{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"nge_ngen_m-10464","title":"Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech","collection_id":"nge_ngen","collection_title":"New Georgia Encyclopedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["A handwritten copy of Martin Luther King Jr.'s acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize is included in the Morehouse College Martin Luther King Jr. Collection. King delivered the speech in Oslo, Norway, in 1964.","This photograph shows a handwritten copy of Martin Luther King Jr.'s acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize. This letter is included in the Morehouse College Martin Luther King Jr. Collection. King delivered the speech in Oslo, Norway, in 1964."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/king-papers","Forms part of: New Georgia Encyclopedia"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/king-papers","Forms part of: New Georgia Encyclopedia"],"dcterms_subject":["Nobel Prize winners","African American civil rights workers--Georgia--Atlanta","Civil rights workers--Georgia--Atlanta","Letters--Georgia--Atlanta","Speeches, addresses, etc., American--Georgia--Atlanta","Morehouse College (Atlanta, Ga.)"],"dcterms_title":["Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["New Georgia Encyclopedia (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/king-papers/m-10464/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["Reprinted with permission from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution","Atlanta Journal-Constitution"],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["speeches"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_560","title":"Program evaluation emails","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006-01/2006-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluation emails"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/560"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nMargie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;awgrehan@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;ghweems@ualr.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jstrahl@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;ajmcdnld@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;heller@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;dununnley1@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jbates2@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;JNunnery@odu.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;blktinzie1@yahoo.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;lwharrsn@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;rose.harris@ocse.state.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Young, Linda\" \u0026lt;Linda.Young@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Alexander, Sheneka\" \u0026lt;Sheneka.Alexander@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Davis, Suzi\" \u0026lt;Suzi.Davis@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Doyne, Angela\" \u0026lt;Angela.Doyne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Fletcher, Danny\" \u0026lt;Danny.Fletcher@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Olds, Arthur\" \u0026lt;Arthur.Olds@lrsd,org\u0026gt;\n\"Purtle, Sarah\" \u0026lt;Sarah.Purtle@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Riley, Cheryl\" \u0026lt;Cheryl.Riley@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Martha\" \u0026lt;Martha.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Shofner, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Shofner@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Underwood, Krista\" \u0026lt;Krista.Underwood@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Whittaker, Nona\" \u0026lt;Nona.Whittaker@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Wiiliams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wilson, Janice\" \u0026lt;Janice.Wilson@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Woole, Ricky\" \u0026lt;Ricky.Woole@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@aristotle.net\u0026gt; Tuesday, January 24, 2006 9:38 AM Year Two Evaluation Team Meeting To All\nA Year Two evaluation team meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, February 9th, 1 pm to 4pm, at the Distant Learning Lab at Metro Technical School. The purpose of this meeting is to review the proposed research design by the two outside evaluators. Since there are four teams, plus the Magnet team involved, I have scheduled the following times so that not all will need to be there the entire three hours\n21st Century: 1-1:40 Read 180: 1:40-2:15 Pre-K Literacy: 2:15 - 2:45 A+: 2:45 - 3:20 Magnet: 3:20-4:00 PRE will either LISPS mail or e-mail the respective team members the research design description. Please call, 447-3386, or e-mail if you have questions. Talk to you soon Dr. Ed R. Williams Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 1/24/2006Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Alexander, Sheneka\" \u0026lt;Sheneka.Alexander@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Doyne, Angela\" \u0026lt;Angela.Doyne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Purtle, Sarah\" \u0026lt;Sarah.Purtle@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Martha\" \u0026lt;Martha.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Underwood, Krista\" \u0026lt;Krista.Underwood@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Freeman, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Freeman@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Michelle Ellison\" \u0026lt;mellison@fsainc.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;laura@bnbstudio.com\u0026gt;\n\"Mccraw, Helen\" \u0026lt;Helen.Mccraw@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Olds, Arthur\" \u0026lt;Arthur.Olds@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;awgrehan@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;lwharrsn@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;ajmcdnid@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;heller@fec.net\u0026gt; Monday, February 27, 2006 5:57 PM RE: Pre-K evaluation team meeting Feb 13 The evaluation team for Pre-K Literacy will meet at 10 AM. Monday. March 13 at the IRC (3001 S Pulaski). The room number will be posted at the front desk. One of our team members could not attend until 10:30. but we will be able to devote enough time to accommodate any questions. In another week I'll send copies of the draft questionnaires and latest version of the evaluation plan, so you can be familiar with them before the team meets. Thanks for you interest and commitment to this evaluation. Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 501/447-3381 or 680-9244 (mobile) (fax) 501/447-7609 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 4:13 PM To: Alexander, Sheneka\nDoyne, Angela\nPurtle, Sarah\nRoberts, Martha\nUnderwood, Krista Cc: Williams, Ed\nRobinson, Maurecia\nOlds, Arthur\nDejarnette, Karen\n'James Catterall'\n'awgrehan@memphis.edu'\nlwharrsn@memphis.edu\najmcdnld@memphis.edu Subject: Another evaluation team meeting soon Dear team members for Pre-K Literacy. Dr. Grehan expressed interest in reviewing the evaluation with the team in more depth than was possible Feb 9. She and Dr. Harrison can meet with us in LR on 3 occasions soon: next Tuesday, February 28, as early as mid-morning the next morning, Wednesday, Marcy 1, or Monday, March 13, as early as mid-morning. The best date for benefiting the evaluation would be the earliestnext Tuesday. However, meeting on any of the days would be helpful. Would you please let us know whether you can meet and on which date? Martha, please forward this to Ms. Ellison. I will be out of the office for the remainder of this week but monitoring my messages. Thanks very much for your help. Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 2/28/2006HHH.21.2006 4:27PM JOHN W WALKER P ft NO.307 Fag=.20ti Joy Springer From\nTo: Sent\nSubject. \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \"Jim Wohlleb\" \u0026lt;jim.wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Friday, April 21.2006 5:26 PM LRSD Program Evaluations Would you kindly advise whether requests for information from the ODM regarding LRSD Program Evaluations are addressed to Hugh Hattabaugh? If not, I believe that this is an issue that needs to be brought to the attention of Judge Wilson. Please forward this email to Karen DeJamette, Olivine Roberts, Hugh Hattabaugh and Chris Heller. Joshua does not wish to communicate to Judge Wilson that LRSD has been uncooperative regarding this process. I 4/21/06I, HnK.dl.dUUb 4:27PM JOHN W WftLKER P fl NO,307 P.l JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 I FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Hate: April 21, 2006 To: Gene Jones, ODM Fax: 371-0100 Re\nLRSDvPCSSD, etal. Sender: John W. Walker I YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES. PLEASE CALL '\u0026lt;{501) 374-37S8\u0026gt;' The infoimation comainedialhis facsimile message is anomey privileged and confidential information intended only for die use of die individual or entity named above. If die reader of this message is not die intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have receiv^ this gowiimmication in eiror, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at die above address via the U.S, Postal Service. Thank you. I !Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, June 01, 2006 1:41 PM ODM Concerns.doc FW: document enclosed From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 1:41 PM To: 'mqpowell@admemail.com' Subject: document enclosed Mr. Jones and Ms. Powell, The document listing concerns heard in yesterdays discussion is enclosed. I met with Dr. Brooks, Dr. Roberts, and Mr. Hattabaugh today and shared these concerns. Mr. Hattabaugh says he will call you. Gene, thanks for attending the sessions yesterday. I will work to make the team meetings more meaningful for each member, as we discussed. Karen I 6/1/2006ODM Concerns: Is the Court Order of utmost importance to the District and PRE? Does PREs placement on the organizational chart allow us to command input from evaluation team members? When will the Testing Coordinator position be filled, amount of time PRE staff are spending on test administration? When will PRE enact the formative assessment process (data warehouse)? What is the amount of time PRE staff are spending on non-court related evaluation or assessment projects? Will the closing of schools affext programs being evaluated? Are we discussing the implications? Joshua concerns: Will SW students receive the same services at new schools? Will funding follow students? Is Brooks resegregating the district, i.e. closing of schools etc.Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Tuesday, June 06, 2006 3:12 PM FW: Letter of request I told Gene Id let him know when I received a response from Dr. Potter. Her response follows. From: Gayle Potter (ADE) [mailto:gpotter@arkedu.kl2.ar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:04 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Ken James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE) Subject: Letter of request Importance: High Karen, I have received your letter and packet of information requesting dates when ACTAAP results will be available in what you call \"computer-readable format.\" I have forwarded this information to both Riverside and Questar and will respond to you as soon as I hear back from them. However, I am wondering about your request for \"computer-readable format.\" I am not aware that testing data has ever been delivered to the Little Rock School District from the assessment contractors in a different format than that received by any other school district in the state. I would appreciate clarification on this matter. Also please remember, if the data which is needed is, or includes, AYP data, the source for those data and the delievery dates for those data will be different from the assessment data coming from the Curriculum, Assessment, and Research Section. You will need to contact Janinne Riggs for any information concerning AYP data, dates, and data format. Gayle Dr. Gayle Potter, Associate Director Curriculum, Assessment, and Research 4 Capitol Mall, Room 106-A Little Rock, AR 72201 (501)682-4558 qpotter@arkedu.ka12.ar.us received JUN 0^2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOMITORIHG 6/6/2006Margie From\nTo: Cc: Sent: Attach\nSubject: /T fe d Page 1 of 1 \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Wednesday, June 07, 2006 4:32 PM A+.parent.intvs.doc FW: parent interview protocol - final version Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 iim.wohlleb@,lrsd.org 501/447-3381 or 680-9244 (mobile) (fax) 501/447-7609 receded desegregation MOHITORIMG ------Original Message------ From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:56 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim Cc: Williams, Ed\nRobinson, Maurecia Subject: FW\nparent interview protocol Jim, Here is the final draft of the parent interview protocol. The one we sent to team members was a near final draft. ------Original Message------ From: James Catterall [mailto:jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu] Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 2:44 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: parent interview protocol Karen  here is the parent interview protocol. james Os WHS 6/8/2006Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: Karen, Page 1 of 2 \"Gayle Potter (ADE)\" \u0026lt;gpotter@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette. Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Ken James (ADE)\" \u0026lt;kjames@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Diana Julian (ADE)\" \u0026lt;djulian@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Janinne Riggs (ADE)\" \u0026lt;jriggs@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Scott Smith (ADE)\" \u0026lt;dssmith@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Donna Wolfe (ADE)\" \u0026lt;dwolfe@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Susan Gray (ADE)\" \u0026lt;sgray@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Margaret Crank-Amps (ADE)\" \u0026lt;mcrank@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts. Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Rober:s@ksd.on \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Brooks. Roy G\"\u0026lt;Royg.r \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.cl \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Friday. June 09. 2006 3:20 PM RE\nLetter of request JUN 1 2 2006 \u0026lt;Lr '^ttabaugh, Hugh\" Heller\" ih Walker\" OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Karen, All of the student assessment data from both Riverside ( K-2 is already there) and Questar (the Rapid Electronic School Rosters for Benchmarks in Grades 3-8 have been posted since May 31) will be in public school districts by July 1. All of the tests you listed in your request will be included in these score reports. These score reports will be sent by the testing contractors in the same format as last year to all school districts. Janinne Riggs and I will call you Monday afternoon after the State Board of Education meeting if you are available to discuss your request for access to data via the NORMES website. What would be the best telephone number at which we might reach you? Thanks. Gayle From: Dejarnette, Karen [mailto:Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org] Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 12:02 PM To: Gayle Potter (ADE) Cc: Ken James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE)\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G\nChris Heller\nMargie\nJoy Springer - John Walker Subject: RE: Letter of request Dr. Potter, This email message is to clarify fiirther our request for computer-readable ACTAAP test results. The Little Rock School Districts request for a date when the Districts ACTAAP data will be accessible is not to the test company but to the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). We have understood that ADE provides electronic data for the NORMES website, and then school personnel access the data from that site. This was the process last year when the District provided computer-readable data to the external evaluators who carried out the four court-mandated evaluations. It is the same process we are inquiring about now. To our knowledge, last years data was not delivered to the District from the assessment contractors in a different format than that received by any other school district as your email message of June 6 incorrectly implies. Because you seemed not to understand what I meant by computer-readable format, I am attaching an example excel file to this email. If you would like instruction about this, please contact us. We have two specific questions: When will the Little Rock School District have access to electronically formatted ACTAAP data of its 6/12/2006Page 2 of 2 individual students via the NORMES website (or any other source)? Is the process stated above correct? If not, please correct our understanding. You email message of June 6 mentioned AYP data. We are not requesting such data at this time. My letter to you, dated May 25, 2006, included a list of the exact data variables our evaluations need, and AYP was not among them. Please respond as soon as possible. I need to let the external evaluators know when they can expect the data, so a motion for an extension can be filed with the Court if the date for expected data is later than July 1,2006. Thank you for assisting us with obtaining this information. Karen DeJamette Ph.D. Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District From: Gayle Potter (ADE) [mailto:gpotter(aiarkedu.kl2.ar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 ll\n04 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Ken James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE) Subject: Letter of request Importance: High Karen, I have received your letter and packet of information requesting dates when ACTAAP results will be available in what you call \"computer-readable format.\" I have forwarded this information to both Riverside and Questar and will respond to you as soon as I hear back from them. However, I am wondering about your request for \"computer-readable format.\" I am not aware that testing data has ever been delivered to the Little Rock School District from the assessment contractors in a different format than that received by any other school district in the state. I would appreciate clarification on this matter. Also please remember, if the data which is needed is, or includes, AYP data, the source for those data and the delievery dates for those data will be different from the assessment data coming from the Curriculum, Assessment, and Research Section. You will need to contact Janinne Riggs for any information concerning AYP data, dates, and data format. Gayle Dr. Gayle Potter, Associate Director Curriculum, Assessment, and Research 4 Capitol Mall, Room 106-A Little Rock, AR 72201 (501)682-4558 qDOtter(S)arkedu.ka12.ar.us 6/12/2006Margie Page From: To: Cc\nSent: Attach: Subject: \"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Miller, Leticia\" \u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Menking, Mary\" \u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"W Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hobbs, Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Marjorie Powel \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;,' \u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschooi.com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Sunday, July 09, 2006 8:59 PM Magnet Evaluation Year I Report July 06.doc Draft Magnet Report Please review the enclosed draft Magnet Schools and Programs Report written by Jeanne D external evaluator of our Magnet Schools and Programs. An evaluation team meeting, with [ Dreyfus on conference call, will be held on July 14 at 10a.m. in Room 10 at the IRC. I hope attend and provide feedback on the draft report. Please call if you have questions, 447-3382 Please note: Remember it's still an early draft. Findings and recommendation still have to be composed for several sections. Thank You, Maurecia Maurecia Robinson, Statistician Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/447-3382 501/447-7609Page 1 of 3 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent\nSubject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Gayle Potter (ADE)\" \u0026lt;gpotter@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt; \"Ken James (ADE)\" \u0026lt;kjames@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Diana Julian (ADE)\" \u0026lt;djulian@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Janinne Riggs (ADE)\" \u0026lt;jriggs@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Scott Smith (ADE)\" \u0026lt;dssmith@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Donna Wolfe (ADE)\" \u0026lt;dwolfe@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Susan Gray (ADE)\" \u0026lt;sgray@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Margaret Crank-Amps (ADE)\" \u0026lt;mcrank@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh. Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Brooks. Roy G\" \u0026lt;Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;Jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt; Monday. July 10. 2006 2:03 PM RE: Letter of request Dr. Potter, We checked the NORMES website today and did not see the needed data posted. Please let me know when we should expect to be able to pull the data from the site to forward on to our external evaluators. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. Karen Dejarnette Karen Dejarnette Director Planning. Research, and Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 447-3387 or 425-3109 From: Gayle Potter (ADE) [mailto:gpotter@arkedu.kl2.ar.us] Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 3:20 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Ken James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE)\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G\nChris Heller\nMargie\nJoy Springer - John Walker Subject: RE: Letter of request Importance: High Karen, Karen, All of the student assessment data from both Riverside ( K-2 is already there) and Questar (the Rapid Electronic School Rosters for Benchmarks in Grades 3-8 have been posted since May 31) will be in public school districts by July 1. All of the tests you listed in your request will be included in these score reports. These score reports will be sent by the testing contractors in the same format as last year to all school districts. Janinne Riggs and I will call you Monday afternoon after the State Board of Education meeting if you are available to discuss your request for access to data via the NORMES website. What would be the best telephone number at which we might reach you? Thanks, Gayle From: Dejarnette, Karen [mailto\nKaren.Dejarnette@lrsd.org] Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 12:02 PM To: Gayle Potter (ADE) Cc: Ken James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE)\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G\nChris Heller\nMargie\nJoy Springer - John Walker Subject: RE: Letter of request 7/12/2006Page 2 of 3 Dr. Potter, This email message is to clarify further our request for computer-readable ACTAAP test results. The Little Rock School Districts request for a date when the Districts ACTAAP data will be accessible is not to the test company but to the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). We have understood that ADE provides electronic data for the NORMES website, and then school personnel access the data from that site. This was the process last year when the District provided computer-readable data to the external evaluators who carried out the four court-mandated evaluations. It is the same process we are inquiring about now. To our knowledge, last years data was not delivered to the District from the assessment contractors in a different format than that received by any other school district as your email message of Jxme 6 incorrectly implies. Because you seemed not to understand what I meant by computer-readable format, I am attaching an example excel file to this email. If you would like instruction about this, please contact us. We have two specific questions: When will the Little Rock School District have access to electronically formatted ACTAAP data of its individual students via the NORMES website (or any other source)? Is the process stated above correct? If not, please correct our understanding. You email message of June 6 mentioned AYP data. We are not requesting such data at this time. My letter to you, dated May 25, 2006, included a list of the exact data variables our evaluations need, and AYP was not among them. Please respond as soon as possible. I need to let the external evaluators know when they can expect the data, so a motion for an extension can be filed with the Court if the date for expected data is later than July 1, 2006. Thank you for assisting us with obtaining this information. Karen DeJamette Ph.D. Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District From: Gayle Potter (ADE) [mailto:gpotter@arkedu.kl2.ar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:04 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Ken James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE) Subject: Letter of request Importance: High Karen, I have received your letter and packet of information requesting dates when ACTAAP results will be available in what you call \"computer-readable format.\" I have forwarded this information to both Riverside and Questar and will respond to you as soon as I hear back from them. However, I am wondering about your request for \"computer-readable format.\" I am not aware that testing data has ever been delivered to the Little Rock School 7/12/2006Page 3 of 3 District from the assessment contractors in a different format than that received by any other school district in the state. I would appreciate clarification on this matter. Also please remember, if the data which is needed is, or includes, AYP data, the source for those data and the delievery dates for those data will be different from the assessment data coming from the Curriculum, Assessment, and Research Section. You will need to contact Janinne Riggs for any information concerning AYP data, dates, and data format. Gayle Dr. Gayle Potter, Associate Director Curriculum, Assessment, and Research 4 Capitol Mall, Room 106-A Little Rock, AR 72201 (501)682-4558 qpotter@arkedu.ka12.ar.us 7/12/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Tuesday, July 11, 2006 7:57 PM FW: extension of time request fyi From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 7:57 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Cc: Brooks, Roy G\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: extension of time request Chris, The PreK evaluation team met this afternoon with researchers from CREP to discuss a few pieces of data still needed. Because many of the types of data utilized in the PreK design have not previously been analyzed or maintained in a District database, PRE staff had to transfer data from a hard copy to an electronic format for evaluation use. For two such databases, we still have some cleanup and matching tasks to complete. We also discussed the importance of including the QELI data which we learned last week will not be available from NORMES at this time. NORMES was scheduled to post the data then determined it to be filled with errors and decided not to make available. So, we will have to construct a database and input the data ourselves from paper copy reports we received from the ADE. I do not know how long this will take but I do know Steve Ross requires 6-8 weeks from receipt of all data to produce a draft report. I think it will take us at least a week or two to make the data available in an electronic format to CREP. As for the other three evaluations, please file a formal request for an extension. In our last update to the Court we cited July 10 as the date ADE personnel expected the data to be available in an electronic format through the NORMES website. The data is not available as of today, the 11 th. Perhaps we could suggest due dates for all four evaluations to the Court after we have all placed of the needed data in the hands of evaluators. Thanks for assisting. Karen 7/12/2006Page 1 of 5 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Gayle Potter (ADE)\" \u0026lt;gpotter@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt; \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Ken James (ADE)\" \u0026lt;kjames@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Diana Julian (ADE)\" \u0026lt;djulian@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Janinne Riggs (ADE)\" \u0026lt;jriggs@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Scott Smith (ADE)\" \u0026lt;dssmith@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Donna Wolfe (ADE)\" \u0026lt;dwolfe@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Susan Gray (ADE)\" \u0026lt;sgray@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Margaret Crank-Amps (ADE)\" \u0026lt;mcrank@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemaii.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt; Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:17 AM Re: Letter of request Karen, You will remember from my last e-mail and from our telephone conference call that I am not responsible in any way for the work with NORMES. Janinne Riggs is the contact person for that work. She explained on the conferemce call with you the process followed by NORMES and districts in data verification for AYP purposes. She also talked about likely timeline if no problems whatsoever occur. All assessment data from contractors for which my office is responsible has been delivered to all districts in the state, to the best of my knowledge. You will need to communicate with Janinne Riggs henceforth about all matters concerning the posting of data on the NORMES website. Gayle Potter Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld ------Original Message------ From: Dejarnette, Karen \u0026lt;Karen.Dejamette@,lrsd.org\u0026gt; To: Gayle Potter (ADE) \u0026lt;gpotter@arkedu.k 12.ar.us\u0026gt; CC\nKen James (AdDE) \u0026lt;kiames@arkedu.k 12.ar.us\u0026gt;: Diana Julian (ADE) \u0026lt;diulian@,arkedu.kl2.ar.us\u0026gt;: Janinne Riggs (ABE) \u0026lt;jriggs@arkedu.kl2.ar.us\u0026gt;: Scott Smith (ABE) \u0026lt;dssmith@arkedu.kl 2.ar.us\u0026gt;\nDonna Wolfe (ADE) \u0026lt;dwolfe@arkedu.k 12.ar.us\u0026gt;: Susan Gray (ADE) \u0026lt;sgrav@arkedu.kl2.ar.us\u0026gt;: Margaret Crank-Amps (ADE) \u0026lt;mcrank@arkedu.kl2.ar.us\u0026gt;: Roberts, Olivine \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@,lrsd.org\u0026gt;: Hattabaugh, Hugh \u0026lt;HughJHattabaugh@lrsfrprg\u0026gt;\nBrooks, Roy G \u0026lt;Royg.Brooks(S,lrsd.org\u0026gt;\nChris Heller \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;: Margie \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;: Joy Springer - John Walker \u0026lt;ispringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;: James Catterall \u0026lt;iamesc@,gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;: smross@,memphis.edu \u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt; Sent: Mon Jul 10 14:03:38 2006 Subject: RE: Letter of request Dr. Potter, We checked the NORMES website today and did not see the needed data posted. Please let me know when we should expect to be able to pull the data from the site to forward on to our external evaluators. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. Karen DeJamette Karen DeJamette Director Plaiming, Research, and Evaluation Department 7/12/2006Page 2 of 5 Little Rock School District 447-3387 or 425-3109 From\nGayle Potter (ADE) [mailto:gpotter@arkedu.kl2.ar.us] Sent: Friday, Jime 09, 2006 3:20 PM To: DeJamette, Karen Cc\nKen James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE)\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G\nChris Heller\nMargie\nJoy Springer - John Walker Subject\nRE\nLetter of request Importance\nHigh Karen, Karen, All of the student assessment data from both Riverside (K-2 is already there) and Questar (the Rapid Electronic School Rosters for Benchmarks in Grades 3-8 have been posted since May 31) will be in public school districts by July 1. All of the tests you listed in your request will be included in these score reports. These score reports will be sent by the testing contractors in the same format as last year to all school districts. Janinne Riggs and I will call you Monday afternoon after the State Board of Education meeting if you are available to discuss your request for access to data via the NORMES website. What would be the best telephone number at which we might reach you? Thanks, Gayle From\nDeJamette, Karen [mailto:Karen.Dejamette@lrsd.org] Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 12:02 PM To: Gayle Potter (ADE) Cc: Ken James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE)\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G\nChris Heller\nMargie\nJoy Springer - John Walker Subject: RE\nLetter of request Dr. Potter, 7/12/2006Page 3 of 5 This email message is to clarify further our request for computer-readable ACTAAP test results. The Little Rock School Districts request for a date when the Districts ACTAAP data will be accessible is not to the test company but to the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). We have understood that ADE provides electronic data for the NORMES website, and then school personnel access the data from that site. This was the process last year when the District provided computer-readable data to the external evaluators who carried out the four court-mandated evaluations. It is the same process we are inquiring about now. To our knowledge, last years data was not delivered to the District from the assessment contractors in a different format than that received by any other school district as your email message of June 6 incorrectly implies. Because you seemed not to understand what I meant by computer-readable format, I am attaching an example excel file to this email. If you would like instruction about this, please contact us. We have two specific questions: When will the Little Rock School District have access to electronically formatted ACTAAP data of its individual students via the NORMES website (or any other source)? Is the process stated above correct? If not, please correct our understanding. You email message of June 6 mentioned AYP data. We are not requesting such data at this time. My letter to you, dated May 25, 2006, included a list of the exact data variables our evaluations need, and AYP was not among them. Please respond as soon as possible. I need to let the external evaluators know when they can expect the data, so a motion for an extension can be filed with the Court if the date for expected data is later than July 1,2006. Thank you for assisting us with obtaining this information. Karen DeJamette Ph.D. Director 7/12/2006Page 4 of 5 Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District From: Gayle Potter (ADE) [mailto\ngpotter@arkedu.kl2.ar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:04 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Ken James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE) Subject: Letter of request Importance: High Karen, I have received your letter and packet of information requesting dates when ACTAAP results will be available in what you call \"computer-readable format.\" I have forwarded this information to both Riverside and Questar and will respond to you as soon as I hear back from them. However, I am wondering about your request for \"computer-readable format.\" I am not aware that testing data has ever been delivered to the Little Rock School District from the assessment contractors in a different format than that received by any other school district in the state. I would appreciate clarification on this matter. Also please remember, if the data which is needed is, or includes, AYP data, the source for those data and the delievery dates for those data will be different from the assessment data coming from the Curriculum, Assessment, and Research Section. You will need to contact Janinne Riggs for any information concerning AYP data, dates, and data format. Gayle Dr. Gayle Potter, Associate Director Curriculum, Assessment, and Research 4 Capitol Mall, Room 106-A Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 682-4558 gpotter@arkedu.ka 12. ar. us 7/12/2006Page 5 of 5 7/12/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:28 PM FW\n2 Page Fax From 5016045149 From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:28 PM To: 'Chris Heller'\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nBabbs, Junious\nWatson, Linda\nMilhollen, Mark\nRoberts, Olivine\nMitchell, Sadie\nVann, Suellen Subject: RE: 2 Page Fax From 5016045149 Chris, this is what we need: Electronic formatted benchmark data for every student involved in one of the evaluated programs. So far, this data is not available. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 11:33 AM To: Brooks, Roy G Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nBabbs, Junious\nDejarnette, Karen\nWatson, Linda\nMilhollen, Mark\nRoberts, Olivine\nMitchell, Sadie\nVann, Suellen Subject: Fwd: 2 Page Fax From 5016045149 roy - our (hopefully) final hearing is scheduled for December 18. there will be no hearing on Joshuas issues before then, within the next few days (as soon as i can determine exactly what we will need), we will probably have to ask the court to extend the deadline for our last four evaluations, the extension request will be based on the unavailability of necessary benchmark results in the required format, i believe that we will have draft evaluations completed before October 1, but not final evaluations (although last year there was no significant difference between the draft and final evals), i will ask for the minimum time we absolutely need no as not to delay our hearing date, ch 7/12/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:26 PM FW: extension of time request From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:24 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Subject: RE: extension of time request What you saw in the paper are data fro groups of students showing how groups of students performed. What evaluators need is electronic data for each student that can be dumped into an excel or spss format for statistical analysis and triangulation with other data sets. Program evaluation or assessment tasks require data for every individual student in that program being assessed or evaluated. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:50 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Re: extension of time request karen - remind me about the difference between what our experts nees and the information in today's paper, thanks, ch \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/11/2006 7:56 PM \u0026gt; Chris, The PreK evaluation team met this afternoon with researchers from CREP to discuss a few pieces of data still needed. Because many of the types of data utilized in the PreK design have not previously been analyzed or maintained in a District database, PRE staff had to transfer data from a hard copy to an electronic format for evaluation use. For two such databases, we still have some cleanup and matching tasks to complete. We also discussed the importance of including the QELI data which we learned last week will not be available from NORMES at this time. NORMES was scheduled to post the data then determined it to be filled with errors and decided not to make available. So, we will have to construct a database and input the data ourselves from paper copy reports we received from the ADE. I do not know how long this will take but I do know Steve Ross requires 6-8 weeks from receipt of all data to produce a draft report. I think it will take us at least a week or two to make the data available in an electronic format to CREP. As for the other three evaluations, please file a formal request for an extension. In our last update to the Court we cited July 10 as the date ADE personnel expected the data to be available in an electronic format through the NORMES website. The data is not available as of today, the 11th. Perhaps we could suggest due dates for all four evaluations to the Court after we have all placed of the needed data in the hands of evaluators. Thanks for assisting. Karen 7/12/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:26 PM FW: extension of time request From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:25 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Subject: RE: extension of time request Also, when you have time please respond to my inquiry about confidentially. PRE staff do not want to upset Brooks and we do want to meet the requirements outlined in the Compliance Remedy. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:50 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Re: extension of time request karen - remind me about the difference between what our experts nees and the information in today's paper, thanks, ch \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/11/2006 7:56 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Chris, The PreK evaluation team met this afternoon with researchers from CREP to discuss a few pieces of data still needed. Because many of the types of data utilized in the PreK design have not previously been analyzed or maintained in a District database, PRE staff had to transfer data from a hard copy to an electronic format for evaluation use. For two such databases, we still have some cleanup and matching tasks to complete. We also discussed the importance of including the QELI data which we learned last week will not be available from NORMES at this time. NORMES was scheduled to post the data then determined it to be filled with errors and decided not to make available. So, we will have to construct a database and input the data ourselves from paper copy reports we received from the ADE. I do not know how long this will take but I do know Steve Ross requires 6-8 weeks from receipt of all data to produce a draft report. I think it will take us at least a week or two to make the data available in an electronic format to CREP. As for the other three evaluations, please file a formal request for an extension. In our last update to the Court we cited July 10 as the date ADE personnel expected the data to be available in an electronic format through the NORMES website. The data is not available as of today, the 11th. Perhaps we couid suggest due dates for ail four evaluations to the Court after we have all placed of the needed data in the hands of evaluators. Thanks for assisting. Karen 7/12/2006Margie c\nPage 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, July 13, 2006 3:11 PM database revised.doc timeline for database discussion Hi Margie, We have tried to outline our discussion and work efforts related to the database PRE needs to conduct program assessments. Karen 7/13/2006f C: 7 Comparison______________________ Crystal Database as of July 11, 2006 TetraData offered Student demographics Standardized test scopes Student Transcripts Student and staff demographics Standardized test scores Perceptions from surveys of students, parents, staff et al. Discipline, graduation, etc. Instructional Programs School resources School finances PRE requests, and CISD supplies data in fon aats requested PRE imports data files into SPSS and Word for analyses and reports. PRE staff anange di Statistical features support analyses and reports. IOn the recommendation of Dr. Bernhardt, PRE staff engaged in design conversation wit personnel from TetraData to determine the type of data warehouse that would be most useful for LRSD program assessments. TetraData is a company that designs, builds, an\u0026lt; maintains data warehouses specifically for educational organizations. Its databases offe up-to-the-minute triangulation of multiple measures of data-a time-efficient model for conducting ongoing program assessments. During this same period, PRE encountered two primary deficiencies with current data sent to the Information Services Department and in turn provided to PRE\n1) incorrect, duplicated, and missing data and 2) lack of tags to instructional programs. For example, two external evaluators reported 60-65% error rates in parent contact information as they tried to conduct parent phone interviews for the first round of evaluations. PRE recommended to Cabinet members and the Information Services Department cleaning the data and relating it to programs. Gena Magaruh, a representative of TetraData, met with PRE staff in July 2005. Throug the end of 2005 she demonstrated to senior LRSD administrators the ability of TetraDat to design, build, and maintain a database tailored to PREs needs. Her forecast for its completion was summer 2006. After these meetings, PRE requested of Dr. Roberts, Mr Hattabaugh, and Mr. Milhollen that LRSD purchase a TetraData warehouse. Estimated costs varied depending on how much LRSD wished to service or maintain the data. Iron $250,000 on up. By early 2006, PRE learned that LRSD would not engage TetraData, but instead its Information Services Department would design and build a Crystal Objects database. PRE would have access to the same type of data and services as TetraData proposed to offer. At least one senior programmer of the Department expressed doubts about its capacity to accomplish this task in a reasonable time frame. PRE offered input into the design of the Crystal Objects database. Information Services Department offered a glimpse into the development of the new database. In July 2006, Information Services Department announced that three pieces of student data-demographics, standardized test scores, and transcriptsare available in the new database, but there is no schedule for completion. Thus, PRE faces the same set of problems as in the fall of 2004.In the fall of 2004, three new staff members joined the PRE Department to carry out the Compliance Remedy ordered by the US District Court in the spring of that year. This included developing policy for assessing LRSD programs and overseeing well designed evaluations of eight LRSD programs. The Court also clearly directed LRSD to weave assessment and evaluation into the fabric of its operations, so that programs would start, continue, and end based on evidence of their performance. Consistent with contempora practice, continuous improvement depends on sound knowledge of effectiveness. The biggest obstacle to fulfilling challenges of the Compliance Remedy was access to current, reliable data related to LRSD and its programs. Both content and process were (and remain) problems: 1) Content - LRSD collects little data other than demographic information and student outcomes such as standardized tests scores, this data is not related to specific programs, and no one checks its accuracy. 