ED 394 197

ACTHORTITLE

INSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCY

PUB DATECONTRACTNOTEPUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

EA 027 520

Pechman, Ellen M.; Turnbull, Brenda J.Integrating State Systemic Reforms and Chapter 1Programs: Insights from Early Initiatives. FinalReport.Policy Studies Associates, Inc., Washington, DC.Department of Education, Washington, DC. Office ofthe Under Secretary.95

LC89089001152p.

Reports Descriptive (141)

MF01/PC07 Plus Postage.*Accountability; Curriculum Development; *EducationalAssessment; Educational Innovation; ElementarySecondary Education; Federal Programs; Federal StateRelationship; Program Evaluation; *State Standards;*Student Evaluation*Education Consolidation Improvement Act Chapter 1

This report examines the effects of early efforts tolink the Elementary Secondary Education Act's (ESEA's) Chapter 1 (nowTitle I) programs to state and district education reforms, which arestandards-based. The report focuses on how Chapter 1 standards andaccountability requirements connect with new state-level standards,curricula, and assessments for all children; how new curriculumframeworks and higher standards are changing teaching and learning inChapter 1 programs; how new state assessments track individualstudent progress and improve overall program accountability; and howsuccessfully integrated Chapter 1 programs and evolving systemicreforms can provide lessons for Title I policy. Data were gatheredduring visits to five state departments of education and ninedistricts within the states of Arizona, California, Kentucky,Maryland, and New York. Reforms had been implemented at each site forthree or more years. Key findings include the following: Leading-edgestates and districts have attempted to link changes in Chapter 1 totheir own reform efforts; the implementation of standards and newassessments is a slow and unstable process; the states havedisseminated documents that outline achievement and expectations, butthese vary in depth, breadth, and the amount of information theyprovide about curriculum and pedagogy; The Chapter 1 program is avaluable resource for capacity building in several states anddistricts; and local leadership depends on effective management andcommunity involvement. Appendices contain an overview of programlinkages in the case study L;stricts, a table showing the status ofnew assessment development in case study states, and examples of datareported for state assessment and accountability programs. (Contains67 references.) (LMI)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

N

INTEGRATING STATE SYSTEMIC REFORMSAND CHAPTER 1 PROGRAMS:

INSIGHTS FROM EARLY INITIATIVES

FINAL REPORT

1995

ME PAR`Mt ' 4 r )i- EI'01( a, 1,-14

F ./C A i RE SOUK FS ,`JF ORVAT if 1",CFNTEF1 FNC

in, 1, 1,1 n,

I

[I 1.0'11', hfor

PoInts vie'," or qatrtir!or omens No nor necesaily

Ito Al OE Ell positior, ,,r pohry

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY

2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

POLICY STU DI ES ASSOCIAES, I NC.1718 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N. W. SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20009 (2 0 2) 939-9780

INTEGRATING STATE SYSTEMIC REFORMSAND CHAPTER 1 PROGRAMS:

INSIGHTS FROM EARLY INITIATIVES

Ellen M. Pectiman

Brenda J. Turnbull

with the assistance of

Katrina G. LaguardaMary S. LeightonJohn E. Mullens

Michael C. RubensteinLisa K. Weiner

Angela S. Williams

Final Report

This evaluation is supported by the U.S. Department of Education under contract LC89089001-Task Order EA 931080. However, the views expressed are those of the authors,and no endorsement by the Department should be inferred.

LI

CO 4 NTS

Executive Summary

I. Purpose and Study Design 1

Research Questions 1

The Context of Federal and State Systemic Reforms 2Study Design 5

Limits of the Getteratizability of Findings 6

11. Key Influences on State and Local Chapter 1 Policy Development 8

National Reforms 8

State and Local Reforms 10

III. Systemic Reform and Chapter 1 in States and Districts 12

Arizona 12

State Reform 12

Features of Chapter 1 in Arizona Districts 15

California 17

State Reform 17

Features of Chapter 1 in California Districts 20Kentucky 22

State Reform 22Features of Chapter 1 in Kentucky Districts 25

Maryland 26State Reform 26Features of Chapter 1 in a Maryland District 28

New York 30State Reform 30Features of Chapter 1 in New York Districts 32

CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

IV. Cross-Cutting Themes in State and District Reform Implementation 35

Standards, Assessment, and Accountanility 35What Are the Standards? 36A Multiyear Process of Reform 38Controversy over Se' Lions 40Using New Assessments in Chapter 1 43A Dearth of Instructionally Useful Information from State Tests 45

Curriculum Frameworks and Curriculum 47Formats and Purposes of Frameworks Vary 47California Frameworks Are Unique 48Frameworks and Chapter 1 48

Capacity Building 49New Challenges to State and Local Agencies 49Relearning in Districts and Schools 51Chapter 1 Teacher Leaders 53

Site-Based Management and Community Involvement 54Uneven Results of SBM 56

Local Context for Implementing Systemic Reforms 57

V. Insights for Title I Implementation 60

References 64

Appendices

Appendix 1: Overview of State, Local, and Chapter 1 Program Linkagesin Case Study Districts 1-1

Appendix 2: Status of New Assessment Development in Case Study States 2-1

Appendix 3: Examples of Data Reported for State Assessmentand Accountability Programs 3-1

O

Executive Summary

.study examines the effects of early initiatives that connected programs funded by Chapter

1 of Tide I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to standards-based, systemic

education reform in selected states and school districts. Its purpose is to gain insights that can be

applied in implementing and evaluating the reauthorized Chapter 1 program, as amended by ESEA.

Title I, and related federal programs as systemic reform moves forwail in the states. It addresses the

following questions:

(1) How are Chapter 1 standards and accountability requirements linked with new state-level standards, curricula, and assessments for all children?

(2) How are new curriculum frameworks and higher standards changing teaching andlearning in Chapter 1, and how are new state assessments used to track individualstudent progress and improve overall Chapter 1 program accountability?

(3) What are the lessons for Title I policy to be learned from sites that successfullyintegrated Chapter 1 programs and evolving systemic reforms?

Data collection too'. place from March through May 1994, in visits to five state departments

of education and nine districts within Arizona, California, Kentucky, Maryland, and New York.

Selection of the states was based on information about the history of state reform and its integration

with Chapter 1; these are states where multiple indicators showed reform had been implemented for

three or more years. The state Chapter 1 directors each identified two or three districts that were

active partners in developing the reform agenda and in coordinating district and state reforms. Tills

sampling procedure yielded a group of sites with these characteristics:

(1) Each state had recently instituted new curricula and instructional procedures th tapplied to all students; the districts had participated in shaping state reform agendasand had begun local implementation

(2) State and local Chapter 1 curricula and assessment reforms had been in place for threeor more years

(3) The state and local regular education and Chapter 1 changes were integrated bothformally and informally

(4) Each district was committed to achieving student educational goals consistent withemerging national goals, and using multiple strategies of student assessmentincludingperformance-based proceduresto direct ins"-uction and track the accountability ofChapter 1 programs

(5) Districts were sufficiently large (8,000 students or more), demographically diverse,and geographically varied so that their experiences with change would resemble manyChapter 1 programs nationally

The experiences of these sites are not generalizable to the nation as a whole in 1994. By

design, however, they illustrate responses to reform in varied contexts.

Among the districts and schools vis:- which are somewhat unusual in the degree to which

they embrace reform, the implementation of systemic initiatives is a work in progress. Their

experiences shed light on the factors driving change in the current reform environmentespecially

new arrangements for high-stakes assessmentand on the tremendous amount of work still to be done

to realize the promise of standard-setting and assessments, curriculum development, capacity building,

and site-based management.

Standards and assessments are areas of considerable controversy and difficulty for these sites:

The states vary in their definitions of content and performance standards

The implementation of standards and new assessments has turned out to be a slow andoften unstable process, lasting for several years and undergoing political challengesalong the way

Procedures for levying sanctions on schools with poor performance. after an adequateperiod of supportive assistance, are not yet in place and remain a focal point fordebate

Practical problems are evident in the use of new assessments in Chapter 1. The mostinnovative assessments are planned for only a few grade levels and thus cannot be thebasis for student selection for targeted programs in other grades. Little or noinformation from new state tests is available in a format and on a schedule that makeit instructionally useful to teachers.

Curriculum frameworks and curriculum are likewise areas where much remains to be done:

The states have disseminated documents that outline achievement expectations, butthese vary in depth, breadth, and the amount of information they provide aboutcurriculum and pedagogy

iI

7

Traditional practices prevail in many Ch ..;rograms; if teachers are going toteach to new expectations under Title 1, o ! need more curriculum reso,,rces

With a ubiquitous need for capacity building, state and local education agencies are trying to

deliver many kinds of help more effectively and teachers are beginning a lengthy learning process.

Chapter 1 stands out as a resource for capacity building in several states and districts

Because technical assistance and staff development are often p:aced together fromseveral sources, many schools are experiencing numerous, often clashing,programmatic initiatives

Where site-based management and community involvement are key ingredients in the reform

agenda, conflicting visions of reform have to be reconciled.

Effective local leadership depends on such strategies as widespread ownership ofchange, clear goals and feedback cycles, a long time horizon, stable organizationalstructures at all levels, and flexibility in adapting reforms to local contexts

Title I policy in the coming years will have to set directions for districts and states that are

facing the challenges of defining and implementing their own standards-based reforms. The

experiences of these vanguard sites suggest, most centrally. (1) that policy makers must not expect too

much too soon, and (2) that they must determine what roles Title I should play in framing and

underwriting the transition to new standards, assessments, curriculum, and teaching skills.

Specifically:

Title I will have to offer clear requirements for accountability, coupled with enoughflexibility to accommodate rapid change in the st,e.e of the assessment art. Forexample, it is clear from the assessment practices and capabilities that exist in thesesites that new assessment methods will need to be complemented by more traditionalstrategies for student selection and program planning.

In the transition period, there is a tremendous need for funding to support thedevelopment of new assessment instruments and to bolster local and state capacity inusing them. Policy makers will have to determine the ground rules by which Title 1can legitimately fund development and assistance in these areas withoutinappropriately providing general aid to states and local education agencies (LEAs).

Title I policy makers and program managers might want to establish more explicitroles for the program in state or local efforts to develop curriculum or adapt it forlow-achieving students. Some source of leadership in curriculum development isneeded if Title I students are to escape their traditional diet of basic skills. Just as the

program has always been a source of expertise and initiative in the field of evaluation,it could conceivably take on a similar role in curriculum. But here, too, the issue ofgeneral aid will be a difficult one.

Title I policy makers and program managers could strongly encourage states anddistricts to focus professional development on the practical application of newstandards, curriculum, and instruction with disadvantaged students. Currently, moreperipheral instructional programs continue to dominate professional development inthese districts.

Schoolwide programs in these sites offer welcome flexibility in targeting specialservices, but they do not trigger a rethinking or overhaul of the basic program. Itpolicy makers want to see schoolwide programs stimulate reform, they will have ,)sharpen this message.

Targeted programs can offer as much instructional coherence as schoolwid' rograms.A policy emphasis on program continuity and quality is likely to have as song aneffect on improving program coordination as is the promotion of the s,.floulwideapproach.

I. Purpose and Study Design

On behalf of the Office of the Under Secretary in the U.S. Department of Education, Policy

Studies Associates (PSA) examined the effects of initiatives begun before ESEA Title I reauthorization

that connect Chapter 1 programs to standards-based state and c'istrict education reform. The purpose

of the study was to gain insights from the implementation of Chapter 1 programs within the context of

leading edge systemic reforms so that these insights could be applied to the new Title I program and

other efforts to link federal program support with systemic reforms.

This paper begins with a discussion of the study's purpose and design. Following an

overview of key reform issues in study states, we describe and analyze program implementation in

states and districts, emphasizing the linkages between local Chapter I programs and state reforms.

We conclude with implications for Title I policy development.

Research Questions

This study explored state and federal program coordination in nine districts located in five

Lading reform states. Three questions framed our research:

(1) How are Chapter 1 standards and accountability requirements linked with. new state-level standards, curricula, and assessments for all children?

(2) How are new curriculum frameworks and higher standards changing reaching andlearning in Chapter 1, and how are new state assessments used to track individualstudent progress and improve overall Chapter 1 program accountability?

(3) What are the lessons for Title I policy to be learned from sites that successfullyintegrated Chapter 1 programs and evolving systemic reforms?

These questions are examined within the context of two decades of research on educating at-

risk students, recent federal and state legislation. and coordinated state and local efforts to improve

schools serving high concentrations of poor students.

1

I

I The Context of Federal and State Systemic Reforms

Recent research highlights shifts in the characteristics of regular classrooms and the most

successful special programs for at-risk students. In the past decade, accelerated learning opportunities

have begun to replace pull-out remediation (Levin, 1987, 1992); some rote learning has given way to

problem solving and analytic thinking (Pogrow, 1990; Resnick & Klopfer, 1989); common,

cognitively rich MI TiMiUMS are increasingly the starting point for all students in core subjects

regardless of students' prior experiences and learning opportunities;` and coordinating regular

classroom learning and education services for at-risk students enhances the academic demands for the

lowest achievers (Knapp & Shields, 1990; Means & Knapp, 1991). New curriculum developments

are also being assessed against an array of performance-based measures that reflect the cognitive

demands and challenges children confront in their everyday lives (U.S. Department of Education,

1993c). These changes have begun to offer disadvantaged students a quality of education that is

consistent with that provided to their peers.

Such research inspires innovations in teaching and learning and organizational arrangements.

Policy shifts known as "systemic reforms" arise partly from federal initiatives and partly from state

and local frustration with the limited effects of prior reforms (Massell & Fuhrman, 1994). Systemic

reforms are coherent structural and organizational adjustments, united by a common set of goals and

approaches to educating children. Increasingly viewed by state and national policymakers as a viable

direction for education in the United States, these reforms are also central to federal programs begun

since the early 1990s by the Department of Education and the National Science Founck.tion (O'Day &

Smith, 1993; see also Fuhrman, 1993; Fuhrman, 1994).2

Earlier reviews of systemic reform (Fuhrman, 1994; Massel & Fuhrman, 1994) and Chapter 1

suggested the following prevailing context for connecting state education reform and the new Title I:

' See Knapp & Shields (1990); Natriello, Mc Dill, & Pallas (1990); Slavin, Karweit, & Madden (1989); andStringfield, Winfield, Mil blip, Puma, Gamse, & Randall (1992).

2 Researchers :.racked the development of these reforms at regular intervals in the past several years. Seethe Consortium for Policy Research in Education (Massell & Fuhrman, 1994, among others); EducationCommission of the States (ECS, 1994); National Governors' Association (NGA, 1993). Policy StudiesAssociates has monitored the development of assessment changes (Laguarda, Breckenridge, & Hightower, 1994;Pechman & Laguarda, 1993). as has the Council of Chief State School Officers (Bond, 1994; Selden, Hemphill,& Blank, 1993).

2

State reforms are in various stages of a continuing evolution, even in states wherereform agendas have been in place for many years. State curricula, standards, andassessments develop first in a few grades at a time and in traditional content areas ofreading, language arts, and mathematics, followed by frameworks in various othercore disciplines.

Until 1994, Chapter 1 regulations and monitoring procedures mandated accountabilityand assessment practices that differed from those used by states involved most activelyin designing new curricula, standards, and performance-based assessments. Inparticular, federal requirements to use norm-referenced tests for reporting restrictedthe extent to which states could use emerging alternative assessments to monitorstudent learning and evaluate services in Chapter 1 programs. As a result, schoolsserving Title I students have limited experience with the innovative assessment andevaluation expectations in Title I.

Consensus about the need for reform emerges gradually, even in those states with along-standing openness to innovation. There are many differentoften competingideas about how to accomplish common goals. With so many new ideas, the progressof reform frequently relies on a few risk takers who forge ahead during periods ofuncertainty and sustain their commitment in the face of controversy.

Institutionalizing new organizational structures and teaching strategies requiresstability and strong leadership. Momentum for innovation typically gains the firmestfooting first in schools or districts with enough policy continuity and institutionalsupport to allow room for the inevitable false or slow starts. Frequent changes at thetop levels of administration and dramatic shifts in funding play havoc with reform.

Context shapes the transition to new curricula, standards, and assessmentsandcontext varies significantly. Each local education agency (LEA) and state grappleswith a different array of policy and planning issues unique to its political environmentand region. Thus, the outcome of systemic reform depends on a se ategic balance offederal, state. and local regulatory constraints and flexibilities that ;pond toindividual state and local political contexts.

The final report of the national assessment of Chapter 1, Reiwtingechasteuee 1 (U.S.

Department of Education, 1993c), points out that, despite the complexities, some schools and districts

have made Chapter 1 a strong partner in local and state education reform since the 1988

reauthorization of ESEA. Where Chapter 1 reform is occurriag, states have begun to restructure their

curricula and assessment strategies, and they have established clearer standards about what students

should know and be able to do as a result of their schooling Of particular interest to federal policy

makers are understanding how new curricula and accoue. Jility systems affect the quality of education

for disadvantaged students and coordinating these new systems so that they benefit all students.

Where Chapter 1 programs have a multiyear history of implementing reforms, we can learn what

3

14

kinds of policy planning and assistance on state or local levels support or obstruct successful

integration of statewide reform on behalf of disadvantaged youth.

Two pieces of legislation enacted in 1994 promote systemic reform through a new agenda for

serving disadvantaged students. Together, ESEA, reauthorized by the Improving America's Schools

Act, and the Goals 2000: Educate America Act will reshape the federal government's role in assisting

schools. These laws promote standards-based systemic changes on the basis of two assumptions: (1)

school improvement begins with an ambitious vision of what students should know and be able to do;

and (2) all students can and will attain a high level of academic achievement, given the opportunity.

Ambitious content and performance standards and new state assessment systems challenge traditional

assumptions about the performance of disadvantaged children and redefine how schools, districts,

states, and the federal government collaborate to provide supportive educational services.

The 1994 reauthorization of ESEA draws federal categorical programs in education into a

working partnership with each other and with state and local education policies and practices. Over

the years, federally funded education programs have become separated from mainstream education,

operating as add-ons and working at the margins. Although the original purpose of Title 1 was to

intensify and personalize instruction for low-achieving students, many of the pull-out programs that

evolved over the years limited students to a diet of low-level and rote skills. The separation of

federal and mainstream programs also meant that students who participated in Chapter 1 did not

benefit from classroom instructional and curriculum improvements promoted by state and local

reforms. Too often, such programs failed to engage students with intellectually compelling

opportunities to advance their thinking or to participate in demanding academic programs (U.S.

Department of Education, 1993c).

With Goals 2000 and the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA, Congress increased expectations for

schools that serve disadvantaged children. The legislation encourages federal, state, and local

programs to work together to achieve the following goals:

High standards that ensure all students -- especially the most disadvantagedreach thesame high academic goals

Increased focus on teaching and learning for staff as well as for students

Flexibility for schools to stimulate initiatives that increase local responsibility forstudent learning

Support for parents, linking them with available school and community resources fortheir families

4

Resources targeted for children with the greatest needs

This study documents progress toward these goals in states and districts that are on the leading edge

of cnange.

Study Design

We used nine case studies of state reform activities and district-level Chapter 1 programs to

identify Chapter 1 and reform linkages, determine their effects, and analyze the resulting insights for

policy. Sites were identified in three stages during fall 1993. First, from information about the

history of state reform and its integration with Chapter 1, we chose five statesArizona, California,

Kentucky, Maryland, and New Yorkwhere multiple indicators showed reform had been implemented

for three or more years. Next, state Chapter 1 directors each identified two or three districts that

were active parmers in developing the reform agenda and in coordinating district and state reforms.

Finally, we conducted telephone interviews with district Chapter 1 coordinators and LEA personnel

and reviewed background information about each prospective site to obtain information on the

following:

School district and Chapter 1 program demographics (approximate size of the districtand its Chapter 1 program, percentage of students from low-income families, andother relevant demographic features)

Organizational arrangements (grades served, subjects or services offered, programconfiguration)

Key reforms affecting regular education and Chapter 1

District and Chapter 1 linkages to statewide reforms (curriculum and instruction,standards, assessments, and accountability procedures)

Following this data review and in consultation with the U.S. Department of Education, we

selected nine study sites: Sunnyside and Tucson Unified School Districts, Arizona; Hayward and

Long Beach Unified School Districts, California; Christian and Fayette Counties, Kentucky; Frederick

County, Maryland; Community School District One and Niagara Falls City Schools, New York. The

sites shared these characteristics:

5

Each state had recently instituted new curricula and instructional procedures thatapplied to all students; the districts had participated in shaping state reform agendasand had begun local implementation

(2) State and local Chapter 1 curricula and assessment reforms had been in place for threeor more years

(3) The state and local regular education and Chapter 1 changes were integrated bothformally and informally

(4) Each district was committed to achieving student educatior goals consistent withemerging national goals, and using multiple strategies of stuuent assessmentincludingperformance-based proceduresto direct instruction and track the accountability ofChapter 1 programs

(5) Districts were sufficiently large (8,000 students or more), demographically diverse,and geographically varied so that their experiences would reflect a wide range ofChapter 1 programs nationally

From March through May 1994, PSA researchers conducted one-day site visits to state

agencies and two- to three-day visits in the nine districts. Researchers interviewed administrators,

teachers, and parents; visited classrooms and talked informally with students; and reviewed

guidelines, curriculum materials, and other documents.

Appendix I describes the participating districts, summarizes the major features of their

Chapter 1 programs, and indicates connections with the state reforms.

Limits of the Generalizability of Findings

The districts and schools included in this study are distinguLaed by a number of enviable

features. Although they differ in locale, size, ethnic make-up, and proportion of students in poverty,

they have in common an openness to experimentation, an ability to adapt, and a belief in the benefits

of change. The comment of one district leader is typical: "Whenever there is a reform movement

from the state, this district always tries to respond."

Educators in these sites are not novice change agents but have a long-standing involvement in

school improvement and a commitment to flexible management and curriculum-based reforms.

Program leaders, principals, and teachers hais long tenuresmany have been in the districts more

than ten years. It was not uncommon to meet clusters of 20-year veterans who have worked together

6

*-0

"since way back in the days of the old Title I." These professionals are working in the community

they call home. They have invested themselves in their schools; they know what works and what

does not; and they are determined to succeed, even against increasingly difficult odds.

In short, the insights about the dynamics of change in the districts in this study reflect the

perspectives of experienced change agents in communities that support change; different insights

might be drawn from contexts where innovation is less welcome and more suspect.

7

pi

IL Key Influences on State and Local Chapter 1 Policy Development

In this section, we describe major national, state, and local influences on policy development

for Chapter 1. We begin with a discussion of national policy shifts, including changes in Chapter 1

law and regulations in the 1980s and 1990s, and conclude with an overview of recent state and local

reform activity.

National Reforms

Major policy initiatives from the early 1980s set the stage for emerging systemic reforms.

State leaders trace recent trends to the awareness created by A Nation at Risk (National Commission

on Excellence in Education, 1983), and by business leaders and national policy makers who rallied

behind the belief that business as usual was unacceptable education policy and radical improvement

was needed to rescue America's schools from deepening decay. Responding to this call for change,

the states we examined took a number of actions: they established more challenging graduation

requirements and stricter accountability; invested in teachers' professional development and

curriculum writing; testructured organizations to involve teachers and communities more centrally in

decision making; sfn a minimum achievement for all students; and instituted statewide resting to

monitor student preress. Policy makers expected that all students would go beyond minimal reading

and mathematics to become skillful readers and users of language arts who attain proficiency in

"hard" academic content (Porter, Archbald, & Tyree, 1991), including mathematics, social studies,

and sciences.

By the end of the 1980s, Chapter 1 policy had also begun to reflect higher academic standards

and more ambitious goals. The 1988 Augustus F. Hawkins-Robert T. Stafford Elementary and

Secondary School Improvement Amendments shifted away from remediation and minimum

competencies toward the expectation that all students would progress toward grade-level achievemeni

These amendments stressed that Chapter 1 programs were to bring students to grade-level proficiency

in both "basic" and "more advanced" skills. Encouraging greater program flexibility, the

amendments targeted resources to schools with relatively high poverty levels while providing parenue

local practitioners, and community members with stronger planning and decision-making roles. The

changes promoted more frequent use of in-class instructional models and schoolwide projects to

upgrade basic academic programs in Chapter 1 schools. In particular, the amendments encouraged

districts to use "schoolwide projects" to address education challenges in the highest poverty schools.

8

Schoolwide projects allow districts to combine federal, local, and other external funds in eligible

schools to enhance student services for every student. This integration of funds gives school-site

leaders increased flexibility to adapt research-based practices to the overall instructional program.

reduce class size, increase professional development, and involve parents and communities in school

decision making and other schoolwide services.

Just as state reforms advocated clearer accountability, Chapter 1 also intensified its

accountability guidelines for evaluating student performance. New evaluation and monitoring

requirements introduced by the Hawkins-Stafford Amendments gave local coordinators the leverage to

insist that schools continually re-examine and alter unsuccessful approaches. As a result, when

students failed to meet a threshold of improvement on standardized tests, district and ultimately state

agencies became involved in overseeing the plans for changes in policy or practice (U.S. Department

of Education, 1990, 1993b).

The Hawkins-Stafford amendments also advocated frequent and regular coordination among

Chapter 1 and regular education staff to minimize disruption in students' education, insisting that

Chapter 1 fit smoothly into the regular program (U.S. Department of Education, 1993b). By 1992

the Department of Education made coordination even more feasible by allowing Chapter 1 teachers to

provide "incidental" assistance to non-Chapter 1 students, as long as Chapter 1 continued to focus on

the educational needs of disadvantaged students. These new regulations further encouraged teaching

arrangements to reduce the isolation of Chapter 1 students in pull-out programs. thus minimizing the

labeling, the stigma, and the educational disruption often associated with such programs.

The National Education Goals set by the nation's governors in 1989 stepped up efforts by

some states to bring coherence to disparate policies. In the states we studied, this coherence meant

instituting goal-focused policies and forging new partnerships within and among state and local

education agencies, across differently funded programs, and with many constituentsstudents,

families, communities, and businesses. The hope was to coordinate education initiatives and program

funds from state, local, and federal sources to engage students in rigorous, intellectually substantive

learning experiences. By the early 1990s, states and districts were incorporating into their education

programs lessons learned from a generation of experiments, drawing from developing knowledge

about school organization and change, teacmng, children's learning, and curriculum content

standards.

9

State and Local Reforms

Proponents of systemic reform envision coherent state and local policies, based on clear goals

and high academic standards, as keys to upgrading schools serving disadvantaged students (Elmore &

Fuhrman, 1994; Fuhrman, 1993; Smith, 1994). Ideally, curriculum standards, written into state and

local "frameworks" or curriculum guidelines and assessed by new, more informative testing methods.

define what students should know and be able to do as a result of their years in school. Evidence of

how well students meet the standards is to be measured on a proficiency continuum that defines

unambiguous levels of expected accomplishment in widely agreed upon content and performance

standards. School professionalsteachers and administratorsare continually learning, expanding their

content knowledge and pedagogical expertise, and developing a common idea of what the standards

are and how to ensure that all children achieve them. Parents and communities are active contributors

in planning the education programs that affect their children. Districts use site-based management as

a mechanism for sharing decision making among local authorities, teachers, and the communities the

school serves. When states establish ambitious goals and clear standards and reinforce them with

coordinated policies, the theory assumes, the effects will promote greater policy coherence leading to

beneficial outcomes tor all students.

The states and districts we studied have incorporated many features of systemic reform into

their educational agendas. Visions express high expectations for all students; revised curriculums

reflect evolving national professional standards; and new assessments and accountability procedures

provide clearer indication of what children know and are able to do. State educational agendas share

a common vision, but similarities across states and districts end with the broad themes. Each state

uniquely defines its content and performance standards, curriculum frameworks, and accountability

systems. Content standards take a number of forms: they are "essential skills," "academic

expectations," "frameworks," or "outcomes." Performance and proficiency expectations are

idiosyncratic: they are set at different grade levels; they have different content requirements; and

they are measured with different assessment instruments and scoring procedures.

Even with the new systemic orientation, state reform in the present era emphasizes continuity

with the past. According to top administrators in state and local education agencies, building on past

strengths and willingness to let go of failures are central to the success of their more recent initiatives.

