documt reume · rs title. programs for ... *preschool education; *program evaluation; reading...

122
DOCUMT REUME BD, 132 216 7.' Up 016 571 AUTHOR Turner, W. E.; And Ot rs TITLE . Programs for Educat1nally Deprived 'Children. ESEA Title I Evaluati9n -Report, SepteMber, ¶975- August, 1976. . INSTITUTION Widhita Utified School District 259, Kans. SPOWS AGENCY , B eau of School Systems (DHEW/OE); Washington, D.C. Di . of Education for the Disadvantaged, BUREAU NO bR '16630, PUB DATE .Jul 76' NOTE 136p; EDRS PRICE M177$0.83 HC-$7.35 Plds postage. DESCRIPTORS Annual Repbrts; Basic Skills; Delinquent Rehabilitation; Elementary,. Schools; Elementary Secondary Education; *Institutionalized Persons; Mathematics Instruction; *PareneEdoicatiOnl . *Preschool Education; *Program Evaluation; Reading Programs; *Remedial InStructionk Summer Programs; Tuition Gkants; Urban Education IDENTIFIERS *Elementary Secondary Education Act Title E§EA Title I; *Kansas (Wichita) kw ABSTRACT During the 1965-76 school year, ESEA Title I'programS in Wichita, Kansas weire conducted in 2.0 Title I target elementary schools and 52 extended service elementary schools._ Programs included corrective reading, mathematics, and preschool components. There were also small but important proqrams for children in the neglected and delinquent institutions-. A parent education component was - implemented. fn the 1975 summer session, the main areas of reading and mathematics were emphasized with additionai inputs into the institutions and early childhood .programs. A.sizeable portion of the .1s.ummer school budget was allocated for tuition scholarships. Five thousand six. hunitred ahd two puRils were involved,in.regular year , programs: There were 3648 phpils in corrective reading with 2454 in mathematics, sOme of whom may hav'e been in both programs. Seventy-six percent of the pupils,met'or exceeded the,staied major performance for reading that pupils should gain .8 of a month on the California Reading,Test for/each.month of instruction. Fifty-five percent of 2,054 pupils with pretest and posttest scores wet the.mathematics .performince objectives on posttests. These objectives were measured by criterion/referenced basic skills tests. (Author/JM) ./ ********************************************************************** Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal' unpublished * materials not available from other sources. ERIg makes every effort * *.to obtain the. 6est copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal * * reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality * *'of the micrefiche,and hardcopy reProductions ERIC Oakes available -* ,* via the ERIC Document Reproduction Servi9t. (EDRS). EDRS is not * responsihle for the quality of the origiiiaZ\dodument. Reproductions * * supplied by EDRS are the hest that cah be made from the original. **********************************************************************

Upload: ngokhanh

Post on 12-May-2019

226 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

DOCUMT REUME

BD, 132 2167.'

Up 016 571

AUTHOR Turner, W. E.; And Ot rsTITLE . Programs for Educat1nally Deprived 'Children. ESEA

Title I Evaluati9n -Report, SepteMber, ¶975- August,1976. .

INSTITUTION Widhita Utified School District 259, Kans.SPOWS AGENCY , B eau of School Systems (DHEW/OE); Washington, D.C.

Di . of Education for the Disadvantaged,BUREAU NO bR '16630,PUB DATE .Jul 76'NOTE 136p;

EDRS PRICE M177$0.83 HC-$7.35 Plds postage.DESCRIPTORS Annual Repbrts; Basic Skills; Delinquent

Rehabilitation; Elementary,. Schools; ElementarySecondary Education; *Institutionalized Persons;Mathematics Instruction; *PareneEdoicatiOnl .

*Preschool Education; *Program Evaluation; ReadingPrograms; *Remedial InStructionk Summer Programs;Tuition Gkants; Urban Education

IDENTIFIERS *Elementary Secondary Education Act Title E§EATitle I; *Kansas (Wichita)

kw

ABSTRACTDuring the 1965-76 school year, ESEA Title I'programS

in Wichita, Kansas weire conducted in 2.0 Title I target elementaryschools and 52 extended service elementary schools._ Programs includedcorrective reading, mathematics, and preschool components. There werealso small but important proqrams for children in the neglected anddelinquent institutions-. A parent education component was -

implemented. fn the 1975 summer session, the main areas of readingand mathematics were emphasized with additionai inputs into theinstitutions and early childhood .programs. A.sizeable portion of the.1s.ummer school budget was allocated for tuition scholarships. Fivethousand six. hunitred ahd two puRils were involved,in.regular year ,programs: There were 3648 phpils in corrective reading with 2454 inmathematics, sOme of whom may hav'e been in both programs. Seventy-sixpercent of the pupils,met'or exceeded the,staied major performancefor reading that pupils should gain .8 of a month on the CaliforniaReading,Test for/each.month of instruction. Fifty-five percent of2,054 pupils with pretest and posttest scores wet the.mathematics.performince objectives on posttests. These objectives were measuredby criterion/referenced basic skills tests. (Author/JM)

./

**********************************************************************Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal' unpublished

* materials not available from other sources. ERIg makes every effort **.to obtain the. 6est copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal *

* reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality *

*'of the micrefiche,and hardcopy reProductions ERIC Oakes available -*,* via the ERIC Document Reproduction Servi9t. (EDRS). EDRS is not* responsihle for the quality of the origiiiaZ\dodument. Reproductions ** supplied by EDRS are the hest that cah be made from the original.**********************************************************************

C5

C\J t-

C\J

t`r\WICHITA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Unified School District #259Dr. Alvin E. Morris, Supprintendent

LJC:3

if

U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION WELiARENATIONAL,NSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO-DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIvED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN-ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE-SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

0.>*ESEA TITLE I EVALUATION REPORT

RROGRANS FOR EDUCATIONALLY

DEPRIVED: CHILDREN*

September', 1975, - August, 1976-

Project Number 76030

Submitted to theKansas State Department of Public Instruction

ESEA_ Tit,le I

4Prepared by

W. E..Turner, DiPéctor

LeZ Gerald Rile Research SpecialiatTerry Moore, Research Asaistant

On.1 Department of Program E,ation

tf;

Research, Planning; and Development Servl.ces DivisionDr. A. W. Dirks; DireAor

ILJuly, 1976

2

01

1

-

rgUNIMARY OF ESEA4TIII,E I -EVALUATION _REPORT , 1975-76

The thilUst of Title I, tShegan in Wichita in the spring 6f 1966,,thusthe9l57. athool yeat coMpleted.ten full years of servite in the.aree of, .

ccroensatory education to disa.dvantved youth. After an initial, larEWScale ei.geeds assessment wal_cOndUcted in 1965 priolr tb Wichita's entry into Titl0,,Actlirities.yere_degleed to readh a latge rftiMber of children of all gr.ilde',levels in moiethan one-third ofrthe distiitt's schoola. 'Activities wereglobal in nature, offering a wide range of expet.iencesdrom att and tiusict&cultural enrichment, from reading to mathematics, from counseling to healih ArserVic and others.' Since that tite., betause of increaaed emphasis on basics killnimprovement, and because-of)changes in funding regulations the piojectt i

hns'evolved to one which now serves pupilnmainly in the areas of reading, l'. .

mathematics,, and preschool. Delivety Of 'Service hanbecome more concentratedwith fewer schools identified as Title I targets and with feger programs being.

4

continued.

During the 1975-76 school year,Titlej programs wereconducted in.twentyUde I target elementary schools and. 52 extended service elementary schools.11-ograms included were Correceive Reading,:14athematice, and Preschool. Therewere also small but important Orogramn for children in the negletted and delin-ajTentjxstitütionsf A Parent education couipOnent was implemented. In the 1975summer. snion. the fain areas: of' reading and mathematics were emphasized.withadditiona inputs into the institutions and early childhob& programs. A,sizeable por on of tlie summer school budget yes allocated for tuition scholarshiRp.

Participation statisties show thet 5602 uppils wereinvolved in regularYear prOgraMs. There were 3048-pupils in,corrective reading With 2454'in mathe-,..matics. WSothe of these may have been in bot'h progtaMs

;-,

The Major periffmance objective forteadinewas that pupipplahould.gain.8 of a month on the California.Reading Test for each month ofin#tructioft. For2412 pupils reported, the average gain wes 1,5 months, almost 8404e the expectedgain.4'Seventy-six percent ol the pupils met or exceeded the sttibediobjettive.

01-

In mathematics, the peiformance objectives were measured .by criterionreferenced basic.akills tests. The criterion varied with the grade level.Fifty-five percent of 2054 pupils in the program with pretest and poattestScores'met the objectives on.poSttest?

///

Evaluation of' Performance oblectives in the institutional programs is madeinconclusive because of the-Oh9rt length of time Most pupils are inetitutional7ized while involved in the Title I program. For thosefew pupila fOr whoi deta_

were available, most met the stated objective. .

,

9 Pupils in the preschool.programct

were:given a range of activities to aid.language readinesio. skills, development,of positive self-Concept, and physicalcoordination, Measbrement was by 'the COOperative Preschool Inventory. Over nine-ty-tWo percent of the 330 three end four year old pupils met the obJectives'pn.posttest..i.

.4-.

. ,

. e '.

.

Withita maybe JUstlV prOud Of';a fine Title I program which haikiselvednational retognitiba.' ThepteSent Program is the result ot nearly eleleen yearsof evolVement. Whatilas nOt'worked has been discarded. Thje4Prograth Will

continue to evolve and be- refi

a

UNIFIED gCHOOL DISTRICT!259

. WICHITA, KANSAS

*4

Dr:. Gary N. Pottorff

Mr. JohnFryeMrs: Jo Drown ,

Hr. Daniel R. GlickmanMr: Robert. W. Koepke

*_ Dr. Don.L. Miller'Mrs. Fmby Tate.

0 Cr

iiresident

ce Pregfcient

eftee-Member

, MemberMember-Member :

GENEHAL ADMINItTRATION OF ESEA (TITLE I) PROJECTS

Dr. Alvin E. MorrisDr. A. W. Dirks /

Mr. Richard McLeod

4

SuperinteDirector,Planning,ServicesDirector,

ESEA (TITLE I) EVALUATION PERSONNEL

Dr. A.W. Dirks

Mr. W. E. Turner

Mr. Gerald RileyMs. Terry'Moore

a

,

ndentResearch,and DevelopmentDivisionTitle I

a

Director, Research,Planning, and DevelcipmentServices Division

-/Director, ProgramEvaluationResearch SpecialistResearch Assistant

0

4.iABLE OF CONTENTS

.i

a 'a O

A. INTRODUCTION . of ,,

''

W. ACADEMIC yEAR ACTIVTIIES %(PART I)

,

4 1, 1.. CORRECTIVE READINC6PROGRAMS I . 02.00. ,eg ,

f

, 2. ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS . ...,

%. 03:00 ,

_

3., NEGLECTED CHILDREN'S INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAMS .' . 04.00. 7

4. , DELINQUENT CHILDREN'S INSTITUTIONAL iROGRAM . 05.00'

.

5. PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS ." . 06.60

i

PAGE -

. 01. 00

6. PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM . 42, ,. . 07.00

C. SUMMER ACTIVITIES (PART I&?

='...

1. EARLY STAAT : .4'''.

, .

...

u-.

2. NEGLECTED CHILDREN'S PROGRAM . . . SS 02:00,

3. DELINQUENT dHILDREN' PROGRAM. SS 13.00

4. TUITION SCHOLARSHIPS . . . SS 04.00

5:, BASIC PRIMARY AND CORRECtIVE REWRG . SS 05.00

6. PRIMARY AND INTERMEDIATE MATH . . tIS 06. 00

,

4

o '

GENERAL CONTEXT

07r

.. ,

MIchita is a metropblitan cqmmunity of approximately 265,000people lacated'in south-central'Kansas. The city is'surrounded.by highly productive agricultural lands with wheat being the lead-ing farm product. Mostnotable is the aircraft manufacturing

'industry which includes B ing; Beech, '1Cessna, and Gates Lear Jet. ,

4:Oil exploiations and ref try operations are.also important seg-.ne 1nts of the economy. In. d-June 1976, from a total labor force,af 189,000, 178,850 werepemployed and 10;450 unamployed. This unl

employment rate'is about 5.7%. This compares, with 5.4% last year

and 3.5% the year'before: Some temporary fluctua0.ons in the labor.6

.

market have'resulted from seasonal variati6ns.

, Within the city are, a total of 1,30 accredited schoold' which

serve approximately 60,000 children. There 114 public.schools:75 are elementary schools, graded K-6; 16 are junior htah schools, .grades_779; anirsix are aenior'high schools, grades 10-112. In-

cluded in the total number 'of Sehools areseventeen special pur-.pose schools. TheseAnclude foilr preschool centers;\a'school for

r 'innovative programs.dh grades 4-6van open'alternative school,grades K78; a traditiodal scho61,-grades K=6; a special educationcenter; twO metropolitan type secondary schools for alienated and,speCial problem yoUth;.and gducation programs in detention facilities

-,

and homes for neileCted children..-On September.151975, there were51,907-ck1dreñ in 'the ptiblic schgals. There.were another 6,600upils in /v.rochial or priva e sChools. About 1,700 individuals

$ 0

slchool gge were etimatectt1ot to be in attendance at any school.out 11,500 pupils Were esti tea to come from low income families..r cial cOmpositiOn of theschoolage population.is-78% 'White,.

. Black, and four-percent Oriental, Mexican-American, and AmericanIndian. -A very high 10erceitage;of the non-white popnlation is con-'centrated ifi the northeast quadrant of.the city. School personnelfor fisal' 1976 included 3,129.1' certificated and 1;509.5 cladsifiedpositions.

The assessed valuation of Property in the school district isapproximately $731,000,000:1 The Wichifa Public Schools' generalfund budget for fiscal'1975yas $55,503,100.2 In fiscal year 1975;the-per pupil cost ofeducatiOnin terms of average.daily attend,.

)ance was approximately .$1,1394 3,

Aa integration plan,which inVolves large scale'bussing oflpupilshas.been in effect since the fall of 1971.,_;.Under this "plan no schoolis allowed to have more than 25% .or fdwer.than .8% of its pupila from

.-the Black population. The.Wichita School.System is one of thd,largesi

,

Source: 1/ 1976-77 Budget book, p. 3402/ 1976-7/ Budget book, p. 314'-37/ 1976-77BuAget book, p. 338

8

ii .,!, '-

,,.-

, fully deabgrated'systeMs An the-nation:.', Commencing-in tICIte sixtiep:

all seCondaryaChools were compleitely desegrated. ''puring the 1 71-72 ' g.

school year all theOelementary sOpols were desegrated.based ipcn a . ..

-local Board oUSducation lottery Oad-Otich replacedlthjywhitechildren those black,children who were'bussed from achools which.114d preliiously been all black.

1

e

02.00

WICHITA PUBLIC SHCOOLSUni'fied School Distrftt #259',

Dr. Alvin g. Morris, Superintendent

1/ I.

A REPORT OF THE

COMCTIVE READING

FROGRAM

1975-76.

Funded by'ESEA PL 93-380'.Title I'

'rProject 76030

1-/

Prepared by.W. E. Tureer,'Director,

epartment of Program Evaluation

'4

Research, Planning, and Development Services DivisionDr. A. W. Dirks, Director

/

July, 1976

4-

«

CORRECTIVE EADING' PROGRAM, 1975-76..4

-

SUMMEat

The 1975, 6 Title I Corrective Reading Program served Pupila,inid six non-publIC eletentary,schools, twenty

'of the puhlic Chools were destgnated aSMttle,I target schools while:.the remainder Vere "extended sevvice schoolS. Approximately 3048different pupils participated in the:proirtilit. 'BecaUse of mobility'. ,

factors' someyupils do-not spend the entire year in.-the prógrardthere-fore. a ",fuli time equivalent (FTE) number of pupils would be.about

2820. Concentkation of.aervice is at ehe_second grade but publiC.'

participants come from grades ope throup-aixl., Non7pub1ic participa-,'tion extend:a to the eighth grade. 'Staff included 38-,5 FTE special,-reading teachers and 20 ifistructiOnal aides. : .

., .

,

,The CAlifornia Reading test_was used pretest and'posttest togttablish the amount of mean grade equival.ent gain per month of in-I ,

struction. A goal of :8 month per month wiis.sought:.. Performance'sackoss grade levels ranged from:68% to 8'4% achiev,ing the objective..

This vas an improvement over.the-preCeding year. Ninety-two,percentof all-particlpants made elnprovement as judged by the special reading

tea'Chers. ResUltaVere AtainedA,from locally developed 'communications .

skills.checkltstQ_and reading,attitude surveys. Grade two 14de a sig7'

nificantimprovement in attitude toward reading. ReSulfa from other ,

grades were nonsignificant. *The reAding program was recommended for

continuation«A

. ,

AtTIViTy CONTEXT

c

. Reading and'reading related services represent a. major portionof-theNiChita Title I.project.,Over 50% of the buidget iti applied in

this area'. Since Implementation in.1966 the reading.pragram haa Under-

Aone-some Changes: Preventi6 is emphasizekrather than-remediation%A Comparison of several readiftg systems was continued for a second

year. '1Continued busaing for ifttegratfon brougit about the need forsplit funding of special reading PeAchers inorder. to prevent re-

. .

segregation for reading instruction. ,

k', ..

70 .4

. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Scope.

Wichita's Title I target pupil'populatiOn is concenprated in 20elementary school residence areas.. HoWever, with total integrationaccomplished through Iarge-scale bussing, eligible pupils also attend_ ..

52 °Other elementary schools.. ,There are also six parochial schocAs

9 1

. 02:02

within the Title I target area, MinoritTpupils who are bussed for in-

: i'egration purptsee, live'within thre of.the Title I residence areas,called Assiged Attendance-Area.(AAA), or triple A.

PersOnnel

A total, of.38.5 reading teapher positions were funded. Twentyinstructional aides- were employed to assist the reading teachers. 'Inaddition, a Parent Aide program was continued durrng the 1975-76.schoolyear,-in which parent afifeS'were employed to utof studentaor in small groups according to need. ,

Procedure

The correCtive reading program involVes siX phases as,fe1lOWE4

- Phase I Identfication

,

Phase II 'Screening

Phase III Diagnosis

Phase IV Scheduling

'

'Phase V InatrUCtion,

<

Classroom teacher refers-pupils,t,to special reading teacher

Special reading teacher selectspupils most likely to-profitfrom Corrective Reading instruc-tion

Special reading te cher tegtsand uses other methods to pin-

,point reading ppblelis

i.

Pupils are pl-aed in classesbased on extent of deficiencies

NW_Mild Corrective severe,

Corrective' Corrective

.. ,

51-8 pupils 3-5 pupils 1-2 pupilg

30-40 minute's, 30-40 minutes 30 min.or less

2-3 sessions \ 3-41sessions 475 sessions

ner"week per week per weekA

Method depends on severity of,problems, individualneeds, class needs and teacher preferenge.Equipment: controlled readers, tachistoscopes,filmstrip projectors, record players, tape re-corders, overhead projectors.

10

Phase VI Evaluation

Budget-°

Special reading continually monitorS'pupilprogress through formal and informal tests

A. Salaries

38.5 FTE Special Reading Teachers,+ 3% for substitutes

'1

20 Ins,tructional aides+ subsatutes

.

Secretary (12 months):

Training: Teacher and aides,Preseivice and Inservice

B. Contracted Services

Consulting services: . Teacher andaide training

TeaCher workshop (summer 76)

Van for severe corrective readingprogram

/

C. Other 'ExInses

$525,666

71;000

6,183

1780 $604,629

250

Auto Allowance and.travel - 2;700

Supplies,'Instructional 31,600

Equipment, 'new

Total

-EVALUATION

"State.d objectives for ihe reading program are:

4 350'

$659 254

*

.4Givenicorrectilie r4ing instruction, the.students will -

A, Mafke a mean gain of 0.8 in grade equivalent per year Ofinstruction as_measured/by the California Reading Test

B.,

false their reading instructpwal grade level as measuredby an informal inventory.and/or teacher judgment .

1 L

do,

0204.

C. demonstiate an obl'ervablereading as measured by an

D. eihibit improve&languageskills as,meesured by the

.e'improved attitude towardattitude scale

arts and communicationscommunications.skills

checklist-.

Alparticipatiod count of pupils in'Title j'orrective Reading isShown in Table 02.441. This tablegives breakddWns by grade, by sex,birace, by publfc and by full time equivalents (FTE).. As in previousOari the second grade has a higher concentration-of participants..Total participation is 4lightly imCreased over the previous year.percedtages of boya and.girlg were idepO.cal for the two years. Par-ticipation by race shows a greater coUcentration an black-pupils. tIn1974-75 the peicentage was 44.4. In 1975-76:0e,perCentage increasedto 50.4.

For 1975-76 the FTE faCtdr was about 80%. This means that becauseof move-puts, phase-outs, move-ins, and phAse-ins.it.takes 100 childrenin participation to be the equivalent of80 children in full time par-ticipation:. This is very-similar to.the results of 1974-75. One fulltime equivalent pupil in corrective reading ts defined as'a pupil who.,is in attepdance for eight months'n,usually the amount of time elapsingbetween pretest and posttest. '

'

Evaluation of%Objective A

,

. The objective Of gaining .8 grade'equivalent.per year of instrue-

.

tion'is the same as gainfng ,8 month.fo each month, of inS.truction. aY

Since some pupils are not in.the readirtg program for the entire year;the latter standard was chosen in thi*r4Ort. .Both qarly onthly 4

, gads will be' reported however: .,3;th;,,.^,-:11,..)'.,

Graphs 02.1 through 02. 5 show a:aftmsfuency distributidn of monthlygains. %Irieach table the obj ctive was get at 0.kmonths gain pretestEo posttest. Monthly gains fo grade two thrd gh six were 1.6, 1.5,,1.3, 1.4, i5, respectively, wi an overall dean gain .of L.5. Thismeans that a group of pupils, se. ected for reaang ftistruction:becausethey were in the lowest 10 percent of their cAsses on reading tesyf

4scors were, on'the average, able to exceed.the expected monthly gainrateCfor all pupils. The summaiy grafh, 02.0.6 shows that 76.4of allreading pupils met the objective of .8 month for each instructionalmonth.

0'

, 12

N

GRADE . Sex

"M

c 188

,,,i

466,' ''

. a

361

293'

252,4$

'1961,

'TABLE 02,1

'0

TITLE I CORRECTiVE READING,PARTICIPATION1, of)

.'Public

,

NotiPublicF 2

a

77 161 . 4 '86, ..

.,.-° -408, 31 -428 5

243 589 21 . 264

248, 527 \ 13. 207 '1

209 437'4 24 176 1

4,1

182 365 144 1

Itace'

3 4 5 6, FTE3

Totals

67

.376

310 .. 27

306 21

265 12

213 15

132 165'

699 '874

.488 610

4.32 540

0

367 461

302 378

11 / 11

9

t

tOtals1.