2) Process - Individual departments collect data, assemble much of it into data base and provide it to Information Services Department and other departments\nso PR depends on other sources for unchecked data in various stages of automation. On October 5, less than two weeks after PREs new hires, Drs. DeJamette and Roberts discussed a plan of action with Dr. Steve Ross to address the tasks outlined in the Court Compliance Remedy-developing a comprehensive assessment policy for LRSD and identifying the first four key programs for evaluations. (The Court named Dr. Ross as a preferred consultant.) This policy assumed timely access to reliable information about individual students, staff, resources, and programs. A plan and three experts to carry it out were approved by Dr. Ross, as required by the Compliance Remedy. By the end of October, the three consultants agreed to assist: Dr. Ross would conduct tl first three external evaluations. Dr. James Catterall one external evaluation, and Dr. Victoria Bernhardt would assist with development of a comprehensive assessment process to be deeply embedded in our day-to-day educational operations. The work outlined with Dr. Victoria Bernhardt included phases such as 1) 2) 3) determining useful data sets for program assessment, creating a district portfolio in printed format so LRSD staff could immediately access key data for assessment purposes without requesting it, and designing a data warehouse to store all data needed for program assessment. Dr. Bernhardt worked with PRE staff during 2005 to accomplish these tasks. She met with PRE staff during visits to Little Rock, and three PRE staff attended her week-long workshop in Chico, California. The first draft of a printed portfolio, a collection of data collected by October 1, 2005, was helpful to PRE staff and external evaluators. However, other data collected after October 1 and additional data related to other measures were needed.Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Friday, July 14, 2006 2:46 PM FW: Scott Smith.... From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 2:33 PM To: 'Brenda Kampman' Cc: Wohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\n'Chris Heller' Subject: RE: Scott Smith.... If Scott does not know what we need at this point (after all of the letters, emails, phone conversations, etc.) then I have absolutely no hope that we will ever finish these evaluations on time. The group from ADE said they understand what we need in our last phone call which Chris was a part ofthey even said theyd give us what we need on July 10^. How could they now have forgotten what we need? I am so OVER running around this bush! From: Brenda Kampman [mailto:Brendak@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:07 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Scott Smith.... says LRSD keeps talking to his people regarding what they need in test scores data and he isn't sure what it is they want - if he could find out exactly what they want and in what format, he will go ahead and finalize a response. 7/17/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette. Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Friday, July 14. 2006 2:46 PM database revised.doc FW: Snapshot From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 2:44 PM To: Griffin, Beverly Subject: RE: Snapshot Compliance Remedy - External Evaluations On June 1PRE and Chris Heller were told by ADE staff that electronic benchmark data for individual students would be available to us (and evaluators) from NORMES on July 10*^. So far, the data is not available. Chris Heller has provided an update to the Court saying we expected to receive data by July 10*^. However, he has not filed a motion for an extension. On Monday, the 10*, and again yesterday I let Chris know the data was not available and asked him to file a motion for an extension. To my knowledge he has yet to file a motion. I wish he would file one immediately. I am concerned the Judge will look harshly on a late motion. What else can I do? Compliance Remedy - Deeply Embedded Assessment Process See document enclosed that outlines the timeline and work efforts of PRE to meet this requirement. From: Griffin, Beverly Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 11:06 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Snapshot Karen\nAn update on the status of completing the compliance report? 7/17/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette. Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Tuesday, July 18, 2006 1:23 PM draftRec06jul18.doc\nnormes postings.pdf FW: letter to counsel Fyi, another request to Chris to file for an extension. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 1:22 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Cc: Roberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G\nGriffin, Beverly Subject: RE: letter to counsel Chris, Here is an updated letter. I am also including a scanned copy of postings pulled from the NORMES website that show their expectations for benchmark and QELI data (see starred paragraphs). Karen From: Chris Heller [maiito:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 5:14 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Fwd: letter to counsel karen - can you update this letter based on our latest information about when we will get the data we need and your best information about how long it will take from then to complete the evals, as we discussed on the phone, i don't want to ask for any more time than we absolutely need would like to hold on to the December 18 hearing date if at all possible, i plan to file our motion tomorrow, thanks, ch 7/18/2006Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 FAX 501/447-7609 July 18, 2006 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3522 Dear Chris\nPlease request from the U.S. District Court an extension for the four external evaluation reports due to the Court on October 1, 2006. We are experiencing unforeseen delays in obtaining the data needed for each of the studies. In a June conversation with officials of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), including Drs. Gayle Potter, Diana Julian, Janinne Riggs, Don Stewart, and Ellen Treadway, we learned that digitally formatted individual students ACTAAP benchmark test scores will be delayed past July 1. This data is necessary for three of the external evaluations\nA+, 2P Century Community Learning Centers, and Read 180. In that conversation, ADE projected electronic data to be available on July 10,2006. Now, a week past that date, we have neither the data nor a new projected date from ADE. Officials of NORMES, which stores and facilitates access to the test data, project making it available by early August. LRSDs Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department (PRE) will require approximately two weeks to find and correct errors in the data set, once we receive it. Data for the pre-kindergarten literacy evaluation has been delayed as well. Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI) data for individual kindergarten students is not available in an electronic format, according to Riverside Publishing, which processes and publishes this data. Originally, NORMES projected posting the QELI data in an Excel file for downloads available in early July. However, NORMES recently announced that posting has been delayed due to over 15,000 missing numbers and names. Instead, PRE is currently negotiating directly with Riverside Publishing to create a data set for this evaluation. PRE expects to provide the QELI database to evaluators by early August. The accompanying evaluators letters indicate that they require six to eight weeks past their receipt of individual student data to produce their draft reports. If external evaluators can receive all of the necessary data by the end of August, they can submit their draft reports to the District by October 15, rather than the originally stated September 1. Further delay of access to the data will result in like delay in the reports. I therefore recommend an adjustment of the due dates to not sooner than October 15 for the initial drafts and November 17 for board approval. Thank you for carrying our recommendation to the Court. We will be pleased to answer any questions about it. Sincerely yours, Karen DeJamette, Ph.D. Director EncPage 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Miller, Leticia\" \u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Menking, Mary\" \u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hobbs, Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Marjorie Powell\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell, Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Tuesday, July 18, 2006 3:16 PM Magnet Update PRE staff members are currently working to determine who the magnet students are at the schools with magnet programs and will supply this list as well as matching test scores for the magnet students so Dr. Dreyfus can meet the requirements set forth by the evaluation team. The deadline of the initial report will need to be extended for Dr. Dreyfus to accommodate the added analysis. Originally, we planned to provide the Board with a draft report on August 4** but now will need to provide the initial draft by September 8^. Thank you, Maurecia Maurecia Robinson, Statistician Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/447-3382 501/447-7609 7/19/2006Page 1 of 2' Margie From: To: Cc: \"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Miller, Leticia\" \u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Menking, Mary\" \u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hobbs, Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Marjorie Powell\" Sent: Subject: Nancy, \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemaii.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell, Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer-John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Milhollen, Mark\" \u0026lt;Mark.Milhollen@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd orq\u0026gt; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 11\n06 AM RE\nMagnet Update No. this is not a request for CIS to provide data. Our department (PRE) will supply the matching test scores for the magnet students. Once the general enrollment data (Radar request #688) has been fulfilled we will take it from there. Thanks Maurecia From: Morgan, Nancy Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:24 AM To: Robinson, Maurecia Cc: Robinson, Maurec:a\nMiller, Leticia\nMenking, Mary\nWilliams, Ed\nHobbs, Felicia\n- 'Marjorie Powell'\nbrigettetgJabpg.com'\n'donnacreer@magnetschool.com'\n' (gjones@aristotle.net)'\nWohlleb, Jim\nMitchell, Sadie- 'Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu'\n'Joy Springer - John Walker'\nMilhollen, Mark\nRoberts' Olivine\nDejarnette Karen Subject: FW\nMagnet Update Hi Maurecia, Is this a request for CIS to provide data? If so, I will need specific instructions from your department. How does this request relate to your radar request #688 for \"General Enrollment Data, 2004-2005 bv school by groups\"?  You indicated you are currently working to determine who the magnet students are at the schools with magnet programs and will supply this as well as matching test scores forthe magnet students. Has PRE provided us with magnet scores to be included in ourwarehouse for reporting purposes? Please advise as soon as possible for us to meet your deadline of July 21, 2006. Nancy Morgan Coordinator of Application Development Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 447-1050 Fax: (501) 447-1157 -----Original Message------ From: Robinson, Maurecia. Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 3:16 PM To:-Miller, Leticia\nMenking, Mary\nWilliams, Ed\nHobbs, Felicia\nMarjoriePOwell\nbrigette@abpg.com\ndonnacreer@magnet5chool.com\n' (gjones@aristotle.net)'\nWohlleb, Jim\nMitchell, Sadie, Morgan-,. Nancy\n- T/j.9-/20\n0ffPage 2 of 2 Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\nJoy Springer - John Walker Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nWohlleb, Jim\nWilliams, Ed Subject: Magnet Update PRE staff members are currently working to determine who the magnet students are at the schools with maqnet programs and will supply this list as well as matching test scores for the magnet students so Dr. Dreyfus can meet the requmements set forth by the evaluation team. The deadline of the initial report will need to be extended for Dr. Dreyfus to accommodate the added analysis. Originally, we planned to provide the Board with a draft report on August A* but now will need to provide the initial draft by Septembers'*'. Thank you, Maurecia Maurecia Robinson, Statistician Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 3001S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/447-3382 501/447-7609 r! 13-/ 20 OSPage 1 of 2 Margie From\nTo: Sent\nAttach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday. July 20, 2006 4:25 PM foias july20.pdf FW: another foia fyi ------Original Message------ From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent\nThursday, July 20, 2006 4:23 PM To: 'Chris Heller'\n'Khayyam Eddings' Cc: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: FW: another foia Here are the two foias I meant to enclose with the last email. ------Original Message------ From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 4:09 PM To: 'Chris Heller'\n'Khayyam Eddings' Subject\nRE: another foia Okay, I am including Khayyam on this email too since he is working on the most recent foias. As I stated in the earlier email I believe I gave you all of the emails requested by Mr. Walker as of a couple of weeks ago. Nearly all of our recorded communications are via email. As you know, an efficient way to capture all of this is to \"dump\" the contents of our email on the LRSD server. PRE staff are scheduled to attend workshops outside of the IRC every day next week. The following week (July 31 -August 4) I am taking a week of vacation out of state. I am enclosing the two most recent foias\n1) renewed request and 2) a request for emails between the three PRE statisticians, district staff, and outside consultants that arrived today. Also, I really need counsel on information that is confidential and caimot be shared with ODM and JOSHUA. This is my third request on this topic. I sent a copy of the 1993 Order that seemed to relate to this issue to you and asked advice but have not yet received any. Please respond. 7/21/2006Page 2 of 2 ------Original Message------ From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 9:18 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Re: another foia Karen - I'm in Colorado until Saturday - khay is handling the latest round of foia requests. Thanks. CH \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejamette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/19 5:25 pm \u0026gt; Chris, I received this fax today. I believe I have given you most of the emails related to this request. However, he is now asking for emails with PRE staff. I will call you tomorrow. Thanks. Karen 7/21/2006JUL.\n. 9.2306 10:41AM JOHN M WALKER P A NO.360 P.l Ikte: Tci 1'6 Ki i'.e' Sauierr 70/SVIV. IVALKER, P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 VKK TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Jufy]7,200d Karen DeJametie 447-76Q9 Renewed Request far Emails John W. Wailcer 'OU SHOULD SSCEIVE f ----------Oficluding cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PT.PAfiR r.AT,T, \u0026lt;(S0D374^37SS\u0026gt; Thei^r^\u0026lt;cMtainfidmthBfi\u0026lt;simi]amessagelsaoraeypriviI^mdami5d(mtialinfonnai(mint^^ on^ the use of liie individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended OTihe employee or agent rei^xmsible to deliver it to die intended recipient, you are hereby notified tuat any dusemmatton, diSribution or copying of tJiis comnnraication is strictly prohibited If you have received this commiinicatian in eiror. please immediate notify us by telephone, andretnmttseorigiiialmessaao to os at the above address via the U.S, Postal Service. Thank you.JUL, 19.2 506 JOHN M WALKER P R NO,360 P,2 JOIN w. walk\nh SKAmiCHILD3 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Lmpu! Rock, Arkansas 72206 TEIEPHONS (501) 374-3758 PAX (SOI) 3744187 l^ail: johnwallttratty@aoLcom Via Facsimile - 447-7609 July 19.2006 ___ OP COUNSEL ROBERT McHENBY. PA DONNAJMcHENRY 8210 Hbns\u0026amp;ksoh Limu Rock, Arkansas 72210 PenNE (501) 37S.342B  Pax (501) 372.8428 OsAAil: Dr. \u0026lt;aien DeJamette Din ctor of PRE Licti s Rjock School District 300\nPulaski Lili\nRock,AR 72206 D\u0026lt;a-Dr. DeJamette: I ata renewing my request of June 22,2006 regarding emails related to the work of your deal rtment. Would you kindly provide all emails between and among you, Dr, Brooks, Hugh Hafl jbaugh. Dr, Olivine Roberts, Chris Heller, members of ODM, all outside and mt ji .bers of PRE staff for the period between August 1,2005 and the present. This request is being made pursuant to the Arkansas FOIA and the LRSDs coir pliance remedy. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Tnkn U7 John W, Walker JWWzjs cc: Chris HellerJUL..20.2)06 1:29PM JOHN W WALKER P A NO.393 P.l JOZCV W, WALKER, P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 VAX. TRANSMISSION COVER SBEET r DM!: Tc: July 20. 2006 Karm DeJameite Fax 447-7609 Rt: LSSD Seniltr: John W. Wtdktr 7 lUSHOULD RECEIVE [ Oncluang cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-375S\u0026gt;* The mifacmaxian u'^iueined b this facsimile mesa age is attotiiey privileged and confideiuial infimwaTinn intended only for the use of the mdividDBl ai eulily named above. If the madw of this message is not the blended recipient, or die employee or t^nt responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disseminarion, distribution or copying of Ais communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication m error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via die U.S. Postal Service. Thank you.JUL. 20.3506 1:30PM JOHN M WALKER P A NO.393 p.2\" johnw.wal:q R SHAW cntixiii JOHN W. WALKER, P. A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Limji Rocs, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374.S758 FAX (501) 3744187 Email: johnwalkenittytSaiol.com. Via Facsimile - July 20,2006 OPCOUNSHL ROBERT MeHZNSy, PA DOWAJ.MoHBNSY 8210 HZNDtRSQN ROaD LnriB Rocs, Abswsas 72210 PBOne\n(SOI) 372.3425 \u0026lt; Pax (501) 372.3428 Bmali: mcheoiydSsvbtlLliat Dr. F area DeJamette Little Rock School District SOC l Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 De^ir Or. DeJamette\nThis request is to secure all emails between and among your three statisticians, outside const dtants and LRSD district staff regarding any subject related to program assessment and/or cvalt adon for the period between August 1,2005 and the present This request is pursuant to the Arkansas FOIA and pursuant to the LRSD Compliance Remi dy. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Dictated but not read John W. WalkerPage 1 of 1 I Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Friday, July 21,2006 2:59 PM FW: counsel fyi From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 2:59 PM To: Brooks, Roy G Cc: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\n'Chris Heller'\n'Khayyam Eddings'\nWohlleb, Jim\nWilliams, Ed\nRobinson, Maurecia Subject: counsel Dear Dr. Brooks, I'd like to alert you that LRSD's (neither Chris nor anyone else in his firm) counsel has not responded to our questions about confidentiality and ... We feel urgently that there are important legal issues affecting our department. So if the District's counsel is not available to us, we would like to seek other counsel. Thanks for your interest and appreciation for our department. Sincerely, Karen 7/21/2006Margie Page 1 of 2 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, July 24. 2006 11:41 AM FW: counsel From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 7:19 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel yes Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddinqs@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE: This e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 6:59 AM \u0026gt; Khayyam has advised that if a document (including email) currently exists and is requested through the FOIA process then we should provide the document to counsel for review. Then, counsel will forward the requested document(s) on to the person(s) who made the request. This includes documents requested by ODM. Chris and Khayyam, is this correct? From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 3:31 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: Re: counsel All- I have spoken with Dr. Dejarnette and have hopefully quelled any concerns she has. Please do not hesitate to call me if either of you have any questions. Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 7/24/2006Page 2 of 2 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddinqs@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE: This e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/21/2006 2:59 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Dear Dr. Brooks. I'd like to alert you that LRSD's (neither Chris nor anyone else in his firm) counsel has not responded to our questions about confidentiality and ... We feel urgently that there are important legal issues affecting our department. So if the District's counsel is not available to us, we would like to seek other counsel. Thanks for your interest and appreciation for our department. Sincerely. Karen 7/24/2006Margie Page 1 of 3 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, July 24, 2006 2:47 PM FW: counsel From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:34 PM To: Khayyam Eddings\nWohlleb, Jim\nDejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Williams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel we need to know about all joshua requests for information and review the responses, we are still in litigation and there are several issues at stake, first, the rules of legal ethics do not allow direct contact of our clients by an opposing attorney in litigation, second, we believe that the foia should not be used to conduct discovery in litigation, we can only prevent abuses if we know what's going on. finally, it should be obvious that we need to know what the opposing lawyers in the case know, i can't imagine a situation in litigation where it would be a good idea for a client to provide information to the other side without involving their own lawyers. ch\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 2:22:47 PM \u0026gt; Thanks for the clarification. Does Khay's advice apply as well to non-FOIA requests by Joshua? Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 501/447-3381 or 680-9244 (mobile) (fax) 501/447-7609 From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:15 PM To: Khayyam Eddings\nWohlleb, Jim\nDejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Williams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel khay was asked about foia requests and his advice applies to foia requests, in the unlikely event that odm makes an foia request, then the process khay suggested should be followed, this will have no effect upon the typical odm request for information, ch \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 1:36:12 PM \u0026gt; Does this agree with the Court's directive to LRSD in the early 1990s? \u0026gt; Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 501/447-3381 or 680-9244 (mobile) (fax) 501/447-7609 7/24/2006Page 2 of 3 From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 7:19 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel yes Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddinqs@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE: This e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 6:59 AM \u0026gt; Khayyam has advised that if a document (including email) currently exists and is requested through the FOIA process then we should provide the document to counsel for review. Then, counsel will forward the requested document(s) on to the person(s) who made the request. This includes documents requested by ODM. Chris and Khayyam, is this correct? From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 3:31 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: Re: counsel All- I have spoken with Dr. Dejarnette and have hopefully quelled any concerns she has. Please do not hesitate to call me if either of you have any questions. Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddinqs@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE: This e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior 7/24/2006Page 3 of 3 message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen,Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/21/2006 2:59 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Dear Dr. Brooks, I'd like to alert you that LRSDs (neither Chris nor anyone else in his firm) counsel has not responded to our questions about confidentiality and . .. We feel urgently that there are important legal issues affecting our department. So if the District's counsel is not available to us, we would like to seek other counsel. Thanks for your interest and appreciation for our department. Sincerely, Karen 7/24/2006Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, July 24, 2006 7:00 AM FW: counsel From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 7:00 AM To: 'Khayyam Eddings'\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel Khayyam has advised that if a document (including email) currently exists and is requested through the FOIA process then we should provide the document to counsel for review. Then, counsel will forward the requested document(s) on to the person(s) who made the request. This includes documents requested by ODM. Chris and Khayyam, is this correct? From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 3:31 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: Re: counsel All- I have spoken with Dr. Dejarnette and have hopefully quelled any concerns she has. Please do not hesitate to call me if either of you have any questions. Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddinqs@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE: This e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/21/2006 2:59 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Dear Dr. Brooks, I'd like to alert you that LRSD's (neither Chris nor anyone else in his firm) counsel has not responded to our questions about confidentiality and ... We feel urgently that there are important legal issues affecting our department. So if the District's counsel is not available to us, we would like to seek other counsel. 7/24/2006Margie Page 1 of 4 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemaiLcom\u0026gt; Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:34 AM FW: counsel From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:40 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Robinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed Subject: FW: counsel Karen, This is the last communication from Chris. I dont remember receiving anything about responding to the FOIA request involving us statisticians. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 501/447-3381 or 680-9244 (mobile) (fax) 501/447-7609 From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 3:13 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh Subject: RE: counsel i don't want to change any internal procedures, mr hattabaugh has been forwarding the foia requests to us, and that's fine, ch \u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 3:01:47 PM \u0026gt; Thanks, Chris. We'll continue fon/varding Joshua's FOIA requests. A few months ago, I understood that we were to send them all to Mr. Hattabaugh. Should we now send them all to counsel again (as we did before that new instruction)? Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 501/447-3381 or 680-9244 (mobile) (fax) 501/447-7609 From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:51 PM 7/26/2006Page 2 of 4 To: Chris Heller\nKhayyam Eddings\nWohlleb, Jim\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Williams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel Usually Joshua makes a foi request and then ODM asks informally (not through foi) for the same information. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:34 PM To: Khayyam Eddings\nWohlleb, Jim\nDejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Williams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel we need to know about all joshua requests for information and review the responses, we are still in litigation and there are several issues at stake, first, the rules of legal ethics do not allow direct contact of our clients by an opposing attorney in litigation, second, we believe that the foia should not be used to conduct discovery in litigation, we can only prevent abuses if we know what's going on. finally, it should be obvious that we need to know what the opposing lawyers in the case know, i can't imagine a situation in litigation where it would be a good idea for a client to provide information to the other side without involving their own lawyers. ch\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 2:22:47 PM \u0026gt; Thanks for the clarification. Does Khay's advice apply as well to non-FOIA requests by Joshua? Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 iim.wohlleb@lrsd.org 501/447-3381 or 680-9244 (mobile) (fax) 501/447-7609 From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:15 PM To: Khayyam Eddings\nWohlleb, Jim\nDejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Williams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel khay was asked about foia requests and his advice applies to foia requests, in the unlikely event that odm makes an foia request, then the process khay suggested should be followed, this will have no effect upon the typical odm request for information, ch \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 1:36:12 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Does this agree with the Court's directive to LRSD in the early 1990s? Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 iim.wohlleb@lrsd.org 501/447-3381 or 680-9244 (mobile) (fax) 501/447-7609 From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 7:19 AM 7/26/2006Page 3 of 4 To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE\ncounsel yes Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddlnqs@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE\nThis e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 6:59 AM \u0026gt; Khayyam has advised that if a document (including email) currently exists and is requested through the FOIA process then we should provide the document to counsel for review. Then, counsel will forward the requested document(s) on to the person(s) who made the request. This includes documents requested by ODM. Chris and Khayyam, is this correct? From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 3:31 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: Re: counsel All- I have spoken with Dr. Dejarnette and have hopefully quelled any concerns she has. Please do not hesitate to call me if either of you have any questions. Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddinqs@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE\nThis e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you 7/26/2006Page 4 of 4 \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/21/2006 2:59 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Dear Dr. Brooks, I'd like to alert you that LRSD's (neither Chris nor anyone else in his firm) counsel has not responded to our questions about confidentiality and .. . We feel urgently that there are important legal issues affecting our department. So if the District's counsel is not available to us, we would like to seek other counsel. Thanks for your interest and appreciation for our department. Sincerely, Karen 7/26/2006d! Page 1 of 3 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:34 AM FW: foia From: Robinson, Maurecia Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 4:46 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: RE: foia Below are the latest emails. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:34 PM To: Khayyam Eddings\nWohlleb, Jim\nDejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Williams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel we need to know about all joshua requests for information and review the responses, we are still in litigation and there are several issues at stake, first, the rules of legal ethics do not allow direct contact of our clients by an opposing attorney in litigation, second, we believe that the foia should not be used to conduct discovery in litigation, we can only prevent abuses if we know what's going on. finally, it should be obvious that we need to know what the opposing lawyers in the case know, i can't imagine a situation in litigation where it would be a good idea for a client to provide information to the other side without involving their own lawyers. ch\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 2:22:47 PM \u0026gt; Thanks for the clarification. Does Khay's advice apply as well to non-FOIA requests by Joshua? Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 iim.wohlleb@lrsd.org 501/447-3381 or 680-9244 (mobile) (fax) 501/447-7609 From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:15 PM To: Khayyam Eddings\nWohlleb, Jim\nDejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Williams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel khay was asked about foia requests and his advice applies to foia requests, in the unlikely event that odm makes an foia request, then the process khay suggested should be followed, this will have no effect upon the typical odm request for information, ch \u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 1:36:12 PM \u0026gt; Does this agree with the Court's directive to LRSD in the early 1990s? 7/26/2006Page 2 of 3 Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 501/447-3381 or 680-9244 (mobile) (fax) 501/447-7609 From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 7:19 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel yes Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddinqs@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE: This e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredqe \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 6:59 AM \u0026gt; Khayyam has advised that if a document (including email) currently exists and is requested through the FOIA process then we should provide the document to counsel for review. Then, counsel will forward the requested document(s) on to the person(s) who made the request. This includes documents requested by ODM. Chris and Khayyam, is this correct? From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 3:31 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: Re: counsel All- I have spoken with Dr. Dejarnette and have hopefully quelled any concerns she has. Please do not hesitate to call me if either of you have any questions. Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddinqs@fec.net 7/26/2006Page 3 of 3 Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE: This e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/21/2006 2:59 PM \u0026gt; Dear Dr. Brooks, I'd like to alert you that LRSD's (neither Chris nor anyone else in his firm) counsel has not responded to our questions about confidentiality and .. . We feel urgently that there are important legal issues affecting our department. So if the District's counsel is not available to us, we would like to seek other counsel. Thanks for your interest and appreciation for our department. Sincerely, Karen From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 3:44 PM To: Robinson, Maurecia\nWohlleb, Jim\nWilliams, Ed Subject: foia Statisticians, Have you heard back from Chris about the foia directed to the three of you last week? I have not heard from him. The last email sent to him from' me indicated Mr. Walker could access the email database rather than us spending time to print the emails. Please let me know where you are in responding to the foia. Thanks, Karen 7/26/2006Page 1 of 3 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt; \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;ajmcdnld@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;awgrehan@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jstrahl@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;dlowther@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;JNunnery@odu.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;hkenaga@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;dslawson@memphis.edu\u0026gt; Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:27 AM RE: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Eds email reports the electronic file sent to you is correct, however, Diane reports otherwise and says a new set of electronic data is being sent. Perhaps the code book that is embedded in the CD is incorrect. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:09 AM To: 'smross@memphis.edu'\njamesc@gseis.ucla.edu Cc: HELLER@fec.net\nmqpowell@odmemail.com\njspringer@gabrielmail.com\najmcdnld@memphis.edu\nawgrehan@memphis.edu\njstrahl@memphis.edu\ndlowther@memphis.edu\nJNunnery@odu.edu\nhkenaga@memphis.edu\ndslawson@memphis.edu Subject: RE: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Diane just called and reported the electronic data will be shipped to us with the paper copies. She thinks we will receive the data by August 4*^. As soon as we receive it we will email a new database. From: smross@memphis.edu [mailto:smross@memphis.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:52 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen\njamesc@gseis.ucla.edu Cc: HELLER@fec.net\nmqpowell@odmemaiLcom\njspringer@gabrielmail.com\najmcdnld@memphis.edu\nawgrehan@memphis.edu\njstrahl@memphis.edu\ndlowther@memphis.edu\nJNunnery@odu.edu\nhkenaga@memphis.edu\ndslawson@memphis.edu Subject: RE: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Ok... Im notifying the researchers here so that theyre up to date. Steven M. Ross. Ph.D. Faudree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340 Direct Line: 901-678-3413 Center Toll Free: 866-670-6147 Fax: 901-678-4257 http://crep.memphis.edu From: Dejarnette, Karen [mailto:Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org] 7/27/2006Page 2 of 3 Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:28 AM To: Steven M Ross (smross)\nJames Catterall Cc: Chris Heller\nMargie\nJoy Springer Subject: FW: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Steve and James, Riverside Publishing Company, the provider of ITBS tests and results, has issued an email stating the Math Total results we received on paper reports are incorrect because all of the subtests were not included. I called Dianne Al-Tikriti to inquire about the accuracy of the electronic data we have received. She could not answer but said she will talk with a Program Manager and get back to me. I will keep you posted. Karen From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 6:39 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: FW: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Please note. From: Brooks, Roy G Sent: Mon 7/24/2006 3:42 PM To: Roberts, Olivine Subject: FW: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Dear Arkansas Educator: Re: AR NRT 3-9 District, Building, and Student Reports In June 2006, you received score reports for the results of the ITBS (grades 3-8) and the ITED (grade 9) from the spring 2006 statewide administration. These results were accurate, but did not include all three math subtests in the math total section. This was noted on the reports that you received by an asterisk (*) and the following associated verbiage\n*Math computation is not included in the Math Total or in any score that includes the Math Total. The math total should have included all three subtests that were administered. Due to this, new score reports will be run which will produce a new math total. The new reports will not have the asterisk (*) or verbiage mentioned above. Please note that the only change to the score reports will be the math total score. All of the subtest results were originally reported correctly. If additional information is needed regarding this, please feel free to contact Riverside directly. The revised reports for your district that include math computation in the math totals will be shipped starting today through next week. They will be marked with sticker's with the wording: \"Revised July Reports\". There will be a folder for each school in your district and one folder for the district. These reports are a replacement for ALL of the 3-9 score reports that were sent in June (GRADES 3-9 REPORTS ONLY). A letter with this information will be included in box 1 of your new report boxes as well. Please destroy the original Grades 3-9 scorereports you were sent in order to assure that the correct results for the math totals are being distributed. The K- 2 reports are correct. Please do not destroy these. We apologize for any confusion this has caused. For questions about the materials, interpreting the reports or 7/27/2006Page 3 of 3 ordering additional materials and reports, please call Dianne Al-Tikriti at 800-323-9540 extension 6737. If you have any additional questions regarding the Arkansas state testing program, or the reports, please contact me directly at extension 6094. Sincerely, Meredith A. Durgin Senior Program Manager Riverside Publishing 7/27/2006Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt; \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:51 AM RE: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Seems to me the electronic data we have sent to you would have to be incorrect but I wanted to verify with Riverside. I have asked Diane to also inquire about a timeline for republishing the electronic data if it is in fact incorrect. If I do not hear back from her by mid afternoon I will call her again. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:28 AM To: 'smross@memphis.edu'\n'James Catterall' Cc: Chris Heller\n'Margie'\n'Joy Springer' Subject: FW: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Steve and James, Riverside Publishing Company, the provider of ITBS tests and results, has issued an email stating the Math Total results we received on paper reports are incorrect because all of the subtests were not included. I called Dianne Al-Tikriti to inquire about the accuracy of the electronic data we have received. She could not answer but said she will talk with a Program Manager and get back to me. I will keep you posted. Karen From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 6:39 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: FW: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Please note. From: Brooks, Roy G Sent: Mon 7/24/2006 3:42 PM To: Roberts, Olivine Subject: FW: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Dear Arkansas Educator: Re: AR NRT 3-9 District, Buiiding, and Student Reports In June 2006, you received score reports for the results of the ITBS (grades 3-8) and the ITED (grade 9) from the spring 2006 statewide administration. These results were accurate, but did not include all three math subtests in the math total section. This was noted on the reports that you received by an asterisk (*) and the following associated verbiage: *Math computation is not included in the Math Total or in any score that includes the Math Total. The math total should have included all three subtests that were administered. Due to this, new score reports will be run which will produce a new math total. The new reports will not have the asterisk (*) or verbiage 7/27/2006Page 2 of 2 mentioned above. Please note that the only change to the score reports will be the math total score. All of the subtest results were originally reported correctly. If additional information is needed regarding this, please feel free to contact Riverside directly. The revised reports for your district that include math computation in the math totals will be shipped starting today through next week. They will be marked with sticker's with the wording: \"Revised July Reports\". There will be a folder for each school in your district and one folder for the district. These reports are a replacement for ALL of the 3-9 score reports that were sent in June (GRADES 3-9 REPORTS ONLY). A letter with this information will be included in box 1 of your new report boxes as well. Please destroy the original Grades 3-9 scorereports you were sent in order to assure that the correct results for the math totals are being distributed. The K- 2 reports are correct. Please do not destroy these. We apologize for any confusion this has caused. For questions about the materials, interpreting the reports or ordering additional materials and reports, please call Dianne Al-Tikriti at 800-323-9540 extension 6737. If you have any additional questions regarding the Arkansas state testing program, or the reports, please contact me directly at extension 6094. Sincerely, Meredith A. Durgin Senior Program Manager Riverside Publishing 7/27/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmaiLcom\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Friday, July 28, 2006 10:00 AM SFX3F1.pdf FW: Availability of test information Fyi, the ADE confirms early August as the expected date for needed data. From: Brenda Kampman [mailto:Brendak@fec.net] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 9:48 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller Subject: Availability of test information Letter from ADE with attachment. Brenda Kampman Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 direct line: 501-370-1444 fax: 501-376-2147 7/31/2006ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Education Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasE(l.org OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL July 25, 2006 Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 RE: Little Rock School District Dear Chris: It is my understanding that your client, the Little Rock School District, has asked for information as to what dates certain criterion reference test information might be available to Arkansas school districts. To that end, please find attached the requested information. I will assume this information is sufficient to answer the school districts questions, absent any further notice directly to my office. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sinc^ly, .Scott Smii General Counsel SS:law Attachment cc: Dr. Ken James Janinne Riggs Dr. Gayle Potter STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton * MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Smith FROM: Janinne Riggs DATE: July 17,2006 RE: Follow-up on a memo from your office regarding Request from Dr. Karen Dejarnette, LRSD A conference call was held on June 12,2006 with parties from the LRSD and staff of ADE (Dr. Stewart, Dr. Potter and Ms. Riggs) for the purpose of discussing score reports for the district. A tentative timetable for posting the school improvement reports was discussed as follows:  Benchmark school roster data posted to district May 31  All student assessment data no later than July 1  July 7 data corrections excel spreadsheets posted to allow student demographic changes to be made (see Commissioners Memo COM-07-001 dated 7-7-06)  Data corrections submitted to NORMES by July 14  School Reports posted by early August (tentative date)\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"gych_rogp","title":"Reflections on Georgia Politics Oral History Collection","collection_id":null,"collection_title":null,"dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","United States, Southern States, 33.346678, -84.119434"],"dcterms_creator":["Short, Bob, 1932-","Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies"],"dc_date":["2006/2013"],"dcterms_description":["This oral history collection consists of 120 video interview programs with politically prominent Georgians, hosted by Bob Short. The programs include public oral histories recorded at Young Harris College in 2006 and 2007, and one-on-one interviews recorded in the homes and offices of interviewees around the state of Georgia from 2007 to 2010. The range of Georgia politics is covered, particularly the gubernatorial contests from 1946 to 2002, the U.S. Senate races of 1972, 1980, 2002, and 2008, the Civil Rights Movement, reapportionment, the development of Atlanta, political journalism, and the careers of key Georgia politicians not available for interview or deceased, particuarly Richard B. Russell, Jr., Herman E. Talmadge, S. Ernest Vandiver, Paul Coverdell, Jimmy Carter, Newt Gingrich, Sam Nunn, Lester Maddox, and Marvin Griffin.","Charles Robert \"Bob\" Short was born in Clayton, Georgia on April 17, 1932 and educated at Young Harris College, Georgia Southern University, and the Woodrow Wilson College of Law. Upon discharge from the Air Force in 1956 he began his career as a sports writer for the Atlanta Journal, and then served in various capacities in the administrations of Georgia Governors Marvin Griffin, Ernest Vandiver, and Carl Sanders. Short coordinated the campaign of Jimmy Carter when Carter ran for governor of Georgia in 1966, and later worked as press secretary for Carter's opponent in that race, Governor Lester Maddox, in 1967 and 1968. In 1968 he was appointed regional director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness -- the forerunner of FEMA -- by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Entering the private sector in the early 1970s, Short worked for Hoffman LaRoche and Hospital Corporation of America, and for his own firm, Investmart, Inc., a marketing consulting business. Short remained active politically, consulting on a limited scale and serving as special assistant to Governor and Senator Zell Miller and Senator Johnny Isakson. Short retired to Blairsville, Georgia. Bob Short wrote the only biography of Lester Maddox titled, Everything is Pickrick (Mercer University Press, 1999), which won him the title \"Author of the Year\" from the Georgia Writers Association. In 2006 he began a lecture and discussion program at neighboring Young Harris College entitled, Reflections on Georgia Politics. He then partnered with the Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies to make Refelections on Georgia Politics an oral history series.","Related materials available in the following collections of this repository: Zell B. Miller Papers; Carl E. Sanders Papers; Bob Short Audiovisual Materials Collection; Richard B. Russell Library Oral History Documentary Collection; Erwin Mitchell Papers; J. Roy Rowland Papers; Larry Walker Papers; David Gambrell Papers; Ben Blackburn Papers; Williamson S. Stuckey Papers; T. Rogers Wade Collection of Herman E. Talmadge Materials; Mack F. Mattingly Papers; Saxby Chambliss Papers; Cathy Cox Papers; Tommy Irvin Papers; Doug Barnard, Jr. Papers; George W. Darden Papers; Michael L. Thurmond Papers; M. Louise McBee Papers; James L. Gillis, Sr. Papers; John C. Foster Papers; Helen M. Lewis Collection of James V. Carmichael Campaign Material; Eurnice L. Mixon Papers; Harold L. Murphy Papers; Jim Martin Papers; Harold G. Clarke Papers; George J. Berry Papers; Fletcher Thompson Papers; Charles E. Campbell Papers; Max Cleland Papers; Aubrey Morris Collection of Richard B. Russell, Jr. Materials; Steve Wrigley Papers; Keith Mason Papers; Harry D. Dixon Papers; Reid Harris Papers related to the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act; Pete Wheeler Papers; Bill Shipp Papers; Joe Frank Harris Papers; Roy E. Barnes Papers.","Related collections held by Georgia State University Special Collections and Archives: Georgia Government Documentation Project; State University of West Georgia: Georgia's Political Heritage Program.","Finding aid available in repository.","Disc user copies and transcripts are available for use at the Russell Library. Apple Quicktime files and transcripts are available online via the Russell Library website."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Georgia. General Assembly","Civil rights--United States--History","Civil rights--Georgia--History","Journalism--Georgia","Political campaigns--Georgia","Political campaigns--United States","Segregation--Georgia","Civil rights","Journalism","Political campaigns","Politics and government","Segregation","Georgia--Politics and government","Georgia--History","Atlanta (Ga.)--History","United States--History"],"dcterms_title":["Reflections on Georgia Politics Oral History Collection"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://sclfind.libs.uga.edu/sclfind/view?docId=ead/RBRL220ROGP.xml"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Reflections on Georgia Politics oral history collection, Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies, University of Georgia Libraries, Athens, Georgia 30602-1641."],"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)","interviews","moving images"],"dcterms_extent":["219 mini-dv videotapes","18 DVDs","120 digital master files","120 digital user copies","120 transcripts and administration files"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Baker, Thurbert E.","Barnes, Roy E. (Roy Eugene), 1948-","Blackburn, Benjamin B. (Benjamin Bentley), 1927-","Carter, Jimmy, 1924-","Chambliss, Saxby, 1943-","Clarke, Harold G., 1927-","Cleland, Max, 1942-","Coverdell, Paul Douglas, 1939-2000","Fowler, Wyche, 1940-","Gambrell, David Henry, 1929-","Gingrich, Newt","Griffin, Marvin, 1907-1982","Harris, Joe Frank","Isakson, Johnny, 1944-","Lance, Bert, 1931-2013","Maddox, Lester, 1915-2003","McBee, Mary Louise","Miller, Zell, 1932-2018","Nunn, Sam","Russell, Richard B. (Richard Brevard), 1897-1971","Sanders, Carl, 1925-2014","Shipp, Bill","Short, Bob, 1932-","Talmadge, Herman E. (Herman Eugene), 1913-2002","Vandiver, S. Ernest (Samuel Ernest), 1918-2005","Vandiver, Betty Russell","Nunn, Sam"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_953","title":"Report: Annual report, North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School enrollment","School facilities","Education--Finance","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["Report: Annual report, North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/953"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"fda_houck_685428","title":"Research and Correspondence on the Case of Emmett Till and the Civil Rights Movement pulled from FBI file","collection_id":"fda_houck","collection_title":"Davis Houck Papers","dcterms_contributor":["Houck, Davis W."],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["Summary: Newspaper clippings, typed correspondence, and handwritten notes regarding the Civil Rights Movement and the case of Emmett Till"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Davis Houck Papers--http://purl.fcla.edu/fsu/MSS_2015-007"],"dcterms_subject":["Research"],"dcterms_title":["Research and Correspondence on the Case of Emmett Till and the Civil Rights Movement pulled from FBI file"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Florida State University Libraries. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_MSS_2015007_B06_F04"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","Use of this item is provided for non-commercial, personal, educational, and research use only. Florida State University Libraries is providing access to these materials for educational and research purposes and makes no warranty with regard to their use for other purposes. The written permission of the copyright owners and/or other rights holders (such as holders of publicity and/or privacy rights) is required for distribution, reproduction, or other use of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use or other statutory exemptions (see Title 17, U.S.C.). For information about the copyright and reproduction rights for this item, please contact Special Collections \u0026 Archives, Florida State University Libraries, Tallahassee, Florida: https://www.lib.fsu.edu/department/special-collections-archives."],"dcterms_medium":["records (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Till, Emmett, 1941-1955"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_787","title":"'Research Brief: SMART/THRIVE in the Little Rock School District''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Student assistance programs","Literacy","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["'Research Brief: SMART/THRIVE in the Little Rock School District''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/787"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nCREP \\cmitrfar iaE^htcatuaudPaiiey Center for Research in Educational Policy Research Brief The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38t 52 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 Reading Recovery in the Little Rock School District\\M^^ T0 ssS*^*^ WffWWIIIffltfiTglTrTWgl 1^ R CREP crater Jaf Ratarck ia EJueatiaaai Miey Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 Research Brief Reading Recovery in the Little Rock School District fl fl January 2006  Anna W. Grehan Steven M. Ross Lynn Harrison Center for Research in Educational Policy fl John Nunnery Old Dominion University fl IRESEARCH BRIEF: READING RECOVERY IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Background Reading Recovery is an internationally used intervention program, designed by noted literacy expert Dr. Marie M. Clay. It is a short-term intervention program for first grade students who are struggling in learning to read. The goal of Reading Recovery is to provide early, effective interventions, through one-on-one tutoring, which not only empowers struggling readers and increases their chances of continued success, but also reduces the cost of these learners to educational systems. In 1995. the Little Rock School District (LRSD) began implementing Reading Recovery in two elementary schools. Over the years the LRSD has expanded the Reading Recovery program and developed a partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) to conduct training and provide professional assistance for Reading Recovery specialists. At the end of the 2004-2005 school year the LRSD had 28 trained Reading Recovery teachers who were serving 18 of the 34 elementary schools in the district. In February 2005. researchers from the Center for the Research in Educational Policy (CREP) at the University of Memphis presented an evaluation plan for the Reading Recovery program to principals, representatives of the LRSD and other stakeholders. The evaluation plan for Reading Recovery was presented as part of a larger district study in which Reading Recovery and three other programs were evaluated. The evaluation plan for Reading Recovery included: (1) analyses of Reading Recovery student achievement and program data. (2) principal, teacher, and parent surveys and interviews, and (3) observations of Reading Recovery tutoring sessions. The evaluation plan was approved and researchers from CREP immediately began implementation. Purpose, Plan and Participants Purpose V The major goal of the study was to understand the impact Reading Recovery has had on African American students in the Little Rock School District. Specifically, through Reading Recovery, are African American students showing improvement in academic achievement? With that goal in mind, the primary research question for this evaluation was:  Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? In order to gain an even clearer picture of how well the Reading Recovery program has been used in the schools and the impact it has had on African-American students, six other questions were addressed. The information gathered to answer these questions provided a more complete understanding of how well the program has been carried out in the district. These additional questions were: I  What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the 18 schools implementing in 2004-2005? . What is the level of participation in Reading Recovery by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school?  What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other student participants in Reading Recovery in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued? What proportion of scheduled sessions are actually held, and what are the reasons for missed sessions? [NOTE: A 1 LI Reading Recovery student is discontinued when he/she demonstrates, through the appropriate assessments, ability to read on grade level with the regular class.]  What are the perceptions of Reading Recovery teachers regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of principals, regular first grade teachers, and other teachers in the school regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Reading Recovery students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Plan To answer these questions a research plan that collected a variety of information from numerous sources was required. Researchers used scores from the following standardized achievement tests or in- class assessments: H  Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS)  Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA)  Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)  An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement\nReading Recovery Subtests The CREP researchers also needed to determine how well the Reading Recovery teachers understood their tasks as teachers and how well they were able to follow the Reading Recovery program design. To answer these questions, data was collected data by using a Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire and a Reading Recovery observation tool. The questionnaire contained items for teachers to rate on an agreement-disagreement scale and open-ended items soliciting comments about the program. With the observation tool, trained Reading Recovery specialists monitored Reading Recovery teachers as they worked with students and recorded how well they followed Reading Recovery guidelines. CREP researchers interviewed, via telephone, four Reading Recovery teachers who were currently being trained to understand how effectively their training was being conducted. To determine how the program was thought of by principals, other teachers, and parents, questionnaires were specifically designed for each group. Classroom teachers from kindergarten through third grade in schools that had a Reading Recovery program were surveyed and asked both ratings items and open-ended questions. Parents with children currently in the Reading Recovery program were given a questionnaire to complete, also containing both types of items. Ten principals from Reading Recovery schools were randomly selected to participate in a phone interview in which their comments were recorded and transcribed. All of the data from observations were collected in March through May of 2005. Copies of all the instruments used and a complete breakdown of all results can be found the technical report. Participants Students: The overall sample of students that was used in this research included 1,094 first graders in the schools with Reading Recovery programs (18 schools) for the school year 2004-2005. Of this larger sample, 230 students were referred to the Reading Recovery program and became the Reading Recovery Group and 864 students who were not in the Reading Recovery program became the Comparison Group. There were similar numbers of African-Americans in both groups, but students in the Reading Recovery group were more likely to be male, in a lower income bracket, and to receive special education services. 2 ' -Principals: Ten principals from Reading Recovery schools were randomly selected to participate in a phone interview. The phone interview lasted approximately 45 minutes and responses to questions regarding the Reading Recovery program and its effectiveness were recorded and transcribed. Reading Recovery Teachers in-Training: Four randomly selected teachers currently being trained to become Reading Recovery specialists were interviewed through a 45-minute phone interview. These teachers provided insight into the current training efforts and professional development needs for new n teachers. Reading Recovery Teachers: There were 22 Reading Recovery Teachers who were surveyed through a specially designed questionnaire. In addition, 14 Reading Recovery Teachers were observed as they worked with their students. Classroom Teachers: Kindergarten through third grade teachers, working in schools with Reading Recovery programs, were also surveyed and 156 responded. Parents: Parents of students currently participating in a Reading Recovery program were sent a questionnaire and 95 were completed and returned. A survey in Spanish was sent when necessary, and 9 of those returned were completed in Spanish. n n Findings Researchers spent the summer and early fall compiling the information learned from the phone interviews, surveys, and observations. In late fall, achievement data and assessment records were obtained. Through careful analysis and with the use of statistical techniques, a thorough analysis of the Reading Recovery program was completed. The findings are best understood in context of the questions that were asked in the evaluation plan. Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? The impact of the Reading Recovery program on African-American students was comparable to students of other ethnicities. This impact, as it regards reading success, was more significant when students completed the entire program and were successfully discontinued. In addition, the benefits were more noticeable in areas of beginning reading skills that included basics such as hearing and recording sounds (Observation Survey) and phoneme segmentation (DIBELS), than in more advanced reading skills, such as text reading (DIBELS \u0026amp; DRA). However, there were no noticeable gains on statewide standardized tests (ITBS) for Reading Recovery students.  What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-2005? Reading Recovery appeared to be well implemented and there was a high degree of consistency in the way the Reading Recovery teachers carried out the program. Classroom observations, conducted by outside experts in Reading Recovery, agreed that in the majority of areas, teachers were well prepared and were following the guidelines outlined by the Reading Recovery program. In addition, when looking at students achievement information, there was no difference between those students who had a more experienced teacher and those having a teacher with less experience. This outcome suggested that teachers were well trained and were using the Reading Recovery model appropriately.   What is the level of participation in Reading Recovery by African-American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Most of the students participating in Reading Recovery were African-American, which was expected given that African-American students were the majority in the 18 schools being studied. 3 g| What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other student participants in Reading Recovery in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued ? What proportion of scheduled sessions are actually held, and what are the reasons for missed sessions? There are three categories in which a Reading Recovery student may be placed at the end of the program year: (1) Discontinued: successful completion of the program\n(2) Incomptete^stilHn the program without having enough time to complete the program\nand (3) Recommended for Further Action: Reading Recovery teachers believe that the student is in need of some other instructional support to be successful. African American students in Reading Recovery were as likely as other ethnic groups to be placed in the Discontinued or Incomplete categories\nand were slightly more likely to be Recommended * . .. .  .  . ... I'l__I. . iL .. AO rvlor'orJ fhn for Further Action. African-American students were more likely than other ethnicities to be placed in the Low/Lower Middle reading group by their classroom teachers, after completing Reading Recovery. Reading Recovery is a program designed to be a daily intervention. However, about one-fourth 4 of sessions were missed due to either teacher or student absence or teacher or student being unavailable. So. on average, there were 3.5 sessions held per week, instead of 5. B V  What are the perceptions of Reading Recovery teachers regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Reading Recovery teachers were extremely positive about the Reading Recovery program and were eager to see it continued. Teachers appeared to be very knowledgeable about the program- well- trained, prepared, and supported by their school and district. Reading Recovery teachers thought the program was having a positive impact on their students, including their African-American students. Reading Recovery teachers expressed a need for greater planning time and for more opportunities to continue to monitor their students after they completed the program. Teachers in-training were equally positive and committed to the Reading Recovery program. These teachers reported being well prepared by their training.  What are the perceptions of principals, regular first grade teachers, and other teachers in the school regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Principals were very supportive of Reading Recovery and reported being actively involved in ensuring that it was carried out correctly. Most principals agreed that, through Reading Recovery, the achievement gap was being bridged for their African American students. Classroom teachers at Reading Recovery schools had a clear understanding of the Reading They praised the program and felt it had a very positive impact on student Recovery program, achievement.  What are the perceptions of parents/ guardians or Reading Recovery students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents were generally very pleased with the Reading Recovery program and believed that the program was helping their child become a successful reader. Nearly all of the parents indicated a clear understanding of the program and appreciated the one-on-one attention their child was receiving. 4Compliance Remedy Questions Recommended Program Modifications Reading Recovery was extremely well received by parents, teachers and administrators and all reported a positive impact on those students who were in the program. It would be expected that higher achievement scores would also be detected\nyet this was not the case. However, given the focus of the program in improving reading performance, it might also be unrealistic to expect highly noticeable inrrM-sPs on norm-referenced multiole-choice standardized tests. Possible program modifications increases on norm-referenced multiple-choice standardized tests. needed to produce greater achievement gains are:  An expanded program that would include more Reading Recovery teachers. With more teachers, there could be greater monitoring of students after they discontinue the program to ensure that their momentum is maintained. There are many students in need of Reading Recovery in the Little Rock School District and Reading Recovery teachers may be pressed to discontinue one qroup of students in order to begin assisting another group. The necessary follow-up contact can not occur, and therefore the slippage in achievement that has been noted in the program in other states and districts may be found among students in the Little Rock School District. With an expanded program, these students could be more closely monitored and their gains could be maintained. In addition to an expanded program, a transitional plan for students who have discontinued  in aaoiiion lo an expanueu progiam, ci uciieiuuiiai ------------  ---------------  should be explored. Such a plan could involve daily monitored reading that would provide n another buffer against slippage.  Increased professional development of classroom teachers would enable them to understand how to integrate their Reading Recovery students back into the classroom once they have been discontinued, and how to provide the appropriate instruction and feedback so that students would continue to improve.  Increased partnership with University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) to help with the development of transitional plan and professional development for classroom teachers. n  Many of the principals, as well as Reading Recovery teachers, cited examples of profound student achievement and continued noteworthy success of former Reading Recovery African- American students. Although evidence of these success stories were not detected by analyzing standardized test scores as a whole, some African-American students are reported to be experiencing continued, sustained high levels of achievement. Future studies might provide a more in-depth analysis of a small number of students whose gains were maintained to determine what factors contributed to their successes and how these factors can be generalized to the Hi I  population as a whole. Expectations of Program Modifications Reading Recovery has valuable components that, with adaptation and modification, can be even more effective. With program modifications, the Little Rock School District could expect:  Progressive gains on standardized test scores over time.  An increased number of students involved in the Reading Recovery program.  A greater adherence to Reading Recovery guidelines, especially those relating to the number of sessions required for optimum benefits. 5  More teachers throughout the district better able to serve students at-risk in the areas of literacy and reading.  Sustained achievement of students upon completion of the Reading Recovery program. A stronger relationship with UALR professionals that would continue to provide the Little Rock School District with the most up-to-date research findings and best practices for reading and literacy instruction. a I 6 e I i-\n *CREP ' CenUrf^r Httevek ui Educational ^oEcy Center for Research in Educational Policy The Univetsity of Memphis 325 Browning Hal Memphis. Tennessee 38152 Tol Free 1-866-670-6147 Evaluation of Reading Recovery In the Little Rock School District TECHNICAL REPORT 9 A n nn H CREP xca/er ieutrci itt Educational policy Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, T ennessee 38152 Toll Free 1-866^70-6147 Evaluation of Reading Recovery In the Little Rock School District ai TECHNICAL REPORT 91 January 2006 -r ,1.\n Anna W. Grehan Steven M. Ross Lynn Harrison Center for Research in Educational Policy John Nunnery Old Dominion UniversityEXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION ^1 The Little Rock School District began implementing Reading Recovery during the 1995-1996 school year in two schools. During the first four years of implementation, the Little Rock School District was part of the Pulaski County Reading Recovery Site. By 1998 there were eight trained Reading Recovery teachers in seven schools in the Little Rock School District. In July 1999 the district became a Reading Recovery Site hiring a full-time teacher leader. In 2000-2001 the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) began conducting the Reading Recovery teacher training for the district. Between the 2000-2001 and 2004-2005 school years UALR trained 17 Reading Recovery teachers for the district. At the end of the 2004-2005 school year the Little Rock School District had 28 trained Reading Recovery teachers serving 18 of the 34 elementary schools in the district. Reading Recovery is one of eight literacy programs, interventions, and/or models used by Little Rock schools. Currently, Little Rock School District funds are used to support the program. The goal of Reading Recovery is to dramatically reduce the number of first grade students who have difficulty learning to read and write and to reduce the cost of these learners to educational systems. Reading Recovery is a short-term intervention program of one-to-one tutoring for the lowest-achieving first graders. The intervention is most effective when it is available to all students who need it and is used as a supplement to good classroom teaching. Individual students receive a half-hour lesson each school day for 12 to 20 weeks with a specially trained Reading Recovery teacher. As soon as students can read within the average range of their class and demonstrate that they can continue to achieve, their lessons are discontinued and new students begin individual instruction. The evaluation plan for the Reading Recovery program in Little Rock School District included: (1) analyses of Reading Recovery student achievement and program data, (2) principal, teacher, and parent surveys and interviews, and (3) observations of Reading Recovery tutoring sessions. This report is part of a larger district study of four programs evaluating the effectiveness in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students. This report includes results from 18 elementary schools participating in the Reading Recovery program. RESEARCH QUESTIONS The major goals of this research study were to evaluate African-American student achievement outcomes, program implementation fidelity, and principal, teacher, and parent perceptions concerning the Reading Recovery tutoring program for first grade students. Student achievement results on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement were analyzed to compare the progress of first graders enrolled in the Reading Recovery intervention program and comparison students in 2004-2005. Program implementation ratings were obtained from observations of 14 tutoring sessions in nine schools. The survey and interview results are based on the perceptions of 156 classroom teachers in grades K-3, 22 experienced Reading Recovery teachers, four teachers in-training, 10 principals, and 95 parents. The Reading Recovery evaluation was structured around the following seven primary and supplemental research questions. Primary evaluation question:  Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? 1n Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) evaluation questions: E  What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-2005?  What is the level of participation in Reading Recovery by African-American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school?  What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other student participants in Reading Recovery in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued?  What are the perceptions of Reading Recovery teachers regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of principals, regular first-grade teachers, and other teachers in the school regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Reading Recovery students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? DESIGN 4 The evaluation period extended from February 2005 through May 2005. The evaluation design was based on both quantitative and qualitative data collected from Reading Recovery intervention observations, principal and teacher in-training interviews, classroom teachers, Reading Recovery teachers, parent surveys, and Reading Recovery program data. Reading Recovery student-level achievement data on the ITBS, DRA, DIBELS, and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement was received in fall 2005 and incorporated in this report. The primary data collectors in this study were Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) trained site researchers. Site researchers: (1) conducted Reading Recovery intervention observations, (2) administered the Reading Recovery teacher survey, (3) conducted principal and teacher in-training interviews, and (4) collected program data. Principals at Reading Recovery schools were responsible for administering the classroom teacher and Reading Recovery parent surveys. Participants Little Rock School District is located in Central Arkansas and serves approximately 26,500 students, with African-Americans representing approximately 67% of the district student population, in 49 schools in an urban area with a population of 184,000. In the 2004-2005 school year 18 w elementary schools and 230 first grade students, of which 173 are African-American, 27 are Caucasian, 22 are Hispanic, and the remaining 8 are other ethnicities, participated in the Reading Recovery program in the district. Three schools were in their first year of program implementation (Bale, Stephens, and Terry) and survey and observation data were not collected from these schools. However, randomly selected teachers in-training and principals from these three schools were interviewed for this study. INSTRUMENTATION Six instruments were developed by CREP to collect the evaluation data: a classroom observation tool, a principal interview, a teacher in-training interview, a Reading Recovery teacher questionnaire, a classroom teacher questionnaire, and a parent survey. 2 Program Data Reading Recovery program information was obtained from data submitted to the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University in 2004-2005. Each year the schools and district submit program data and receive a site report. The report represents an examination of Reading Recovery student outcomes for Little Rock and accounts for all children served by Reading Recovery within the site during the 2004-2005 school year. In addition, attention is given to implementation factors that may be supporting or hindering the success of the intervention at the site. Student Achievement Results In addition to the program data, interviews, survey, and observation tools cited above, reading achievement data are derived from scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement. PROCEDURE Data for the evaluation were collected March-May for the 2004-2005 school year. On February 16, 2005 principals were given an overview of the evaluation and timelines for collecting data. On March 3-4 and April 14-15, 14 tutoring observations were conducted in nine randomly 91 selected experienced Reading Recovery schools by two Reading Recovery content experts from Georgia State and The Ohio State Universities. Only experienced Reading Recovery teachers were observed. On March 23 a CREP trained site researcher administered the Reading Recovery teacher survey to experienced teachers at a regularly scheduled monthly meeting at UALR. In April and May principals in experienced Reading Recovery schools administered the classroom teacher questionnaire to K-3 grade teachers. Principals also administered the parent survey to parents whose children were currently receiving first grade intervention services in the 15 experienced Reading Recovery schools. Four teachers in-training and 10 principals were randomly selected from the 18 Reading Recovery schools to participate in a phone interview in April and May conducted by CREP researchers. Reading Recovery program data were received in summer 2005 from the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University. Student achievement data were received from the district in fall 2005. METHODS - STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Sample. The sample included 1,094 first grade students who attended one of 18 schools that implemented the Reading Recovery program during the 2004-2005 school year. Of these, 230 were referred to the Reading Recovery program, and 864 were in the comparison group. The percentages of students who were African-American or of Limited English Proficiency were similar between the comparison and Reading Recovery groups (73.6% versus 75.6% and 7.3% versus 8.7%, respectively). However, Reading Recovery students were more likely to be eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (84.3% versus 73.1%), to receive special education services (15.7% versus 8.6%), and to be male (58.1 % versus 48.0%). Reading Recovery Treatment Level. In the Reading Recovery program, students who are deemed to have attained a reading level equivalent to their peers are assigned an end-of-program status of discontinued. Children who received 20 or more weeks of Reading Recovery services, but who do not attain a reading level equivalent to their peers are assigned a status of recommended action. Children who have received fewer than 20 weeks were assigned incomplete program status. Children designated as unknown status were removed from the program in fewer than 20 weeks due to reasons other than the school year ending. Other children were designated as having moved during the school year. The median number of sessions of recommended action (Md = 68.50\nn = 68) children was actually higher than the median for discontinued students (Md = 57.00\nn 3 = 90). The medians for incximplete students {n = 46) and unknown\" students (n = 12) were very similar (Md = 44.63 versus 46.08, respectively). For the purposes of this study, recommended action and discontinued students were categorized as complete program\n incomplete and 158 with a unknown students were categorized as incomplete program\n and students who moved were eliminated from the analyses. This left a total of 216 Reading Recovery students\n133 ...3.  4 4 complete program, and 58 with an incomplete program. Measures. Pretest (covariate) measures included: (a) Spring, 2004 Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) scores, (b) fall 2005 Observation Survey: Reading Recovery program subtests that included Letter Identification, Word Test, Concepts About Print, Writing Vocabulary, Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words, and Text Reading, and (c) the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) subtests in Letter Naming Fluency, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency, and Word Use Fluency. Outcome measures included Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading Normal Curve Equivalent Scores, DRA subtests. Observation Survey: Reading Recovery subtests, and DIBELS subtests administered in Spring 2005. To achieve some parsimony in the analyses, pretest measures were subjected to a principal components analysis, and regressionbased factors scores were constructed for pretest DRA, Observation Survey\nReading Recovery subtests, and DIBELS subtests. A single factor accounted for 60.1% and 60.5% of the variance in the DRA and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery subtests, and DIBELS subtests, respectively. Outcome measures included the DRA and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery, DIBELS subtests, and ITBS Reading. Student achievement analyses. A 3 (Program Status) by 2 (African-American versus other) multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was performed on two test batteries, using student gender, the pertinent pretest factor score, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status as covariates. One test battery included the DRA and subscales of the Observation Survey: Reading Recovery. The second test battery included subtests from the DIBELS. A similar 3 by 2 analysis of covariance was performed on ITBS Reading NCE scores using the 2003-2004 DRA score as a pretest covariate. For the multivariate analyses, Wilks lambda was used as the criterion of multivariate significance. Where Wilks lambda indicated a significant multivariate effect, follow-up univariate analyses were performed on each outcome variable using the Bonferroni procedure to control for experimentwise alpha. When significant univariate results were found, post hoc analyses were performed using Scheffes procedure. Effect size estimates were computed for all posttests by subtracting the adjusted mean for the comparison group from the adjusted mean from the Reading Recovery group within levels of race, then dividing by the total standard deviation of the posttest (Cohen, 1988\nHedges \u0026amp; Olkin, 1985). For ITBS Reading NCE effect size estimates, the population standard deviation of 21.06 was used. The effect size estimate (ES) represent the standardized difference between treatment and comparison group means, which allows for comparison across measures that have different metrics. Exploratory and supplementary analyses. Impact of teacher experience and number of sessions. The number of years experience with Reading Recovery was recorded for each teacher. Years experience ranged from 1 to 10 years. ITBS Reading NCE scores and DRA test scores for 2004-2005 were regressed on 2003-2004 DRA/RR Observation Survey factor scores and dummy- coded variables representing student ethnicity, free lunch status, gender, special education status, and LEP status. Standardized residuals were saved from each of these analyses, and plotted against teacher years of experience to graphically assess the nature of the relationship between teacher experience and teacher effectiveness in Reading Recovery for students who received a Complete program. Standardized residuals for each of these 2004-2005 tests were also plotted against number of Reading Recovery sessions received for all students (i.e., those who received either a Complete or Incomplete program). 