New York's Board of Regents was so firmly committed to its successful initiatives of the early 1980s

that A N...egconapact for Learning (NCL), its recent reform strategy, strengthens but does not replace

the earlier guidelines. California attributes advances made in the 1990s to an ambitious legislative

agenda begun more than a decade ago. In Aria aa, legislative committees involving parents,

teachers, and business professionals set hige. standards for grades K to 12 students in the mid-1980s

10

19

Both Kentucky and Maryland significantly enhanced accountability demands after 1989, but their

education leaders also report that changes begun earlier in that decade set the stage for the

accomplishments of the past five years.

11

2 0

ID. Systemic Reform and Chapter 1 in States and Districts

We now turn to a discussion of state and local reform strategies in the five states and the nine

districts we studied. Following a summary of each state's major systemic reforms, we describe

Chapter I and reforms in districts and present an overview of the coordination of Chapter 1 and the

basic programs in the districts studied. Table 1 summarizes the major reform components across the

five states. Additional detail appears in two appendices: Appendix 2 provides detail on the status of

the new state assessment programs; Appendix 3 gives examples of assessment and accountability data

reports state agencies used in 1994.

Arizona

State Reform

Continuing a statewide improvement effort that had been evolving since the mid-1980s,

Arizona's state legislature in 1990 adopted the Arizona Student Assessment Program (ASAP), one of

the nation's first performance-based statewide assessments. The assessment legislation followed six

years of goal setting and curriculum development. In the mid-1980s, task forces involving state

legislators, state school board members, parent:, teachers, and business leaders participated in

defining Essential Skills in 11 content areas. The task forces wrote Essential Skills documents

specifying "student outcomes"--the core competencies students would be expected to attainand

"examples of indicators" to suggest tasks students should be able to complete if they achieve the

outcomes (Arizona Department of Education (ADE), 1993, p. vii).

According to officials in both district and state offices, classroom use of the Essential Skills

was modest until 1990 when the legislature formally mandated the assessment program, its scoring

standards (called rubrics), and the annual publication of data on student progress through state and

local media channels. When the state guidelines failed to inspire local action, state policy makers

turned to the Essential Skills documents and the ASAP as mechanisms for upgrading the quality of

teaching and for ensuring that students were learning the expected content.

1'

Arizona's reform legislation of 1990 gave each district the authority to determine performance

levels that students are expected to attain on the state tests (ADE, 1993) and mandated the

Table 1Major Reforms In Case Study States, Spring 1994...

IF:50RM COMPONENTS AZ CA KY Ml)

Curriculum frameworks' Planned

Curriculum goals/outcomes/skills' Planned

Instructional materials & technologyselection guided by curriculum

Planned

Performance-based assessments Planned

Norm-referenced state assessment(for non-Lhapter 1 monitoring)

Student-level performance standards'

School & district report cards

School-based program planning &decision-making flexibility

../

School review/improvement process Planned Planned Planned

Accountability sanctions Planned

Certification and professionaldevelopment tied to curriculum

Planned

Extended time (early childhood andbefore and afterschool programs)

Planned

Family & community involvement

Integrated family, health, and socialservices

Planned

NOTE: Features of state reform are being implemented () or planned; an empty cell indicates the state has nocurrent plans to implement this component.

Curriculum frameworks elaborate on the subject matter of disciplines. including goals. content, and thinking processesinvolved with using the discipline. They explore the philosophic foundations, visions, and ways of knowing the subject. aswell as define the boundaries of the skills and knowledge domains to be mastered. Frameworks establish the parameters ofa content-specific learning environment, present instructional alternatives, and model teaching and assessment approaches.They may include concepts, goals, and skills lists, but their most significant feature is the extended discussions of contentand discipl:as-specific teaching processes.

2 Curriculum goals, outcomes, and skills are summaries. outlines. or lists of content expectations. In some cases, theyreflect the state's content standards: in other cases they are simply the key skills to be taught. In contrast to frameworks.these documents minimin discussions of philosophy, content, instructional approaches. and assessment processes.

3 Student performance standards refer to the levels of mastery that define competence on assessments. They are definedby task- or test-specific rubrics or by summary scores in a tested knowledge domain. Student-level standards are distinctfrom school or district standards in that they reflect the individual's specific level of accomplishment in a particular contentarea or on a particular task.

13 2"

development c" locally defined District Assessment Plans (DAPs) (ADE, 1993). DAPs coordinate

state and local assessments by reporting student progress toward attaining the Essential Skills in

reading, writing, and mathematics, as measured by locally administered tests. Districts are free todevelop their own assessments paralleling the new performance-based state assessments or to adopt

alternatives to the state's models. Through ASAP, the state audits student progress on a subset of

Essential Skills in assessments of reading/language arts, mathematics, and writing administered

annually to all students in grades 3, 8, and 12, and it continues to track progress on traditional tests

by administering partial batteries of norm-referenced tests each fall in grades 4, 7, and 10.

Coordinating the Essential Skills with the ASAP is, by design, a process of "teaching to the

test." In interviews, school personnel reported that sample tests promote integrated instruction,

higher-order thinking, and applied learning and are therefore a sound basis for instruction. They

expect that students who know how to answer the questions on the sample tests will succeed when the

state test asks them to apply what they know in context-embedded tasks. Promoters of this reform

strategy argue that because ASAP tasks model the best teaching activities and establish clear

evaluation standards, they provide a common reference point for guiding instruction and evaluating

student performance statewide. Although this "high-stakes" approach to assessment is controversial,'

state and local reform proponents argue that solid student performance on ASAP :Asks assures

participating communities that children are applying their developing knowledge practically and with a

high degree of proficiency.

After the 1990 legislation, the state's Chapter 1 program tightened its connection with regular

education by aligning its goals with the Essential Skills and offering extensive staff development to

show teachers how to model ASAP tasks and use rubrics as scoring guides and standards. The

Chapter 1 state office urged districts to frame their desired outcomes in the same terms as the

Essential Skills and encouraged teaching with sample ASAP-style tasks that use rubrics as in-class

evaluation criteria. At the same time, the state Chapter 1 director and his staff shifted the role of the

state office from monitoring to technical assistance.

' The state and district officials interviewed in this study were enthusiastic supporters of the high-stakesassessment, believing it to be a successful staff development tool for teachers and a motivating strategy forstudents. By contrast, Noble and Smith (1994) report a more controversial story, suggesting that Arizona's newassessments arc having the same narrowing effect on the curriculum as the traditional assessments did.

14

EeaturnsiSLatrla in Arizona Districts

The Arizona sites in this study are two neighboring districts located in the Tucson

metropolitan area in the southeastern part of the state. Both serve highly diverse populations. The

Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) is in the city's urban core, and the Sunnyside Unified School

District (SUSD) is located in an economically disadvantaged community on the outskirts of the city.'

Sunnyside and Tucson anchor both Chapter 1 and their local reforms in community-centered

goal setting and strategic planning processes. The districts align their curriculums with the Essential

Skills and with the ASAP. Their organizational structures place Chapter 1 personnel in roles as

mentors and program facilitators, helping colleagues connect the state and district assessment

procedures to the regular education of disadvantaged students. The local research departments

provide schools with evaluation data for school planning and classroom use.

Sunnyside and Tucson Chapter 1 programs offer preschool and extended-day kindergartens,

literature- and writing-based language arts programs, hands-on mathematics, and professional

develot ment. SUSD incorporates complementary ideas from a variety of innovations supporting the

education of students at risk, including cooperative learning, behavior management strategies that

involve the whole class in problem solving, and strategies that emphasize the teacher's role as

knowledgeable decision maker and guide. TUSD is eyperimenting with multi-age primary classes

organized around interdisciplinary projects and various parent education and involvement programs.

including special programs for four-year-olds and their families. It also has invested extensively in

Reading Recovery and its Spanish-language counterpart, Descubriendo La Lecrura, an intensive

program that enables students to acquire the problem-solving habitsand the resulting competence - -of

good readers by the end of first grade.

Chapter I instruction in Sunnyside occurs within regular classrooms. using targeted Chapter 1

programs. When the district reviewed options for serving Chapter 1 students, it determined that

targeted programs conducted within regular classroomsmore than schoolwide projectsmaximize the

quality of instruction for students. Chapter 1 program facilitatorshighly regarded master teachers- -

manage Chapter 1 services by helping teachers and aides upgrade the quality of in-class instruction

for all students, especially the lowest achievers. Chapter 1 instructional aides work under the

' SUSD enrolls about 13.300 students in grades preK-12. About 80 percent of the students are minorities:72 percent Hispanic, 3 percent African American, 3 percent Native American. Nearly 65 percent of thestudents qualify for free or reduced-price lunches TUSD enrolls about 57,000 students in grades preK-12.About 48 percent of the students are minorities: 37 percent Hispanic, 6 percent African American, 4 percentNative American, and 2 percent Asian. Almost 44 percent of students receive free or reduced-price lunches.

15

supervision of classroom teachers in regular classrooms and before and after school with small groups

of children, some of whom may not be in Chapter 1.

This approach makes Chapter I program facilitators also the key change agents within

schools. They keep informed about new instructional techniques and the evolution of state assessment

and scoring methods for mathematics, reading, and language arts, and they lead ongoing, school-

based staff development that promotes the adoption of innovations districtwide. Facilitators also offer

continuing professional guidance to instructional assistants and tutors in each Chapter 1 school and

support the outreach function of parent-involvement assistants. Sunnyside's district-level research and

evaluation division is a significant resource to Chapter 1, documenting student progress in each SUSD

school and periodically providing item analyses of student achievement on school district assessments.

Schools also use the DAP results to monitor their progress on district goals.

Tucson takes a different approach to intensifying services for Chapter 1 students and

coordinating them with state reforms. Since the late 1980s, Tucson has encouraged all schools to

adopt schoolwide project models, and by 1993-94, only schools with more than 80 percent of the

students receiving free or reduced-price lunches participated in Chapter 1. As in Sunnyside, Chapter

1 staff are instructional support teachers and professional developers. TUSD's Chapter 1 is based on

the "whole school concept" and aims to provide services so well integrated into the routine of the

whole school as to make the program "virtually transparent" (TUSD. 1994, p. 1).

Tucson makes Chapter 1 indistinguishable from the regular program by selecting from an

array of approaches that fit a schoolwide emphasis: small class size, multi-age primary groups.

extended-year schedules with inter-session enrichment activities, and six Family Resource and

Wellness Centers scattered in or near schools throughout the city. TUSD's bilingual education policy

maintains students' non-English language resources while developing their English-speaking skills.

Because so many Chapter 1 participants are limitc". in their English proficiency, Chapter 1 funds

some bilingual teachers who teach in students' home languages.

Principals report that Tucson's goals and its annual strategic planning cycleknown as

ACTion 2000are prominent considerations in school-level decisions about improving educational

services for students at risk. Schools annually write improvement plans that area superintendents

review to verify that the locally and externally funded programs are fully coordinated. The district

encourages school plans that advance within-school collaboration and principal participation in

instructional planning. The emphasis on reflective planning has led many schools to value the

opportunity to participate in Chapter 1 "program improvement", recognizing the potential of the

16

25

technical assistance and the small grants from the state Chapter 1 office to improve their

organizational and instructional capacity.

California

Slate Reform

California's current education reform began in 1983 with Senate Bill 813, an omnibus reform

package including more than 80 provisions for improving the state's elementary and secondary

schools. The state's "curriculum frameworks" were among the many changes intended to expand

educational opportunities and upgrade the content and quality of instruction for all students.

Provisions also included financial incentives for local school districts to extend the school day and

year, more stringent high school graduation requirements, higher teacher salaries, authorization for

school district -based teacher training programs to alleviate severe shortages of qualified instructors,

and a new professional category called "mentor teachers." In the same year. California began

introducing changes in curriculum, textbooks, testing, and professional development that constitute the

major elements of today's systemic reforms (California Department of Education (CDE), 1993a).

California's curriculum frameworks are unique. Written over a ten-year period by teams of

state and national curriculum experts, the frameworks embody "constructivist" learning theory

advocating active roles for learnersand outline new "thinking /meaning" curriculums that require

students to apply what they know to practical situations. Their purpose is to delineate changes in the

content and processes of teaching in all major subjects and to demonstrate the shift to new, research-

based instructional strategies. Over the years, the frameworks have become the foundation for

preservice teacher education and certification, textbooks, instructional materials and technology,

teacher and administrator staff development, and collaborations of subject matter experts.

By 1994, the CDE had issued eight frameworksEnglish/language arts, mathematics, science,

health education, history and social sciences, foreign languages, the arts, and physical education.

Curriculum revision is ongoing in California, occurring cyclically every eight years in every

discipline. The 1993 update of the language arts frameworkadding appendices on phonics and

instructional grouping to address concerns raised about the earlier version of the frameworkbrought

all the state's frameworks through at least one full cycle of revision since framework-guided

curriculum began in the early 1980s.

17

2C

interlocking "subject matter projects"teacher networksare vehicles for disseminating the

best caching methods using the frameworks. The subject matter projects connect the state's most

talented teachers and colleagues in the universities in a process that expands their knowledge base and

pedagogic expertise, enabling the teachers to share what they have learned with colleagues in their

schools. The networks thereby become a resource all teachers can use to increase their knowledge of

curriculum and pedagogy collaboratively. The California Math Project, a prototype "subject matter"

project launched in the early 1980s, is an example of this strategy at work. It operates at 17 sites for

three to four weeks at a time, linking "teacher leaders" with university- and district-based

mathematics educators. It has been a major discipline-based resource for teachers trying to learn the

content and pedagogy they need to incorporate California's mathematics framework and the national

mathematics standards into their classroom routine.

Curriculum frameworks in California significantly predated the state's new assessment

program, so the California Learning Assessment System (CLAS) was orpnized around the

frameworks' curriculum and instruction recommendations. CLAS was a framework-aligned.

performance-based assessment system that was plagued by funding shortfalls and political controversy

almost from its inception. While it had strong advocates among framework users and reform leaders,

some citizen groups objected to a number of its features. CLAS detractors criticized it first for using

open-ended questions that require students to reflect on and, in some people's view, inappropriately

argue a point of view or a set of beliefs. Second, critics objected that students took a sample of the

total test in each subjectnot the entire testso that statewide progress could be evaluated but

individual student achievement could not be. This approach minimized the ,:.sting time for individual

students and reduced costs, but it precluded giving parents progress indicators on their children.

Finally, claims that CLAS failed to provide "reliable individual student scores . . . and an appropriate

mix of questions designed to assess students' mastery of basic skills . . ." (DiMarco, 1994, p 36) led

the governor to put C.° testing program on hold by vetoing its funding in the summer of 1994. The

governor assured citizens that the delay of CLAS was only temporary, however, pending plans to

adjust the test in response to their concerns (Olsen, 1994, p. 13). A problem with this delay is that

schoolsincluding those with Chapter 1 programswere, by 1995, without a framework-based

assessment tool for evaluating progress toward the state's curriculum standards.

Still, the Chapter 1 program is not deterred by the problems facing CLAS. The state office

advocates that districts use the frameworks as the foundation of Chapter 1, assuming that all students

can learn the content the frameworks define to achieve proficiency on assessments (Walker. 1993) It

sets a priority on helping Chapter 1 schools adopt the state curriculum goals by helping schools

coordinate Chapter 1 resources, state reforms, and frameworks-based instruction. The state office

considers schoolwide Chapter 1 projects the best approach to ensure all students achieve to the same

18

4

academic goals. "Our function," the state Chapter 1 director explains, is to "train school people on

how to plan, how to implement schoolwide projects, and how to get parents involved." Besides

technical assistance that stresses schoolwide implementation, Chapter 1 has an especially well-

developed program of joint state-local assistance with program improvement.

California's ten Chapter 1 service regions are school districts' technical-assistance partners.

Through the service regions, the state Chapter 1 office hosts quarterly meetings on such issues as

interpreting ESEA rules and regulations, alternative assessment, and instructional strategies that

support low-achieving students. Exemplary Chapter 1 schools are showcased at annual California

Compensatory Education Achieving Schools conferences. To complement its own activities, the state

Chapter 1 office collaborates extensively with county and district education offices to coordinate state

and local reform. The state Chapter 1 office also funds participation by 40 schools in the state's

Program Improvement Initiative and strongly encourages schools to join the Elementary Alliance, one

of California's many reform-oriented professional development networks.

Integration of Chapter 1 with the state's basic education program is further encouraged by two

complementary monitoring and review processes. The Consolidated Compliance Review (CCR)

serves a monitoring function for categorically funded programs, and the Program Quality Review

(PQR) helps all schools evaluate their instruction and curriculum. Since 1984, school districts have

been required to complete the CCR for all categorical programs, including Chapter 1, state

compensatory education, and bilingual education (CDE, I993c). Every four years, districts review

core programs and services provided to low-achieving students to determine whether student programs

are coherent and coordinated, to demonstrate that students in categorically funded programs also have

access to the core curriculum, and to verify that supplemental funding streams are interconnected.

The goal of the PQR ". . . is to enable the entire school community to focus, through extensive

discussion and self-examination, on how curriculum and instruction can be improved so that all

students in the school can be fully engaged in a high - quality thinking, meaning-centered curriculum"

(School Improvement Office, 1993, p. 2). Through this review, schools examine and compare

samples of student work in one specific curriculum area with the vision in the corresponding state

curriculum framework and with additional PQR criteria. The faculty-led PQR process leads schools

to develop a multiyear improvement plan, incorporating the recommendations that emerge from the

self-examination.

PQR is also a tool for Chapter 1 program improvement. The state's 1989 Chapter 1 program

improvement plan recommends each identified school analyze its general education program, compare

it with PQR quality standards, and assess how effectively it uses categorical resources to strengthen

its regular instructional program.

19

`a),

Features of Chapter 1 in California Districts

We visited two California districts for this study, Hayward Unified School District (HUSD),

located in a low-wealth small town ten miles south of Oakland, and Long Beach Unified School

District (LBUSD) in Los Angeles County.' Like other California districts, both faced severe budget

cuts and continuing fiscal austerity in recent years. In response, top managers turned to local

educators and communities to help make the tough decisions about how to maintain the effectiveness

of schools in the face of continuing budget reductions.

Both districts favor schoolwide and in-class Chapter 1 strategies, along with extending the

time students spend in school through year-round and before- and after-school programs. Chapter 1

resources also supplement the two districts' continuing involvement in state-sponsored staff

development and discipline-based networks. A striking feature of these districts is that many of their

leaders served in Chapter 1 programs earlier in their careers. Experience in Chapter 1 is a highly

regarded jumping-off point for moving up the organizational ladderfrom school Chapter 1 facilitator

to principal and, later, to the district office. As a result, top-level district personnel are alert to the

effect systemwide policies might have on Chapter 1 as well as to how Chapter 1 helps achieve district

goals.

At the elementary school level, Hayward's Chapter 1 program serves students within

classrooms, advocating in-class and schoolwide strategies, and it relies on connecting state and locally

developed curriculum frameworks to achieve this goal. The district has long relied on professional

development to maintain high-quality compensatory education, and funding limits have not changed

this focus. The district sends representatives to the state's PQR training so that all schoolsincluding

all Chapter 1 schoolsprepare for a year for the outside review before it is formally implemented. In

many schools, the teacher mentor program and Wednesday afternoon staff meetings are resources for

coordination and capacity building. The district also relies on the county office for many professional

development services. As a result, even in fiscally restricted times, teachers can access a

Hayviare serves roughly 20,000 students. Approximately 44 percent of the students are white, 31 percentare Hispanic. 17 percent are African American, and 16 percent are Asian. Filipino, and Pacific Islander.Approximately 38 percent of the students have limited English proficiency, most speaking Spanish orVietnamese. Almost one-half of Hayward students qualify for free and reduced-price lunches. Long Beachenrolls almost 78,000 students. The student population is 36 percent Hispanic, 23 percent white.19 percent African American, 16 percent Asian. 3 percent Filipino, and 2 percent Pacific Islander. About one-third of the students have limited English proficiency; many speak Spanish or Cambodian at home.

20

smorgasbord of professional opportunities such as conferences on linguistics, informational lectures on

conducting PQR, classes on the learning styles of second-language learners, and seminars on

curriculum development.

One Hayward schoolwide program offers programs before and after school and staggers

student schedules to reduce the student-teacher ratio in reading and mathematics classes. When this

strategy is used, half of the school's students begin reading class at 8:30 a.m., and the others arrive at

9:30 a,m. In some schools, usually during a reading or mathematics period, an instructional assistant

joins the regular teacher for more one-on-one teaching. Other schools lower their student-teacher

ratios through the joint efforts of the resource teacher in the computer laboratory, the regular teacher,

and one instructional assistant. Tutoring programs and sheltered-English mathematics and science

also target Hayward's large limited-English speaking population. Mentor teachers in Chapter 1

schools meet one-on-one with colleagues while substitute teachers, funded by categorical funds,

supervise classes. At a junior high, however, Chapter 1 services are more traditional, consisting of a

computer lab that pulls students out of other classes to practice basic skills and learn computer

application.

In Long Beach, literacy has been a major Chapter 1 focus in recent years. To start beginning

readers properly, the district has formally adopted Reading Recovery for its Chapter 1 schoolwide

programs. Besides investing in the long-term training required for teachers to implement this one-on-

one tutoring program, Long Beach has participated in the pilot of the Spanish version of Reading

Recovery, Descubriendo La Lecture. Through a 12-week program, "Early Literacy lnservice

Course" (ELIC), Chapter 1 has trained virtually all primary teachers to apply Reading Recovery

principles in the larger classroom context. Training sessions include demonstrations and peer

coaching. Intermediate teachers take a course using a similar format, "Literacy and Learning

lnservice: Four to Eight" (LLIFE), which extends this approach to support the literacy development

of older students. Also widespread in LBUSD Chapter 1 schools are interdisciplinary teaching,

reading and writing across the curriculum, hands-on science and mathematics, and cooperative

learning. Where students are limited in their English proficiency, these innovative practices are

conducted in students' primary languages.

LBUSD annually creates school report cards, called 'Performance Review Indicators for

Strategic Management" (PRISM), to show how the major elements of the schools' comprehensive

program helps students achieve district objectives. For each school, the report identifies the mission.

presents student outcome data and other evidence of success, and lists activities coinciding with school

objectives. When school improvement falls below identified goals, the LBUSD research office helps

schools target instruction by distributing Chapter 1 test score information and "Student Improvement

21

30

Listings" created from district and Chapter 1 data. The district also makes extensive use of the

regional educational laboratory and the subject matter projects at nearby state university campuses.

Finally, Long Beach is developing local curriculum and performance standards in all subjects, a

process that includes Chapter 1 teachers.

Kentucky

State Reform

The 1990 Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) overhauled the state education system in

response to a 1988 lawsuit by 66 school districts challenging the constitutionality of the state's public

school financing. Under the banner "world-class standards for world-class kids," the state instituted 3

reform with ten interlocking components, including curriculum and assessment programs organized

around six broad goals and 57 accompanying academic expectations.' The academic expectations

summarize "what Kentuckians want all students to be able to do with what they know" (Kentucky

Department of Education (KDE), n.d.). A curriculum guide, JaugInsn tio (KDE, 1993), is an

extensive resource for designing local curriculums, planning instruction on the academic expectations,

and recommending new pedagogical processes and in-class evaluation strategies. The guide also

advises teachers how to incorporate into their teaching new instructional materials, technology,

community resources, and alternative ways of using time in school.

KERA funded reform through a combination of state and local taxes. A one-cent sales tax,

earmarked for KERA implementation, increased education funding by a total of S950 million from

1990 to 1992, with each school district receiving at least a 12-percent increase in support (NGA,

1993). Districtsespecially poor onesreceived as much as 25-percent increases in funds for staff

development, family and youth resource centers, reduced class size (especially in the primary grade),

and site-based management (SBM) councils.

The state measures stu. in educational progress annually through the Kentucky Instructional

Results Information System (KIRIS), a three-pronged sessment system that is largely performance-

based but also includes multiple-choice questions, she answer essays, and portfolios of student work

° Since 1990 academic expectations and their ensuing names have changed several times. Because of publicconcern over various aspects of the outcomes-based program, the original 75 "learner outcomes" were revisedby dropping the affective outcomes not measured on the state test and recasting remaining outcomes as 57"academic expectations' (Kentucky Department of Education, 1994).

22

31

1. :2' 'AI

in writing and mathematics. KIRIS is an innovative accountability program that establishes a progress

standard for schools on the basis of a combination of test minks and measures of attendance and

graduation rates. By 1996, according to KERA, rewards or sanctions will be distributed to schools

and districts according to their achievement results on both cognitive and noncognitive measures

(KDE, 1994a; 1994c).

Although Kentucky's curriculum guide and KIM have received widespread national

attention. other lesser-known facets of KERA are also having significant impact, including: early

childhood programs with preschools for four-year-olds from low-income families; continuous progress

elementary programs merging kindergarten, first, and second grades into single, primary-grade

classrooms; new professional certification and staff development for teachers and administrator s;

school-based decision making; upgraded technology to electronically connect schools, districts, :And

the state; investment in other new educational technology; community and business partnerships;

improved social services, including in-school family and youth services centers; and several programs

restructuring state and local school governance, management, and financing. These programs mark a

radical and rapid change in the state, away from traditional basic skills-oriented instruction toward

developmental, content-focused approaches. Explaining the change, a state administrator observed:

We're in a revolution in this state. There's been a major shift in the goals. We've headed towriting an IEP for every child. We need to go through many stages of learning before weachieve the goals.... At the same time, our population is becoming more at risk.... We'reone-fifth into the process, and we're on track, but it's tough.

After KERA took effect, the state Chapter 1 office was merged into the office of the Deputy

Commissioner for Learning Support Services. The reorganization connected regular education and

Chapter 1 to improve program development and coordination. Chapter 1 refrained its guidelines for

districts to better coordinate federal and state initiatives. focusing local attention on the new KERA

academic expectations and KIRIS. "KERA really caused us to relook at the federal Chapter 1 law,"

explained a state official. "We took the law as it was written and pushed it as far as we could." The

state office also encouraged schools to use five core teaching strategies to organize instruction:

acceleration, higher-order thinking, in-class services, variable teaching and learning approaches. and

valuing diversity and learner strengths: and it distributed translation guides to convert planning,

evaluation, and reporting into terms consistent with KERA mandates.

Both the high visibility and high stakes of the state's new assessment system achieve the goal

of focusing attention on the state's content standards--its testable achievement expectations (KDE,

1994b). At the same time, state funding for professional development reinforces this focus. ',CERA

allocated four inservice days to all teachers, and local districts may opt to allocate up to five

23

0nJ c-

additional days to professional development that advances teachers' understanding of the new content

standards and assessment strategies. By law, districts must develop a local plan for professional

development connected directly to school and district needs assessments. Statewide consortia are

offering the training schools and districts request, using both Chapter 1 and regular education staff as

course leaders. Added to what is available from Chapter 1, state funded professional development

increases the range and depth of staff development, brings specialism into buildings, and sends

teachers out of the classroom to observe innovative programs in other locales.

One problem reformers face in undertaking such massive change is that so much simultaneous

innovation requires fine-tuning new procedures and policies continuously until they are efficiently in

place. "Mistakes will be made," implementation leaders caution, especially with the use of a

powerful technolog: such as MIS that has many componentstest items, administration procedures,

reporting formats, and programinir.g requirements, among others. Furthermore, many constituencies

need to be served, some who will support the changes once they understand them, others who may

sharply criticize them. Friendly and adversarial critics question every phase of implementation.

Nevertheless, KERA reforms have remained largely intact, despite a close race between the process

of refining the system technically (KDE, 1993c) and the continuing public criticism that threatens it

(Harp, 1994). A state assessment staff member acknowledged he and his colleagues keep coming

back to this persistent question about Kentucky's process:

The public policy issue is this: Can you live with a system that's imperfect, where some ofthe rewards in any given year may be unjustalthough, over time, the imperfections will evenout? Will the public tolerate the ambiguities that are inherent in the process?

33

24

Features of Chapter 1 in Kentucky Districts

Christian and Fayette Counties are two Kentucky districts in which KERA, local reform, and

Chapter 1 complement one another.' Christian County, in western Kentucky, is largely a rural

county, even though its county seat. Hopkinsville, is the sixth-largest city in the state. Fayette

County, located in central Kentucky, is the home of the University of Kentucky and Transylvania

University, and near several other state universities. Fayette is an educated, suburban county with an

inner-city core of low-income families.

Chapter 1 programs have been a source of these districts' innovations for many years,

sponsoring a number of KERA-like initiatives well before 1990. "Chapter 1 has been a model for us.

Even before KERA, Chapter 1 was going into classrooms," explained Fayette's curriculum director.