Number 1668 '.`1380 2922 126 1323 9 1537 127 49

ierCent 54,7 , 45,3 95.9 4,1 43,4 .3 50,4 4.2 1,6

2820 3048

1 'Aso intludes 71 severe cottective reading participants

2 Rio key: 1Wh1te,'2uOriental, Mack, 4,fMex1can American, 5mAmerican Indian, ,iaDnknown '(no data recorded)

3 Full Time Equivalent -,Adjueted for time 1n'program

02-064

. GRAPH 02.1TITLE I'CORRECTIVE READING

TREQUENCY TABLE OF GAINS PER MONTH'OF READING INSTRUCTION

GRADE 2

1975-76

NumberGAlps Pupilsper Making

Monih Gains

3.0+ 66

3.0 - 8

,2,9 8

2.8 13

2.7, 2

16

2.5 18

2.4 28

2.3 202.2 0

2.1,, 29

2.0 25

1.9 29

1.8 38

1.7 2

1.6 31

1.5 44

1.4 53

1.3 49

1.2 1

1.1 56

'1.0 33

0.9 29

0.8 30

0.7 4

0.6 21

0.5 29

0.4 10

0.3 14

0.2 1

0.1 10

No Ghin 14

Loss 13

Total. 744

_Frecinency

XXXXXXXXXX

XX*XXXXX

XXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXxxxxaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'xxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxXxxxxxxxxxx

XXXIDOCXMOC

XXX

xxxiXxXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

xmocxxotxx

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

X XXX

XXXX-

XXX

xxxxxxXxxx xxxxxxxxkx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxX xxxxxx

X.XXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXX

XXXXMOCX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXX

XXXX

XXXXXXXXXX XXX

XXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX

Mean

Objecttye

- -1

Average gain per month of instructton 1.6 months Standard Deviation .8

Pupils achieving ohjective of .8 monthH or more 628 or 84.4%

a

02, 07

GRAPH 02.2TITLE I CORRECTIVE READING

FREQUENCY TABLE OF GAINS PER MONTH OF READING INSTRUCTION

GRADE 3

1975-76

Gainpper

Month

Number :

Pupils , `

MakingGains

Frequi*tcy

41 XXXXXXAXXX XXXXXXXXXX moodocxxxx moboacxxxx

3.0 9 XXXXXXXXX2.9 3 XXX

2.8 6 XXXXXX

2.7 1

24.6 11 xmoocxxxxx2.5 14 xxxxxxxxxx XXXX

2.4 11 xxxxxxxXxx X

2.3 r7 kxxxxxxxxx xx)opixx

2.2 2 xx

2.1 15 xxxxxxxxxx XXXXX

2.0 19 xxxxxxxxxic XXXXXXXXX

1.9 11 XXXXXXXXXX X

1.8 28 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX

1.7 3 XXX

1.6 30 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

1.5 28 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX mean

1.4 42 XXXXXXXXXX MOCXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XX

1.3 29 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX

1.2

1.1 23 /XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXX

1.0 25 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX

0.9 24 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXX

0.8 28 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX

0.7 2, XX

0.6 12 XXXXXXXXXX xx

0:5 20 XXXXXXXXXX kxxxxxxxxx

0.4 17 XXXXXXXXXX xxxxxxx

0.3 15 XXXXXXXXXX xixxx

0.2 0

0.1 8 XXXXXXXX

No Gain 8 XXXXXXXX

Loan 20 xxixxxxxxx xxxxxxxxAx

Total 522

_

Average gain per month of lniaruction - 1.5 monthn. Standard pevIntion

Poplin nehlevInw ohleellve of 8 monthn or more 420 or HO 5%

^

.; 9

FRE

02.08

GRAM 02.3TITLE I CORgECTIVE nADING'.

UENCY TABLE OF GAINS PER MONTH OF READING INSTRUCTION

CRADE 4

*-1975 -76

GainsTer,

Month

3.1)

Number.,

PupilsMakingGains

Frequency,

2462.52.4

2.32.22.1

2.01.9

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

0.90.80.70.6

0.50.40.30.20.1

No GainOng

38' xxxxxxxxxi xxxXxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx2 xx4

8

2

3

11

6

7

1

-1 a

10 xxxxxxxxxxl.13 xxxxxxxxxx13 xxxxxxxxxx18 xxxxkxxxxx4 xxxx

15 xxxxXxxxxx16 xxxxxxxxxx19 xxxxxxxxxx22 xxxxxxxxxx

21 xxxxxxxxxx.32 xxxxxxxxxx21 xxxxxxxxxx25 xxxxxxxxxx

Total' 456

I

s1

xxxxxxxxxxx 4

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxx

44

XXXXXXXXXX XX

x.XXXXX

-xxxxxxxxxx xxX.xxXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

XXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX_XXXX

Mean

Objective

Average gain per month of inntruction 1.3 months . Standard Deviation .9

Popiln achieving objective of .8 monthn or more 312 or 68.4%

02.09

0

e GRAPH 02.4TITLE I CORRECTIVE READING

YREQUENCY TABLE,OF GAINS PER MONTH OF REKDING INSTRUCTION

GRADE 5

l975,-76

NumberGains Pupils r !VA Frequency

r'per MakingMonth Gains

3.0+'3.1)

2.92.B

49 Xxxocxxco xxXxxx?cxxx

4 xxXx4 -, xxxx

7 xxxxxxx

2.7 J 0

2.6 3 xxx2.5 5 xxxxx2.4 9 xxxxxxxxx2.3 12 xxxxxxxxxx xx2.2 3 xxx2.1 10 xxxxxxxxxx2.0 17 xxxxxoppa, xxxxxxx1.9 9 xxxxxxxtx1.8 17 xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx1.7 2 xx1.6 15 xxxxxxxxxx xxxxx1.5 10 moccxxxxxx1.4 15 xxxxxxxxxx xxxxx1.3 16 xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx1.2 1

1.1 15 xxxxxxxxxx xxxxx1.0 22' .xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xx0.9' 11 xxxxxxxxxx x0.8 8 xxxxxxxx0.7 0

0.6 14 loaccockxxx xxxx

0.5 10 xxxxxxxxxx,

0.4 15 xxxxxxxxicx xxxxx

0.3 15 xxxxxxfxxx xxxxx0.2 0

0.1 4 xxxxNo Gain 19 xxxxxxxfxx xxxxxxxxxLoss 37 xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx

,XXXXXX)DCXX XIOC}WICXXX

Mean

Objective

Total 378

Average gain per month of instruction 1.4 months Standard peviation 1.0

Pupils achieving.objectrim of .8 months or more 264 or 69.8%

o2.1p,

GRAPH 02.5TITLE I CORRECTIVE READING .

FREQUENCY TABLE Or GAINS PER MONTH OF READING INSTRUCTIQN.

GRADE,6

1975-7'6

, NumberGains Pupilsper Making

Month Gains

>

Frequency

4 ,

3.0+ 58 xxxxxxxm xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxXxxxxx3.0 4 xxxx2:9 6. =DUCK2.8 .5 xxxxx2.7 1 x2.6 .4 xxxx7.5 - 8 XXXXXXXX2.4 . rr X1OOCKXXXXX213 f14 xxxxxxxxxx2.2 02.1 9 XXXDUCXX:iX

2.0 12 xxxxxxxxxx xx1,9 6 xxxxxx1.8 10 xxxxxxxxxx

4 xxxx-1.6 , , 5 mac=1.5 3 xxx1.4 5 xxxxx1.3 14 xxxxxxxxxx XXXX1.2 01.1 8 xxxxxxxx1.0 17 xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx0.9 9 XX X XXXXX

0.8 11 xxxxxxxxxx x0.7 2 xx0.6 15 xxxxxxxxxx xxxxx0.5 11 xxxxxxxxxx x0.4 5 xxxxx0.3 4 xxxx0.2 0

0.1 7 xxxxxxxNo Gain 12 xxxxxxxXxx xxLoss 39 xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx

XXXX

Mean

bbjective

Total 319

..

Average gain pet ,Tonth of instruction ,1.5 months Standard Deviation , 1.1Pupils achieving objective of .8 months or more 224.or 70.2%

02:11 b

GRAPH OM.TITLE I CORRECTIVE READING

FREQUENCY TOLE Or GAINS PER MONTH. QF READING INSTRUCTION

SUMMARY.

1975-76

NumberGains Pupilsper MAking

Month Gains

4 ,

3.0+ 252

3.0 27

2.9 25

2.,8 39

2.7 6`"/ xi

2.6 37 xxxxxklo2.5 56

2: 4 65

2.3 70

2.2 6

2: 1 73

2;0 `", 861.9 68

1.8 111

1.7 15

1.6 96

1.5 101

6?'" 1.4 134

r 1.3 13o.

1,,c( 1. 2 3

.. 1 1 123

1.0 129

0.9 94

0.8 102

9

0.6 85

0.5 90

0.4 64

0.30.2 3

0.1 32

No Gain 70

Loss 153

Frequency

(eaCh-'x' repreSents 5 pupils)1 -

XXXXXY=DOCXXXMCXXX

,xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxximxxxxxxxxxx

3cioonoobocx

--"Xxioopodxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

xxxxxx)xxkxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xximx;opaix irauclocxxx3cx xxxxapaocxx

XX3IDOCIDC7

31210DC

M1MCXX

200DOODDIDD

70000000=XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXMODIDthOOEX MOD=

xxxxxxxxxx xxxxa.xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxXxxkxxxxxxxxxxxx

XXXXXXX

XXXZXXXX

XXX,XXX

7CXXX

XXXXXXXi*X VXXXXXXXXX

.....------Mean

Objective

Total' 2449

Average gain per month of instruction 1.5

Pupils achieving objective of .8 months or more

2 0

Standard Deviation . .91848 or 76:,4%

02.12

Table'02.2. is a summary'of preteat and posttest mean grade equivalentsfrom the California AchieVement Reading Tesi. For public Schools, whichcomprise nearly 96% of the data, pretest meamgradg equivalents ranged from1.4 at second grade to 3.7 it sixth grade while posttest means ranged from2.5.to 4.8 fOr the same grades. Months of gain ranged from eight for fourth.,grade to 11 for second ind sixth grades. Ibise.are straight.comparisons of'pretest and posttest means without regard toJength of time in the program. .

Resnlis for the severe corrective reading program are shOwn in Table02.3.

TABLE 02.2 a.

SUMMARY OF PRETEST AND'pOSTTEST MEAN GR4DE EQUIVALENTSCALIFORNIA AC11IEVEMENT.READING TEST

,TITLE I CORRECTIVE READING, 1975-16

Public Schools Non Public Schools'Grade . N Pretest Posttest Months N , Pretest Posttest Months°

X X Gain' , i ,. K ,Gain

First ' . 4 1.5 "2.2 7A

Second 721 1:4 2.5 41 31 1.7 2.8r: 11,

Third .509 1:9 2.9 10 21 1' 2.5 3.4 9

. .Fourth 431 2.9, 3.5, 8

,12 3.0, 4.0 la,)-

Fifth' 337 '2.(9 CI 3.9-_,., ,10 24 4.3 5.5. 12,

Sixth 284 3.7 4.8, ii 11 13, 4.6 5.6 10..,

1.

Seventh' 11 5.'1. 6.6 25

Eighth 7 5.7, 6.6. 9

444

TABLE 02.3

SUMMARY OF PRETEST AND POSTTEST MEAN GRADE EQUIVALENTSCALIFORNIA ACHIEVEMENT READING TEST

. TITLE I SEVERE CORRECTIVE READING, 1975-76

s PretestGrade H

1Fourth 9 2. 2

Fifth 19 2.2

Sixth 25 \3.0

'I% I

Posttest & MonthsX Gain

2.9 7

3.0 8

3.9 9

21

02.13

IrN

Several reading systems were .in operation again this year in the

Title I Schools. A comparison of system/results is shown in Tahle'02.4.Generally, it appears that the EDL.and Psychotechnics produced greatermean giins than the other two systems. The eclectic approach appeared,

to show the best Asults across;a11 grade leVels. Of course-mean gains

alone may not tell Ithe Whole stOry. Many factors should be considered:

clais size, case load;,length of time the program has beenin operation,\

availabilityofiipment. The,comparison.of system,moan gains in this

report,do not infTude provisions for the control of'vaviiables.

TABLE 02.4

V

.' Iv

COMPARISON;OF READING SYSTEMSMEAN GAINS BY GRADE LEVEL

TITLE I CORRECTIVE READING, 1975-76

GRARE.-

SYSTEM-)Th.Hpffman Random

HousePsyCho-technics

EDL Eclectic.

Second .9 .9 .9 1.2 1.2

Third .9 .7 1.1 1.0 1.2

,

Fourth .5 .7 .8 .9 1.2

IFifth .6 .8 1.1 1.4 1.0

Sixih .8 1.4 .8 1.2 1.3

Evaluation ogCObjective B

This objective spoke to the improvement of the pupils' instruc-t

dons?. reading grade level. ,tTeachers were asked to rate each pupil on

a three'point scale; made progress, made no progress, or regressed

Ratings were received on 2473 pupils. Overall, 92% Were judged to

have made improvement. This Would indicate that since 76% of all ,

pupils met the requirements of Objective A as shown in Graph 02.06

then 16% made gains but not enough to meet the objective. Only,

eight percent of the pupils regressed or made no iftogress Table

02.5 shows' the results for public and non-public pupils. )

, Evaluation of'Objectqe CI

,

Pupils were to have shown-an improved attitUde toward reading. A

locally developed reading.,aCtitude survey, the same.one that was used

last year, was given to'a randam,sample of pupils. The results, Table

02.6, are very similar to last year. For' both years, only grade two

showed.a significantly improved reading attitude. The other grades

showed diffetences in.attitudes but net enough'to be significant.

22

,

GRADE' ,

$.TABLE 02.5

' TITLE I CORRECTIVE READING

RESULTS OF TEACHER RATINGS IN, CATEGORIES OF REGRESSION, NO PROGRESS '?AND PROGRESS

, 1975-16

PUBLIC NON PUB1TC

REGRESSION NO PROGRESS PROGRESS REGRESSION NO PROGRhSS PROGRESS

1

8

Totals

Number

percent

,

,14

18

41 .,

1S

4

9

19 .

694,

482

390 1

31 19 306

30 9 210,,

1

4

- f

1,

134 69 2146

' 5,7 , 2,9 91.4 1,6 2:4

.

21:

11:

22

1:2

119'

96.0

L.,

Grade

.TABLE102.6

READING ATTITUDE 'SURVEY

TITLE I 'CORRECTIVE READING(

1575-76

.4 ,

6

Number

Pre `- Post Pre

Mean

Gain Standard Deviation . t7test oi

Zost, (Loss) Pre Post Significance

First 87.2 8816 1,4 14.6 20.8 N,S,

Second 61 945 94.3 2.8 13.2 11.0 405/'

Third :49 60 91,8 91.6 , (.2) 14.2 18.6

Fourth , 37 45 87.6 90;8 3,2 12.9 13 0 M.S.

d

Fifth 26 34 86,1 87,5 1,4 14,8 10;8 N.S.

Sixth 40 28 86.3 ,-, 84,4 1.,9) 14.0 9.2, N.S.

Total 221 233 89.3 90,7 1.4 14.0 14.1 , N.S.

0

be

25

4

26

1

- ptIeieexpecte4 to exhibit Improved language arts and commun-thatit;ns skilla.ae measured by a locally developed communitations skills

,'..;OieCklisteWhiCiiWas completed by the special reading teachers. A nine

distfibUted.to special reading teachers. Each teacherfat.ed!,pfeVioUsly randomly selectedipuplls on the scale which allowed:If'of,:af,r40.10 from "Muth Emprovement" to "Much Regression". -Overall, 75%

Of the-piipils in the sample were placed in the "Much Improvement" of -

')"Same'Improvement" categories._ The various grade levels ranged from.

,69% (5th) to 82% (2nd) in number in the two improvement categories.- ,

RECOMMENDATIONS

e71975=76'cOrrective readtng pragram showed an increase,in pupiliChtMen.t;leifeia'*er the prev,ibus year. This continueS a.trend that

..i1;aS4Itedla07'efalYears ago. The ffrst and major objectivewas to

hay0,.

:., . .4

;:ea kgraZWleiiel :achieve Mean gains of at least .8 month4Ifor each

Mt*Ive.aijnstrUC't14.)n Overall gains were 1.5, almost double the expect-:anCyndarY'abfectives Of improved reading instructional gradeleVeleandimpfoved:lAtiguage arts and communications were met. ImprOve-

f.Meti:reading att#tole:; according to the instrument, was inconclusiveReCaMendations for tiv':1976-77:year include the following:

0 Codt ffiti t .teading progfam

IncreaSe tl.lemonttily grade Ievel gains expected to one

month'per.4100006f instruction. This would be more

consistent with'Past experience.

V' Consider eliMination of the objective on reading attitude.The instrument currently in use is probalily an inadequatemeasuring device. Results of the.past two years have been

very similar.'

27

03.00

WICHITA PUBLIC SCHOOLSUnified School District 259'

Dr. Alvin E. Morris, SuPerintendent

-

A REPORT OP "THE

ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS l'ROGRAM

1975-76

FUnded by ESEA PL 937380Titre I

ProjeCt 76030

Prepared byW. E. Turner, Research SpecialistTerry E. Moore, Research AssistantDepartment of-Program Evaluation

Division of Research, Planni{. and Development ServicesDr. A. W. Dil Director

August-, 1976 -

28.

0

03.01

ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS PROGRAM, 1975-76

SUMMARY

The 1975-76 Elementary Mathematics program served a total of 2,698pupils, which represented an increase of 67.percent oyer the previous year's-number of participants. The participants were chosen fromNaglong the mosteducationally deficient pupils in the school population. They attended 29pubLic elementary schools and three parochial schools. The pupils ranged ingrade from kindergarten to srxth grade. The majority of pupil6 came fromgrades K-3. The size of the program staff increased, also. The programemployed 28 instructional aides, a coordinator of aides, and six mathematics

, ,consultants.(

0

Performance objectives were _achievgd by 56 percent of the participantswith posttest data. The greateSt number and percent olikothe pirticipantsachieving-the objective were in kindergarten. The program was.recommendedfor continuation.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Scope

9

Participants in the Elemdntary Mathematics.program.ranged in gratie fromkindergarten tb sixth grade. Tqals of 2,591 public school pupils and 107private school pupils participated in the p4ogram throughout the school year.These participants attended 19 Titre I target schools, ten extended serviceschools,'and three parochial schools.

The main objective of the program was to develop and strengthen thepupils' basic math skills.

Personnel

Tke Elementary Mathematics program staff consisted of six math consul-,tavs, 28 inftructional aides, a coordinator of aides', and a projectsecretary. The publl -;chool system Coordinator of Mathematics served as theproject director. iagsroom teachers-worked cooperatively with the program,but were furtded.fr .al sourCes.

The maAematic, rides were responsible for assisting clas"sroom teachersin developing the math.skills' of their pupils. The principal duties of. the.mathematicCinstructional aides were to:

; 1. Work with students in math labs as directed by classroom teachers;

2. Administer pretests and posttests, and tests for concept masterywhen requested by teachere.

2 9

03.02

3. Keep accurate records of pupils' tab experiences and levels ofcondept mastery.

4. Construct visual aids and math Wes for utie in bothothe classroomsand the math labs.

,

5. Conduct tours of the math labs.and demonstrate the various instruc-tional games to non-Project teachers who visit the math labs.

In summary, the duties of the math consultants were to:

1. Assist the classroom teacher in developing a Workable plan forimplementing the'math prOgram.

2. Assist in ongoing pupil evaluation to enhance individualizedinstruction.

3. Observe math lessons and techniques periodically to insure ongoingprogress of the program,

4. Upon request, provide demonstrations appropriate to the conceptbeing taught in the classroom.

5. Conduct inservice meetings and summer.workshops.

6. Assist the Coordinator of Mathematics tn a variety of administrAtiveduties.

7. Compile pretest and posttest data. *

Briefly, the responsibilities of the classroom teachers as they relatedspecifically to the Elementary Mathematics program were to:

1. Teach math to all children in the classroom and ensure that eachchild develops his/her math potential to its maximum.

2. Identify and provide additional instructional time for those pupilsin Title I schools who rank in the lower one-third,of the class inconcept development.

3. GroUp pupils for math instruction.

4. Fof each concept, teach and evaluate until mastery is attained.

5.. Maintain current pupil skill sheets.

6: Use the adopted math texts only as supplements to ihe ElementaryMathematics program.

.b .37)

7. Inform the lab aide weekly, in writing, of the concepts to be workedon with each- l'ab group for the coming-week.

8. Participate in the inservice training activities provided by theprogram.

30

ProcedUres

03.03

ry

Each mathematics instructional aide was assigned to an elementaryschool. A math lab was set up n each school, providing a place for supple-mentary matll instruction and instructional materials. Most of the aides'time was spent working with pupils in the math lab. The math consultantswere based at the Murdock Teacher Center. The consultants visited the mathlabs and classrooms regularly,-and were available for consultative servicesto the mathematics aides and classroom teachers.

Teachers and aides were involved in extensive preservice agd inserviceactivities. Regular classroom teachers new to the program attended a two-week orientation And preservice workshop held-prior to the beginning of theschool year. All teachers attended four inservice sessiqns during the courseof the school_ year. Instructional aides attended a preservice workshopduring the summer preceding the school year. Throughout the school year, themath consultants were available for inservice training as requested byindividuals or groups.

Activities

The ElementaryArathematics program employs an activity approach whichencourages maximum Thvorvement of the pupils. The traditionaj approach toteachlng mathematics, that of adhering strictly to a prepared text andfollowing "cookbook recipes", is abandoned in favor of a more creative andmanipulative approach. Pupils are encouraged to progress on an individual .6. ,

basis'as rapidly as possible. Actual pupil experiences are Used as a sourceof classroom activities in order to make the lessons interesting and moreclosely related to the learner needs. The pupils are helped to discover aqduse patterns and relationships, as opposed to memorizing and learningby rote. The program is designed to lead pupils td an understanding ofmathematical concepts.

The course of concept development within the mathematics program isviewed as having four levels.- throughout the four levels, the key to conceptdevelopment is pupil dnvolvement. The most basic level is the concretelevel, at which the pupil is urged to explore the concept through the physi-cal manipulation of concrete objects. The next level has been termed"semi-concrete", and at this stage the pupil is aided also by cpncrete repre-sentations on the flannel and magnetic boards. At the semi-abstract level,the pupil uses chalkboards and overhead projector materials. Finally, atjheabstract levet, the pupil is able,to use the mathematic concept aS he/sheworks with such materials as flash cards and workbooks.

Basically, the-program encourages a three-stage approach to the teachingmathematics:

1. The manipulative stage stresses the use of manipulative mater,ials.

62. The oral stage, involves the use of motivational games requiring

verbal responses.

3. The writtenstage emphasizes the use of paper al pencil to recordresponses:

31 .

03.04

The schematic diagram presented on page 03.05 illustrates the instruc-tional approach used in the mathematics program.

Diagnosis-and evaluation are,integral parts of the teaching process inthe mathematics program. Since instruction is individualized, each pupil's-level of ability must be initially determined. Subsequently, frequentevaluation enables the instructoetd determine when a pupil has mastered oneconcept and can begin developing Whew concept.

