1, 2005, December 1, 2005, March 1, 2006, June 1, 2006 and September 1, 2006. Those quarterly written updates reported \"the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations\" prepared during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. The quarterly updates also provided information on the status of compliance with other components of the Compliance Remedy. 36. As soon as the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were completed and approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD provided them to ODM and Joshua. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on October 16, 2006. The fourth will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on or before November 15, 2006. As soon as the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year are approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD will provide final copies of those evaluations to ODM and Joshua. LRSD has complied with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy. 37. The requirements of paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy are: Page 16 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 17 of 30 J. The four step program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006. 38. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were filed with the Court on February 6, 2006 in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005- 06 school year will be filed on today in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Dr. Ross requires additional time to complete the Pre-K Literacy evaluation because of the delayed availability of necessary testing data. LRSD has requested an extension of time for the filing of that step 2 evaluation to and including November 15, 2006, and expects to file that evaluation by that date. LRSD has substantially complied with paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy. 39. The requirements of paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy are: K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. 40. LRSD is filing this Compliance Report on October 16, 2006 in accordance with paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy and the Court's July 12, Page 17 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 18 of 30 2006 letter to the parties ( docket no. 4027). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the eight Quarterly Updates which have been filed with the Court, and on the basis of the completion of eight step 2 program evaluations by Drs. Ross and Catterall, LRSD prays for an order finding it to be in substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy contained in the Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion, declaring LRSD to be a unitary school district, and releasing LRSD from all supervision and monitoring by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 /s/ Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 16, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: Page 18 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 19 of 30 mark.hagemeier(@.ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 /s/ Christopher Heller Page 19 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 . P~e 20 of _ 30 .. Career Objective: Prefe1sional Experience: 2004-Present 1998-Present Education: May,2005 December, 1998 May, 1997 ProfessJonaJly Related Activities: DanyeJI Crutchfield Cummlnp S Ben Hogan Cove Little Rocle, Arkansas 72210 (501) 407-8097 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and professional experience to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contribute to a progressive educational environment. High Schools That Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal English Teacher J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little R(ick, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervision, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Master of Education, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Stakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher oflhe Year Educational Specialist Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 References: Linda Young Grants Coordinator (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-5439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elementary (501) 447-4300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed.D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 work (501) 407-0817 home Sharon Cauley, Ed.D Assistant Principal J.A. Fair Systems Magnet High School (501) 447-1700 ext. 1710 work (501) 666-6216 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 22 of 30 ---------- .. ---------- .. - - - Career Objective: Profeaional Experience: 2004-Present 1998-Prescnt Education: May,2005 December, 1998 May, 1997 Professionally Related Activities: Danyell Crutchfield Cumminp S Ben Hogan Cove Little Rocle, Arkan11u 72210 (!01) 407-8097 (S0l) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and professional ~eriencc to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opporhmity to contribute to a progressive educational environment. High Schools That Work Coordinator ]. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal English Teacher J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervision, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Master of Education, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Stakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher of the Year Educational Specialist References: Linda Young Grants Coordinator (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-5439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elementary (501) 447-4300 WOJX (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed.D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 work (SOl) 407-08l7 home Sharon Cauley, Ed.D Assistant Principal ].A. Fair Systems Magnet High School (501)447-1700ext. 1710 work {501) 666-6216 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 24 of 30 Bl Platform Little Rock School District Business Objects Reporting Tools Business Objects Enterprise is a scalable, adaptive platform that delivers insight and corporate infonnation to all your end users. With a platform designed to help you confidently deploy and manage your Business Intelligence (BI) implementations, Business Objects provides