A Christian County principal reported similarly, "Chapter 1 preceded much of what KERA asked us

to do." Notably, both counties emphasized strong staff development, early childhood education,

problem-based teaching and learning, outcomes-oriented instruction, and site-based decision making.

Still, KERA mandates pushed those reforms forward with new resources, technology. staff

development, family resource and youth services centers, and SBM councils. The KERA ungraded

primary for students in kindergarten through grade three stresses the same developmentally

appropriate teaching strategies that Chapter 1 programs were already advocating.

Christian and Fayette are both developing local curriculum guides to reflect the academic

expectations of the state's curriculum framework. Pending the completion of the local guides,

projected to take several years, district leaders are using the guidance in Transformations to encourage

a diversified repertoire of teaching strategies, including favoring trade and theme books over basal

readers to tearn reading, increased student writing, and mathematics and writing portfolios.

The thrust of Cnapter 1 in Christian County is on in-class support, but the program is

flexible enough so that classroom teachers can ask Chapter 1 staff to assist small groups of students

outside the classroom when necessary. In 1994-95, Christian County inaugurated its first Chapter 1

schoolwide projects. Other examples of Chapter 'I and regular program coordination in Christian

County are the jointly sponsored county and Chapter 1 adult education program and an annual family

reading night that drew more than 300 parents in 1994. Chapter 1 hired the county's first two nurses

' Christian County Public Schools serve 11,000 students in grades preK-12, 52 percent of whom receivefree or reduced-price school lunches, and 38 percent of whom are African American. Fayette County PublicSchools enroll more than 33,000 students; 30 percent are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. The studentpopulation is 76 percent white, 22 percent African American, and 2 percent from various other ethnic groups.

25

3.1

to serve Chapter 1 schools, inspiring the district to adopt nursing services as a district-funded

program.

Fayette's Chapter 1 teachers also collaborate with regular education teachers, offering

identified Chapter 1 students both in-class assistance and supplemental tutoring. Three schoolwide

projects began in 1989, and several schools look forward to the eligibility level dropping below 75

percent poverty (as provided in the 1994 legislation reauthorizing Title I) so that they can qualify.

Fayette's Chapter 1 program concentrates its resources on core areas of reading, language arts, and

mathematics achievement, using an array of components: an extended primary program for 15

kindergartners at 21 sites; reading and mathematics "advantage" programs offering students whole-

language reading reinforcement within classrooms; manipulative-based mathematics tutorials; and

compensatory reading and mathematics for students in centers serving neglected and delinquent

children.

Christian and Fayette elementary schools installed computer laboratories with KERA funds,

expanding throughout the districts the very successful Chapter 1-piloted Accelerated Reader program,

a reading program that rewards students for the number and difficulty of high-quality children's books

they read. Christian County installed Jostens computer laboratories in each school and staffed them

with Chapter 1 aides. Fayette's Chapter 1 also makes computers available to eligible students in 11

of its schools by purchasing software that supports higher-order thinking and writing.

Coordinating KERA reforms and Chapter 1 in these districts advanced policies of "inclusion"

and "coliaboration"both techniques for strengthening program coordinationthat the Chapter 1

offices had been advocating for some time. The 1992 federal policy modification accepting incidental

contact of Chapter 1 teachers with non-Chapter 1 students finally relaxed remaining local restraints on

placing programs within classrooms, reflecting the integration of resources KERA had advocated.

Maryland

State Reform

"Schools for Success" is the name of the Maryland reform program that evolved out of the

1989 report of the Governor's Commission on School Performance (Maryland State Department of

Education (MSDE), 1991). The report proposed sweeping recommendations for making

accountability in Maryland "the fundamental ingredient for reform" (MSDE, 1993b, p. 4). Initiatives

introduced in 1989 included school improvement through site-based school improvement teams

26

(SITs), early childhood education, a focus on the education of at-risk students, and integrated

education and family services for students. At the system's core is an extensive accountability

structure, including a new performance assessment system and specified cognitive and noncognitive

criteria that schools must meet. Schools that do not meet the standards by 1996 are expected to face

restructuring or "reconstitution" (MSDE, 1993a).

The state's performance program incorporates five elements that structure school

improvement. They include: (1) providing information to measure school performance; (2)

establishing performance standarus that each school must meet; (3) publishing the Maryland School

Performance Program Report so communities can monitor schools' progress toward state standards;

(4) requiring school-based improvement planning to reform curriculum and instruction; and (5)

establishing a review system to recognize schools achieving or making exceptional progress toward

achieving the state standards while levying sanctions on schools whose students fail to meet state

standards. The implementation details for most components were just being worked out as this study

was conducted, so we were not able to observe the impact of the new programs.

Two assessment components that have a several-year implementation history are the

Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP) and the state's Functional Tests in

reading, writing, mathematics, and citizenship (MSDE, 19936). A performance-based test. MSPAP

is designed to change teaching by measuring school achievement with group and individual learning

tasks like those that state and national curriculum groups recommend using routinely. Based on the

Maryland learning outcomes adopted by the State Board of Education in 1990, the MSPAP tests

critical thinking and problem-solving achievement with applied tasks and practical problems. In 1994,

the MSPAP was administered for the third year. The Maryland Functional Tests, in existence since

the mid-1980s, are similarly "alipied' to the state's instructional program. but they concentrate on

assessing the attainment of "basic competencies" (MSDE, 1993c). Students must pass the Functional

Tests before they can graduate. Previously administered during high school, the Functional Tests are

being conducted in middle schools for the first time in 1994, and students will retake them annually

until they pass.

The Maryland School Performance Report (MSPR) (MSDE. 1993c) is the centerpiece of the

accountability reporting system. Since 1991, it has tracked school and district performance. The

state agency summarizes countywide data and forwards computerized score reports to the counties for

distribution to schools and the public. A state report documents countywide measures of

achievement, attendance, promotion, high school completion. and postsecondary decisions. Also

recorded is supporting information about schools and districts, including population characteristics,

school readiness, the number of students receiving special services, and financial and staffing data.

27

Two levels ;ten establit'l-d for student performance on the state's assessment tests, "excellent"

and "satisfactory." Although the specific criteria for achieving these levels vary by grade and test,

school pass rates must exceed 90 percent for a satisfactory rating and exceed 95 percent for an

excellent rating for schools to reach the state standard. The MSPAP standards for students were to be

set during the period in which this study was conducted, but they were not available at the time of

this report (MSDE, 1993b).

According to state officials, Chapter 1 influenced Maryland's accountability-focused reform

and its strategy for assisting low-performing schools. With its experience in goal setting, school

improvement through school-site teams, and school-based planning, Chapter 1 served as an example

for the state's evolving statewide compensatory education program. Chapter 1 students must achieve

the same high standards as all other students in Maryland, and the state has begun to use school

improvement teams to integrate all student services around improvement goals for schools serving

high-risk populations. The state Chapter 1 office advocates a fully integrated approach to Chapter 1,

requiring LEAs to show how their services enable students to reaLh the state's "challenging

performance standards expected of all children" (MSDE, 1994, p. 34). It promotes flexibility and

student responsiveness as the standard for determining how LEAs will meet students,' needs for

supplementary services, preferring schoolwide and in-class program models. Officials stated that in

the past Maryland's strong local control has minimized the impact of the state organization on some

local programs. Nevertheless, during " e past year, the state superintendent convened a study panel

on Chapter 1 that recommended aggressively connecting Chapter 1 with state improvement initiatives

(Grasmick, 1994). The study resulted in a timetable of activities that will coordinate statewide school

improvement requirementsincluding planning, assessment, and curriculum coordinationwith those

required by the federal Chapter 1 program.

Features of Chapter r in a Maryland i

We studied Chapter 1 in Frederick County because of its leadership in developing a Chapter 1

program that is integrated with a well-aligned state and local curriculum and assessment system. The

district is a Maryland suburban community located about 60 miles from Washington. D.C.' Its

Frederick County is the largest in Maryland and comprises a mix of =all city, suburban, and ruralcommunities. In 1992-93, Frederick County schools enrolled 29.297 students, 13.5 percent of whom qualifiedfor free or reduced-price lunches. Ninety percent of the students are white. 7 percent are African American.and 3 percent are other minorities, mostly Asian immigrants. Chapter I served 986 students, 3.4 percent of thetotal enrollment.

challenges are typical of many near-city districts with small Chapter 1 programs: to seamlessly

coordinate Chapter 1 and regular education so that the program's small number of students is free of

stigma or label, and so that the district meets its obligation to bring achievement levels of all students

up to the high standards the state has set.

Frederick sets "essential discipline goals" and course objectives for each grade level. Goals

and objectives are prescriptive and detailed, specifying precisely the skills students are expected to

demonstrate. To measure progress toward the goals, the district in 1989 created the Criterion-

Referenced Evaluation System (CRES), a locally designed system of criterion-referenced,

performancebased assessments measuring students' mastery of the essential curriculum. The

assessments are a vehicle for shifting from using letter grades as evidence of success to setting high

mastery standards on the CRES as the achievement requirement. The local tests are also aligned with

the MSPAP.

Teachers use CRES to diagnose student learning problems, to guide instruction, and to

evaluate student mastery of course objectives. CRES results are annually reported to the public,

along with information about schools' achievement on the state Functional Tests and the MSPAP and

reports of attendance, dropout rates, and Algebra 1 completion rates. The CRES assessments have

basic skills, multiple-choice, and performance-based components, and emphasize critical thinking,

problem solving, and communication.

Local educators regard Chapter 1 as a tool to use in serving at-risk students. The program is

small, but Frederick's Chapter 1 is highly integrated with the regular program, even without the

benefit of a schoolwide project option. The county concentrates Chapter 1 resources in the early

childhood years, serving preK-3 students, shifting seven years ago from a pull-out program to a team-

teaching approach. After a series of meetings with federal officials, Frederick County clarified

procedures for using team teaching and a locally designed criterion-referenced test as the basis of

Chapter 1. The program supports the local "essential" curriculum and uses performance on CRES,

along with other measures, to select its students. It also sets desired outcomes on the basis of student

mastery of the essential curriculum as measured by CRES.

In grades 1-3, classes enrolling students eligible for Chapter I have two full-time certified

teachers, and they comprise roughly equal numbers of Chapter 1 and non-Chapter 1 students. There

is no "Chapter 1 teacher" designated to work with low-achieving students; both teachers take

responsibility for working with all students in the classroom, giving intensive one-on-one and small-

group instruction to Chapter 1 students as they need it. To ensure that Chapter 1 serves only eligible

29

c

students, teachers and supervisors closely track instruction for Chapter 1-identified students through a

planning and monitoring process called REEM (Reinforce, Extend, Enrich, and Modify)

Two schools offer a prekindergarten program that is funded jointly by Chapter 1 and Head

Start; Chapter 1 pays for the cognitive component of the program by providing a certified early

childhood teacher, and Head Stan pays for transportation, health, food, social services, and a

classroom aide. hi another Chapter 1 program component, paraprofessionals work as classroom aides

in Kindergarten classrooms that enroll Chapter 1 students. Chapter 1 and the local board of education

also fund a number of full-day kindergarten classes for students most at risk, community liaisons in

each school, activity/book/toy libraries, and Chapter 1 summer school.

New York

ataleakeintm

The most recent reforms in New York expand on the themes of previous ones, including

innovation in teaching, high standards of achievement for all students, systemic planning and

accountability, and parent involvement in governance. In 1984, the state's Board of Regents adopted

an aggressive action plan that established test-based minimum competencies; tougher graduation

requirements; ambitious academic goals measured by formalized assessments; and annual student,

school, and district accountability. Despite these substantial efforts, problems persisted.

In early 1990, the Commissioner of Education and the Regents reached into the community to

draw up A New Compact for Learning (NCL)a package of statewide commitments that would

"reconceive" New York's educational system (New York State Education Department/University of

the State of New York, 1992, p. 2). In redefining the state's strategies for achieving its education

goals, NCL placed greater emphasis on learner-centered curriculum and assessment and sought to

establish clearer responsibilities for the many community constituencies involved in education. As in

other states, the vision of the NCL embraces the assumption that all children can learn. Moreover,

the NCL plans to make teaching and learning more responsive to students by changing how

government agencies support children and schools. Two ideas summarize the central themes of the

NCL. First, there will be "top down support for bottom up reform"meaning that policy makers and

teaching professionals will become partners in change; and, second, government agencies and

communities will together create an environmentbecome the "whole village"in which children can

thrive.

30

3 9

The NCL did not change the Regents' Action Plan of 1984; instead, it established new

approaches to achieving it. With the blessing of the Commissioner, the Regents, and the state

legislature, innovative praaitioners took the resources allocated for reform to plan and try out over

the next several years new ways to achieve the NCL goals. The NCL is not a quick fix; it is a long-

range commitment that will evolve gradually, following the direction of statewide advisory task forces

and learning from local innovations. A state official acknowledged that its implementation will take

"up to the lip of the next century." The key feature of the New Compact is that districts and schools,

not the state, will spearhead local changes. The state education agency has been reorganized into

field services teams to integrate its direct support of local efforts. Advisory committees are

convening across the state under the auspices of the Commissioner of Education and the Regents to

draft, propose, and, in some cases, pilot local implementations of NCL goals. State-sponsored

reforms that districts and schools are trying include: changing the state's assessment systems; drafting

new curriculum frameworks in seven fields9 (mathematics, science, and technology; social studies;

and English/language arts are being completed in 1994); establishing a School Quality Review

Initiative t provide the expert assistance of experienced peers for schools committed to improvement;

revising the process for obtaining variances from certain state regulations; piloting workforce-

preparation programs; and sponsoring partnerships to help schools implement the New Compact.

Chapter 1 is one of a number of state and federal instructional support programs that fund

district-level initiatives on behalf of at-risk students in New York, and it is integral to the state's

strategy for serving its educationally disadvantaged population. Since 1985, New York's

compensatory-education policy has emphasized these elements: (1) programs that are "congruent"

with regular education, establishing a clear connection between compensatory and regular classroom

activities; (2) a focus on measuring student success in regular classrooms; (3) support for building-

level change, primarily by investing in schoolwide projects; and (4) accountability-based school

planning. Especially with the adoption of NCL, Chapter 1 is designed to promote flexibility and to

maximize the coordination of districts' services. As a result, the state strongly encourages the

adoption of schoolwide Chapter 1 projects and a number of in-class strategies for coordinating

resources to maximize the benefit for students.

The seven fields that will have frameworks are mathematics. science, and technology, English/languagearts; social studies; languages other than English; arts and humanities; health, physical education, and homeeconomics; and technical and occupational studies.

31

4

Features of Chapter 1 in New York Districts

We visited two districts in New York StateCommunity School District One (CSDI) in New

York City, and Niagara Falls City School District (NFCSD) in upstate New York.' Both districts

have long-standing reputations as innoN. :tors. Having benefitted from innovation in the past, leaders

in these districts welcomed the message of the NCL. The two districts contrast markedly in the

stability of their leadership, however. Niagara's top managers and school board members have

established long tenures with the school system. Many were born and raised in Niagara and have

spent most of their careers in the Niagara area. Although schools in CSDI are also staffed by

veterans who live in or near the district's lower East Side New York schools, at the time of the study,

the superintendent and his top staff were relative newcomers, brought into the district in 1990 by a

"reform" school board."

Community-written goals and action plans guide both districts, laying out high expectations

for student achievement. Since 1990, CSDI followed an action plan known as the Blueprint for

Progress (updated in 1993) that called for an array of educational innovations such as: project-based

and exploratory learning; whole-language reading and language arts; interdisciplinary and

multicultural instruction; and districtwide professional development for all employees, including

teachers, principals, district administrators, and clerical staff (CSDI, 1993). In 1992, Niagara

adopted Standards of Excellence for students, defining graduates will demonstrate "proficiency

and competence" in 14 fields of knowledge: computation, communication, science, literature.

history, geography, vocabulary, civics/government, health, cultures, environment, technology, second

language, and human resources (NFCSD, 1994). In addition, to meet graduation requirements.

students must participate in political, economic, and social institutions: demonstrate that they know

'° CSDI serves a 97-percent minority, multicultural, and multilingual population of 10,323 students.Seventy percent of the students are Hispanic. 15 percent are African American. 9 percent are Asian American.and 5 percent are white; 21 percent of the population have limited English proficiency. The major languagesspoken by students include Spanish, Chinese, and Bengali. More than 80 percent of CSDI students live in low-income families, and Chapter 1 serves about half of its student enrollment. Of Niagara's 9,000 students, 67percent are white, 28 percent are African American, and 5 percent are other minorities. Only 1 percent havelimited English proficiency. Almost half the NFCSD student population is eligible for free or reduced-pncelunches, although only about one-quarter of its students are enrolled in Chapter I.

" By the time we concluded this study, the politics of reform in CSDI had shifted. Another electionbrought a new balance f power on the school board, including a faction that declined to renew thesuperintendent's contract. The sudden shift in leadership meant the third change of super' -endents in less thanfive years, leaving uncertain the fate of reforms begun in 1991. Still, according to local sources, the school-based initiatives we observed seemed to have sustained the shift in the district's top managementat lean for thetime being. Principals in the most innovative schools we visited credit their schools' stability to parents'commitment and to the determination of their administrative trams.

32

how to use and care for the environment and natural resources; and practice good habits for physical,

mental, and emotional health.

Twelve of the 15 eligible CSD1 schools have schoolwide Chapter 1 projects, and all Chapter

1 programs offer instruction consistent with the state's core curriculum for all students, including

reading/langucze arts and mathematics, social studies, science, mathematics, writing, literature, and

art and music. The district provides the same whole-language curriculum for all children and is

moving toward heterogeneous grouping. Because 21 percent of CSD I 's students are designated as

having limited English proficiency, Chapter 1 supports resource teachers and aides who deliver

instruction in ESL classes and in students' home languages. The district also has several dual-

language immersion programs in Spanish and English. In some cases, Chapter 1 funds support early

childhood programs or reduce class size.

Niagara educators embrace research-based programs and work in school-based teams to

identify and bring cutting-edge strategies to the district. Teams often include parents and business

leaders who join representatives of the teacher and administrator unions in developing innovative

planning and implementation. Potential new programs start as pilots in Niagara and those thought to

be the best are distributed as program options that sites can adapt to their own purposes.

None of Niagara's schools has a sufficiently large concentration of students poor enough to

make it eligible for a schoolwide project. Nevertheless, the targeted program attempts to make a

seamless connection between Chapter 1 and regular education for students and teachers alike. "It is

our intent," Niagara's Chapter 1 guidelines explain, "to have [Chapter I-funded] curriculum teachers

follow the district's curriculum process in assisting classroom teachers to meet the needs of targeted

students in the content area...." (Niagara Falls Board of Education, n.d., p. 4). This strategy means

that Niagara's Chapter 1 services vary in focus depending on the school, the grade, and the particular

children targeted.

Services are available to all eligible children in grades kindergarten through 12. and Chapter 1

students receive the same basic instruction as their peers who attend regular classes. Those needing

supplementary assistance receive it through short-term pull-out activities. An extended day for

Chapter 1 kindergartners who are most at risk adds between 45 minutes and 1-1/2 hours a day, with

up to four specialist teachers collaborating in the same classroom to offer children a language-

enrichment program and close, personal attention. Teachers monitor students closely to see that they

"revolve" through Chapter 1, receiving the help they need and then moving out of it as quickly as

possible.

33

Important features of both Niagara's and CSD1's approaches to compensatory education are

their year-long, weekend, after-school, and in-school staff development for all professionals

administrators, teachers, and paraprofessionals. Reflecting the prevailing philosophy of both school

districts, a CSD1 principal explained: "Just as we think of building a child's strength, we need to

build the same strength in the people and the system." Various external sources of funding help

leverage Chapter 1 and state compensatory resources to offer extensive, coordinated professional

development programs for teachers and administrators, as well as parent education activities. In both

districts, the small central office staffs also work closely with Chapter 1 schools to support curriculum

change and to facilitate the New Compact's SBM/SDM requirements.

34

N. Cross-Cutting Themes in State and District Reform Implementation

We discuss here cross-cutting themes of systemic reform in the experiences of the districts

and schools across the five states we studied. The discussion explores the integration of state reform

and Chapter 1, examining the challengesespecially the unresolved issuesof coordinating state and

local reform on behalf of disadvantaged students.

Among thn districts and schools we visited, which are somewhat unusual in the degree to

which they embrace reform, the implement:Men of systemic initiatives is a work in progress. When

Chapter 1 is organizationally integrated with other services, as it was in the sites we visited, it is a

well -used resource for increasing services that upgrade the education of disadvantaged students.

Systemic reforms typically build on the well-trod path of past successful education innovations; and

they are adapted to local circumstance, taking hold first and most completely where there are teams of

professionals who can knowledgeably lead the process. Change occurs one school at a time; "it will

happen community by community, not from Washington, a id not from the state," a superintendent

pushing reform reminded us.

The experiences of these districts shed light on the factors driving change in the current

reform environmentespecially new arrangements for high-stakes assessmentand on the tremendous

amount if work still to be done to realize the promise of standard-setting and assessments, curriculum

development, capacity building, and site-based management.

Standards, Assessment, and Accountability

From the sites in this study we learned that standards-driven reform will unfold unevenly

within and across states and Title 1 programs and that the variability of programs and implementation

strategies can be expected to raise new complexities for federal Title I policy making. Key issues are:

standards and performance expectations differing from state to state; the slow pace of implementation;

major changes in states' assessment systems; contrasting perspectives on the value of sanctions for

schools; varying use and limited availability of new assessments for Chapter 1; and the paucity of

information from the new assessments for practical use by educators.

35

WlialAre the Standards?

States set many kinds of standards. Task forces and committees typically define the broad

outlines of what children should know and be able to do in a number of core content areas. Their

definitions of content and performance standards vary, however. The states set goals in different

disciplines and at different grades or developmental levels, and the linkages among states'

expectations for students are unclear. In the states we visited content standards are often lists of

goals, outcomes, or skills to be taught and Chapter I has incorporated them into desired outcomes or

overall program goals. Arizona identified "Essential Skills" in 11 core content areas; Kentucky and

Maryland established "academic expectations" and "learner outcomes" in reading, language arts,

mathematics, social studies, science, and writing. New York's draft frameworks are extensive

descriptions of study areas and lists of competencies and concepts. California alone expands on the

subject matter of every discipline, including detailed descriptions of the content and thinking required

to apply each discipline, and strategies for teaching students with varying educational needs. In

addition, California's frameworks, unlike the other state content guides, are not just statements of

content standards but also include performance standards and rubrics agzir_st which students' work in

each discipline can be evaluated.

The states use similarly various definitions of performance standards. and, except in

California, they are not well identified with the states curriculum frameworks. California's six

performance levels for individual students' work are illustrated in the frameworks and in other

supporting documents, including the annual test reports (CDE, 1993e.`2 Kentucky identifies four

achievement categories for each subject on the state testnovice, apprentice, proficient, or

distinguishedbut the discipline-specific performance descriptions for each grade are not in the

curriculum materials (KDE, 1994b). Maryland reports two performance groupingspercent of

students achieving either satisfactory or excellent on MSPAPbut the performance levels students

must achieve to attain these levels are defined by a standards- setting task force sponsored by ti e state

board, and are also not explained in the currently available curriculum materials (MDE. 1993c). In

Arizona, the ASAP offers teachers training in how to help students achieve the essentia: skills by

using sample scoring rubrics and tasks modeled on test items. Districts decide target proficiency

levels locally (ADE, 1993), and neither rubrics nor other performance standards are included in the

Essential Skills documents.

12 See examples of California's performance levels in reading/language arts, mathematics, and writing inAppendix 3.

36

4 5

After several years of test development, states have begun to use new tests with open-ended

itemsknown as performance tasks or performance-based assessmentsin place of multiple choiceitems. It typically takes at least three years for the innovative assessments to be designed and piloted,

however, and several more years before assessment results are available for individual students. In

1994, Arizona, California, and Kentucky provided aggregate summary scores from their new tests for

districts and schools with Chapter I students, but Chapter 1 data arrive after a long delay and in a

format so general that the information cannot be readily used to guide instruction or program

planning. In a position paper written to propose modifications in the test during its next phase of

development, KIKIS authors acknowledged both the weak link between performance and content

standards and the lack of instructionally useful information for individual programs. (':DIE, 1994c,

pp. 10-11):

The content being assessed is not well enough defined and the relationship among the learninggoals, academic expectations, the curriculum frameworks, the program of studies, courseoutlines, released items and performance standards is not clearly described. It makes itdifficult for teachers to focus their instructional efforts and to explain to parents what contentis being taught and azsessed. . . Better design and development of other reports to moreadequately provide information for instructional decision-making are common requests.

Currently, the performance emphasis in Kentucky is on composite achievement-test scores of

students in each scnool, called "threshold" scores, and, although the state is moving toward reporting

individual student scores, this had not occurred by spring 1995. Maryland's satisfactory and excellent

levels are based on school-by-school and district percentages of students achieving predefined

standards on several indice tors of academic standing and school participation (attendance, dropout.

and retention rates) and Chapter 1 programs rely on traditional tests or other locally developed

assessments. New York uses seveial multiple-choice tests and holds students accountable for

achieving designated "state reference points" on Regents' examinations.

Reading ;language arts, mathematics, and writing are tested by all five states, but only

California. Kentucky, and Maryland examine science and social studies with open-ended items or

performance tasks on their statewide tests. Arizona lets the districts decide what tests and criteria to

use in measuring science and social studies. New York tests science and mathematics, but, as it

experiments with new assessment strategies. it plans ,.o continue using its multiple-choice tests until

content standards are set in these fields.

37

Kentucky and Maryland measure performance in several content areas" through a limited

number of extended tasks from which separate scores are derived. AS a result, it is not evident

without examining the test itemsonly samples of which are typically made publichow consistent a

state's content expectations are with "national" standards. Some state officials are concerned about

whether they have measured the right content or set "reasonable" standards, and whether their tests

reveal how close students are to meeting national targets. They explained to us that they continually

struggle with new issues, asking themselves, "What do we [learn] from the results" Did we set

too high a standard or are we not yet there? What is the right compromise between the reality and

vie options?" 14

A Multiyear Process of Reform

Across districts in all five states, the advent of new standards and assessments has turned out

to be a slow and often unstable process, lasting from almost two to six years and changing along the

way. Curriculum and test development are followed by standard setting, and each component in the

system is separated by a long lag time between development and classroom use. After almost five

years, the implementation of standards and assessments is still very much evolving.

The challenge of implementing California mathematics reforms is well documented

(Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1990), and our interviews revealed the same

implementation challenges in other content areas and in other states as well Even with the rich

professional development programs, subject matter projects. at d other dissemination California has

undertaken, changes Li classroom practice have been piecemeal. Arizonians worked for more than

six years to develop a consensus around their Essential Skills, using a process of committee work.

riblic hearings, and district reviews. Still. according to state officials, the skills outlines

"languished" until the planned reporting of results from ASAP became a reality for students and

teachers.

The recent political challenges to state reforms are Ldicators of the fragility of the new

systems. The states have taken from three to five years to move their assessments Iron the drawing

boards through the pilot phases and into the classrooms; New York has set in place ar. even more

Kentucky's performance "events" also measure dchievement of standards in the arts and humanities,practical living, and vocations' studies.

For an extensive explanation of these and oth: y ar ' technical dilemmas of performanceassessment see Linn (1994).

38

gradual time line. California's and Kentucky's experiences are case studies of the challenges that new

standards and assessment systems can be expected to confront; both have been required by practical

and political pressures to modify their curriculum frameworks and their assessment systems as they

have moved forward.

California, for example, researched and piloted its conceptual framework for CLAS over the

ten years that the curriculum frameworks evolved. In addition to the continuing test development

activity the state agency undertook, the legislature supported a three-year independent research

initiative, the California Assessment Collaborative (CAC) (CAC, 1993, p. iv) "to amplify the voice of

teachers in the development of assessments." CAC does this by sponsoring studies and trials of

performance assessments in classrooms throughout the state. CAC's work sets a tone of inquiry and

experimentation that contributes to statewide capacity building not only by modeling promising

practices but also by warning about potential pitfalls in site-level development of alternative

assessments.

California coupled its assessment with a strong, information-based accountability system.

