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:…

In this discussion of the use of achievement tests in evaluating Title I programs, matching content between test and curriculum is the main theme. The point is made that unless a test measures what is taught, it cannot be sensitive to whatever gains the instruction produces. Thus, if different instructional treatments have different objectives, it…

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)

Educators considering adoption of policies regarding the promotion of students from one grade to the next must consider several factors, including acceptable levels of student progress toward terminal objectives, student developmental and cognitive abilities, community attitudes toward student retention, and the educational benefits of retention.…

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…