Threats to the validity of the Title I Evaluation and Reporting System are covered in two parts: an annotated bibliography of reports concerned with technical issues, and a discussion of threats to validity--from the reporting system in general and from each model in particular. Threats common to all three evaluation models are reported:…

The tenability of the equipercentile growth assumption was investigated. This assumption is the basis of the norm referenced evaluation model (Model A) for Title I program evaluations, and supposes that a cohort of students, given no special educational intervention, will maintain the same percentile rank over the course of a school year, as…

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)

Two ESEA Title I evaluation models developed by the Resource Management Corporation (RMC), were field tested simultaneously with 560 Title I reading students, grades 2-8. Measuring instruments for models 1 and 2 were, respectively, the California Achievement Test (reading vocabulary section), a norm-referenced test; and the Tarmac Reading…

The three RMC models endorsed by the U.S. Office of Education for the evaluation of Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I programs are based on narrowly conceived approaches to evaluation--the measurement of cognitive achievement gains. Each model requires the comparison of observed student performance with an estimate of what level of…