Assessment developers expected the assessment and demographic data and the information about

students' classroom and at-home learning experiences would provide the direction California schools

needed to plan their programs, especially for at-risk students. To date. the promise has not been

rififilled. Since the new assessment system was conceptualized in late 1989 the obstacles to its

usefulness for classrooms and for Chapter 1 accountability have included its cost, the debate about us

open-ended test items, and the lack of individual student reports. CLAS and other states' new

assessment systems share these problems, and the lack of student-level accountability information is

particularly problematic for tracking implementation of Title I. California's anticipated performance-

based assessment reports were t xpected to have been among the first and most comprehensive in the

nation. Even if the legislature eventually approves funding to modify and continue CLAS, providing

student-level scores will require modifying the matrix assessment strategy and reducing the number of

open-ended items that will be used.

Kentucky experienced a similarly rocky evolution of its new performance system Kennick)

wrote its original learner on:comes and the curriculum outline guiding local curriculum development

within 18 months after the Kentucky Education Reform Act passed--but not without stirring

controversy. Soon after the curriculum guide wr iistributed, a number of the teaching activities

were dropped or replaced because of their controversial content. Within the year, in summer 1994.

the state renamed its learner outcomes "academic expectations" and dropped the objectives that refer

to "habits of mind" and "self-sufficiency"important themes of the original reform.

39

't6

KIRIS was piloted in 1991 and began in 1992 as a three-part assessment at grades 4, 8, and

12, that included a "transitional" test with multiple-choice and short-answer questions, performance

tasks, and writing and mathematics portfolios. Results from the test's cognitive component were

combined with noncognitive measures such as attendance and graduation rates to produce school and

district scores on a 140-point accountability index. State law specifies that schools must climb on the

index by 10 percent every two years to achieve a "threshold score," an improvement goal that is

individually calculated for each school, but these thresholds will be shifting over time as the tests

themselves are modified.

Although the KERA accountability standard of progress toward the threshold score is

unchanged, modifications to the two-year-old assessment system in 1994 included refining the

outcomes in response to the concerns of technical review panels and citizens' groups that were

monitoring program implementation. The changes in KIRIS shifted the mathematics portfolios from

grade 4 to 5, moved the high school test from grade 12 to grade 11, replaced unstable performance

events in mathematics and social studies, and dropped the multiple-choice items from the total

accountability score to include a writing component in the score. Final decisions on these matters

were pending at the time this study was completed, but officials observed that they expected such

changes to continue throughout the evolution of this and any other inncvative assessment program

(KDE, 1994a).

In an attempt to minimize some of the false starts other states have experienced, New York

officials are proceeding more slowly. Standards and assessment development began in 1992 with a

high-level task force of experts. the Curriculum and Assessment Council, appointed by the Board of

Regents. By spring 1994, the council had drafted and disseminated for comments curriculum

frameworks in reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and technology, and it had proposed a

design for the new assessment program. Although the mathematics standards were drafted, officials

acknowledged that the curriculum development committee had "not yet grappled with what the

mathematics test will be." however. Committees were just beginning to tackle questions about the

type of test, the content to test, and the levels of performance students are expected to achieve.

Based on the experiences of other states, New York is just beginning a lengthy and politically

tumultuous process. Members of the standards development committee found between their initial

deliberations and their emerging drafts that they had to rethink their time line and their direction.

"We don't want people doing something so quickly and then have it out of sync with the national

agenda." observed a state coordinator who is working with standards development.

40

.11O

Controversy SKAAA,erSanctionsn

Legislators in Arizona, Kentucky, and Maryland sought to put "teeth" into their reforms by

using accountability programs that reward success and levy sanctions on repeatedly poor performing

districts and schools. The proposed sanctions are much-discussedespecially in schoolsbut

procedures for levying sanctions after an adequate period of supportive assistance have not yet been

put in place. The fairness of sanctions is hotly debated among practitioners, especially in light of the

instability of the new tests (Linn, 1994), and state administrators insist sanctions will be imposed only

after a period of self-assessment and opportunities for school improvement assisted by state, local,

and outside consultants. A Kentucky state supervisor considers her own team as susceptible to

sanctions as are the schools, but still she concentrates on the supportive intent of setting thresholds:

Teachers need to learn, 'if our school isn't meeting the threshold, we need some help.'Failing to meet the threshold means 'We're going to get some help.' We're all in thistogether.

Teachers, by contrast, typically feel they have limited control over the outcome of tests, and

many consider themselves at the mercy of a public that is disregarding their efforts to improve. They

know they are under pressure to achieve, but they worry that they will not have the time to develop

the new skills they require to adequately serve their students. One teacher observed: "If we hadn't

had the sanctions, we would be putting the innovations into place with more training behind us." A

Kentucky teacher echoed this concern about her lack of preparation:

We're accountable for test performance, but I don't feel comfortable enough with what I amdoing in my classroom to be tested. I'd like to test my own developed ability before the statecomes in with sanctions on my students. I am still learning, and I'm going to be heldaccountable? . . . Even the test developers are learning about the testing. I should not be heldaccountable as the state is developing the test.

Accountability and assessment are central reform themes in all the states we studied, but only

Arizona, Kentucky, and Maryland propose to levy sanctions on schools that repeatedly show poor

performances. Even in those high-stakes environments, however, the standards are based on

composite scores students attain on tested components of the curriculum. Arizona, Kentucky, and

Maryland schools know the average scores their students must attain, but those scores do not translate

into what it means for individual students to work at "proficient" or "excellent" levels.

In -'rtes or districts with many limited-English speaking students, some teachers are especially

disillusioned by sanctions associated with assessment outcomes. Arizona teachers complain about

41

5

several barriers interfering with students' success on the ASAPs. Some native Spanish speakers

maintain that the tests are not written in proper Spanish but are translated from English without

attention to the different underlying language structures. Others argue that the tests deal with topics

unfamiliar to students; for example, one teacher asked: "What do reservation kids know about

consumer issues?" and another explained. "We studied armadillos, but the ASAPs went on and on

about javalinas." On the other hand, a more upbeat principal in a Kentucky school district is

undisturbed by the threat of sanctions that may befall her school, remarking, "We may never make

the [state's] goals, we may be in sanctions. But there is a lot more to us than those gains."

Accountability standards currently proposed for schools and districts are broader than results

on a single test; they typically have several components. In Arizona, for example, along with the

achievement on the new performance-based tests, state and local report cards generally give the

results of traditional test programs, which are continuing. Although testing is not conducted in every

grade or subject, most studentsincluding many with disabilities or limited English proficiencyare

tested, but only on a sample of performance tasks in multiple subjects within a sample of grades.

Added data elements on the report card include attendance, dropout, and graduation rates, mobility

rates, special programs participation, and demographic disaggregation of test scores, among other

data. The sample state accountability reports in Appendix 3 show that the other states include the

same range and variability of outcome measures, but each state assesses the variables and reports

them quite differently.

Even with these wide-ranging measurement points, many district administrators, principals,

and schools concentrate their critique of their state's reform on the tests that evaluate schools and

students, not on the overall school improvement process. A principal expressed his concern this way:

[This is still] a factory model . . . based on flawed assumptions about both the goals andprocesses of learning. Learning is not incremental; the goals will never be fixed. Youcondemn a school based on a single number that mixes cognitive and noncognitive data .the real examination of children's progress is to look at both normative and criteria-baseddata.

Despite the anxiety of school-site personnel over sanctions, state officials prefer to emphasize

the supportive intent of the standards, not the punitive aspects. Arizona reminds educators that:

The ASAP is a model for teaching and learning . . . the goal . . . is to help all studentsachieve at high levels. The combination of high standards and an assessment system tomeasure them provides powerful new tools to teachers and educators to change and improvethe quality of instruction for all Arizona students (ASDE, 1994, pp. 2-3).

42

51

Maryland makes a similar claim. According to documents the state distributes, the

accountability process "offers a road map for moving a plan from conception through implementation

to continual renewal" (MSDE, 1991, p. D-I). A Maryland state official sees that he goal is to

change "classroom by classroom, school by school, kid by kid," and assures skeptics that:

The MSPAP is only one piece of information. [Together, all the information] takes theburden off one school. We are looking at the whole school to look at how kids progress, and[we] bring the data all together to make an informed decision.

Using New Assessments in Chapter I

Because state assessment systems are continuing to evolve, their use in Title I evaluation and

student selection creates a number of practical stumbling blocks. In addition to the gradual process of

test development and the time it takes to stabilize the tests and test reports, the most innovative,

performance-based assessments are planned for only a few grade levels and thus cannot be the basis

for selecting students for targeted programs at other grade levels. As a result, conventional

assessments continue to be administered in Arizona, Maryland, and New York, both for student

selection, diagnoses of learning needs, and evaluation; California and Kentucky state offices do not

administer traditional tests, but many of their LEAs do.

Moreover, the inconsistency in the standards and differences across curriculums and

assessments make it unclear how much overlap there is in achievement expectations among the states.

Because test items are not public, content or item/task difficulty cannot be compared, so there is no

way of knowing how much commonality there is in states' expectations for what students should

"know and be able to do." Even where there is considerable press for accountabilityespecially in

Arizona, Kentucky, and Marylandstates set standards and test in similar content areas, but each state

selects its own unique content benchmarks. The result is that performance assessments do not

produce even the rough comparisons and progress markers that traditional standardized tests made

available for Chapter 1 evaluations. Anticipating the lack of comparability in performance tests, a

practical superintendent was prepared to strike this balance between the new assessments and

traditional ones:

There is no question about [the importance of] using portfolios and performance assessment,but I'm not prepared to go to the board without a proposal that includes a nationally normedtest. Some aspects of kids' assessments could therefore be partly performance and partlyportfolio.

43

inrammir

Continuing some elements of traditional assessment systems is one solution all the states

except California use to gauge progress against a cross-state benchmark. Arizona and Maryland

administer nationally normed, multiple-choice tests to a sample of students each year; New York's

existing testing system is the foundation of its accountability structure; and Kentucky embeds

multiple-choice items into its performance assessment system to provide a national benchmark. Until

1994, all states except Kentucky used traditional nonmed- referenced tests for Chapter 1 evaluations."

Using traditional tests during the transition to new assessments is comforting to some, but

others believe it sends mixed signals. Both a Kentucky coordinator and a principal separately

volunteered that they doubted whether teachers or parents would ever be satisfied without some

reference to traditional test scores: "People want to know where their kids stand against a norm," the

coordinator argued. Partially in response to this kind of concern, the state accountability office has

sought ways of creating percentile scores or a proxy for student standing on IURIS (KDE, 1994c).

Still, state assessment directors are working hard to make the transformation to a new system

complete as soon as possible.

Finally, the continuing changes occurring in the new testing systems slow the already long

time lines for test implementation. The hold on funds to support CLAS is a major setback for Title I

educators in California who regarded CLAS as a coordinated assessment system consistent with the

curriculum frameworks. At the end of 1994, Chapter 1 coordinators and teachers waited with

interest, but with uncertainty, to learn what assessment resources would be available to them in

forthcoming years. The leaders insist on sustaining well-established accountability expectations and

on keeping the focus on individual students. Concerned that the most disadvantaged students

especially the highly mobile and non-English speaking students who are hardest to trackdo not "fall

through the cracks," state and district Title I coordinators are seeking ways to maintain individual

student accountability during this period of transition to new testing systems:

It's a major mistake if you don't have a provision for tracking individual students. You needto take accountability down to the kid to make sure that services actually go to the kids . . .

accountability protects kids, and it also drives attention to what's important. . . . It goes tothe heart of everything we do.

" In 1994. the Department of Education granted Kentucky a waiver to translate the multiple choicecomponent of KIRIS into normal curve equivalents for the purposes of Chapter 1 evaluation (LeTendre. 1993;Marsh, 1993).

44

A Dearth of Instructionally Useful Information from Statel'egs

Because the state performance-based tests are new and time consuming to score and report,

teachers, principals, and Chapter 1 directors have received little information about them to guide

Chapter 1 instruction or program planning Although all these states have been developing some

form of their performance assessments since before 1990, it took until 1992 for Maryland and

Kentucky to establish a baseline assessment year; Arizona and California established 1993 as the

baseline year. The test data schools receive are typically six months to one year old and not in an

instructionally relevant format. None of the state, district, or school Chapter 1 coordinators we

talked with has been able to apply performance assessment data to program planning, so they continue

to use item analyses they receive from traditional standardized tests and, occasionally, from writing

samples. They refer queries about assessment results to assessment departments whose staff are so

busy with development and implementation that they are rarely able to provide detail about Chapter 1

students or programs, except to meet the requirements of mandated federal reporting.

Data reports can be obtained from performance assessments, often in draft form, from state or

district offices, but the information is either too general for instructional use or too specific and

extensive to be understood by users without special training. "We gather all this data," explained a

Chapter 1 leader, shaking his head ruefully, but "assessment is very complicated. . . . The challenge

is using the resources provided by the test, the data gathering process. They gather all this data, but

it is very difficult to find the time to learn to use it." This theme was echoed within each state's

Chapter 1 office, among local Chapter 1 coordinators, and by teachers. However, the problem is not

insurmountable. Assessment divisions are responding by hiring new staff, providing increasing

training, and creating public information materials for numerous audiences. But the investment of

time and dollars repeatedly outstrips even the most costly predictions of program planners.

Chapter 1 leaders are cautious about abruptly changing accountability standards or practices,

concerned about the vacuum created when there are no common, well-defined evaluation standards.

Some long-time Chapter 1 practitioners fear that the future Title I focus on categories of students

ethnic groups, SES levels, or students with special education needsrather than on individuals will

diffuse attention away from the most disadvantaged children. One state coordinator spoke strongly

about maintaining the existing arrangements for accountability in Chapter 1 until new, proven

methods are found. In this coordinator's experience, individual student accountability is the only way

ensure that the services actually go where they are most needed:

Lots of principals want to make scores look good. . . . It's easy to design a program thatwould work with kids who do not need services the most . . . . We're not dealing with a

45

perfect world. People will see government as an opportunity to take the money and run.You've got to deal with the real world.

In this coordinator's view, accountability protects students by keeping their needs at the forefront of

the system's attention. Without that attention, this administrator contends, it will be easy to avoid

teaching the students who are most difficult to serve.

46

r, rJ

Curriculum Frameworks and Curriculum

Formats and Pur o e f Frameworks vary

Except in California, comprehensive curriculum frameworks reflecting content standards and

modeling teaching practice are not available in 1994. All states have disseminated various guidance

documents that outline achievement expectations, but the documents are inconsistent in depth and

breadth. Curriculum frameworks are in draft form in Maryland and New York, and difficult to

obtain. Arizona's 11 different "Essential Skills" booklets include limited information about pedagogy.

Kentucky's framework is a 250-page, flexible loose-leaf notebook of instructional tasks that districts

may use in developing their own local curriculum frameworks. The notebook is highly praised by

teachers who consider it very "practical; it gives me something I can use tomorrow." Outside

reviewers have criticized it, however, charging that its size is "overwhelming" and that it lacks an

overall conceptual construct to guide its use. Thus, curriculum documents greatly vary in format,

purpose, and standard, and, despite their substantive depth, they must endure close scrutiny by

competing political, social, and educational interests. Furthermore, obtaining the consensus needed

for state adoption means the curriculum writing process takes far longer to complete than teachers can

wait before needing them to meet accountability standards.

After curriculum guidelines are written they are unevenly used, at least until some inducement

like a high-stakes test is introduced, as in Arizona, Kentucky, and Marylw.d. Furthermore, the

documents are not quality standards; they do not have the content richness of the Mathematics

Curriculum and Evaluation Standards by National Council of Teachers of Mathematics or the

California frameworks. Few state curriculum guides are philosophically and instructionally grounded.

Instead, they are brief, practical resources that give classroom teachers, principals, and staff

developers "tricks of the trade" for preparing students to learn problem solving in the content areas of

the new assessments.

Furthermore, in their current form, most curriculums are incomplete. Their limited

suggestions, without pedagogical context, minimize the quality of content that all but the very best

trained teachers can offer. They are samples of content, pedagogy, and standards, not integrated

discussions, and examples and models of practice are limited. Those teachers new to the teaching

promoted by these curriculum frameworks and learner outcomes are left to their own devices for

learning how to use the new content materials, with periodic participation in evening or weekend staff

development supplements. The challenge of putting flesh on the bones of the curriculum frameworks

falls to district-level curriculum committees where writing is slow and expertise is limited. A

47

concerned New York associate state superintendent responsible for training districts to implement

reform is alarmed by the lack of knowledgeable curriculum expertise in schools and districts:

A real challenge for changing the quality of teaching and learning is the lack of curriculumexperts within districts and schools. We're finding these 90-day wonders can't offer thecurriculum content. We'll have some problems getting the content and we are working onmeeting that need.

California Frameworks Are Unique

Only California has instituted a lengthy, field-tested curriculum development process that

includes awareness building, needs assessment, planning, resource '.election, and four or five years of

implementation. As a result, state curriculum frameworks are cent. .,1 to Chapter 1 program planning

in Hayward and Long Beach. "Curriculum frameworks are like the Bible," a Hayward administrator

reported. "We order frameworks for al staff," including, in addition to teachers, curriculum council

representatives, librarians, and high school department heads, who also routinely participate in

framework-based in-service programs. Administrators and many teachers we spoke with are

proponents of the frameworks. The frameworks appear to structure teachers' practice even when they

do not acknowledge the frameworks as their key resource. We learned from our observations that

teaching changed as a result of a combination of interlocking resources, of which the frameworks are

but one important piece; just as significant were time, the added training, and the collaboration

teachers experienced over the many years since the first frameworks were available.

If California's experience can be considered a model, it takes almost ten years from start to

finish for a curriculum change to evolve, and it takes still more time and initiative to see a new

curriculum used in classrooms. The early 1980s paved the way intellectually for new concepts,

philosophies, and methods. It took two to three years for committees to convene and develop

documents, and then to disseminate them for proposed revisions. Several years later, the curriculum

was being disseminated widely but still used unevenly. Within eight years, the curriculums are ready

for a new revision and the process brings about more conceptual changes.

Frameworks and Chapter 1

To the extent that districts have embraced the new frameworks and are using them to redesign

the local curriculum, Chapter 1 students also benefit from the revised content outlines. However.

many teachers of Chapter 1 students hold on to traditional reading and mathematics teaching

48

practices; it will take time for many of them to adopt more active teaching methods and use practical

teaching strategies that national professional groups recommend. Curriculum frameworks, even

supported by routine staff development, do not dislodge old assumptions about teaching and content.

Administrators and lead teachers lament that teachers do not know how to adapt to the new

responsibilities required of them in today's schools, and their skills as curriculum developers are

weak. "My teachers don't know how to make tests; they don't know how to write curriculum;

teachers need assista:ice," a principal explained. Redefining curriculums and packaging them

attractively is only the first step toward altering what teachers teach. Teachers of Title I students

require the same retraining and time to practice as other teacl,,,i are relearning to teach with

quite different tools and toward new expectations.

Capacity Building

INtnyagiaen es to State and Local Agencies

Preparing to teach new, high-standard curriculums to an increasingly diverse studem

population places very different demands on educators and on systems. Until recently, retooling

professional educators was the responsibility of the individual professional who was looking for

advancement. Today, it is clear the systemically integrated school must continually re-educate its

entire staff.

States and LEAs are planning various approaches to extending their organizational and

technical expertisebuilding their capacityto implement reform. Schools and districts adopt new

mechanisms for staff development to strengthen their available talent pool: mentors, networks,

collaborations. institutes, and teaching partnerships. The difficulties are great, as education agencies

try to deliver many kinds of help more effectively and teachers begin what will be. at best, a lengthy

learning process. State administrators are well aware that teachers need to revise their teaching to

meet the requirements of their reforms. As one explained, these are not "add-on" programs:

Teachers need to change their whole teaching approach. It is not good enough that studentsgive us the right answer. Teachers were not taught to teach with the whole answer and itsunderstanding in mind . . . . Teachers have had a hard time grauoing on to the concepts. [They] need to ask what [more] they need to do and how [well] they are doing. It's goingto take a lot of time.

49

State and local Chapter 1 officials find themselves offering "hand holding and support. along

with vision to districts and schools, not just to Chapter I programs." Teachers maintain that before

the new assessment systems and the reforms were in place "we knew what we needed to do, and we

were successful; [now) we don't understand" the expectations or the new processes. It takes new

approaches to overcome teachers' uncertainty about what is additionally expected of them. To meet

the demand, Maryland is planning a video-based instructional system to distribute with its outcomes

documents; school improvement teams are assigned to specific schools to help teachers learn to use

available data to reframe programs. Arizona and Kentucky work with districts to help write

curriculums locally, and, as resources and staff are available, they develop state-level curriculum

supplements.

New York's state agency is organizing interdepartmental teams to assist districts, but this is a

struggle learning to "walk and talk" the same strategy. The reorganization has thrown confusion into

the system. Although the philosophy of support has been adopted by the department, the

decentralization duplicates effort and leaves districts and schools unsure of where to find the

specialized assistance they need. Top staff in the state department acknowledge this Achilles' heel of

reform. The field service teams are not working, argued a state leader: "They are not working

because they don't have the skills on the teamwe don't have the content people we need," even with

the extensive training and preparation the state tries to offer.

In California capacity building became the centerpiece of reform beginning in the mid-1980s

with the state's investment in high -quality curriculum frameworks and extensive dissemination. The

state seeks consensus around framework-based instruction and develops teachers' ability to use the

frameworks in classrooms through a highly public development process and a multi-tiered

dissemination strategy. The frameworks have been developed over the past ten years by committees

staffed by California's and national subject matter experts, including scholars, teachers, and

curriculum specialists (Guthrie et al.. 1993), and Chapter 1 has participated in development. Before

adoption, draft frameworks are distributed publicly and tested in classrooms serving Chapter 1

students. Public reactions and practitioners' recommendationsincluding those of Chapter I parents-

are incorporated into each final edition of the frameworks.

In Arizona. California, and Kentucky, state and local Chapter 1 specialists, chosen for their

prior accomplishments initiating and maintaining local improvement efforts, conduct staff

development for entire schools and districts. Chanter 1 in all three states carefully coordinates its

continuing professional development with the goals and tools of the states' reforms. On-site training

introduces local educators to processes for developing students' reading, writing, and mathematics

abilities with integrated and thematic instruction, higher-order thinking, and applied skill and

50

knowledge development. In Arizona, because no new state funds were available to schools and

districts for learning to use the Essenual Skills documents in preparation for the ASAP. Chapter l's

willingness to offer staff development workshops on instruc..,a1 assessment was welcome.

California Chapter 1 hosts regional institutes and funds Icv.al educators to attend staff development

activities associated with frameworks implementation and other statewide reforms. Kentucky Chapter

1 teachers lead local and regional professional courses for which all teachers can earn credit toward

salary advancement.

Re rnsaingialigigli and Schools

Curriculum -based staff development that uses the frameworks and engages all players in the

schools, from new teachers through seasoned principals, builds capacity for using curriculum and

assessment innovations. "We're always gearing our staff for staff development: they don't have a

chance to get bored," a principal of a Chapter 1 school told interviewers. In one school district,

Chapter 1 teachers have eight planning days a year and 50-minute preparation periods each day

scheduled simultaneously so that staffs can work together. Other districts make similar arrangements

for collaborative practitioner-led capacity building that unite Chapter and regular education staff. We

visited schools whose principals and teachers independently seek the resources they need to pay for

staff development, often piecing together several external funding sources and brsiness partnerships

with Chapter 1 funds to ensure their entire staff have the same training opportunities.

The schools and districts included in this study reach broadly for resources, and they first turn

for help to their most talented staff members. They also call on these capacity building resources:

Federally funded Technical Assistance Centers, Rural Technical Assistance Centers,and regional educational laboratories. The selection of a particular source ofassistance depends on geographic proximity and the relationships that have developedover time.

State-funded regional centers through which reform activities are disseminated

Nearby universities that develop programs, lend assistance, and offer teachereducation

Internal research offices that provide and interpret data for needs assessment,planning, and accountability. Some of these offices are large enough to conductstudies to determine effective programs or strategies for their community.

51

CO

Teachers use widely varying teaching styles in the schools we visited, and reform initiatives

will further expand the range before narrowing it. New curriculums without adequate retraining,

mentoring, and in-classroom critiqties will change practice unevenly, if at all. Sometimes Chapter 1

teachers are "sold" on an approach, but they cannot persuade the regular classroom teachers to adopt

the innovations. The result is a cacophony of strategies for organizing teaching and using some of the

popular approaches promoted for teaching students at risk, such as cooperative learning, hands-on

teaming, writing- and language-based cross-disciplinary learning, culturally responsive activities, and

alternative assessment. Some teachers applaud the emphasis on problem- and student-cencemi

teaching; others are dubious or do not accept the changes as appropriate. Even some of those who

espouse reform principles in meetings or in faculty room discussions continue to rely on conventional

instruction in their own classrooms.

Without the impetus of a coordinated school or district initiative, change in the practices of

most teachers continue to occur slowly. Although the districts' innovations reflect the concepts and

ideals of national standards, they are generally program focused, not specific to the state or local

curriculum framework. Reading Recovery, Early Literacy Inservice Courses, manipulative-based

mathematicsamong the more popular teacher development programshave their own preferred

curriculums and instructional outlines. The staff developers teach from those texts and rarely, if at

all, reference the state or national curriculum resources. Finally, connecting standards, local

programs, and innovations takes time. In two districts in different states, the comprehensive

literature-based programs they adopted will take several years to be fully incorporated into

classrooms. By that time, natural attrition and new trends will require additional retraining.

In many of the sites we visited, Chapter 1 teachers are the nnovators and experts who are

leading change. However, there are also many other sites whose Chapter 1 teachers are not so well

prepared or so highly :egarded. Most teachers have attended numerous workshops on learning styles.

whole - language instruction, and using manipulatives to ground mathematics learning, but their

instruction did nnt give them the time to develop personal knowledge of the theory or the principles

nor to accept the concepts as their own. District leaders serving small towns and rural communities

find few specialists available to make a sufficiently intensive commitment; they need experts who can

stay on site in remote schools and communities and offer the practical teaching expertise and content

knowledge teachers need to interpret some of the strategies recommended for Title I students. A

number of state and local supervisors noted that the significant challenge is to "bridge the gap in

content knowledge partly caused by lack of continuing education [among teachers] and partly by the

absence of content specialists."

52

C

Without more time to grapple with the practicalities of new ways of woreing, many local

leaders and teachers are using new buzzwords but not necessarily making changes. Indeed, the

popular slogans of reform may simultaneously mask dissent (Who would publiciy disagree with die

proposition that "all children can learn?") while deepening the discouragement or skepticism of

teachers who believe their own experience contradicts the slogans. Seeing the distance between

today's performance and the reform goals causes cognitive dissonance for teachers of the most at-risk

students. When we probed the concepts behind staelards with many teachers, they shifted the

discussion to more concrete, immediate, and incremental goals progressing to the next book, passing

a quiz, or achieving the state's minimuo standard on a competency test; bringing mothers or fathers

into the school; helping students negotiate around the violence in the streets or at home.

clga Teacher Leaders

Although it is clear that capacity building has a long way to go, there are districts where

Chapter 1 stands out as a vital resource. State Chapter 1 directors encourage districts to use Chapter

1 to stimulate innovation. Some Chapter I schools routinely experiment with innovations and readily

adopt research-based pilot programs. A district staff development director who relies on the

professional leadership of his Chapter 1 personnel says. "We pick the best for Chapter 1."

Becoming a Chapter 1 teacher means teaching to small groups of students, serving as a mentor and

professional advisor to colleagues, and attending or conducting professional development on leading

reform efforts. Resources are readily available, and they are often the newest and best in the school.

In a comment typical of these districts, a central -office staff member observed:

[Chapter 1] teachers are respected for their hard work. They are a collegial group.Resources and materials are plentinil. Staff development occurs regularly, and it is state ofthe art. The program has the autonomy to seek and find the most informed, supportivestrategies to address the changing educational and learning needs of children.

One district we visited, Niagara, allocated sizeable district and Chapter 1 resources behind

curriculum and assessment development while simultaneously retraining its entire staff central-office

personnel and school principals, as well as teachersto change the style of teaching across the grades.

Niagara has adopted a cyclical curriculum-development process that will gradually move schools into

language-based and interdisciplinary teaching in all content areas. Curriculum revision in Niagara is

accompanied by districtwide investment in comprehensive staff retraining based on a new cognitively

based process for teaching in all subjects and grades (Turbill, Butler, Cambourne, & Langton, 1993).

Chapter I lead teachers direct an in-depth course of studies for both faculty and administrators,

teaching them to capitalize on children's natural language and thinking abilities throughout the school

53

day. Coordinated with the training is a districtwicle plan to shift its reading and language arts

instruction entirely to a literature-focused program that relies on student writing and libraries of

tradebooks in every classroom.