4 r.iRESULTS Classroom Observation Results Reading Recovery Implementation Assessment Instrument (RRIAI) As indicated in the description of the RRIAI, the observation procedure primarily focuses on Reading Recovery Program Components and Program Strategies. The site observers used a four-point rubric (1 = poor or unacceptable, 2 = below average in comparison to other programs observed, 3 = meets nearly all standards of program quality, and 4 = above average in comparison to other programs) to rate the frequency and application of components and strategies of Reading Recovery instruction. m Reading Recovery Program Components The overall mean rating for the Reading Recovery Program Components was 3.46 which suggests a high level of program implementation. Of the six subcategories the highest observed ratings were: assembling a cut-up story and introducing and reading a new book observed to be above average in 85.7% of tutoring sessions. The program component subcategory with the lowest observed rating was working with letters and/or words using magnetic letters observed to be above average in only 35.7% of tutoring sessions. The six program components were observed in at least 92.9% of 14 tutoring sessions. m Reading Recovery Program Strategies The overall mean rating for the Reading Recovery Program Strategies was 3.61 which also indicates a high level of instructional effectiveness. Of the eight During Tutoring Lesson subcategories, the highest observed rating was for appropriate text selected throughout the lesson observed to be above average in 85.7% of tutoring sessions. The During Tutoring Lesson subcategory with the lowest observed rating was echo of focus throughout the lesson observed to be above average in just 42.9% of tutoring sessions. For the After Tutoring Lesson, has high expectations for the child and articulates child's strengths and needs were observed to be above average in 78.6% of tutoring sessions and accurate and up-to-date records were observed to be above average in 71.4% of tutoring sessions. The Reading Recovery Program Strategies were observed in at least 85.7% of tutoring sessions. Observer Perceptions of Reading Recovery Program Implementation Site observers reported being impressed with the dedication and commitment of the Reading Recovery teachers to the fidelity of the teaching procedures and the integrity of the implementation of the program. Almost all teachers observed were meeting all the standards, guidelines, and expectations of the Reading Recovery Council of North America and the North American Trainers Group. Since observations occurred in March and April, most of the students observed were second-round students, since teachers had discontinued their first-round students. Teachers reported that students who did not discontinue from Reading Recovery during the first-round were being considered for further intervention services. Site observers also reported that the Reading Recovery program in the Little Rock district receives an adequate allocation of time, materials, and other resources. However, several teachers and principals expressed the need for additional Reading Recovery teachers in their schools. Reading Recovery teachers also reported teaching literacy small groups the rest of the day, which enables them to give their Reading Recovery students more attention during the instructional day. By teaching these literacy groups, site observers suggested that the Reading Recovery 5 teachers expertise and knowledge gained from their training and practice benefits children across several grade levels. During visits site observers suggested areas in which some Reading Recovery teachers needed improvement. These instructional areas included: (1) hearing and recording sounds in words\n(2) making and breaking\n(3) doing away with the helping hand\nand (4) maintaining up-to-date records on each child as a basis for instruction. INTERVIEW RESULTS Reading Recovery Principal Interview 4 Principals at 10 of the Reading Recovery schools were randomly selected to participate in a 45-minute phone interview. Principals were asked a series of questions regarding general program implementation, classroom-level changes, program results, professional development opportunities and parental and community involvement. 81 Overall, principals were positive about the Reading Recovery program and the impact it has had on their schools. Most of the schools have been utilizing Reading Recovery for several years and faculty and staff are very comfortable with the program. Nearly all of the principals interviewed were instrumental in bringing Reading Recovery to their schools, and the decision to utilize Reading Recovery was made after considerable research and thoughtful consideration. Principals reported that Reading Recovery is a wonderful complement to the schools balanced literacy programs. The one-on-one attention the reading Recovery students receive is overwhelmingly the most effective of the strategies that the program employs. Other effective strategies mentioned included push-ins, literacy groups, running records, and the writing component. Principals reported being active advocates in their Reading Recovery programs. They described their roles as one of support and involvement, ranging from oversight of the program to more direct involvement including student selection for the program, review of student progress, and ongoing meetings and collaboration with the Reading Recovery specialists. 4  All principals noted that teachers were very supportive of the Reading Recovery program and appreciated the impact it has had on overall student achievement. Most of the resources needed for effective program implementation are available\nhowever, principals reported an ongoing need for books, additional teachers and tutors, and more planning time. Principals described the African- American population as being well-served by Reading Recovery, and most agreed that through Reading Recovery the achievement gap is being bridged for their African-American students. In most of the schools, African-American students are a large percentage of the Reading Recovery program, and the early intervention provided by Reading Recovery allows the student to be encouraged by being successful at a younger age. Teacher In-Training Interview q  In the spring 2005, four teachers in their first year in the Reading Recovery program were contacted by phone for a 30 to 45-minute phone interview. The teachers in-training were attending classes concerning Reading Recovery instruction, as well as working in their schools implementing the Reading Recovery strategies. Feedback from the teachers was solicited regarding general program information, classroom level changes, results, professional development, and parental involvement and support. All teachers described the process of integrating Reading Recovery into the schools literacy program as well planned and organized. Reading Recovery teachers work individually with the lowest performing students and then follow up individual instruction with literacy groups. Reading Recovery 6^1 teachers reported a thorough selection process that involved collaboration with the classroom teacher and comprehensive testing and assessment. In general, the Reading Recovery teachers reported strong support from the classroom teachers, that classroom teachers appreciated the effectiveness of the one-on-one approach, and the fact that Reading Recovery is able to provide this type of support, freeing the classroom teacher to work more effectively with the other students. The Reading Recovery teachers in-training strongly felt that Reading Recovery helped to equalize learning and achievement opportunities for African-American students at their schools. Most of the students in Reading Recovery are African-American, and these teachers were able to see positive gains. Reading Recovery helps all struggling readers by actively engaging them in reading and allowing them to feel successful at reading. The Reading Recovery teachers in-training reported a significant increase in self-confidence and improvement in overall attitude among the Reading Recovery students. As the students begin to experience success, they are less frustrated and angry. This improvement in attitude improves their classroom behavior and relationships with other teachers and students. Some of these teachers have seen dramatic increases in test scores and other achievement data, while others have not yet been able to see these gains. Reading Recovery teachers in-training reported professional training that ranged from adequate to thorough. Changes in Reading Recovery course instructors led to some confusion for some of the teachers in training, and some reported the need for increased classroom hours. However, overall, these teachers reported feeling well-prepared to work with the students. The strategies they have learned have been very helpful. Although the teachers in-training reported having significant classroom experience, they are learning unique techniques that have been very beneficial. Survey Results 4 Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ) Descriptive results. Reading Recovery teachers had extremely favorable attitudes toward the program at their schools. All of the teachers strongly agreed or agreed that they have a thorough understanding of the program, teachers in their school are generally supportive of the program, ongoing communication exists between Reading Recovery tutors and classroom reading teachers, Reading Recovery monthly meetings are effective and useful, instructional materials needed to implement the Reading Recovery program are readily available, and the Reading Recovery program is aligned with state and district reading and language arts standards. There was also strong agreement that Reading Recovery teachers received support, with 86.4% of the teachers reporting that the school administration and Reading Coach supported their efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher. Almost 75% (72.7%) of teachers reported receiving extensive district support. The items with the highest level of disagreement (disagree and strongly disagree) concerned Reading Recovery teachers having sufficient planning time (36.4%) and enough tutors to fully implement the Reading Recovery program (18.2%). Demographic data. All Reading Recovery teachers (100%) reported having at least six years of teaching experience and 31.8% reported at least six years experience as a Reading Recovery teacher. Approximately 85% (86.4%) of Reading Recovery teachers reported having a Masters Degree and beyond. The majority of Reading Recovery teachers were Caucasian (72.7%) and 13.6% reported their ethnicity as African-American. H Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (RRCTQ) Descriptive results. For the classroom teachers, the three items on which 80% or higher agreed included: teacher support of the program (93.6%), positive impact on student achievement 1(87.8%), and improving achievement of African-American students (82.1%). The two items on which classroom teachers expressed the strongest disagreement or disagreement included: sufficient faculty and staff to fully implement the program (23.1%) and because of Reading Recovery, parents are more involved in the literacy program (14.7%). Demographic data. K-3 classroom teachers reported less teaching experience and education attainment than Reading Recovery teachers. Close to 30% (28.9%) reported less than one year to five years teaching experience in any school and 57.7% reported having a Bachelors degree. However, more classroom teachers reported their ethnicity as African-American (28.9%) than Reading Recovery teachers with the majority (68.6%) reporting ethnicity as Caucasian. Reading Recovery Parent Survey (RRPS) 4 Descriptive results. 4 Descriptive results. Generally, parents had favorable attitudes toward the Reading Recovery program. A majority of the parents (90.5%) reported that, because of Reading Recovery tutoring, they believed that their child would be successful in school and 86.3% reported that Reading Recovery had improved their child's reading skills. However, less than 75% (66.3%) of parents strongly agreed or agreed that they have many opportunities to talk with the Reading Recovery teacher about their childs progress. Demographic data. Almost 70% (68.4%) of parents reported the ethnicity of their child as African-American and 13.7% reported their childs ethnicity as Hispanic and 7.4% reported the ethnicity of their child as Caucasian. m Reading Recovery Level of Participation and Program Measures African-American students were in the majority in all of the 18 schools in the study. Not surprisingly, at 72.5% of the comparison student population and 75.0% of the Reading Recovery student population, African-American students were also a majority of the Reading Recovery students in this study. In 10 of the 18 schools, the percentage of African-American students in Reading Recovery exceeded their percentage of the comparison population. How meaningful this difference is may be debatable given instances where 100% of the Reading Recovery students are African-American in a school in which 98.3% of the comparison students are African-American (Watson Elementary) or where there are just 8 Reading Recovery students in a school with more than 100 first grade students (Terry Elementary School). Reading Recovery End of Program Status by Race A comparison of the total African-American Reading Recovery student population to the total other students involved in Reading Recovery indicates that the students were nearly equally represented in two of the three program specific measures. The percentage of African-American students Discontinued (43.3%) was not considerably different from the percent of other students Discontinued (46.3%). In addition, in the Incomplete status, the percentage of African-American students (21.3%) was not very much different than that of the other students (25.9%). Only in the Recommended status did the percentage of African-American students considerably exceed the percentage of other students (34.5% vs. 27.8%). fl Reading Recovery Year End Reading Group by Race With-in school comparisons are again difficult to make due to the unequal number of African- American students compared to other students participating in the program. On an overall basis however, the percentage of African-American students in the high/upper-middle group at 25.7% was 8 I fl fl fl fl lower than the percent of other students in this group (38.2%). In addition, almost 75% of the African-American students were in the low/lower-middle group compared to less than 66% of other students. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT RESULTS DRA and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery Subtests. A total of 142 Reading Recovery students (66% pretest-posttest match rate) and 562 comparison students (65% rate) had matching 2005 DRA subtest scores, demographic information, and 2004 DRA/Observation Survey factor scores. Wilks lambda indicated significant multivariate effects for Reading Recovery status (Fa 1380 = 6.83, p \u0026lt; .001), special education status ( Ft.ego = 3.93, p \u0026lt;.01), and 2003-2004 DRA/Observation Survey factor scores (F4 ego = 111.32, p \u0026lt;.001). Follow-up univariate tests indicated significant Reading Recovery status effects on Hearing and Recording Sounds (^2,093 = 6.34. p \u0026lt;.01) and DRA scores (F2,693 = 9.99, p \u0026lt; 001). Post hoc analyses revealed that: (a) Reading Recovery students in both the Incomplete Program = 36.32\nS =+0.43) and the Complete Program (M = 35.96\nES =+0.37) had a significantly higher adjusted mean Hearing and Recording Sounds score than students in the comparison condition (Ivf = 33.82)\nand (b) students in the comparison condition //Vf = 17.64) and the Complete program 16.42\nES = -0.18) had a higher mean DRA score than students receiving the Incomplete Program (M = 13.02\nES = -0.68). No program by race interaction effect occurred, indicating that African-American and other students were equally affected by participation in Reading Recovery. DIBELS Subtests. A total of 67 Reading Recovery students (31%) and 53 comparison students (28%) had matching 2005 DIBELS subtest scores, demographic information, and 2003-2004 DIBELS factor scores. Wilks lambda indicated significant multivariate effects for Reading Recovery status (3212 = 4.12. p \u0026lt; .001). special education status ( E4.106 = 3.50. p \u0026lt;.01). and 2003-2004 DRA factor scores (4,106 = 3.69. p \u0026lt;.01). Follow-up univariate tests indicated significant Reading Recovery status effects on Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (2,109 = 3.39. p \u0026lt;.O5) and Oral Reading Fluency (2109 = 6.59, p \u0026lt; .01). Post hoc analyses revealed that: (a) Reading Recovery students in both the Incomplete Program (M = 54.81\nES = +0.65) and the Complete Program {M = 54.02\nES = +0.58) had a significantly higher adjusted mean Phoneme Segmentation Fluency score than students in the comparison condition (M = 47.23 )\n(b) students in the comparison condition (M = 40.35) and the Complete program (M- 33.45) had a higher mean Oral Reading Fluency score than students receiving the Incomplete Program {M = 21.62\nES = -0.91)\nand (c) students in the comparison condition had a higher adjusted mean Oral Reading Fluency score (A/f = 40.35) than students receiving the Complete program (Af = 33.45\nES =-0.33). No program by race interaction effect occurred, indicating that African-American and other students were equally affected by participation in Reading Recovery. ITBS Reading NCE. A total of 140 Reading Recovery students (65%) and 562 comparison students (65%) had matching 2004-2005 Reading Recovery subtest scores, demographic information, and 2003-2004 DRA factor scores. The ANCOVA indicated statistically significant effects for Reading Recovery status (2,591 = 6.62. p \u0026lt;.001). free lunch status (1,591 = 7.83. p \u0026lt;.01). and 2003-2004 DRA/Observation Survey factor scores (1,591 = 195.81. p \u0026lt;.001). No program by race interaction effect occurred, indicating that African-American and other students were equally affected by participation in Reading Recovery. Post hoc analyses showed that comparison students (M = 53.82) had a significantly higher adjusted mean ITBS Reading NCE score than students receiving the Complete program (AT = 46.65\nES = -0.34). The effect size for African-American students receiving a complete program was -0.46. versus 0.09 for those receiving an incomplete program. Exploratory and supplemental results. Exploratory analyses of second and third grade results showed no effects on 2004-2005 DRA and effect sizes ranged from -0.16 to -1.34 on ITBS for Reading Recovery students. These results need to be viewed with caution, however, due to low matching rates in second grade and the lack of a true pretest measure. There was no relationship between number of teacher years of experience with Reading Recovery and ITBS standardized 9n residuals or DRA standardized residuals for students receiving a complete program, after controlling for 2003-2004 DRA factor scores and student ethnicity, gender, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status. Likewise, there was no relationship between number of sessions attended and ITBS residuals. A statistically significant, small positive relationship was observed between total number of sessions attended and DRA residuals (r = 0.21, p \u0026lt;.O5). The median effect size estimate across all posttests for African-American students with a complete program was Md = +0.17, with a range from -0.25 to +0.52. For African-American students receiving an incomplete program, effect size estimates ranged from -0.78 to +0.50, with a median of -0.23. Thus, receiving a complete program yielded a directional advantage for African-American students, whereas the reverse occurred for receiving an incomplete program. FINDINGS Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? 4 m  The Reading Recovery program had equal effects on African-American and other students.  Students receiving the complete program had significantly higher adjusted means than comparison students on Phoneme Segmentation (ES = +0.58) and Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words (ES = +0.36)  Students receiving an incomplete program had significantly higher adjusted means than comparison students on Phoneme Segmentation (ES = +0.65).  Students in the comparison condition had significantly higher adjusted means than students receiving a complete program on Oral Reading Fluency (ES = -0.33) and on ITBS Reading NCE scores (ES = -0.34).  Students in the comparison condition had significantly higher adjusted means than students receiving an incomplete program on DRA test scores (ES = -0.68) and Oral Reading Fluency (ES = -0.91).  No relationship was observed between teacher experience with Reading Recovery and 2004- 2005 student achievement outcomes after controlling for 2003-2004 achievement, student ethnicity, gender, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status.  No relationship was observed between number of Reading Recovery sessions and 2004- 2005 ITBS Reading NCE scores, after controlling for 2003-2004 achievement, student ethnicity, gender, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status.  A small but statistically significant positive relationship was observed between number of Reading Recovery sessions and 2004-2005 DRA test scores, after controlling for 2003-2004 achievement, student ethnicity, gender, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status.  The median effect size estimate across all posttests for African-American students receiving a complete program was +0.16\nfor students receiving an incomplete program, the median effect size estimate was -0.09.  Positive effects of Reading Recovery tended to be associated with lower-order or beginning reading skills like phoneme segmentation and hearing and recording sounds, while less positive effects tended to be associated with more complex, higher-order skills like Oral Reading Fluency and DRA scores. n What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-2005? Classroom observations indicate that Reading Recovery teachers instructional practices conform to the recommendations and requirements of the program throughout the district. Given that there are no national comparisons or benchmarks for the RRIAl, a mean of approximately 3.50 on a 4.00 scale suggests a high level of Reading Recovery implementation in the district. Site researchers noted only three areas in which some teachers were observed below average to some degree, reading familiar stories, appropriate pacing of the lesson components, and working 10 with letters and or/words. However, the observed lack of quality implementation in some classrooms in reading familiar stories and appropriate pacing of the lesson components might begin to explain the lack of oral reading fluency, text reading, and ITBS effects for Reading Recovery students. There appears to be a high level of consistency of program delivery across the district. This suggests that generally teachers have a high degree of fidelity to the model. In addition, the student achievement analysis found that there was no relationship between teacher experience with Reading Recovery and 2005 achievement scores after controlling for 2004 achievement and other variables. What is the level of participation in Reading Recovery by African-American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? The data indicate that African-American students made up a majority of the students participating in Reading Recovery in the 18 schools included in this study. This finding shouldnt be surprising since African-Americans are the majority of the students in each of the participating schools. Information compiled from the student achievement analyses also indicates the percentage of African-American students receiving Reading Recovery services (75.2%) is very similar to the ethnic makeup of the students used for comparison purposes (73.6%). However, Reading Recovery students were more likely to receive free or reduced-price lunch (84.3% vs. 73.1%) and special education services (15.7% vs. 8.6%) than comparison students, and were more likely to be male (58.1% vs. 48.0%). What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other student participants in Reading Recovery in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued? What proportion of scheduled sessions are actually held, and what are the reasons for missed sessions? Table 11 indicates that African-American students, when compared with Reading Recovery students of other ethnicities, were nearly equally represented in two of the three program specific measures examined. The percentage of African-American students Discontinued at 43.3%, was not considerably different than the percentage of students Discontinued of other ethnic backgrounds, 46.3%. In addition, in the Incomplete status, the percentage of African-Americans (21.3%) was, again, not much different than students from other ethnicities (25.9%). African- American students, at 34.5%, were more likely to be Recommended for further actions than other students (27.8%). 4 African-American students were, however, more likely to be in the Low/Lower Middle reading group at the end of the school year than other students (74.3% vs. 61.8%). This finding may present a dilemma for the program and the district. While African-American students are generally progressing similarly to other students on program-specific measures, at the end of the school year, the majority of African-American students are still struggling to maintain or falling below grade level in reading. About 22% of scheduled sessions were missed due to the teacher being unavailable (7%), student absence (6%), teacher absence (5%), or the student being unavailable (4%). These missed sessions could contribute to the mean number of sessions per week being 3.5. What are the perceptions of Reading Recovery teachers regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Reading Recovery teachers had extremely favorable attitudes toward the Reading Recovery program. Teachers reported a thorough understanding of the program, that they received adequate professional development which was valuable for improving the achievement of African- American students, and that they had the support from teachers in the school. The majority of Reading Recovery teachers also reported receiving extensive administrative, Reading Coach, 114 - V and district support. The items and areas of most concern were sufficient planning time, enough tutors to fully implement the program, and time to routinely monitor first grade students progress after they were discontinued from Reading Recovery tutoring. Additionally, Reading Recovery teachers indicated that only 63.6% of faculty, staff, and administration believe that all children can read at grade level or above by the end of third grade and that parents are more involved in the literacy program of this school as a result of the program. Reading Recovery teachers, on average, appear to be more experienced and better educated. Eighty percent had a Masters degree or beyond in educational attainment and 100% reported at least six year or more years of teaching experience. In addition, the majority (68.18%) reported one to five years of experience as a Reading Recovery teacher. The four teachers in-training were equally committed and positive about the program and overall, felt they were well prepared to work with students. The teachers in-training also felt strongly that Reading Recovery helped to equalize learning and achievement opportunities for African-American students. Teachers in-training emphasized the importance of using data to monitor the progress of the students to develop effective teaching strategies based on the individual needs of each student. Finally, teachers in-training also reported the need for more time to plan and implement as well as for continuing support to understand Reading Recovery components more thoroughly. What are the perceptions of principals, regular first-grade teachers, and other teachers in the school regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A review of Reading Recovery principal interview responses indicates that principals are very supportive and actively involved in the program. All of the principals interviewed reported that they understood the program and were advocates of their program having a positive impact on overall student achievement. Principals indicated that the one-on-one tutoring program supplements and enhances the schools balanced literacy program. Most principals agreed that, through Reading Recovery, the achievement gap is being bridged for their African-American students. Principals also noted that teachers were very supportive of the program. K-3 classroom teachers shared the principals enthusiasm for the Reading Recovery program, as evidenced by responses on the RRCTQ. A majority of the classroom teachers reported that they had an understanding of the program, were generally supportive, and that student achievement had been positively impacted. Principals and teachers also agreed that most of the resources and support needed for effective program implementation was available\nhowever, they also reported an ongoing need for additional teachers and tutors to support more students and time to plan, review student progress, and collaborate together. All (102) of the teachers responding agreed that their school should continue the Reading Recovery program. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Reading Recovery students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents were generally very pleased with the results of the Reading Recovery program. Approximately 90% of the parents responding to the parent survey agreed that: Reading Recovery tutoring had improved their childs reading skills and because of Reading Recovery their child will be successful in school. Less than three percent of those who responded reported that they did not know or understand the program. In the three open-ended responses parents indicated a very good understanding of the program, appreciation of one-on-one tutoring sessions, and the improvement in their childs reading skills. However, a few parents did express the need for longer and more frequent tutoring sessions and more opportunities to talk with the Reading Recovery teacher about their childs progress. 12 RECOMMENDED PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS In summary, the Little Rock School District has a strong Reading Recovery program implementation. Teachers, principals, and parents appear to be actively engaged in the program and the district tries to provide adequate levels of resources and support. However, the lack of clear program effects may be the result of factors that have been identified in prior studies of Reading Recovery. Possible factors and recommended program modifications to produce greater achievement gains include:  It would be expected that Reading Recovery students would perform better on assessments more closely aligned with the instructional program (DRA, DIBELS, Observation Survey) than the norm-referenced, group-administered ITBS. In m particular, Reading Recovery enhanced learning for complete program students tests involving Phoneme Segmentation and Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words, However, it had less positive effects on tests assessing Oral Reading Fluency and ITBS Reading NCE scores. Reading Recovery is also most likely serving as a first line of defense for students who many later be referred for special education services. While classroom teachers are receiving help for their neediest students, this may put an extra burden on the program that was designed to help students who could benefit quickly from quality instruction in 20 weeks. w  The district should examine the feasibility of expanding the program to provide tutoring support to all incoming first grade students who need services. In the 2004- 2005 school year, the 18 Reading Recovery schools indicated that 365 students needed tutoring services and approximately half of this number received a complete round of lessons and were discontinued. The Reading Recovery program guidelines state that if a school has more children who need services than one teacher can provide, then it will never realize the full benefit of Reading Recovery for later school achievement. It is especially difficult for classroom teachers to continue to scaffold discontinued students learning while supporting a large number of other at-risk students reading below grade level. q q q  In addition to an expanded program, a transitional plan for students who have discontinued should be explored. The data suggest that after Reading Recovery students are discontinued and return to the classroom at the same reading level as their peers, they may not maintain the same growth rate and achievement does not keep pace with their peers. Although research indicates that former Reading Recovery students perform well in their classes, some slippage in achievement can occur (Clay, 1993). Although Clay (1993) provides guidelines for transition back to the classroom after the student is discontinued\nit is possible that students were returned to the classroom without benefit of a transition plan. As noted by Reading Recovery teachers, few teachers have the opportunity to routinely monitor discontinued students progress. Such a plan could involve daily monitored reading RI that would provide another buffer against slippage. Also in tutoring sessions, children have opportunities to read texts at their instruction level on a daily basis, but they may not have adequate time for daily reading in the regular classroom. q q  The quality of instruction that Reading Recovery students receive once they return to the classroom is an important factor that was not examined in this study. Increased professional development of classroom teachers would enable them to understand how to integrate their Reading Recovery students back into the classroom once they have been discontinued, and how to provide the appropriate instruction and feed back so that students would continue to improve. 13m9 4 Bl  Increased partnership with UALR to help with the development of a transition plan and professional development for classroom teachers would seem to be warranted given these study results.  Additional research could provide critical insight into the optimum classroom environment for discontinued, recommended, and incomplete Reading Recovery students. Further studies might also provide a more in-depth analysis of a small number of students whose gains were maintained to determine what factors contributed to their success and how these factors can be generalized to all Reading Recovery schools. EXPECTATIONS OF PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS Reading Recovery has valuable components that, with adaptation and modification, can be even more effective. With the recommended program modifications, the Little Rock School District could expect: Progressive gains on standardized test scores for African-American students over time. An increased number of students involved in the Reading Recovery program. A greater adherence to Reading Recovery guidelines, especially those relating to transition services and the number of sessions required for optimum benefits. More teachers throughout the district better able to serve students at-risk in the areas of literacy and reading. Sustained achievement of students upon completion of the Reading Recovery program. A stronger relationship with UALR professionals that would continue to provide the Little Rock School District with the most up-to-date research findings and best instructional practices for reading and literacy instruction. 14 4 4 EVALUATION OF READING RECOVERY IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: 2005 AGGREGATE REPORT INTRODUCTION The Little Rock School District began implementing Reading Recovery during the 1995-1996 school year in two schools. During the first four years of implementation, the Little Rock School District was part of the Pulaski County Reading Recovery Site. By 1998 there were eight trained Reading Recovery teachers in seven schools in the Little Rock School District. In July 1999 the district became a Reading Recovery Site hiring a full-time teacher leader. In 2000-2001 the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) began conducting the Reading Recovery teacher training for the district. Between the 2000-2001 and 2004-2005 school years UALR trained 17 Reading Recovery teachers for the district. At the end of the 2004-2005 school year the Little Rock School District had 28 trained Reading Recovery teachers serving 18 of the 34 elementary schools in the district. Reading Recovery is one of eight literacy programs, interventions, and/or models used by Little Rock schools. Currently, Little Rock School District funds are used to support the program. The goal of Reading Recovery is to dramatically reduce the number of first grade students who have difficulty learning to read and write and to reduce the cost of these learners to educational systems. Reading Recovery is a short-term intervention program of one-to-one tutoring for the lowest-achieving first graders. The intervention is most effective when it is available to all students who need it and is used as a supplement to good classroom teaching. Individual students receive a half-hour lesson each school day for 12 to 20 weeks with a specially trained Reading Recovery teacher. As soon as students can read within the average range of their class and demonstrate that they can continue to achieve, their lessons are discontinued and new students begin individual instruction. Reading Recovery was developed by New Zealand educator and researcher Dr. Marie M. Clay over 20 years ago. More than one million first graders have been served in 49 states since Reading Recovery was introduced in the United States in 1984. Professional development is an 15 essential component of the Reading Recovery program. Training utilizes a three-tiered approach that includes teachers, teacher leaders, and university trainers. In schools, special trained teachers work with children. At the site level, teacher leaders work with children, train teachers, and assist and monitor implementation with the help of a site coordinator. In university training centers, trainers work with children, train teacher leaders, engage in research, and support program implementation at affiliated sites. Professional development for teachers and teacher leaders begins with year-long graduate level study and is followed by ongoing training in succeeding years. Since 1984, the program reports that 80% of students who completed the full 12 to 20 week series of lessons, and 59% of all students who have any lessons in Reading Recovery, can read and write with the average range of performance of their class. Program follow-up studies also indicate 4 that most Reading Recovery students also do well on standardized tests and maintain their gains in later years. The evaluation plan for the Reading Recovery program in Little Rock School District included: (1) analyses of Reading Recovery student achievement and program data, (2) principal, teacher, and 4 parent surveys and interviews, and (3) observations of Reading Recovery tutoring sessions. This 4 report is part of a larger district study of four programs evaluating the effectiveness in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students. This report includes results from 18 elementary schools participating in the Reading Recovery program. RESEACH QUESTIONS The major goals of this research study were to evaluate African-American student achievement outcomes, program implementation fidelity, and principal, teacher, and parent perceptions concerning the Reading Recovery tutoring program for first grade students. Student achievement results on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), Developmental Reading Assessment a (DRA), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement were analyzed to compare the progress of first graders enrolled in the Reading a Recovery intervention program and comparison students in 2004-2005. Program implementation ratings were obtained from observations of 14 tutoring sessions in nine schools. The survey and a 16interview results are based on the perceptions of 156 classroom teachers in grades K-3, 22 experienced Reading Recovery teachers, four teachers in-training, 10 principals, and 95 parents. The Reading Recovery evaluation was structured around the following seven primary and supplemental research questions\nPrimary evaluation question:  Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) evaluation questions:  What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-2005? q  What is the level of participation in Reading Recovery by African-American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school?  What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other student participants in Reading Recovery in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued? What proportion of scheduled sessions are actually held, and what are the reasons for missed sessions?  