Arkansas Blog

Just some additional input to this story:

1. Seems Ms. Elfrink, LRSD's new CFO, came into LRSD and recognized the miscoding right away. Wonder why Mr. Mittiga, the previous LRSD CFO & now current CFO of e-Stem) could not surmise the same?

LRSD had numerous miscoding (or bad data) issues under the Brooks administration --remember the appeal Dr. Watson promptly filed with the ADE when she took office of Interim Supt. to correct nearly all student records to show correct economically disadvantaged status? Over Brooks' tenure the tags for economically disadvantaged grew until during the last year of Brooks superintendency nearly every student was tagged disadvantaged and submitted to ADE as such.

This set of miscoded data allowed some schools to meet AYP for the subgroup "Economically Disadvantaged" when correct coding would have put the schools in school improvement.

Remember all the testimony in federal court about bad data and the discussion about Business Objects data base, the district's computer system, not being useful for many employees of the district? And, Ms. Elfrinks shortly after arriving to LRSD told the Board during the last December meeting, that she did not have data needed for accurate projections of student enrollment. After arriving to LRSD she had to spend much time developing data files to be able to make correct projections for enrollment.

Isn't it interesting that the ADE continues to allow LRSD to use a different computer system than the rest of the state's schools use? Other districts use APSCN and LRSD continues to use Business Objects. While employed by LRSD, Mittiga continuously stated to ADE and others that he felt the Business Objects data system was superior than APSCN and the ADE continues to allow the District to use it's "superior" system.

Perhaps now there is enough evidence that LRSD's system is not superior and the ADE will require LRSD to join other AR districts in using the State's APSCN system. This would allow data from schools across the state to be more comparable. Or, Dr. Watson might voluntarily engage APSCN so the District would not be embarrassed with such miscoding issues in the future.

2. One key to understanding LRCTA's stance on RIF and administrative cuts is the very nature of the organization. One of the reasons CTA exists is to protect the rights of teachers so they may properly do their jobs without fear of reprisals or unfair dismissal. Anytime CTA supports getting rid of a position or of personnel, it opens itself up to the possibility that other jobs will be jeopardized later by opening this door.
CTA's leaders may believe in the necessity of such cuts, but to openly support them puts them in an awkward position with their members and with their stated goals.

3. The spectre which looms behind this entire episode is that of Dr. Brooks. The Democrat-Gazette editorials against the LRSD school board often cite Dr. Brooks or his endeavors, board members will refer back to decisions made by and about Dr. Brooks, LRCTA will refer to how Brooks spoke about dividing the duties between board and superintendent, current coding problems go back to the Brooks' administration, and the bitter and very public dismissal of Brooks still simmers beneath the breast of many an actor in this drama.

4. Clarification is needed on the efficacy and need for each adminiistrator. I have heard from different sources disgruntlement and dissatisfaction with the job performance of some of them. Clarification is needed on the Instructional Resource Center (IRC) and its role within the district. Does it really help teachers in the buildings as it is now structured? Are their alternatives, such as coops, to be used in place of the IRC? Some have complained that Target Teach wound up doing work that IRC professional were expected to handle.

Clarification is needed on the efficacy of programs being implemented to help students. A recent report, the Pre-Algebra & Algebra study, determined that only the SMART program was getting bonafide and acceptable results. One wonders at the high degree of failure for this many programs and what are the reasons for such.

ARK. BLOG: Thanks Jake. Again.

I add my thanks, Jake da Snake. I was hoping to see a response from you once school was out for the day.

Jake -

It seems that the students who were enrolled in SMART would have scored well on the Benchmark Exams and EOC Algebra I and Geometry tests even if they HAD NOT participated in SMART. In other words, the "smart" kids enrolled in SMART and performed well on the tests.

Do you have any firm data that supports or refutes this?

Slydog - see if you can get your hand on a report called the Pre-Algebra & Algebra Study that was done for the district. Dennis or Marcelline or Vanessa at the IRC might be the best contacts on that.
Your point about the quality of the students enrolled in SMART bears scrutiny. If what you suggest is true, then it brings to mind the term "ringer." But, surely this was taken into consideration. When I get a chance, I will ask someone with a copy of the report about this.
I was there for the first hour of the board meeting tonight and just wish the public could've heard the excellent comments made by LRCTA president Koehler, CAPE rep Terrence Bolden, and each board member as they discussed the upcoming budget considerations.

It made me realize again how much the Democrat Gazette distorts the actions of the board in its editorials. Kurrus bluntly raked the paper across the coals for its stand on NLR School Board and the stupid TIF ripoff.

I have a feeling that the school board will pull together much more than people are being led to expect by the Dem-Gaz.

Point of clarification on Jake's assessment

Business Objects is TRIAND. It is the data system used by the state and contains all of the state test data, enrollment data, student info, teacher scheduling (for the purposes of proving that state required minutes of content area instruction). It will also be used to track teacher certification details.
I use it all the time. It's clunky, but a wealth of info.

Several states use TRIAND which makes it easy to get test data on transfer students from outside of AR.

Thanks for the input Stories. Heard from JohnAArkansawyer who was adamant about the faults of BO (Business Objects). Hopefully, he will expound for us at a later time if the subject arises again.

Another person wrote me: "Very interesting. I hope Watson will do the right thing and switch to APSCN in the near future. I always suspected the former CFO did not want the State to pull data from a system; instead he wanted to send data by email. Then he could just say the data did not format correctly when the receiver put it into their system and that was the problem. He'd take months to resend... bought his dept. lots of extra time for all those cycle reports the state regularly requires."

Note: former CFO refers to Mittiga, now with Brooks at eStem.

let me wipe the egg off my face, change mittiga to milholland. he was cfo. freudian slip on my part.

i've told that business objects is NOT triand. there are 3 state data bases: normes, apscn, triand. will give you more later.

Business Objects is a wonderful piece of software. It's also very expensive--at least, it was when we put it in on my previous job. I wonder whether it's a cost-effective solution for the district.