Such a comprehensive capacity building effort is the goal in most of the districts we visited,

and most have within - district teacher development programs that are taught by Chapter I teachers or

by those with prior Chapter I experience. The programs offer in-service events and within-class

modeling. Chapter 1 supervision focuses more on teaching and learning than on regulatory

compliance. An example is the Chapter 1 program in Faye'.c County, Kentucky, that is closely

monitored by three teaching specialists. They visit every Chapter I teacher each month, review their

work with students, and conduct monthly meetings that feature training components contributed by

teachers using new or particularly successful techniques.

Site-Based Management and Community Involvement

Site-based management (SBM) has been widely used in California for many years; Arizona

and Maryland encourage community involvement, business partnerships, and school-based planning

especially to design local school improvements in schools with large numbers of students at risk.

Maryland provides "Challenge Grants" that give school-controlled resources to low-performing

schools to convene community-based school improvement teams (SITS) and to develop school

improvement plans. At the end of its second year, the jury is still out on the success of this process,

however. Although all the states in this study invest in strategies that encourage local control over

educational decisions and, sometimes, over budgets, SBM is not the reform priority for all schools in

California, Arizona, and Maryland that it is in Kentucky and New York.

In Kentucky and New York, SBM is an explicit legislative priority. In both states, SBM was

incorporated into the legislation authorizing other education reforms, and the strategy was to be in

place in all schools by 1994. Kentucky's commitment to school-based decision making is backed by a

new division within the state agency whose staff are experienced community organizers and grcup

process trainers who enthusiastically encourage the initiatives of school councils. A top Kentucky

official summarized the state's position:

The accomplishment is to get people focused on strategies and planning that attend towhere students are. We are tempted to over-regulate. Lots of uncertain issues areraised. What is done when councils want to do something different from the rules,which happens all the time? I am cautious about judging the decisions of school

54

6J

councils. Let's give them latitude . . . training is really key. [If we) don't narrowthe roads they can travel, they will make very good decisions.

Niagara's superintendent, determined to steer all his schools successfully through SBM,

shared the same concern. He and his management team seek to provide enough guidance so that the

teams do not fail but that there is not so much direction that the process becomes "top down." There

are two pitfalls he tries to avoid"over steering and over restricting." He fully expects the process

will be cumbersome and require substantial backing from management; nevertheless, solutions must

be local, he insists. "There's nothing wrong with problems," the superintendent observed, "it is how

you handle them . . . [and] some people need to learn the hard way."

New York's NCL is backed by two legislated initiatives attempting to push the process of

change from the state into the school community: school-based planning and shared decision making

(SBP/SDM), and revised procedures for schools and districts to seek and obtain variances from

existing elementary and secondary school requirements. The philosophic commitment behind New

York's Compact is to call on advocacy groups and community representatives to rethink and redefine

what schools will become. According to Commissioner Thomas Sobol (1993, p. 6), "there cannot be

local initiative unless all the players are collaboratively and significantly involved." As a result, the

NCL, agenda specifies responsibilities for state agencies, students, parents, teachers, support staff,

principals, superintendents, school boards, school districts, the community, higher education, and the

state's cultural institutions. It places representatives of these groups on committees that will revise

state and local policies to bring them in line with the goals of NCL.

Both Kentucky and New York have focused on a strategy of information dissemination and

consensus building to promote aggressive changes statewide. Both visions rest on the assumption that

all children are natural learners, and they expect that schools and their communitiesnot the state

agencieswill bring about change. A top New York state administrator who goes into troubled

districts to mediate and smooth disc tes associated with implementing the NCL reform sees the

challenge this -.,ay:

This reform goes to the entire society . . . nothing stands alone; no effort is a singe effort: itis always a group of people. Parents and the wider community are inextricable parts of thisendeavor. We say we cannot do it without you, the community. The concept of the villageeducating the child is very much what the commissioner envisions.

The same trouble shooter describes his work as "educational espionage," explaining, "I teach

parents to ask for the [evaluation] and audit reports, study them, and learn what makes districts tick

financially." These resources, he maintains, are the tools parents and communities have to help the

55

schools implement on behalf of their children. In his view, when the state's two task forces -the

Curriculum and Assessment Council and the Parent Partnership Advisory Councilfinish their work,

they will shift the current balance of policy planning power from the state to local districts and

schools. One of his colleagues is more cautious about the uncertainties that lie ahead, however: "We

are still playing with a group of theories," he reflected bluntly. "We don't know in today's economic

milieu how to get the community to come together around schools."

Uneven Results of Site-based Management

In New York City's CSD1, we found a district that has been implementing SBM for several

years and has integrated schoolwide Chapter 1 programs into the process. Schools are autonomous.

with each one defining its own agenda, In one, we saw very different sides of the SBM experience.

A committed parent told us that after years of frustration with the school, she learned to work with

the site's planning team. She now proudly reports that "everything we do is through consensus.

When it started, we got resistance. I said, 'We can do it'. It took time, but people came along," A

30-year veteran in the school agreed that site management has had beneficial effects, reporting:

"SBM has certainly unified us. Everyone is committed to the whole." In the same school, however,

others report that the price of the process is uncertainty. The team leader of a school within the

school, an executive on a multiyear loan from one of the school's business partners, explained: "It's

not so much a school as it is a search for a solution."

In fact, SBM was among the issues that eventually lost the board's support of the

superintendent in this district. The teachers' union was never satisfied with the membership the board

proposed for site-based school planning committees and challenged the district's implementation of the

SBM regulation. In the end, the debate over factional control of SBM by particular political, racial.

and religious groups within the district caused the superintendent to lose his contract with the board.

Although New York provides our most dramatic evidence of the workings of SBM and

community involvement, we found examples in other states as well. In some California schools, the

inexperience of parents as educational planners was evident: bringing them into the picture without

appropriate team building or skill development led to frustration for all concerned. In Kentucky,

parents on the school site council for one school were leaning toward changing the staffing of the

Chapter 1 program, replacing certified teachers with paraprofessionals in an effort to serve more

students. These experiences illustrate the pitfalls of a commitment to broadening the base for decision

making.

56

Local Context for Implementing Systemic Reforms

Across the board, the coordination of Chapter 1 and state reforms has proven to depend on

important features of the local context, especially stability of leadership, available resources, and

collaborations stemming the deteriorating social conditions that are part of many poor children's daily

lives. Where Chapter I had been integrated with other state and local changes, there were strong

leadership and staff continuity for many yearsas much as a decade or more. The changes we have

described are not systemic until they are rooted deeply in a system's organizational and management

structure. Even with the emphasis on structural elements like curriculums and assessments, change is

not systemic if it merely carries the banners and rides the bandwagons of its leading articulators.

Reforms that are the product of new administrations or that are generated from the top of the

organizationat the behest of a new state or federal mandate, school board, or superintendentare

vulnerable to shifting political winds threatening to topple them.

The dramatic effect of a leader-driven reform was the rapid departure of the energetic reform

leader in New York's CSD1. When the interviews for this study were organized, reform in CSD1

appeared to have a well-developed and solid foundation, with an investment in capacity building and

site-based planning and management. Site visitors learned about "new" schools flourishing

throughout the district with strong signs of cognitively based. active teaching and learning. We saw

minutes of SBM meetings and talked with enthusiastic parents and teachers. At a school board

meeting held the evening after we completed our interviews, however, the superintendent's contract

was not renewed. Two months later, principals carried on their site-based visions, but we were

unable to find top leaders responsible for the system-based curriculum and organizational reforms.

Even the Chapter 1 coordinatorwho had been in the district longer than the superintendent and

believed deeply in the initiativeshad moved on to a similar position in a nearby district.

At the same time that state sponsorship supports the development phases of systemic reforms.

we found that state agencies are weighted down by both human and material resource limitations that

fiscal crises place on them. Priority program components compete for limited resources, talent is

spread thin, yet all components are necessary to sustain the progress initiated. State and local leaders

doubt that the fiscal support for schools is strong enough to continue what has begun. Even within

the leading reform states, when local leaders speak candidly, they are concerned most about finding

and keeping the resources and the levels of personal energy reform requires. They look to new

flexibilities built into the new Title I as one source of support, but they are also concerned that other

expectationstargeting of resources, new expectations for student performance, changes in teaching

will reduce their anticipated independence.

57

By many standards, the communities we studied have successfully kept pace with the

evolution of education practice, and they have established records of achievement. Nevertheless,

district leaders are sobered by how difficult it continues to be to adequately serve poor and minority

students. Although many applaud new, higher expectations for students, they know that standards

setting will not change the capacity of systems to serve the hard-to-reach students. We were told:

"The issue is not world-class standards. Kids know there are no jobs. We're playing around. Weneed to show kids the relationship between jobs and the work that they will do."

Staff stability and expertise are not always strong enough to halt a downward spiral of social

change; the schools serving the largest proportions of students in poverty face new challenges

routinely, and conditions often worsen before they improve. Communities and schools are

increasingly poor, as are students' families; health needs are more complex than they have ever been;

and children are threatened by physical danger, either from violence on the street or at home.

Schools are serving larger numbers of students with little or no proficiency in English. Too many

students' families move frequently and, at times, are homeless. A successful Chapter 1 principal with

a long history of accomplishment with students at risk lamented, "This is no day in the park." He

and his staff reflecting the concerns of many with whom we spokeoften feel overcome by the odds

against their students. Their test continuing efforts routinely fall short of the goals they set. His

words were echoed wherever we went.

In summary, our examination of the local context for linking Chapter 1 with other systemic

school improvements indicated that reforms are taking hold in small pockets and benefiting from the

imaginative combinations of resources local leaders successfully muster. They involve these

predictable but fundamental features:

Widespread ownership of change coupled with institutional arrangements that nurturelocal initiatives through hard times as well as good ones

Building reforms on a foundation of research and demonstrated past successes,especially on studies of successful strategies for serving disadvantaged students

Emphasis on a few core strategies, connected with clear goals, time lines, andfeedback cycles, and the time for reforms to take hold

Coordinating all programs for disadvantaged studentswhether through targeted orschoolwide approachesso that they benefit from new standards, curriculums.assessments, and accountability reporting

Stabilizing the organizational and management structures at all organizational levels,from the superintendent's office to schools, classrooms, and communities

58

67

Flexibility for adapting reforms to the histories and contexts of the communities,schools, and districts they serve

59

V. Insights for Title I Implementation

Title I policy under the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act will help frame

the practices of schools and districts during a period of transition. The new law addresses the policy

concern that Chapter 1 requirements may have inadvertently lowered the academic expectations for

participating students and diminished their access to a challenging curriculum. In place of the old

requirements are new ones, designed to encourage arrangements that give disadvantaged children the

benefits of new standards, assessments, curriculum frameworks, and professional development within

the overall framework of the plans that most states will carry out under Goals 2000. Nevertheless.

much work remains to be done in translating this Title I legal framework into useful guidance for

districts and schools undergoing the transition that we observed in these sites, where relatively new

state policies are shaping educational services. In this section, we identify implications of our

findings for federal policy.

The experiences of these sites, which show exceptional commitment to reform, can offer

insights for federal policy if we are clear about what they do and do not typify. First, it is important

to repeat that these districts and schools have not had to be prodded into action by mandates from

above: leaders in these districts often view new mandates as opportunities to move ahead more

vigorously with their existing agendas for improvement. Therefore, this study can offer no insight

into the effects of mandates on districts and schools reluctant to change their ways.

On the other hand, these sitesprobably representing a best-case scenario for reform and the

integration of Title i into reformpermit us to draw inferences about what may happen as the

implementation of Goals 2000 and Title I proceeds. The experiences of these sites do provide a

window into the slow evolution of change, the confusion it often brings, and the policies that can

help. We begin our list of conclusions, accordingly, with the caution that policy makers should not

assume too much about the progress of announced reforms:

Change takes time. The fact that this is a cliche does not make it untrue orunimportant, especially where the need for change compete -, with the need forstability. Policy makers should not expect change to occur quickly and snould notjudge the effects of reform too early.

Reformers should look for every opportunity to emphasize continuity with existingprofessional and policy movements. In these sites, the cumulative effects of manyyears of innovation in Chapter 1 were evident in the classrooms. Reformers whotrumpet a clean break with yesterday's ideas are depriving teachers and administratorsof the opportunity to build on their professional accomplishments.

60

G

The transition to new forms of assessment poses opportunities and problems. In the sites we

visited, student assessment is a high-visibility arena for reformand, therefore, a focal point for

confusion. Standards and measurement approaches are hotly disputed and likely to remain so for

years to come; and evert new assessments only partially measure states' ambitious new standards.

Chapter 1 has successfully developed an accountability orientation among many of its professional

staff. Teachers applaud the shift away from irrelevant, traditional tests to assessments that will better

serve Chapter 1 students, but managers want to retain clear progress markers and accountability

requirements. The slow development and application of new assessment instruments and their

ambiguous linkage to either content or performance standards have left those who serve Title I

students to fall back on traditional tests to meet accountability expectations. Teachers view with

alarm the prospect of being held accountable for new assessments that they do not understand. The

mixed signals are harmful, and policy makers should work to reconcile them.

To alleviat some of the confusion, Title I will have to offer clear requirements foraccountability; to accommodate rapid change in the state of the assessment art, it willhave to offer flexibility

The new assessment methods hold great promise, but during a period of transition,they will need to be complemented by some traditional strategies for student selectionand program planning until the new assessments are piloted and proven effective

In the transition period, there is a tremendous need for funding to support thedevelopment of new instruments and to bolster local capacity in using them, policymakers will have to deteriaine the ground rules by which Title I can legitimately funddevelopment and assistance in this area without providing general aid to state andlocal education agencies

To maa'rnize the usefulness of new assessment systems, technical assistance ininterpreting and using test results is greatly needed; teachers also need substantivelysound resource materials with new curriculums and teaching practices if they are tocapitalize on the broader range of assessment results becoming available for Title Istudents

Curriculum and capacity building, like assessment, reflect uneven and halting progress in

these districts because moving the entire school program forward in a way that benefits low-achieving

students is no small challenge. Title [ represents a potentially significant resource in meeting the

challenge, especially because Title I staff members are often local professional leaders who have

much to offer their colleagues. Curriculum development is an area where there are too few experts,

especially in schools serving disadvantaged students, either to guide curriculum writing or to interpret

new curriculum concepts to those teaching at-risk youth. And even districts such as thesewith

histories of leadership in reformexperience a tremendous need for capacity building connected to the

61

7

central themes of reform. The creative use of multiple resources for professional development, while

admirable in many ways, can leave teachers with a collection of new slogans from several packaged

instructional programs rather than what they need more, which is depth of skill and understanding.

The reauthorized Title I provides a mandate to build constructively on the local professional

leadership that the program already supports.

To help address the kinds of needs we observed in these sites, policy makers andprogram managers could establish a more explicit role for the Title I program indeveloping standards-based curriculum or adapting it for low-achieving students.Some source of leadership is needed if Title I students are to escape their traditionaldiet of basic skills. Just as the program has always been a source of expertise andinitiative in the field of evaluation, it could conceivably take on a similar role incurriculum.

Title I policy makers and program managers could strongly encourage states anddistricts to connect their professional development and other capacity building to themajor issues of standards, curriculum, and instruction rather than to the moreperipheral matter of faithfully implementing packaged instructional programs.

Schoolwide programs, which we observed in many of these sites, will become more

widespread under the new law. These programs offer welcome flexibility in targeting special

sett ices, but they do not customarily trigger a rethinking or overhaul of the basic program. If policy

makers want to see schoolwide programs stimulate reform, they will have to sharpen this message.

Schoolwide programs, no less than targeted programs, are vulnerable to poor planning. Schoolwide

solutions alone do not remedy problems created by inept staff or by fractionalized communities that

neglect student needs. At the same time, we found targeted programs in which Title I is very closely

connected to regular classroom services; other schools and districts could learn from these programs

that they can create a seamless continuum of services whether or not Title I operates on a schoolwide

basis.

A whole-school orientation must prevail if schools are to serve poor students well.Whether the Title I population is small or large and whether the program is targetedor schoolwide, Title I must be a full partner in the education enterprise, a seamlesslyintegrated component of education in the classroom, school, district, and state.

The overall message from this study is one of hope combined with caution. There are a

number of routes to stable reform; they shift with time and circumstance; and policies promoting

flexibility with accountability will continue to serve students well. However, prematurely mandating

any initiativesnew curriculums, teaching strategies, assessments, or management approachescan

have the deleterious effect of further burdening the most disadvantaged children. At worst, these

62

71

children will be required to learn from chaotic, misunderstood curriculum materials and be assessed

by poorly developed and little understood assessments. In short, the complex but incomplete changes

now in place in these sites herald a time of widespread ferment, risk, and opportunity.

63

7a)

References

Arizona Department of Education. (1993, August). Assessment: Once again servinsueaching andlearning. Phoenix, AZ: Author.

Arizona test halted over accuracy concerns. (1995, February). Education Week, XIV(19), p. 4.

Bond, L.. Friedman, L., & van der Ploeg, A. (1994). Surveying the landscape of state educationalAssqmstjt jug. gam. Washington, DC: Council for Educational Development andResearch.

California Assessment Collaborative. (1993). harcMgthe cmJL-wtmrd cti riallysgutniassessment. San Francisco: Author.

California Department of Education. (1993a). California's public education: A decade after ANation at Risk. Sacramento, CA: Author.

California Department of Education. (1993b). Students. standards and success the Californialearning and assessment packet: Communications assistance packet. Sacramento. CA:Author.

California Department of Education. (1993c). Coordinated compliance review training guide.Sacramento, CA: Author.

California Department of Education. (1993d). Guide and criteria for program Quality reviewSacramento, CA: Author.

California Department of Education. (1993e, December). Statewide performance standards for theCalifornia Learning Assessment System. Sacramento, CA: Author.

Case studies of policy implementation. (1990. Fall). Educational Evaluation and Policy Aaalvsis12(3).

Community School District One. (1993). Blueprint for progress. New York, NY. Auth.

DiMarco, M. G. (1994, October 19). California testing proposal and curriculum 'frameworks.'Education Week, XIV(7), p. 36.

Elmore, R. F., & Fuhrman, S. H. (1994). The governance ,:.f curriculum: 1994 Yearbook of theAssociation for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Fate of California testing unclear after Wilson's veto. (1995, October). Education Week, XTV(5). p13.

Fuhrman, S. H. (1994, September). Challenzes in systemic education reform: CPRE_gplicy briersRutgers, NJ: Consortium for Public Policy Research in Education.

64

Fuhrman. S. H. (Ed.). (1993). Designing coherent poli y: Improving the system.. San Francisco:Josey-Bass Publishers.

Fuhrman, S. H., & Malen, B. (Eds.). (1991). The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990Yearbook of the politics of education association. New York: Falmer Press.

Grasnick, N. S. (1994, April 15). Chapt .00l imorovement timeline and actions. Baltimore.MD: Maryland Department of Erl

Guthrie, J. W. (1990, Fall). [Special issue on mathematics.] Educational evaluation and policyanalysis, 12(3).

Harp, L. (1994). The plot thickens. Education Week, D(34), pp. 20-25.

Kentucky Department of Education. (No Date). World-class standardsbi- world - class kids.Frankfort, KY: Author.

Kentucky Department of Education. (1994a). KIRIS 1992-1993 technical] rte. Frankfort, KY:Author.

Kentucky Department of Education. (1994b). Kentucky learning_go ademic expectations.Frankfort, KY: Author.

Kentucky Department of Education. (1994c). Position paper on recommended changes in KIR1Sassessment and accountability program. Frankfort, KY: Author.

Kentucky Department of Education. (1993, December). Transformations: Kentucky's curriculumframework: Volumes I and H. Frankfort, KY: Author.

Knapp, M. S., & Shields, P. M. (1990). Better schooling for the children of poverty: Alternativesto conventional wisdom...Y41nm ILLSommissigneg.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Laguarda, K. G., Breckenridge, J. S., Hightower, A. M., & Adelman, N. (1994, June).Assessment programs in the Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSI) states: Using studentachievement data to evaluate the SSI,. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.

LeTendre. M. J. (1993, May 13). Letter to Dr. Ed Reidy, Associate Commissioner. Washington.DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Levin, H. M. (1992). Learning from accelerated schools. In Changing schools: Insights.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Levin, H. M. (1987). New schools for the disadvantaged. Teacher Education Ouarterly 14(4). 60-83.

Linn, R. L. (1994). Performance assessments. Policy Promises and Technical Standards, 21(9), 4-114.

65

Marsh, N. (1993, June). Conversation with USED about May 13, 1993, KIRIS approval letter.Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Department of Education.

Maryland State Department of Education. (1994). FY95 application for grants to meet the specialeduca i n ee f edu .ti.n. 1 cl. adv ed hildren. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Maryland State Department of Education. (1993a). Fact sheet 5. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Maryland State Department r.-" (1993b). Maryland jsachpononMaryla'a_or' sigd National Education Goals, 1993.

Author

Maryland St. to Defy 0? El:1'dr -tors (1993c). Maryland school _performance report 1993:State altiry:re, MD: Author.

Maryland Stan ,tp-mrtyzat cation. (:991, June). ,aide and procedures for Maryland schoolI:teflon a,:rentatta: State ch ol em d ch ol Baltimore. MD:Au& cu

Massell ^ . urlariai ... M., "Aden. P., Wohlstetter, R. C., & Yee, G. (1994,larn:ary) reform: 1983 -199?. Rutgers, NY: Consortium forFdb!iu n.lacarir 1.

Means, B., & :Knapp, M. S. (Eds.). (19V1). Teaching advanced_skillc to educationallyis rvanta ed students. Menlo Pal E, CA: SRI International.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative foreducational reform. Washington, DC: Author.

National Governors Association. (No Date,. State strategies for restructuring the zinsation system:For eovernors and governors' staff. Washington, DC: Author.

Natriello, G., McDill, E., & Pallas, A. (1990). ichoglingsliaatNa Racine again tcatastrophe. New York: Teachers College Press.

Newmann, F. M. (1991). Linking restructuring to authentic student achievement. f1,1:- altaKappan, 72(6), 458-463.

New York State Education Department/University of the State of New York. (1992). A newcompact for learning. Albany, NY: Author.

Niagara Falls City School District. (1994, February). Walk the walk: Issue #7. Niagara Falls, NYAuthor.

Niagara Falls City School District. (no date). Chapter 1 overview. Niagara Falls, NY: Author.

66

Noble, A. J., & Smith, M. L. (1994, April). Old and new beliefs about measurement-drivenreform: 'The more things change. the more they stay the same'. Los Angeles, CA:CRESST/Arizona State University.

O'Day, J., & Smith, M. S. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In S. H.Fuhrman (Ed.), D h rent ucatior r__p.istetn (pp. 250-312).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Olsen, L. (1994, October 51. Fate of California testing unclear after Wilson's veto. EducationWeek, 14(5), p. 13.

Pechman, E., & Laguarda, K. (1993). Status of new state frcuframeworks. standards,assessments. and monitoring systems. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.

Pog. ow, S. A. (1990). Challenging at-risk students: Findings from the HOTS Program. Phi DeltaKamm, 71(5), 389-397.

Porter, A. C., Archbald, D. A., & Tyree, A. K., Jr. (1991). Reforming the curriculum: Willempowerment policies replace control? In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.) The politics ofannfiggiurnpd testing. The 1990 yearbook of the politics of education association (pp. 11-36). New York: Falmer Press.

Resnick, L. B., & Klopfer, L. E. (Eds.). (1989). Toward the thinking curriculum: Curt 't

cognitive research. 1989 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum12opts2pment (ASCD).. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

School Improvement Office. (1993). Guide and criteria for Program Quality Review -- Elementary.Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.

Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L., & Madden, N. A. (Eds.). (1989). Effective programs for students atrig. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Selden, R., Hemphill, C., & Blank, R. (1993). Analysis of state education indicators: State profilesand NAEP results related to state policies and practices. Washington, DC: Council of Chiefstate School Officers.

Smith, M. (1994). Systemic education reform: The Clinton agenda. Washington. DC: TheBrookings Institution.

Sobol, T. (1993, November 8). Regulation of the Commissioner of Education (Part 100.11.).Albany, NY: The State Education Department/The University of the State of New York.

Stringfield, S., Millsap, M. A., Winfield, L., Brigham, N., Yoder, N., & Moss, M. (1992,September). Urban and suburban/rural special strategies for educating disadvantagedchildren: Second year report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Tucson Unified School District. (1994, January 15). R.tionale for Chapter 1 application revisions.Tucson, AZ: Author.

67

7C

Turbill, J., Butler, A.,.Cambourne, B. Langton, G. (1991). Frameworks core course: Theory intopractice (revised edition). Stanley, NY: Wayne-Finger Lakes Board of CooperativeEducational Services.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, CompensatoryEducatior °tograrns. (1993a, September). lin r vin Act 1994.Washingu.a, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, CompensatoryEducation Programs. (1993b, March). Chanter 1 policy manual additions. Washington, DC:Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and Office of Policyand Plapnirg (1993c, February). Reinventing Chapter 1: The current Chapter 1 programand new directions. li Nati nal Assessment f the Chapter 1 Program.Washington, DC: Author.

U.S Department of Education. (1992, August 27). Incidental inclusion of non-Chapter 1 students:Part VI, Department of Education, 34 CFR Part 200, Federal Register. Washington, DC:Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, CompensatoryEducation Programs. (1990, April). Chapter 1p.olicv manual: Basic programs operated bylocal educational agencies. Washington, DC: Author.

Walker, H. L. (1993). Compensatory education office initiatives. Sacramento, CA: CaliforniaDepartment of Education.

68

7 -I

APPENDIX 1

Overview of State, Local, and Chapter 1 Program Linkagesin Case Study Districts

79

App

endi

x 1

Ove

rvie

w o

f St

ate,

Loc

al, a

nd C

hapt

er 1

Prog

ram

Lin

kage

s in

Cas

e St

udy

Dis

tric

ts

Dis

tric

t. S

tate

(Ditt

net e

nrol

lmeo

t and

setti

ng)

Dem

ogra

phic

Pro

file

Ch

I Pro

gram

Siz

e O

racl

es,

Com

pone

nts,

Sub

ject

s

Key

Ref

orm

Imita

tive'

&D

ares

......

..D

istr

ict &

Cha

pter

I Li

nkag

e to

Sta

tew

ide

Ref

orm

Cur

ricul

um a

nd In

uruc

tion

Sta

ndar

ds (

1.0,

goa

ls.

outc

omes

. obj

ectiv

es)

____

___

Ass

essm

ents

(C

onun

ents

),

.--

-

AR

IZO

NA

..

..

..

Sun

nysi

de U

nifie

d S

D, A

Z(I

3,3

00)r

ural

isub

urba

nM

euo

Tuc

son

area

. Inc

ludi

ngso

me

near

-in

tr.te

nolio

ns. L

elo

w-d

easi

ty b

y es

sent

ially

urba

n po

or fo

r th

e m

ost p

an

% W

hite

22

% A

ir A

mer

3

% H

ispa

nic

71

S N

aive

Am

enca

n3

S A

sian

I

S L

EP

13

S P

reaR

P L

unch

65

% C

hapt

er I

12

1.70

0 C

hapt

er I

stud

ents

; lan

guag

e A

rts

emph

asis

in g

rade

s K

5; c

entR

edte

ache

r/fa

cilit

ator

in e

ach

scho

ol p

rovi

des

reso

urce

s, in

smet

ion.

mod

elin

g an

dco

achi

ng fo

r te

ache

rs a

nd a

ides

; moa

tin

stru

ctio

n of

fere

d by

teac

hers

and

assi

aam

; par

ent B

atso

n do

es h

ome

visi

tsan

d pa

rent

min

ing;

mim

eo+

+ h

elp

ash

teac

hing

; Ree

ding

Rec

over

y ro

tors

(Eng

lish

and

Spa

nish

) w

ork

with

indi

vidu

al fl

irt g

rade

rs; s

umm

er s

choo

lof

fere

d fo

r ne

edie

st s

od p

si-e

ms.

Ado

pted

an

°Wee

d le

t-dr

iven

dev

elop

men

tal

mod

el b

ased

on

outc

omes

form

ulat

ed b

y pr

em./

educ

ator

com

mitt

ees

5-7

yrs.

ago

. bef

ore

AS

AP

. 12

goal

s fo

r K

-12

edo

pict

i and

post

ed In

eve

ry m

awro

om.