What are the perceptions of Reading Recovery teachers regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of principals, regular first-grade teachers, and other teachers in the school regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Reading Recovery students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 17EVALUATION DESIGN AND MEASURES The evaluation period extended from February 2005 through May 2005. The evaluation design was based on both quantitative and qualitative data collected from Reading Recovery intervention observations, principal and teacher in-training interviews, classroom teachers, Reading Recovery teachers, parent surveys, and Reading Recovery program data. Reading Recovery student-level achievement data on the ITBS, DRA, DIBELS, and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement was received in fall 2005 and incorporated in this report. The primary data collectors in this study were Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) trained site researchers. Site researchers (1) conducted Reading Recovery intervention observations, (2) administered the Reading Recovery teacher survey, (3) conducted principal and teacher in-training interviews, and (4) collected program data. Principals at Reading Recovery schools were responsible for administering the classroom teacher and Reading Recovery parent surveys. Participants Little Rock School District is located in Central Arkansas and serves approximately 26,500 students, with African-Americans representing approximately 67% of the district student population, in 49 schools in an urban area with a population of 184,000. In the 2004-2005 school year 18 elementary schools and 230 first grade students, of which 173 are African-American, 27 are Caucasian, 22 are Hispanic, and the remaining 8 are other ethnicities, participated in the Reading Recovery program in the district. However, the schools indicated that 365 first grade students needed Reading Recovery services. Three schools were in their first year of program implementation (Bale, 1 Stephens, and Terry) and survey and observation data were not collected from these schools. However, randomly selected teachers in-training and principals from these three schools were interviewed for this study. A profile of the Reading Recovery schools and participants included in this study is shown in Table 1. The profile data were obtained from either the 2003-2004 Common Core of Data from the National Center for Education Statistics, the 2004-2005 Reading Recovery Site Report for Little Rock from the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University, or provided by the district. As indicated in Table 1, the number of years schools have implemented the 18 Reading Recovery program ranged from one to 10. The Reading Recovery schools were predominately African-American, ranging from 50% of the student population to 99%. The district reported that four Reading Recovery schools did not receive Title I funding and the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced price lunch ranged from a low of 33% to a high of 94% at all Reading Recovery schools. Table 1 Reading Recovery Participating Schools: 2004-2005 School Name Students Teachets Aftican- Ametican Bale Elementary School 319 27 87% School Wide Populalion Asian 0% Hispanic Caucasian 7% 5% %Freeand Reduced Lurch 88.4% ReaiiTgRecowiyParticiMnlWaTOlion % Below Proficient* Number of RR Teachets Number of K-3 Teachers Nutter of RR Yeats n RR Students Piogram 45% 10 Bi Booker Arts Magnet ES 605 55 55% 1% 4% 40% 63.3% 22% 20 32 Bl Carver Magnet Elem School Chicot Elem School David ODodd El School Franklin Incentive Elem School Geyer Springs El School 496 536 261 387 299 43 44 27 35 23 54% 75% 58% 97% 89% 3% 3% 40% 53.0% 18% 16 16 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 10% 86.6% 38% 17 26 10% 32% 68.9% 30% 10 0% 2% 943% 51% 12 18 4% 7% 806% 48% Bl Gibbs Magnet El School Meadowdiff Elem School Mitchell Incentive Elem School Otter Creek El School Rightsell Incentive Elem School Stephens Elem School 310 349 156 511 262 499 30 24 22 31 26 39 52% 77% 98% 56% 99% 95% 4% 3% 41% 43.9% 11% 14 1% 9% 13% 85.1% 44% 0% 0% 2% 91.7% 59% 1% 6% 36% 55.7% 19% 14 10 0% 0% 1% 876% 49% 1% 3% 2% 90.6% 59% 18 B! Terry Elem School 577 36 51% 7% 5% 36% 475% 12% 18 Wakefield Elem School 451 29 83% 0% 15% 2% 920% 33% 13 18 Watson Elem School 456 34 95% 0% 3% 2% 932% 64% 15 10 Williams Magnet Elem School 461 36 52% 9% 1% 38% 33.6% 10% 13 13 Wilson Elem School 285 27 89% 1% 4% 6% 91.9% 36% H 4 * Proficiency levels are based on 2003-2004 school year ACTAAP Grade 4 Reading, Language, and Writing data. 1 8 1 4 7 2 3 3 5 1 8 9 2 7 1 8 8 7 2 8 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 9 5 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8 3 2 3 1 1 3 3 9 5 4 19Instrumentation Six instruments were developed by CREP to collect the evaluation data: a classroom observation tool, a principal interview, a teacher in-training interview, a Reading Recovery teacher questionnaire, a classroom teacher questionnaire, and a parent survey. A detailed description of each instrument follows. Classroom Observation Measure Reading Recovery Implementation Assessment Instrument (RRIAl) 4 The RRIAl was designed for observation in Reading Recovery classrooms and was developed by researchers at CREP and Reading Recovery faculty at UALR. Ratings are organized Ql around two categories: Reading Recovery Program Components and Reading Recovery Program Strategies. The RRIAl observation tool provides an overall rating for each category based on a rubric that ranges from (1) poor or unacceptable\n(2) below average in comparison to other programs observed\n(3) meets nearly all standards of program quality\nand (4) above average in comparison to other programs. The RRIAl has been aligned to the essential components of the Reading Recovery program. Sub-categories of the program components include: reading familiar stories, reading a story that was read for the first time the day before, working with letters, writing a story, assembling a cut-up story, and introducing and reading a new book. The tool was designed to be utilized by experienced Reading Recovery trainers during the 30-minute tutoring session with additional time allocated for observer questions and examination of student records after the session. Site observers received observation protocol training in February 2005 and a copy of the observation guidelines are included in Appendix A. Site observers were also asked to provide overall perceptions of Reading Recovery program implementation in the Little Rock schools. Interviews Reading Recovery Principal Interview Randomly selected principals from 10 Reading Recovery schools participated in approximately 45-minute phone interviews with CREP researchers. Interview questions addressed 20 the principals general experiences and reactions to the Reading Recovery implementation and the associated outcomes for the school, students, teachers, and parents. A copy of the principal interview protocol with summary responses is included in Appendix B. Reading Recovery Teacher in-Training Interview In the 2004-2005 school year, six teachers were beginning their first year as a Reading Recovery teacher and considered as teachers in-training. Three were located in experienced schools and three were located in the schools beginning their first year of implementation: Bale, Stephens, and Terry. Four randomly selected teachers in-training participated in an approximately 45-minute phone interview with CREP researchers. Interview questions addressed the teachers in-training experiences with and perceptions of the Reading Recovery program implementation with regard to such areas as q resources, professional development, parent involvement, support, and student outcomes. A copy of the teacher in-training interview protocol with summary responses is included in Appendix C. Surveys Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (RRCTQ) 4 Reading Recovery teachers in the 15 experienced Reading Recovery schools were asked to complete the RRTQ, which includes four sections. Section I contains 20 items to which teachers respond using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed the general impressions of the Reading Recovery program, professional I development, support for the program, impacts on student achievement, and alignment of state and district reading and language arts standards. In a second section, teachers were asked to indicate to what degree the listed items occurred. The focus of the four items were (1) administration support of Reading Recovery teacher efforts\n(2) Reading Coach support of Reading Recovery teacher efforts\n(3) district support of Reading Recovery teacher efforts\nand (4) the time to routinely monitor first n grade students progress after they were discontinued from tutoring. Open-ended questions asked Reading Recovery teachers to respond to the statements: Whaf are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? What are the weakest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? Do 21 you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? A final section of the RRTQ contained general questions regarding years of teaching experience, race, and level of education. Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (RRCTQ) All K-3 teachers who taught in experienced Reading Recovery schools were asked to complete the RRCTQ, which contains 13 items to which teachers respond using a five-point Likert- type scale that ranges from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed the specific program elements of Reading Recovery such as: understanding of the program, impacts on student achievement, teacher support for the program, and parent involvement. Open-ended questions asked classroom teachers to respond to the statements: Please describe your understanding of the Reading Recovery program in your school. What are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery Bl program? Do you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? final section of the RRCTQ contained general questions regarding years of teaching experience, race, and level of 4 education. Reading Recovery Parent Survey (RRPS) Parents whose first grade children were currently receiving Reading Recovery tutoring services were asked to complete the RRPS, that contains six items to which parents respond using a five-point Likert-type scale that ranges from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed general impressions of the program such as: improvement in childs reading skills, childs enjoyment of tutoring sessions, and opportunities to communicate with the Reading Recovery teacher. Both English and Spanish versions were made available to schools. Open-ended questions asked parents to respond to the statements: Please describe your understanding of the Reading Recovery tutoring program at your childs school. What is the BEST thing about your childs involvement with the Reading Recovery tutoring program? What CHANGES would you like to see in the Reading Recovery tutoring program? A final section of the RRPS asked parents to indicate the race, grade, and age of their child. 22Program Data Reading Recovery program information was obtained from data submitted to the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University in 2004-2005. Each year the schools and district submit teacher, school, and student program data and receive a site report. The report represents an examination of Reading Recovery student outcomes for Little Rock and accounts for all children served by Reading Recovery within the site during the 2004-2005 school year. In addition, attention is given to implementation factors that may be supporting or hindering the success of the intervention at the site. Student Achievement Results ^1 In addition to the program data, interviews, survey, and observation tools cited above, reading achievement data are derived from scores on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS), Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement. A description of each assessment follows. Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS). The ITBS Form A is a norm-referenced group administered test that measures the skills and achievement of students in grades K-8 and was developed at The University of Iowa. The ITBS provides an in-depth assessment of students achievement of important educational objectives. Tests in Reading, Language Arts, Mathematics, Social Studies, Science, and Source of Information yield reliable and comprehensive information both about the development of students skills and about their ability to think critically. The emphasis of the K-1 assessment is on academic skills found in the early childhood curriculum. These tests are neither measures of readiness for school nor readiness to read. Rather, they assess the extent to which a child is cognitively prepared to begin work in the academic aspects of the curriculum. Test materials have been extensively field tested for psychometric soundness and evaluated for fairness to gender. racial, ethnic, and cultural groups. Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA). The Developmental Reading Assessment provides teachers with a method for assessing and documenting primary students development as readers over time with a literature-based instructional reading program. The DRA is designed to be 23used in K-3 classrooms with rich literacy environments. The assessments are conducted during one- on-one reading conferences as children read specially selected assessment texts. A set of 20 stories, which increase in difficulty, are used for the assessment. The DRA evaluates two major aspects of reading\naccuracy of oral reading and comprehension through reading and retelling of narrative stories. Questions pertaining to concepts about print are also included in the assessment with lower leveled texts. Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). DIBELS is a tool for early identification of children with potential literacy problems and an assessment of response to instruction. The assessment is individually administered to K-3 children at least three times per year. The DIBELS assessment is designed to enable educators to modify their approach if a student is not on course to achieve reading goals. The Early Childhood Research Institute on Measuring Growth and Development at the University of Oregon constructed DIBELS (2000). The Institute reports it has validated the instruments ability to predict outcomes and has tested its reliability with young children across the country. Reading Recovery schools that have received Reading Excellence Act or Reading First grant funding use the DIBELS assessment in Little Rock. An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement: Reading Recovery Subtests. Six tasks in Marie Clays (2002) An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement (Observation Survey) were used as pretest and posttest measures. The Survey tasks have the qualities of sound assessment instruments with established reliabilities and validities. The purpose of the assessment is to determine 4 r an appropriate level of text difficulty and to record, using a running record, what the child does when reading continuous text. All six tasks of the Observation Survey were administered to Reading Recovery students in the fall (start of the school year) and/or at entry to the intervention. These scores served as pretest measures in the evaluation design. The six tasks were also administered to Reading Recovery students upon discontinuing or exiting from the program. In the spring (end of school year), the six tasks were again administered to all students who received Reading Recovery services during the year. Year-end scores served as the posttest measures in comparing the progress made by Reading Recovery children in the various end-of-program status groups. 24PROCEDURE Data for the evaluation were collected March-May 2005 for the 2004-2005 school year. On February 16, 2005 principals were given an overview of the evaluation and timelines for collecting data. On March 3-4 and April 14-15, 14 tutoring observations were conducted in nine randomly selected experienced Reading Recovery schools by two Reading Recovery content experts from Georgia State and The Ohio State Universities. Only experienced Reading Recovery teachers were observed. On March 23 a CREP trained site researcher administered the Reading Recovery teacher survey to experienced teachers at a regularly scheduled monthly meeting at UALR. In April and May principals in experienced Reading Recovery schools administered the classroom teacher q questionnaire to K-3 grade teachers. Principals also administered the parent survey to parents whose children were currently receiving first grade intervention services in the 15 experienced Reading Recovery schools. Four teachers in-training and 10 principals were randomly selected from the 18 Reading Recovery schools to participate in a phone interview in April and May conducted by CREP researchers. Reading Recovery program data were received in summer 2005 from the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University. Student achievement data were received from the district in fall 2005. METHODS - STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Sample. The sample included 1,094 first grade students who attended one of 18 schools that implemented the Reading Recovery program during the 2004-2005 school year. Of these, 230 q were referred to the Reading Recovery program, and 864 were in the comparison group. The percentages of students who were African-American or of Limited English Proficiency were similar q between the comparison and Reading Recovery groups (73.6% versus 75.6% and 7.3% versus 8.7%, respectively\nsee Figure 1). However, Reading Recovery students were more likely to be eligible for q free or reduced-price lunch (84.3% versus 73.1%), to receive special education services (15.7% versus 8.6%), and to be male (58.1% versus 48.0%\nsee Figure 1). A random sample of about 11 comparison students was selected from each school (total n = 189) for administration of the DIBELS and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery test batteries. 25I Figure 1. Percentage of Students with Selected Demographic Characteristics by Reading Recovery Status 100.0 90.0------- 84.3 80.0 70.0 - 60.0 - 50.0 - 40.0 - 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 73.6 75.6 ft l?\u0026gt;( if African American 73.1 15.7 p. 7.3 8-7 8.6p^ 48.0 58^1 S Free lunch LEP Special Education Male  o 7- ??  B Comparison  Reading Recovery a Reading Recovery Treatment Level. In the Reading Recovery program, students who are deemed to have attained a reading level equivalent to their peers are assigned an end-of-program status of discontinued. Children who received 20 or more weeks of Reading Recovery services, but who do not attain a reading level equivalent to their peers are assigned a status of recommended action. Children who have received fewer than 20 weeks were assigned incomplete program status. Children designated as unknown status were removed from the program in fewer than 20 weeks due to reasons other than the school year ending. Other children were designated as having moved during the school year. As shown in Figure 2, the median number of sessions of recommended action {Md = 68.50\nn = 68) children was actually higher than the median for discontinued students {Md = 57.00\nn = 90). The medians for incomplete students {n = 46) and unknown students (n = 12) were very similar {Md = 44.63 versus 46.08, respectively\nsee Figure 2). a For the purposes of this study, recommended action and discontinued students were categorized as complete program\n incomplete and unknown students were categorized as incomplete 26program\n\" and students who moved were eliminated from the analyses. This left a total of 216 Reading Recovery students: 158 with a complete program, and 58 with an incomplete program. Figure 2. Boxplot of Number of Reading Recovery Sessions by Student Status Upon Exiting the Program 80- (A C o w (A Q s Ct  40- M o o I- 20- Discontinued T T T Incomplete Moved Unknown Recommended action o o o T * T Status  Note. Heavy dark lines indicate median. Gray boxes indicate interquartile range. 'Whiskers indicate range, excepting extreme values. Extreme values denoted by circles or asterisks. n 21 Measures. Pretest (covariate) measures included: (a) Spring. 2004 Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) scores, (b) Fall 2005 Observation Survey: Reading Recovery program subtests that included Letter Identification, Word Test, Concepts About Print, Writing Vocabulary, Hearing and 4 Recording Sounds in Words, and Text Reading\nand (c) the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) subtests in Letter Naming Fluency. Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency, and Word Use Fluency. Outcome measures included Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading Normal Curve Equivalent Scores. DRA scores. Observation Survey: Reading Recovery subtests, and DIBELS subtests administered in Spring 2005. To achieve some parsimony in the analyses, pretest measures were subjected to a principal components analysis, and regressionbased factors scores were constructed for pretest DRA and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery 4 4 subtests, and the DIBELS subtests. A single factor accounted for 60.1% and 60.5% of the variance in the DRA and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery subtests, and the DIBELS subtests, respectively. Outcome measures included the DRA and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery. DIBELS subtests, and ITBS Reading. Student achievement analyses. A 3 (Program Status) by 2 (African-American versus other) multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was performed on two test batteries, using student gender, the pertinent pretest factor score, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status as covariates. One test battery included the DRA and subscales of the Observation Survey: Reading Recovery. The second test battery included subtests for the DIBELS. A similar 3 by 2 analysis of covariance was performed on ITBS Reading NCE scores using the 2003-2004 DRA score as a pretest covariate. For the multivariate analyses, Wilks lambda was used as the criterion of multivariate significance. Where Wilks lambda indicated a significant multivariate effect, follow-up univariate analyses were performed on each outcome variable using the Bonferroni procedure to control for experimentwise alpha. When significant univariate results were found, post hoc analyses were performed using Scheffes procedure. Effect size estimates were computed for all posttests by subtracting the adjusted mean for the comparison group from the adjusted mean from the Reading Recovery group within levels of race, then dividing by the total standard deviation of the posttest (Cohen. 1988: Hedges \u0026amp; Olkin. 1985). For ITBS Reading NCE effect size estimates, the population 28 standard deviation of 21.06 was used. The effect size estimates (ES) represent the standardized difference between treatment and comparison group means, which allows for comparison across measures that have different metrics. Exploratory and supplementary analyses: Impact of teacher experience and number of sess/ons. The number of years experience with Reading Recovery was recorded for each teacher. Years experience ranged from 1 to 10 years. ITBS Reading NCE scores and DRA test scores for 2004-2005 were regressed on 2003-2004 DRA/RR Observation Survey factor scores and dummy-coded variables representing student ethnicity, free lunch status, gender, special education status. and LEP status. Standardized residuals were saved from each of these analyses and plotted against teacher years of experience to graphically assess the nature of the relationship between teacher experience and teacher effectiveness in Reading Recovery for students who received a Complete program. Standardized residuals for each of these 2004-2005 tests were also plotted against number of Reading Recovery sessions received for all students (i.e., those who received either a Complete or Incomplete program). DATA COLLECTION Table 2 provides the type of measures, instrument names, administration timeline, and a brief data collection description for each of the instruments. 29 4 Table 2 Data Collection Summary t-fl Type of Measure Site Visits Surveys Interviews Data Analysis and Reporting Instrument RR Implementation Assessment Instrument RR Teacher Questionnaire RR Classroom Teacher Questionnaire RR Parent Survey Principal Interviews Teacher In-Training Interviews ITBS, DRA. DIBELS, \u0026amp; Observation Survey\nRR Little Rock School District Reading Recovery Aggregate Report Timeline Spring 2005 Spring 2005 Spring 2005 Spring 2005 Spring 2005 Spring 2005 Fall 2005 Description/ _____ Response rate  14 conducted  22 respondents/100%  156 respondents/  approximately 90%  95 respondents/9 Spanish  approximately 86%_____  10 conducted  4 conducted  1,094 first grade students . 230 RR  864 comparison group  1 Final Report RESULTS The results of the Reading Recovery evaluation are presented below by instrument. A copy of each instrument is included in Appendix I. In the Conclusion section, findings are synthesized across instruments to address each research question. J -i Reading Recovery Implementation Assessment Instrument (RRIAl) As indicated in the description of the RRIAl, the observation procedure primarily focuses on Reading Recovery Program Components and Program Strategies. The site observers used a four-point rubric (1 = poor or unacceptable, 2 = below average in comparison to other programs observed. 3 = meets nearly all standards of program quality, and 4 = above average in comparison to other programs) to rate the frequency and application of components and strategies of Reading Recovery instruction. More precise data regarding observed Reading Recovery instructional practices measured by the four-point rubric for the 14 observations are presented in Table 3. 30 Reading Recovery Program Components The overall mean rating for the Reading Recovery Program Components was 3.46 which suggests a high level of program implementation. Of the six subcategories the highest observed ratings were\nassembiing a cut-up story and introducing and reading a new book observed to be above average in 85.7% of tutoring sessions. The program component subcategory with the lowest observed rating was working with tetters and/or words using magnetic tetters observed to be above average in only 35.7% of tutoring sessions. Reading a famitiar story and reading a story that was read for the first time the day before was observed to above average in 64.3% of visits. The six program components were observed in at least 92.9% of 14 tutoring sessions. Reading Recovery Program Strategies Cl The overall mean rating for the Reading Recovery Program Strategies was 3.61 which also indicates a high level of instructional effectiveness. Of the eight During Tutoring Lesson subcategories the highest observed rating was for appropriate text setected throughout the tesson 4 observed to above average in 85.7% of tutoring sessions. The During Tutoring Lesson subcategory with the lowest observed rating was echo of focus throughout the tesson observed to be above average in just 42.9% of tutoring sessions. For the After Tutoring Lesson, has high expectations for the chiid and articutates chitds strengths and needs were observed to be above average in 78.6% of tutoring sessions and accurate and up-to-date records were observed to be above average in 71.4% of tutoring sessions. The Reading Recovery Program Strategies were observed in at least 85.7 of tutoring sessions. Observer Perceptions of Reading Recovery Program Implementation Site observers reported being impressed with the dedication and commitment of the Reading Recovery teachers to the fidelity of the teaching procedures and the integrity of the implementation of the program. Almost all teachers observed were meeting all the standards, guidelines, and expectations of the Reading Recovery Council of North America and the North American Trainers m Group. Since observations occurred in March and April, most of the students observed were second- round students, since teachers had discontinued their first-round students. Teachers reported that students who did not discontinue from Reading Recovery during the first-round were being considered 31for further intervention services. Site observers also reported that the Reading Recovery program in the Little Rock district receives an adequate allocation of time, materials, and other resources. However, several teachers and principals expressed the need for additional Reading Recovery n w teachers in their schools. Reading Recovery teachers also reported teaching literacy small groups the rest of the day which enables them to give their Reading Recovery students more attention during the instructional day. By teaching these literacy groups, site observers suggested that the Reading Recovery teachers expertise and knowledge gained from their training and practice benefits children across 4 q q several grade levels. During visits site observers suggested areas in which some Reading Recovery teachers needed improvement. These instructional areas included: (1) hearing and recording sounds in words\n(2) making and breaking\n(3) doing away with the helping hand\nand (4) maintaining up-to-date records on each child as a basis for instruction. A summary of observers general findings for each classroom observation is included in Appendix D. q q q q q 32 ATable 3 Reading Recovery Implementation Assessment Instrument: Spring 2005 N=14 1. II. Please check: Observed: 0 Not Observed: N Please rate each of the following items in terms of the quality of implementation by using the appropriate number according to the following scales: Quality 1 = Poor or unacceptable 2 = Below average in comparison to other programs obsen/ed 3 = Meets nearly all standards of program quality 4 = Above average in comparison to other programs Obseived Not Observed Reading Recoveiy Progtam Components % Poor 4 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 92.86 7.14 Reading familiar stories Reading a story that was read for the first time the day before - incorporates nmning record Working with letters and /or words using magnetic tetters 0.0 0.0 0.0 92.86 7.14 Writing a story 0.0 92.86 7.14 Assembling a cut-up story 0.0 92.86 7.14 Introducing and reading a new book 0.0 4 (Overall rating: Follows the Reading Recovery lesson frameworks Observed Not Obsen/ed Reading Recovery Program Strategies % Poor 92.86 7.14 Appropriate pacing of lesson components 0.0 4 92.86 7.14 100.0 0.0 Appropriate text selected throughout the lesson Appropriate prompts are used for scaffolding the child to problem solve 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Child is engaged in constaictive problem solving 7.14 92.86 7.14 Echo of focus throughout the lesson 0.0 92.86 7.14 Procedures are adjusted according to child's needs 0.0 92.86 7.14 Balance of fluency phrasing practice and problem solving 0.0 85.71 7.14 Opportunities to develop phonological awareness within the lesson 0.0 85.71 85.71 7.14 7.14 Accurate up-to-date records Articulates childs strengths and needs 0.0 0.0 85.71 7.14 Has high expectations for the child 0.0 % Below Average 1429 7.14 4286 0.0 0.0 0.0 % Below Average 21.43 7.14 7.14 0.0 7.14 0.0 7.14 7.14 7.14 0.0 0.0 Quality % Meets 21.43 28.57 1429 21.43 7.14 7.14 Quality % Meets 7.14 0.0 1429 21.43 42.86 1429 7.14 21.43 14.29 14.29 14.29 Overall Rating: \"NOTE: Item percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from observers. % Above Average 6429 6429 35.71 71.43 85.71 85.71 Mean:3.46 SD\n0.54 % Above Average 64.29 85.71 78.57 71.43 42.86 78.57 78.57 64.29 71.43 78.57 78.57 Mean: 3.61 SO: 0.66 33 INTERVIEW RESULTS Reading Recovery Principal Interview Principals at 10 of the Reading Recovery schools were randomly selected to participate in a 45-minute phone interview. Principals were asked a series of questions regarding general program implementation, classroom level changes, program results, professional development opportunities and parental and community involvement. A summary of the principal responses can be found in Appendix B. Overall, principals were positive about the Reading Recovery program and the impact it has had on their schools. Most of the schools have been utilizing Reading Recovery for several years and faculty and staff are very comfortable with the program. Nearly all of the principals interviewed were instrumental in bringing Reading Recovery to their schools, and the decision to utilize Reading Recovery was made after considerable research and thoughtful consideration. Principals reported that Reading Recovery is a wonderful complement to the schools balanced literacy programs. The one-on-one attention the reading Recovery students receive is overwhelmingly the most effective of the strategies that the program employs. Other effective strategies mentioned included push-ins, literacy groups, running records, and the writing component. Principals reported being active advocates in their Reading Recovery programs. They described their roles as one of support and involvement, .ranging from oversight of the program to more direct involvement including student selection for the program, review of student progress, and i - ongoing meetings and collaboration with the Reading Recovery specialists. All principals noted that teachers were very supportive of the Reading Recovery program and appreciated the impact it has had on overall student achievement. Most of the resources needed for effective program implementation are available\nhowever, principals reported an ongoing need for books, additional teachers and tutors, and more planning time. Principals described the African- American population as being well-served by Reading Recovery, and most agreed that through Reading Recovery the achievement gap is being bridged for their African-American students. In most of the schools, African-American students are a large percentage of the Reading Recovery program. 34and the early intervention provided by Reading Recovery allows the students to be encouraged by being successful at a younger age. Teacher in-Training Interview In the spring 2005, four teachers in their first year in the Reading Recovery program were contacted by phone for a 30 to 45-minute phone interview. The teachers in-training were attending classes concerning Reading Recovery instruction, as well as working in their schools implementing the Reading Recovery strategies. Feedback from the teachers was solicited regarding general program information, classroom level changes, results, professional development, and parental involvement and support. A summary of the teacher in-training responses can be found in Appendix C. All teachers described the process of integrating Reading Recovery into the schools literacy program as well planned and organized. Reading Recovery teachers work individually with the lowest performing students and then follow up individual instruction with literacy groups. Reading Recovery teachers reported a thorough selection process that involved collaboration with the classroom teacher and comprehensive testing and assessment. In general, the Reading Recovery teachers reported strong support from the classroom teachers, that classroom teachers appreciate the effectiveness of the one-on-one approach, and the fact that Reading Recovery is able to provide this type of support. freeing the classroom teacher to work more effectively with the other students. 4 The Reading Recovery teachers in-training strongly felt that Reading Recovery helped to equalize learning and achievement opportunities for African-American students at their schools. Most 4 of the students in Reading Recovery are African-American, and these teachers were able to see positive gains. Reading Recovery helps all struggling readers by actively engaging them in reading and allowing them to feel successful at reading. Through detailed daily records and periodic testing all inherent in the Reading Recovery programstudent progress is effectively monitored and lessons can be planned that are tailor made for each individual child. Additionally, the Reading Recovery program often serves as a first line of defense in determining special education needs. Often, Reading Recovery will be used prior to special education referral. 4 Teachers in-training emphasized the importance of the daily data reports they collect and 4 view them as essential to the success of the program. Reading Recovery teachers collect and use 35 data to monitor the progress of the students and to help develop appropriate, effective teaching strategies based on the individual needs of the student. Data are often shared with the classroom teacher and the principal so that a collaborative team develops to help plan and implement instruction for the student. The Reading Recovery teachers in-training report a significant increase in self-confidence and improvement in overall attitude among the Reading Recovery students. As the students begin to experience success, they are less frustrated and angry. This improvement in attitude improves their classroom behavior and relationships with other teachers and students. Some of these teachers have seen dramatic increases in test scores and other achievement data, while others have not yet been able to see these gains. Again, from the perspective of the teachers in-training, the Reading Recovery program is helping to close the achievement gap of African-American students. Reading Recovery teachers in-training reported professional training that ranged from adequate to thorough. Changes in Reading Recovery course instructors led to some confusion for some of the teachers in-training, and some reported the need for increased classroom hours. However, overall, these teachers reported feeling well-prepared to work with the students. The strategies they have learned have been very helpful. Although the teachers in training reported having significant classroom experience, they are learning unique techniques that have been very beneficial. 4 There is considerable support from the district teacher, and all teachers expressed a desire and need for continuing support in the upcoming school year. Parental support has been mixed. although all the teachers reported active attempts at engaging the parents in the Reading Recovery program. Reading Recovery teachers in-training concurred that the exposure to print and the one-on-one attention were the most critical elements of the Reading Recovery program. Teachers reported the need to understand several components better, including the make and break lesson and the writing component\nand the need for time to plan and implement the program is always a factor. Overall, the components of Reading Recovery were well understood and effective. r,1 36 SURVEY RESULTS Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ) Descriptive results. The results of the RRTQ are summarized in Table 4. Reading Recovery teachers had extremely favorable attitudes toward the program at their schools. As 4 illustrated in Table 4,100% of teachers strongly agreed or agreed that they have a thorough understanding of the program, teachers in their school are generally supportive of the program, ongoing communication exists between Reading Recovery tutors and classroom reading teachers, Reading Recovery monthly meetings are effective and useful, instructional materials needed to implement the Reading Recovery program are readily available, and the Reading Recovery program is aligned with state and district reading and language arts standards. There was also strong agreement that Reading Recovery teachers received support, with 86.4% of the teachers reporting that the school administration and Reading Coach supported their efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher. Almost 75% (72.7%) of teachers reported receiving extensive district support. The items with the highest level of disagreement (disagree and strongly disagree) concerned Reading Recovery teachers having sufficient planning time (36.4%), enough tutors to fully implement the Reading Recovery program (18.2%), and time to routinely monitor first grade students progress after they were discontinued from Reading Recovery (9.1 % not at all, and 72.7% somewhat). Demographic data. All Reading Recovery teachers (100%) reported having at least six years of teaching experience and 31.8% reported at least six years experience as a Reading Recovery teacher. Approximately 85% (86.4%) of Reading Recovery teachers reported having Masters Degree or beyond. The majority of Reading Recovery teachers were Caucasian (72.7%) R R and 13.6% reported their ethnicity as African-American. Open-ended responses. Reading Recovery teachers were asked to respond to three open-ended questions in addition to the 24 items on the questionnaire. Respondents were instructed to list the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery program, the weakest aspects of the Reading Recovery program, and reasons for continuing or discontinuing Reading Recovery at their school. There were 22 Reading Recovery teachers who filled out the questionnaire, and 21 of those also answered the open-ended questions. Many of the Reading Recovery teachers answered in detail. 37 listing multiple responses for each of the questions. The open-ended responses are summarized in Table 5, and a verbatim listing of teacher responses can be found in Appendix E. Of the 21 who listed strong aspects of the Reading Recovery program, the two most popular answers were individualized, one-on-one instruction, 57.1%, and the ability to reach the lowest performing students and bridge the achievement gap for these students, 47.6%. Reading Recovery teaching strategies and components were listed in 19% of the responses, and both the early intervention element and the support from the other teachers were listed in 14.3% of the responses. Respondents were also asked to list what they considered the weakest elements of the Reading Recovery program. Time was a factor in many of the responses with lack of planning time most frequently mentioned at 33.3%. Lack of time to complete the lesson was mentioned in 19.0% of 4 the responses. Teachers' inability to help all the students who need help was also mentioned in 19.0% of the responses. All of the 21 teachers responded positively to the question Do you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? Why?\"\nand 20 teachers elaborated on their positive response listing reasons for continuing Reading Recovery. The ability of Reading Recovery to help J struggling readers was listed in half of the responses (50.0%), and strong progress and results were mentioned in 40.0% of the responses. The fact that Reading Recovery decreases the number of special education referrals was listed in 15.0% of the responses. There was one respondent who pointed out that although he/she felt Reading Recovery should be continued at the school, there needed to be better implementation to make it effective. Overall, as reflected in the other items on the questionnaire, the open-ended responses were very positive. Reading Recovery teachers appear knowledgeable and committed to their roles as Reading Recovery teachers and believe strongly in the positive impact the program is having at their schools. Based on survey response and comments provided through the open-ended questions. Reading Recovery teachers are able to see a strong impact from the individualized instruction they provide. 38 Table 4 Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ): 2004-2005 N = 22 ______________________________________________ RRTQ Items 1. a 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. I have a thorough understanding of the schools Reading Recovery program. I have received adequate initial and ongoing professional development/training for implementation of the Reading Recovery program. Our Reading Recovery program has positively impacted student achievemenl Because ot Reading Recovery, Literacy Group interventions occur for students in grades K-3. Overall, this program seems valuable for improving the achievement of African-American students. Reading Recovery teachers are given sufficient planning time to implement the program. Our school has enough tutors to fully implement its Reading Recovery program. The administration protects the time for daily uninterrupted Reading Recovery tutoring and Literacy Small Group interventions. Because of our Reading Recovery program, parents are more involved in the literacy program of this school. This school has a plan for evaluating aU elements of our Reading Recovery program. Teachers in this school are generally supportive of the Reading Recovery program. Ongoing communication exists between Reading Recovery tutors and classroom reading teachers. Reading Recovery teachers are encouraged to communicate concerns, questions, and constnictive ideas regarding the program. Our Reading Recovery program adequately addresses the requirements of children with special needs. Reading Recovery teachers participate in the special education referral process to provide early literacy intervention. Because of Reading Recovery, teachers in this school spend more time working togethrer to plan instruction and review student progress. Reading Recovery monthly meetings (continuing contact) are effective and useful. Instructional materials (books, assessments, and other resources) needed to implement our Reading Recovery program are readily available. The faculty, staff, and administration believe that all children can read at grade level or above by the end of third grade. The Reading Recovery program is aligned with state and district reading and language arts staiidards. Percent Strongly Agree And Agree 100.00 95.45 95.45 95.45 86.36 54.55 59.09 7727 63.64 86.36 100.00 100.00 81.82 7727 86.36 81.82 100.00 100.00 63.64 100.00 1. 3. Percent Neutral 0.00 4.55 0.00 0.00 4.55 9.09 18.18 22.73 18.18 13.64 0.00 0.00 18.18 13.64 9.09 18.18 0.00 0.00 31.82 0.00 4. RRTQ Items To what degree did your school administration support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? To what degree did your school Reading Coach support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? To what degree does the district support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? To what degree did your schedule allow the time to routinely monitor first grade students' progress after they were discontinued from Reading Percent Extensively 86.36 86.36 72.73 18.18 Percent Somewtiat 13.64 4.55 2727 72.73 Percent Disagree and Strongly Disagree 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.55 0.00 36.36 18.18 0.00 13.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.09 4.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.55 0.00 Percent Not at all 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.09 ________Recovery tutoring?