the Little Rock School District with the extreme insight you need to extend your competitive advantage. The BI Platform provides a set of common services to simplify deployment and management of BI tools, reports, and applications. The reporting system at the Little Rock School District includes information delivery in subject areas including Student Demographics, Student Performance, Budget and Finance, Employee Attendance, Child Nutrition, Human Resources, Accounts Payable, Payroll, Procurement, and Procurement Warehouse, to name a few. Flexible Services-Oriented Platform By building the Little Rock School District's BI solutions with Business Objects Enterprise, we have the flexibility to deploy a solution for a single information challenge, while being able to simultaneously expand the deployment as our needs evolve. Designed for Scalabilitv and High Performance Business Objects Enterprise is designed for scalability, reliability, fault-tolerance, extensibility, and 24/7 availability. This platform recognizes the importance of diverse global deployments, supports Unicode, and is compliant with Microsoft Windows, Sun Solaris, IBM AIX, HP-UX, and Linux. So you can start with a single BI project on one platform, and easily grow to support an enterprise-wide standardization initiative on multiple platforms. With BI content now being delivered via intranet and extranet, BI platform scalability is a key issue. Business Objects Enterprise has the scalability you need to accommodate increasing numbers of users, process growing volumes of information, and scale on a single machine-or clusters of machineswhile maintaining high performance. Proven Reliability This platform's key attributes-performance, reliability, and scalability-are proven by extensive, real-world testing and third-party certification. Enterprise is the only BI platform to achieve Microsoft Windows 2003 Datacenter certification. Business Objects Enterprise- covered by a 24/7 technical customer support-has demonstrably installed and run on a 32-processor system, remained stable through rigorous stress testing, and stayed available after being subject to extensive failover conditions. We also continually conduct extensive benchmarking and performance testing to ensure our platform -sc-a-le_s_t_o_m_e_e_t_th_e_n__eed_ s - of_t_h_e_L-itt_l_e_R_o_c_k_S_c_h_oo_l_D_i_s_tn-c_t-to_d_a_y_an_d-to_m_o_rr_o_w_. ---l. .i _ _'B _H.IBIT--J LRSD BI Tools .., ~ ., Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 25 of 30 Reporting Fundamentals The fundamental requirements of any reporting system are a nonnalized database and a reporting tool. Data from disparate systems and formats is collected in a centralized database platform and transformed into a consistent, well organized reporting database. Many reports have been created and delivered from this reporting database using Crystal Reports as the reporting tool. Normalized Data This data, securely housed at the Little Rock School District Technology Center, has been nonnalized to 3rd normal form on a Microsoft SQL Server database server. The original database management software is DB2 residing on an IBM AS/400 application server, whkh houses a majority of the studentbased data. Other student data resides in Microsoft Access or is provided to the CIS department via Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Automated processes have been developed and scheduled to update the student data nightly, where required. Processes have also been designed and implemented to update data in key financial, human resources and accounting subject areas. Business Objects provides the industry's leading suite of integrated business intelligence products. The products are categorized into three groups: Reporting allows all levels of the Little Rock School District to access, format, and deliver data as meaningful information to large populations of information consumers like teachers and school administrators both inside and outside the organization. This is provided through detailed reports created using Crystal Reports and accessed via a web browser using the Business Objects Enterprise Info View application. Query and Analysis tools allow end users to interact with District information and answer ad hoc questions, without advanced knowledge of the underlying data sources and structures. This is provided through a product called Web Intelligence or WEBI. This allows users to create dynamic reports from their desks with little or no required knowledge of the underlying database schema. In-depth analysis is performed using OLAP Intelligence, a powerful OnLine Analytic Processing tool that provides detailed, fast, multidimensional data for sophisticated comparative analysis and reporting. Performance Management products help users align with strategy by tracking and analyzing key business and educational metrics and goals via management dashboards, scorecards, and alerting. This is provided through Performance Manager and Dashboard Manager products that present Key Performance Indicators in user-friendly, interactive graphical tools. Crystal Reports A world standard for enterprise reporting, Crystal Reports is an intuitive reporting solution that helps customers rapidly create flexible, feature-rich, high-fidelity reports and tightly integrate them into web and Windows applications. The Crystal Reports enterprise reporting solution consists of: LRSD Bl Tools Pagel o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 26 of 30  Powerful report design: Report authors can use the visual report designer (with a complete set of layout and design controls), to design highly formatted, interactive, and professional-looking reports. And they can design within the leading .NET and Java development tools without having to step out of their chosen development environment.  Flexible application development: Developers can leverage cross-platform support for Java, .NET, and COM development technologies. HTML is generated directly by Crystal Reports, allowing developers to focus on application business logic, rather than tedious, time-intensive hand coding. Separation of application development and report design tasks allow developers to focus on application development, while the report authors can focus on report design.  