Cor

ncob

= d

ecis

ions

bas

edon

goa

ls

Inte

grat

ed th

emat

ic m

aste

ry M

ats

are

the

basi

s of

bea

u's

Ins

batr

uctio

n.N

o pu

llout

s C

h. I

&ai

lero

n w

ork

with

in c

lass

, sho

win

g te

ache

rs le

dai

des

how

to r

each

and

mon

itor

Ch.

Ipr

ogre

ss. U

se a

lot o

f ear

ly li

tera

cy,

coop

erat

ive

earn

ing,

lear

ning

mod

aliti

es.

loie

rver

si, i

n ar

e al

lch

osen

to im

prov

e in

stru

ctio

n fo

r al

lst

uden

ts, a

lthou

gh n

o S

WP

s ar

ecu

rren

tly in

pla

ce,

Des

ired

outc

omes

bas

est

mon

ling

to 1

2 di

stric

tou

tcom

es; c

ondn

uoua

pro

gres

sM

odel

in d

istr

ict;

no s

peci

alC

h. I

beae

ltosa

rb b

esid

esth

ose

requ

ired

by s

tate

.D

istr

ict g

oals

are

sim

ilar

tost

ate

goal

', to

no

adju

stm

ent

of lo

cal d

evel

opm

ents

was

nece

ssar

y.

Sun

nysi

de u

ses

its o

wn

gene

ric' a

sses

smen

ts a

ndru

bric

s to

test

kid

s. T

hey

are

leac

her

hod

kid

frie

odly

.' fr

ame

ten

even

tsto

mar

ch A

SA

P p

roto

col'

add

cord

ed. b

ut p

erm

it ru

eof

rea

ding

and

lang

uage

cont

ent g

eare

d to

stu

dent

s'le

vels

e.g

.. M

owin

gab

ility

to a

naly

zeex

posi

tory

pro

w w

ritte

n at

the

cblk

.rs

leve

l

Tuc

son

US

O. A

Z 3

57.0

003

urba

n ar

ea. d

iver

sity

aty

pica

lof

the

stat

e

% W

hite

52

S A

ir A

mer

6

S H

ispa

nic

37

S N

at A

m4

S A

run

2

% L

EP

20

S F

ree/

RP

Lun

ch

S C

hapt

er I

4,40

0 C

hapt

er I

stud

ents

; Rea

ding

Rec

over

y in

Eng

lish

and

Spa

nish

id fi

rst

grad

e; s

cboo

l im

prov

emen

t tea

ms;

fam

ilyw

elln

ess

cent

ers

(one

-sto

p so

cial

ser

vice

);ad

ult e

d; b

iling

ual

Ear

ly c

hild

hood

pro

ject

for

4- to

6 -

year

-ol

ds; s

taff

deve

lopm

ent i

n N

CT

Mm

ath,

par

ent i

nvol

vem

ent,

fam

ily w

elln

ess

cere

e.w

ith in

tegr

ated

soc

ial

serv

ice

deliv

ery;

boi

ngua

)re

sour

ce te

ache

rs, c

ertif

ied

Rea

ding

Rec

over

y pr

ogra

min

Spa

nish

; HO

TS

; 7'a

meb

as:le

pro

ject

s.

Alig

ned

TU

SD

and

sta

re c

urric

ulum

gush

with

I' C

TM

sta

ndar

ds; w

hole

lang

uage

with

em

plui

shi o

npr

even

tion

of e

arly

failu

re; N

AA

YY

C-

guid

ed e

arly

chi

ldho

od p

rogr

am.

Initi

ated

asa

sson

ste

refo

rmbe

fore

AS

AP

; cre

ated

Spa

nish

Rea

ding

Rec

over

/ in

1990

;bo

dy w

elln

ess

cent

ers

bega

nop

enin

g In

199

2-93

.

Dis

tric

t's a

sses

smen

tre

form

pre

date

d sl

ate'

s,be

gan

deve

lopi

ng a

nd u

sing

inst

rum

ents

suc

h as

aho

listic

ally

sco

red

writ

ing

elec

tione

ers

and

deve

lopi

ngsk

ills

chec

klis

ts (

or e

arly

child

hood

pro

gram

s.

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

Dis

tric

t, S

tate

(Dis

tric

t enr

ollm

ent a

ndse

tting

)

Dem

ogra

phic

Pro

fi le

Ch

1 P

rogr

am S

ize

Wad

es.

Cum

pone

ou. S

ubje

cts

Key

Ref

orm

Initi

ativ

es &

Dat

es

Dsu

rict &

Cha

pter

I Li

nkag

e to

Sm

iew

ide

Ref

orm

Cur

ricul

um a

nd R

uina

tion

Sta

ndar

ds (

i.e..

dogs

.04

1140

4004

, 064

CC

alve

ll

Alle

3311

1e0t

1 (e

urna

lent

s)

CA

LIF

OR

NIA

Hay

war

d U

nifie

d. C

A(2

0.00

0) u

rban

. met

ro S

anP

re r

icis

conl

alria

ed

% W

hite

38

% M

inor

ity66

(Van

ed m

inor

itypo

pole

uon.

incl

udin

gA

fric

an A

mer

ican

a, A

sian

s,so

d H

ispa

nic

grou

ps)

% L

EP

38

% P

reei

RP

Lun

chS

O

% C

hapt

er 1

i8

8.00

0 C

hapt

er I

;rud

e= in

IC-I

lth-g

rade

prog

ram

. Sar

ong

emph

asis

on

scho

olw

ide

prog

ram

s. E

ach

scho

ol p

lans

Its

own

Cha

pter

I pr

ogra

m, c

ondu

ctin

g its

nee

dsas

sess

men

ts a

nd d

esig

ning

mew

led

ricliv

tlki t

hat o

tter

all s

tude

nts

supp

ort t

oat

tain

high

loca

l and

sia

tew

ale

goal

s

Sch

oolw

prog

ram

s w

ere

mor

tare

d af

ter

1988

.D

istr

ict -

base

d cu

rric

ulum

coor

dina

tor

has

been

invo

lved

bah

incu

mC

ulU

m e

nd &

Mar

tina(

deve

lopm

ent

Cur

ticau

m a

nd in

stru

ctio

n ar

ede

sign

ed b

y in

divi

dual

sch

ools

onba

sis

of a

nnua

l nee

ds L

igam

ents

.In

stru

ctio

n em

brac

es th

e di

vers

ity o

fth

e 'tu

cker

's la

ngua

ge a

nd c

ultu

re in

a pO

ptal

a th

igh:

KIM

:lea

rtU

deM

S

spra

ki.

ler

80 la

ngua

ges.

Sch

ools

plea

thei

r ow

n pr

ogra

ms,

com

bins

esre

sear

ch-b

aled

ref

orm

s in

inst

ruct

ion

and

peda

gogy

Sch

ools

em

phas

ize

fam

ily a

nd c

omm

unity

invo

lvem

ent.

Eac

h sc

hool

dev

ilopi

km

ow

nre

arm

s an

dgo

als

with

in th

eco

nasi

of t

he s

late

'scu

rric

ulum

fram

ewor

k.

Di S

IAM

out

sta

te a

nd lo

cal

smod

aran

ed e

isen

aleo

hlS

ome

scho

ols

are

exec

nree

ntin

g w

pbpo

rdol

(os

and

othe

rpa

nica

mu-

booe

das

sess

men

t

Long

Rea

ch U

nifie

d. C

A1

/0.0

481

urns

°. m

emo

LA%

H u

pa

ex36

% W

hite

23

% B

lack

19

% A

sian

16

% F

ilipi

no3

% P

actli

c Is

land

er2

% L

EP

33

% A

PD

C31

% C

hapt

er1

11

21 2

2.00

0 C

hapt

er t

itude

nugr

ades

K-I

0, in

-cla

u te

am le

achi

ng b

yce

rtifi

ed C

hapt

er I

teac

hers

, bef

oref

afte

rsc

hool

pro

gram

s. s

umm

er in

terr

.ess

ion

42 4

3 C

hapt

er1

scho

ols

In c

lass

ser

vice

del

iver

ydr

ca 1

983.

Rea

ding

Rec

over

y in

199

1; a

dd-o

npr

ogra

m' c

irca

1987

;C

LAS

-like

ass

essm

ent f

orC

hapt

er I

circ

a t9

91. 1

9ic

houl

wid

e pr

otec

ts

Gen

eral

pro

gram

alig

ned

with

CA

curr

icul

um fr

amew

orks

; Cha

pter

Ise

rvic

es s

uppo

rt s

tude

nts

to r

egul

arpr

ogra

m, n

o se

para

te C

hapa

r ,

curr

icul

um

Cha

pter

I de

sire

d (*

.inco

mes

I) 3

NC

R g

ain

on M

AT

2) C

LAS

-like

ass

essm

ent

3)us

essm

eat b

aud

web

text

book

4) M

oral

e pr

ofic

ienc

yas

sem

men

t with

LE

P B

olde

n'S

l act

ual I

rten

dann

e (M

4110

230

not e

xcus

ed a

bsen

ces)

6) a

t sec

onda

ry le

vel.

grad

es(t

nily

mul

tiple

ale

asU

rell

Use

MA

T (

Mun

n te

stin

gpr

ogra

m)

for

dent

.in

f(un

ion.

Dis

tric

t will

prob

ably

sw

itch

toC

AS2

,a

com

mer

cial

test

wea

lpe

rfor

man

ce c

ompo

nent

san

d so

me

norm

-ref

dem

i.U

se C

LAS

-lik

e S

SIC

SS

OIC

IX

for

inst

ruct

ion

feed

back

.C

LAS

(C

allfo

nues

sat

epe

rfor

man

ce m

ad-li

keem

essm

ent a

ss d

evel

ope,

sod

pilo

ted

for

Cha

pter

Ist

ateo

unow

Cha

pter

IaI

nfee

ts p

erfo

rm b

ette

r on

as a

hem

.

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

to

Dis

tric

t. S

ate

(Dis

tric

t enr

ollm

ent a

ndw

ing)

Dem

ogra

phic

Pro

file

Ch.

I P

rogr

am S

ize

Gra

des.

Com

pone

nts,

Sub

ject

s

Key

Rel

ent I

nitia

tives

&D

ates

Dis

tric

t & C

hapt

er 1

Lin

kage

tc S

tate

wid

e R

efor

m

Cur

ricul

um a

nd In

stru

ctio

nS

tand

ards

(Le

.. go

als.

outc

omes

. obj

ectiv

es)

Ass

esom

enu

(Con

nery

:1

K E

NT

UC

K Y

.

Chr

isua

n C

omity

PS

, KY

(21.

0001

rura

l uni

fied

dist

rict

that

incl

udes

1-lo

ptus

avill

a(p

op 2

7.00

0 in

clud

es a

bout

4430

mig

rant

kid

s (o

nly

114

ere

in C

h.1

us s

peci

al e

d) 'b

apm

obili

ty (

near

mili

tary

bas

e)

It W

hite

62

S A

ft A

mer

.2$

S L

EP

I

15 P

res/

RP

Lun

ch52

II C

hapt

er i

32

."..-

-....

----

3.00

0 C

hapt

er I

snift

ers

; ins

truc

tiona

las

st. I

n co

mpu

ter

lab;

Ch.

1 te

ache

r w

elt

in-c

Lus

and

pull-

out r

eadi

ng a

nd m

ath

inin

term

edia

te. m

iddl

e. a

nd h

igh

scho

olgr

ades

(hi

s. d

ropp

ed In

94-

95).

In

mid

dle

scho

ols.

tent

ed te

ache

r re

ams

with

reg

teac

her

.--.

....

Beg

an in

198

6, p

reda

ted

)'.E

RA

.

Incl

usio

n m

odel

kids

use

d to

be

with

draw

n fr

om C

h. I

beca

lm o

fst

igm

a.Jo

sten

s La

bLe

arni

ngst

yles

. Em

phas

is o

n w

hole

ang

uage

sod

read

ing

styl

e'

Cha

pter

1 li

ar c

how

s am

ong

desi

red

outc

omes

in r

eadi

ngan

d m

ath

for

prop

. foc

us.

MO

ILIO

r pr

ogre

ss th

roug

hJo

sten

s sy

stem

: We

KIF

US

0an

d pr

omot

ion

rate

s

Pay

ette

Cou

nty

P3,

KY

(33

000)

met

ropo

lean

Lela

ospo

n

MA

IMM

INI

It W

hite

76

S A

ft A

mer

22

S O

ther

2

S L

E P

I

It F

ree.

/RP

Lun

ch30

S C

hapt

er I

13

Cha

pter

I se

rves

4,0

00 p

rimar

y th

roug

hS

W-g

rade

stu

dent

s.21

ext

ende

d-da

ykl

rale

tgan

ens

Ice

15 n

eedi

est k

ids;

cert

ified

teac

her,

wor

k w

ith m

all g

roup

s(4

5) a

nd a

ides

wor

t with

1.2

on

read

ing

and

LA; c

olla

bora

tive

logs

with

reg

ular

teac

hers

. Thr

ee S

WP

Tw

o ca

tego

ries

ofId

drco

re a

id Ik

e (v

aria

ble

serv

ice)

. Spr

ivat

e so

d pa

roch

ial s

choo

ls. -

I N&

Dsa

es

IncN

amoi

colla

bonu

onpr

ogra

m b

egan

I/1

1988

,st

arte

d ex

tend

ed il

ayki

nder

gart

en in

19:

01;

Pon

follo

s ar

e us

ed to

mon

itor

prog

reu.

SW

Pst

inte

d to

198

9

Cb.

I te

ache

r, a

nd a

ides

use

us-

cite

ste

achi

ng w

ith li

mite

d pu

ll -o

ut (

taug

htby

clo

sely

sup

ervi

sed

aide

s) to

prei

esch

upc

omin

g ka

zoos

In r

dg a

ndLA

, lou

of s

uper

visi

on fr

andb

y C

h.1

spec

ialis

ts; f

ocus

on

who

lela

ngua

ge r

eadi

ng. w

ritin

g sk

ills

and

port

folio

dev

elop

men

t. an

dm

anip

ulat

ive-

4-nd

mat

h.

Cha

pter

I su

d ch

oose

sde

sire

d ou

tcom

es fr

om lu

tele

arne

r ou

tcom

es. R

eadi

ng.

LA. a

nd m

at;

CO

.I p

aren

t. te

ache

r,ad

min

istr

ator

rev

iew

com

mitt

ee m

eets

3 ti

mes

a

year

to r

eadm

it m

ajor

nes

t

Use

s M

a, b

ut a

lso

devi

ses

own

stra

tegy

(incl

udin

g st

anda

rdiz

edte

su)

to s

how

gai

ns w

ahus

each

cat

egor

y a

prof

icie

ncy

in s

hone

rtim

efra

mes

. sal

to tr

act

prog

ram

s on

des

ired

OW

C0(

1141

.

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

Li a

l

Dis

tric

t. Su

m(D

istr

ict e

nrol

lmen

t and

setu

ng)

Dem

ogra

phic

Prof

ile

Ch

I N

orm

a Si

ze r

biou

sC

ompo

oere

s. S

ubse

ts

Key

Ret

ain

lani

ativ

es &

Dat

es

Dis

tric

t k C

hapt

er I

Lir

kage

to S

tate

wid

e R

efor

ms

Cur

ricu

lum

and

Ins

truc

cioo

Stan

dard

s (L

e.. g

ale,

mom

s. o

bjec

tives

)A

sses

smen

ts (

Com

men

ts)

MA

RY

LA

ND

Fred

eric

k C

ount

y PS

. MD

(291

00ru

ral s

yste

m th

atin

clud

es n

ub c

ity a

nd s

ever

alsm

all t

owns

S W

hite

9015

Afr

Am

er7

S O

ther

3

11 L

EP

I

S Pr

ee/R

P L

unch

la

11 C

hapt

er 1

l

lo g

rade

' 1. 2

& 3

, 2 c

oope

ratin

gce

rtif

ied

tchn

for

eac

h cl

assr

oom

odt

hC

hapt

er 2

stu

dent

s in

U.

Peek

is a

jow

lpr

ogra

m w

ith H

ad S

un. /

11.1

1fU

tliO

ali

aide

in e

ach

scho

ol &

som

e ex

tend

ed d

ay

prog

ram

s

Rad

ical

res

truc

turi

ng I

nre

cent

yrs

:in

-cla

ssin

stru

ctio

n. te

am te

achi

ng,

8111

1111

C1

scho

ol

&no

dal C

urri

culu

m f

or F

rede

rick

Cby

; for

Cha

pter

I. p

rogr

am a

dds

Rev

iew

. Ext

end.

Enr

ich

& M

odif

yIR

a E

.M.)

. tea

m te

achi

ng, s

umo:

scho

ol.

Des

imd

outc

omes

bas

ed o

nlo

cal c

rite

rion

-ref

emoc

edas

sess

men

ts.

Res

ults

on

sate

uses

snie

nts

mon

itore

dth

roug

h th

e di

stri

ct's

acco

uoub

dity

sys

tem

Loc

al p

erfo

rmac

ca-b

ased

.un

etio

e-re

fere

nced

,as

sum

ed s

yste

m I

sal

igne

d w

ith th

e M

aryl

and

Scho

ol P

erfo

rm:m

omA

sses

smen

t Pro

gram

.

I

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

Dis

tric

t. S

tate

(Dis

tric

t enr

ollm

eca

and

mai

m

Dem

ogra

phic

Pro

file

Cl'

.I P

rogr

am S

ize

Gra

des.

Com

pone

ns, S

ubje

cts

Key

Ref

orm

lind

ativ

es &

Dat

es

Dis

tric

t & C

hapt

er I

Link

age

to S

tuew

ide

Ref

orm

Cur

mul

um a

nd r

ostr

a:do

nS

tand

ards

(I.e

., go

als,

otle

cnC

rlaS

. obj

ectiv

es)

adue

sarr

ient

s (C

amer

al)

NE

W Y

OR

K

.A

smic

alar

reill

iMM

.

Coo

unun

ky S

chad

Dis

tric

t 1N

ew Y

ak C

ky. N

Y(1

0.30

0)--

Eas

t Vill

ap, t

, evr

Yor

k C

ity

.

II W

hite

S

'S &

fr. A

.m.

i 5

A H

ispe

nic

70

S A

sh::

9

S L

EP

11

51T

Fre

e/R

P lu

nch

93

II C

hapt

er I

SO

Cha

pter

1 s

erve

s 5,

200

preK

-9 'W

ilma.

12 s

choe

lwid

e pr

ojec

ts. i

nteg

rate

din

stru

ctio

n, E

SL,

dua

l Lan

guag

e, v

arie

dm

odel

s w

ith e

mph

asis

on

scho

ol-b

ased

plan

ning

. Rea

ding

Rec

over

y, (

bode

dpa

rent

al c

ente

rs a

nd in

volv

emeo

i.

(ous

ted

refo

rm it

s ea

rly19

80s;

199

01 s

aw c

hang

esin

sup

erin

tend

enU

and

pus

hfo

r S

BM

. who

le la

ngua

ge.

nail

deve

lopm

ent,

smal

lIp

ecta

ky s

choo

ls: s

prin

g19

94 c

hang

e U

3su

pens

terid

enu

occu

rred

agai

n-re

form

Mitr

e is

uncl

ear.

Inte

grat

ed In

stru

ctio

n (c

omm

unic

stio

nsu

s. m

ath.

aw

l Rea

ding

Rec

over

ypu

de I

and

also

2 &

3; t

eam

teac

hing

Ch.

I &

rag

ed;

dis

tric

tfu

ndin

g fo

r jo

int p

lann

ing

time:

prog

ram

s va

ry r

eedy

by

scho

ol w

ithsc

hool

wal

es e

ncou

rage

d; d

lstr

ictw

ide

surf

dev

elop

men

t bit

adan

nisi

nton

and

teac

her,

in w

hole

lang

uage

;pa

rtne

rshi

ps v

ah u

p/ye

nnin

g an

dbu

stne

sta

Hig

h st

anda

rds

for

all

uude

an, i

nclu

sive

edu

catio

n:go

al o

f con

duct

ing

sam

ecu

rric

ulum

for

all.

incl

udin

gLE

P (

not y

et r

each

ed).

Nor

m r

ef d

for

desi

red

wea

ries;

sam

e In

form

alg

use

of p

onfo

lloa;

Stu

dent

Pro

gres

s R

epor

t (ob

serv

es)

by te

ache

r -c

reat

ed b

yN

YC

Cen

tral

Boa

rd-

Dia

na I

adap

ted

inn

ape

rfor

man

ce-b

ased

asse

ssm

ent.

K-2

use

beha

vior

che

cklis

t as

pre-

uses

srne

nt a

ndbi

stro

:hor

n! g

uide

Nia

gara

Pal

ls, N

Y(9

,100

)-un

all c

oy n

ear

Buf

falo

II W

hite

67

I1 M

r A

in29

II O

ther

mco

onite

sS

IT L

EP

I

Pre

eJR

P L

unch

49

S (

Am

mer

I22

All

Cha

pter

I se

rvic

e, a

re d

eliv

ered

ut

regu

lar

clas

sroo

ms-

follo

win

g sc

hool

wkl

est

yle

stra

tegy

; 'co

llabo

rativ

e te

ache

rs.'

fund

ed in

pen

by

Cha

pter

1. t

eam

teac

hin

cla

ssro

oms

eat p

rovi

de in

serv

ice

trai

ning

to r

egul

ar C

lass

room

leac

hers

:'b

ooke

r' pr

ogra

ms:

est

eale

il-da

yki

nder

gart

en. a

llers

choo

l pro

gram

Ingr

ade

3. a

nd 'n

en-ir

sdki

onal

- pr

ogra

m in

grad

e 6:

Cha

pter

I se

rves

K -

12. w

ith a

locu

s on

prim

ary

and

early

chi

ldho

od:

acho

oNsi

de p

roje

ct c

once

pts

used

. I.

scho

ols

are

not e

ligib

le b

ecau

se p

oi y

conc

eotn

uom

are

less

that

15

pette

rs

Pre

-dat

ed ir

ate'

n m

anda

tefo

r sc

hool

-bas

edm

anag

emen

t/sha

red

deci

sion

-mak

ing;

out

com

es-

Wee

d ed

ucat

ion,

wor

king

on b

ench

mar

ks. p

rofic

ienc

yle

vels

, adh

eres

to N

ewC

ompa

ct fo

r re

amin

gst

rate

gies

and

invo

lve

com

mun

ity a

nd b

usin

ess

inde

velo

ping

*na

rala

rds

for

exce

llenc

e,' b

egin

ning

wor

k pr

epar

edne

sspr

ogra

ms

Fiv

e ye

ar c

urric

ulum

cyc

les

incl

ude

deve

lopm

ent o

f sta

ndar

ds a

ndpr

ofic

ienc

y le

vels

ao

arra

y of

alte

rnat

ive

asse

s/m

um In

line

with

emer

ging

Rat

a fr

amew

orks

. Cha

pter

I tea

cher

s si

t on

curr

icul

umcu

riuni

ttues

; cur

ricul

um c

ycle

inha

les

on-g

orng

sta

g de

velo

pmen

tpr

ovid

ed b

y an

d :o

r te

ache

rs,

rece

ived

som

e w

aive

rs fr

om th

e S

tale

to a

lter

a R

egen

ts c

ours

e (g

r. 9

Ran

hS

eteo

cel a

nd d

evel

op *

tenn

isw

enn:

writ

s: c

ornc

ob=

em

phas

izes

high

er o

rder

thin

king

oki

ll,T

hrou

ghou

t

Dev

elop

ed 's

tand

ards

for

exce

llenc

e" "

rah

busi

ness

zed

com

mun

ity s

take

hold

ers.

Dev

elop

ing

benc

hmar

ks a

ndpr

ofic

ienc

y nd

er',

as p

art

of c

urric

ulum

rev

isio

n, w

ithhe

lp fr

om h

ighe

r-ed

curn

asur

ory;

mon

itors

mai

m%

prog

ress

on

cuin

pute

nzed

dat

aba

nk

Dev

elop

ing

perf

orm

ance

alis

east

rieni

3 in

all

alib

ied

area

with

ant

ra=

trai

npu

blis

her.

Cha

pter

I us

esC

18F

. PE

P. a

nd T

OR

E -

2(K

..',

Gra

de Ii

; voi

lain

c ap

onte

new

asse

inne

nts

as a

vaila

ble.

APPENDIX 2

Status of New Assessment DeNelopment in Case Study States

90l

App

endi

x 2

Stat

us o

f N

ew A

sses

smen

t Dev

elop

men

t in

Cas

e St

udy

Stat

es

.010

lin=

1011

1111

0011

1101

11..

Stat

ue I

nfor

mat

ion

'A

rlan

! la

-.

Cal

ifor

nia

...

____

___

Ken

tuck

y._

New

Yor

kM

aryl

and

Nam

e of

Kay

Acc

ount

abili

ty[c

arm

an/

..

Ari

zona

Stu

dent

Ass

esam

ere

Prog

ram

(A

SAP)

Cal

ifor

nia

Lea

rnin

g A

sses

smen

tSy

stem

(C

LA

S)

Ken

tuck

y le

auut

tona

l Res

ults

Info

rmat

ion

Syst

em (

MIS

)

New

inst

rum

ents

not

dev

elop

ed.

28-m

embe

r cu

rric

ulum

adv

isor

yC

omm

ittee

Is

craf

ting

the

conc

ept

Mar

ylan

d Sc

hool

Per

form

ance

Ass

essm

ent P

rogr

am (

MSP

AP)

Bas

elin

e Im

plem

enta

tion

Yea

rN

umbe

r / p

ars

of c

ontin

uous

dat

a In

spri

ng I

rr::

Spra

ng 1

993

2 ye

ars

of ti

lls

Spra

ng 1

993

Bas

elin

e ye

ar

Spri

ng 1

992

2 ye

ars

of d

ata

Not

app

licab

leSp

rLig

199

2

2 ye

ah o

f da

ta

Subj

ects

test

ed in

spr

ing

1994

(1=

Impl

emen

ting;

Pas

pilo

ting)

Rea

dhig

/LA

I

Mat

hem

atic

s1

Wri

ting

-1

Und

er d

evilo

proe

m:

SC

iDO

CO

.so

cial

situ

:hes

, app

lied

skill

s. h

ealth

.fo

reig

n la

ngua

ge. l

itera

ture

. mul

e,da

nce,

dra

mat

ic a

rts.

vis

ual a

rea

Rea

ding

/LA

-I

Wri

ting

- 1

Mat

hem

atic

s -

I

Scie

nce

PSo

cial

Stu

dies

- P

Rca

dinp

LA

-I

Wri

ting

-1M

athe

mat

ics

-I

Scie

nce

- I

Soci

al S

tudi

es -

1M

ath

& W

ritin

g Po

rtfo

lio'

I

Ter

ra a

re e

xpec

ted

to c

oinc

ide

with

the

rum

fra

mew

orks

; no

imc4

emen

tari

on d

ata

have

bee

nse

t

Rea

ding

/Lan

guag

e ar

tsI

Mat

hem

atic

s -

ISc

ienc

e -

I

Soci

al S

tudi

es -

I

Lin

Mks

. sub

ject

s, s

ad p

ublk

atIo

nda

ta(*

) of

sea

llabl

e cu

rrku

lum

fram

ewor

ks

Ari

zona

ess

entia

l Ski

lls:

Lan

guag

e A

rts

(My

1992

)M

ethe

mat

ics

(ND

)Sc

ienc

e IN

D)

Soci

al .S

tudi

es (

July

191

9)C

ompr

ehen

sive

Hea

lth (

Aug

199

0)Po

reqi

n L

angu

age

(ND

)L

itera

ture

(M

ay 1

990)

Mus

ic (

Mar

ch 1

988)

Dan

ce (

Apr

il 19

90)

Dra

mat

ic A

ru (

1990

)V

uual

Art

s (J

uly

1988

)

Cel

ifor

ni; F

ram

ewor

ks.