________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NOTE: Item percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents. 39Table 4, continued Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ): 2004-2005 N = 22________________________________________ Total Years of Experience in this School Less than 1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years More than 15 years Number of Respondents Total Years of Experience in any School Less than 1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years More than 15 years ______________Number of Respondents How many years experiences have you had as a Reading Recovery teacher? Less than one year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years More than 15 years ______________Number of Respondents Educational Attainment Bachelor's degree Master's degree Master's plus 20 hrs Education Specialist's Doctoral ______________ Number of Respondents ______________________ Ethnicity/Race Asian or Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaskan Native Black, not of Hispanic origin Hispanic, regardless of race White, not of Hispanic origin Multi-racial / Other Number of Respondents Percent 0.00 36.36 31.82 18.18 9.09 22 Percent 0.00 0.00 18.18 13.64 68.18 22 Percent 0.00 68.18 31.82 0.00 0.00 22 Percent 13.64 36.36 40.91 9.09 0.00 22 Percent 0.00 0.00 13.64 0.00 72.73 9.09 22 NOTE: Item percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents. 40 Table 5 Open-Ended Responses on the RRTQ Question Positive Comments 1. What are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery Program? 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. 9. Teacher Selection_________________ __________Responses_________________ One-on-one intervention/ Individualized lessons Bridging achievement gap by reaching lowest performing students Reading Recovery teaching strategies and components of instnjction Early intervention Support from other RR teachers Continuing contact with students Professional training and development Addresses both reading and writing Increases students' confidence Frequency Percent 12 10 57.1 47.6 10. Collaboration with classroom teacher 11. Close contact with parents_________ Total Responses N = 21 43 32 221 11 19.0 14.3 14.3 9.5 9.5 9.5 4.8 4.8 4.8 Sample responses  Working one-on-one with an at-risk child. \nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_703","title":"\"Research Brief: SMART/THRIVE in the Little Rock School District\"","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["\"Research Brief: SMART/THRIVE in the Little Rock School District\""],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/703"],"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\nUniversity of Memphis. Center for Research in Educational Policy\nCREP ' Center for Research itt Educational Policy Center for Research in Educational Policy Research Brief The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free\n1-866-670-6147 SMART/THRIVE in the Little Rock School DistrictII II II CREP ' Caiierftr Research in Educational Policy II II Center for Research in Educational Policy The Unwersity of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 Research Brief II SMART/THRIVE in the Little Rock School District II II II II II II January 2006 n II IB Lyle Hull Davis, Ph.D. Ying Huang Center for Research in Educational Policy n John Nunnery, Ph.D. Old Dominion University Gail Weems, Ph.D. University of Arkansas at Little RockII II RESEARCH BRIEF: SMART/THRIVE IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT II II II M M Background SMART and THRIVE are programs designed by two veteran Little Rock School District (LRSD) teachers. In 1999, the programs were implemented in LRSD, designed to serve at-risk students. These programs have been funded in part by the Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement Program and the National Science Foundation. The overall purposes of the SMART and THRIVE programs are to provide supplemental pre-algebra support to students entering Algebra I and to prepare students to meet state standards in Algebra I, respectively. The programs intentions/goals are to: a) provide a solid foundation for Algebra, b) encourage mathematical exploration\nc) make mathematics fun\nd) enable students to achieve academic success in mathematics\nand e) create the confidence necessary to pursue higher level mathematics courses. The SMART program meets for two consecutive weeks during the summer. The THRIVE program meets every other Saturday during the Spring semester. SMART uses a co-teaching model with one teacher and one high school student mentor while THRIVE uses a co-teaching model with two certified teachers. Purpose, Plan and Participants M HI ni Purpose This report summarizes the 2004-2005 evaluation study of the SMART and THRIVE programs. The global purpose of the evaluation was to: a) examine the extent to which the programs have been effective in improving and remediating academic achievement of African-American students\nb) provide cumulative evidence of SMART/THRIVE implementation practices and c) document perceptions of participants, parents and teachers as well as the level of student participation in SMART and THRIVE. Research Questions IH IH Seven research questions provided the focus of the evaluation. The primary research question focused on the extent to which SMART/THRIVE programs improved and/or remediated math achievement among African American students. Evaluation questions were\n1. Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? IH 2. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? 3. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? IH 4. What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? IH 5. 6. IH What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 7. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 1n n Plan n The evaluation was conducted during the spring of 2005. To determine how effectively SMART and THRIVE were meeting the needs of African American students, a cadre of qualitative and quantitative measures were used. II Evaluation Measures II Five measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: standardized achievement test scores, classroom observations, surveys, focus groups, and program-developed achievement benchmarks. Administration procedures and descriptions of instrumentation are provided below. IB Direct Classroom Observation Measures  School Observation Measure (SOtvf'): Examines frequency of usage of 24 instructional strategies. IB  Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA)-. Provides measurement of the degree of learner engagement in cooperative learning, project-based learning, higher-level questioning, IB experiential/hands-on learning, student independent inquiry/research, student discussion and students as producers of knowledge using technology.  Math Addendum: Rates teachers actions in emphasizing conceptual understanding, connecting the content to daily life, and promoting students confidence in mathematics. IB Surveys Student Survey. Collects participant impressions and perceptions regarding the satisfaction, shortcomings, strengths and influence of SMART and THRIVE programs. IB  Parent Survey. Collects parent perceptions and impressions regarding availability (access), influence, transportation and opinions of SMART and THRIVE. IB  Algebra I Teacher Survey. Collects Algebra I teacher perceptions and impressions of influence of program on student performance as well as global awareness and opinions of SMART and THRIVE. IB  SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey. Collects SMARTfTHRIVE teacher perceptions and impressions regarding professional development, influence of technology, influence of program on student performance and overall opinions of the program. Focus Groups II  Student Focus Groups: Collects program participant impressions and perceptions regarding the influence of each program on Algebra I achievement, test scores, and self-confidence about math. Also collects information about SMART and THRIVE program weaknesses, strengths and needs. IB  Mentor Focus Group: Collects high school SMART mentor impressions and perceptions of SMART program strengths, weaknesses, needs, and influence on students. n student Records  Attendance records from the 2004 SMART program and 2005 THRIVE program were examined in light of achievement data. Participation rates are reported as well. 2n V student Academic Performance n Math Benchmark Test (2003 - 2004): The Benchmark Test is a state-mandated criterion-referenced test aligned with state math standards and developed by Arkansas teachers and the Arkansas Department of Education. Benchmark scores are reported as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. The mathematics portion of the exam is comprised of multiple-choice and open response items. fl fl End of Course Exams (EOC) 2004-2005: The Algebra I End of Course Examination is a criterion- referenced test with questions that align with the goals and subject-specific competencies described by the Arkansas Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Algebra I Course Goals. The purpose of the test is to assess student mastery of Algebra I knowledge and skills. Students take the exam at the completion of Algebra I. Scores are reported as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. fl  ITBS Math Subtests: The Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Math) assesses students ability to compute, deal with math concepts and solve problems dealing with numeration, graph/table interpretation, and computation. This test is norm-referenced. fl  SMART and THRIVE Pre/Post Tests: The curriculum-based tests are measures of student ability to utilize algebraic concepts to solve equations, judge inequalities, evaluate and simplify basic problems, graph equations, plot data, and solve applied problems. The THRIVE program tests were comprised of content more advanced than that of SMART program tests. Pre-test problems were identical to post-test problems in both programs. fl Procedure fl fl To examine the quality of teaching and extent to which students were engaged in learning, CREP researchers conducted a series of random observations during the THRIVE program. Targeted observations were conducted in February and March of 2005 using the SOM, Math-addendum, and RSCA instruments. Observations were scheduled for random classrooms participating in the THRIVE program on three different days. fl To examine teacher, student, and parent perceptions, surveys and focus groups were designed and lead by CREP researchers. fl To examine effects of SMART and THRIVE on achievement, data from a variety of norm-referenced, criterion-referenced and informal tests were collected. District and state student performance measures were administered in late spring. Historical records of prior student Benchmark performance were collected through the district database. fl Table 1 summarizes the data collection procedure. fl  fl 3d fl Table 1. Data Collection Summary fl Type of Measure Instrument Number Completed/Data Source Total Description fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl Targeted Classroom Observations Surveys Focus Groups Achievement T ests Attendance Data SOM  RSCA Math AdderxJum SMART/THRIVE Teacher Parent Algebra I Teacher Student student Focus Group Mentor Focus Group Math Benchmark Test 2003 - 2004 and 2004 -2005 End of Course Exams (Spring, 2005) ITBS Informal curriculumbased measures (specific to SMART/THRIVE) SMART 2004 Atterxiance THRIVE 2005 Attendance 5 19 5 10 SMART/18 THRIVE 21 SMART/35 THRIVE 25 SMART/33 THRIVE 70 SMART/142 THRIVE 21 Participants 2 Participants See Table 2 210 students (88% African American) 143 students (84% African American) *A series of observation sessions in which random THRIVE classes were observed. During a one hour period, one* RSCA form was completed every 15 minutes. Completed during Spring, 2005 THRIVE sessions. Items specific to SMART and THRIVE were included in the surveys and administered to all groups in Spring, 2005. THRIVE student surveys were distributed in class and collected by researchers. THRIVE teacher surveys were distributed during a faculty meeting and administered by researchers. THRIVE parent sun/eys were distributed by teachers via students, returned to the school and sent to researchers. Algebra I teacher surveys were distributed through the district, returned to the school and sent to researchers or sent directly to researchers. During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental pennission slips were included in the focus groups. Each focus group inten/iew lasted approximately 45 minutes. Mentors from the SMART 2004 program were contacted by researchers. Researchers used the Student Focus Group protocol modified to capture mentor perceptions to conduct an onsite, 45-minute focus group with 2 of the 7 mentors. Researchers used data collected from three major math measures designed by indeperxJent entities and distributed throughout the LRSD for achievement data analysis. Researchers used the attendance and demographic data from SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 to examine level of participation among African American students One observation session was comprised of three rather than four observation segments due to scheduling constraints. 4IB n Participants KM HR The primary context of observations, focus groups and surveys was the 2005 THRIVE program. Additional attendance data were collected from the 2004 SMART program. Survey and focus group responses concerning both programs also were collected. Both programs served students from the following middle schools: Cloverdale, Dunbar, Forest Heights, Henderson, Mablevale, Mann, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest. Students from the following high schools were also served: Central, Fair, Hall, McClellan, and Parkview. Table 1 provides a breakdown of students, mentors, teachers and parents who participated in surveys and focus groups. Table 2 provides a breakdown of the student achievement samples. n The sample sizes used for achievement comparisons varied depending upon the availability of achievement data. The following table illustrates the student populations as they relate to comparison or SMART/THRIVE programs. Due to the relative small total number of 8* grade, non-African American students participating in SMART/THRIVE (n=11), eighth grade comparisons were only made for African American students. I Table 2. Description of Subject Pool H s* grade ECX) Comparison 82 Thrive SMART SMARTS THRIVE 15 48 African- American 32 M 9^ grade EOC aggrade ITBS 581 790 NonAfrican- American 150 356 African- American 70 72 NonAfrican- American 14 12 African- American 13 17 NonAfrican- American 0 0 African- American 23 23 NonAfrican- American 3 2 n Findings M Direct Classroom Observation Results Targeted Observations II n 11 Analysis of data collected using SOM, the Math Addendum and RSCA during the five observation sessions revealed that THRIVE teachers are using a variety of instructional strategies aligned with Arkansas state-designed Student Learner Expectations (SLE). Team teaching and collaborative/cooperative learning dominated the curriculum. Additionally, notable use of higher level questioning strategies and teachers acting as coaches rather than lecturers was observed during the sessions. The Math Addendum items revealed that teachers were frequently emphasizing conceptual understanding over rote learning during the observation sessions. Teachers were also noted promoting students confidence and flexibility in doing mathematics. Overall, students in the THRIVE program had a high level of interest and were observed being engaged in instruction that emphasized practical and conceptual learning in a comfortable, student-centered setting. The RSCA results suggest that the THRIVE program integrated technology into the curriculum. Average or above average implementation (e.g., level of intensity, meaningfulness, quality) was noted for activities associated with higher level thinking strategies, teamwork and independent technology use. Survey Results I Student Survey The overall trend in response types was positive for survey items pertaining to THRIVE and SMART. Regarding THRIVE, students demonstrated high levels of agreement for items probing self-confidence, comfort level, growth related to problem solving skills, and overall satisfaction with the program. Two areas in 5 h H u n which some students showed some disagreement were related to generalization and application. Students indicated an overall satisfaction with the program on the open ended portion of the student survey, but did not feel that the program changed their study habits or helped them apply information to real life situations. Responses to items pertaining to SMART indicated agreement among students for items pertaining to preparedness, motivation, and application. Open-ended items also suggest overall satisfaction with SMART\nhowever, a number of student suggestions were made about changing the time during which the summer program met. Parent Survey H U H Responses from the 35 parents who responded to the THRIVE parent survey suggest that they have positive feelings towards the program. Agreement or strong agreement was consistently noted across all survey items. No negative responses to the items were reported. The 21 SMART parent respondents provided similar information, particularly for those items reflecting their satisfaction with the teachers, their childrens preparedness for Algebra I. and their comfort level with the program meeting time. None of the respondents indicated disagreement or strong disagreement with any of the items. Neutral responses were noted for one item pertaining to whether SMART had improved attitudes about math. Parent perceptions measured with analysis of open-ended responses reflected an overall satisfaction with both programs. When asked specifically about transportation, the majority of parents did not cite it as an issue\nhowever, some parents reported access to transportation being inconsistent. Algebra I Teacher Survey  11 Algebra I teachers responses to SMART items showed slightly more varied distribution across the survey scale (Strongly Agree/Agree-Neutral-Strongly Disagree/Disagree-Dont Know). Responses from the 33 Algebra I teachers responding to THRIVE items and the 25 Algebra I teachers responding to SMART items were globally positive. These teachers agreed that both programs had improved students self-confidence and positively impacted student achievement\nhowever, they responded more neutrally to items probing the programs influence on childrens problem solving ability and influence on general Algebra I instruction. When asked specifically about whether they felt SMART and THRIVE had had an impact on achievement differences among races, a small percentage disagreed, approximately one third responded neutrally or did not know, and the remaining 48% agreed. Ml SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey Ml Ml SMART/THRIVE Teachers responses overwhelmingly favored agreement or strong agreement with items pertaining to positive attributes among professional development, resources/materials, methodology and instructional delivery within the THRIVE and SMART programs. Two items for which some teachers responded neutrally were related to the extent to which they felt the program had improved their own ability or their students ability to use calculators. No negative responses were noted among the items\nhowever, some teachers indicated that the limited time available for teaching was considered a shortcoming for both SMART and THRIVE. Focus Groups Ml Student Focus Group  w Students perceptions of both programs suggest that there is a generally positive feeling towards SMART and THRIVE. Specifically, the consensus among the twenty-one students who participated in the focus groups was that SMART and THRIVE bolstered math skills and boosted confidence. Despite some mild distaste for required meeting times (Saturdays and during the summer), most student participants indicated that both SMART and THRIVE had reinforced Algebra I skills and provided a fun. relaxing context for learning. Many students noted that the programs had provided new strategies for problem solving and made Algebra I less daunting. There were no outwardly negative comments made. 6 I Il II Mentor Focus Group II II Two high school student mentors who had participated in SMART, 2004 provided input about the SMART program primarily. The mentors viewed SMART as a preparatory program focused on reviewing prealgebra principles. Both mentors, however, also noted that SMART provided a unique environment in which competition helped motivate students and make math more enjoyable. The mentors global perception of the program was that SMART allowed students to get a head start on Algebra 1 principles with a simultaneous boost in confidence. II Attendance II II Collectively, the 2004 SMART program served 210 students for which attendance data were available and the 2005 THRIVE program served 143 students for which data were available. Compared to the general population served by the district (69.0% African American), SMART and Thrive programs served a higher percentage of African American students (88.0% SMART\n84.8% Thrive\n89.6% Both). The attendance rates for SMART yielded an average rate of 97% (range: 94%-100%) and the attendance rates for Thrive yielded an average rate of 90% (range\n81%-100%). Achievement I II II The results provide evidence that, in 9** grade, the SMART program, the Thrive program, or the combination of the two programs were associated with substantial improvements in the achievement on the Algebra I EOC exam. The strongest evidence was noted among students who participated in both programs. Eighth grade students participating in any combination of the programs were less likely than their non-parficipant peers to perform at basic or below basic proficiency levels on the Algebra I EOC exam. More specifically, African American students in both eighth and ninth grade who were enrolled in any of the three program configurations were more likely to perform at proficient or advanced levels of proficiency than the nonparticipant comparison group. Gains were also noted on the program-specific assessments for the SMART and Thrive programs. No significant differences between comparison and SMART/THRIVE students nor racial differences were noted among scores from the ITBS. n Conclusions n Each of the major research questions will provide a framework around which the conclusions for the present study will be structured. II Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? n Student-level achievement analyses show that participation in SMART. Thrive and a combination of programs is associated with improvements in achievement when compared to non-participating students. Specifically, our interpretation of these outcomes focuses on the extent to which these differences in achievement relate to growth among African American students. II n Findings suggest that participation in any of the program configurations was associated with a major reduction in the achievement gap between African American students and students of other races, from a one standard deviation deficit on 2003-04 Benchmark scores to virtually no difference on 2004-5 Algebra I EOC scores. For 2004-05 S' graders, the results suggest a positive effect of the programAfrican American students attending any program configuration were more likely to achieve at Proficient or Advanced levels than peers who did not attend. Although results were favorable for African American students enrolled in both programs, no statistically significant effects were noted from ITBS scores for race or program, demonstrating that although SMART and Thrive have a direct and significant impact on curriculum-based performance measures, they have a lesser influence on standardized, norm-referenced math achievement performance. In light of the current goal in increasing achievement among African American students, particularly in the domain of mathematics, the results from EOC and Benchmark exams are highly important. These results 7 are encouraging as implementation of the SMART and THRIVE programs seems to have had a positive impact on African American student achievement. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? Il a Overall, the level of participation for both programs was high. The majority of students enrolled in SMART, THRIVE or both programs missed no sessions, yielding average attendance rates of 90% or above. Additionally, data from classroom observations suggested a high degree of student engagement and participation across classrooms within the THRIVE program. Given the demographic characteristics of the participants, the significant quantitative relationship between participation and student achievement gains, and the high participation rates among participants, the results provide evidence that SMART and THRIVE have a positive impact on participation among African American students and that participation has had significant influence on achievement. II What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? If During classroom visits, the majority of observed instructional strategies were couched in a collaborative teaching model focused on higher level thinking skills and student grouping. Students were observed utilizing technology throughout their lessons and were highly engaged during observation sessions. Teachers frequently posed hypothetical questions to groups to accommodate use of higher-level thinking skills and generate more varied student responses. Even when students were engaged in independent seatwork, which was rare, teachers were observed circulating among various student groups, requesting more in-depth questioning strategies in their problem solving approaches. Additionally, students were frequently observed encouraging fellow students in preparation for competition while working in collaborative groups. What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? M U U SMARTfTHRIVE teachers responded positively to survey items for both programs. Teachers generally believed that the core components of both programs supported student learning, particularly among students who were struggling to perform well in Algebra I classes. Additionally, they reported feeling comfortable with expectations and resources, noting that having opportunities to collaborate with other teachers and utilize competition to motivate students were essential to success. Teachers cited time constraints as a recognized weakness across both programs. The general consensus was that they wanted more time to develop deeper skills among students and to reinforce concepts taught in Algebra I classrooms. None of the respondents expressed feelings of dissatisfaction with either program and demonstrated the highest percentage of positive responses when compared to other groups (students, parents, Algebra I teachers). What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? ai Algebra I teachers were generally positive in their reaction to both SMART and THRIVE programs, representative of an overall feeling that SMART and THRIVE facilitated student learning and generalized to the K Algebra 1 classroom. Algebra I teachers noted observed improvements among students participating in SMART/THRIVE and globally agreed that the programs effectively enabled students to use technology in the Algebra I classrooms. A number of Algebra I teachers indicated that both programs needed to reach a larger and broader group of students. There were no indications that Algebra I teachers disliked SMART or THRIVE\nhowever, there was some evidence that some respondents felt that the programs did more to supplement what was being taught in Algebra I classrooms than cultivate more meaningful understanding of algebraic concepts. I 8 h sa am What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? n Students were somewhat mixed in their reactions to SMART and THRIVE, although they were generally positive. While most of the students believed that SMART and/or THRIVE helped them with Algebra I class, others indicated mild dislike for time spent doing academics during summer and/or Saturdays. Students perceived the programs as motivating, fun, and globally helpful. It was rewarding to note that despite some dislike of the programs scheduled meeting times, most students indicated a desire to continue with the programs modifying very little about the actual instructional delivery. These comments were corroborated by comments students made during focus group sessions. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? n Parents' reactions to both programs were globally positive. Specifically, parents commented that the motivational, fun nature of the programs was fostering an interest in math among students. H M M The change that parents requested most was that the program be expanded both in breath/scope and duration. None of the parents cited negative features\nhowever, some parents requested more rigor within the curriculum. When asked specifically about transportation, a concern of SMART/THRIVE program heads, the majority (84%) of parents indicated that it was not a problem. Of the parents who did indicate that transportation was a problem, inconsistency of service was cited as the primary issue. The majority of parents felt comfortable sending their children to the programs during the summer and/or on Saturdays, particularly because transportation on those days/during that time did not conflict with work or other activities that typically dominated school days. II Compliance Remedy Questions Recommendations M n A series of recommendations have been designed to provide guidance for future implementation of SMART and THRIVE programs. The recommendations primarily focus upon two broad areas in which the Little Rock School District could take additional action to ensure proper implementation of SMART/THRIVE as they relate to academic improvement among African American children: 1. Expansion 2. Accountability n Program Expansion II M  A recurring theme among surveys collected during this evaluation related to a general desire to expand both programs. Specifically, teachers and parents generally called to extend the duration and frequency of the programs as well as expand the programs to meet the needs of larger and broader groups of students. Before expanding the frequency and duration of each program, the district would be well-served to explore effective ways to recruit students and teachers to expand the programs.  An expanded program would have to include more SMART/THRIVE teachers directly proportionate to the number of students added to the program. The success of the program is in part dependent upon the amount of flexibility afforded to each teaching team as well as the ratio of teachers to students. If more students are added without adding more teachers, the design of the SMART/THRIVE model will be compromised. u  Given the unique cooperative teaching model used in the program, pre-program professional development and staff training of new SMART/THRIVE teachers would be paramount to successful expansion. Specific focus on technology use and development of higher level 9 b a If If thinking skills would help further develop the current model. Additionally, the level of problem solving and critical thinking used in SMART/THRIVE classrooms would require new SMART/THRIVE teachers to receive training aimed at fostering these skills in the context of Algebra. Current and new SMART/THRIVE teachers would benefit from professional development aimed at applying algebraic concepts in authentic contexts (i.e.. real world application) and/or simulations. If If If  Currently, THRIVE meets every other week during the Spring semester. The district should consider expanding the number of participating students and teachers by using alternating Saturdays to accommodate the same numbers of students per THRIVE session rather than simply making each session bigger. For example, if the district were to add 100 additional THRIVE students and proportional numbers of teachers, they would be less likely to disrupt the current model by creating two groups of THRIVE students meeting on different Saturdays during each month. The numbers, therefore would remain more manageable and the staff more effective in delivering instruction and fostering learning rather than discipline during competition and class time. SMART could potentially integrate two, two-week summer sessions to serve more students. al If If  In light of budgetary constraints, the prospects of expanding SMART/THRIVE programs could be limited potentially\nhowever, LRSD should examine alternative funding opportunities to bolster prospects for expansion. The following list, although not exhaustive, provides examples of alternative funding sources that potentially match the goals and purposes of SMART/THRIVE: American Society of Engineering Education, The National Science Foundation, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, the Spencer Foundation and the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Some grant opportunities could foster potential secondary opportunities for qualified African American students to participate in further research and competition. The purpose in seeking these grants is bifurcate in nature: to obtain funding for expansion\nto explore further opportunities aimed at enriching mathematics and fostering motivation among African American children If If  Transportation costs and availability must be considered if the programs are expanded. Although evidence of negative experiences with transportation was minimal among respondents within the 2004-2005 subject pool, the district will need to determine the extent to which access to transportation limits participation. Appropriate measures should be taken during recruitment to disclose availability of transportation and ensure that availability is viable. II Accountability II  Attendance rates among SMART and THRIVE participants were extraordinarily high\nhowever, for the purposes of longitudinal studies, it would be instrumental to follow participants through graduation to examine longitudinal effects of the programs on math achievement. Future studies might examine indepth analyses of participants to determine what factors impacted their achievement significantly. n  Additional data such as graduation rates, enrollment in advanced math courses and school attendance should be examined longitudinally once students complete SMART and THRIVE programs. A Efforts to recruit former SMART/THRIVE students as high school mentors should be made to foster continuity within the program and make students gainfully aware of future effects. n  Future comparisons of SMART/THRIVE students should continue to disaggregate assessment results by race and ethnicity to effectively examine the progress of African American students in SMART/THRIVE relative to their peers. A 10 I 0 a II  Given the limited research on proven programs, intensification on research of this program through long-term studies is recommended. If positive. SMART/THRIVE may have potential to serve as a leader in developing effective Algebra programs for African American children. Expectations of Program Modifications II II II Findings from the recent evaluation were globally positive. In light of these findings, SMART/THRIVE has value in raising student achievement among African American students in LRSD. With regard to change in the instructional design of the programs, little guidance is provided and change is not recommended. However, future modifications would include programmatic expansion to serve a larger, broader group of students. Offerings to African American students should remain paramount. Additionally, given the limited amount of research on successful programs with at-risk populations across the country, further, more intensive research of SMART/THRIVE programs would provide the district not only with a model that can be easily replicated, but also information about factors that set SMART/THRIVE apart from classroom Algebra and pre- Algebra classes. Finally, the district will need to examine the sustained achievement, retention and Il coursework decisions of SMART/THRIVE participants to determine whether the growth noted among participants during the program is sustainable. I II n II II I II II n I 11 a 11 M CREP ' CtHter for Reteareh in Educational foUcy n Center for Research in Educational Policy Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE a The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-86\u0026amp;67\u0026amp;6147 In the Little Rock School District a TECHNICAL REPORT a a a CREP Ce/iU/ for Research in E^ueaiional Policy Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free\n1-866-670-6147 Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE In the Little Rock School District TECHNICAL REPORT January 2006 Lyle Hull Davis, Ph.D. Ying Huang Center for Research in Educational Policy John Nunnery, Ph.D. Old Dominion University Gail Weems, Ph.D. University of Arkansas at Little Rockp EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background SMART and THRIVE are programs designed by two, veteran LRSD teachers. In 1999, the programs were implemented in LRSD, designed to serve at-risk students. These programs have been funded in part by the Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement Program and the National Science Foundation. The overall purposes of the SMART and THRIVE programs are to provide supplemental pre-algebra support to students entering Algebra I and to prepare students to meet state standards in Algebra I, respectively. The programs intentions/goals are to: a) provide a solid foundation for Algebra, b) encourage exploration\nc) make mathematics fun\nd) enable students to achieve academic success in mathematics\nand e) create the confidence necessary to pursue higher level courses. The SMART program meets for two consecutive weeks during the summer. The THRIVE program meets every other Saturday during the Spring semester. SMART uses a co-teaching model with one teacher and one high school student mentor while THRIVE uses a co-teaching model with two certified teachers. Purpose, Plan and Participants Purpose This report summarizes the 2004-2005 evaluation study of the SMART and THRIVE programs. The global purpose of the evaluation was to: a) provide cumulative evidence of SMART/THRIVE implementation practices\nb) examine the extent to which the programs have been effective in improving and remediating academic achievement of African-American students\nand c) explore perceptions of participants, parents and teachers as well as level of student participation in SMART and THRIVE. Research Questions Seven research questions provided the focus of the evaluation. The primary research question focused on the extent to w4iich SMART/THRIVE programs improved and/or remediated math achievement among African American students. Evaluation questions were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 1Plan The evaluation was conducted during the spring of 2005. To determine how effectively SMART and THRIVE were effectively meeting the needs of African American students, a cadre of qualitative and quantitative measures were used. Evaluation Measures Six measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: standardized achievement test scores, classroom observations, surveys, focus groups, and program-developed achievement benchmarks. Administration procedures and descriptions of instrumentation are provided below. Direct Classroom Observation Measures  School Observation Measure (SOM^)'. Examines frequency of usage of 26 instructional strategies.  Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA)'. Provides measurement of the degree of learner engagement in cooperative learning, project-based learning, higher-level questioning. experiential/hands-on learning, student independent inquiry/research, student discussion and students as producers of knowledge.  Math Addendum'. Rates teachers actions in emphasizing conceptual understanding, connecting the content to daily life, and promoting students confidence in mathematics. Surveys  Student Survey. Collects participant impressions and perceptions regarding the satisfaction, shortcomings, strengths and influence of SMART and THRIVE programs.  Parent Survey. Collects parent perceptions and impressions regarding availability (access), influence, transportation and opinions of SMART and THRIVE.  Algebra I Teacher Survey. Collects Algebra I teacher perceptions and impressions of influence of program on student performance as well as global awareness and opinions of SMART and THRIVE.  SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey. Collects THRIVE teacher perceptions and impressions regarding professional development, influence of technology, influence of program on student performance and overall opinions of the program. Focus Groups  Student Focus Groups: Collects program participant impressions and perceptions regarding the influence of each program on Algebra I achievement, test scores, and self-confidence about math. Also collects information about SMART and THRIVE program weaknesses, strengths and needs.  Mentor Focus Group: Collects high school SMART mentor impressions and perceptions of SMART program strengths, weaknesses, needs, and influence on students. Student Records  Attendance records from the 2004 SMART program and 2005 THRIVE program were examined in light of achievement data. Participation rates are reported as well. Student Academic Performance  Math Benchmark Test (2003 - 2004) scores were analyzed. The Benchmark Test is a state- mandated criterion-referenced test aligned with state math standards and developed by Arkansas teachers and the Arkansas Department of Education. Benchmark scores are reported as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. The mathematics portion of the exam is comprised of multiplechoice and open response items. 2if  End of Course Exams (EOC) 2004-2005 scores were analyzed. The Algebra I End of Course Examination is a criterion-referenced test with questions that align with the goals and subject-specific competencies described by the Arkansas Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Algebra I Course Goals. The purpose of the test is to assess student mastery of Algebra I knowledge and skills. Students take the exam at the completion of Algebra I. Scores are reported as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic.  ITBS Math Subtests scores were analyzed. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Math) assesses students ability to compute, deal with math concepts and solve problems dealing with numeration, graph/table interpretation, and computation. This test is norm-referenced.  