The sequence of diagnosis is the reverse of that of concept development.EaCh pupil's mastery level is diagnosed initially through a written test.

ahe written test assesses the child's mastery at the abstract level. Failingto achieve the criterion for mastery of a concppt at. this level4,, the pupil

is tested orally. If the pupil fails to pass the oral test,ye is tested atthe manipulative level. It is at the manipulativelevel that, a'-popil is,introduced to a mathematical concept which he has not mastered at/higber-levels.

Math skill sheets are maintaiged for every pupil. The skill sheet is anorganized method for recor,ding i pupil's mastery of the basic mathematicsconcepts, and becomes an historical record of the pupil's progress. Thechecklist.also aids the instructor in indiyidualizing instruction.

Instructional Equipment and Supplies P

Many of the instructional materials used in the program were made by theteachers and aides. The use of standard textboOks was discouraged. Many

games were used to reinforce mathematics concepts because they held thepupils' interest. Many of the gaMes were teacher-made alterations of popplar:games. ,Examples of frequently used games are:

Bug Ya Pokeno

Tug of War Orbit the EarthYahtzee Shake a FactKung Fu LottoTwinks ConcentrationJeopardy Tic Tac ToePlace Value Walk Could BeBingo Imma Quiz

Manipulative materials were also frequently used. Some examples follow:

Beans Dominoes MagnetIc chalkboardsBloCks Flannel boards Pegboards

, Construction paper Flashcards Pop beads. Cups ." a Geoboards Quiet counters

Dice Hundreds square /

Parent-Community Involvement°

TI1W staff members actively invo lved membeis of the school comnunities inthe-mathematics program. The' math consultants worked cooperatively with theTitle I Parent Education Aides to present workshops for parents. Parents

also were urged to visit the math labs.

32

Next

,6hcept

in the

SeqUerice

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACHt

Title I Elementary Mathematics, 1975-76

START HERE

Concept

from

Skill

Sheet

Concept

-->--

Math Lab

Reinforcement

of the

Concept

Small Group

Game

Introductory

'Activity

Involving!

Manip4ative -*-

Materials

Activity

Involving

Individual

Flannel

Boards or

flagnetic Board

Concrete Phase Semi-Concrete

Phase

Administer

Test

From

Test Booklet

Evaluation

33

Activity

Involving

Individual

Chalkboards or,*

Overhead

Projector

Semi-Abstract

Phase ,

V

Classroom

Game

Reinforcement

of the

Concept

Large Group

Gane

V

Independent

Activity

Reinfprcement

via

Workbook Page

or

Worksheet

Abstract Phase

03.06

Budget

A. SALARIES.

6 Elementary Math Consultants ( $ 84,000

1. Coordinator of)Aides 6,25028 Instrpctional Aides 106,0001 Secretary (10 months)... 5,789

Preservice and Inservice Training 16,200

B. CONTRACTED SERVICES

Consultant Services_WorkshopgTelephone M.T.C.

C. OTHER EXPENSES

U $218.239

3702,500600

Supplies , $ 40,400

Travel and Auto. Allowance 4,000

Equipment -4 000

';OTAL

3,470

.48 460

$270,109

Based on a total of 2,698 participants, the per pupil .post fbr this activity

was $100.12. Based on the number of participants With both pretest andposttest data, the per pupil cost of the program was $131.50.

EVALUATION

Performance objectives for each'grade level Were selected-for el)alua-

ti . They are as follows:.

. .

1. Kindergarten elementary math project pupils will demonstrate anincrease in mathematics readiness as'sibownAby.their resPOnse4pretest and posttest,to an orally administered rocally developedachievement test. The number and percent who score 50 or more on

0 posttest of. a possible 60,points'or who make a growth of 15 pOints

will be reported.

2. First.grade,elentary mathematics pupils will demonstrate an'ase.in their knowledge,of mathematical concepts'in additionubtractiOn as shown by their responses pretest ind pdOttest1-00--point .localfy detTe1oped.achievement tegt (40.ppints oral,

points written). 'The number:and percent who score 0.,op more

,on politest or Who make a growth of 35 points will be etiorted.

3 5

. J--

03.07

3. Second grade elementary mathematics pupils will demonstrate anincrease in their knoWledge of mathematical concepts in addition,subtraction, and multiplication as shown by their responses pretestand posttest to a 100-point locally developed achievement teffit (allwritten). The number and percent who score 80 or more or who make'a growth of 25 points will be reported.

Third grade elellintary mathematics pupils will demonstrate an_increase in their knowledge of mathematical concepts in addition andsubtraction, as shown by their responses pretest and poittest to a125-point locally developed written achievement test. The numberand)percent who-score 100 or more or who make a growth of 30 pointswill be reported:

5. Fourth grade elementary mathematics pupils will demonstrate anincrease in their knowledge of mathematical concepts in addition,subtractiqn, multiplication, place value, and regrouping as shownby their'responses pretest and posttest to a 54-point locallydeveloped written achievement test. The number and percent who!,score 30 or more or who make a gr4wth of 10 points will be rep6rted.

6. Fifth grade elementary mathematics pupils will demonstrate anincrease in their knowledge of mathematical concepts in addition,subtraction, multiplication, division, place value and regrouping'as,shown by their responses pretest and posttest to a 62-point locallydevelOped written acbievement test. The number and percent Who'score 40 or more or Who make a growth of 10 points:will be reported.

7. Sixth grade elementary mathematics pupils will demonstrate aniicrease'in their knowledge of mathematical concepts in addition,subtraction, multiplication; division, place value and regrouping asshown by, their responses pretest and posttest to a 74-pointlocallydeveloped written achievemeneltest. The number and percent whoscore 45 or more oi who make akgrowth of 10 points will be reported.'

Pupils were chosen for participation in the program on the basis ofachievement test results and teacher referral. Participation statistics 'forpublic and non-public school participants appear in Tables 03.1-and 03.2respectively. Only slightly more boys than girls participated in the pro-gram. Counting both public and non-public school pupils together, approxi-mately 54 percent were White, nearly 39 percent were klack, and almost fivepercent were Mexican American. The remaining two peil,Cent of the participantswere either Oriental or American-Indian. The number of partiCipWs was-

,-

fairly evenly distributed across the.,grade levels.Tables 03.3 through 03.9 show the number and percent of participants

achieving the objectives for each school at each grade level. The percent ofparticipants who achieved one or both objectives was based upon the number ofparticipants having posttest scores. The totals for each grade also.appearin the tables. .0

A total of 1317 pupils, or 56 percent of the program participants withcomplete test data, achieved the objectives. Only two grade level% Ondei-garten and second grade, had more than 56 percent of thepartic4mntsechiev-ing the objectives.. Both the largest number and the largest percent 41;af

'6

36

7 partfcipanfs achieving the stated performance olijectives oacurred,at thekindergarten level. JBY grade level, the .percent Of participants achievingthe objectiv4 ranged from 45 percent to 77 percent. Table 03.10 contatnssummary information of the achieVement data.

I

TABLE 03.1-TITLE I. ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS PROGRAMPUBLIC-SCHOOL PARTICIPATION STATIST CS

1975-76 :

-6rade

Sex Race*-TotalMale Female 1 2 . NA**'

Kdg 235 '208. 254 49 ..°' 30 7 3 443

First' 252. . 240 266 , 197 20 4 5. ,- 492

'SecOnd , 208 184 220 1 .150 '15' . 4 2. 392'

Third 128 100, 114 .. 99 11 3 228

Fourth , 247 . 236 '267 175 22 17 1 483

Fifth 144 . 146 4159 l' 115 11 .Ni . 290v.

Sixth 119 144 .. 134 2 111 '13 2 1 263

Totals ,

'Number_ 1333 :1258 1414 6 996 122 41 12 2591

Percent 51.4 -48.6 54.6 .2 38.4 4.7 1.6 .5

* Race Key: 1=Caucasian; 2=Asian American; 3=Black; 4=Spanish Mexican

5= American Indian

**Data not recorded

Percents may not add to 100.0 because of rounding.

01..09

TABLE 03.2 .

TITLE I ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS PROGRAMNON-PUBLIC SCHOOL PARTICIPATION STATISTICS

1975-76

GradeSex _ _. Race*

Total-Male F málo-...

..v* 5 NA**

Kdg -

First 16 8 7 2 11 2 2 24

Second .4 15 5 11 3 19

Third, 3 3 2 4° 6.

Fourth 12 11 3 10 10 23

Fifth 15.

7.........,j3,

5 22

Sixth 8 5 7 5 1 13°

Totals

Number 58 49 37 2 46 10 12 107

Percent 54.2 45.8 34.6 1.9 43.0 9.4 11.2

* Race Key: 1=Caucasian; 2=Asian American; =Black; 4=Spanish Mexican5=American Ineian

Data not recbrded

Percents may not add to 100.0 because of rounding.

03.10

P TABLE 03.1UMBER AND PERCENT ACHIEVING PERFORMANCEpBJECTIVE

KINDERGARTENTITLE I ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS, 1975-76

SIchOoi

Partici-pants. 7.

Participantswith Post-test Scores

Alcott 12 11

Aik.Ave. 2 2

B yant 4 3

C ldwellC oud

dge

35

32

22

29

E terprise 3 2,

F brique 7 6

F anklin 20- 20

21 , 20

Harry St. 28, 24

Ingalls 213 22 ,,

Irving 44 39

Lincoln 15

Linwood 8 8

Longfellow- 11 11

L'Ouverture 9. 8 )

MacArthur 20-

16 /

McCollom _17 12

Minneha ., 9 9

Mueller i4 13

OK )Park 16 7

Payne 21 16

Rogers 16 , 15

Sim " 4 3,.

Washington 17 15

Wells 23 ' .18

Woodman 7 2 .,

Saiior;St. Josephs;Our Lady ofGuadalupe 1.

TOTALS 443 .368

Participants Achieving ObjectiVeNumber Perce:nt

,

10

1

3

90.950.0

100.0--

15 68.217 58.6'

1 50.04 66.7

16 80.011 55.022 91.7

21 1. 95.$28 .., 71410 66.76 . 75.0

'8 72.7

4 50.0.11 68.8

10 83.3.7 77.813 100.0

- --' 7 100.014 87.510 66.7

. *3 100.012 80.017 94.42 100.0

2,83 76.9

39ve

03.11

TABLE 034NUMBER:AND PERCENT' ACHIEVING PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE

: FIRST GRADETITLE I ELEMENTARYMATHEMATICS, 1975r76

School pantP

:Participantswith Popt Participants AchieVing qbiective.test Scores 'Number' * POCent

AlcottArk. Ave.Bryant

Caldwell 4

,Cloud . 50Dodga 49Enterprise 12

Fabrique 3Franklin 16Funston 8Harry St. 25Inga4s 17:Irving _20

18Linwood 12Longfellow 19M9uVerture 12MacArtbpr 30McCollom 9Minnehp 11Mueller. 19OK. 7Park 4/2Payne '32

Rogers 16Sim 6

Washington 21Wells 20

Woodman 17

Holy Savior 14

St. Josephs 5

Our Ladr of 5

Guadalupe

9

8

, 3

37

43

I. 55.5e

I00.0.3/.420.927.300,037.487.559.166.742.173.354.529.441.765.414.300.093.850.0

100.0

77.S57.1

100.052.486.7

53.850.0

100.0100.0

11 ,

16 '8

22`.15

; 1915.,

-1117 :

" 1226

7

2

.166

1422

14

, 5

21

15

13

14.

5 -

5

4

c';

4..

TOTA4,S 516 *433 236

03.12

TABLE 03.41

AiUMBER AND PERCENT ACHIEVING PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE.SECOND GRADE

:TITLE I ELEMENTA8T MATHEMATICS, 1975-76

School

AlcottArk. Ave.

Bryant-Caldwell

AloudDodgeEnterpriseFabrique

lin

FunstoHarry 9fit..

IngallsIrvingLincolnLinwoodLongfellowL'OuvertureMacArthurMcCollomMinnehaMuellerOKParkPaypeRogersSim

WashingtonWellsWoodmanHoly Saviors,.

St. JosephrOur Lady ofGuadalupe

,AprkTOTAO,

Partici-pants

Participantswith Post-test Scores

Participants Achieving ObJectiveNumber Percent

8, fit' 8 100.0

26 24 13 54.2

3 1 0, 00.0

3 3 3 100.0

30 29 9 31.0

29, 22 18 81.8

5 4 2 50.0

3 '3 0 00.0

,19 19 J4 73.7

15 14 13 92.9

20 1-6 8 50.0

8 7 7 100.0

4.,

17

--:...,.-7

4

17

3

15

75.088.2

16 --.1.,.

16 8 50.0

27 24 16 66.7

11 10 - 4 40.0

19 15 ".5 33.3

9 6 4't 66.7

14 0 0

9 , 8 6 75.0

7 6 5 83.3

11_ 5 , 1 20.0

16 14 7 50.0

16 15 6 40.0

3 - 2 2 100.0

16 15 7 46.7

16ez-

16 13 81.3

12 8 7 87.5

11 11 7 63.6

4. 4 4' 100.0

4 4 75.0

411 350 219 62.6 1

ct'

03.13

TABLE 03.6NUMBERAND PERCENT ACHIEVING PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE

THIRD GRADETITLE I ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS, 1975-76

a

School

)

Partici-pants

Participantswith Post-tesi Scores

l

Parttcipants Achieving ObjectiveNumber Percent

Alcott 4 3 , 3 100.0Ark. Ave. 18 17 9 52.9Bryant ,.. 2. 2 1 50.0Caldwell 1 1 1 100.0Cloud -

Dodge 21 18 7 38.9- Enterprise 9 9 4 44.4

Fabrique 6 63 50.0

Franklin 21 21,

18 85.7Funston 13 13 4 30.8Harry St.Ingalls 6 5 3 60.0IrvingLincoln -,

LinWood l 99

.,,4 44.4

. Longfellow 7 7 0 00.0,L'Ouverture 5, 5 1 , 20.0MacArthur 6 6 2 33.3McCollom 6 5 2 40.0Minneha 1 0 0Mueller 14 14 6 42.9OK 4 3

.,1 33.3

Park 12 5 5 100.0Payne 17 15 1 6.7Rogers 21 21 le* 47.6Sim 1 0 0 __

Washington / 10 10 10 .100.0Wells ,5 2 2 100.0 ftWoodman 9 d 3

4 , 37.4Holy Savior 4 4 4 100.0St. Josephs' 2 1 1 100.0Oilr Lady of

ilada1upe

- -

,

TOTALS 234 210 50.b.

j.42

0314

TABLE 03.7NUMBER AND PERCENT ACHIEVING PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE

FOURTH GRADETITLE I ELEMENTARY MATHEMATIC, 1975-76

SchoolPartici-pants

Participantswith post-tesx Scores

Alcott 33 29

Ark. Ave. 20 18

Bryant 9 9

Caldwell 7 7

Cloud 37 33

Dodge 50 45

Enterprise 1 1

Fabrique 8 8

Franklin 16 ' 16

Funston 14 14

Hairy St. 36 30

Ingalls 4 4

IrvingLincoln 20 19

Linwood 20 20

Longfellow 25 25

L'Ouverture 4 4

MacArthur 24 21

McCollom 12 11

Minneha 12 12

Mueller 19 18

OK 4 4

Park 9 7

Payne 29 .,, 24

Rogers 15 13

SimWashington 19 19

Wells 22 20

Woodman 14 10

Holy Savior 10 10

St. Josephs 3 3

Our Lady of 10 10

Guadalupe

TOTALS 506 464

Participants Achieving ObjectiveNumber Percent

10 34.411 61.1

J..4,, 44.42 28.6

13 39.4

33 73.3

o 00.01 , 12.5

11 68.81 7.1

22 73.3

2 50.0

15 78.9

10 50.0

3 12.0i 25.0

12 57.1

2 18.2

4 33.3

4 22.2

2 50.01 14.2

13 54.25 38.5

11 57.99 45.02 20.0

2 20.02 66.7

5 50.0

A 213 45.9

,....1011

4 3

TABLE 03.8NUMBER AND PERCENT ACHIEVING PERFORMANCE OB4CTIVE

, FIFTH GRADETITLE I ELEMENTAWMATHEMATICS, 1975-76

-Sichool

Partidi-pants°

Participantswith Post-test Scores

Participanta AchAeving Objective

,

Number Percent;

'

Alcott .'

Ark. Ave.BryantCaldwell

15A

15

2'

-

11

13

2

6

' 6.

1

. .

,i ,.

'34-6..''.

)46.2- ,

giro-Cloud '.... '* 21 2l^ 6 28.6

*Dodge,

29 25 9' ,36.0

Enterprise 1 1 1 100.0

Fabrique , 1 1 ° r 1 160.0Franklin 11 11 ' 6' 54.5Funston

.

,.

16 16 10.

62.5Harry St, . 15 3 60.0Ingall6 4 0 00.0Irving 6 6 0 00.0Lincoln .20 , '18 11 61.1

Linwood.

11 11 10 90.9

Longfellow 22 -22 8 36.4

L'Ouverture 3' 3 0 00.0MacArthur .

- ,

McCollom 9 7. 1 14.-3

Minneha 13 12 ).0 83.3

Mueller 4 4 0 00:0

OK , 3 _2 . 1 50.0Park 5 3 ' WAPayne 19 15 1 -6.7

Rogers q '__

Sim 5 5 ' 1 20.0Washington 11 11 6 54.5Wells 23 22 10 45.

,

Woodman 6 4 4 100.0Holy Savior 6 6 3 " 50.0,

St. Josephs 8 7 2 , 28.6Our Lady of 8 8 5 62.5

.1

Guadalupe. ,

TOTALS 312 278 125 a 45.0

4 4

'

03.16

TABLE 03.9NUMBER AND PERCENT ACHIEVING PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE

SIXTH GRADETITLE I ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS, 1975-76

SchoolParVti7-pan6.%

-

Alcott 11Ark. Ave. -

Bryant 12

Caldwell 3

Cloud 9

Dodge 4

Enterprise 1

Fabrique 5

Franklin 3

Funston 8

Harry St. 12

Ingalls 5

Irving 13

Lintoln 14.

Lipwood 36

Longfellow 18L'Ouverture 10

.MacArthurMcCollom, 8

Minneha 5

Mueller 7

OKPark 3

PayneRogers -

Sim 3

Washington 12

Wells 10Woodman 7

Holy SaviorSt. Josephs 6

Our Lady of , 2

Guadalupe

TOTALS 276

-FarticOants.;:!.41,thjlOst- Pariicipants, Achieving Objectivetest-;Scores Number Percent

10 6 60.0--

12 41.73 1 33.39 3 33.34 1 25.01 0 00.05 2 40.03 1 33.38 7 87.510 9 90.05 2 40.011 9 90.0

.,

12 4 / 33.336 26 72.218 7 38.9

..

10 4 40.0-

.

5 4 80.05 4' 80.07 5 71.4

,1

27

15

2'

11

107

4

6

2

0 00.033.353050.027.350.057.1

25.066.7

50.0

259136 52.5

4 5

46

TAKE 03.10

SUMMARY OF ACHIEVEMENT RESULTS

TITLE I ELEMEliTARY MATHEMATICS, 1975-76

)16rade Total

2

Number of Participants

'With Pre- With Post- Wit

te4t Scores test Scores Boa

Number Above Number Percent

Criterion Score Achievirii Achieving ,

Pre Post Objective(s) Objective(s)*

Kdg

First

Second

Third

Fourth

Fifth

Sixth

443

516

411

'234

506

312

276

389

424

348

194

429

-,266 b.

246 .

368

433 .

. 352

210

464,

278t.259

317

373

313

180

402

235

234

\

\

,

,

6

2

2

0

2

3

3

185

135

122

67

103

64

77

283

236..

219

105

213

5''''

,

'rte136

Y . 1

,J

'

, 0.0

76.9

54.5

62.2

4.9 ''

45.0

52.5

TOTAL 2698 2296, 2364 2054 18 753 1317 55.7

*Percents\are based on number of participants with posttest scores.

'1

too-

03.18

RECOMMENDATIONS

The majority of those Elementary Mathematics participants with completetest data achieved the performance objectives. '..However, the percent ofparticipants achieving the stated obSectives vaiIed considerably over.thegrade levels, indicating a need to further,refine the. performance objectivesspecific .co some of the grade levels. The.program is recommended forcontinuation.

48

04.00

WICHITA PUBLIC SCHOOLSUnified School Distridt 259

Dr. Alvin E. Morris, Superintendent

A REPORT OF THE

PROGRAM FOR CHILOEN IN

INSTITUTIONS FOR THE,NEGLECTED

1975-76

FOnd6d by ESEA PL 93-.380

.° Title IProjedt. 76030

)-'Division of Research, Planning, land Development Services

Dr. A. W. Dirks, Director

Prepared byTerty E. Moore,-Research AssistantDepartment of Program Evaluation

..Auguet, 1976

49

PROGRAMS IN rNSTITUTIONS, FOR NEGLECTED CHILDREN, 1975-76

8UMMARY

During the 1975-76 school year, four homes,for neglected childrenparticipated in'the Title I project. These homes,were servedch'y nineteachers who provided corrective or remedial tutored instruction in readingor mathematics. The total number of children who particpated.in the programwas 111. However, due to' a high rate of pupil mobility, the average dailymembership was approximately 480. Formal evaluation was hampered by the factthatpre and posttest data were available for only a small percentavof '-

participants. The program was recommended for continuation with malt;rmodifications.

4,-

-,,AtTIVITY CONTEXT

jlegardless_OT the 'quality of care a child receives in an institutionalsetting, it is difficult for him to receive the same &mount and kincWof.:praise and attention given to children in,mo;e, normal home enlilronmeneghaving stable family relationships. Receivingjarental encOUragement andexpression,ofkterest in his or her school experiente helps to motivatethechild,toward anievement in the academic setting. Lacking this kind ofparental attention,,the child findslesi satsifaction in achieving success inschool. In response:to this problem, the Title I project directors felt thatsome sort..of compensatory effort needed to be directed toward the residentialhomes for neglected-children.. Conferences wit4 institutional directorsdetermined the kinds of programs most desired when the progr was initiated.:

The nature,of the program has changed considerahly,sin ptograta::initial implementation in 1966-67. , At that time.4i.Title.I f tsWere madeavailable to provide enrichment opportuni,ties,inmusic,,dt, physicaleducation'. During the years fqllowiltg, thalProgram was expait eato includecorrective reading, correetive mathe idgE4 cr4hfts, homeecon ice-, and-

counsel4vservicesi. In.1,973-74, the iogram was-restricted correctivereadingaild mheznatics instruction emphasis,has rema Vae. twoComObnents forthepast-ttie Year. . -\

:

j .,The Title I.-program for 'children in,institutionsJoroperate-Id in four homes during. tIle 1975-76 school year: MChildren's Hothe, Phyllis,Wheatily Children's Home.; Wichita*.and United Methodist Youthville Group Home. .The'homes. are.aWichita.

ta.

04.02

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Scope,

Throughout the school year; a.t tal ofilll children from.the:Tourresidential children's'homes warticip ted4n 'the program. The childrenrangedin grade level frodi,kindergar en through the tweith grade: Theprograu0s major objectiveto pr vide supplemental instruction in readingand mathematics. Eighty-one hildr1en farticipated in mckhematics instruc-tion; 101 cKildren received reading,Attruction.