Tra

nsfo

rmat

ions

: Ker

tlick

xli

New

fra

mew

orks

und

erde

velo

pmen

t: m

athe

mat

ic' a

ndla

ngua

ge a

rts

are

in d

raft

for

mat

Non

e av

aila

ble

Fore

ign

Lan

guag

e (1

989)

Hea

lth E

duca

uon

(199

2)M

athe

tnat

ica

(199

2)Sc

ienc

e (1

990)

Eng

lish

Lan

guag

e A

rts

(1V

931

His

tory

-Soc

ial S

cien

ce (

1988

1M

usic

al E

duca

tion

((99

2)V

isua

l and

Per

form

ing

Art

s(1

989)

QU

Incl

ii401

Pram

ewod

g(V

olum

e{ I

and

IR

(19

93)

(3 1

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE9'

)

Ris

kin

Info

rmat

ion

Ariz

ona

Cal

iforn

iaK

entu

cky

New

Yor

kN

ICIII

IIIIM

MID

OZ

OIN

EM

aryl

and

If th

e te

st Is

key

ed to

out

com

es, w

him

are

they

caR

ed a

nd h

ow m

any

Sr.

rate

d?

67 E

ssen

tial %

lib a

ro to

be

mas

tere

d by

the

end

of 1

7th

grad

eD

e by

and

of g

rade

3; 2

3 fo

r gr

ade

fl. 2

6 fo

r tr

ade

12)

Res

ults

key

ed to

per

form

ance

leve

ls w

ithin

con

tent

arr

as, n

otou

tcom

es

Key

ed to

40

Lear

ner

Out

com

es' (

revi

sed

in 1

994

as'A

cade

mic

Exp

ecta

tions

')

Cur

riors

kun

fram

ewor

ks u

se th

e

term

*st

anda

n0.1

ota

Min

CO

spec

ified

Key

ed to

33

Mar

ylan

d"L

earn

ing

Out

com

es'

Gra

des

asse

ssed

try

Ilndk

ats

varia

nces

In s

ubje

cts

test

ed a

tdi

ffere

nt g

rade

s)

Gra

des

3. I.

12

in r

eadi

nvis

agua

gean

s. w

ritin

g. a

nd a

t-th

emat

ic/

Rea

ding

, mar

k. W

ritin

g:1,

I.10 Sci

ence

. soc

ial w

elte

r5,

12,

10

Gra

des

4. II

. 12

all s

ub e

ns a

rete

sted

No

info

rmat

ion

avai

libk

Gra

des

3. 5

, 11,

ail

subj

ects

test

ed

Tes

ted

Pop

ulat

ion

Wen

sual

Sam

ple/

Mat

rbil

Mer

ril a

mok

in (

opte

d G

rade

s at

stat

e le

vel

Mai

ns; h

um c

ensu

s m

ums

ingr

ade

3 is

pro

pose

d. p

endl

eyfu

ndin

g

Mum

sam

plin

g w

ith s

ome

cens

us te

stin

g on

com

mon

item

sfo

r fe

rmat

as in

divi

dual

res

uks

No

mfo

rmat

run

avai

labl

eM

atra

Typ

es o

f Tas

ksO

pen-

ende

dG

roup

pro

blem

sP

erfo

rman

ce ta

sks

Ess

ayP

ortfo

lioM

ultip

le c

hoke

Ope

n co

ded.

ess

ay; m

ukip

k ch

oice

Enh

ance

d m

ukip

le c

hoic

e;op

en-e

nded

per

form

ance

Ope

o-en

ded

Por

tfolio

sP

erfo

rman

ce e

vent

sM

ultip

le c

hoic

e (o

nly

unul

199

6)

Nu

info

rmat

ion

avai

labl

eO

pen-

enrie

d; g

roup

pro

blem

s;pe

rfor

man

ce a

nd in

tegr

ated

task

s (o

ne li

mn

scor

ed fo

rdi

ffert

ro s

ubje

cts)

Typ

es o

f Sco

res

Per

fora

tion*

sta

nds:

tab

Per

cent

ages

Sca

le s

core

sO

ther

Mer

e m

edia

a st

anda

rd d

evia

tions

of r

ubnc

sum

mat

es; s

epar

erel

yre

port

ed fo

r ea

ch M

ani u

m.

high

est p

ossi

ble

scor

e is

bot

hre

adin

g an

d m

ath

is 2

0; In

gham

poss

ible

mor

e in

win

ing

is 8

Per

form

ance

leve

ls.

1, 2

. 3. 4

.5,

6

Per

form

ance

leve

lsN

ovic

e (lo

w);

App

rent

ice;

Pro

ficie

nt; D

istin

guis

hed

No

info

rmat

ion

avai

labl

eLa

ver

I, 2,

3. 4

. 5. 3

or

abov

e is

tatia

acto

ry; g

oal i

sfo

r 70

% o

f mod

em In

all

scho

ols

to a

chie

ve e

3 o

r

abov

e

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

,MIV

EM

MIIM

IIIM

=1,

Sla

tes

Info

rmad

oeA

rbui

neC

alifo

rnia

Ken

tuck

y

AI, N

ew T

urk

Mar

ylan

d

Rep

ortin

g Le

vels

(Sch

ool;

DLU

rkti

Sta

te, C

hild

)

Sch

ool.

Cou

nty.

Sta

te; r

acia

l and

lang

uage

tom

oruy

bre

akdo

wns

Per

form

ance

leve

ls s

et w

ithin

dist

rict,

repo

rt th

e nu

mbe

r an

dpe

rcen

t of '

inde

nts

reac

hing

the

dIst

rici.a

peci

llect

goa

l to

each

CO

MM

are

a

Sch

ool.

Cou

nty.

Dim

on. S

tate

:G

rade

8 s

core

s av

aila

ble

for

indi

vidu

al m

utte

rer

Stu

dent

. Sch

ool.

Dis

trac

t. S

tate

,C

hapt

er I;

gen

der;

rac

ial 1

011

mitm

c br

eakd

owns

No

info

rmat

ion

avai

labl

eS

choo

l, D

istr

ict,

Sta

te

Pla

ns fa

r F

utur

e A

sses

smen

tD

evel

opm

ent

(ladk

ate

subj

ect &

pro

ject

edlin

plea

rem

atio

n da

te)

Sta

te is

pla

nnin

g to

exp

and

1113

1111

1111

101

into

oth

er b

asin

cot

erie

AM

U; a

u da

te to

r pi

lotin

g se

t

1997

-98-

Pul

l im

pkat

erga

tion

will

incl

ude

test

ing

all t

heab

ove

subj

ecta

in g

rade

s ai

S. 8

,10

and

rep

ortin

g of

indi

vidu

alst

uden

t res

ult'

Alth

ough

KlR

IS h

as b

urr

fully

impl

emen

ted.

mod

ifica

tiuns

are

phon

ed; l

earn

ing

outc

omes

hav

ebe

en n

extif

ied;

som

e di

scus

sion

of r

educ

ing

entir

e te

ar to

perf

orm

ance

task

s on

ly (

deka

ing

muk

ipk-

choi

ce ta

sks

and

keep

ing

port

folio

s lo

cal);

an

"Ear

lyLe

arni

ng P

rofil

e' h

as b

een

field

test

ed

The

sys

tem

that

is e

mer

ging

ispr

ojec

ted

to h

ave

thes

eco

mpo

nent

s:I)

sta

tew

ide

com

pute

rized

dam

bas

e of

perf

orm

ance

item

s; 2

) lo

caB

Yde

velo

ped

port

folio

s th

at in

clud

e'c

omm

on ta

rts'

, 3)

sam

ple

stat

ete

stin

g fo

r ev

alua

tion

ptifp

0111

1(n

o in

divi

dual

sta

led

onem

arle

m)

Use

if h

igh

scho

ol p

ortfo

lios

is b

eing

dire

-tru

ed

Oth

er L

atiu

m/n

u us

ed(G

ive

nam

e &

pur

pose

)

Par

tial b

atte

ry o

f IT

BS

ITA

P is

anm

uurie

red

each

fall

10 g

rade

s 4,

7.10

for

Cha

pter

I re

port

ing;

bot

hC

TB

S a

nd A

SA

P a

re a

dmin

iste

red

in E

nglis

h an

d S

pani

sh: &

min

iad

min

iste

red

-lean

s in

K.3

, 4.8

, 9.1

2

Gol

den

Sta

te P

uma

(hig

hsc

hool

end

-of-

cou

rse)

: Car

eer-

Tec

hnic

al A

sses

smen

t Pro

ject

Nos

eS

tate

-den

;gne

d P

EP

'yac

hts{

(Deg

rees

of R

eadi

ng P

ower

) an

dm

athe

mat

ics-

mul

tiple

-cho

lee

test

s-in

gra

des

3. S

; writ

ing

toad

min

iste

red

In g

rade

5;

Pro

gram

Eva

luat

ion

Tea

ts in

scie

nce

in g

rade

4 (

Wet

tings

perf

orm

ance

Wks

), s

ocia

lst

udie

s in

gra

des

6 an

d 8;

Reg

ents

Com

pete

ncy

Tes

ta N

WE

xam

inat

ions

(In

clud

e, r

eme

open

-erd

ed it

ems)

in c

onte

ntar

eas

in s

econ

dary

whe

algr

ades

.R

esul

ts a

te s

umm

ariz

edan

d re

port

ed a

nnua

lly it

, the

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

chle

vem

ent

Rep

orts

(C

AR

)

Mar

ylan

d P

unct

iona

l TO

ILS

inre

adin

g, v

entin

g, c

itize

rutip

;m

ust b

e pa

ssed

by

mad

e 11

;st

atew

ide

tem

ple

toni

ng in

grad

er 3

, 1, a

nd 8

on

CT

BS

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

APPENDIX 3

Examples of Data Reported for State Assessmentand Accountability Programs

Arizona

ASSESSMENT SYSTEM: Arizona Student Assessment Program (ASAP)1

REPORT LEVEL: State, District, School

REPORT TITLE: Report Card

GRADES REPORTED: Grades 3, 8, 12

SUBJECTS TESTED: Reading, writing, mathematics, science (future), social studies (future)

POPULATION SAMPLE: Matrix

ATTRIBUTES REPORTED: Assessment results: range of scores, mean, median, STD:ethnicity/race; gender; students receiving special services

' According to Education Week (February 1, 1995), the Arizona State Assessment Program was

suspended for one year as a result of questions raised about its statistical validity. Reports from thedistricts indicated inconsistencies in students' performances on the ASAP and other tests of similar

skills.

3-1

98

GRADE 3 ASSESSMENT

Reading Asseunient

"'trough reading scovmes devs-loped from the grovisied reading selearons (intact oteces of real Iterarure. goodaonri=on or rear language examples) scuds:As answer questions that get at thuising about read:r.g and writeremonses that demonstrate their comprehension of what they have read.

The Reading Assessment for grade 3 measured marten performance on the following Essential Skills:

- Tell what a report is about- Tell ernical details from .he report- Make an inference or a prediction related to the idea tri the report- Compare one element in the report to another elernen- Rel...te the subject of the report to own experiences

Mathematics ASSeS31DCII I

Through mathematical activities developed from the provided reading kieCCIS. students solve an extendedproblem or complete a task or projem use manipuranves. and express their understanding of mathematicalconcepts through. writing.

The Mathematics Assessment for grade 3 measured student performance on the foilowtn; Essential Skills:

- Classify and sort objects by observing relanonships and making gerxralizanons- Use crrn=ete materials or models to demonstrate an understanding of place value- Explovi the concepts of multiplication and division with concrete materials- Count ay ones, twos. lives. and tens- Use nonstandard. metric. and English units of measure to estimate and measure [engt.n, voium.e. and wegnt- Use concrete materials to recognize. represent. and compare halves. -.turas. and fourtns- Use a variety of measurement thstrucnons- Choose an appropriate unit of measure ct a given situation- Read and interpret Celsius and Fahrenheit temperatures on therrnormrters

Use digital and conventional docks to tell tale

Writing Assessment

nrough wrung activities developed from the provided reading selections. =dents thetr ,dens to compose astory with a speciic purpose and audience. write a rough draft, reread :t using a review checx 7evlSC the Oranby eastang it and then complete a anal draft of the nor!.

The sk ntzrig A.ssessrnent for grade 3 measured =dent performance on the following Essential Skills:

Write a story that:

- Centers around a character who u desaibed enough to be distinct from other c.baracers- Has a definite beginning, middle and end for plot structure- Has details that advance the plot or sequence of events m the story- Has a define seising- Shows evidence of editing and proofreading so that errors in spelling, punctuation. aprralizanon. and usage

do not impede comprehension

UST COPY AVAILABLE 3- 2

SU

NN

YS

IDE

UN

IFIE

D S

CH

OO

L R

ES

ULT

S S

UM

MA

RY

GR

AD

E 3

PA

RT

ICIP

AN

T D

EM

OG

RA

PH

ICS

Students

Poltmull

Eng Hail Non s.f &dialed A

mont

Di/

100.0

Ethnicity/Reps

NO

die

Black

Hispanic

Alli

all

AlfAM

Pacific Maluku

Offiesi

Ganda(

Male

Female

Students

Percent

Special Programs

246

21.4

Memirell!Mile

25

2.0

Cpef I

604

01.7

ESL

40 7

UifinguM

34

4 .2

14114e410

Sp41.621EducdOon

00.0

614:341

415

54.6

395

48.3

223

44 17

19

SpanIshNon,MeWalsidAesessineni

Uod

i ste

t Aill

itla6

1110

111

27.5

3.0

5.4

0.0

2.1

7.2

10646

1001

1

GR

AD

E 3

SC

OR

ING

SU

MM

AR

Y

Reading

10040 PossIbm. 20

Scored

Askessmeni

Range

Moon

SID

Median

English Hon Mediated

016

3-16

4.8

2.2440

0.1

fosslaworni

ElfmlcVv/Race

246

3-16

0.6

2.1461

9.8

Mack

25

5,42

4.4

1.0374

8.3

hispanic

595

5-16

0.1

2.21121

8.4

Asian

61-15

1.2

2.4344

1.0

AUAN

34

6-15

9.9

1.1411

1.2

Paclacislandef

Olhef

Gander

Male

414

5-16

4.6

2.1047

0.4

Female

315

5-14

1.0

2.3405

9.1

Spas! P142110461.14mbef41112

Chaplet I

225

5-14

8.0

1.8520

7.1

ESL

6

8ffinguM

44

5-15

4.7

2.6571

8.7

Migrant

Sped*, Education

11

6-12

9.1

2.0114

9.1

Gifted

59

4-16

10.2

2.9456

9.1

Spanish Hon Mei A

meet

168

5-11

9.4

3.2564

9.4

Mediated Asses smeni

47

1-17

8.7

2.1268

8.4

X00

Mathematics

Min

naScored

110051 P44411'14. 20

Sowed

110

tM

441 Posse: 0

Assessment

flange

Mean

0/0 Median

seat %men'

flange

Mean

SID

Mannar!

812

0-20

10.7

4.4504 10.1

805

0-8

4.5

1.5395

4.3

239

4-20

11.5

3.0945 11.7

234

2-0

4.5

1.5881

4.3

25

0-18

10.3

4.5931 11.3

22

2-0

4.6

1.4062

4.3

500

0-26

10.6

4.0705 10.6

418

6-0

4.5

1.274/

4.3

410-18

13.3

2.4247 13.0

62.8

4.4

2.1140

4.5

54

2-19

11.0

4.6908 14.0

54

2-8

4.4

1.4145

4.6

413

8-20

10.0

4.1343 11.7

592

8-28

14.1

3.1388 11.1

410

2-8

4.3

1.2728

4.1

501

4-8

4.7

1.3842

4.5

221

1-17

9.5

3.5244

1.4

218

2-7

5.1

1.0561

5.9

a44

6-17

1.1

1.7581

1.5

44

6-8

4.5

1.4801

4.5

17

1-15

10.1

4.6422 12.5

If

2-0

4.1

1.4506

4.0

59

6-20

15.7

5.1065 14.3

69

2-4

5.1

1.4532 5.

140

0-11

1.5

4.2770

1.5

164

2-0

5.4

1.4616

4.0

40

6-19

9.0

4.5645

9.8

4/

6-4

4.3

1.4170

4.2

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

-

50

1---

t15 40

Ln30 20

SIC

10

L..

00.10

0-2

GRADE 3 REA11:;4.

BY PERCEN1AGE

:;c5ENTS

1.40

sem

40.00

50

GRADE 3 WRITING OUTCOMES

BY PERCENTAGE OF MOEN'S

12.10

2.60

0 20

3-5

6-8

9-11

12-14

MOEN! OUTCOMES

GRADE 3 MATHEMATICS

OUTCOMES

BY PERCENTAGE OF

STUDENTS

40

27.50

10-

1.41

Cie

s/1

711

0-

-r-

r-

0I

23

45

61

B

STODENT_OUICOMES___

x--

18-20

0-2

3-5

3.60

ira

6-6

9-

I12-14

15-17

18-20

STUDENT OUTCOMES

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

ASAP -

AR

IZO

NA

StI

MI:

N1'

AS.

STSS

ME

NT

PR

OG

RA

M

t3?

California

ASSESSMENT SYSTEM: California Learning Assessment System (CLAS)

REPORT LEVEL: State, District. School (individual results are scheduled to be reportedfor grade 8 students in 1995, pending funding)

REPORT TITLE!

GRADES REPORTED:

SUBJECTS TESTED:

Elementary Performance Assessment

Grade 4, 5, 8, 10 (varying subjects at each grade)

English/language arts, mathematics, writing (grades 4, 8, and 10);science, history-social science (grades 5, 8. 10)

POPULATION SAMPLE: Matrix'

ATTRIBUTES REPORTED: Assessment results: percent meeting performance levels; studentbackground factors correlated with assessment results; studentparticipation; gender; ethnicity: students receiving special services

In late Setember 1994, Governor Wilson vetoed a bill that would have requthorized CLASand asked state legislators to authorize an alternative that would assess both "basic and sophisticatedskills" while producing individual student results for all test takers (Education Week, October 5,1995, p. 13).

3-5

104

EL

EIV

IEN

1AR

YPE

RFO

RM

AN

CE

ASS

ESS

ME

NT

Gra

de 4

.19

93R

EPO

RT

FO

R:

LO

NG

BE

AC

HU

NIF

IED

IOS

AN

GE

LE

S

19 6

4725

EX

CE

RPT

S

CA

LIF

OR

NIA

LE

AR

NIN

GA

SS

ES

SM

EN

T S

YS

TE

M

Bgs

TC

OP

YA

VA

ILA

BLE

Iltu

te. 1

0011

1 0(

1993

syst

emE

inag

istiA

tt A

blIR

MA

IICE

AsE

ssm

iafr

- 199

:1

TA

riLit.

CO

NT

ER

Y A

RE

A O

VE

RV

IEW

Ped

uani

nce

leve

l

6 5 4 3 2 1

0% 0% 0% 1% 2%

2% 1% 1% 5% 33%

35%

38%

48%

44%

38%

Mat

hem

atic

sr

1115

11!1

t

1:0

1011

y

ON

O B

EA

CI1

111

4111

11)

(OS

AN

C&

I F

S

19 1

31,1

1'.

Pan

tom

imic

°av

el 6 5 4 3 2 1

Rea

ding

%71

1A

llty

)1

11

0% 0% 0% 2% 3% 4% 19%

24%

26%

43%

43%

45%

28%

23% 7% 0% 4%

..=.0

Pitt

ION

INIII

IC

leve

l

6 5 4 3 2

Will

ing

7% 0% 30%

32%

35%

42%

40%

40%

15%

13%

11%

3% 3% 2%

U11

)31

op

..

!VIT

TW

IC(h

i pir

opm

eogo

*eft

6.de

an*W

e 10

4014

ein

thei

tti=

1241

111

WU

% li

d H

O I

MA

M, l

itOM

IIK

INM

IN1N

1/11

114,

wor

kV

MS

111A

.Kle

dill

14

PX41

4bo

turn

s111

840

4440

41 %

ark

(4 1

Apc

.,.ow

l***

OG

101

,10.

41

nive

il.le

d It

Nat

nipo

isilu

wl

uoi1

119

4114

,444

.444

~4

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE10

8

1

AR

OA

Rm

ilit g

yste

m

Par

s U

- C

ON

TE

NT

AR

EA

SU

MM

AR

Y

MA

T1

IEM

AT

ICS

1991

CI.

AS

AS

SE

SS

ME

NT

INM

AIN

EM

AT

ICS

In IM

II ils

o C

nrlu

lnip

S1n

In Il

tinttl

rill

Ullm

ann'

s np

pinv

nt1

a ne

w A

hitio

nnin

lks

Ira

04 fo

r C

alifo

rnia

Pis

h14:

Srl0

00rs

nnon

unor

dscl

unic

ias

hr

lion

ma(

IsIti

g la

ud Ig

nnd1

10ol

mnl

/sA

ntal

lcs

Ii ca

lle le

n n1

1 si

mIn

nis

10 I

'ono

pow

erfu

l 1 li

n fla

ninw

n)1i

latn

ililin

s lo

urdl

intio

sho

in:0

1ten

into

al p

ow);

Ilui

lnm

piny

n9

!boy

do

ptop

orol

ia 1

11;a

iono

olie

niw

ork

lotio

oona

wn

nooh

onin

ik-s

a le

form

, slu

sh ti

min

iiunl

thin

king

.in

:tibi

a's:

Mul

ti lip

& (

mil

1lIP

S, 1

110

14.1

1011

11.

Mot

hoio

nlIc

ol Id

es*

nip

&ny

lon

Inns

lull

Ihn

rrai

lisil

mon

sul

I ly1

11 %

Isla

nds

of in

nIlio

ninl

ien1

con

t)11

1Id

niai

llocl

hi I

hn fi

tolli

onai

ks ft

auln

4011

MP

1 in

wilo

ns, A

hrsl

an. O

nnin

nIty

.S

IIIIIS

HI.1

1l'o

ulta

lsili

ly, I

nis

ic

n"II"

nlih

Ihse

,nln

Mal

lnon

alks

.M

onis

m tt

ttt e

ra. a

nd H

oodo

o

Mta

ttern

alic

al !W

otan

for

kola

s an

nliv

lioa.

riass

llyin

g, p

last

ids

to, c

ompa

ihsp

,

lonn

lInal

lan

Whi

n bi

g m

id il

ml.

win

o.M

illi I

lypi

alin

Fos

inia

lislra

and

Innl

iim m

ill %

stud

ying

Mim

i11

.1nI

tioni

ntle

n1 In

nis

nod

locl

itilip

ins

ho.h

olos

nut

only

41 1

140

plia

i al

1.'0

9 su

ch it

s sh

in's

. cal

tuln

lms.

moi

lcom

plai

ns, l

issl

is M

alin

Mal

hug

s

id li

talli

ntun

lits

rail

Is 1

19 C

nIci

stal

ing

cans

w p

osun

i&pa

s. it

iald

no (

)mph

9. m

ud

iv h

it! la

mm

ing

II ta

ms

Inl.l

uiln

s Ih

n ol

olity

in s

nlar

l api

nopt

lalis

hush

nod

Mr

'sni

ping

itim

i II

In 1

11C

41 M

OM

/1/1

411

!late

ly

Miti

llerr

atile

ni o

nIc

ollIn

hw

audn

a 10

1 Ib

is w

ays

sloa

nnis

sho

neIh

nh

lisin

oole

sion

Rua

mill

es11

nsith

1161

Ihny

may

(k)

50 Il

uutip

lt lu

lus

atal

rnn

vorc

n

sans

enla

lliat

s,dh

ow a

ms,

syn

d,ok

nuu

rhm

9. II

I n11

119.

1:11

iktf:

iniu

lta9.

and

sys

ttlin

lIc

As

spss

inam

l De

velo

post

eill

Ihn

CI A

S in

allo

nmal

lrs n

99n9

:Is

am

ilm

nik

spill

by

mal

lions

disc

r, n

lllira

lnls

Insi

st

11.0

E 1

1011

11 I:

1111

1011

11:1

111

1 11

10 C

I AS

Mot

heio

ntie

s A

ssrt

ssni

nitl

A,Iv

lcm

y

wnl

1.1

011m

onal

lu. A

..flf.

S.0

h 11

1111

0101

1111

11.1

1 11

.011

1 hl

ruh

ldin

n !s

ilous

sonI

dliv

os b

um

swill

mon

ads

9 IiP

lons

iks.

911

1 it

ros

Ihn

C p

lifi u

nlit

11.4

allm

osus

lie9

(:nu

ns ii

M,tl

ltrn,

:Ill

I Um

ticc

amos

. ;aw

l kiln

, nu.

(ki

nM

ifilis

isis

alit

9 ho

pe'.

wor

k w

ith 1

.1 A

S In

pila

f aw

l

In ^

I Ihn

,wiv

e 0c

egi'c

rrxn

ticliP

looR

s111

/;111

vPS

111

1910

M C

allb

grIll

a K

ai )

1111

1111

111S

lint

and

1111

1;"

I tel

posi

ll ho

lfInc

luitI

ll I 1

11V

rlovi

tiotil

I:111

1%11

111;

1 01

10 W

I With

, pin

Irs9

91in

ial

sn,l,

,raa

.sa

It si

viun

s Ill

Inns

111

19 1

1101

1116

uutM

il S

tain

71)0

Cl A

S A

0169

1010

111

In M

atko

mal

lcs

III°

199:

1 pe

ohno

nanc

o no

sass

mon

l h,sn

ollio

nsal

Ics

vans

och

nInI

skso

dsi

alow

illn

Ill

1141

sin

Ing

of 1

9931

0 al

tala

ids

Ingr

ades

4, 8

and

10

Iludn

o on

o cl

ass

rynd

nd I'

ach

RIM

lent

sos

pond

nil t

o Iw

o ow

loin

iod

mel

anin

s an

d sw

im o

nlia

med

nadl

Iplo

cho

lto

spon

slIn

uS li

mo

whi

n nl

old

loom

s of

Ism

nsse

ssm

onl I

n om

it go

nd()

hea

led

Ihoi

no

Ihn

siol

onol

of 1

1193

Sco

red

shol

onito

spon

sos

In d

m lo

tion

ondo

d

4111

0511

M1

ot s

lIno

Ipyl

nnrll

silo

s.

lilen

lIfyl

oqi t

avol

a of

Par

turn

inno

*I u

vula

of p

nifti

iinnn

co r

un li

tool

lIted

hoot

a v

adel

y ()

flask

insu

lts In

199

3, Il

ia

Nnl

louu

ancl

I ov

al I

ask

Circ

a (p

oop

hrm

ailo

onal

lca

onlo

alin

d hi

lids

pro

uoss

lid

II to

Mal

110

111,

com

bInl

osi A

M/A

hem

1101

11 W

illi m

isle

d in

oldo

ms

cow

l una

llnlo

chol

ru

tpoo

slIn

no, a

nd a

solip

king

wol

lado

sco

mbl

nollo

ns e

l pos

fonn

anco

to b

lush

pis

dnid

iale

rolli

nson

nuo

leve

ls A

ddid

onol

kdo

oloo

lkas

5)1)

0411

Ihn

ploc

ons

Onv

olop

hni

ion

hoin

inic

o io

vuls

his

tivi

alin

ni4l

Ics

con

lin h

ound

In I'

m 1

IV u

l thi

s sc

lxal

CI A

S M

ollio

nonl

Ico

Aos

ossm

en1

In Il

lsC

olso

n

Ilia

13 A

S in

allin

innI

llno

onsn

ssin

onlI

lud

IP o

fthon

lely

Inn

sist

id In

nsa

ncs

Ibis

cita

tions

' non

ainn

oille

n1 p

awn!

ono

nalIn

g 10

111e

visi

on o

f Ihn

nitn

inno

th w

ill li

n 14

.1sp

a

on n

Inon

d fo

ol v

nolo

d ol

d n1

alu

donl

wal

k. W

hat,

holly

kno

lom

onlo

d, n

oru

nplo

in

asse

ston

md

of n

%In

dent

s on

dont

inlic

n In

inal

hoin

allc

s w

i11

Invo

lve

ninn

y Iv

iins

01

tric

ks w

ills

vnty

lnti

cola

nls,

faap

osas

, mon

ism

&di

latio

ns. a

wl f

undu

cts;

nod

will

span

n lu

sh (

moo

of o

nnilu

onnt

lenl

klan

sIn

nol

diflo

n In

(ha

ent

rant

on

&to

nna

aqse

ssni

ntil

ofto

oled

rin

aslIo

ns a

nd o

nlen

ncod

end

liplu

4. W

ertr

inas

kons

.

Fhi

tloul

s' w

olf,

ova,

Ihno

(pi

oinc

la,

fold

pni

lloko

s)w

ill b

5)

woo

l In

cona

sino

am

ok r

nolo

nnon

co In

Ionn

s of

1110

dbn

onsl

ons

of a

n llh

mna

lit s

1 pn

woo

gig

boll

In d

uo 1

002

I.ao.