SMART and THRIVE Pre/Post Tests: The curriculum-based tests are measures of student ability to utilize algebraic concepts to solve equations, judge inequalities, evaluate and simplify basic problems, graph equations, plot data, and solve applied problems. The THRIVE program tests were comprised of content more advanced than that of SMART program tests. Pre-test problems were identical to post-test problems in both programs. Procedure To examine the quality of teaching and extent to which students were engaged in learning, CREP researchers conducted a series of random observations during the THRIVE program. Targeted observations were conducted in February and March of 2005 using the SOM, Math-addendum, and RSCA instruments. Observations were scheduled for random classrooms participating in the THRIVE program on three different days. To examine teacher, student, and parent perceptions, surveys and focus groups were designed and lead by CREP researchers. To examine effects of SMART and THRIVE on achievement, data from a variety of normed, criterion-referenced and informal tests were collected. District and state student performance measures were administered in late spring. Historical records of prior student Benchmark performance were collected through the district database. Table 1 summarizes the data collection procedure. i 3 I 0 a Table 1. Data Collection Summary I Type of Measure Targeted Classroom Observations SOM Instrument TC---------------------- Number Completed/Data Source Total fl RSCA Math Addendum 5 19 5 Description A series of observation sessions in which random THRIVE classes were observed. During a one hour period, four* note forms were completed every 15 minutes. Completed during Spring, 2005 THRIVE sessions. Surveys SMART/THRIVE Teacher Parent Algebra I Teacher Student 10 SMART/18 THRIVE 21 SMART/35 THRIVE 25 SMART/33 THRIVE 70 SMART/142 THRIVE Items specific to SMART and THRIVE were included in the surveys and administered to all groups in Spring, 2005. THRIVE student surveys were distributed in class and collected by researchers. THRIVE teacher surveys were distributed during a faculty meeting and administered by researchers THRIVE parent surveys were distributed by teachers via students, returned to the school and sent to researchers Algebra I teacher surveys were distributed through the district, returned to the school and sent to researchers or sent directly to researchers. Focus Groups Student Focus Group Mentor Focus Group 21 Participants 2 Participants During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental permission slips were included in the focus groups. Each focus group interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. Mentors from the SMART 2004 program were contacted by researchers. Researchers used the Student Focus Group protocol to conduct an on-site, 45-minute focus group with 2 of the 7 mentors. Achievem ent T ests Math Benchmark Test 2003-2004 and 2004 -2005 End of Course Exams ITBS See Table 2 Researchers used data collected from three major math measures designed by independent entities and distribute throughout the LRSD for achievement data analysis. Exams were taken during the Spring of 2005. Attendance Data SMART 2004 Attendance THRIVE 2005 Attendance 210 students (88% African American) 143 students (84% African American) Researchers used the attendance and demographic data from SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 to examine level of participation among African American students i H *One observation session was comprised of three rather than four observation segments due to scheduiing constraints. Participants The primary context of observations, focus groups and surveys was the 2005 THRIVE program. Additional attendance data were collected from the 2004 SMART program. Survey and focus group responses concerning both programs also were collected. Both programs served students from the following middle schools: Cloverdale, Dunbar, Forest Heights, Henderson, Mablevale, Mann, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest. Students from the following high schools were also served: Central, Fair, Hall, McClellan, and Parkview. Table 1 provides a breakdown of students, mentors, teachers and parents who participated surveys and focus groups. Table 2 provides a breakdown of the student achievement samples. in The sample sizes used for achievement comparisons varied depending upon the availability achievement data. The following table illustrates the student populations as they relate to comparison of or 4- I SMART/THRIVE programs. Due to the relative small total number of 8* grade, non-African American students participating in SMART/THRIVE (n=11), eighth grade comparisons were only made for African American students. Table 2. Student Populations 8'*' grade EOC 9\" grade EOC S'\" grade ITBS Findings Comparison 82 African- American 581 790 NonAfrican- American 150 356 Thrive SMART SMART \u0026amp; THRIVE 15 48 32 African- American 70 72 NonAfrican- American 14 12 African- American 13 17 NonAfrican- American 0 0 African- American 23 23 NonAfrican- American 3 2 Direct Classroom Observation Results Targeted Observations Analysis of data collected using SOM, the Math Addendum and RSCA during the five observation sessions revealed that THRIVE teachers are using a variety of instructional strategies aligned with Arkansas state-designed Student Learner Expectations (SLE). The most striking result was the extent to which team teaching and collaborative/cooperative learning dominated the curriculum. Additionally, notable use of higher level questioning strategies and teachers acting as coaches rather than lecturers was noted among observed sessions. The Math Addendum items revealed that teachers were frequently emphasizing conceptual understanding over rote learning during the observation sessions. Teachers were also noted promoting students confidence and flexibility in doing mathematics. Overall, students in the THRIVE program had a high level of interest and were observed being engaged in instruction that emphasized practical and conceptual learning in a comfortable, student-centered setting. The RSCA results suggest that the THRIVE program integrated technology into the curriculum. Average or above average implementation (e.g., level of intensity, meaningfulness, quality) was noted for activities associated with higher level thinking strategies, teamwork and independent technology use. Survey Results Student Survey The overall trend in response types was positive for survey items pertaining to THRIVE and SMART. Regarding THRIVE, students demonstrated high levels of agreement for items probing setf-confidence, comfort level, growth among problem solving skills, and overall satisfaction with the program. Two areas in which some students showed some disagreement were related to generalization and application. Students indicated an overall satisfaction with the program on the open ended portion of the student survey, but did not feel that the program changed their study habits or helped them apply information to real life situations. Responses to items pertaining to SMART indicated agreement among students for items pertaining to preparedness, motivation, and application. Open-ended items also suggest overall satisfaction with SMART\nhowever, a number of student suggestions were made about changing the time during which the summer program met. Parent Survey Responses from the 35 parents who responded to the THRIVE parent survey suggest that they have positive feelings towards the program. Agreement or strong agreement was consistently noted across ail survey items. No negative responses to the items were reported. The 21 parent respondents provided 5 I at similar information, particularly for those items reflecting their satisfaction with the teachers, their childrens preparedness for Algebra I, and their comfort level with the program meeting time. None of the respondents indicated disagreement or strong disagreement with any of the items. Neutral responses were noted for one item pertaining to whether SMART had improved attitudes about math. Parent perceptions measured with analysis of open-ended responses reflected an overall satisfaction with both programs. When asked specifically about transportation, the majority of parents did not cite it as an issue\nhowever, some parents reported access to transportation being inconsistent. Algebra I Teacher Survey I n I Algebra I teachers responses to SMART items showed slightly more varied distribution across the survey scale (Strongly Agree/Agree-Neutral-Strongly Disagree/Disagree-Dont Know). Responses from the 33 Algebra I teachers responding to THRIVE items and the 25 Algebra I teachers responding to SMART items were positive. These teachers agreed that both programs had improved students self-confidence and positively impacted student achievement\nhowever, they responded more neutrally to items probing the programs influence on childrens problem solving ability and influence on general Algebra I instruction. When asked specifically about whether they felt SMART and THRIVE had had an impact on achievement differences among races, a small percentage disagreed, approximately one third responded neutrally or did not know, and the remaining 48% agreed. SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey SMART/THRIVE Teachers responses overwhelmingly favored agreement or strong agreement with items pertaining to positive attributes among professional development, resources/materials, methodology and instructional delivery within the THRIVE and SMART programs. Two items for which some teachers responded neutrally were related to the extent to which they felt the program had improved their own ability or their students ability to use calculators. No negative responses were noted among the items\nhowever, some teachers indicated that the limited time available for teaching was considered a shortcoming for both SMART and THRIVE.  Focus Groups student Focus Group Students perceptions of both programs suggest that there is a generally positive feeling towards SMART and THRIVE. Specifically, the consensus among the twenty-one students who participated in the focus groups was that SMART and THRIVE bolstered math skills and boosted confidence. Despite some mild distaste for required meeting times (Saturdays and during the summer), most student participants indicated that both SMART and THRIVE had reinforced Algebra I skills and provided a fun, relaxing context for learning. Many students noted that the programs had provided new strategies for problem solving and made Algebra I less daunting. There were no outwardly negative comments made. Mentor Focus Group Two high school student mentors who had participated in SMART, 2004 provided input about the SMART program primarily. The mentors viewed SMART as a preparatory program focused on reviewing pre-algebra principles. Both mentors, however, also noted that SMART provided a unique environment in which competition helped motivate students and make math more enjoyable. The mentors global perception of the program was that SMART allowed students to get a head start on Algebra I principals with a simultaneous boost in confidence. Attendance Collectively, the 2004 SMART program served 210 students for which attendance data was available and the 2005 THRIVE program served 143 students for which data was available. Compared to the general population served by the district (69.0% African American), SMART and Thrive programs served a higher 6percentage of African American students (88.0% SMART\n84.8% Thrive\n89.6% Both). The attendance rates for SMART yielded an average rate of 97% (range: 94%-100%) and the attendance rates for Thrive yielded an average rate of 90% (range: 81%-100%). Achievement The results provide evidence that, in 9* grade, the SMART program, the Thrive program, or the combination of the two programs were associated with substantial improvements in the achievement on the Algebra I EOC exam. The strongest evidence was noted among students who participated in both programs. Eighth grade students participating in any combination of the programs were less likely than their nonparticipant peers to perform at basic or below basic proficiency levels on the Algebra I EOC exam. More specifically. African American students in both eighth and ninth grade who were enrolled in any of the three program configurations were more likely to perform at proficient or advanced levels of proficiency than the non-participant comparison group. Gains were also noted on the program-specific assessments for the SMART and Thrive programs. No significant differences between comparison and SMART/THRIVE students nor racial differences were noted among scores from the ITBS. I Conclusions Each of the major research questions will provide a framework around which the conclusions for the present study will be structured. Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Student-level achievement analyses show that participation in SMART. Thrive and a combination of programs is associated with comparative improvements in achievement when compared to non-participating students. Specifically, our interpretation of these outcomes focuses on the extent to which these differences in achievement relate to growth among African American students. II Findings suggest that participation in any of the program configurations was associated with a major reduction in the achievement gap between African American students and students of other races, from a one standard deviation deficit on 2003-04 Benchmark scores to virtually no difference on 2004-5 Algebra I EOC scores. For 2004-05 8** graders, the results suggest a positive effect of the program^African American students attending any program configuration were more likely to achieve at Proficient or Advanced levels than peers who did not attend. Since 8* graders do not comprise the majority of SMART/THRIVE participants, further analysis of these students sustained achievement would be interesting. Although results were favorable for African American students enrolled in both programs, no statistically significant effects were noted from ITBS scores for race or program, demonstrating that although SMART and Thrive have a direct and significant impact on curriculum-based performance measures, they have a lesser influence on standardized, norm-referenced math achievement performance. fl In light of the current goal in increasing achievement among African American students, particularly in the domain of mathematics, the results from EOC and Benchmark exams are highly significant. These results are encouraging as implementation of the SMART and Thrive programs seems to have had a positive impact on African American student achievement. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? Overall, the level of participation for both programs was high. The majority of students enrolled in SMART. Thrive or both programs missed no sessions, yielding average attendance rates of 90% or above. Additionally, data from classroom observations suggested a high degree of student engagement and participation across classrooms within the Thrive program. Given the demographic characteristics of the participants, the significant quantitative relationship between participation and student achievement gains, and the high participation rates among participants, the results provide evidence that SMART and Thrive 79 have a positive impact on participation among African American students and that participation has had significant influence on achievement. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? n During classroom visits, the majority of observed instructional strategies were couched in a collaborative teaching model focused on higher level thinking skills and student grouping. Students were observed utilizing technology throughout their lessons and were highly engaged during observation sessions. Teachers frequently posed hypothetical questions to groups to accommodate use of higher-level thinking skills and generate more varied student responses. Even when students were engaged in independent seatwork, which was rare, teachers were observed circulating among various student groups, requesting more in-depth questioning strategies in their problem solving approaches. Additionally, students were frequently cited encouraging fellow students in preparation for competition while working in collaborative groups. What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? SMART/THRIVE teachers responded positively to survey items for both programs. Teachers generally believed that the core components of both programs supported student learning, particularly among students who were struggling to perform well in Algebra I classes. Additionally, they reported feeling comfortable with expectations and resources, noting that having opportunities to collaborate with other teachers and utilize competition to motivate students were essential to success. Teachers cited time constraints as a recognized weakness across both programs. The general consensus was that they wanted more time to develop deeper skills among students and to reinforce concepts taught in Algebra I classrooms. None of the respondents expressed feelings of dissatisfaction with either program and demonstrated the highest percentage of positive responses when compared to other groups (students, parents. Algebra I teachers). What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Algebra I teachers were generally positive in their reaction to both SMART and THRIVE programs, representative of an overall feeling that SMART and THRIVE facilitated student learning and generalized to the Algebra I classroom. Algebra I teachers noted observed improvements among students participating in SMART/THRIVE and globally agreed that the programs effectively enabled students to use technology in the Algebra 1 classrooms. A number of Algebra I teachers indicated that both programs needed to reach a larger and broader group of students. There were no indications that Algebra I teachers disliked SMART or THRIVE\nhowever, there was some evidence that some respondents felt that the programs did more to supplement what was being taught in Algebra I classrooms than cultivate more meaningful understanding of algebraic concepts. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Students were somewhat mixed in their reactions to SMART and THRIVE, although they were generally positive. While most of the students believed that SMART and/or THRIVE helped them with Algebra I class, others indicated mild dislike for time spent doing academics during summer and/or Saturdays. Students perceived the programs as motivating, fun, and globally helpful. It was rewarding to note that despite some dislike of the programs scheduled meeting times, most students indicated a desire to continue with the programs modifying very little about the actual instructional delivery. These comments were corroborated by comments students made during focus group sessions. 8What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents reactions to both programs were globally positive. Specifically, parents commented that the motivational, fun nature of the programs was fostering an interest in math among students. The change that parents requested most was that the program be expanded both in breath/scope and duration. None of the parents cited negative features\nhowever, some parents requested more rigor within the curriculum. When asked specifically about transportation, a concern of SMART/THRIVE program heads, the majority (84%) of parents indicated that it was not a problem. Of the parents who did indicate that transportation was a problem, inconsistency of service was cited as the primary issue. The majority of parents felt comfortable sending their children to the programs during the summer and/or on Saturdays, particularly because transportation on those days/during that time did not conflict with work or other activities that typically dominated school days. Compliance Remedy Questions Recommendations A series of recommendations have been designed to provide guidance for future implementation of SMART and THRIVE programs. The recommendations primarily focus upon two broad areas in which the Little Rock School District could take additional action to ensure proper implementation of SMART/THRIVE as they relate to academic improvement among African American children: 1. Expansion 2. Accountability Program Expansion A recurring theme among surveys collected during this evaluation related to a general desire to expand both programs. Specifically, teachers and parents generally called to extend the duration and frequency of the programs as well as expand the programs to meet the needs of larger and broader groups of students. Before expanding the frequency and duration of each program, the district would be well- served to explore effective ways to recruit students and teachers to expand the programs.  An expanded program would have to include more SMART/THRIVE teachers directly proportionate to the number of students added to the program. The success of the program is in part dependent upon the amount of flexibility afforded to each teaching team as well as the ratio of teachers to students. If more students are added without adding more teachers, the design of the SMART/THRIVE model will be compromised. Given the unique cooperative teaching model used in the program, pre-program professional development and staff training of new SMART/THRIVE teachers would be paramount to successful expansion. Specific focus on technology use and development of higher level thinking skills would help further develop the current model. Additionally, the level of problem solving and critical thinking used in SMART/THRIVE classrooms would require new SMART/THRIVE teachers to receive training aimed at fostering these skills in the context of Algebra. Current and new SMART/THRIVE teachers would benefit from professional development aimed at applying algebraic concepts in authentic contexts (i.e., real world\" application) and/or simulations.  Currently, THRIVE meets every other week during Spring semester. The district would be well- advised to expand the number of participating students and teachers by using alternating Saturdays to accommodate the same numbers of students per THRIVE session rather than simply making each session bigger. For example, if the district were to add 100 additional 9THRIVE students and proportional numbers of teachers, they would be less likely to disrupt the current model by creating two groups of THRIVE students meeting on different Saturdays during each month. The numbers, therefore would remain more manageable and the staff more effective in delivering instruction and fostering learning rather than discipline during competition and class time. SMART could potentially integrate two, two-week summer sessions to serve more students. In light of budgetary constraints, the prospects of expanding SMART/THRIVE programs could be limited potentially\nhowever, LRSD should examine alternative funding opportunities to bolster prospects for expansion. The following list, although not exhaustive, provides examples of alternative funding sources that potentially match the goals and purposes of SMART/THRIVE: American Society of Engineering Education. The National Science Foundation. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, the Spencer Foundation and the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Some grant opportunities could foster potential secondary opportunities for qualified African American students to participant in further research and competition. The purpose in seeking these grants is bifurcate in nature: to obtain funding for expansion\nto explore further opportunities aimed at enriching mathematics and fostering motivation among African American children Transportation costs and availability must be considered if the programs are expanded. Although evidence of negative experiences with transportation was minimal among respondents within the 2004-2005 subject pool, the district will need to determine the extent to which access to transportation limits participation. Appropriate measures should be taken during recruitment to disclose availability of transportation and ensure that availability is viable. Accountability  Attendance rates among SMART and THRIVE participants were extraordinarily high\nhowever, for the purposes of tracking, it would be instrumental to follow past participants to examine longitudinal effects of the programs on math achievement. Future studies might examine in-depth analyses of participants to determine what factors impacted their achievement significantly. Additional data such as graduation rates, enrollment in advanced math courses and school attendance should be examined longitudinally once students complete SMART and THRIVE programs. Efforts to recruit former SMARTfTHRIVE students as high school mentors should be made to foster continuity within the program and make students gainfully aware of future effects. Future comparisons of SMART/THRIVE students should continue to disaggregate assessment results by race and ethnicity to effectively examine the progress of African American students in SMART/THRIVE relative to their peers. Given the limited research on proven programs, instensification on research of this program through long-term studies is recommended. If positive, SMART/THRIVE may have potential to serve as a leader in developing effective Algebra programs for African American children in failing schools. Expectations of Program Modifications Findings from the recent evaluation were globally positive. In light of these findings. SMART/THRIVE has value in raising student achievement among African American students in LRSD. With regard to change in the instructional design of the programs, little guidance is provided and change is not recommended. However, future modifications would include programmatic expansion to serve a larger, broader group of students. Offerings to African American students should remain paramount. Additionally, given the limited amount of research on successful programs in failing schools across the country, further, more intensive research of SMART/THRIVE programs would provide the district not only with a model that can be easily 10replicated, but also information about factors that set SMART/THRIVE apart from classroom Algebra and preAlgebra classes. Finally, the district will need to examine the sustained achievement, retention and coursework decisions of SMART/THRIVE participants to determine whether the growth noted among participants during the program is sustainable. 11Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE In the Little Rock School District Research Report: 2004-2005 INTRODUCTION The Little Rock School District contracted with the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) 'J at The University of Memphis to collect formative evaluation data in schools implementing SMART/THRIVE. This report summarizes the 2004-2005 evaluation study of the SMART and THRIVE programs. The global purpose of the evaluation was to examine the extent to which the SMART/THRIVE programs have been effective in improving and remediating academic achievement of African American students. Additionally, the evaluation explores perceptions of participants, parents and teachers as well as level of student participation in SMART and THRIVE. The overall purposes of the SMART and THRIVE programs are to provide supplemental pre-algebra support to students entering Algebra I and to prepare students to meet state standards in Algebra I. It was designed as an intervention for rising and current S- and 9*'-grade students who are entering or will be enrolled in Algebra I. Applications for SMART are disseminated through the Sth grade teachers for any rising 9th grade student who has not taken Algebra I. Eligible rising 9th grade students who are registered to attend high school in the LRSD and will take algebra are selected on a first come-first served basis. Seventh-grade math teachers are asked to recommend students, particularly African American or Hispanic students, who have the potential to be successful in Algebra I in the Sth grade. Students who participated in SMART are invited to participate in THRIVE. After a designated enrollment period, remaining seats are opened to any student taking Algebra I. Applications for these remaining seats are disseminated by the Algebra 1 teachers. The programs intentions/goals are to: Provide a solid foundation for algebra, encourage exploration Make mathematics fun Enable students to achieve academic success in mathematics Create the confidence necessary to pursue higher-level math courses The goals encompass two components: pre-algebra instruction for two weeks during the summer (SMART Program) and 10 Saturdays across the school year (THRIVE Program). Instruction in both 12programs utilizes small class sizes (fewer than 18) with two teachers per class. Each program currently (2004-2005) engages approximately 10 percent of the total African American student population enrolled in Algebra I classes. Various local grants have funded both programs since 1999. Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training (SMART) provides opportunities for students to gain the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed for success in Algebra 1. SMART is a two-week half-day summer institute for eligible rising S' and 9* grade students who will be enrolled in Algebra 1. SMART serves approximately 200 students each year. Each SMART classroom consists of a qualified mathematics teacher. one high school mentor who demonstrates outstanding mathematical skills and a positive attitude, and no more than seventeen SMART students. Each teacher uses a variety of strategies and tools to enhance their instructional delivery. Activities include real-life situations requiring the use of math skills. SMART students are exposed to and become familiar with a range of technological tools. The most popular tool used is the Tl- 84 Plus graphing calculator. SMART students learn how to use the calculator to further and deepen their knowledge of mathematics. In addition to the TI-84 Plus calculator, students use the Calculator-Based Laboratory (CBL) and the Calculator-Based Ranger (CBR) to solve problems and perform experiments. Students who successfully complete the SMART program receive a free TI-84 Plus graphing calculator, a SMART T-shirt, and a certificate. Instructional delivery and structure within the THRIVE program is virtually identical to that noted within SMART sessions\nhowever, students do not have a high school mentor acting as a facilitator. THRIVE serves approximately 150 students, many of whom generally have been enrolled in SMART during the previous summer. Students currently enrolled in Algebra I meet bi-monthly on Saturdays during the spring semester from 8:45 a.m. - 12:25 p.m. The sessions are divided into 45-minute instructional blocks with learning activities prescribed for each block. The last block consists of two classes competing in a mathematics game/competition featuring the material covered that day. Teaching methods mirror those used in SMART, but integrate more advanced content and focus on material covered in Algebra I classrooms across the district. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Seven research questions provided the structure around which the evaluation was developed. The primary research question focused on the extent to which SMARTfTHRIVE programs improved and/or 13remediated math achievement among African American students. A substantive supplemental question addressed the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students. Additional attention was focused upon academically focused time and student engagement as well as parent, student, teacher and Algebra I teacher perceptions of the programs. The questions are listed below and are followed by a brief explanation of the areas addressed in the present evaluation. PRIMARY EVALUATION QUESTION Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? A treatment-control student pre-test/post-test designed was employed for this evaluation. The analysis controlled for pretest, ethnicity and population free lunch status. Four types of Algebra I students were compared: a) no program/comparison, b) SMART program only, c) THRIVE program only and d) both SMART and THRIVE programs. The pretest data was collected from the 2003-2004 Math Benchmark Test and the posttest data was collected from the 2004-2005 Math Benchmark Test. Additional test information gathered for treatment-control comparison includes the 2004-2005 ITBS Math subtests and Algebra I End of Course Exams (EOC). Descriptive data from SMART and THRIVE participants were derived from pre- and post-test program exams. All standardized tests were administered by and throughout the Little Rock School District. Pre- and post- test program exams were administered through SMART and/or THRIVE and should be considered supplemental. SUPPLEMENTAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 1. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? Attendance data from the SMART program of 2004 and the THRIVE program of 2005 were examined. In addition to descriptive information, the levels of participation were analyzed in light of student achievement. 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? This question was addressed through classroom observations using an instrument focused on 26 research-based teaching strategies associated with increased academically focused instructional time and technology use within the classroom. Three additional math-specific items were designed to gather 14observation data about math-specific instructional practice. Five random observation visits were conducted during the THRIVE program sessions. 3. What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Questions 3, 4, 5 and 6 were addressed through use of self-report surveys, including objective and open-ended items. Demographic data was also collected and analyzed. In addition, three student focus groups were created during which students perceptions of program strengths\nweaknesses and overall satisfaction were collected, and then analyzed. PARTICIPANTS Currently, SMART/THRIVE serves students from the following eight Little Rock School District middle schools: Cloverdale: 82% African American student population\nDunbar: 61% African American student population\nForest Heights: 77% African American student population\nHenderson: 82% African American student population\nMablevale: 81% African American student population\nMann: 52% African American student population\nPulaski Heights: 57% African American student population\nSouthwest: 94% African American student population. Students from the following high schools also were sen/ed: Central: 51 %, Fair: 81%, Hall: 75%, McClellan: 91%, and Parkview: 51%. Of 274 eighth- and ninth-grade students who participated in SMART, THRIVE, or both programs, matching district demographic data were available for 258 (94.2%). Tables 1 and 2 provide summaries of demographic and grade-level data for the various subsamples of SMART, THRIVE, and Comparison students in the study. These programs served a higher percentage of African American students than existed in the student population at large (69.0%): 88.0% of SMART students. 84.8% of THRIVE students, and 89.6% of students attending both programs were African American. Of the 258 students with matching data, 125 attended SMART only, 66 attended THRIVE only, and 67 attended both 15 \\programs. Most students attending SMART only were ninth graders (83.2%), while the majority attending THRIVE only were eighth graders (66.7%). About equal percentages of eighth graders (53.7%) and ninth graders (46.3%) attended both programs. Whereas the district percentage of female students in eighth and ninth grades was 50.1%, the programs served a much larger proportion of females: 63.2%, 66.7%, and 59.7% for SMART, THRIVE, and both programs, respectively. Table 1 Percentage of Students Served by Race: SMART/THRIVE and Comparison PROGRAM Total Am Indian Comparison 0.2 SMART 0.0 THRIVE 0.0 BOTH 1.5 0.3 Asian 1.7 0.0 6.1 1.5 1.7 African American Hispanic Other 69.0 88.0 84.8 89.6 70.2 4.8 0.8 3.0 4.5 4.6 1.4 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 White 22.9 7.2 6.1 3.0 21.8 Total n 3726 125 66 67 3984 Note. Comparison group is all eighth and ninth grade students not served by either the SMART or THRIVE programs. Table 2 Program Attended by Grade Level PROGRAM Total GRADE 08 09 Total Count % within PROGRAM Count % within PROGRAM Count % within PROGRAM Comparison 1727 46.3% 1999 53.7% 3726 100.0% SMART 21 16.8% 104 83.2% 125 100.0% THRIVE 44 66.7% 22 33.3% 66 100.0% BOTH 36 53.7% 31 46.3% 67 100.0% 1828 45.9% 2156 54.1% 3984 100.0% EVALUATION DESIGN The evaluation was conducted during the spring of 2005. A mixed-methods design was employed to address the research questions. Results are primarily descriptive in nature\ninferential statistics from 16achievement analyses are discussed. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected by trained observers. The observers administered and collected surveys to THRIVE teachers and students and conducted focus groups with students and SMART mentors. The majority of the time was spent observing classrooms using the School Observation Measure (SOM) described below. Observers also conducted focus groups with students and SMART mentors and administered or distributed surveys to students. teachers, Algebra I teachers and parents. Additionally, achievement data from students participating in SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 was collected and analyzed by CREP. Details about all of the instruments and evaluation procedures are provided in subsequent sections INSTRUMENTATION To address the questions proposed in this mixed-methods evaluation, data from achievement tests. student records, classroom observations, surveys, and focus groups were collected. Six measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: standardized achievement test scores, classroom observations, surveys, focus groups, and program-developed achievement benchmarks. ACHIEVEMENT TEST SCORES Math Benchmark Test 2003 - 2004 and 2004 - 2005: The Benchmark Test is a state-mandated criterion-referenced test aligned with state math standards and developed by Arkansas teachers and the Arkansas Department of Education. Benchmark scores are reported as advanced, proficient. basic, and below basic. The mathematics portion of the exam is comprised of multiple-choice and open response items. Internal consistency reliability estimates, from the 2002-2004 administrations ranged from Cronbachs Alpha of .84 - .87.  End of Course Exams (EOC) 2005: The Algebra I End of Course Examination is a criterion- referenced test with questions that align with the goals and subject-specific competencies described by the Arkansas Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Algebra I Course Goals. The purpose of the test is to assess student mastery of Algebra I knowledge and skills. Students take the exam at the completion of Algebra I. Scores are reported as advanced, proficient, basic, and below basic. Internal consistency reliability estimates, from the 2001-2004 administrations ranged from Cronbachs Alpha of .81 - .88. 17 ITBS Math Subtests\nThe Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Math) assesses students ability to compute, deal with math concepts and solve problems dealing with numeration, graph/table interpretation, and computation. The ITBS test is a norm-referenced. The ITBS information is proprietary and, therefore. estimates of reliability and validity could not be obtained. SMART and THRIVE Pre/Post Tests: These curriculum-based tests measured students ability to utilize algebraic concepts to solve equations, judge inequalities, evaluate and simplify basic problems. graph equations, plot data, and solve applied problems. The THRIVE program tests were comprised of content more advanced than that of SMART program tests. Pre-test problems were identical to post-test problems in both programs. STUDENT RECORDS  Attendance records from the 2004 SMART program and 2005 THRIVE program were examined in comparison to achievement measures. CLASSROOM OBSERVATION MEASURES The data collection instruments for classroom observations were the School Observation Measure (SOM), including three math-specific items designed to better tailor the instrument, and the Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA). The SOM and addendum items were designed to gather information about instructional practices and classroom activities. The RSCA was used to gather more detailed information about the level of student engagement during target activities throughout target observations. The instruments used for classroom observation are described below. School Observation Measure (SOM): School Observation Measure (SOM\"). The SOM was developed to determine the extent to which different common and alternative teaching practices (e.g., direct instruction, cooperative learning, student inquiry, experiential learning) are used by teachers (Ross, Smith \u0026amp; Alberg, 1999) in typical (non-evaluative) classroom contexts. During each recording session, notes were completed every 15 minutes in different classrooms for a total of four at the end of one, 60-minute observation period. Researchers objectively recorded the relative use, non-use and frequency of 26 observation items covering a variety of classroom practices. Additionally, researchers recorded the extent to which high academically focused instructional time and high student attention/interest were observed. At the conclusion 18of a one-hour targeted visit, a trained observer summarizes the frequency with which each of the strategies was observed, yielding one SOM Data Summary Form. The frequency is recorded via a 5-point rubric that ranges from (0) Not Observed to (4) Extensively Observed. Two global items rate, respectively, the academically-focused instructional time and degree of student attention and interest. A reliability study by Lewis, Ross, and Alberg (1999) found that pairs of trained observers selected identical SOM categories 67% of the time and rated within one category 95% of the time. Math Addendum: Because the program under evaluation was specifically a mathematics program. three additional observations items unique to mathematics were developed. The items were written by a member of the research team with an Arkansas teaching certificate in mathematics based on the standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). The three items addressed the teachers actions in emphasizing conceptual understanding, connecting the content to daily life, and promoting students confidence in mathematics. Each item was rated as 1 indicating not observed to 5 reflecting strong application. Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA): This Rubric (Ross \u0026amp; Lowther, 2002) is applied in conjunction with SOM visits to determine the quality and depth of teacher applications of selected strategies (e.g., cooperative learning, higher-order questioning, project-based learning, and technology as a learning tool). These strategies reflect emphasis on higher-order learning and attainment of deep understanding of content. Such learning outcomes seem consistent with those likely to be engendered by well designed, real-world linked exercises, projects, or problems utilizing technology as a learning tool. Each item includes a two-part rating scale. The first is a four-point scale, with 1 indicating a very low level of application, and 4 representing a high level of application. The second is a Yes/No option to the question: Was technology used? with space provided to write a brief description of the technology use. The RSCA was completed as part of SOM observation periods. The RSCA reliability results indicate that observer ratings were within one category for 97% of the whole-school observations and for 90% of the targeted observations (Sterbinsky \u0026amp; Burke, 2004). A RSCA was completed at the end of each targeted classroom observation. 19  SURVEYS H Four surveys were developed by the evaluation team to collect data pertaining to the effectiveness of the SMART/THRIVE Program. The specific audiences around which the current evaluation focused were parents, Algebra I teachers currently teaching in Little Rock schools, SMART/THRIVE teachers, and students currently enrolled in THRIVE. Items were designed to address both the primary and secondary research questions of the study and to glean open-ended perceptions from the four data collection groups. Items specific to SMART and THRIVE were included as were open-ended questions about both programs. Program-specific items were presented to gain general and specific knowledge about both programs as separate entities. This also eliminated the need for respondents to complete two separate surveys. Each survey was divided into three sections. The first section was used to collect demographic information specific to each group. The second section was comprised of objective items specific to the research questions and each program (SMART and THRIVE). In the final section, the respondents were presented with four, open-ended questions which probed strategies, strengths, weaknesses and general additional comments for each program. Responses across all surveys were scored through the use of Likert-type ratings ranging from strong disagreement (1) to strong agreement (5). Demographic information was also collected. Drafts of all surveys were presented at the evaluation team meetings in Little Rock and revisions were made from team participants suggestions. Surveys are found in Appendix A. FOCUS GROUPS m Two sets of focus group protocols were developed by the evaluation team. Students were asked their perceptions of the effectiveness of the SMART/THRIVE program. SMART mentors also were asked their impressions of program effectiveness. Additionally, participants were also asked to report their perceptions of program impact. Student and Mentor protocols were similar, but tailored to their specific audience. Question drafts were presented at an evaluation team meeting in Little Rock and revisions were made from team participants suggestions. PROCEDURES Data for this evaluation were collected during the spring of 2005. Targeted observations were conducted during late spring, 2005 using the SOM (including 3 math-specific addendum items) and RSCA 20 - instruments. Surveys, focus groups and program-designed achievement tests were also administered during this time period. The classroom observations were conducted during February and March, 2005. Observations were scheduled for random classrooms participating in the THRIVE program on three different ri days. Student performance measures were administered in late spring. Table 3 summarizes the data collection procedure. Table 3 Data Collection Summary Type of Measure Instrument Targeted Classroom SOM Observations RSCA Number Completed/Data Source Total 5 19 Surveys SMART/THRIVE Teacher Parent Algebra I Teacher Student 10 SMART/18 THRIVE 21 SMART/35 THRIVE 25 SMART/33 THRIVE 70 SMART/142 THRIVE Focus Groups Student Focus Group Mentor Focus Group 21 Participants 2 Participants Achievement fests MaSi Benchmark Test Attendance Data 2003 - 2004 and 2004 -2005 End of Course Exams ITBS ......SMART 2004 Attendance THRIVE 2005 Attendance 210 students 143 students Description Observation sessions in which random THRIVE classes were observed. During the observation period, note forms were completed every 15 minutes. Four^ sets of observation notes were completed for each SOM. Completed during Spring, 2005 THRIVE sessions. Four RSCAs were completed for each SOM. ItOTS specific to SMART and THRIVE were included in the surveys and administered to all groups in Spring, 2005. THRIVE student surveys were distributed in class and collected by researchers. THRIVE teacher sun/eys were distributed during a faculty meeting and administered by researchers. THRIVE parent surveys were distributed by teachers via students, returned to the school and sent to researchers. Algebra 1 teacher surveys were distributed through the district, returned to the school and sent to researchers or sent directly to researchers. During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental permission slips were included in the focus groups. Each focus group interview lasted approximately 45 minutes.  