7

Personnel

Nine teachers erom the schodl district teaching staff were employedpart-time. Each teacher spent six hours.per week at one of the residential

\homes. Instruction was pro4ided during therevenings. Instructors wereassigned to homes An the following manneri Methodist Youthyille and MaudeCarpenter Children's Home each had one reading teacher; Wichita 'Children'sHome had two reading teachers and one math teacher; Phyllis WheiileyChildren's Home had two-'reading and two math teachers. Prograili supervisionand inservice kraining was performed by the Title I Parent Coordinator.

Activities

Tle prograWs2main thrust was the improvement of basic skills in readingand"Mathematics:." -Instructional techniques similar-to those Used.in Title I.Corrective-Reading and Mathematicrograms were eMplo'yed to improVe the.-

The:bap:1- instructional methods were individualizedinstruction, reinforcemedtrof.concepts,and establishmdnt otmotivationalemphasis. The instructora,*iked with children both individually and insmall groups, nd met with theP.Upils one or more 'times per week, according'to eaCh child's needs. Math anirreading instructionwas occasionally.inte-grated with other activities in order to increase pupil interest and.todemonstrate praatical application of asic skills: Learning kits, math and

:.word games, ai4+teacher prepared materiala were the most frequently'uaedins'tructional materials. Each instruct,* received assmall bndget foi Materialsand supplips.

Budget t

A. SALAR F%S

6 Reading Teachers3 Mathematics Teachers

Preiervice and Inservice,

B. CONTRACTED SERVICES

Node

511

$11,970

60

$12,030

C. OTHER EXPENSES

'Supplies (9 t>eathera-x..$206)Equipment

117`

$ 1,800

100

Based upon, the total number of participants (111), the per pupil expendit6tewas $137.67. However, if the full time equivalent,number of'pupils (48) isconsidered, the per pupil expenditdre was $318.37.

rPi

EVALUATION

1ProgramsforAiegletted children were planned,to proVide an additional:

input into the range ofexperience of*institutionalized children.' EmphasiS.,waa given to the strengthening.of basic abidemic skills.' The performanteobjectives were stated as follows: A: 1

1. Children'residing in institutions for deglected children will,. improve their reading knowleOge'as shown by posttest storesgreater:than.pretest scores on,the.McGrath Reading Tests.

2. Children residing in, institutions for neglected.children will'-improve Eheir mathematic's skills as,shomm by posttest scoresgreater,than pretest scores on 4 locally developed mathematicsskill sheet.

Participation statistics appear in Tablek04.1. Participation was almostevenly divided between girls and boyS. Nearly'three fourths of the partici-*pants wererwhite; onefifth'were black A slightly greAter number of "

participants were in grades three five, and six:; however, the participationby.grade was fairly evenly distributed.

5 2

4

5

53

TAB4/04 1,

NEGLECTED CHILDREN'S INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAMN

PARTICIPATION 'STATI1STICS

195-76

.

Grade

Sex

Male 'Female

.

1

.

2 '\. Hi

Race*

Total

,

i.

Kindergarten , 3 . 4

First 6 ' f 8

SeCon4,

'4 '7

,,

. 7

Third,. 5. 7 ' 1Z

Fourth. ', 3 4 / .5' '2.. 7.'

Fthh 11 3. il 1 2 ' 14:'

5ixth 5 . 12 12 2: ,2 47

Seventh . 3 3 .4! 1 1 6

Eighth 5 2 _., 4 2 7

Ninth 3 '7 1 .10

Tenth 4 4 5 3r 8

Eleventh . 1 .4- 3

Twelth 1 0 1 ,

Ungraded 3 4

.. .

.

Total 457 54

,

81

,

5 22 111

Percent' 51.4 48.6 73, 20 1 100

I 4,

*Race Key: . laCaucasian; 2=Asilin American; 3=Black; 4aSpanish Mexican; 5aAmerican Indian, ,

i1,A

1"04.05

S.

i're and posttest data were available for 45 of the 101 reading partici-pants. Of these 45 participants, 29 achieved gains in reading scores as;measured on the standardized tests. Both McGrath Reading Tests and readingsubtests of the California Achievement Test (CAT) mere used in assessing :\pupil progress.

A mean grade equilfalent gain was computed for the participants testedwith the CAT. The mean grade equivalent gain was 7.1 months. The average ..,

length of time in the program for these participants was-5.7 months. Inother words, those participants with complete CAT test data, on the average,achieved grade equivalent gains greater than the amount of time spent in theprogram.

Complete test data were available for 30 of the 81 math participants.f4 the 30 children with complete test d6ta, 21 achieved a.greater posttest

score than pretest score, as measured by a locally developed math skillschecklist. Therefore, 70 percent of the math participants with pre andposttest scores achieved the stated performance obTective. The raw scoregains ranged from two points to 32 pointh.

RECOMMENDATIONS ;

As has beewstated in program evaluation reports for the past two years,diificulties are encountered when conventional objectives are applied inatypical settings. Small class sizes, high pupil mobility, aryl lack Of com-plete test data combine to make an evaluation of the achievement ofperformance objectives inconclusive. Serious doubts arise concerning theeffectiveness of this type of program when implemented in neglected chil-dren's homes. Admittedly, many pupils residing in children's homes aredeficient in basic reading and mathematics skills. -However, these pupilsneed consistent corrective instruCiion inacademic areas. The temporary andsporadic nature of pupil residencejn these homes greatly reduces theopportunity for consistent, long-term contact between teacher and pupil.

It is recomme-ided that experiences other,than acadeMic be provided... If

,possible within established guidelines, this project should offer therecreational, enrichment, and sdcial experiences which may have been lackingin the developmental history of thise institutionalized children. Theprogram is recommended for continunt with the aforementioned major modifi-catrions.

ct

05.00 .

4,0

WICHITA PUBLIC SCHOOLSUnified School District 259

pr. Alvin E. Morris, Superintendent

.J

A REPORT OF THE

H. PROGRAM FOR THE DELINQUENT

1975-76

Funded by ESEA PL 93-380Title I

Project 76030

Prepared byGerald R. Riley, Research Specialist

Department of Program EvaluatiOn

-

tt

Division of Research, Planning, and Development ServicesDr. A. W. Dirks,-Directoro,

August, 1976

56

a

05.01

PROGRAM FOR THE DELINQUENT1975-76

SUMMARY 1

gio

Thj ptbgram for delinquents provided reading nd mathematics instruc-tion to boys who were at Lake Alton Boys Ranch during the achool'year. One'teacher andan instrudtional aide were provided thrOugh Title I_funds.One hundred forty-five boys were seryed at the Lake Afton facility during the1975-76 school yeavh ' The average daily enrollment was 28. T -verage num-ber of days enrolledkper participant was 35: An evaluatidp.:' list was

A ,

completed forjlach boy who was in the program 30.or Oore days. The summaryof these ratings ghows that most boys did show. ipprotament. The categorygetting the hig4pst percentage,p1 the iatings waf !right impr6Vement:" It

was recommended that the program be continued. ItAas also recommended thatan objective measure such.as the Wide Range Achiev ent Test be used as alire and posttest rather than a, Checklist.

ACTIVITY CONTEXT

Title I programs were started during the summertions operated by thie Sedgwick County Juvenile Court,Friendly Gables for girls and Lake Afton Boys Ranch.cloaed'in 1972. Since that time the Title I programconcentrated at..Lake Afton. Boys Ranch.,

Scope.

Ptipils served by the,wogram were those boys assigned to the Ranch,Jvthe Juvenile Court. The Main purpose of this program was to provide instruc-tion tn,reading and mathematics to the institution residents.

411

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

of 1967 in the, institu-Theinstitutions wereFriendly'Gables was

for delinquents has been

Personnt

One teacher and one aide were'funded through Title I. Other ireachingpersonnel funded by thewichita Board Of Education assisted in the'program.

57

05.02

Procedures

During the 1975-76 school year the plan of instruction included threegroups of pupils. Group one utilized teacher-initiated lessons, pro rammedwork, and somewhat rigid teacher control. Basic reading and mathema cs

skil4s were emphasized. Pupils in group one moved to g *up two as t eyprogressed in skills and behavior. Group two empha8ized basil skilIs withless teacher-directed study. Project worksheets gave some direction tostudents. Group-two students could progress to group three which allowedmore freedom in choosing arias of,skill development dnd more freedpm ofmovem.ent. Stydents in this group sometimes helped tutor others in basic

Budget

One teacher . $ 9,650

One aide 3,500Auto mileage from city limits

to Lake Afton 1,330-Instructional supplies 3,606Equipment 1 000

TOTAL

. EVALUATION

$19,080

One hundred forty-five pupils were served at the Lake Afton facility

during the 1975-76 school year. The average daily enrollment was 28. The

average number of days each boy was enrolled was 35. The Longest stay atthe institution was 115 days and the shortest was one day.

Table 05.1 shows the grade and race of the boys participating in thisprogram.

05.03

TABLE 05.1

GRADE AND RACE OF PARTICIPANTS IN LAKE AFTON BOYS RANCH.TITLE I PROGRAM

1975-76

,..Grade

'. RACE ,

TotalCaucasian BlackSpanishMexican

,

4 2 -.

.2

5 1 1 AP- Y

6 3 2 . 5

17 5 2. 24

27 . 12 - 39

9 29 13 . 1 43

10 22 2. .24

11 2 4 - 6

.

TOTAL

.

, 103 39 3 145,

An evaluation checklist form was used to evaluate pupils who had been in,

the program 3_ or more days. Table 05.2 shows the summary of the results ofthe pre - post student evaluation form completed by the teacher. Evaluation,reports were submitted for 62 boys who had been in the program 30 or_more

days.As shown by Table 05.2 most participants' reading skills at the begin-

ning of the program were rated "below normal," with many rated "well below

normal." The rating of the skills at the end of the program indicated thehighest percentages were in the "slight improvement" category. The greatest

improvement was in Dictionary Skills. Fifty-six percent of the ratings were

"well below ormal" at the beginning of the program. The end of program

ratings shJedthat 69% had maJe slight, moderate, or much improvement. The

reading Compreheng'ion category had a higher percent of ratings in theimproved category (71%), but only 40% had skills which were rated "wellbelow normal" at the beginning.'

In mathematics most participants' skills were rated "slightly belpwsnormal" or "normal or above" on Comprehension of the Numeration System andBasic Addition and Subtraction at the beginning of the program. The end of

program ratings of skills On these two categories lose much value because ofthe high number of pupils not evaluated. It is not known why swany werenot evaluated at the end of the program.

From the rating of skills it appears that the pupils made iuch progress

in Basic Multiplication and Division, Operations with Fraction 1 ,and Deci-mals, and Calculations Involving Lengths, Volumes, and Areas. '

The ratings indicate that most pupils did make progress Ithe areas ofreading and mathematics, although many were-rated,making "very little if anyimprovement."

5 9

Dictionary Skills

Word Meaning

Comprehension,

Phonetic Analysis

Stinctural Analysis

0

TABLE'05.2

STUDENT EVALUATION FORM RESULTS

STUDENTS WHO ATTENDED 30 OR MORE DAYS

N.62

READING

,At the beginning this

student's skill is...

At the end of the program, this

student has shown..

Well

Below

Normal

Slightly Normal,

Below pr

Normal Above

Nery Little

If An))°', Slight Moderate Much

Improvement Improvement Improvement Improvementl

56% 34% .10% 31% 40% 24% 5%

44% 48% 8% 31% 44% 21% 5%

40% 55% 5% 29% 45% 21% 5%

39% 61% 44% 37% 19%

39% 61% 44% 37% 19%

MATH,

,

1

L

,

Comprehelisio of

Numeration System

At the beginning this

student's skill is...

At the end of the program, this

student has shown...

Well Slightly Normal

Below ,Below or

Normal NoriLl 'Above

Very Little,

If Any Slight Moderate ' ,Much

Ingrovement. Improvement Improvement Imgrovement

6% 29% 10%

No

Evalua-

tion

55%29% 26% 45%

Basic Addition/

Subtractio0 29% 31% 40% - 6% , 24% 292 40%

Basic Multiplication/

Division 56% 31% 13%

0

8% 23% 29% . 27%

,

13%

Concepts/Operations with

Fractions/DeciMals 82% 181i - 34% 26% 18% 21% 2%

Measures/Calculations for

Lengths/Areas/VOlumes 82% 18% - 47% 26% 21% 5% 2%.

60

61

05.05

:RECOMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the,prograM be continued. A more objectivemeasure of progress should,be Ueed,:sUch as the Wide Range Achievement,Test. A

6 2

06.00

WICHITA PUBLIC SCHOOLSUnified School District 259

Dr. Alvin E. Morris, Superintendent,

A REPORT OF THE

PRESCHOOL PROGRAM

1975-76

Funded by ESEA PL 93-380Title I

'Project 76030

Prepared byGerald R. Riiey, Research Specialist

Department'of Program Evaluation

Division of Research, Planning, and Develppment Services. Dr. A. W. Dirks, Director

August, 1976

6 3

PRESCHOOL PROGRAM-1975-76

SUMMARY.,_

t °1.31

A totpl of 330 pdpils Were enrolled inethe Title I Preschool, Program:One hundred were three-year-old and 230 were four-year-olds. The objectiveof 90 percent of the pupils in the prdgram one year would score at the 50thyercentile as measured by the Cooperative Preschool Inventory was achieved.Home visits by teachers and'parent coordinators totaled 1360. .niere were11 meetings for parents of three-year-olds and six meetings for parents offour:7year-olds. Emphasis was placed on parental 1nvo4zement in the programforl. three-year-olds.

ACTIVITY CONTEXT

Title.I.preschool programs began in Wichita during the 1969-70 scfloOl.year. Sixteen pupi4 who were on the Read Start waiting list were in thisfirst group. The,program expanded ip 1970-71 to include two classes ofapproximately 20 pupils each. The.present- format'began in 1971-72 andincluded 111 children. In 1972-73, 227. pupils were enrolled: 119 were four-year-olds and 108 were three-year-:olds. The.:r1973-74 program had 113foui-year-olds and 115 thwee-year-Olds.enroll*.. One hundred twenty-fourfour-year-olds and 93 three-year-olds were en4.olled in 1974-75.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Scope.

Two hundred thirty four-yeat-oleilS and 100 Aiee-year-olds were enrolledin the Title I Preschool Program during-the 19-75.':76 school year.. One classfor the emotionally disturbed.was also part of tile program. Classes wereone-half day, five days per'week for four-year-olds and one half-day, fourdays per week for three-year-olds. '

The emphases in the Title I Preschool Prograt were on languireadinessski

)1.

ls, development of positive self-concepts, and,phySicel c9Ord1nation.

Personnel

The petsonnel in the program were:

One program director (.4 position)Five teachers of four-year-oldsThree teachers of three-year-olds

os

)0(

Procedures

06.02

4.One teacher-of the emotionally disturbed:One parent edUcator for the Toy Loan.ProgramThree parent coordinatorsone nurse (.5 position)

One speech therapist (.4 position)One baby sitter (isi-titile for-parentOne secretary.Instructional Aidepk024e firat'One custodian (45i3OsitiOn)

.6

(.2 position)

peetings)

semester, lithe second semester

This report covers-the. 1975-76 school year. The programwaq housed at#Kechi and .Little Early thildhood Education Centers operated by the WichitaPublic School,District.

Classroom activities included sr\fill group activities,, sequential acti.-'vities,' and individual interaction with materials. Activities were designedto further social adjustment, cognitive development, physical coordination,and language development. Some of the areas covered during the year were-self-concept, shapes and colors,.health and hygiene,number concepts, anidsensory 'exptriences. ,An exathple of a teacher monthly plan sheet is givenon page 06.03. . f

Some pupils were placed in the roOm for the emotionally distUrbed fromregular classes. All were returned to regular classes at sometime during theyear. The parents.of the pupils received:assistanCe with home management ofthe child.

Field trips taken by four-year-olds were:

AirportBakery_

.:City parksDowntown hritmas displayFarm visitsFire StationGroceryittore'

Lumbtr yardNeighborhood walksPost OfficePublic libraryPuppet showShopping centerShrine Circus

Trips taken by three-year-olds included neighborhood walks, a neighbor-hpod City parity Shrine CirCus, department store Santa; zoo, airport,-and apuppet show.

Pupils were provided breakfasts and hot lunchep through U.,S. Departmentof°Agriculture subsidies. Efforts to assfst families who had,clothing andhousehold needs were coordinated through the program with contributions fromlocal business firms and Civic groups.

Parent coordinators and teachers visited many homes.o puPils during theschool year, The teac,hers of three-year-olds had One day Per week releasedtime for home Visits. \

Parent coordinators were responsible for-planning parent meetingsthroudiout the school year. Parents were encouragedto provide home activi-ties, 'Which would aid theirchild's.development.

6 5

WICHITA PlitLiC klIOOLS

Research and Evaluat,ion Services Division

Department of, ftogram Evaluation

/t/ouep7.6er.

,MONTHLY PLAN SEET: TITLE I PRE-KINDERGARTEN .PROGRAM

a'

,SUBJECT

,

CONTENT OR SKILL

, i!,, :. Ail .

TEA.CHING'AOAVITY MATERIALS .USED'1

. ,,,.

GOALS OR OBJECTIVE

So6ial

Adjustment.

4)

( 1 ' / .

p, -,,r1, ,5

.. -

11 '''A "I'S

L-,c1A-V7L '..a L c. .

'aiphi,/ /6 LA,,c/t Cy kl y 11 d ,

c.lid:,c(p '0

.,

g

' /i4/1 a _ aai /16'''' /7 7 1. ,,

4. ,

A. i,e, , ,,,,i,Ji icrf hr,r

Ccx fc(felht.i. IliO

fS.5c.uss basKs co ?,c riute,r

6,. 1,11/411r( & C041("y in J 414,1

. I f b

Tura (I- bcc:ies cy, ii' 3.,..,,,4'---1,..und. imeiieps

, I

-,-, t 'br A 4.:/(0101); 4C):.P'fie(110 pa, 4 .

-

'ibYti,er, ,w, if ,,,,,,,,4c,,,,t ;,7

7,6 ./oileiu fet 4 /I'd

Occd;41/.eehifs

.011,11101 ate deuelay 1 a,. .

,i/t) Ore,. 73,,...,s,r,vt, tee//o7 jec,,ifei

.,... her.; 4 art cice.14/0'11.04,

4(0147:1 ,dt/ry

404

'

Cognitive, i

DOelopment

a

,1.) i ( Te 121 cllj CCI"i'.

,Pc rceplull .5Aliis i?',.. $1`11cil'IP,, 8,ea.441

,,

.i.iC.lel.)(c`

.'5. C / A ti /um /1

ZISCUSS0.5Iat, igitet

Cciloce n)ocr,a4

"rer.1801 Celatite ;CiM4 61

a ecls itII 4, e /1 c, i

-,,),..(a. 6,z,,..,.CczA)--- (i PL..

i.tdc,..c.A,,,j,..;.,,, a.cio, ,p i,:4441-, PO-47,-''41;1) ,',,-, if,

":''L'14"111C;1.7lCiit'-"-.14,,,,

41,--7z,444,01.4"1-"

k>, '- ,,,,,lmwr a Ltz4t

1

t sa. . 64..,,..as,,L44,4,,ani /-:'0417,;,44.-

"ii4A4,3 .C1Z201,1'CCio lia"Lt-

,

C'hatl,24. it, adiik 4/1,44. ,42.1,14Atad

06te.....) P Lk Nall.,/

%.4-11.4 l'C0 TiC2i6..,1 0:44:/).:4.04.441

6,,)(4.Aa 6-ilttly.

L l'4,4 v Uirt) c4ALL/as.Ltz_4: 0,z/6,i-aid

(di/Sly/4LO a wa. ,`..4.:l 1,

,

Physical

Coordination

, ,. ,, ,,.. ,

/)y0)1)iic, freuegletrt

o,4 Sc, e. co,-"*.i'.1,,,:m ' .2-iiil'arce

...

Ill

6.-Ziklidn Tantrs ic

'ay/Arn c, Diu In

rco.,',),/ 4.4.a.11,C-

C Ailci/t 0 :.4-1%" Oe de-d(c c,'_ra..ii M 13(UnIs. V tlolwerl 5,01,1

_. ,reCords 0 (1 zrid,.1,7,,,,,;,, ..../),,a,i,,,,,,,;A . fit lti'4,s, 'la

. , c.. lc,

4'1),..te 0,5.13.13nee Zedn?' / eg 'R p e "he V 0110/1(e, c)I'L!, e.,:Y. Ole

/ --- . it ,,,,,_ A " ,q '''''''' `VICX &I/4NC ili3O/fliehiel 01

011Ace b Om ti Ai, I re .)c,' {,e s

,

Language

Development

,

'1Pet t?)//t/i., bliwge }.- (...2/.7, Idle'? c4,-,'

,,),:if.,7)41/,0,7 q ,,..,0,,s- a L ca7L Irti3O,1

C; 0 Si 01 17 S Cl, 74-1,) rs'e , I, ,, , ic 7it )66 14IdPS0 n;

7...

.'"),...red'ut. 7r,)' cal,es

,

jc-7

1f,c1/41(ickscus.; 04:,:,C S C.

7),0440.5 .abc,/ ipchen(:,30,,,s;;:i 7.40,,,e.,,,s

'5 7417

-4iiitoi,fie,) "p/s0.t '...,)/t ehahy -tem'on Dt'urns

. i5 c. /1 riij. .7,iii,q:5 ft', ,

16 .',S /1 A "1 . ri 0, 't ) t 141VerVekVar'e 1 '' ot '24. 4 ,cluo ,..,,,/./... (41 ,/ n .abci invtions or...1.01 cusmfrn,c., )4,.L7/g,,,P,

.p7,,,,o di 44. An,erda 'n -ri rg /3 nj

P,1 ,.,,s, maylic,,,er .,h_e/Pa i''"', 4 ;02'ns, MeV 4,4ZI 4'in) .,r-

;tato Ayer,wini, tree hnir -7-i.,e , ,`-'11 ulen 4.,A a idiS,010-1 SC,ektk4,u,ride pcfnee)Nnli clo le 1, J .. , '''' Pri

1°6 -)10/1diPa CI the.% cc), vr,s. -. '

66

0

0

.-13,167,111s c,si CI ,1,1- Cin 'Ili é, .7(0 1

PLEASE RETURN ALL FORMS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PROGO EVALUATION AT ,}3}1E END OF EACH MONTH.

67

'-06:04

-

The Xollowing meetings were held for, parents of three-year-olds duringthe year:

4Open HouseFilm "Motherly Love"Toy WorkshopChristmas Party.Introduction to Family ConqultatiOn Services

, Cooking demonstrationCreatiye dramatics"Playing with Your Child",Video tapes of cfass actiNities

,Zdo Picnica

four-year-olds:-, .

0pen House.

. Introduction of staff members -'Speech therapist,,,purse, etc.Introduction to Family Consultation Services-Bicentennial .:' ..

0 "tilaying.withYour.Child".-Stretching Dollars

3 ,

; ''. .

