documt reume · rs title. programs for ... *preschool education; *program evaluation; reading...
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**********************************************************************Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal' unpublished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.
,