Search

This paper provides an assessment of the Inter-American Science and Humanities Program, a program of the University of Texas, El Paso, which allowed students from northern Mexico to take their freshman level courses in Spanish while receiving instruction designed to rapidly enhance English language skills. The paper assesses the effectiveness of this effort in successfully preparing 886 participants who entered the program between fall 1984 and spring 1991 to move into the regular university curriculum, complete their academic programs, and earn a baccalaureate degree. Outcomes examined included participants' retention and graduation rates, credit hours earned over time, grade point averages at each level, and grades in selected English and bilingual courses. These outcomes were measured against those for a comparison group of international students. As a result of the data analysis and interview, several program weaknesses surfaced. These included the finding that the program was no longer addressing the needs of more recent students compared to when the program was first implemented in 1968, and results which pointed to four main problems: low level of English language proficiency; bilingual courses at cross purposes; lack of a program structure and organization; and inadequate acculturation to the American university. In addition, it was found that overcrowding in the course strained the university's budget and shortchanged students. Recommendations for improvement are suggested. (GLR)

This working paper examines funding to U.S. school districts and public schools in accordance with Chapter 1 of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 as amended in 1988. The report discusses the background of the legislation, describes its provisions, and presents results from the Schools and Staffing Survey conducted in 1987-88 and the 1990-91 administration of the Public School Questionnaire and Private School Questionnaire. Findings are reported concerning which school districts are receiving Chapter 1 funding, the number of schools enrolling students served in Chapter 1 programs, and the number of students being served by elementary and secondary schools and participation by school poverty concentration. The following results are highlighted: (1) over 90 percent of all public school districts in 1987-88 received Chapter 1 services, and virtually all of the very needy districts received Chapter 1 funds; (2) nationwide, 66 percent of public schools and 25 percent of private schools enrolled students who were served in Chapter 1 programs in 1990-91; (3) 87 percent of the schools with the highest concentrations of poor children provided Chapter 1 services in 1990-91; (4) nearly 5.7 million students, or about 13 percent of all students in 1990-91, received Chapter 1 services; and (5) elementary school students were more likely to be served than were secondary school students in 1990-91. An appendix provides nine data tables. (Contains 7 references.) (GLR)

This conference proceedings publication addresses issues in developmental education at the postsecondary level. Papers included are: "Developmental Studies Teachers to Retention Specialists: Assets, Not Liabilities" (Carol H. Bader); "Primary and Secondary Orientation Support for One Underrepresented Group" (Allen R. Barlow and Kerri Heavens); "Magazines in Developmental Writing: An Innovative Reading-Writing Connection" (Sandra Karnei Chumchal); "Summary of the Final Report of the American Mathematical Association of Two Year Colleges: Standards for Developmental and Introductory College Mathematics" (Betsy Darken); "Effects of Testing Methods on Outcomes in Developmental Algebra" (Jeanette W. Glover); "Breaking Down the Barriers" (Ellen Hendrix et al.); "A Fair Chance for All" (Trevor Hulme and Allen R. Barlow); "Academic Probation: A Road to Academic Success" (Marjorie L. Illingworth); "Arts Internships as Transition Space for Students At Risk" (Linda Adler Kassner and Terence Collins); "Tutor Training Enhanced By Knowledge of Tutee Expectations" (Joan L. Krabbe and Mark A. Krabbe); "Supplemental Instruction in Biology at the College Level" (Ofra N. Peled and Anna C. Kim); "Building Mathematical Understanding: From Counting to Chaos" (Patrick Perdew et al.); "Educating the Postsecondary Student with Learning Disabilities" (Linda Schnapp); "Integration of Basic Composition and Reading" (Caroline Stern); "Activities to Promote Achievement Among Mathematics Students" (Pamela V. Thomas and Jeanne L. Higbee); "Developing Experiential Learning Assignments for Composition Courses" (Edna M. Troiano); "Supplemental Instruction's Impact on Affect: A Follow-Up and Expansion" (Julia N. Visor et al.); "Mathematics Survival: A Linked Course" (Gideon L. Weinstein); and "Student's World: A Writing Assignment" (Annette C. Williams). (Individual papers contain references.) (NAV)