A Toy Loan Program for three-year-olds was initiated in'early March,! iW, and was Continued through the 1975-76- schColfyear. The purpose of',

mt progra was to invo,lve parents in the 'hometiaching of their-childrenusing materials from the Toy Library. 4 long-feria 'goal is to help parents tobe more aware of the contribution Oley cap make to their children's. education

,by being knowledgeable .-7.Lout and reinforcing sehootexperiences.The Toy Loan,Program included one piofessionai parent educator (..2 posi-

tion) Who managed Ille library. Teacherk-dif thiee-year-olds visited homes and.,helped parents With toys and materials specifica4y,re1ated to the individuah.ahild's learning needs.,

.

.-.

.

The library includes picture booka,, books for parents, .books with.

accompanying recordings of the text, and.a wide variety of toys.. The. toysare designed to helpfteachpreachoOl skills such 'AS ndmber .concepts, color:concepts,: reading readiness, s.cience readinesa,-esbape, size, speedh,'-sounrd,vocabulary, and perceptuaI7mototski46.

Budget

r The budget for the total preschoa prOgram Was. $215,266 or'aPproximqely$652 per child... Included in the.t4a1.budget. was$78,466 foT the program'forthree7year-oLds which was $785 peto chil* AlSo'inCluded-is a.bUdgeof-$134,800 for the foUr-yeaf-or&prOgram:Wh,ich is 095 pef child. çt-

EVALUATION

The objectives of the program were:,

To increase cognitive skills includingnaticS concepts of position, time, and

development,9f:4ke-ma4he=

06.05

To develop discrimination skills in color, -shape, categorization,function, physical properties,,and sensory discrimination.

These objectives were measured by the Cooperative Preschool Inventory.The performance level was that 90 percent of the pupils in the program oneyear would score at the 50th.percentile or above.

An additional objective in the program for three-year-olds was to gainparental involvement in the education of the child. This objective was,measured by responses to a questionnaire and attendance at meetings plannedfor parents. The performance level was 75 percent positive responses toselected questions on the quesEionnaire and 50 percent of'the parents wouldattend at least nine meetings luring the year.

There were 100 participants in the program for three-year'-olds. pListedbelow are the three-year-olds by sex and racef

FemaleMale

50

50Caucasian 27

Black . 65Spanish Mexican 2

American Indian 2

Other 4

Two hundred thirty four-year-old participants are listed by sex andrace:

e .1

Femalp 109 Caucasian 52Male 121 Black 167

Spanish Mexican 6

.American Indian 2

Other ,3

The Cooperative Preschool Inventory wag given as a pretest in the fallof 1975 "and as a posttest in the spring of 1976. ,Classroom teachers adminis-tered both pre and posttests.

"A pretest was also given at the beginning of the_Summer, 1975, EarlyStart program. The purpose of this pretest was to measure the total pre-school experience (six-week summer session plus the school year 1975-76).

The results -of the pre and posttests are shownAn Table 06.1.

6 94

06.-06

TABLE 06.1

RESULTS OF THE COOPERATIVE PRESCHOOL INVEgTORYFOR

THREE AND FOUR-YEAR-OLDS

,

NATIONALPRETEST

.

PERCEN,I,ILES.POSTTESt'

Spring, 1976

,

', z:SCORE ,

GAIN

Four-year-oldsJune Pretest k

1(=25

52 96, , 1.70

Four-year-oldsSeptember PretestN=126

50 87

.,

1.13

_

TOTAL FOUR-YEAR-OLDS

N=151 45 89ii.

1.36

,

Three-year-oldsJune Pretest

N=26-

43

-

98 2.23.

,

Three-year-oldsSeptember PretestN-45

.

37 93 1.81

!

TOTAL THREE-YEAR-OLDS

N=11 37 96 ' 2.08

Percentiles were converted to z sCores, then subtracted to give a trueindication of relative gains. 4

4

The results shown in Table 06.1 indicate that both three7year-olds andfour-year-olds made substantial gains.

The three-year-oVis who had Early Start (June pretest) and the regular.

year had greater gainsthan those who had only the regular year. The differ-ence in gains between the two groups was not statistically significant (P).05).

The four-year-olda who had Early Start and the reguranyear (June pre-test) had significantly higher gains than those who had only the regular year'(P<.001) .

In addition to the mean eercentile and z-score calcdlations, the 'numberof scores at or abow the 50trpercentile wete counted. "Ninety-four percentof the threeTyear-ords who were in the program one year scored at the 50thpercentile or abovg. Ninety-two-percent of the four-year-olds scored at the50th percenti4g, or above. 'the objective of 90 percent of the pupils in theprogram one yeat would score at the 50th percentile or above was met.

Parent participation in the.child's education was an impottant part ofthe preschool program. The emphasis was placed on parents of three-year-olds. The objectives of, the programfor parents of three-yeat-olds were:

"P.

7 0

1.

06.07

:(a) Parents will have positive attitUdes toward the educationalprocess as measured by,item nine on the parent questionnaire.

(b) ,Parenis w 1 have positive feelings abeiut their ability to con-tribute t4their children's learning experiences as measured byi_em ten on the questionnaire.

(ct;. Parents will be familiar with the educational objectives of theprograms as measured by item four on the questionnaire.

(d) Parenn.will implement child guidance techniques within the homeas meisyred by question three.

(e) Parentsigill use the adjunctive services of the program as...measured by items five, six, and seven.

(f) Fifty percent of,the parents will attend at least nine meetingsas Measured by item one on.the questionnaire.

The specified performance level was 75 percent positive responses onquestionnaire items which measure the particular objectiive.

, A parent questionnaire--was given to a stratified (by classroom) randomsample of parents who had children in the program in May. The sample was

*approximately 13 percent of the total grohp. Eleven of the 12 questionnaireswere returned. The results are given on pages 06.08-06.10.

The results from the questionnaire indicate that parent objectives(a), (b), (c), and (d) were met. ObjeC'tive (e) was met by the parent coor-.dinator part of adjtjOctive servl.ces, hat not by the school nurse and speec,h-teacher. However, the,nurse waa .4 fulltime and the speech teacher ws/.5 fulltime while the parent coordinator was fulltime. Objective (f) yaa not ,

met. Only three (27%) of the respondents to the questionnaire indicated theyhad attended nine or more parent meetings. .

Parent education.in the program for liour-year-olds did not receive theemphasis that was _given to the program for three-year-olds. Therefore, spe-cific objectives were not formulated. However, a questionnaire Was sent to a15 percent sample of ,,,rents. The results of this,qustionnaike axe shown onpages 06.11-06.13.

Two parent coordinators,made 639 home calls and had 493 telephone con-tacts with parents. They-made 110 attempts at home calp; where they receivedno response. Parent visits at school or a telephone call to school totaled114

Classroom teachers made 721 home visits. . They made 434 phone calls toparents. Parents came eo school or called 221 times. Home visit attemptswith no'response totaled 22. 41,

There were eleven meetings for Parents of tIkee-year-Olds incTuding OpenHouse. The average attendance was 27. Excluding Open House, the averageattendance for ten regular meetings was 24.

. Six meetings for parents of four-year-olds were held including OpenHouse. 'The average attendance was 20. Excldding Openllouse, the averageattendance of the five meetings was 14.

The Toy Loan program component included home visits by.teachers ofthree-year-olds. The teachers completed a checklist for each horn, visitwhich involved the Toy Loan program. The tabulation of these,checklists isgive on pages 061.15-06.15.

71

06.08

PARENT QUESTIONNAIRETitle I Preschool (Three-year-olds)

1975-76Summary

N=11

1. How many of the parent meetings have you attended this school year?

none six 1 twetveone 2 seven thirteentwo eight fourteenthree 2 nine 1 fifteenfour 2 ten

five 1 eleven (most of them)

2. Have the meetings been interesting and useful to you?.

Always 5 (45%) Most of the time 5 (45%) A few times 1 (9%)

Almost never --

3: Have you tried some of the ghild guidance methods which you learnedat parent meetings?

Yes 10 (91%) No (It was not discussed) 1 (9%)

4. DO you feel you understand the reasons for the ifferent classroomactivities?

Always 4 (36%) Most of the time 7 (64%) Sometimes

...Almost never

5. Have you talked with the 43choo1 nurse?

Yes 6 (557) No 5 (45%)

If you answered "yes" check one or more of the following:

(A nurse visited in my home 1

I visited with the nurse at school 4

I visited with the, nurse by telephone 3

The nurse was: Very helpful. '1

HelpfulLittle or no help

7 2

06.09

6. Have you talked with the school speech teach9

Yes 2 (18%) No 9 (82%);4

If yom answered "ye's" check one or more of the following.

A speech teacher visited in my- homeI visited with the speech teacher at school

. AI visited with the speech teacher by telephone

The spqech teacher was: Very helpfulHelpful

'Little or no help

7. Have you talked with the parent coordinator?

Yes 9 (82°4) No 2 (18%)

2

If you answered "yes" check one or more of the following.

:A pafent coordinator visited in my homeI visited with the parent coordinator at schooLI visited with the 'parent coordinator by phone

The parent coordinator was: Very helpfulHelpfulLittle or no help

6

6

3

6

3

8. Please llst some of the most important th1ng4 you feel your childhas learned this year.

6 Colors/ How to get alon& with others

c3 How to share

3 How to express her/himselfbetter'

3 Different shapes

iMore independent

2 Respect for property,1 New vocabulary

1 Learn to discipline her/himself

1 About U.S. Post Officeand mailbox

1 Eiat better

1 Recognizes his/her name1 Manners

Safety_.1 How to count

1 No response

A9. How would you describe the way you feel about

is getting at.Little- School? (check one)

i think itI think itI thinle'lt

I think' It

I think It

Is,excellentIs goodis fair

poorIs very poor

7 3

ore.

the e;aupation your child

re.

06.10

10. As a result of"parent meetings, workshops, aAd visits with LittleSchool staff members, do you feel you are better able to help,your child learn? (check one) IS'

I feel I can contribute much to helping my child learnI feel I can contribute some to helping,my child learnI feel I can contribute little to helping my child learn

8 (73%)3 (27%)

11. Have you borrowed materials (toys, books, etc.),from the schoollibrary at Little School?

Yes 10.(91%) No'l (9%)

12. What materials did you find 'most useful?

3 No responae 1 Animal dominoes2 All were helpful 1 Matching Vlbcks

1 Mail box2 Building blocks 1 Peg set2 Books with records1 The game with different

shapes

13. Did you and your child play together with the materials?

Yes 10 (91%) No 1 (9%)

14. Did other members of your family play with your child and thematerials?

Yes 9 (82%) No 2 (18%)

15. Did you child play alone with the'materials?

Yes 9 (827) No 2 (18%)

16. Has the parent educator or your child's teacher visited with you inyour home about the materials from t'he,Toy Loan Libraryl

Yes 10 (91%) No. 1 (97).

If so, was this visit: A great helpHelpfulLietle or no help

. 0 .

17, ;How would you rate the usefulness bf theseteach your child?

ge)

A great help 8 (8QX) .Helpful 2 (20%)

7 4

5

5

materials in hping you

Little or no help -

;A.

PARENT QUESTIONNAIRETitle I Preschool (Four-year-olds)

1975-76SumnarY

N22

1. How many of the parent meetings have you attended das school year?

none 7 sixone . 6' seventwo 2' eight'three 4. nlnefour tenfive 1 eleven

2 twelve )thirteen

s.fourteenfifteen o ,4

2. Have the meetings been interesting and useful to you? N=15

Always 10 (67%) Most of the time 4.(27%) -A few. tithes -7-71

Almost never - No response 1 (5%)

3. Have you tried new foods.or new cooking methods whcch you lterUed atparent meetings? N=15 *

Yes 2 (13%) No. 1(.3 (87%)

'4. Have you tried some of the child guidance methods"at parent meetings? N=15

Yes 7 (47%) No 8 (5U)

5. Do, you feel you understand thetreasons for thactivities?

Always 16 03%) Most of the timEP 2 (9%)

Almost never '1,(5%),

6. Have, you. talked .with .the echool 'nurse

Yes,-40 (4 ,i-Np 12 (554)

If you answered "yes" check one A more of the following:

U learned

lassroom

3. (14%)

/ 1A nurevy*sitcd inc my.home

,

4

lsited wittlie nurse at school 2

I it'ecywitil the nurse by telephone, ,4,.vi,i, 1, .' - ,

6'

,.. ..i,.

,,v, ,c.,. ji.oe?.. .

.,

.. ,,.. trnutee wasfilVery helpful lili

,4,* . . 4V,i , '.; , 1#!.4;' Helpful 2

; 44 Little or"no he/ei.

,

"

,

,itt

.

tiff75

-

7. Have you

'f 41:

talked with the school speech teacher5;71141,11

Yes 2 (9%)

If

No 20 (91Z)0

you answered "yes" Check one or morei*: following:

A speech teacher visited in my hotO 1o'.

I visited with the speech teache& e'sthobl 1

I visited with the speech teacher telephone - &

The speech teacher was: 1&ry hy,HelpfulLittle,'

8. Have you talked with thejprent coordin40f1.,

Yes 11 (50%) No 11 (50%) vO%If you answered "yes" check' one o*

helts

A parent coordinator, visited iI visited with'-the parentcood ,r.--mik.hool 6

I visited with the parenf'coordinatot 711 ne

5

tste parent coordinator was:

?lease list some of the most impotlearned this year.

,12 Colors10 How to,count,:10 How ta-aet along with others

7.

4 His/heriOlaTeTo express her/himself 114W4r

T2 Manners

\44,",

.2 'SPeech & vocabLdiry;:.P pared himIher, fdi a schoo

ituationf confidence,

4

- 6

4

ngs'you feel your child has

1 Other children's names1 Kinds of aniffrals

1 ,Shapes & sizes1 To sit longer

TO paint1 AlPhabet.

1 , To share-1 New toods

at

'How woulA you describe the wa$01ou feel,is,gettitg at Little School? .4

,.

I:think itI:think itjhink ftl)think ittthink it

is excellentis goOdis fair.

is pooris very poor

17 '(77%)

5 (23%)

7 6

2 , No response

about the education your child

ft

44

9

06.13

11. As a result of parent meetings, workshops, and visits with Little,'School staff members, do jrou -feel you are better able to help,your child 14arn?

,

I feel I can contribu;-mt4.t helPingmy child learn. 11 (50%)

I feel I can contri14o to helpingmy child learn., 10 (45%)

1 feel I can contribute little to helpingmy child learn. ,

No resPonSe 1 (5%)

1

7 7

oit

A j

06.14

TITLE I PRESdHOOL'TOY LOAN PROGRAM ,

dHECKLISt.FOR PARApROFESSIONAL HOME LIBRARIANS1975-76Summary

1. Was this your firstfirst visit)

t

Yes 6 (5%)

Ni112

visit to this Ipme? (eheck.which number if not

a

Second 45 40%) ri Third 31 (28%),

Other.29 (26%) No respOnse-l'(1%.)

2. What was the attitude of the parent(0 (in general regarding school?'

'Positive 86 (77%)* Slightly positd.ve 22 (20)

Neutral 2 (2%) Negative 2 (2%)

3: What was the general attitude of ohe parent(s) regarding .the Toy Loanprogram and your visit?

Enthusiastic 64 (57%) .Acceptitig 41 (37%) ReUtral 6 (5%)*

Uncooperative 1 (1%)

4. What was the general attitude of the parent(s) toward working with thechild?

Enthusiastic 66 (59%) Interested 39 (35%) Neutral 5 (4%)a

7Not interested 2.(2%).

5. Did you observe the parent(s) wdrking with the materiais and the child?

Ye's 83 (74%) No 29 "(26%)

If "yes", what were your impressions?

A:good situation 55 '(66%) Fair 26 (31%)

Not a kood situation 2 (2%)

6. Did you demonstrate for the parentW how to work wi,th the materialsand the child?

Yes 106 (95%) tio 6 (5%)

7. Did the child have an adequate place to kedp toys and materials?

Yes 88 (79%) No 17 (15%) Unknown 7 (6%)

if;}7 C.

0-

06.15

Did you feel that the Toy Loan Program was workable for this particularfamily?

Very much so 59 (53%)

No response

Has polssibi/ities.44 (39%) No 7 (6%)

9. Did the parent(s) d:tscjiss school related concerns (other than the ToyLoan program) with you?

Yes '110 (98%) No ,2 (2%)

0. Did the parent('s) discuss family related concerns with you?

Yes 90.(80%)

.0

-a

No 14 (13%) Ap response 8 (7%)

"

"!!

Some items on the questionnaire for parentii .of three-year-olds referredto the. Toy Loan program. Ninety-one percent of' the respondents said they hadused the library. Seventy-three percent indicated the materials were "aIreat help" in helping them teach their child. Twenty-seven percent saidthey were "helpful."'

.The Toy Loan Library continues4to bejudged by parents to.be useful in'helping them in the education of.their children.

RECOMMENDATIONS

4Parent education, including the Toy Loan Library, should continue fo be

a major part of the program for three-year-olds;, As recommended in the 1974-15 report, a search.should be continued foran:apprOpriaa,instrument to replace the Cooperative Preschool Inventory.It is recouMbiehded that a committee Of preschool teachers be formed for thispurpose.

4

8 0

07,00

WICHIIA PU,TC SCHOOLS'Unified School Distric't 259.

Dr.. Alvin F. Morris, Sup.ri:ntendent

A REPORT OP THE

PARENT EDUCATION.AIDE PROJECT

1975776

Funded by SEA PL 93,3780.Title I

Prbject 760p

Brepared by'Terri, E. Moore,- Research AssistantDepartment off ProgrAm 1:valuation

Division of Research, Planning; and Development gervicesDr. A. W. DirkSDirector

July. 1976

81

PARENT EDUCATION AIDE PROGRAii;,4.975-76-

:SUMMARY

The Parent Education Aide Program (PE ) was firstjmplemented duringthe 1974-75 school year. The:program was designed tp provide pupils withiAdividual and small group tutoring experiences,,arid to lend sUppOrt to the

.

ta k of encouraging parent partiCipation in educatipn. During_the:197Y=76s,chool year, a total of 34_Pareni Aides were employea 18-ritlej-target,,schools, Each aide worked approXimately 21 hours per week. Title I puPilswho were'deficient in reading and/or math skills.receped tut6ring serviceS.;In addition to tutorias pupils, the aide's alSo-contacted the parents okTitle I,pupilsthrOugh phone calls, written notices,, And home Visitations.Parent Aides encouraged Rarental involvement and Planned several open work-7;

. -

shops to stimulate the parents' interest in the edUcational'process.4

Scope

PROGRAli DESCRIPTION'

Parept,Edutation Aides tutored Title I pupils in grades one throughsix. ,Pupils were tutored.in the areas of reading and mathematics.. Sincethe Parent EducatipniAide' PrograrOs ,slipplemental to the Title r CorrectiveReading and Elementary MathematiCh-rdgrams, the performance objectives fsrthose.programs appl,y also td Pt 'An'.'outline of the prpgram's general ,

objectives appears, below. .

General' Objedtives of TitreT-Parent Education Aide Programs "

1. rovide individual, or span, group tuforing,in reading and math,-fpf. Children with educational needs as deteTmined py classrodmteacheft, s,Recial readim teachers; or math aides and as sched-'uled by thei builditig principal.

1 ,..11

2. Provide'information o parentS a0out school actities andmethods in which parents dp be4kivolVe'd.

/- 'ReFruit and schedule puents .4,S 'classroom volunteers or to7aNsist with other schodT

.F4

4: Create an environment.which encourages two-way comMunicationbetween home,and school.

5. -Encourage parents to malcc a 'significant contribution to eheirchildren, their schools, and their communities.

N

07.02

Personnel #

. Thirty-four aides were employed fu the 1975-76 school .year. All of the.

aides were female; five were black and 29 were white. Nineteen Parent Aideshad been employed as aides the previous year,. Parent Aides were selectedfrom among those recommended by principals of TitleI schools. Selection was

based on how active theagplicant had been in school activities lff the pastand how well the applicant appeareakto,relate to pupils and stdff. No pre-vious educational or work experience was required.

_ The Title I Parent Coordinator provided project supervision and .con-V1,1...-,. ducted preservice andinservice instruction for aides and Title I principals.

,.;,*:r6ce'dUrq$

.1Nesepqed, ruction was given to the Barent Aides prior to the .

g0i4rifq10S--.00,,SC:hool term. Preservice seBsions were held at the Murdock:,Yeaeller::Ceuttfle..last two weeks in August. Mathsessions were held for

thre hout:s:eacaftprnoon during the first week.. Reading sessfons were heldthe 4,44.0nxi'14:Itigkfor::thtWliours each morning. Sometif the aides were notSqlecti-tr.0E4,1p',..tOaqe'n4::aIl of the preservice sessions.

1,6114usqve:ifliefitihits-were held during the-course, of the sthool year.

.-:11.i.6"§e-- 9 ei4ieLgned to provide continuing.inStrtiction in materials,

methbilsts*ari human relations. Below is a list of inservice topics:

Home Contacts Social Worker and Parent'Involvement Worker,Follow Through

Reading Skills -.Program SpecialistMath Skills Title I.Math Aide CoordinatorCommunication Workshops Human Relations Consultant

AUdio-Visual School Service CenterLaminating WorkshopNewspaperS inihe Classroom Nancy SparksMetfic-Awarelness Title I Math Consultants" rents Are People" Dr. John Valusdk, W.S.U.earning Disabilities--How Parents Can Help" - Eunice Nelson, W.S.U.

As an additional part of inservice activities, Parent Aides had the,opportunityoto improve.,,their'communication.skills through a universipr

cOlirse. The Parent Education Aide Program paid the tuition for English 101at Wichita"State.University for any aide who wished to enroll. The interestshown toward participation in the class was good, however? due to family-sponsibilities and transportation problems, several of the aides.were.unable to complete the course.

Each Parent Aidewas assigned to.a Title I target school. Individual

'and small group tutoring took place in the school. In some cases, a separateroom equipped with resource materials was used for. tutoring. At someschool5,'the Parent Aide met the tutees in the established reading oicmath

lab., /

Parent Aides,spent three hours each mornireg,i five days per week,tutoOng pipils in the target schools. Three hotirs-each afternoon on Wed-nesday NOPThursday were"spent in inservice instruction, staff meetings, andMaterials preparation.

83

"07 . 03a

111

lt 4:s _1.

Title I target schools,tvre;voupe.d'into clusters to ncilitatê torganization of staff meetingg, inserviae sessions, and workshops. 6

target schools were divided into five clusters; each clU ter desigAted achairperson and a secretary.

Activities

Building principals assigned Parent Atdes as needed to classroomteachers, labs, or individual chil4en. 'Title I pppils were choaen by theclassroom or special teacher to reCeive tptoring. The pupils left theirclassroom for a certain period of time,during the morning .to work with theParent Aides. In this way, diach aide tutored several- pupils during the day'.Instruction was individually programme'd, based on the"pupil's level ofperformance and special needs. .Depending upon educational nqed, some pupfassaw the tutor mare frequently than other pupils. Pupils were tutored oneilkher an individual or small-group basis.

Instructional Equipment'and Materials

(P,

The equipment and materj.als available to Parent Aides varied widely

among schools. Some achools 'provided separate,,..rooms while other schoolsasSignedthe aide to the reading or math lab. 'etn some schools only a bareroam was provided.. Title I Corrective Reading and Elementary Mathemati*cscurriculum materials were used. In addition to the regular program mater-ials, the Parent Aides made many instructional games, learning activities,and visual displays for use fin their tutoring sessions.

