Title I accountability requirements under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) represent the present-day instantiation of Lau, which requires schools to provide a program for English learners (ELs) that supports their meaningful engagement and to provide transparent information about EL program quality. This study uses critical policy analysis to…

The purpose of the present study was to conduct an initial validation of the Positive Family Support--Strengths and Needs Assessment (PFS-SaNA) for elementary school children. The PFS-SaNA is designed as a universal screener wherein parents report on common areas their children may need additional support. Parents of children attending one…

Forty-two states and the District of Columbia have recently received waivers to the school accountability requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). As the prospects for reauthorizing the Act in the near term are dim, these new accountability systems will be law for at least several years. Drawing on a four-part framework from the…

Kindergarten predictors, Otis-Lennon IQ, group and individual Bender scores, and teachers' ratings were correlated with first-grade Stanford Achievement Test scores from 152 children from three schools in the same school district and fourth-grade Ohio Survey Test scores from 102 of the same children. (Author/PN)

The internal validity of the RMC models, especially Model A, is examined. Concern centers on limiting evaluation to cognitive outcomes, using constant percentile as the no-treatment expectation, and using norms for one test to establish the expected no-treatment performance level for another test. (MH)

Later scholastic success is most highly related to early measures of achievement, affective status, and underperformance; affective status significantly predicts later social adjustment. Thus, neither poverty nor low achievement, both currently favored as Title I allocation criteria, should be used as sole indicators of need. (CP)

A liberal interpretation of Section 151 of Public Law 93-380, to implement effective local evaluation of Title I programs, is supported. Weaknesses are cited: (1) nationwide impact data, (2) unsound aggregation of Title I achievement gains, and (3) lack of consideration of alternative evaluation methods. (MH)

Title I Evaluation models using uniform procedures and data collection for state and national comparisons are interpreted as federal endorsement of basic, common competencies in reading and mathematics. Basic competencies, content homogeneity, conversion methodology, and validity of the evaluation are discussed. (MH)