This paper describes and illustrates a decision theory model to analyze student selection strategies in Chapter 1 programs. The relationship between the method and the practice of moral evaluation activity is based on viewing justice as a fundamental moral concern in distributing resources, one which is accomplished, in part, through student placement decisions. The decision theory is well suited to promote services for the most disadvantaged if one accepts the premise that academic advantage is best measured by standardized achievement tests and that schools in poverty neighborhoods require additional support to serve those students. The model, its rationale, application, and limitations are discussed. (PN)

This book, divided into three sections, comprises papers delivered at a conference on "Alternative Strategies in Compensatory Education," convened by the staff of the National Assessment of Chapter 1 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act and designed to aid Congress in its 1987 reauthorization of Chapter 1. The introduction, "Title I in Retrospect, Chapter 1 in Prospect," is by Denis P. Doyle. Section 1, "The Federal Role" includes the following papers: (1) "The Evolution of the Compensatory Education Program" (Paul E. Peterson, Barry G. Rabe, and Kenneth K. Wong); (2) "Program Strategy and Design: Options for Federal Action in Education" (Paul T. Hill); (3) "Increased State Capacity and Aid to the Disadvantaged" (Susan Fuhrman); and (4) "The Federal Role and Chapter 1: Rethinking Some Basic Assuptions" (Michael W. Kirst). Section 2 "Selected Issues of Access and Accountability," includes the following papers: (1) "Selecting Students and Services for Chapter 1" (Marshall S. Smith); (2) "Funding the Individual? An Essay on the Future of Chapter 1" (Denis P. Doyle and Bruce S. Cooper); (3) "The Problem of Quality in Chapter 1" (Richard F. Elmore); and (4) "How Fiscal Accountability and Program Quality Can Be Insured for Chapter 1" (Allan Odden). Section 3, "Lessons for "Implementation," includes the following papers: (1) "The Next Steps in Urban Education" (Charles Glenn); (2) "The Ways That Schools Are: Lessons for Reformers" (Larry Cuban); and (3) "Effective Schools and the Problems of the Poor" (John E. Chubb). Four tables and figures illustrate some of the data. A list of references is provided for each paper. (BJV)

This volume of research papers presents ideas, information, and consensus statements on compensatory education effectiveness by some of the country's leading education researchers. Section one presents a summary of proceedings of the meeting at which the researchers submitted their papers to the Conference Panel and staff of the National Assessment of Education Consolidation and Improvement Act Chapter 1. The conference agenda is also provided in this section. Remaining sections include complete papers of the contributing authors on 26 topics organized into the following five categories, each of which served as the basis for one session during the conference: (1) selecting students and services; (2) program and staffing structures; (3) curriculum and instruction; (4) parent involvement; and (5) relationship between Chapter 1 and regular school programs. The conference participants each served in one of three roles: as literature reviewers and research synthesizers; as reactors who responded to the papers written for a particular session; and as members of the Panel. The discussions among the Panel members resulted in six consensus statements relating to distribution of funds, use of funds, parent involvement, research and development, and goals of Chapter 1 services. Each paper includes a list of references. There are also tables and figures presenting data on student achievement, various compensatory programs, and participant demographics. (PS)

Since grade-appropriate levels of standardized achievement tests must frequently be used in Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I evaluations, there may be large discrepancies between test difficulty and the achievement level of those being tested, with resultant inaccuracies in the scores. Procedures based on the Rasch scaling model were used to assess the degree to which scores on grade-appropriate reading achievement tests reflected true achievement, and to develop a subset of the item battery that reflected true achievement and that could be linked to national percentile ranks. Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills reading vocabulary and reading comprehension subtest scores were obtained for 1,000 West Virginia third graders, and submitted to a Rasch scaling analysis using the BICAL computer program. BICAL performed the scaling, assigned item difficulty and student ability values, and generated item-fit statistics for each item and for six student ability groups. Results of the reliability analyses contradicted the original expectations. In conclusion, there was support for testing achievement with a subset of items that was most appropriate for low-achieving students. Similar procedures were recommended for assessing performance of a specific skill. (Author/GDC)

