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)