Parent-CoMmunity Involvement

Involying-parents of Title I children in school activities was a major,goal of the project. Parent involvement was achieved through a variety ofcommunications and activities. Each cluster of target schools published anewsletter in December. The newsletters contained infOrmation about schoolactivities, and suggested crafts and activities fo.r parents and children toshare over the Christmas holiday. The aides made parent contacts throughoutthe school year. The parents vere informed of schnbl Activities, asked tovolunteer their services, and notified of parent workshops.

Parent-community involvement in'education was encouraged.through parent

workshops. Each cluster of target sdhools planned and,conducted workshopsfor Title I parents. Below is a list of.some of the woricahop topics:

Learning to Read Reading SPeciaiistsLet's Make Math Games.- Math AidesHouseplants Yellow-Brick.RoadChristmas Crafts - Y.W.C.A.How to Talk with Your thild, and Dealing with Children's

Fears Follow Through Psychological ConsultantMacraMe Parent AidesDrug Abuse Wichita Police 'Department

d

8 4 0,

07.04),

Twenty-two workshops were held during the year by eitheeplusetrs of schoolsor single schools. The number oE parents in attendance at the workshops.ranged from six to 107. The mtdian number in attendance was about 23.Although attendahce at the workshops was sometimes disappointing, thoseparents who attended respbnded very favorably to the presentations andactivities.

Budget

A. 'SALARIES

1 Parent Coordinator30 Parent Education Aides

Preservice Training:Babysitting

$ 9,60868,0003,240

800

$ 81,648

B. CONTRACTED SERVICES

Consultants for Workshops audInservice 2,047

C. OTHER EXPENSES

Refreshments 400

Supplies 4 3,500Auto Allowance 2,560Travel (Out of town) '500

6,960

TOTAL $''96,655

EVALUATION

.The performance objectives for pupils in Title I Corrective Reading andElementary-:Mathematics apply also for the pupils tutored in the Parent Aide'program. Achievement bf these obje'ctives are assessed in seperate reports onthe reading and math programs. ,

A brief summary of the PEAP process objectives and the person(s) respon-sible'for each of the ,activities appears below:. ,

,PEAP PROCESS OBJECTIVES

Person(s) Responsib:le Activity.

Parent Coordinator 1. Publicize Parent.Edu n Aide Pro-gram and the need f r par nt aides

2. Plan and conduct iervice for Title I.2 principals .

.

. Ve 9

8 5

:Parent Coordinator (cont'd')

Title I School Principal

; 7

(

Classroom Tsacher.Speciallteading:Teacher,

- Math Lab Aide,

.qteading Teachers, MathConsultants, Aides,Classroom Teachers

07.05

3. Select parent aides

4. Plan' and conduct parent aide preser-lrice and inservice training

5. Provide project supervision dailyk*

L. Assist Parent Coordinator dn.selec-tion of parent,aideb

2. Schedule parent aides for tutoring

, Maintain parent aide time sheets andreport time to Business Division.

1, Schedule pupils for indivtdual orsmall group tutoring sessionswithparent, aide

_1. Conduct individual or small group

eutoying sessions with Title.I pupilsas assigned

2. Schedule and conduct home calls or

IF parent visitations

3. Provide feedback fon information orcOncerns from home to'school

_,,..

Some of the Parent Aides were asked.to piepare a brief case hIstory. on achild 'whom they had tutored duxing the year.. Attitude, achievement, andbehavior changes are evident in the childreil 'described in the following.twoParent Aide reports.

, v.

The student I am writing about is a boy in the firstgrade. I tutored him in reading and math.. I spent onehour and forty minutes a week with this student.

His level of learning at the beginning.of school wasvery low. His reading'level at present:lime is first .'grade in the 9th month.

His behavior has greatly improved. His attention .

span was very short (when you could manage to get hisattehtion). He was very active, clothes buttoned wrong, ,

shoes on the wrong feet and,untied. Now he comes toschool with shoes tied and is able to sit and listen andfollow directions.

Parent Aide at Irving Elementary

8 6

'7:41fe.."

07.0

.As a patent aide, I tutor many children froM the,, first grade. One six-year-o1d, little bo)i: is very special.

When he first stnrted coming to me, he'dldn't know how tocount. -I used to tutor hidl (in'a.'grodp) for.one hour or

,Culore every day. Now,,he,lovea math (he an count, add and'subtract); he'has confielence;. he has 14cOme more outgoing,very interested in his work; more frieedYy with peers, .

more talk4tive;', very pleased with himleWand his work.Result: I only gee to tutor himoabout ilitee times a weeknow.

i.' .

I also tutor a couple of girls (first grade) who have'.

made remarkable progress; however, they knew more than the-..i

'boy to start with. " , . 1ft

oI do not have any behavior problems with any of the

children.' For the' mOse part, they are interested add'

eager to learn. . 'i-

ft-

One little boy and,one little girl 45' not 'cio well ina group. They, need eKtra attentitin;ahowever, they doexcellent work on a on'e=to-one basis:

W. .,

.;

Ili, .

.

Parent Aide at Pirk Elemlptary

*1Parent Aides kept monthly Dogs of the tiAorin contadtg,they had with

the pupils. On the averager Parent Aides at each Ichool tiitored from 33 to, .

46 childrew per month. The humber of tont.hcis pe/3.0chool per mqfith ranged

from 10 to 95. m

Each Ode 4so kept a log of the'loarept contacts. During 1975-76, theParent Aides at.all the earget schoals'combined,.aChieved a toLal of 8,920parent contacts. -The everage numger of contacts per school was 495. This

represents,an increase over the previalets year's average number of parenecontacts, which was 219.

DuringYthe year, the ParentAides recruited 892, parent volunteers(duplicated coupt).'0 greater emp4lasis was placed on recruitingparent Vol-unteerS'this year.' Thie first year of program implementation, 108 parenCvolunteers-were recrhited: This.year's total of 892 volunteers represAnts a

sizable increa%e.The 18 schools with.aides'were ranked according to both the number of

contacts made and Che ndmber of volunteers recruited. The two ranking

veried considerabl. A'rank order correlation was calttilated to determinewhat relationship,existed between number'of contacts and number of volun-

teers. The rank.order correlation coefficient (.14,N=18) Was so low, it wasassumed that no S'ignificant relationship existed between the two rankings,i.e., there was no correlaeion between number of parent contacts and number.of volunteers recruited'. Although not all parent cantadts were made with thepurpose of recruiting volunteers, the lack of correlation might suggest that,

at some schools, no,amount of effort willjesult in sufficient recruitment of-

parent volunteers.Locally developed questionnaires were given to Title J. parents and to

teachers in Title I schools. Many of the questions on these forms asked forwritten'comments which were too long and numerous to record ifi this report.

Responses to some of the specific questions are reported below. Not all

of the teachers and parentS returned the forms,'

dar

8 7

07.07

Teacher Questionnaire

es $ No-

51 0 i Has indiVidual and small group tutoting_been,

, effectiveN likt.

51 2 2. Do you feel that there is a need for-pktf in your building?

,

42 3 3 Have Parent Aides"been helpful in involvin0, insdhool aciivities?

...

-...

043 2 4.. Have Parent Aides bee ful in informing p4

of schodl activities? '.-..

47 I 5.' Have you seen positive..

, contacts?t

e

contacts%

Yes No

from Parent

Parent Questionnaire1

59 2 1 Are yod familiar with -th0 ur,,,*r

' Aides do in your sOlo6i?...

7%"0.s.:' i A.! ,k '. , ,-.

Do you think,:th'ai.:.volunteeian,he''tecruitOtyour school et,ontifiue the wOlWofiparent Aides?,

,.41. ::.,,,;'I :

. ilr !-'

45 15 .3: Have you'bee427tontate4 bytelePhope,Parent Aide. '-'3 ,..,,. '' ''':+.(,,

,i0..ti

54 5 4. Have you rece ei,C. noate's'abOutparept,workshops? '.-.' -2 !:,..t1.1;.

. 4 . r , I

'....'. ;fil : .:77,':' 'I' 7' . t.1'.., :.

49. 5. Halt. .rent tcliactb'eehelPful in ifif ihg'yd:U.,

oLi..

.17 37

A k'TitliPgè'n

40 20 "6. Has Stir child reeeived individdaPor small grouptutgl'ing from 'PArent Aides',

,41(

40 2 7. If so, have yohAseen any progreallas) a resulti,ofindividual or sM14.1 grodp tutorille,g ,

..

4A

. , ti.0C.

Judging from the comments written by classroom'and speciaS ,tpathers, thecommunications problems-which hampered the program's effectivenessope pre-vious year, were largely eliminateg. The quality of the aidqpp :jrvice andinservice training was praised by botfi teachers and--principalsq, A iclonalt, ,

comments from both teachers And parents were headily in favor of the Ogrent'Education Aide Program. Princiyals from eleven target schools wrote

,v5.-...letters;

of support for the program.

'71,

8 8

TheTarent Education Aide PrograM-see s tó have its ge eralobjeCtives. 'Responses to the-program froM princ s,.teacherS, and parentshave been very positive. : Although no d4ta on the tutees'aohilevement scoresyere collected, 100% of the teachers rAntinding tO the questiontOre indi-cated that they judged .the tutoring to haie been effective.. The,nrogram isrecommende0 for continutation inAts presght lorm.

8 9

SS 01.00

WICHITA PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Unifid School District 259Dr. Alvin E. Morris, Superintendent

7,.

t

a

A REPORT OF THE

EARLY START PROGRAM 4

SUMMER 1976.

Funded by ESEA PL 93-380Title 'I

.Project 76010

Prepared byTerry E. Moore, Research AssistantGerald R. Riley, Research Specialist

Department of Program Evaluation

e

Division 6f Research, Plahning, and Development ServicesDr. A.'.1.1." Dirks, Director

August, 1976

9 0

.ss 01.01

EARLY STARTSUMMER 1976

SUMMARY

f4

'The Title I Early Start Program was conducted at Little and RogersChildhood Education Centers. A total'of 206 children who were thrEte and fouryears of age participated in the six week program. Each of the twelveteachers was assisted by an instructional aide. Six social service wqrkers.assisted the teachers in recruitment, enrollment, 'rid home visitatio6. Theprogram provided activities designed to enhance the child's development' ofcognitive, social, and physicalakills. Parent involvement was encouragedthrough an open house, t4rent Meetings, and teacher-parent contacts.

Pretest and posttest data froM the Cooperative Preschool Inventory wereanalyzed'for a randomly selected fifteen percent- sample of participants.Children 4n the three-year-old sample group (N=8) raised their mean percen-tile ranking from the 17th percentile to the 59th percentile. Children inthe four-year-old sample group (N=23) gained in mean percentile ranking fromthe 60th percentile to the 81st percentile. The program was recommended forcontinuation.

ACTIVITY CONTEXT 7

. -

The Early Start program was first implemented during the summer of 1970.Investigations by theopublic school research dem6tment and the yichitaGuidance Center indicated that many preschool ch.Oldren living in Titleareas had restricted life experiences and.limited lanOlage abilities. EarlyStart was designed to be a summer orientation td social,Ad. Cognittve experi-ences and supplemental services Lor' children 410 woulVartifipate:in. theTitle I and Head Start preSchool programs during the ensuingeial year.

77

PROORAM DESCRIPTION

Scope

.C1.as2es for three-yeav-olds.were'-attended.by 49 children; classes for,four-year-olds were attended,by 157 children. .These children resided inTitle I areas.and planned to particizate in preschool programs in the fall.

The objectiv,es of the program %a:Pre the delielopment Of the pupils' cogni7tive, social, and physical,skills and the development of parent interest andpbsitive attitudes toward educatiopl

Personnel

SS 01..02

Title I funded posittons were filled by twelve cl4stroom teachers,twelve.instruCtional aides, six social service workers, one social servicedirector,'one nurse, two secretaries,and one Custodian.. All popitions wereless than eight hours per day. ,

The pres,Chool teachers' duties included (1) proliiding for language, SAfconCept, and mathematics awareness through.a variety of Curricular materialsand activities, (2) planning arldimplementing field tr0 experrences,(3) conductig home visits, and (4, plannineand presenting open house andworkshop activities for the parents'.. The inatruttiOnal aides asSisted theteachers by working, with small groups 6.4 children and supervising lassroomand pleyground aCtivities. .The social service-workers spent a large part oftheir time recpuitihvparticipants and conducting enrollment interVien.They'Also assisted the.classroomteAchers in prOblem-solving and parent visi-tation.

Procedures

This report dovers the six week 1976 summer session held from June 14through July 23. Ten Early Start classes.were conducted at Little EarlyChildhood Education Center; two classes were held 4t. Rogers Early ChildhbodEducation Center. Bus transportation was provided.

Activities 61

?te Early Start.,preschool teachers selected activities designed toenhance the child's develoPment in four major areas: (1) social adjustment,(2) cognitive development, (3) physiCal coordination, and (4) language devel-opment. Some examples of the content and skills included in each of the fourmajor areas are outlined below:

Subject Content or Skill

Social Adjastment

Coghitive Development

Physical,Coordination,

,.

;Self concept, 'Abil4ty to wirk and play*/in a group, coping skills, r4cognitionof classmates by naille, recognition andlAbeling of moods,and emotions

colors, shapes, spatial relationships,awareness of face and body, the senses;IndependenCe, Day. and Bicentennial events

\<,

"development of large and small mus4es,eye-hand_coordination, balance, spatial :

orientation, mofor skills

9 2

,SS 01.03L

Subject , Content or Skill,

Language Development receptiv'e language:.. following...

.4.

: directidns.; listening, imitatirig rhythmpatterns

aproductive ypeech:. telling name,expanding xocabUlary, partkcipating ijgroup language experiences -

V...t.

Classes'met daily frpm 9.:00 to 12:00.for thesixyeek period. Breakfastand lunch were seryed eaFh day. Eaell teachet-designed_her own bless t.cheduleto provide learning.experiences which were related to cognitive, social, and'physical skills. 'The following is representative of the schedules ofctivi-ties:

,

0

9:009:20

9:35

9:50

,i110:10

,

11 :10

, .

11:5g

.

9:20.

9:35

7 9:50,

10J.0

- 11:10-

A

-.11:30

12:00

.v.

.

't

J..

,..

Breakfast and CleanupRug Time

.

talking, manipulative aqtivities..; finger.play, songs ,

Outside 0outdoor play with equiPment selected tbdevelop large.muscle cootaihation

It

Story Tlme. and Discussionlanguage development

Free Play .

individual and small,group centers, artactivities, housekeeping and cooking,

. experiences, m4nipulative,objects. I

Rest Time , :..,,-

+.,.

-.. books, music,'quiet aCtivities'Lunch and Cleanup a

.

A1though4ke-teacher followed 114,r:own schedule,,the classes remained flexible.and less.structured than it migiit antar,from the above example.' Early Start

.

was designed to be an enjoyable brieniation to,the, schbol experience, there:7fore strict adherence to..rigid schedulesvas no, t,encouraged. v

...

The teaCher-Pupil ratio was1:about 1:17; however, the use of instrac-tiOngl aides further reduced the adult-pupil ratio to Aopt 1:9. The small

.1number ofchildren:per adUlt allowed the .teachers and aides to give each ,

. ,;

child more individualized attentip., .

Classes of.four-year-ofds toRk field triPs.,to local points of itIteregt:.t,

,1 7

Riverside Park and Zoo .

McConnell AFB (waalu poolMcAdams Park (picnic)SedgWick County<Zooa peach orchardFairmount Patk (wading pool)--.L.,-.

SS 01.04

The threetyear-olds toOk'field trips to.Fairmount and McAdams Parks to enjoythe waUng poO1 and the playgiound equipment. -Both,the children.and theiradult supervisors foundtthesefield trips to.be.very enjoyable experiences.

Equipment 'and Materials

:The equipment and materials used in the Earlybut were'nOt limited to:

,

Start program inclnded,

Peabody Language, KitPlageti* matft'l'alsEarly Science.materialsMontesSori senSgry,materialsFilm strips,06ape reCordings, records, and audio visual,, materials focusing on,laRguage and mathematical Concepts

'Paints and other art materialsPlayground equipmentPuzzIes,..toys, garges,,rhythm sticks,°puppe-ts, beads, blacks,

pegboards

Tarent Involvement

Teachers and,social Service warkets encouraged parents to becomeinvolved in the Early Start prograM,,Each teacher was expected to spend anaverage of an.houi per day in home visits and.telephOne contacts.' Topics ofthe parent-teaCher visits'included getting adquaintedi attendance, health, orbehavior probleMs; bus schedules; the child'p progress; and informationregarding parent meetings. Three parent meetings were held at, the LittleCenter:

,4 0

-;..

riate Purpose 'Patent Attendance

June 23 ,, Open liguse . - 53-.-.July 8 Make (SiTake. Workshop . ' 42

,

July 22..6,:4 ',,Making,Toy.S Workshop 46'1

These,paten&,-meetigs,,which.provided furthet opportunities fEir visiting withparenta, were conduci'ed by the teachers and social service'wOrkers.

,4,

... ,

r.'..;\.-1"

ft,

rok,

LI '1.6

9 ,4

I

^

Budget

A. SALARIES

SS 01.05'

12 Teachers $,9,7441 Social,Seryice Director. 812,6,Social Service.Workers 5,50012 Instructional Aides 3,l10

Nurse . ' 812.1

2 Secretaries .1000. 0

1. Custodian 750

B. CONTRACTED SERVICES

;

Bus Transportation:(daily & 9 field trips)

Food ServicesTelephone

C. OTHER EXPENSES

$ 3,96O1,050.

200

21,928

5,210

Teaching Supplies :

Auto Allowance.and Travel 871

$ 600

1,471

,Total Cost of This Activity

B2sed.on the total enrollment of 206 children, the Per'pUpil cost of thisprogramwas_$138.88.

:0 4.7

'EVALUATION -;

,

;.

'Stated briefly,.,the proje4t's perf4manceObjective was:..aS follows

By the close of . the si:WLk summex session the parficipants'wili have °

,. . . . _ .

.,iMproved their.cognitive (rea8ing.and math readihess), social, and physical'skills from Pretest tn postte.6.t, as measured by the Cooperative Preschool

. , 4 .

Inventory. 1.:' .,0. .

,.ii . !-

.. . . . . . ..

'The-CoopetatIve*Pt'eschoctl Inventory, Revised'Edition (1970) was adminis-°.tered Co 41 partippantsat:the Ippginninvof°sumher.sChoOl. A fifteen.

percent random sample Wis posttestedl.ft'the"close Of the sesSion. Test ,

, .,, ..

,resultS'are based 61i pre arid postteSt tiata:frbm this'fifteenjJerCent sampIet.i,,The:number of.participants'bTsex and .raCe are reported in Table SS AII1 .1:

0"5

o

SS 01.06

TABLE; SS 01:1

PARTICIPATN 1

EARLY START, SUMMER 1976 ,

e

1.1

Sex . Race*1 2 3 4

N 1 96 53 5 139 7

% 46.6_ , 53.4 25.7 2.4 6.7.5 3.4 1. 0

*Key: .17Caucasian; 2=As1an. American; 3=B1ack;t 49Spanish Mexipan5=AmOrican Indian .

w

At tend'ance, figures are repOrted .in Table SS 01.2 .

TABLE SS 01,2

ATTENDANCE ,

EARLY START, SUMMER 1976

Tigt...a 1 Daps Possible: .5,457Taal Days 'At tended, : 4,030_Average 'Days At ten00. Per Pupil 19.56Attendance Percentage .74%

'Total Number c),f :Pupirs 206 .

Average D'ai.1)74 Attendance i7 182.0A

...

SumMaries of test data for three-year-olds And four-year,olds 445eatiain.Table .SS .01.3 'and Table SS 01.4.

.c..e,

1".

..;

,

?i

r

SS 01.07

TABLE SS 01.3

PRESCHOOL INVENTORYSUMMARY DATA

THREgrYEAR-OLDS

EARLY START; SUMMER 1976

-. Pre PQ214-'

..Number . , 8 , .8

Range of Scores 8-25 8-42Mean Raw"Score .16.38 27.50Percentile 17 59

t

TABLE SS,01.4

PRECHOOL INVENTORYSUMMARY DATA

FOUR-YEAR-OLDSEARLY START, SUMMER 1976

Pre Post

Number 21 23

of Tcoies 105-6 15-61.Rangé

Mean Raw Score 34.;.96 39,48Percentile 69 81

As can be seen in giiible SS 01.3, the three-yeav-old thildren achieve& a.pretest mean score.of 16.38 and a posttest mean score of 27..50: Thege scoresrepresented an increase in PerCentile.ranking from the 17th percentile to the59th percentile. The time elapse& from pretest to posttest.was approximatelyone.month. Percentiles were basecron a nWonal comparison group.

'The four-year-old children with pretest and pbsttest data achieved.apretest mean score of 34.06 and eposttest mean score of 39.48. These scorestepresented rankings at the 69th percentile and 81st percentile, respectively,when compared to national norms. For this group also, the amount of timebetween pretgst. an& posttest was approximately one Month,

Both the'tfiree-year-olds and the four-year-olds.raised their percentileranking (Sased,on a group mean/) cbnsiderably over a short time period. 'It is

suggested that involvement in the:sdmmer Early.Start.ptogram wäsa majorcause for the increases in percentile rankings.

(

97.

I

SS Ol.0&

Parent involvement in education wa4t(' also a program objective. To

increas0 interest. and involvement, the teachers and social aervice.Workersvreited the 'children's homee to talk wtth Rarente'. ,The twelve preschool

. .

teachers averaged around 25 hoalrs spent to home visitation. Thekigth ofthe visits.varied.greatly with the pdrpose for-Contacting ;the Parents.Visits ranged from ten minutes to two hours. Totally, the teachers madeabout 500 parent contacts, either.in pereion or by-telephone. In addition,.the social servisce.workers-made.over 200 parent cont#cts,mainly.for purposesof recruitment and eerollmefit: A

RECOMMENDATIONS

*4'

'.. The Title I.funded Early Start ,keschoor program successfully_

Stated program piectives and is recommended for lvinwation.

f. . ( 1.1c

l , 1'

'VP

met its

;

7SS 02.00

WICHITA PUBLIC SCHUnified School Dipt.ict 59

br8 Alvin E.'Morris, Superintendepe

.4,

t..

A REPORT.OF THE

NEGLECTED CHILDREN'S PROGRNM

SUMMER 1976'!

Funded by ESEA PL 93-38d'Title I

Project 76030'

Prepared by.Terry E. Moore,. Reeearch Assistant

Gerald R. Riley, Reseerch SpecialistDepartment of Program Evaluation

ision of Research, Planning, and Development ServicesDr. A. W. Dirks, Director

:August, 1976

9.9

-

-Children's Home, Youthville Group Home, andy.Wichita Ohildren's Home, parfi-.cipateA in the,10,6 summer-progrAm. Mathematics and reading instrunfion.were 4:emphasized. Crafts and cultural,development actiVities were also prograMcomponents. , A total of 79 children, ranging qm,:grade level trom preschoolllrough high school, participated in the -protgram over the clours"e4 of the si*-

,-Week sessilm: Eight teachers and 47o instructional aides wet* employed by,the program. Eight aides funded through SFEDY 'PrOvided additiOnel astris-,

tance. Teagker evaluations of pipil progress indicated that the majoritys ofchildren made "verY little" oi "slight" improvement in mathematics skills and"slight" improvement in reading skills. Evaluating pupil progrep in,the ,

acquisition of reading and mathematics skills was complicateCby the4ighrate of,pupil turnOver.