A multiple-indicator and multiple-design approach for evaluating the quality of basic skills programs in reading, writing, and mathematics that has been implemented within a statewide system of higher education in the southeastern United States was assessed. Several of the evaluation methodologies are compared in order to determine whether results are mutually supportive or contradictory and whether they are suggestive of interchangeability or complementarity as regards indicators and evaluative designs. Data are derived from a project designed to evaluate the effectiveness of developmental studies programs at a regional university and community colleges. Attention is focused upon a program in remedial mathematics at the regional, public university. The multiple-indicator and multiple-design strategy utilized both short-range and long-range post-program measures. The results of applying the following three designs are considered: single-group pretest-posttest comparison, the remediated-exempted comparison, and the cross-program comparison. Findings indicate that the application of the single-group pretest-posttest comparison suggested program effectiveness. While the findings were less clear, program effectiveness was also generally supported by the remediated-exempted comparison. Implementation of the cross-program comparison provided negative data regarding program performance on both short-range and long-range postprogram measures; however, this finding is qualified. It is suggested that the choice of the evaluative design is likely to have a greater effect upon the results of the evaluation than the choice of either the postprogram measure or the grouping statistic. (SW)

This report describes the development, implementation, and evaluation of programs designed to improve the educational opportunities of working class children in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. First, an overview of the objectives, program types, timetable and organizational structure is presented. Secondly, programs are described according to three broad categories: (1) development of thought structures; (2) social development; and (3) mastery learning in reading, mathematics, and language. A model for summative evaluation is presented in terms of sixteen variables, including socioeconomic status, cultural and educational background of parents, motivation, and emotional and cognitive development of participating students. A list of references is appended. (JCD)

The use of stepwise discriminant analysis as a means to select entering students who would benefit from a special program for the disadvantaged was studied. In fall 1984, 278 full-time black students were admitted as first-time students to a large urban university. Of the total, 200 entered a special program for the disadvantaged and 78 entered directly into the college. Three precollege variables were entered into the stepwise discriminant analysis: Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) verbal score, SAT math score, and high school rank. In addition, a second discriminant analysis was run to determine whether the originial placement was correct. The analysis indicated that the characteristics of the majority of black freshmen who entered college directly in fall 1984 differed from the majority who began the special program, but there was some overlap in both groups. The results indicate that 30 students from the special program should have been regular entry, and 18 regular entry students should have been in the special program. Based on the three precollege variables, guidelines for future placement of entering the program for the disadvantaged or directly into the college were established. (SW)

Twenty-six papers concerning Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I program evaluation--presented at the 1978 American Educational Research Association/National Council on Measurement in Education meeting--are summarized. Speakers from the federal government are: C.T. Cross (see ED 156 695); R.L. Fishbein; and D. Ozenne. State department of education speakers are D.R. Kearns of Arizona and R.O. Maye of Illinois. Speakers from local school districts are J.A. Arter and G. Estes (ED 170 332); C.R. Crowder and E.J. Gallas (ED 155 212); S. Powers and E.J. Gallas (ED 155 211); H.B. Slaughter and E.J. Gallas (ED 155 213); and S.H. Davidoff and C.R. Iwamoto. University representatives include F.X. Archambault and R.G. St. Pierre (Ed 152 953); R.M. Jaeger (ED 164 550); R.L. Linn (ED 156 696); G.K. Mandeville (ED 159 224); J. Long et. al. (ED 161 914); and D.E. Wiley. Speakers from the RMC Research Corporation are L.A. Dougharty and L.S. Kilibanoff; and G.K. Tallmadge and D.P. Horst (ED 155 204). Representatives of regional technical assistance centers are B.L. Anderson; G. Echternacht; G.D. Estes and J.I. Anderson (ED 164 601); J. Haenn and D.C. Proctor (ED 171 728); J.B. Hansen; S.B. Hiscox and T.R. Owen (ED 166 258); A.J. Stenner et. al. (ED 169 072); and K.O. Yap (ED 167 622). (GDC)

