The Judicial Evaluation Method (JEM) is useful for aiding decision-making bodies to formulate policies. Broad public participation in complex issues is provided by JEM. (The conceptualization, policy formulation stages, and participant roles are identified; and the model is applied in two case studies). (MH)

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)

The evaluation design described was used to aid the governing board to reach a policy decision about expanding the California Early Childhood Education program (renamed the School Improvement Program) in the Lafayette School District. Descriptions of procedures, question formats, audiences involved, and results are included. (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)

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)