' S 0'2.01 Ift

V...iA

A

NEGLECTED CHILD13.Eli' S PROGRAM v..

SU1R 1976.:;

SUMMARY

Pupils ,residing in three,homes.for neilected children, Phyllig Wheatley

-ACTIVITY CONTEXT

The proVisions of ESEA.Title I as amended by P.L. 89-750 includeqeh-

projects'designed to meet the'special educational needs of children'residingin institutions for neglected and delinquent children 0The neglected,chil'=. '

ren's program began during the 1966-67 school year as2patt of a jointprogram for both neglected and delinquent children: The proOam Was'designed to provide educational,. supportive, and cultural enriehmentasei-.vices. In additron to the mathematics and reading classes, the progxambffered a wide range of activities includpig music, art, physical education,and counseling and medical services. . In 1968, Ihe component progranks forneglected children,and delinquent childrOn were separated: Presently, theneglected children'sprogram'emphasiiea tutorial instruction in reading and.mathematics, althomgh craftvnd cultgral'enrrchment activities also play animPortant role-in the summersprogram;

. I

4

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

. r

Scope.

Seventy-nine children from three local institutions were involved in thesummer program. They ranged in grade from preschool through the twelfthgrade. The main objective of the program was to Provide the children withadditional tutorial instruction in reading and mathematics.

. el1,04oe

L.

/

Personn

SS 02.02 ,

Th program employed a total of ten persons: five reading teachers,two:mathematiceteachers; one preschool teacher, and two instructional aides.The instructors sperq 1B,hours'ur week teaching in the,summer progtam. The

instructional aides spent three,hOLFsevery morning and three hours each, F

Tuesday and Wedneaday afternoon4assistinvthe teachers.. The Title I ParentCoordinator provided inkind Setvices es the Program Director. Additionally, .

eight youth funded-through Special Programs forEconomically Disadvantaged,Youth (SPEDY) served as Aides.

Procedures

. This report covers the 1976 summer school session from June 14,-1976through JulY 23, 1976. The program:for neglected 'children Was conducted. rt,

thret local residential institutions: Phyllis Wheatley,Children's Home,.Youthville Group HOme, and Wichita Children's Home. Instructors were

signed to the homes in the following manner:a

1

*S.

Phyllis WheatleyChildren's Home,.

-Youthville. Gioup Home

Wichita, ildren's0

.Home Y .

rlal orientation meeting

all teachers and aides

r

Activities

2 reading teachers'.

1 mathematics teacher

1 secondary teacher(reading and Mathematics)

2 reading teachers/ .

1 mathematics teaCher1 preschool teacher /

was conducted by she Title,I Parent Coo dinatorprior tie the beginning of sUmmer,scho011.

dr .

H

' Instruction in reading and mathematics was the majot program activity:Tutoring was cOnducted both on a one-ko-one basis:and in sMall groupg. The

pupils were grouped,on,the basis of eithePlability leyel Or-age level. Theteacher-pupil ratio ranged from 1:1 to Aroun&l:7 depending upon the class..The addition of Title I and SPEDY instructional aidei contributed to thesmall teacher-pupil ratio.

1,1f. Class schedules for reading and mathematics were different for each

Th.nstitution. At the Wichita Children'-s Home, classes were held for,20 to

r. 30 minutes. Four or.five pupils were grouped according to ability level toform each.class..

At Phyllis Wheatley Childrents Home, the schedule for reading teachers.generally topk-the fUlowing format:

for

9:00 10:0010:00 7. 11:00

112:00 - 11:3011:30 - 12:00

3

"Special ProjectsReading' GamesSilent ReadingDramatics Bicentennial Play

SS, 02.03

The schddule for.mathematics classes was dependent upon the reading classes;the mathematics teacher'usually worked with Iree groups betwden_schedules..In mathematics, the first hour was generally &Pent with primary pupils, the,second honr-with intermediate pppila, and a Walf-baT4iith secondary puPlIs..The last half=hout of the morning was spent jointly, with reading teichers in

egethe production of the B1centenni4 Play..Classes in crafts, dramatics, and cooking Were also included in the

summer program: Although class activities vatitd With the institution, someof the cr,aftg included finger painting, blow Paintineproducing a Bicenten-Dnial play; copking, weaving; and making scrapbooks f ftewspaper clipPings,'African masks, Bicentennial eagle.S., Pipe cleaner andmals, Mother Goose ,

mobiles, string"art and macrame designs, :Ind playdough sculptures. -

At Youthyille GrOup Home, two"days per week nre spent ,playinginstructional games, reading booka, crocheting,-cooking, etc. The:remainingthree days were spent on field trips. Most of the trips were designed to:furtheveithecareer atudy or cultural enrichment.

Children at both YaUthvilIe Group Mame and Phyllis Wheatley 'Children'sHome took field trips,during the summer session,and visited theqifollowingplaceS!

ledgwick County 'CourthouseMrd-Continent AirporCMid-AMerica All-Indian CelllArWichita Art MuseumUlrfch Museum'of Art, W.S.U.Frienda University Art MuseumSouthwestern Bell TelephoneWichita Eagle/BeaconMcConnell AFB.Bowling Alley

-.Sedgwick County ZooItiverside Park

sir

Instructional Materials and Equipment

Each teacher used his/her choice of curriculum materials., 'Both teacher-made.and commertial materials were used to devL.op the pupirs'.language arts

' and mathemati)ss skills. The. Most.frequently used materials and equipmentappeai below: ,,,

Bug Ya.Fish Pond ,

Winning TouchMusical Multiplication

JDpen HighwaysFrom Plays into ReadingTeen Talk

102

Chillers and Thrillera5BM Martin Freedom Kic

(--Siaily newspaper

Task cardsPapexback booksRecipesTeletrainer

'\

s,

SS .02.044

/

4Budget

A. :SALARIES'.

5 Reading Teachers' 2 Math Teachers1 Pres41401 Teacher2 Instrtctional.Aides

Orientation .

,

B. CONTRACTED SERVICES

Pupil Transportation onFieId.Trips

C. OTHER EXPENSES

SuppliesField Trip LunchesAuto Allowance (small

group trips)

5,880615

1,8a$ 1675

$ 900

288

1751363

TOTAL $ 8,278

Based on .the total enrollment of 79 participants, the per pupil cost of thisactivity was $104.78. Based on the full-time-equivalent number of '42 parti-cipants, the per pupil expenditure was, 6.97.10.

OLUATION

The three m'ain performance objectives appear below:

* 'During the 'summer school term, the pupils in :grades 1-12 will show'progress in reading, as observed by the reading instructor.

During the summer school term, the pupils in grades.1-12 will showprogress in mathematics, as obServed by the mathematics instructor.

,

* By the end of the summer school term, the preschool children will.achieve posttest scores greater than pretest, as measured hy the

, Cooperative Preschool Inventory.

A total of 79 children from' the three institutions participated in theprogram-At some tame during the summer session. Thirty-seven participants/rjere males and 42 participants were females. Twenty-five participants werelack,and 44 were white; racial designation was not recorded for ten pupils.

The,children ranged in grade level from preschool through grade twelve.

103

SS 02.05

A

,

.Due to the iligh rate of pupil turnover, the average.daily attendance wasouly 42 pupils. 4tendance figures appear in Table SS 02.1.

TABLE S§.. 02.1

ATTENDANCE'NEGLECTED CHILDREN'S pROGRAMf SUMMER 1976,

Institution

.., Pupil laYsPossiOle

Pupil DaysAttended

PercentAttendance

Tot 1Pupils F.T.E.

Youthville

4Phyllis Wheatley

Wichita Children'sPreschool )

(1-12)

..

.iO3'

667

899

522

.60 F.

296

607

260

a

30%

44%

68%

50%

v

. 7

23.

31

,18

2.

10

21

9

OTALS 2291 1223 53%, 719'' 42

Figures are based on a summer school period of 29 days.

-Mostj6f the non-attendance was due to pupils entering the summer session,lateI-and/or withdrawing early.

Although the program's evaluation design involved pre and posttesting ofpreschool children with the Preschool Inventory, this procedure was found to,be impractical. Following initial Unsuccessful attempts to administer the .

i Preschool Inventory, the teacher was askedcto evaluate each child at the endI of the program by means of a written subjective'evaluation. Ten' of'th4 18, '

preschool children were Oarticipdting in the program at the cloSe'of.tha'summer school term. A,few of these children were described as timid, shy,and reluctant tollOin in group activities. SoMe eventually became mote con-fident and group-oriented. The preschool teacher stated that she was pleasedwith the accomplishments;of'the class and felt that the children had enjoyed

...-ffre program. ' ..

Teacher evaluations of'pupil progress were recorded on standard 'formsfor pupils in reading and mathematics, grades one through twelVe. For both

mathepatics and reading, pupil progress was evaluated in several basic skillareas. Each pupil was'evaluated in only those skill areas appropriate.tohis/her ability level.

For each mathematics skill area, the majority of pupils, were evaluatedas having made "very little if any'improvement" or-"slight improvement".Only a small number of pupils cJere judged by teachers to have made "much ,

improvemeni.". , . . -

Pupil evaluations in reading skills were sliOtly,higher.than those formathematics. The majority of pupils were judged to.have made "slight improve-ment" in each reading skills category. A greater perCent of participants

.(were evaluated as making "moderate imprbvement" in reading skills than in

104

maEhematics.skills.little" improvement

.-Ev'aluations of

in Tables SS'0.2.2 a

ty.

;.

Hawever,was stillreadi

55 0.06

(Ey

11"2

the percent'ok pavticipa4k:rating !'very. rester than thOse ratin pUch improvement".mathemaisica skills app Cin. summary form

respectively.

'TABLE SS 02.2'

SUMMARY OF READING SKILLS EVALUATIONSNEGLECTED CHILDREN'S: PROGRAM, SUMMER '197

Skill Areas'flyery Little If

Ahy ImprovementSlight/

Improvement

'11 %

DiCtionary Skills

Word Meaning

Comprehension,

Sight. WOrds,

Phonetic AnalYsis

Structural'Analysis

7, 17 25 60

6 14 '26 62'

7 17, 24 57

4

17 24 , 57.'

7 17 25 60

' 17.

25 f 60

ModerateImprovement

MuchImOroyement

% . N %

7 17

,1Q, 24

iO 24

10 24 2*

10 24

'10' 24

Percents,.may not.sum to 100 due to rounding.

.1 7

ow. 105

TABLE SS 02.3

SUMMARY OF MATHEMATICS SKILLS EVAtUATIONS

NEGLECTED aHIBDREN'S PROGRAM, SUMNER 1976

Skill Areas ,

"Very'Little.If.

Any Imprbvemeni

S,1, ight

Improvement

'Moderate.

Improvemgnt

Much

Improvement

N %, N % , N % N %

Comprehension of

Numeration System 13 yl - 33'IND

Basic Addition/

'2'a

SubtraCtion )14 50 11 39

Basic Mdltiplicationl

Division 1 . 42 14 42 12

Concepts/Operations

with Fractions/

AY,

Decimals

Measure/Ca1cu1ations

.15 ', 52 31 5° 17

Lengths/Areas-.for,

Volumes ,

Algebraic Concepts/

100

gperations 100 .

0 6

Percents may not sum to,100 due to rounding.

0

1 76,,

A

gS 02.08

RECOMMENDATIONS

Somi participants met,the st ed performance objective's. However, manyother participants showed very little progress in the'development of readingand mathematics skills. Noticeable improvement Was difficulf to obtain'in a,six-week period. The high Tate of pupil mobility contributed to the diffi-culty in formulating an adequate evaluation of the program. .Uudging fromteacher responses, the greatest sense of .accomplishment came from partici-pation inerafts activities and cultural enrichment field trips. It is'recommended that the summer program be continued, but that greater emPhasisbe*placed on activities which provide social inter.Action and culturalenrichment.

1

Alb

108

a 03:00

WICHITA 'PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Unified SChool District 259Dr. Alvin E. Morris, SUptrintendent'

a

A'REPORT OF THE

PROGRAM FOR THE DELINQUENT

SUMMER 1976

Funded by ESEA PL 93-380Title I

Aoject 76030-

47

Prepared byGerald R. Riley, Research Specialist-Department of ProKram Evaluation

Division of Research, Planning, and Development ServicesDr. A. W. Dirks, Director

August , 1976

109

ttf,

tik

SS 0-3.01 ,

PROGRAM FOR THE DELINQUENTSUMMER 1916

SUMMARY

". V.

This six week'program was designed to Provide reading and mathematicsins-truCtibp"to those boys who were.at Lake Afton Boys Ranch'during the

.

summer. Twenty-fourboys were enrolled at somAtime during the term. The12 boys who were.in attendanceiwo,or more weeks were evaluated on a check-list completed by the teacher. Ninety-one percent of the ratings in readingindicate,"moderate" or, "much" improvement. In mathematics, 86 percent of the--ratinga were "moderate" or "much" imp'rovement. This program.fills a need fOrsummer initruction at Lake Afton Boys. Ranch.. ,It should be continued.

ACTIVITY CONTEXT

'The program at Lake Afton toys Ranch is a det'ention facility admints-tered by the Sedgwick County Juventle Court. -Programs for delinquents weredeveloped in.1967 at Lake Afton and Friendly Gables. Friendly Gables is nolonger in operation. The prograM at Lake Aftom in operation each summerprimarily is an,extension of the regular year instruction.in reading add.mathematics.

'ot

,PROGRAM DESCRIPTION a

Scope

-This 29 day suMmet program had 24 participants ranging in pge frOm -

.12 to 16 years of age.- These participants were assigned to the' Ranch by the_Juvenile Court.., The'objective of the piogramiyas to provide reading'and

-

mathematics instruction to residents of the institution.

Procedures

Classes were in session from nine Uritil noon, and from one to threep.m._The reading program tncluded individual-work in phonics books, eadingworkbooks, and "read aloud sessionW The System 80 program; SRA Reading.'Lab, and the SRA Junior Reading for Understanding Lab were among the meter--ials used. Individual charts for the SRA Rate Builder were.poated.Dictionary work received emphasis..' -1

In mathematiciLthe System 80 and McCotmick-Mathers Mathematics Lab were.used. Work at the chalk board web also a part of the learning activities.,Probleth solving questions were given .to the boys so they could apply theirmathematical,skills.

110

.SS 03.Cl2

Budget

The budget for this program was -,1393, This included $1015 teacher's. ,

-.'salary, $250 for supplies', and $128 teacher travel allowance from the city,

limits to the Ranch. Based on an enrolltent of 24 pupils, the cost perpupil was'$58.04/.

EVALUATION

The objective of ihe program was to improve the riding and'mathematics

skills of the boys in the program: The teacheecompleted ayeadinOndmathematics .check-list flpr each pupil who was in, the program two or more

weeks. The summary'of these evaluations is given in Tables SS 03.1 and,SS 03.2.

'TABLE SS.03,1

SUMMARY OF IN9IVIDUAL READINGEVALUATION CHECK-LISTSLAKE AFTON BOYS RANCH

SUMMER 1976

N=12

READING IMPROVEMENTVery

Little Slight Moderate- Much

Dictionary Skills -- , 33% 67%

Word Meaning

.

.

-17% 58%

1,

25%

ComprehensiOn -- 17% 50%, 33%

Sight Words ..... .8% . 58% . 33%

Phonetic Analysis .

,

8% 67% 25%

Structural Analysis 8% 67%. 25%

TOTAL , -- 10% 56%.I.

. 35%

SS 03.03

TABLE SS 03.2s4,

,SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MATHEMATlCSEVALUATION CHECK-LISTSLAKE AFTON BOYS RANCW

SUMMER 1976

, .

MATHEMATICS IMPROVEMENT,

N=12Very.

Little Slight: '.' Moderate Much

Comprehension ofNumeration System

/

-- --

.

:....,

RI

25% 75%

Basic Addition/Subtraction --

I,. .

,

33% 67%

Basic Multiplication/Division . -- 8%

_

50% 42%

Concepts/Operationswith Fractions/Decithals

-- 27% 36%.

.36%

Measures/Calculationsfor Lengths/Areas/Volumes

36% 36% 27%^

TOTAL ' 14% :36% ' 50%

From Tables SS 03.1 and SS 03.2 it is-apparent that most pupils made.."moderate" to "much" improvement in reading and mathematics. The greatest

4

improvement in the reading area was in dictionary skills where 67 percent ofthe 12 participants who were evaluated made "Much" improvement. '

In mathematics, 75 percent of the pupila made "much" improvement in"Comprehension of the Numeration System." Sixty-seven peAgent made "much"improvement in basic additi A and subtrac

Since most pupiks wen ,ated as ving ma e "moderate" or "much"'improvement, the objective of the program was m

RECOMMENDATIONS

This program meets a definite need for summer instructic$ at the LakeAlton Boys Ranch. It appears to continue to be a successful program, there-fore it should be continued.

1 1A2

1

d

SS 04,00

. WICHrTA putuc SCHOOLSUnified SchOol District 259

Dr. Alvin E. Morris, Superintendent. %

A REPORT OF THE

TUITION SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

SUMMER 1976

-y

Funded by ESEA PL 93-380Title I

Project 76030

Trepared byTerry E. Moore, Research AssistantGerald R. Riley, Research Specialist

Department of Program Evaluation

Division of Research, Planning, and Deielopmet Serv cesDr. A. W. Tdrks, Director

710,.

August, 1976

113

SS 0401

'4

TUITION SCHOLARSHIPS

1 SUMMARY'

Title I funds prOvided the summet schooi tuition and, fees for pupilsattending 14 summer school centers. Although'the pupils attended a widevariety of summer school courses, enrollment in either basic reading Ormathematics wag a prerequisite for also rd6eiving grants for other courses.Excluding grants for reading and mathematics programs°, a total-Of 2031 grants .

were awarded to- educationally disadvantaged elementary pupils who wereeligible for Title I assistance. The response to the program was greaterthan the previoue year's-. Poor attendance was the biggest detriment to theprogram. The pupils' attendance percentage ranged among the varioug courees:from 47 percent to 96 percent. The program was recommended for continuaiAbncontingent upon-the institution of a policy regarding pupil attendance.,

ACTIVIT4 CONTEXT

Title I ot FSEA has funded tuition scholarships for summer schoolclasses since 1966. Over the years, the program has beld several names:Dpportunity.Grants, Tuition Scholarships, and4uOmerIchool Scholarships.The basic purpose of the program, however, ha-smail%e+d the_seme. By pro-viding Title I pupils with the financial mean-sr:to entoll in summer sChoolclasses, the program has enablecithe pupils to Contintie their development ofbasic skills through the summer months. Tuition scholarships have alsoallowed pupils,to enroll in classes that are not available during the regularterm. Since the 'summer of 1914, the program has excluded sch6larships at the 'secondary level.

PROGRAWDESCRIPTION

Scope

A total of 4341 tuition grante, ranging in value from-Aen dollars tofifty dollars, were awarded to 2065 pupils residing in Title I areas.andattending 14 summer school centers.. itAth the exception of Earl,Start (pre-school) and the programs for neglected and delinquent children, Title Isummer school activities were contracted to theyichita Board of-Education.Title I Pupils, except in the above programs, were given tuition grant's toattend summer school. Although basic reading and mathematics programs werecontracted, they are evaluated in separate reports. Participation-andattendance .data in this report cover only, the 2031 grants awarded forenrichment coursed and exclude data from basic reading and mathematics

4programs.

1 1 4

SS 04.02,

The goals of the program were (1) to provide an opportunity, for the-\reinforcement of basic' skills, (2.) to fostei a continuation of educational

developtent for.children c.icho might otherwise regress acadethically duringthe summer mobths, and (3) to promote a variety of other summer experiences

tor Titlej'target area children.

Personnel

- The Title I,Summer School Principal was respOns ble for allocatingtuition vholarships and collecting data. Elementary\school principals

granted tuition scholarships at the building level.'

4ProcedUres

Prior.to the end of the regular term, elementary sehool teachers sub-mitted to the princi a1s, the names of pupils who would enefit from the

'summer school exper ence. Of the pupils identified asIl ving an educationalneed, those eligib e for Title I. services were qffered suimner school tuition

scholarships. En ollment forms were sent.home to the parents for signature's

and,returned to the elementary schools. The amount of the oiltion scholar-ships-awarded eath participant varied with the number of c urses taken andthe;.per-hour cost of each course.. Each participant.receivi g a scholarship .

was.'reguired to enroll in a basic reading or matftematics co rse. Entollment.'

fh other summer coursesiwas Optional. -

Budget

The revised_pygram builget

4

44

EVALUATION

8,000.

Participation figures for-basic readingand mathematics courses appear .

in separate-reports.A surdthary.of Title I participation figures for. a 1 other summer school

course§ appears in Table Sg,04.1. Slightly more boys Participated t an sirls.Participation was fairly evenly distributed across gradEflevels. Nea ly half

of the participants were white; over forty percent Oere black. A tota1. of

2031 tuition scholarships were awarded for the courses listed in this eport.

.Table SS 04.2'lists summer school courses having enrollments grea etthan ten, in rank order according to attendanc4 percentages. CI:asses w th

less than ten participants appear alphabetically at the bottom of the t ble:-

The number of patticipants enrolled in each clas is also'listed. All 4ourses

were'not offered at all summer school centexs. 'Some courses, e.g., EMH and.

Speech Therapy, were de igned for a select,group of participants. Upon iisual

inspection, it appears t at the average participant grade level did not iffect

the course attendance pe centages, i.e., in general, courses enrolling c il-

,dren in the primary grad s had no higher attendance'rates than did cours

enrolling children in the intermediate Irades and vice versa. Attendanc

rates ranged from 47 percent in Spanish courses to 06 percent in Enrichm n

Reading and Journalism and Public speaking classes', 1

115

TABLE SS 04.1

TITLE I FUNDED PARTICIPATION

SUMMER SCHOOL 1976

.

Program

M

Sex

F

're

K'

,

'Ora&

2 3 4

,

,

6 Ungr 1 2

Race*,

3 4 5

%

/ ,

_,

.

i,

Arts & Crafts

i Career Education

EMH .

336

7

8

331

13

6

25

,

167

5

131

5

129,

7

'84 84

1

46

2

l'.