These papers were presented at the symposium "Using Statewide Basic Skills Tests to Make Promotion Decisions: Political and Psychometric Issues." The development of basic skills testing and the legislative mandate that needed to be implemented for minimum competency testing in Louisiana are discussed by Hugh I. Peck. Rebecca S. Christian examines the involvement of local educators in the development of a basic skills testing program. A statewide planning commission assured involvement of all local education agencies. Ellen B. Gillespie considers the implications of the testing program for special education students. Federal legislation assured the provision of educational and related services to handicapped children. Special education students who were not addressing state minimum skills were in an "alternative to regular placement." They were not included in the Basic Skills Testing Program. An individual educational prescription (IEP) was developed for each of these students. Policies are being developed to assure a test which is fair for all students. The development and use of an item bank for the state testing program is described by Craig N. Mills. Ellen Pechman discusses the effects of promotional testing on a large city school system. (DWH)

Speakers at the Lipman Research Institute's inaugural symposium examined research and issues related to appropriate programs for 4-year-olds. David Weikart described the Perry Preschool Project, an ongoing study begun in 1962 of 123 black youths at risk of failing, and the High/Scope Preschool Curriculum Study. Jane Stallings covered short-term and long-term effects of the Direct Instruction Follow Through model. Shirley Moore's discussion covered child/caregiver attachment during the first 12 through 18 months of life, and the development of prosocial behavior and social responsibility from the period of 2 years to 7 or 8 years. Three areas in cognitive development during preschool years were described by James Johnson, who suggested implications for teaching practice and social policy. Sally Provence presented a pediatrician's view of schooling and assessment of 4-year-olds. Concerned particularly with the interests of black youth, Evelyn Moore discussed the motivation of the movement to enter 4-year-olds in public schools and called attention to unanswered questions about public school prekindergarten. Herbert Zimiles closed the symposium by reassessing the values and goals of research and describing ways to improve the effectiveness of research in early childhood education. (RH)

This study, which focuses on one college of the City University of New York (CUNY), is in two parts. The first part is a paper titled "Open Admissions and CUNY in Crisis: A Comparison of Remedial and Non-Remedial Students"; the second paper is titled "Factors Affecting Grading Practices." The first study examined the difference between students who received remediation and those who did not need it, and assessed the differential impact of open and selective admissions. Sixteen data tables and 7 figures are included. The study found that students' native language played a major role in determining the need for remediation; that remedial students narrowed the academic performance gap as compared to nonremedial students during the normal 4-year period of college study; and that students with a greater need for remediation required a longer period of retention. The second paper discussed practical concerns of grade inflation. Findings revealed that adjunct faculty gave higher grades than full-time faculty; that faculty rank had only a marginal effect on grading; that grades in the humanities and social sciences were higher than in science and technology; and that the higher the course level, the higher the average grade. (Contains 56 references and 20 notes.) (CH)

This paper examines how the federal accountability mandates affect the design and implementation of schoolwide programs under Title I of the Improving America's Schools Act. It considers the policies adopted by states and districts to meet the accountability mandates, and it examines, at the school level, how the implementation of an accountability framework affects the development of curriculum and instructional processes that allow teachers to work with students at different ability levels. The paper uses data from case studies of Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan, and three districts (Cleveland, Chicago, and Detroit, respectively) to examine these questions. The first section outlines the theoretical perspective of the research. The second describes the research design, and the third presents the findings. At state, district, and school levels there was a reliance on structural (organizational) changes of outcome controls to create pressure and place constraints on schools. These states and school districts incorporated the federal expectations into their accountability systems by adopting performance and content standards, core curriculum frameworks, and assessment systems. Schools were most likely to rely on organizational changes to accommodate the accountability mandates. Schools in Detroit were less likely to make the organizational changes that were observed in Chicago or Cleveland. The focus on standards-based reform has led to a more integrated approach to curriculum and assessment in Ohio and Illinois, but many questions remain about the implementation and effectiveness of standards-based reform. An appendix contains tables of study results for each school district. (Contains 12 tables and 23 references.) (SLD)

This paper examines results from the Prospects study--a research agenda that explored the federal Title I program's impact on the academic and socio-emotional development of disadvantaged children. The document focuses on the program's strengths and limitations, offering a brief review of educational research and highlighting what may or may not work to alter the largely disappointing results found in Prospects. The paper outlines the history of the Title I program and discusses how a lack of resources and instructional requirements and other problems hindered the program's effectiveness. The paper looks at early evidence on the impact of Title I and then turns to the Prospects study, which was to be a national longitudinal assessment of Title I. The Prospects study found that Title I assistance was usually insufficient to close the gap in academic achievement between advantaged and disadvantaged students. The paper examines what makes a program effective, concentrating on instructional practice, class size, tracking, tutoring, and other strategies. The paper details the argument for improving entire schools, rather than a subset of the school, and concludes that Title I cannot by itself compensate for the substantial educational deprivations associated with child poverty. (Contains approximately 220 references.) (RJM)