Report management and delivery: Reports are easily published to the web, for better business decisions in all areas of the Little Rock School District. Reports can be exported and repurposed to the electronic formats used by most end users (e.g. PDF and Excel). IT can centralize the management of operational reporting while distributing the report authoring function out to departments of the District that need them. The following themes are an overview of what features are available in Crystal Reports XI:  Powerful data access and report design  Enhanced productivity and maintenance  Report management and delivery Dynamic and Cascading\nPrompts Report prompts can be based on dynamic values. This means that report designers no longer have to maintain static prompt value lists within individual reports. Instead, they can reuse existing prompts stored in the repository. HTML Preview The iterative report design/view process is streamlined, with a new HTML preview that allows report authors to see how reports will look when published to the web. Editable RTF Format This new feature is ideal for report export editing. It delivers reports to end users in a new RTF format, so they can easily make their own document modifications. Report Export Config\nuration The report designer can save report export configuration information within the report itself so that the end user forgoes the time and trouble of reconfiguring the export each time a report is run. Dependencv Checker With the new dependency checker, report authors can quickly find broken links, formula errors, and dependency issues. This greatly reduces the time spent on QA. Business Views Speed Report Desig\nn and Maintenance Cycles Crystal Enterprise Business Views helps you better manage reporting across multiple data sources and applications by simplifying data access, change management, and data-level security processes. An LRSD Bl Tools Page 3 of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 27 of 30 optional service in Crystal Enterprise, Business Views allow you to integrate data from disparate sources, handle promotion/demotion between development and production environments, and control security at both the row and column level. Simplified Data Access Data access is one of the most fundamental, yet difficult aspects of designing a report. Locating the right data, joining tables appropriately, and filtering the data to focus on a specific subject area requires an indepth knowledge of the underlying data structures. The Business View Manager allows you to simplify data access for your report designers by insulating them from the raw data structures. You can build connections to multiple data sources, join tables, alias field names, create calculated fields, and then surface this simplified structure as a Business View in Crystal Enterprise. Your report designers can then connect to Crystal Enterprise and use the Business View as the basis for their report, rather than accessing the data directly and building their own queries. Business Views helps administrators pull data together from disparate sources. Data Connections (created visually or with complex SQL statements) can be integrated into a Data Foundation. Once the Data Foundation is built, Business Elements (a collection ofrelated fields from the Data Foundation) can be created and combined into a Business View. The modular architecture of Business Views also allows you to readily re-use various components of one Business View to build other Business Views. A single, broad data foundation can serve as the basis for multiple, specialized Business Views. Used carefully, these capabilities allow you to minimize the number of changes required to introduce new data, fields, or formulas into your system. Granular Data-level Securitv Many reporting scenarios involve complex security requirements. Each user is entitled to see a slightly different slice of District data, based on their School, Department or level of seniority. Data in the Little Rock School District is commonly segregated by School and Teacher-based information. Business Views allow teachers to view data regarding their students and prevents them form seeing data regarding students that are NOT assigned to them. Rather than creating a number of different reports to meet this need, we can create a single report and use the security features of Business Views to filter data appropriately for each user. Using the Business View Manager, you can set up row- or column-level filters and map these filters to users or user groups stored in your existing LDAP, Active Directory, or Windows authentication provider. This security is then consistently applied at the data level, ensuring that any report design based on a Business View will respect the underlying data security. You can then choose to schedule the report to run regularly. Or you can allow users to refresh it on demand. Regardless, Crystal Enterprise can generate a master instance of the report (with all the data included if you run the report under an administrator context) and then filter the report every time a user views it. All exporting, printing, and report modification requests will also return only the data the user is entitled to see. LRSD Bl Tools Page 4 of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 28 of 30 Change Management and Re-use Maintaining a large set ofreports is often more time-consuming and complex than new development. Activities such as making small changes in response to user needs, updating business calculations, changing formatting, and moving your reports between development and production data sources all delay you from addressing new requirements. Business Views includes two key features to help you spend less time on report maintenance. First, you can use Dynamic Data Connections to store connections to multiple instances of the same database (e.g., development, test, and production). By passing a parameter when you're designing (or scheduling) the report, you can select which data source the report runs against. Second, you can store commonly-used functions, text objects, and logos directly in your data foundation. This aliows you to easily ro11 changes across multiple reports by changing the object once. Business Objects Enterprise Info View Business Objects Info View is a completely redesigned web interface that enables user to navigate, create, and interact with District