An intergovernment program implementation framework is shown to be strongly affected by the way federal expectations and administrative actions interact with the state and local education agency programs. They can influence the components of categories of implementation factors, process variables, and the agency role orientations. (CM)

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)

Review of congressional hearings leading to the enactment of the Education Amendments of 1974 (Public Law 93-380), the initial response of the United States Office of Education, and the study conducted by the National Institute of Education as mandated in Section 821 of PL 93-380. (MH)

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)

The RMC models for Title I program evaluations involve too large an expenditure of effort in relation to the information needs of the federal government. Too little is being done to ensure the usefulness of the models at state and local levels. (MH)

Seven considerations in designing the Title I Evaluation and Reporting System are reviewed: satisfying state, local, and federal needs; summative evaluation; differences in Title I subprograms; local use of different achievement tests; comparative analysis data; use of approved evaluation designs; and use of a common reporting metric. (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)

Evaluation procedures and programs in the Cincinnati, Ohio school system, the role of local school evaluators, and the models for school evaluation--based on high, moderate, or low trust--are described. Evaluators serve local schools in formative and summative evaluation projects, in assessing needs, and in meeting them. (MH)