Researchers used the Student Focus Group protocol to conduct an on-site, 45-minute focus group with 2 of the 7 mentors^_____ ___________ Researchers used data collected from three major math measures designed by independent entities and distributed throughout the LRSD for achievement data analysis. Exams were taken during the Spring of 2005. Researchers used the attendance and demographic data from SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 to examine level of participation among African American students. Data were collected from program heads and sent to researchers. Note: One SOM session was cut short due to scheduling, yielding 3 observations sheets and 3 RSCAs. ACHIEVEMENT TESTS End-of-course (EOC) Algebra I test scores were used as 2004-05 outcomes for 9* grade students. with 2003-04 Benchmark Mathematics scale scores used as a covariate. No covariate was available for 8* grade students, because no comparable district or state tests were administered to 7* graders in 2003-04. 21  The End of Course Exams were administered at the end of the academic year to all students enrolled in Algebra I during the 2004-2005 school year. The ITBS exam was administered only to 9* grade students, thus outcomes for this exam were available only for 9*^ graders. With no 8* grade scores available, 2003-2004 Benchmark scores were used for covariate comparisons. Additionally, curriculum-based pre- and postprogram exams were administered on the first and last day of both programs. Both pre- and post-program-designed exams were comprised of 20 items, asking students to simplify, evaluate, graph, and solve equations. The SMART exams were geared to test pre-algebra and early algebra content and the THRIVE exams were designed to examine content expected of students completing Algebra I. The pre-program exams and post-program exams were identical. These exams are provided in Appendix B. CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS Trained observers completed a series of classroom visits to collect frequency data regarding observed instructional practices, use of technology and level of student engagement. Classroom teachers were advised that the observers would be present throughout the semester, but were instructed to deliver lessons as usual. A targeted procedure was used for the present study given that the observations were of the THRIVE sessions rather than of a school-wide, cross-categorical program. The majority of the observations were conducted by one researcher, with the second researcher observing for one SOM to examine inter-rater reliability. The inter-rater reliability for the joint observation was high\nobservers selected identical SOM categories 88% of the time and rated within one category 100% of the time. The standard SOM procedure involves evaluation of an entire school by visiting 10-12 randomly selected classrooms for 15 minutes each. However, the goal of this evaluation was to examine the practices within a single program, where all classrooms were participating in the same activities at the same times, not assess an entire school. Therefore, procedures were modeled from those used by Lowther, Ross, and Morrison (2003) in their examination a school laptop computer program. A total of five SOM observations were conducted. Both the RSCA and the Math Addendum items were completed at the same time. A total of 19 RSCAs were completed because one observation session was interrupted by a scheduled class dismissal. 22 I d M SURVEYS d E The program teacher surveys were administered and collected by researchers on March 5, 2005 during a faculty meeting. Student surveys were administered and collected by researchers during a March 5 class. Algebra I teacher surveys were distributed via district mail. Parent surveys were distributed through students and collected by teachers before being sent to CREP for analysis. Additional parent surveys were administered and collected by a member of the research team at the student Math Fair. FOCUS GROUPS During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental permission slips were included in the focus groups, each of which lasted 45 minutes. The mentors were contacted individually by researchers via phone, mail and email. Two of the seven mentors responded and attended. The mentor focus group interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. RESULTS The results of this evaluation are presented below and synthesized to address each research question in the Discussion section. These results are presented by measurement strategy\nhowever, the findings are synthesized across instruments to reflect each research question in the Discussion section of this report. SCHOOL OBSERVATION MEASURE (SOM) As noted previously, observers focused on the 26 instructional strategies provided in the SOM using a standard five-point rubric (0 =not observed, 1 = rarely, 2 = occasionally, 3 = frequently, and 4 = extensively). The results are presented with a full, categorical breakdown in Table 4. Four strategies were observed occasionally to extensively at a frequency level of at least 75% or higher. These strategies include team teaching (100%), cooperative/collaborative learning (100%), use of higher-level questioning strategies (80%), and teacher acting as a coach/facilitator (100%). The data indicates that students were engaged in collaborative learning situations with high teacher support where they were asked to use problem solving and critical thinking skills to solve problems. Strategies that were observed occasionally to extensively during 40-60% of the sessions included direct instruction (lecture), higher level instructional feedback (40%), experiential hands-on learning (40%), independent inquiry or research (40%) and student 23M discussion (60%). Student discussion heavily dominated the instructional context (60% observed frequency) M with teams of students working together to solve problems and propose new ideas. Some individual seat work and independent research was observed (40% each respectively), however, these frequently were noted to lead into a group-based activity in which individuals proposed ideas to a team that was used to create a corporate answer to problems proposed by the teachers. Sustained reading was observed in one classroom. fl Technology was heavily used (80%) as teachers relied upon graphing calculators and problem solving with H technology as an integral part of the curriculum. Teachers demonstrated different ways to solve problems and/or work towards solutions via calculator and multi-media use. High academically focused time was fl observed extensively (80% of the time) as was high student engagement (in 60% of the observation sessions). Since the evaluation context was an Algebra I Saturday supplementary program with specific model parameters, some instructional strategies within the SOM were not observed. These strategies included individual tutoring, ability and multi-age groupings, work centers, integration of subject areas, project-based learning, independent seatwork, sustained wzriting/composition and systematic individual instruction. Generally, the aggregated data reflect efficient use of class time with teachers using a team teaching approach to deliver instruction to collaborative teams of students. The aforementioned math addendum items served to capture specific strategies used frequently among math teachers. Results from observations showed that THRIVE teachers frequently emphasized conceptual understanding over rote learning 60% of the time observed. Teachers also demonstrated connections between math and daily life frequently in at least 60% of the observations. One additional strategy of high interest was teachers cultivation of students confidence, flexibility and inventiveness in doing mathematics. This was observed frequently among 80% of the observations. None of the math-specific strategies were observed extensively. 24 n Table 4 II School Observation Measure (SOM) Data Summary for Little Rock-SMART/THRIVE Project N = 5 H II II II n n The extent to which each of the following was used or present in the school...________ Instructional Orientation Direct instruction (lecture) Team teaching Cooperative/collaborative learning Individual tutoring (teacher, peer, aide, adult volunteer) Classroom Organization Ability groups Multi-age grouping Work centers (for individuals or groups) Instructional Strategies Higher-level instructional feedback (written or verbal) to enhance student learning Integration of subject areas (interdisciplinary/thematic units) Project-based learning Use of higher-level questioning strategies Teacher acting as a coach/tacilitator Parent/community involvement in learning activities Student Activities Independent seatwork (self-paced worksheets, individual assignments) Experiential, hands-on learning Systematic individual instruction (differential assignments geared to individual needs) Sustained writing/composition (self-selected or teacher-generated topics) Sustained reading Independent inquiry/research on the part of students Student discussion Technology Use Computer for instructional delivery (e.g. CAI, drill \u0026amp; practice) Technology as a learning tool or resource (e.g., Internet research, spreadsheet or database creation, multi-media, CD Rom, Laser disk) Assessment Performance assessment strategies Student self-assessment (portfolios, individual record books) Summary Items High academically focused class time High level of student Percent None Percent Rarely Percent Occasionally Percent Percent Frequently Extensively 20.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 60.0 100.0 100.0 20.0 0.0 80.0 100.0 20.0 100.0 100.0 80.0 40.0 40.0 80.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 attention/interest/engagement________________________ Note: One SOM is comprised of approximately 8 classroom visits. 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 60.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 60.0 25 n RUBRIC FOR STUDENT-CENTERED ACTIVITIES (RSCA) IB The RSCA results reflect the percentage of observed sessions in which selected strategies are II observed at least once. The quality of the application and the percentage of sessions in which technology was used with the observed strategy are also recorded. A descriptive summary of the RSCA results is presented in Table 5. IB The RSCA results suggest that the level of application with which THRIVE program teachers applied certain instructional practices, particularly with regard to cooperative learning and higher-level questioning strategies was high. Additionally, students evidenced appropriate use of technology (calculators, multimedia. and spreadsheets) in self-directed activities to create new knowledge. The most notable area of technology use was among cooperative learning groups, where students collaboratively utilized multimedia, calculators and graphing applications to solve problems\nteachers often helped direct collaborative groups. Project-based learning was not observed and although student discussion, experiential hands on learning, and independent research were applied, the level of application was limited or somewhat limited without technology use. Additionally, aggregate results suggest that technology was used in more than a third of the instances during which 5/7 remaining student-centered activities were observed and in over 25% of the instances during which 6/7 remaining activities or strategies were applied. 26 II Table 5  Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA) N = 19 Student-Centered Activities Not Limited Observed Application Somewhat Limited Somewhat Strong Application Application Strong Application Technology In Use * Cooperative Learning 8.7 13.0 8.7 21.7 47.8 60.9 II Project-Based Learning 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Higher-Level Questioning Strategies Experiential Hands-on Learning Independent Inquiry/Research Student Discussion 26.1 56.5 56.5 56.5 0.0 4.3 8.7 17.4 30.4 39.1 4.3 26.1 4.3 0.0 8.7 21.7 30.4 17.4 13.0 39.1 4.3 0.0 39.1 30.4 Students as Producers of Knowledge Using 30.4 8.7 21.7 39.1 0.0 Technology 'Percentages Indicating Observed Levels of Application 'Rating Scale: 1= limited application: 4=strong application * See addendum description of technology use  SCHOOL OBSERVATION SUMMARY Analysis of data collected using SOM, the Math Addendum and RSCA during the observations revealed that THRIVE teachers are using a variety of instructional strategies aligned with Arkansas state-designed SLEs. The most striking result was the extent to which team teaching and collaborative/cooperative learning dominated the curriculum. Additionally, notable use of higher level questioning strategies and teachers acting as coaches rather than lecturers was noted among observed sessions. During the teaching sessions that were observed, the Math Addendum items revealed that teachers were frequently emphasizing conceptual understanding over rote learning. Furthermore, this practice facilitated frequent instances of promoting students confidence and flexibility in doing mathematics. Overall, students in the THRIVE program had a high level of interest and were observed being engaged in instruction that emphasized practical and conceptual learning in a comfortable, student-centered setting. 27 SURVEY RESULTS  Four surveys (Algebra I Teacher, Student, Parent, SMART/THRIVE Teacher) were administered in late March, 2005. Results for each of the four instruments were examined independently. Demographic  characteristics of the respondents are representative: however, not all respondents completed the demographic section of the surveys. Additionally, the total number of respondents to THRIVE items varied from the total number of SMART respondents across questionnaires. Demographic differences are described n for each group. Finally, item percentages across surveys did not always total 100% because of missing input from some of the respondents (i.e., there were questions to which some people did not respond). PROGRAM PARTICIPANT SURVEY THRIVE total of 142 students responded to items pertaining to THRIVE and 70 students responded to items pertaining to SMART\\ Of the 138 THRIVE respondents who reported their ethnicity, 77% specified African American, 7% specified Multi-Ethnic, and 4.2% specified Asian. The remaining categories of Caucasian (3.5%), Hispanic (2.8%), and Other (2.1%) were specified less frequently. A total of 63.4% of the respondents were female\n35.9% of the respondents were male. Of the 70 students responding to SMART questionnaire items and specifying demographic information, 38.6% were female and 61.4% were male. Regarding ethnicity, 82.9% of the SMART respondents specified African American, 4.3% specified Caucasian or Hispanic respectively, 2.9% specified Multi-Ethnic and 1.4% specified Other or Asian. Table 6 contains the results for THRIVE and SMART objective survey items. These results are summarized in text below. Summaries of the open ended questions are shown in subsequent Tables. The overall trend in response types was positive\nfifty percent or more students indicated agreement or strong agreement across all items. Well over eighty percent of students responding to the survey reported that team competitions made THRIVE classes more fun. Over seventy-five percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE made algebra more enjoyable and instilled confidence in doing well on the algebra Benchmark Exam. Over sixty percent of student respondents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE improved their self-confidence about math, helped them feel comfortable asking questions in THRIVE class.  Because some students participating in the THRIVE program did not participate in SMART during the previous summer, differences between respondent numbers were expected. 28 n II and facilitated problem solving through calculator use. A total of 66.6% of respondents indicated that THRIVE IB teachers helped them with problems they were having in their regular algebra class. At least one half (50.0%) of the students responding to the survey indicated that THRIVE helped improve their algebra grades and II helped them understand how to apply algebra concepts in real life. In contrast to the positive trend in responses across items, two areas in which some students showed disagreement were related to n generalization and application. This is somewhat consistent with responses noted within the open ended II portion of the student survey where students indicated an overall satisfaction with the program but did not feel that the program changed their study habits or helped them apply information to real life situations. II Additionally, more students responded neutrally to items pertaining to content, grades and application when compared to responses for items related to motivation, fun and self-confidence. II Table 6 II Student Survey - THRIVE N = 142 THRIVE items II 1. Because of THRIVE, I have learned how to use a calculator to help solve algebra problems. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 67.6 Percent Neutral 23.9 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 8.5 II 2. THRIVE makes algebra more enjoyable. 77.5 20.4 2.1 3. II 4. II 5. 6. II 7. 8. THRIVE has helped me get good grades in algebra. I think I will do well on the algebra Benchmark Exam because of THRIVE. In THRIVE, I have learned how algebra can be used in real life. THRIVE has made me more confident about math. My THRIVE teacher helps me with problems I am having in my algebra class. I feel comfortable asking questions in THRIVE class. 50.0 78.9 55.6 66.2 66.2 74.7 40.9 16.2 33.8 24.7 25.4 21.1 8.5 4.2 10.6 7.8 8.5 4.2 9. Team competitions make THRIVE classes fun. 87.3 6.3 2.8 29 a n II SMART II Responses indicating agreement or strong agreement for items pertaining to the SMART portion of survey were consistently above 75%. Of the 70 respondents, over 85% agreed or strongly agreed that II SMART helped prepare them for Algebra I in the fall, and 80% agreed or strongly agreed that SMART made algebra more fun. Seventy-eight percent agreed or strongly agreed that the SMART program helped them II remember math skills from the previous year. Students agreed or strongly agreed that they were motivated to II go to their SMART classes and that the program helped them apply math to solve real-life problems across 75% of the surveys. Fewer students indicated neutral or negative responses for the SMART survey items II than noted among THRIVE survey responses. Of those that indicated disagreement or strong disagreement, the item noted most frequently (4.3%) was related to application (We learned how to use math to solve real- II life problems.). Overall, the trend towards agreement with items probing the attributes of the programs was positive. Table 7 presents detailed results for the SMART student survey. II Table 7 II Student Survey - SMART N = 70 II SMART Items 1. II 2. II 3. 4. II 5. SMART helped me remember the math skills I learned last school year. SMART made algebra more fun. In SMART, we learned how to use math to solve real-life problems. I was motivated to go to my SMART class during the summer. Because of SMART, I was prepared to begin Algebra I in the fall. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 78.6 Percent Neutral 18.6 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 2.9 81.4 75.7 75.7 88.6 14.3 15.7 18.6 5.7 1.4 4.3 1.4 1.4 il OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES THRIVE students had an opportunity to respond to four, open-ended questions as part of the survey. Student impressions of the SMART program were polled across all students even though SMART was not in session and not all students participated in it during the previous summer. SMART and THRIVE were evaluated separately using the same questions to preserve the integrity of their differences. Student responses are summarized below. 30I H 11 Question 1: Students were asked to comment on what they liked about the THRIVE program. The II majority of responses reflected an appreciation of the programs use of competition and a sense that the program made math more fun/enjoyable. Additional comments suggested that students enjoyed having a II program that allowed for review and expansion of concepts taught in the regular Algebra I classroom. Students also noted that they enjoyed the teachers and felt comfortable asking for clarification when II necessary. Additionally, snacks and rewards were notably cited as positive influences of THRIVE. Table 8 II summarizes what students liked about THRIVE. TABLE 8 II What do you like about THRIVE? II Description II II II II II Makes math fun Uses competition/games in Provides expansion/review of math concepts Clarifies/Remediates confusing concepts Teachers are good/likeable Snacks People/friends in THRIVE classes Class size/Format Money/Rewards NA - responses did not pertain to question Enjoy using a calculator Provides a head start for following week in class Improves self-confidence/provides comfortable place to learn Class Time/Format TOTAL Frequency 42 37 18 17 17 14 11 8 7 7 4 3 3 2 190 Percentage 22% 19% 9% 9% 9% 7% 6% 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 1% 100% II Question 2: When asked what they would change about the THRIVE program, the ovenwhelming majority of students responded that they would make no changes. Students who did comment on needed II changes mostly cited a later start time or a more compressed time period (e.g., two hours rather than four hours) as potential prospects. Non-specific time changes (e.g., change time, time, different time) were also H noted among open-ended comments but coded separately due to the large number of students commenting on previously cited specifics about THRIVE hours. Table 9 provides an illustration of student comments. The Hi miscellaneous category captured unique comments made by individual students (e.g., field trips, guest speakers. Physical Education). 31 I TABLE 9 What would you change about THRIVE? Description No change Less time Later start time Miscellaneous Class format/more varied activities Longer breaks Non-specific time change Snacks/lunch Enhance competition More time More peers/neighborhood school Rewards Earlier time Teacher changes TOTAL Frequency 57 17 14 11 10 8 8 8 5 4 3 3 2 2 152 Percentage 38% 11% 9% 7% 7% 5% 5% 5% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 100% Question 3: Students were asked to comment on how THRIVE has helped them over the course of the semester. Most comments suggested that THRIVE helped students enhance comprehension of general algebraic concepts. Many students also indicated that THRIVE helped improve their grades and improved their understanding of how to use a calculator to solve and graph equations. Additionally, students' comments suggested that THRIVE reinforced specific concepts (e.g., graphing equations with polynomials) and made the students feel that they were staying ahead in weekly algebra classes. Of 150 responses, three indicated that THRIVE was not helpful\nnone indicated that it was detrimental. Table 10 summarizes the results. TABLE 10 If THRIVE has helped you, how has it helped you? Description Enhanced comprehension of algebra Improved grades Use of calculator Reinforced specific concepts in algebra Helps stay ahead in math Builds confidence/makes math more positive Miscellaneous (individual answers) Negative-Did not help TOTAL Frequency 63 20 18 16 14 8 8 3 150 Percentage 42% 13% 12% 11% 9% 5% 5% 2% 100% 32 II l\u0026lt; Questions about SMART were analyzed. Response rates across SMART questions, although Il somewhat different, do not vary significantly. Question 4: When asked to identify the most appealing aspects of SMART, most comments were If positive, yet nonspecific in nature. Examples included responses that alluded to liking everything about the program or how the program helped me (in general)\". A number of students (13%) noted that SMART II prepared them for math in the fall and reduced anxiety when entering first year algebra. Calculator use and II team competition garnered notably high response rates (13% and 12% respectively). Some students made specific comments about the positive influence of the SMART teachers and others made comments about rewards delivered through the program. Response categories are provided in Table 11. TABLE 11 What do you like about SMART? Description Nonspecific positive responses (e.g.. Everything\nHow it helped me) More prepared for math/ reduced anxiety Using the calculator Team competitions The teachers Reinforcement and rewards Social aspects/visiting with peers from other schools The snacks Games and content delivery NA (e.g., I did not go to SMART\nI do not know) Format/time/class size TOTAL Frequency 31 11 11 10 5 5 5 3 2 2 1 86 Percentage 36% 13% 13% 12% 6% 6% 6% 3% 2% 2% 1% 100% Question 5: Students also provided information about what aspects of the SMART program they would change. Over sixty percent of the responses favored no change. Of the remaining responses, 23% indicated a time change as appropriate. Of those, the large majority of comments suggested a later starting time rather than a reduced time period. One student noted a desire to reduce the amount of time spent at SMART. A few students who did not participate in SMART simply indicated such\nno additional comments were recorded among these respondents. The remaining responses indicated a desire to enhance the program by adding team competitions, extending the time during which SMART was available, and providing more applied skills for use in everyday situations. Data are summarized in Table 12. 33 TABLE 12 IVhaf would you change about the SMART program? Response No change Time Snacks NA (I did not go to SMART\n1 like Math) More team competitions More applied skills Extend time/day and/or hours________ TOTAL Frequency Percentage 41 15 3 3 2 1 1 66 62% 23% 5% 5% 3% 1% 1% 100% Question 6: When asked about how SMART helped students, the overwhelming majority of comments identified the programs purpose in preparing students for Algebra I as most important. Many responses also indicated the use of a calculator as instrumental in helping students solve algebra problems. Additionally, students noted that SMART helped improve their grades and built confidence in math. TABLE 13 If SMART helped you, describe how. Response Made me feel prepared Use of calculator Built confidence in math Improved grades NA(I did not go to SMART\n1 liked THRIVE) Reinforced specific concepts Miscellaneous (I would like field trips) Increased engagement/interest TOTAL PARENT SURVEY THRIVE Frequency Percentage 41 11 6 6 3 1 1 1 70 59% 16% 9% 9% 4% 1% 1% 1% 100% A total of 35 parents responded to survey items pertaining to THRIVE. Of those, 57% were female and 40% were male. A total of 80% of parent respondents indicated that their child was African American, 8.6% specified Asian and 2.9% specified Caucasian, Hispanic and Other respectively. No parental respondents specified Multi-Ethnic as the ethnicity of their child. 34 n II Responses indicating agreement or strong agreement were consistently above 80% across all survey il items. Overall, parents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE was a good program (94%), that they felt comfortable having their child attend classes on Saturdays (91.4%) and that they felt teachers in the program II helped their children feel successful in math (91.4%). The neutral responses that were noted were made in response to items pertaining to childrens attitudes about math and improvement in grades. No negative II responses to the items were reported. Table 14 provides a summary of the responses. H Table 14 11 Parent Survey - THRIVE N = 35 THRIVE items 11 Percent Strongly Agree/Agree Percent Percent Strongly Neutral Disagree/ 1. II 2. 3. II 4. 5. II 6. II II II II n The teachers in this program make my child feel that he/she can succeed. Because of this program, my child is more motivated to complete algebra homework. This program has helped improve my childs attitude about math. I am comfortable having my child attend classes on Saturdays. Because of this program, I have seen an improvement in my childs Algebra I grades. Overall, I think this is a good program. SMART 91.4 88.6 82.9 91.4 80.0 94.3 5.7 8.6 17.1 5.7 14.3 2.9 Disagree 0.0 Percent Don't Know 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A smaller number of parents (21) responded to the five survey items pertaining to SMART. Of those, 61.9% were female and 33.3% were male. Eighty-five percent of parental respondents cited their childs ethnicity as African American. The remaining respondents indicated Asian (4.8%) or Other (4.8%) as their childs ethnicity. Ninety percent of parent respondents indicated agreement or strong agreement when asked whether SMART did a good job of preparing children for Algebra I in the fall and improving childrens perception that they could succeed in math. Results are noted in tables 15 and 16. Slightly over 85% of respondents indicated agreement or strong agreement with items related to whether SMART improved their childs attitude about math and whether they felt comfortable sending their children to classes during the summer. A total of 35 h II n 76% of parents agreed or strongly agreed that the program classes were easy for their children to attend. n None of the respondents indicated disagreement or strong disagreement with any of the items. Of those that responded neutrally, the highest number (14.3%) were noted for the item pertaining to whether SMART had II improved attitudes about math. No parents indicated negative responses for any of the items. II Table 15 II Parent Survey- SMART N=21 SMART Items II 1. II 2. 3. II 4. 5. II Because of this program, my child felt like he/she could succeed in Math. The summer classes were easy for my child to attend. This program helped improve my childs attitude about Math. I am comfortable having my child attend classes during the summer. This program did a good job of preparing my child for beginning Algebra I in the fall. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 90.5 Percent Neutral 4.8 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 0.0 Percent Dont Know 0.0 76.2 85.7 85.7 90.5 4.8 0.0 4.8 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.8 0.0 0.0 OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES II Question 1: When asked to provide their impressions of THRIVE, many parents responses described II it as a motivating math program (19%) targeting childrens math skills. Numerous comments suggested that parents characterize THRIVE as a program that improves general math skills (19%) and/or focuses on II problem solving and/or critical thinking (15%). A number of parents comments also reflected an awareness of the programs use of motivating games and competition to foster interest in math (15%). The balance of the II comments were positive and reflected an awareness of THRIVE as a supplemental alternative to the weekly Algebra I curriculum. II II 36 H bII II TABLE 16 II Please tell us your impression of the THRIVE program. What do you see as taking place during the sessions? II II II II Description Helps child feel fulfilled/motivated about math Helps child improve math skills Focuses critical thinking and problem solving Integrates games and fun into math Non-specific positive commendation Practical application Provides individualized tutoring provides review of school curriculum Class format: small groups and team competition TOTAL Frequency 5 5 4 4 2 2 2 21 27 Percentage 19% 19% 15% 15% 7% 7% 7% 7% 4% 100% II Question 2 and Question 3: Questions 2 and 3 addressed parents opinions of THRIVE. One third of the comments made about parents positive opinions indicated that it was motivating. Parents also noted that II they liked how THRIVE provided additional help (17%) and made efforts to improve specific math skills (12%). n Some parents reported global positive experiences and satisfaction with THRIVE (14%). Table 17 provides additional data regarding what parents liked about the program. II Regarding parents opinions about whether aspects of THRIVE should be changed, 29% recommended no change and/or responded positively about the program. Of the comments requesting n change, one third recommended expanding the breadth and length of the program. Specifically, these parents made note that more time (23%) should be allocated for THRIVE and that more students (10%) should be II involved. Table 18 provides additional information about isolated comments for changing THRIVE. II II n 37 II II TABLE 17 II What did you like about the THRIVE program? Description Frequency Percentage II II II II Motivating Provides additional help Non-specific positive commendation Improve math skills Class size, time, format Learning new strategies Games Parent gatherings Prepares for benchmark exam Teaches calculator skills TOTAL 14 7 6 5 3 3 1 1 1 1 42 33% 17% 14% 12% 7% 7% 2% 2% 2% 2% 100% II II TABLE 18 If anything, what would you change about the THRIVE program? II Description Frequency Percentage II II II II II No change Extend time/meet more frequently Expand program to more students More challenge Expand into summer Expand program to after school Get credit Later start Measurement of progress More communication between parents and teachers More funding More hands on learning More structure Transportation\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":"aru_unequal_23","title":"Stony Point Community Church Anti-Gay Marriage Sign","collection_id":"aru_unequal","collection_title":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044"],"dcterms_creator":["Timothy G. Nutt"],"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["A sign erected by the Stony Point Community Church near Bigelow, Perry County, Arkansas, urging community members to support Amendment 83 (2004) to the Arkansas constitution, which specifically prohibits same-sex marriages.","Gays and Lesbians -- Homosexuality -- Gay Rights -- Bigelow -- Perry County"],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Fayetteville, Ark. : University of Arkansas Libraries"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Timothy G. Nutt"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Arkansas","Civil rights--Arkansas","Race discrimination--Arkansas","Segregation--Arkansas"],"dcterms_title":["Stony Point Community Church Anti-Gay Marriage Sign"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.uark.edu/cdm/ref/collection/Civilrights/id/23"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact Special Collections for information on copyright."],"dcterms_medium":["photographs"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"suc_tomcrosbystr","title":"Tom Crosby’s Rosenwald School oral history collection, 2006-2011","collection_id":null,"collection_title":null,"dcterms_contributor":["South Caroliniana Library. Office of Oral History","Crosby, Tom, 1940-","L'Hommedieu, Andrea,"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Richland County, 34.0218, -80.90304","United States, South Carolina, Richland County, Columbia, Allen University, 34.01071, -81.02037","United States, South Carolina, Union County, 34.68928, -81.61942","United States, South Carolina, Union County, Union, Sims High School, 34.70097, -81.6101"],"dcterms_creator":["Crosby, Tom, 1940-","Dorrah-Evans, Dorothy Mae Lomax, 1906-2012","Floyd, James, 1935-","Gamble, Dill, Jr., 1934-","Alston, Kenneth, 1951-","Bates, John H., 1938-","Boyd, Telicious Kenly, 1919-2009","Brown, Joe E. (Joe Ellis), 1933-","Burgess, Agnes, 1914-2012,","Cannon, William, 1928-","Carter, Durham, 1928-","Dillard, Mary Gregory, 1938-","Felder, Rosana, 1909-2012,"],"dc_date":["2006/2011"],"dcterms_description":["The Rosenwald Schools of South Carolina exhibit features as its center the forty-three oral history interviews forming the Tom Crosby Oral History Collection that describe the educational experiences of African Americans in South Carolina 1910s-1970s, most of whom attended Rosenwald schools and/or Allen University. Accessible from the Interviews tab, all interviews are available as transcripts and sound recordings. Interview synopses, with biographical data, precede each transcript link.","","What is a Rosenwald school? In 1917, Julius Rosenwald (1862-1932), President of Sears, Roebuck and Company, initiated the Julius Rosenwald Foundation which built more than 5000 schools, shop buildings and teachers’ houses for African Americans across the South. African Americans participated in the building of schools in their communities including land acquisition, fund raising, school management and curriculum. About 500 schools were built in South Carolina. The program ended in 1932, but many of the schools continued operating until desegregation in the early 1970s."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. South Caroliniana Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Education--South Carolina--History--20th century","African Americans--Social life and customs--20th century","African Americans--South Carolina--Interviews","African American schools--South Carolina--Union County--History--20th century","Allen University--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews","African American schools--South Carolina--Richland County--History--20th century","Sims High School (Union, S.C.)--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews","African American school administrators--South Carolina--Interviews","African American teachers--South Carolina--Interviews","Booker T. Washington High School (Columbia, S.C.)--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews","High school athletes--South Carolina--Union County--History","African American schools--South Carolina--Newberry County--History--20th century","Allen University--Alumni and alumnae","African American schools--South Carolina--Clarendon County--History--20th century","African American schools--South Carolina--Laurens County--History--20th century","African American schools--South Carolina--Sumter County--History--20th century","African American teachers--South Carolina","Benedict College--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews","Booker T. Washington High School (Columbia, S.C.)--Faculty--Interviews","Crosby, Tom, 1940---Interviews","Dorrah-Evans, Dorothy Mae Lomax, 1906-2012--Interviews","Floyd, James, 1935---Interviews","Gamble, Dill, Jr., 1934---Interviews","Julius Rosenwald Fund","Negro Rural School Fund, Inc.","Sims High School (Union, S.C.)--Football--History--20th century","South Carolina State College--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews","South Carolina State University--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews"],"dcterms_title":["Tom Crosby’s Rosenwald School oral history collection, 2006-2011"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["South Caroliniana Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.library.sc.edu/collections/tom-crosby-oral-history-collection-2006-2011/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright: University of South Carolina. The transcript and audio are provided for individual Research Purposes Only; for all other uses, including publication, reproduction, and quotation beyond fair use, permission must be obtained in writing from: The South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, 910 Sumter Street, Columbia, SC 29208"],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Long, Lawrence W. -1985"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"ugafs_fsp","title":"Unsung foot soldiers : The Foot Soldier Project for Civil Rights Studies at the University of Georgia","collection_id":null,"collection_title":null,"dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["Web site with information about the Unsung Foot Soldier Project at the University of Georgia. The project researches and documents the lives and work of significant, but less-well-known players in the Civil Rights movement, particularly those from Georgia. The project has produced books and films about Horace Ward and Hamilton Holmes. Portions of those films are available on the site as well as biographies of other influential activists. The site also contains curriculum guides about Hamilton Holmes, Emmett Till, and working with oral histories.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights workers--United States","African American civil rights workers","African Americans--Civil rights","Civil rights movements--United States","United States--Race relations","Oral history--Study and teaching"],"dcterms_title":["Unsung foot soldiers : The Foot Soldier Project for Civil Rights Studies at the University of Georgia"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Foot Soldier Project for Civil Rights Studies at the University of Georgia"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.footsoldier.uga.edu/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["instructional materials","articles","lesson plans","biographies"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Bootle, William A., 1902-2005","Hollowell, Donald","Motley, Constance Baker, 1921-","Ward, Horace T. (Horace Taliaferro), 1927-","Holmes, Hamilton, 1941-","Early, Mary Frances","Till, Emmett, 1941-1955--Assassination"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"valdosta_vscintegration","title":"Valdosta State College Integration","collection_id":null,"collection_title":null,"dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Lowndes County, Valdosta, 30.83334, -83.28032"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["This online exhibit summarizes the history of integration at Valdosta State College, and the challenges met by African Americans to integrate Georgia educational institutions. Materials include photographs, newspaper clippings, documents, and links to related resources.","Taken from items held in the Archives and Special Collections, Valdosta State University"],"dc_format":["image/jpeg","text/html"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Valdosta State College","Valdosta State College--History--20th century","Civil rights--Georgia--Valdosta","Segregation in education--Georgia--Valdosta","Segregation in higher education--Georgia--Valdosta","African Americans--Education--Georgia--Valdosta","African Americans--Education (Higher)--Georgia--Valdosta","College students--Georgia--Valdosta","African American college students--Georgia--Valdosta"],"dcterms_title":["Valdosta State College Integration"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Valdosta State University. Odum Library. Archives and Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.valdosta.edu/academics/library/depts/archives-and-special-collections/vsu-history/100-years/integration.php"],"dcterms_temporal":["1924/1974"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["photographs","online exhibitions","clippings (information artifacts)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_69126080","title":"Voting rights enforcement and reauthorization [electronic resource] : the Department of Justice's record of enforcing the temporary Voting Rights Act provisions","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["A digital version of the report published by the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["United States. Voting Rights Act of 1965","Election law--United States","African Americans--Suffrage--Government policy","Elections--Government policy--United States"],"dcterms_title":["Voting rights enforcement and reauthorization [electronic resource] : the Department of Justice's record of enforcing the temporary Voting Rights Act provisions"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS70103"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["1 v. (various pagings) : digital, PDF file."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":278,"next_page":279,"prev_page":277,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":3324,"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}}]}}