information. Integrated search and navigation tools allow users to easily find the information they need. Users can also personalize their interactions to simplify consumption of District information. Info View is built to support Java and Microsoft based web servers, to easily fit within you're the Little Rock School District IT infrastructure. Web Intelligence Many organizations find it difficult to access information not contained in standard reports. And requests to IT for new information simply add to the report backlog. Even when ad hoc query capabilities are available, they're typically difficult to use and don't provide your non-technical users with a simple method of exploring information, to really understand the business issue at hand. With Business Objects Web Intelligence, both self-service access to information and data analysis are available in one product, helping your users turn educational analysis into effective decisions. Users can create a query from scratch, format the information retrieved, and analyze it to understand underlying trends and root causes. If the full power of query capabilities is not required, users can simply analyze information in existing reports-formatting and exploring them to meet specific needs. OLAP Intelligence Business Objects OLAP Intelligence is a powerful and easy-to-use tool that allows you to access and analyze data stored in the leading OLAP servers. It uniquely satisfies the analysis requirements of both information analysts (power users) and less sophisticated knowledge workers (business users). With OLAP Intelligence, power users can slice and dice, drill, rank, sort, filter, create calculations on the fly, and perform speed-of-thought data exploration. And business users can interact with pre-built OLAP workbooks that contain highly intuitive, graphical views of educational activity, guided navigation and workflows, and flexible ad hoc analysis. Its advanced analysis capabilities, shared security, and relational drill-through allow you to standardize on Business Objects for all of your BI needs. OLAP Intelligence delivers:  Best-of-breed ad hoc OLAP  Managed OLAP authoring and distribution  Integration with the market leading, trusted BI platform LRSD Bl Tools Page5 of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 29 of 30 Best-of-Breed Ad Hoc OLAP The primary driver for implementing an OLAP database is to provide users with fast access to multidimensional data. IT develops focused OLAP cubes to provide users with a structured data environment, optimized for analysis. But in order for users to talce advantage of the pre-aggregated data within an OLAP cube, they require an interface that allows them to drill, slice, and dice while leveraging the response times that the predefined OLAP cube environment offers. Speed-of-Thought Analysis OLAP Intelligence provides an intuitive, web-based interface that allows users to select dimensions and members from a query panel as well as perform similar analysis from integrated Windows, Microsoft Excel, and ActiveX client interfaces. Users can interact with their data and ask sp,mtaneous questions to uncover trends and identify anomalies. And because OLAP Intelligence talces advantage of the power of the OLAP cube, users are guaranteed speed-of-thought response time. Intuitive, Function-Rich Interface The OLAP Intelligence interface is both intuitive and function-rich. Common functions such as ranking, filtering, highlighting, quick calculations, zero suppression, and axis swapping are available with a single click of the mouse. More advanced analyses are only a few mouse clicks away and provide an uncluttered, intuitive user interface that requires minimal training. With OLAP Intelligence, users can also asymmetrically display data and hide specific dimensions that are irrelevant to data exploration. Deep, Open Access to Microsoft, Hyperion, and SAP OLAP Servers With OLAP Intelligence, you get best-of-breed, ad hoc OLAP for today's leading, multidimensional database servers-Microsoft SQL Server Analysis Services, Hyperion Essbase, IBM DB2 OLAP, and SAP BW. For example, native Hyperion Essbase 7.x support for free-form calculations and cube actions means that organizations are maximizing their OLAP server investments and taking advantage of key enhancements and optimizations. Managed OLAP Authoring and Distribution OLAP Intelligence goes further than most OLAP clients on the market today by not only providing powerful ad hoc analysis, but also delivering a flexible, managed OLAP environment. With OLAP Intelligence, you can easily create sophisticated workbooks that exploit the power of the underlying OLAP server, and enable users to build in predefined navigation paths and workflows. Then you can securely deploy and deliver the workbooks live to business users who don't necessarily fit the powerdata analyst profile. These OLAP workbooks may contain custom buttons and multi-page reports that recipients can view and interact with over the web. Publish Live OLAP Workbooks to Business Users When users view an OLAF Intelligence workbook over the web, it may appear as a dashboard with custom functionality specific to one area of the business, or as an ad hoc interface that allows them to perform advanced analysis. Because OLAP Intelligence has a flexible design and was created to meet powerful ad hoc and managed analysis needs, the deployment possibilities are limitless. Built-In Guided Navigation and Data Exploration LRSD Bl Tocls Page 6 o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 30 of 30 With OLAP Intelligence you can guide users through the OLAP data navigation and exploration process. For example, a user can highlight a group of cells in a report, click a custom analysis button, and view a new graph that has drilled down on the chosen group, displaying variances as a worksheet and chart. A show trend analysis button could then be made available that displays a new page in the workbook with a year-over-year comparison. Open drill-through capabilities in OLAP Intelligence empower users to drill from aggregated OLAP data down to relational details. This means that users can navigate and explore summarized infonnation, and drill through and pass context to more detailed Crystal Reports or Business Objects Web Intelligence documents. This contextual drill-through