14

365 :12

151.,i

5 i ,

,242

, 5

9

44

'Enrichment Reading 11 1

,

Instrumento; Music 40 )9, 17 6 7 31 9 5 4 56 19 ', 3 \

Journalismand

Public Speaking 2 1 .2

Lab Science , 15 19 5 1 6 9 7 4 2 21 , 13'

MAD-PE** 64 43 / 30 20 17 1.7 7 13 17, 26 ,p

Needlework/First

Aid 6 15 2 1 6 5 6 1 9 11 1

Perceptual'DeVelop. 4 1 3 1 '1 5 1

Physical Education 219 183 30 75 41 90 56 69 38 3 162 5 208 20 , 7

PostiKindergarten P' 157 123 1 275 4138 16 107 18 1

yreschool 11

Primary-Story Time lp 12,

17 6 2, 12 11

Spanish 11 10 2 2 6 8 4 2 1. , 20

Speech Therapy ' 41 32 8 14 19 12 t 1 4 4 54 2 12 4

Summer Theater 6' -)12, , 8 6 3 5 8 5

Typing I ) 81 130

,

49 95 57' 101 6 88 12

Woodworking 21 52 11 ,6 6 19 7 0

World Travel 9 14 \ 7 7 6 3 16

,, )

,

,

TOTALS 1041 990 10 389 317 231 299 266 300 192 27 991 71 843 108 18

Percent' 51.3 48.7 0.5 19,2 15.6 11.4 14.7 13.1 14,8 9.5' 1.3 48.8 3.5 41.5 5.3 0.9

n

4

* Race Key:' 1=Caucasion; 2=Asian American; 3=Black; 4=Spanish Mexican; 5=Americ4p Indian

,** MAD-PE (Music, Arti, Drama - Physical Education'combination course):

116

6

o.1.4

117

SS 04.04

TABLE- SS 04.2

TITLE I PUPIL ATTENDANCESUMMER scow, 1976

4'

Atten'danceProgram Enrollment Percentage.

Primary Stdry TimeNeedlework/First AidSpeech Therapy

- Music, Art, Drama - P.E.. World Travel

Post-KindergartenSummer TheaearArts &-CraftsTyp;ng Iab Science

EMHP.E. ActivitiesCareer EducationWoodworking 0

Instrsmental MusigSpanish

Enrichment ReadingJournalism-& Public SpeakingPerceptual DevelopmentPreschool

TOTAL

25

- 21

73

10723

280/

83.0976.0375.1574.75

74.0471.20

is ' 70.78667 70.00211 65.1434 64.4814 64.08

402 63.8620 62.7826

.

59.6279 V 59.5532 46.91.

1 96.002 96.305 91.851 8fi.18

2031

RECOMMENDATIONS

The tuition Program can'be commended for supporting a Wide variety of .%

courses and for prdviding the Tftle I pupils with an educational atmosphereduringthe summer. A large number of scholarships were.accepted. HoWever,attendance was generally disappointing., The Program is recOmmended.for:,tinuation with.the_suggestion that a policy be institute4 whiCh'enbures that'scholarships will-not'be wasted on participants who exhibitepoor attendance

'

in the suMmer session.

1181

!.

,s.

I.

P

SS 05.60

WICHITA PUBLIC SCHOOLSUnified'achool District 259

'Dr. Alvin E Morris f-Saperintendent;

t11"47

A REPORT OP THE

HASICYPRIMARY AND CORRECTIVE READING.

PROGRAM

SUMMER 1976

in

I.

Funded by ESEA PL 93-380Title I

project 76030

Prepared byGeraldj.:. Riley, Research Specialist'Department of Program Evaluation-

a

Division of Research, Pnning, And Development ServicesDr. A. W. Dirks, Director

*

August, 1976

119

'SS 05.01

BASIC PRIMARY AND CORRECTIVE 'READINGSUMMER 1976

SUMMARY

.The-Basic Primary summer,prograni was designed.primaril3L for first awrisecond grade students who needea extendcd time to develop basic readingskills. Corrective Reading.waa-designed for:pupils in grades three throughsix who were below grade level and had the ability to profit from a Correc-:tive Reading program. .

Title I tuition grants were'provided to 1, 279 pupils to take these .

reading c.lasses. Individual pupil progress was evaluated by teachers usingan evaluation check-list. Results 'indicate that to 44 percent Of theratings were in the,"slight improvement" category. Approximately one-foUrthwere rated "very little imOrovement," one fourth "moderate improvement" and

_ the remainder (four to six percent) were rated a4 making "Much improvement,"The'program appeared to be successful. However, continued efforts

shoUld be made to improve the 72 percent atrendance.

ACTIVIT1 CONTEXT

Summer reading programs began in 1967 with tuition grants 'to Title Ipupils to attend regular summer classes in Corrective Reading. Basic Primaryand Corrective'Reading classes were organized as Title I classes from Summer1968 through Summer l974. In the summers of 1975 and 1976 tuition grantswere again given to Title I pupils to attend regular Boatd of Educationsponsored summer reading classes.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Scope

One thousand two hundred seventy-nine Title I pupils participated in thesummer reading program. The primary goal was to improve the reading abilityof the pupils through activities in a Correlated language arts program whichincluded reading, listening, speaking, and writing. Teachers were expectedto dhehasize and encourage "fun reading." . Literature appreciation was alsoemphasized.

Personnel,

.

TwD program noordnators worked in these'two programs., The coordinators'duties included conducting an orientation workshop,/distributing supplies,

(i

11.

1,20

g Ss 05..02

assisting individual teachers, and sharing ideas-. The'DiTector of Readingfor the Wichita.Public Schools- had the overallgresponsibility foi the pro-gram.'-Teachers.were employed through the regular Board of Education-7procedure6 and paid with B.O.E. funds. The Coordinators and Director werewere also paid with B.O.E. fUnds.'

Procedures

This report covers the six-week summer session. Title I pupils attendedclasses which were in ten Title I schools And four non-Title I dliYoOls. Atwo-hout brientation.session for teachers was held at the beginning of the

. ,

summer sessiOn..:

A.curriculum guide, Fundamental Reading, gave.teachers direption andand suggestions for a variety of activities. Teachers were urged to organ-ize their classrooms .into lehrning centers.

'The teachers usually made an early'assessment of students', readingskills\Using either the DOlch.Sight Wo0 List or.the qan Diego Quick Assess-ment. :rhe Optional Reading Readiness,TEecklist, Visual Skills--Likenessesand Diffeilence, and the Single Initial dMonant:Sound Test were used insome cases to assess readiness levels.

The curriculum guide contained 24 games and a list of 34 actiVities.The activities used most fequently were:

1. Games for vocabulary development2. Read to the children each day3. CrOsaword puzzles for individual use4. Visited individually with pupils about a book, a story,

or a poem -

5. Film ant filmstyips Irot the Instructional MaterialsCenter

6. Followed-up bn field trips with creative languageexperiences

The games used mosrequently were:

1. ABC Order2. Mr. Long aneMrs. ShOrt.3. .dompoUnd Bingo4..j3iends Race5. ,Cotics6. Root Words and Endings

The most frequently used instructional equipment wasrecord player, filmstrip projector, and 'overhead projecto

The total amount given in tuition grants for Basic Istive Reading was $41,300.

EVALUATION'

theAape recorder,r.

rimary agd Correc-%

The primary objective of both Basic Primary,and Corrective Reading was,to improve the reading ability of the par,ticipants. The emphasis was on

.c

121

SS 05.03

improving skills ln word recognition and comprehension.The aix reading skill areaS evaluated were:

Dictionary skills'2. Word meaning3. Comprehension4. Sight words;5. PhonetiE analysis6. Structural analysis

S.

a One thousand two hundred seyenty-nine pupils were.in.the summer readingprogram. A summary of particiOation y grade,.race, and sex is, reported intable SS 05.1.

4; The rate ak-attendance was 72 percent The average number Of daysattended per pupil was 19.3 of a possible 27." Mechanics of collecting datamade it,neCessarysto use 27 total days in computing attendance statisticsrather than the actual 29 days.

Student.evaluation forms were submitted by'teacherg for individualpupils.' Table SS 05:2 gives ihe stimmary results of these.evaluations., The

, results show that 39 to 44 percent of the ratings on the six skillireaswere in the "slight improvement",category. 'Aewproximately one-fowth'wererated "very little improvement," one-fourth were rated as making47 oderateimprovement," and the'remainder (four to six percent) were rated' making"much Amprovement."

Teachers' reported 02 home calls, 152 parent-contacts at ,school, and308 parent cOntacts by,note or telephone.

The use of learning Centers in each classrobm was enqouragle, by programsupervisors. Thirty percent of the teachers reported the centerAwere "verysuccessful," 56,percent reported them to be "succepsful," 11 percent "some-

:what successfulnetwo percent reported them as being "generallyUntuccessful."

RECOMMENDATIONS'

The program appeared to be generally successful.efforts should be made to improve attendance.

122

However,, contittSed

a .

TABLE SS 05.1

PARTICIPATION'STATISTICS

TITLE I BASIC PRIMARY AND CORRECTIVE READING

_INNER 1976

Summer

School

Center

Sex Grade

,

Rice*

.

.

TotalM F ENE K . 1 2 3 4 5 6 'UNK 2 3 4 5 UR

Adams 59 70 31 25 29 19 14 10 5. 0 122, 1 0 1 129

Cloud 121 105 1 66 58 36 26 29 10 45 0 15, i,25 0 0' 226

Dodge 23 20 .0 2 18 6 4 4 5 4 30 9 9' 1 0 4 43

Franklin 43 32 20 *13 14 °7 14 7 48 1 19 5 2 0 75

Funston 38 33 13 18 13 9 12 6 67 0 3 1 0 0 71

Garrison 27 19 19 6 7 4 6 4 3 0 43 2 0 0 46

Harry St. 81 71 36 35 27 24' 17 13 104 1 40 1 0 0 152

Kellogg 34 22 1 20 6 . 10 6 7 6 27 0 25 2 2 0 56

MacArthur 31 37 13 15 9 12 7 10 2 36 4 22 6 0 0 68

Park 40 48 28 15 19 13 5 8

,

49 0 30 8 1 Q 88

Rogeri 33' 28 21 12 17 5 2 4 37 0 17 4 3 . 0 61

Washington 103 82 6 33 33 18 51 4 27 7 28 30 125 2 0 0 185

Wilson 14 15 5 , 3 9 2' 8 2 13 0 16 0 0 0 29

Woodman 33 17 , 12 4 12 8 5 9 4 ,41 0 5 4. 0 0 50

Total 680 599 15 8 337 251 2230

188 142 107 8 533 45 626, 66 8 1 1279

Percent 53.2 46.8 1.2 0.6 26.4 19.6 17.4' 14.7 11.1 8.4 p0.6 41.7 3.5 48.9 ,5.2 0.6 0.1

*Race Key: 1=Caucasi'an; 2.Asian American; 3=81acIC; 4=Spanish Mexican; 5=American Indian

123

124:

TABLE SS 05.2

INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION FORMS

SUMMARY RESULTS .

TITLE I READING

SUMMEe1976

Reading Skill Areas

Students Showing

Very Little If Any

Improvement .

Students Showing

Slight

Improvement

Students Showing

Moderate,.,

Improvement /1;

Students Showing

Much

Improvement Total

,

N % N % N % N

Dictionary Skills °.' 170 ,29 251 43 , .14.4 24 24 4 ' 589

Word Meaning 238 24 427 44 '260 27 .51 . '

978

,.

:omprehension 277 '26, 463 43 266 25 66 6 1072

I.,

;ight Words 266 24 442 40 306 28 '94 8 1108

'honetic Analysis 295 28 424 40 288 27 64 6 .1071

tructural Analysis

,

259 29 342 39 227 26 53 6 881

OTAL RATINGS 1505 26 2149 41 1491 26 154 6 ,5699,

* Totals are unequal as studentsyere.notrated in each skill,area.

,125

126

SS 06.00

WICHITA PUBLIC SCHOOLSUnified School District 259

Dr. Alvin E. Morris, Superintendent

A REPORT OF THE

ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS PROGRAM

SUMMER 1976

Funded by ESEA PL 93-380Title-I

Project 76630

Prepared by. Terry E.-Moore, Research AssistantGerald R. Riley, Research Specialist

Department of Program Evaluation

Division of Research; Planning, and Development ServiceSDr. A. W. Dirks, Director

August,:1976

127

SS 66.61

. ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS.SUMMER 1976

SUMMARY

.The.summer Elementary,Mathematics Program was an extension of the c,

regular term mathematics program. Pupils who were identified as deficient inmathematics skills and who attended Title I schools were eligible for parti=.cipation in.the program. 'A total of 1,031 puptls having completed gradesK-6 participated in the 1976 summer school program. Clasdes were Conductedln fourteen summer school centers by 68 teachers.

Challenging the pupil with interesting experiences, and strenitheningthe pupil's mathematical skills were the majoY objectives of the program.The classroom teacher evaluated each pupil's progress in one or more of sixbasic skill areas. Analysis of the evaluation forms indicated that themajority of participants showed "slight" to "moderate" improvement in eive,ofthe six skill areas. Many teachers stated that regular attendance wasdirectly related to improved performance. .

ACTIVITY CONTEXT

The Elementary MathematiCs Program has been conducted during. Simirner .

school sessions since the summer Of 1973. The program is an extension of.theregular term Title I mathematics program, which began in 1970-71under thename, Primary,Mathematicsyrogram. Prior to 1570-71, a survey of Scores onthe'Iowa Tests of Basic Skills had indicated that pupils attending Title Ischools had a.definite need for compensatory mathematics instruction. Subse-

quently, the five most critical computation skills were identified: addition

facts, subtraction faCts, multiplication facts, division'facts, and placevalue and regrouping:concepts.- A diagnostic test was developed relative to,

these basic skills-. Prescriptions were then written using the Primary Mathe-matics Program as the source of'activities. Later, an IntermediateMathematics Program was added to serve pupils in -the upper elementary grades.Presently, the two programs are consolidated and all levels of instructionoperate under the name, Elementary Mathematics Program. i'or the past two

summers, the program,has contracted its'administration to the Wichita public

school system in order to provide greater centralization of administrationand program uniformity.'

S;Cdpe

I

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION, -

(.1101"i!'

A total of 1,031 pupils in grades K-6 were funded through Title Iparticipate in the summer mathematics program. Title I participants-attendedclasses in 14 summer school centers throughout the city.

128

SS 06.02

The ,major objectives ofthe program were to chalfenge\he pupil withinteresting eXperiencesm4 to,otrengthen the puPil's mathematical ikills

and experiences. \

Personnel

, Sixty-eight instructors taught'Elementary Mathematics to Titlej pupilsduring the summer session. -These teachers met the same professionaIqualifi-cations required of full-time instructors during the regular School tqrm. -

The teachers were responsible for providing mathematics instruction, ma.im-tanning records of attendance, and recording pupil progress in basic maehema-

tics'skills. A number of teadhers taught more than one mathsmatics class ?er

dax.,

Procedures

This report covers the six week summer school session, beginni4June.14, 1976, and ending July 23, 1976. Title I pupils attended ElementaryMathematics classes in the following fourteen summer school centers:t Adams,

*Cloud, Dodge, Franklin, Funston, Garrison, Harry Street, Kellogg, McArthui,Park, Rogers, Washington,. Wilson, and Woodman.

A preservice workshop was held for the teachers on June 10, 19 O. The

workshop was_Aesigned to orient the teachers to the'Elementary Mat emetics

Program, suggest classroom materials and methods, and distribute a diagnostic,

..-test to aid individualized,instruction. The workshop was conducteli by the

Title I Mathematics Consultants anewas attended by apprOximatelX 5 elemen7

tary teachers.

r

Activity

The instructional format varied with each teacher. Most of

grouped the pupils on the basis of abiliSy or interest in the di

areas. Nearly all of the teachers administered a diagnostic tesiAitially determine deficiencies in concept development. The te

quently used a skills checklist to trace pupil progress. The re

of basic computational skills was emphasized. The time ity=class

divided into periods of individual study and periods of group acShort periods and a variety of activities sustained the pupils'

typical classrooin schedule might.take the following format: t

10-15 min. The teacher introduces the concept'or adtivity.15-20.min. The pupils work individually on worksheets.

10-15 min. After complet4ig the worksheet, eachTupil goes ts one-ofseveral skill centers to join in a mathematics g e.or

0 puzzle.15-20 min. The e4ire class participates in culminating acti sties,

such as a,mathematics game or a mathematics art pr iect.

the teachersferent skillto

chers fre-nforcementwas usually

terest.

,Some summer classes .took field trips which provided the pu ls he,Pkopportunity of seeing people using mathematics skills on.the job .T ips to

the fire station, a grocery seore, and aTizza restaurant gaye the'pu ils a

view of the practical value of mathematics.I

a

,

SS 06.03

Instructional Equipment.and Supplies

/be Elementary Mathematics Program urged teachers ep employ a diversityof materials in the instructional process. In'this program; manipulativematerials were instrumental in the teaching of mathematics concepts; theyhelped the pupil visualize relationshipshen he/she was unable to comprehendthem on an abstract level. Belovis a brIef lise of"the imaginative andeconomical materials which.may be found in the.mathematics classroom:

abacusbeadsbeans-blocksbottlecaps .

buttonscandycanning lidschipsclockcounting framescuisenaire.rods

dartsdicedominoesegg cartonsflttnel boardflashcardsfraction aiscsgeo-boardshand 'calculatorsmacaronimagnetic boardmeasuring cups

pegboards 6

pizza roundsplay money'poker chipspopsicIe stickspretzelsquiet countersrulers-set ringsStrawstoothpicks

.athematical games also played a major role in the Elementary Mathe-faatics Program. Both 'cOmmercial and teacher-made games were used. Some of

the more frequently OlaYed,games are listed below,

QuizmoJawsConcentrationPink PantherCharlie Brown.ChallengeJunior Executive

Big°TenCould BeKung FuJeopardyRummyRighron the NoseShake-a-FaOt

ON

. EVALUATION

? Bug Ya.

Pokene:Card and Dice Tuill DownSpace Race-High RollersPay fhe Banker

The following were the two major objectives.of the summer ElementaryMathematics Program:

1) Challenge the child' with interesting experiences,, and'2) Strengthen the child's,mathematical skills.

Pupils ideneified by classroom teachers during the, regular term were

."invited to par,ticipate in,tbe 'summer program. .These were pupils w o wereeligible for,Title Iservices and'whohad. shown the gre addi-tiOnal mathematics instruction.- ". An:analysis of partiOipattaby schook sex, 4,r 'del

..-.

Table SS 06.1. A total.of 1,031 pupils par4Cipat d10dance figures appear it Table SS,06.2.. -.

130

rs inn. Atterr'

,

TABLE SS 06.1

PARTICIPATION STATISTICS

TITLE I ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS

SUMMER 1976

School

,. 1: Sex Grade Race *

Total'',' .1 F 2 3 4 5 6 NA** 1 2 3 '4 5 NA**

Adams 49 59 12 17 :9 0 22 9 1 3 1 102 1 1 1 108

Clpud 1 62 54 18 16 , 27 YI 24 11 14 1 85 16 116

podge , 9 15 4 4. 3 411 2 19 5 24

Franklin 33 33 q 11 '13 10 15 7 '46 16 3 1 66

Funston 4 48 40 24 18 16 11 12 7 , 82 4 1 1 88

Garrison 30 22 10 11 6 4 11 10 1 51.

52

Harry Street 83 75 30 29 28 28 24 19 111 2 37 8 158

Kellogg 14 23 3 5 6 k 14 4 11 25 1 37

MacArthur 23 22 6 10 '8 8 8 5 22 17 4 1 45

Park 28 34 16 9 14 11 , 8 4 33 3 21 5.

62

kgers 20 22 , 10 10 R '7 7 31 10 1 42

Washington 84 80 6 32 37 17 ,26 31 15 ,31 19 112 2 164

Wilson . 9 9 4 2 2 2 8 7 11 18

Woodian 34 17 13 10 9 6 '9 4 ,: 44' 4 3 , 51

,

TQTALS

i''

.526 505' 6 182 185i 189 160 204 104,

455 27 500,, 45 3

.

1031

PERCENTS '51.0 '49.0 .6 17.7 17.9 18.3 15.5 19.8 10.1 44.1 2.6 48.5' ,4.4

,

,

* Race Key: 1=Caucasian; 2=Asian Americadl 3=Black,.,4=Span1sh Mexican;,5=Amer1can Ind1a4

o

'f **Data not reported'

132

SS 06.05 -

TABLE *S 06.2

.PUPIL iTTENDANCE*TITLE I ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS

_SUMMER 1976

Total Pu ils 1,031

'Full Vine Equiv lent 726

Total Poss ble ays 27,809

Total'Days tt nded 19,589

Ave. Days At nded Per Pupil 19

Attendance Percentage 70.45

*Figures are based on an attendance period of27 days.

.Responses to a teacher questionnaire indicated that pupil progress inthe program was directly related to attendance. Those pupils who attendedclasses regularly made greater-progress in the acquisition of basic mathema-.tics skills than'did those whose attendance was- poor or sporadic.

The teacher evaluated each pupil in skill areas relevant tO.the pupil'sability level; most pupils were evaluated on improvement in Comprehension ofNumeration System, Basic Addition/Subtraction, And Basic Multiplication/

Division. In five of the six skill areas, the majority of pupils Were judgedas having made "slight" or ."moderaq" improvement by the clpse of the summer

session. A small number of pupils4were evaluated in the moiat advanced skillarea, Algebraic Concepts and Operations. Over half of.those pupils werejudged as having made. "very little if any improvement". Numbers and percents:

of pupils falling into each evaluation category are .sundarized in'Table SS 06,3.

6

a

133

TABLE SS 06.3

SUMMARY OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS*

ARADES K-6

TITLE I ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS

SUMMER 1976

Math Skill Ardt's

Students Showing

Very'Little If

Any Improvernt

Siudents Showing

Slight.

Improvement

Students Showing

Moderate

Improvemett

Students Showing

Much Improvement Totals

Comprehension of

Numeration System 220 26

Basic Addition/

Subtraction 189 20

Basic Multiplication/

Division 190 27 .

Concepts/Operations

with Fractions/

Decimals'

Measures/Calculations

for Lengths/Areas/

Volumes'

Algebraic Concepts/

Operations

85 35

27 22,

35 ,56

340 40 225 26 68

335 35.5 307 32.5 111 ft

251 36 200 29 55

89 37 58' 24 8

37 30 43 35 162

28 44

8 853

12 942

696

240

13 ,123

63

*Percents may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Totals 'are unequal as not all students were evaluated.in every'skill arta.

134

a

a

,

SS 06.07

In response to A lOcally developed teacher questionnaire, nearly illteachers indicated.that moat of Oeir pupils had made progresa in correctingtheir mathematical Onceptj deficiencies. As stated'previoutil, many teachersfelt that regular attendaime at the summer'sessions was directly related to:improvement in,skilIa. Some questioned whether improvement would be long-.'lifting due to the abort duration of summer school. Opinions varied ati tothe optional time period foi classes. Ainy teachers indicated that one hourdid not provide enough time, bUt thattwo hours was too long for a classperiod, especially for younger pupilswho generally have shorter attention.spans. One teacher suggested.breakingup a two-hour matma$,its,class with,an hour:of :crafts or athletics, duringtwhicA pupils coulenjoY. a change'of*-activity.

4-

RECOMMENDATIONS-

;

.The Title I Eleme tary-Mathematics PrOkram met the objective ofstrengthening mathematics skqls for a malOrIty of the participanta. Since'pupil progress appears to be related to attendance, it is logical that onlypupils who attend classes regularly can benefit fully frour the program.: ItIs recomended tbat-clss si*be keft small and that theawarding of tuitionihdolarshipstolitWI pupils-be coatingent upon their maintaining regularattendance in the-S' er session.

,