In the Spring, 1996, issue of "CRESST Line," E. Baker and R. Linn commented that, in efforts to measure the progress of schools, "the fluctuations due to differences in the students themselves could conceal differences in instructional effects." This is particularly true in the context of the evaluation of adequate yearly progress required by Title I programs. This paper takes a typical system of measuring yearly progress and illustrates the truth of this assertion, and it describes alternatives that help distinguish schools that are truly improving from those that are not. Other purposes of the paper include: showing how typical sources of error can be determined; displaying typical sources from certain states for which Advanced Systems in Measurement and Evaluation, Inc. is the assessment contractor; and describing the amount of increase in error that is created by reporting data in terms of the percentage of students at various proficiency levels rather than a mean score. Models testing one or more grade levels in each year are examined. There is no question that if economics and politics support the solution, the best way to minimize standard errors is to increase the number of adequate grade levels being tested. Statistical analysis shows that sampling error will make it difficult to determine which schools are making adequate yearly progress and which are not. Even if just two grades are tested each year, the reduction in standard errors matches the model in which one grade per year is tested, but 3 years' data are used in both baseline and posttest. The latter model is inconvenient for several reasons, one of which is the need to wait 6 years before the first evaluation can be done. (Contains two tables.) (SLD)

The use of the cohort-survival method for projecting student enrollments is widely known in educational finance literature; however, the limited information provided by the model impedes planners in making future operational decisions. The cohort-survival method employs historical rates of usage to predict future patterns of usage and produces a grade-by-grade forecast for each student cohort. This paper presents a model that develops multipliers for several student-support programs to create a broad base of information. The model accommodates the number of regular public school students by grade level as well as an estimate of certain student-support programs--compensatory education, bilingual education, and 11 categories of special education. The model incorporates student-support-program requirements and adds the numbers of retained members to the next cohort, thus presenting a more accurate view of the enrollment picture. Two figures are included. (Contains nine references.) (LMI)

This paper describes the current state of research on Success for All, a program built around the idea that every child can and must succeed in the early grades. Success for All assumes that every child without organic retardation can read. Requirements for success include prevention and intensive early intervention. Success for All began in one Baltimore (Maryland) school in 1987-88 and has spread to about 300 schools nationwide in fall 1995. Almost all Success for All schools are high-poverty Title I schools, and the majority of programs are schoolwide programs under Title I. To summarize the outcomes of the program in all schools and all years involved in experimental control comparisons, this paper uses multi-site replicated experiment analysis in which each grade level cohort is considered a replication. Evaluation results for 19 Success for All schools in 9 districts in 8 states clearly show that the program increases reading performance. Of particular interest are results that compare Success for All with Reading Recovery for different purposes. Results demonstrate that comprehensive, systemic school-by-school change can take place on a broad scale while maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of the model. (Contains 6 tables, 6 figures, and 39 references.) (SLD)

This paper presents arguments for changing a portion of current federal policy for evaluating Chapter 1 grants to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). Chapter 1, part of the federal Elementary Secondary Education Act (ESEA), provides funds to schools and districts to improve education for economically disadvantaged students. The paper advocates that multiple measures and some local selection of appropriate measures of program quality be used in addition to appropriate achievement outcome measures to determine which programs need school improvement. In addition, alternatives to norm-referenced standardized tests should be permitted as achievement outcome measures. In making the argument for these changes, the paper reviews norm-referenced tests, types of achievement performance missing from current tests, subject matter content missing from current tests, what the new performance assessments are, details of the current policy for program evaluation, and the LEAs' response to these provisions. Later sections argue that this is a good time to rethink evaluation requirements, that the current policy is less effective, and that performance assessments should be available for use in Chapter 1 programs. A final section discusses how to balance a program-specific array of instruments for evaluation. Included is a 12-item bibliography. (JB)