technology provides users with intelligent navigation without the need to understand the complexities of underlying data and metadata structures. LRSD 81 Tools Page 7 o/7\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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\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":266,"next_page":267,"prev_page":265,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":3180,"total_count":81557,"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":40428},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35298},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4529},{"value":"Sound","hits":3226},{"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":9445},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8328},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5912},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5604},{"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":4440},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3536}],"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":1815},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1495},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"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":1915},{"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":440}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1769},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":969},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":853},{"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":17987},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5437},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4847},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4599},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4328},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3948},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12823},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11313},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10220},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8493},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4733},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3786},{"value":"Florida","hits":2602},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2403},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1875},{"value":"New York","hits":1840}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10632},{"value":"1963","hits":10287},{"value":"1965","hits":10218},{"value":"1956","hits":9840},{"value":"1955","hits":9619},{"value":"1964","hits":9365},{"value":"1968","hits":9345},{"value":"1962","hits":9247},{"value":"1967","hits":8897},{"value":"1957","hits":8523},{"value":"1961","hits":8282},{"value":"1958","hits":8259},{"value":"1959","hits":8061},{"value":"1960","hits":7948},{"value":"1969","hits":7348},{"value":"1954","hits":7240},{"value":"1950","hits":7118},{"value":"1953","hits":6969},{"value":"1970","hits":6835},{"value":"1971","hits":6425},{"value":"1977","hits":6367},{"value":"1972","hits":6254},{"value":"1952","hits":6162},{"value":"1951","hits":6046},{"value":"1975","hits":5894},{"value":"1976","hits":5863},{"value":"1974","hits":5849},{"value":"1973","hits":5689},{"value":"1979","hits":5416},{"value":"1978","hits":5405},{"value":"1980","hits":5366},{"value":"1995","hits":4885},{"value":"1981","hits":4811},{"value":"1994","hits":4704},{"value":"1948","hits":4597},{"value":"1949","hits":4573},{"value":"1996","hits":4542},{"value":"1982","hits":4417},{"value":"1947","hits":4317},{"value":"1985","hits":4313},{"value":"1998","hits":4281},{"value":"1983","hits":4261},{"value":"1997","hits":4258},{"value":"1984","hits":4152},{"value":"1999","hits":4074},{"value":"1946","hits":4047},{"value":"1945","hits":4018},{"value":"1986","hits":4006},{"value":"1990","hits":3988},{"value":"1943","hits":3900},{"value":"1944","hits":3896},{"value":"2000","hits":3894},{"value":"2001","hits":3876},{"value":"1942","hits":3868},{"value":"1940","hits":3765},{"value":"1941","hits":3758},{"value":"1987","hits":3744},{"value":"2002","hits":3624},{"value":"1991","hits":3553},{"value":"1936","hits":3507},{"value":"1939","hits":3501},{"value":"1992","hits":3500},{"value":"2003","hits":3489},{"value":"1993","hits":3478},{"value":"1938","hits":3466},{"value":"1937","hits":3450},{"value":"1989","hits":3441},{"value":"1930","hits":3378},{"value":"1988","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3307},{"value":"1933","hits":3271},{"value":"1934","hits":3271},{"value":"1932","hits":3255},{"value":"1931","hits":3240},{"value":"2005","hits":3143},{"value":"2004","hits":2995},{"value":"2006","hits":2860},{"value":"1929","hits":2790},{"value":"1928","hits":2272},{"value":"1921","hits":2124},{"value":"1925","hits":2040},{"value":"1927","hits":2026},{"value":"1924","hits":2012},{"value":"2016","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2010},{"value":"1920","hits":1976},{"value":"1923","hits":1955},{"value":"1922","hits":1929},{"value":"2007","hits":1715},{"value":"2008","hits":1664},{"value":"2011","hits":1661},{"value":"2009","hits":1624},{"value":"2019","hits":1623},{"value":"2015","hits":1613},{"value":"2013","hits":1604},{"value":"2010","hits":1601},{"value":"2014","hits":1567},{"value":"2012","hits":1553},{"value":"1919","hits":1533},{"value":"1918","hits":1531}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":506439,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10710},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9628},{"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":2771},{"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":41201},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17721},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8830},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":7090},{"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":145},{"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":8153},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4251},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3438},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"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":2785},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":81102},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":81360},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}