The desirability of evaluating the total effect of the Emergency School Aid Act versus specific programs in the Act is the focus of this commentary on the evaluation of that act and an article detailing that evaluation (TM 503 672). (JKS)

The one group posttest only evaluation model has been identified as a relatively inexpensive and useful model that can identify program components that are not being successful. The use of the model is discussed and illustrated through a hypothetical evaluation of a compensatory (Chapter 1) program. The one group posttest only evaluation model…

This statement describes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I's evaluation effort. Evaluation activities are mandated by Section 151 of the Act and are varied and complex. The evaluation efforts focus as a first priority on improving local and state evaluation activities. The efforts involve the development of evaluation models, the…

An overview of the function of observation systems within the context of program evaluation is illustrated by summarizing observation systems used in evaluations of primary education, compensatory education, and Follow Through programs. (Author/CM)

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…

In order to assess the impact of Title I programs, models specifying criteria, techniques and methodologies for evaluation were developed. These models prescribe pre- and post-test results for both Title I and non Title I children. This report describes the status of the use of the models, the experience of people who used them during the 1976-77…

Twenty-six papers concerning Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I program evaluation--presented at the 1978 American Educational Research Association/National Council on Measurement in Education meeting--are summarized. Speakers from the federal government are: C.T. Cross (see ED 156 695); R.L. Fishbein; and D. Ozenne. State department…

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)

Research evidence relating to the utility of the RMC evaluation models of compensatory education employing non-normed tests is examined. The history and evolution of five early models into the current norm-referenced model utilizing a non-normed test (Model A2), non-normed versions of a comparison model (Model B2), and the regression model (Model…

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 RMC Corporation, under contract to the U.S. Office of Education, developed a reporting and evaluation system to be used at the state and local level for evaluating Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I programs. The three evaluation models and RMC's recommendations regarding their implementation specified stringent requirements…

Some of the problems unique to evaluation research, in particular to the evaluation of longitudinal studies of social programs, are presented. A working model found to be useful in structuring compensatory education program evaluation activities is also offered. Since the goals of social programs such as Head Start are dynamic rather than static,…

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)

Like the Elementary Secondary Education Act Title I, the Education Consolidation Improvement Act Chapter 1 requires school districts to determine at least once every 3 years whether Title I achievement gains are sustained over a period of 12 months or more. A local education agency (LEA) has considerable flexibility in the approach it takes in…

Normative data reported by publishers of the California Achievement Test, the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills, and the SRA Assessment Survey were used to illustrate a procedure for specifying goals for Title I programs in terms of normal curve equivalent (NCE) gains. The procedure was based on the amount of growth reflected in student reading…