Pw

orA

BE

ST C

OPY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

2

to 1

1 Im

amun

deos

tand

ig e

l the

patte

r m

ance

taun

ts s

huw

siO

lt (I

ds p

atio

. pto

aso

1010

7

iv 'I

le C

ulat

web

Alu

them

illao

Fie

ntew

etk

and

*tw

illin

g do

cum

ents

,und

exam

ine

tit*

IA A

Spu

tilis

lintis

sonp

lerI

ntrie

lltei

lielic

a.ilt

hnet

lipte

rpf0

WIC

US

iiiti

eb H

UM

niA

4141

0140

win

It, l

e so

lidlo

nsel

Om

itis

itet t

eesal

vet

not

s le

vels

etp

atio

( Iti

astc

e.tir

moi

rlool

ilden

used

by

leat

hers

loev

alua

te d

ie s

tude

nts'

rfie

r101

0101

1.

PER

FOR

MA

NC

E L

EV

EL

[DE

SCR

IPT

ION

S

......

...4.

44.4

.1/3

.l..:1

14..4

11.4

.1.1

4.,..

.-e-

......

......

.-...

...

411

0.01

111.

,1...

,1'::V

1 IM

O 1

11:A

111

11/4

0 Ill

/

"II

' :1%

:..

1!l 1

iAl7

r

ridW

TI

1116

AN

Iii il

l S

4'

-

'/',..

.P,

11.:r

.taN

i-Trt

-,-

---.

...:1

,__.

.-a

.!__

4.,..

.-. _

_,

4....

....k

......

.....

()lu

te lo

tC

ount

yS

late

Ass

ES

sED

16,1

11A

SS

E99

FIO

.50

,900

AS

SE

SS

ED

.lti

a . r

8:1

ti C

OR

I Ii.

2,01

2$C

Ola

O 3

.oZ

41lZ

SCO

AF.

1).

214.

660

Stu

dent

wor

k do

wn:

dial

ogtip

otou

s m

ellre

muf

ioal

Stin

king

and

in d

ep:o

eica

lool

andl

ow a

t esa

mill

etin

allte

nutli

cel I

deas

. tle

spor

rises

mea

l and

Glie

et

exce

ed IV

IIYA

ltilla

tte;

they

ore

con

elst

ently

care

d an

d co

mpl

ete.

end

U5A

appt

uist

iele

rep

o em

aitIn

Ilim

eS

lur

toun

tple

, woo

ls,dl

aToo

nia,

gra

phs,

pic

ture

s).

:in la

ma

win

kex

tem

isco

ncep

le o

r to

oduc

oefU

talic

ta c

an G

fui O

S.f

itine

thill

atili

115

ueut

1:03

1110

0011

6 sw

sup

poilo

teby

Red

s° lo

olca

l eig

uitte

dits

fish%

) m

ultip

le 1

11

111

delti

c;ap

proa

ches

and

app

ropt

Isle

met

tom

tatic

al M

ole

and

lucl

uilti

oes.

Stu

dent

wor

k do

nton

sbni

esso

lid m

allis

tnal

leal

ildo

kin0

and

lull

undi

d el

andb

iU

td in

albe

ntel

ical

Idea

s. R

espo

nses

hill

ym

eal e

xpec

lailo

os;

they

are

usu

ally

col m

id r

utilo

ompt

ele,

endu

se a

ppro

ptia

le tw

eetW

agon

s(O

ur e

Kom

pto,

w0(

416,

finip

OID

S, p

re It

s,pi

rilliO

S),

ftiii

11:1

41so

rnoi

lure

s co

nk:M

ing

rrifo

rn fl

aws

SH

Illt1

110

1110

1111

1111

1111

wor

k co

olan

tsge

nato

lltal

lona

and

oroo

nvel

itios

etip

podo

ilby

filie

ctiv

o m

anm

ade

usin

gm

anip

le o

r un

ique

uppl

oact

ios

arid

opi

reop

ituto

inal

itim

ullc

al to

ols

anti

tech

niqu

es.

lino/

Mill

wor

k do

onne

nnal

essu

bsta

ntia

l nia

litei

nallu

aldd

rilci

noar

yl to

itie

rsle

ittno

u

ul e

ssen

tials

enth

eina

kel b

lues

,hi

cint

ilitg

app

tein

late

rept

eson

lalk

ins

pot

ottu

nplo

, wor

ds, d

icta

tion,

aopl

is, o

nlin

e%)

Ilesp

onse

s ar

e D

isun

ity m

ood

ellb

oual

i Ins

wad

i may

cont

ain

flow

s S

k W

oolw

ork

tad

disk

s of

nvop

rlide

me

of

wili

umal

ical

tool

s an

dW

.:it:a

quas

.

blur

litin

t win

k tio

mor

islie

les

pmdo

t mel

liern

elk:

alth

inki

ng a

nd io

niut

sten

illnu

ul

mal

ltetn

alic

el id

eas.

Som

e ie

spon

ses

ore

non

out b

trw

ovei

.WW

1 lit

col

loor

dtro

l

imile

rsla

ndin

u w

e ev

iden

t end

terd

seen

tatio

ris U

m e

xem

pla,

wea

ls, i

lloaa

ms,

plct

ures

) ne

ed e

labo

talio

n.T

inos

Is s

o ac

cept

able

use

al l

end

Imin

tique

e.

Stu

dent

wor

k da

teon

stra

les

!boi

led

mai

l 'm

alic

e!Iii

inkb

to a

nd to

ider

etw

ork

tu o

f

noot

ioni

ailc

ulIth

ros.

Wlit

laro

spon

sos

Igo

rtau

wer

hoos

001

1110

, elio

den0

wok

Litt

on

rutin

abo

rt n

ipto

vklin

gw

elka

blo

9,,h

mul

esiw

.lsan

dlot

hnlq

uuam

urnu

myn

ewI

tit n

ee u

sed

ntap

ptop

ilote

ly.

!Ails

low

mid

i (kn

own

note

sili

tis 0

0 tin

mod

imiff

illua

l 111

1411

0ol

lers

tand

bito

mat

tlint

riallc

al k

ilo*

tlesp

omos

allo

w W

in In

no

ptot

poss

low

oniti

000m

plis

hing

mai

ltim

milc

el !

sush

iM

oos%

400

0 01

(10

Itoap

prop

data

use

loot

s, 1

00.1

1m10

,110

9.

01 I

IIIN

OSI

NA

SSO

IO1

1 1

1I.

.el

i*11

4a"

". "

V.'s

.iii

MIN

9171

.E

ilEsi

iTM

ER

ZIe

sTri

."'P

w'

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

Cal

ifiti

aSy

4ttt

RE

AD

ING

LIT

EIR

AT

UD

E

la 1

1106

mid

aga

in lo

t 199

3, 'b

e S

la lu

Dui

tod

ulF

duta

ellu

n ad

eplu

il th

e fa

ufe.

h.

I ais

eesg

e A

ils ft

dolu

eruo

k le

i Coh

holo

,5S

choo

ls. K

nolo

snal

fool

Ihom

oh

obi I

uvel

veI l

As

sloc

amtio

l 111

0011

10s

Mu

oval

Mal

ay g

oals

of 9

.11

I'm

uesl

i

laitm

eme

ails

cua

lcsi

kan.

lo w

awa,

u1

alui

lmas

10

Imul

losi

as

1411

1011

110L

Iol

luct

wo

till t

ons

In o

vi

Sul

t111

4:11

111C

stic

kily

la 't

amal

e st

a st

atio

n's

to la

ncllo

n ef

fect

ivel

y In

Ilse

wod

il ul

woi

k

luvi

no°

all s

lut/a

ids

to IW

dlle

pon

sust

alho

lldla

teal

Ihn

mol

lens

of l

bw lo

wno

wta

k an

d st

siss

utpo

ws1

mod

el c

oalc

altim

gle

hlus

tuul

stan

aluo

ds u

nvis

hatu

dloo

Cat

ilom

ia a

1110

1111

mo

base

d E

nglis

h lit

ualia

ge a

ils m

oonl

it'

thm

ntlM

uly

anua

ges

stud

ents

In s

uadh

ig. w

alin

g,en

d so

llmth

ig w

anou

tw

Islu

1:1

1of

sitta

ilici

tal M

ums)

, wak

e an

d la

nter

nex

pelle

nt:a

s

the

Dev

elop

men

t of t

he A

sses

sine

alIli

a 1:

n014

s 1

itagi

taga

As

Is A

SS

OS

SI1

0o1

Adv

leut

y C

oeus

olio

u. a

(po

ol)

1060

110

In u

nit W

ith,"

of 0

11,1

1:a1

Ole

, wol

koll

will

skl

eina

lluna

lly o

ucog

all a

d le

ader

s hs

Ma

hold

Itl O

LIvO

tOp

1110

gol

dole

sue

our

is n

ow E

olith

s!'l

angi

sage

ails

ass

assi

ns's

' tha

t

wou

ld e

au.'

alig

aeno

lal W

its Il

as la

usie

wat

k on

liwo

wat

etpl

aoy1

1;01

.051

1 I:m

oo:w

e :1

,11

f000

lam

s, m

id la

thil

oil I

lse

mak

e)as

sess

men

t' 'lo

w:d

oped

lee

thil

Cat

auss

ila

As'

iuss

iitua

l l'S

eala

m (

CA

I') fi

nch

an e

ssus

satu

alw

ould

Ass

ess

load

ing

In s

tab

it w

ay (

lei s

lodu

als

me

chal

lung

uil l

0 t m

italu

i.111

1101

own

lalu

opio

late

ms.

kdu

geul

ing

lhok

tool

tnal

aeol

lou

01 is

151

x1 w

ills

Hut

unk

tuu

koor

dleo

lue

teal

unp

uillo

il m

e ea

ch 1

1111

1101

111J

IIIIU

S IU

Iho

lark

1101

1,11

101i

llIvU

glo

m li

s w

eak.

wltk

ls w

aset

ouge

s st

ailu

ods

Its la

bour

alio

!eat

ing.

with

a l.

spea

lthig

, fee

l Iib

lenk

tg In

way

sflu

tioel

luoi

guu

d ko

slin

clha

t

Con

iplu

nend

and

sho

mill

ian

Ihu

usis

tutg

Cal

lista

tia w

ellin

gm

ssus

snaw

nl

I u c

ally

out

Oda

Asi

an, h

i 100

0111

0 D

epal

linua

lof

Edu

catio

n ex

puitt

lial t

ho lo

om u

l

lass

o m

an le

uchu

os M

el b

ad b

oom

dav

olop

hig

tho

CA

P w

illin

g es

soss

mea

l sha

m

1911

6 Iu

hts

itelo

i E15

1161

1 !B

ague

t's o

lds

luaL

lims

loom

gla

des

tem

llaw

oult

lwel

va a

s

wal

l as

lusc

lsel

s ui

SLI

of r

te. b

ible

! y, a

ndw

alk.

111

060

'Mel

illo'

Dow

el lo

am le

tIckt

o s

Lava

Wow

sos

pony

Clu

Its

shap

ing

Iles

lost

loll

mai

. dev

ulop

tita

plum

p's

lot 1

110

asse

ssam

el a

wl '

m a

sbui

.hnu

sia

mla

ggo

lduS

thab

acsi

the

1093

CI A

S A

ssoS

sais

al o

f'le

adin

gIle

a A

rian

ul Ib

o I s

allo

sh la

ngua

ge tu

tsas

sess

imai

l Iii

1903

cal

lial l

ot s

talk

ed'

In

mai

l out

sw

um, I

ndnp

nntr

ully

lu is

1114

sol

itcle

as. t

o w

ink

Ii. 9

111.

111

113

0101

/1.S

. tan

/ 11

1lo

a w

iling

111

0114

1 E

lul,

secl

iell

had

h7 U

V

1:11

ogilo

kkIl

In O

M)

6111

1110

ant

i was

udw

tlOJ

IUla

ke e

pom

otim

eltil

y on

o cl

ass

Imo

al

Ihu

e Ih

n w

ritin

g os

soss

oned

lhat

'mam

as b

ow51

11'1

61;1

s ve

lla h

e di

llaim

it 'e

xpos

its

OW

CI A

S to

astin

g as

suss

mou

ll lo

clud

us a

IMIU

Uul

oea

dong

task

s M

al s

belu

sils

will

unco

luda

i Ile

soug

hota

l Mee

live

s Ilu

llocl

Ing

the

emph

asis

on

ili.o

satte

e ba

sed

Insh

ut.tw

n ill

UM

U11

0051

1 I n

o tu

otw

o A

ils F

loon

orto

ll.th

e 19

93 G

I AS

mai

lino

11S

6Utib

illtis

it Itt

cust

ud u

n th

a w

adin

g of

Ille

saltu

etu

x's

'hat

dem

and

'lois

' sho

luid

s

smut

bus

hilm

issi

stIv

a ue

pei

stsa

sIvu

'im

pose

s, Il

e Im

esol

Ioxl

s is

tuto

'milk

ed in

thu

vii1

1101

4 al

uaS

ui I

tISIo

ly/1

:01:

1111

64;

IIIIIC

V81

:140

1CO

, viI1

1110

lob

educ

ed h

og li

nt

asta

issm

uld

Al a

mila

15

its 1

004

I fox

ls e

mpl

oyed

los

ihe

100:

1S

O6

.uxe

nl O

whi

t.1

)

halv

ah v

i low

s

(tra

de 4

Dio

des

II la

nd ie

!'col

eyP

osey

Sho

d st

olle

nS

lain

blO

ilsal

11(.

11on

and

non

lit G

un

Atic

krs

As

llciu

S

I ulk

lillU

S1/

11:0

1pIS

haa

t nov

els-

hol

ua a

nd n

un h

i Gun

1.m

ciat

PIO

bur

n I i

on Il

cllu

n

Alil

ihuo

ls W

it C

1155

1101

1155

056

read

ing

ollio

eclly

any

mor

e M

ail t

ve c

an 1

1550

5501

//11,

1110

.

cos

tau

uson

so th

e 11

1011

11y

01 s

uath

itg b

ylo

okin

g at

with

al .3

1111

pai

d b:

uvI

duse

.41

ul

how

OM

Stu

dunl

W10

4111

016

1110

101

11.

Peo

lunt

senc

o 1

oval

s In

nee

ding

Illu

assa

ils s

it Ili

u no

w C

l AS

ass

ussm

aal h

t 111

11al

li IO

U lI

fflO

ilud

155

imoc

uolit

oos

ul

kolo

ols

leac

hing

Mah

al s

ou 1

0V11

13 o

f ptli

1011

11:1

11C

U. s

itupi

aloo

man

ce lo

yal

shim

:a/d

hotis

file

aftly

Ilse

ope

dily

and

clu

oisc

luoi

sks

el 6

/111

1101

1001

0011

1011

1/3

151

Oat

II

hove

l Ile

o U

lul s

lusc

olpl

ista

s em

ploy

ed b

elow

me

oppo

updu

lelo

o Ils

e lu

vol3

ul

shed

utd

stch

luve

men

l itIm

ildle

d by

Mu

WI 1

1011

1011

d as

soss

atua

ls a

dadi

dsle

iell

lot '

Itosp

ahm

ul

1093

In a

ddllh

o. O

ils s

upoo

f als

o Ig

o:lu

aus

1150

10 s

ompl

olo.

of l

ull,

puol

umm

itcos

how

l05

nicl

iplio

ns 1

1011

1150

ii11

01u1

0111

0111

0510

1110

111

11 IO

VIII

S u

l tai

slov

onat

ill in

sam

ba"'

'hat

Rlu

duni

aw

ill Is

is a

libi l

o sl

wat

etsl

iale

whe

n 11

10 C

l AS

pow

wow

s is

hill

y in

itile

inua

lial

Mes

a sl

osul

phos

ts r

ata

Ito Im

ola

ha P

all I

V

BE

ST0V

A' /

AIL

AB

LE

r (1

114

f ti'S

111.

12'"1

1,1'

I's,/

I11

0111

fill

et, i

t mu

ti lt

.\ A

l1,

1 /.4

lin s

t Im

amis

aiss

slan

dlug

et t

hopr

elon

eten

ce le

vels

sho

ws(

on

this

pog

o.m

oo H

su

coca

in s

ista

kidf

salre

sins

elon

ce s

eta

Des

crip

liass

e -

need

ing

41I I

V o

ldsi

s so

pa,.

Als

o

ture

s to

the

odol

ellC

ahoo

ts te

nitc

oloo

tloom

ewet

tte a

nd ll

rosu

ppui

llug

ileco

nsen

ts, a

nd

tuire

ssito

the

MA

%po

isiti

lsed

som

ata'

In E

nglis

h la

ngua

geen

s Ite

m s

ampl

e( e

piev

idu

Jgsa

ls a

tions

rai

stud

ents

' wad

i. 11

deS

11.3

1011

011

1.l t

helia

llese

elu1

15,1

0101

plu

task

sar

id s

pies

eic

is,

som

ata

shoh

ust

/esp

ouse

s at

vad

ous

beve

ls o

f pod

unita

isco

,and

scus

ton

wow

s us

edbp

,

1.at

a,01

1 to

eva

tuol

e Ils

ese

alan

ts' i

espo

osos

.

PER

FOR

MA

NC

EL

EV

EL

I)E

SCH

IPT

ION

S

1;11

0101

11 p

elle

lleen

cet

el 1

1118

loya

ldons

onsl

iala

Insi

ght i

tsro

otle

ss c

onsh

lut a

wha

le lo

st T

hese

med

ics

aro

conf

iden

tand

villi

tng

to la

keC

rag

us th

ey e

xphe

e

Ilse

sim

anlo

g of

ate

xi;1

110

upon

toco

nstit

utin

g an

d do

vela

ping

new

!dom

e al

mos

t

Glo

st a

solu

Sel

lia ta

xilo

sise

ckon

doie

land

littm

ospl

uium

unpl

omal

eshi

dopl

ls,

Xi s

ervi

le a

wls

lule

opse

latio

ns, t

ixpu

ndth

e 'M

eade

isse

assi

nps

ofun

it

oree

soci

ldua

s rie

voki

ped

Os

the

toot

ling

(impe

danc

e to

Mol

t ow

nom

pollu

sscu

s an

d

so th

e w

oad

el h

uge

Stu

dent

pes

tosi

erel

cus

1.1

ails

!ova

l des

tione

ttate

etce

pllo

n m

otlis

oluo

gisi

sess

In

colis

Mol

ilio

0%0E

1181

04T

hose

igni

tors

ate

porif

idos

il an

d w

illin

g to

take

ris

ks o

s

r th

eyam

plao

liso

mea

ning

ol a

bai

l; co

nsid

er n

ewM

oats

abo

ut a

teal

rea

l 118

11th

e

,1/4

)In

n( lo

tim

id a

wls

undo

rsho

ultr

ig; e

xplo

reC

ompl

exiti

es a

ndex

pise

d 11

11 1

110

poel

dif1

0111

01.1

0111

0 01

8198

1:ol

lues

fekd

se Il

ielf

Was

psoi

altu

ns; n

od N

omad

mat

te

Wen

s do

volo

ped

htIle

a m

otif'

s° e

xpet

ionc

eto

thei

r ow

nom

pailu

ssca

s af

el In

Ilse

wos

til e

l Ont

o.

Stu

dent

ped

ornt

anco

aol

lIsIs

leve

l den

ions

tsal

e a

thou

ghtfu

l ses

dois

tate

llito

of a

wls

olo

The

se g

ondo

la a

rosx

ollid

erst

at t

heir

lisla

spte

lsill

on 1

11.1

Iow

aIn

dio

4to

Inks

dek

a, le

ndin

g to

acce

pt It

self

Initi

alw

iden

:shu

ttlin

g, la

ltelly

ow m

ad P

lea

undo

' sta

ndin

g of

a te

xt to

limit

own

expe

flef1

C01

1;w

1101

11.1

1/0c

101.

1.11

,311

24%

10%

a lu

ll In

del

aH

ook

tindo

rala

rolla

g In

age

ttion

l or

nosh

ed w

ay;a

nd Id

onal

y su

ms

velu

m' s

lgol

lIcan

ce o

rw

him

' app

licat

ion

of th

eir

unde

rsta

ndin

gor

alu

st.

Slu

dnrs

lpul

lmtn

nuee

eellt

t101

uvel

dem

onet

risle

apin

ssitt

ege

nre

el u

s el

se s

inns

ils

ort e

kolo

text

The

se r

eade

rsau

dio

supe

illci

al c

omm

otio

n.w

ill 4

11 e

mor

se Il

ia

3te

xt; i

mol

y ito

eslio

n10

4do

, ilit

ipa

ils a

l a le

st O

fee

l el

erg

side

(en

dure

,(e

mitt

ing

to m

ho a

sks.

with

sow

ques

tions

are

thel

y tu

besi

mpl

e O

f &O

pel I

lcIa

l;do

nut

tevi

su (

hell

lest

Pis

ton

avia

tion

of a

lost

or

empk

eeol

hos

poss

ihill

i!os

of m

eani

ng

Sln

dnfll

ped

nrnu

mco

e al

1111

6 le

vel d

011e

MB

Ilele

a11

14/0

111t

hil l

elde

l511

1111

1111

0Ib

t

2to

m M

asa

toas

ters

may

not s

ee a

tout

asw

hole

. let

otto

uIn

focu

sW

I

pollI

ffel1

01a

taxi

occ

asio

nally

reno

tosI

te W

oos

with

out

cins

itisc

lino

thor

nso

ldte

ss

2ns

hyun

sllu

sisu

lnlo

slnr

oile

relea

lditg

lolo

velif

fillo

nS o

f viis

al th

ey h

ave

sem

i;an

d

may

not

teed

aco

mpl

ete?

text

Mal

i tot

Sto

le

0.82

164

98E

5SW

.O

O,0

32A

SS

Etle

blt

Q2

SC

.61t

tli21

30e

SC

OR

ER

41,2

34%

CO

MA

'1,

97 m

itt

r.P

HIL

:FM

-AG

EII

XPE

IIC

EN

TA

GE

PHIC

EII

I A

GE

4(1

611

0020

411

0011

0I

711

III

II

_It

s__

I._

I

(1%

51%

3%11

4%

Slu

sion

t pus

ioni

saoc

oes

tol I

lls !S

wot

than

osta

ltule

en

soel

tust

atel

itio

of s

oftly

on

1w

ool,

plos

se, 0

1 M

iss

inte

xt 1

111o

se m

odel

ssl

o no

t ilo

snon

still

io la

ity

itial

sast

anill

og is

t the

Wen

s 1.

rex

petla

tscu

s al

tere

d O

rde

velo

ped

Ilead

lon

elO

da

(live

( IR

111

act

al

triu

mvi

r lo

g a

Woo

d of

pla

ns°

felle

n th

en n

plO

CO

SU

DI

curis

tsis

clIn

g Lo

ll/om

itto

enai

ls('

.

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE'"4

" '..

"?11

'71'

4;T

IVR

VIT

PIN

N

43%

II 41

1%

2 3%

20% 4%

.*

7.7.

ir."

7"'"

,

_

1114

1C11

041a

1 16

M11

4dt

lille

letd

ede

leve

l sem

, the

oph

the

%ve

ttW

M c

astle

d le

be

.5.1

56 I

/ 1%

1011

11M

R O

th.1

111

0111

11.

Cal

ifor

nia

I ka

rnitt

ftA

sad4

Ain

etti

Syst

em

Wfi

lliN

G

he 1

900

mid

sw

ags

In10

01. M

u S

lide

Bom

a of

Edu

catio

n tlu

pful

l the

Eng

lish

110V

1110

1111

1011

1 10

1111

1 lu

:u.h

n,s

1 ii0

10 W

W1

1 O

SI1

1111

0111

011

11 6

1010

1110

11

10 1

1151

110

111

.11,

I ottg

oisg

a A

tls f

talio

nvol

h lo

s V

ahlo

rold

Poh

lIcS

choo

l's, X

hnlo

w.o

Min

/0/1

10V

0101

11)

1,01

1111

15115

101

1 11

0 05

4068

111

Olt

1111

11 1

1:0

1 15

01

1011

10

bill)

) 10

9 01

Ill 1

0S (

101

1111

.S)

'had

a )%

votr

e Ill

ssl

ug:w

ood

idoo

fillo

s 11

10 0

V01

1101

111U

Qui

ds ti

l Ila

n C

istil

ssIs

lam

ps:Ig

o oi

ls c

osol

culio

n:

In !u

ntie

s° IA

shu

tout

sto

Iiiis

tlius

s 33

Inlo

olia

nan

d ci

llut (

Ivo

1.11

1.on

s10

111

11

1 11

ttttt

1C

1111

1C s

nclu

ly

In o

smiu

m/ a

ll ab

scis

ing

Inhi

ncilo

n el

locl

ivel

y In

Ma

wus

lil u

l win

k

111

poop

oto

1.M

glo

sile

ols

lIiou

silit

e in

osol

oal I

ti/Ill

isol

oid

1100

rui

llso

of Il

se lo

amW

ilk a

nd e

uhsu

yuun

l mod

elcl

iolta

alan

gok

los

and

stan

dout

s en

visi

oned

Ini

Cal

lous

la a

Mus

lims

boso

d E

oglis

isM

isus

ing°

oils

'out

post

s

isci

lsol

y (lo

unge

ssh

iolm

as k

l iel

ldll

IV, 1

#011

1110

,81

111

1011

0011

00 1

11II

WIL

IO 1

111

lull

01

1,o9

111l

ical

l klu

nit y

win

ks a

nd h

uman

exp

eile

ncia

s.

Ilia

Des

olop

inen

t sal

Ilse

Ass

eges

sion

l

Ilso

I sig

Usl

i t a

sigu

ago

Ads

Ass

ossi

min

t Ast

visu

oyC

omm

illin

s, a

(P

faff

"a"1

"""

1.1

a

1110

/01

sped

nm11

ul w

him

-Oto

s,sm

oked

will

s hi

lurin

glon

ally

mco

ussl

iad

Isin

tuis

In th

e

Iliad

In d

evel

op Il

se g

oklu

llnes

tut o

now

Eng

lish

lang

uage

ails

ass

essm

ent I

lia!

wou

ld is

ithoo

.1 a

ligni

neso

lwIll

a ga

s ho

utow

tsik

,sh

un e

ael0

pl u

y t

ould

sh la

mp

sago

oils

pom

nots

. an

d !0

119

oil11

10 W

1 11

1110

056

1186

11 1

111

1111

.101

/010

1110

1 10

1 il1

11G

1111

1101

11;1

Ass

ossm

on1

Pom

pton

(C

AP

)S

uch

his

assu

tissi

senl

wou

ld.

Ass

ess

read

ing

In 5

54th

a w

ayIh

nt s

hidw

ils a

ss g

hallu

ssgu

illo

toos

slin

cl M

on

owls

hile

nnel

atio

ns, M

inus

allis

g 11

sel

f mul

en3l

ai a

llow

of a

loaf

wsl

h 11

111

In ti

me

know

ledg

e aw

l oxi

torlo

ette

8111

;11

stud

ent b

eing

s la

sae

task

Inco

3pol

hlo

Sol

alw

aal

ive

unni

p w

oo,,

whI

ch u

ncon

sogo

ssh

olon

ts lo

hita

gial

n

seed

ing

. vol

thig

, spo

okin

g,m

id M

slus

sisi

g In

way

s H

istoo

llucl

goo

d iis

slin

clio

n

4 :u

sios

tem

atil

I If I

d 50

mul

lion

Mu

exis

ting

Cel

ifund

a w

allin

gas

sess

iout

al

111

cony

aid

lids

vis

ion,

In 1

909

Ilse

Dop

oolio

nnil

of E

cho:

allo

t, ox

pato

lud

Ilto

loam

01

loss

isso

m In

at.h

isis

9 o

ilIs

m, I

mm

o do

wsu

lispi

ng Il

soC

AP

sus

hoss

I sh

ILu

1911

0 10

11

11,1

01/0

Et 1

0151

1la

nips

agn

oils

leac

hing

Isom

()I

ndus

ono

Ihtu

tigli

Iwul

vis

es

will

( as

lu11

C11

OIS

01

S1

il11

1CO

,hi

siu1

1 so

cial

sci

ence

,m

ut s

uoth

umis

Ilcs

1 Im

mo

1i7

the

1993

CI A

S A

ssas

sine

silo

f Will

ing

(111

5195

) III

Iho

1.11

91i3

11la

ssun

isgo

s 11

116

osso

ss,

I cal

ls h

o sh

oloo

ns li

ble

ad m

ad

losp

oodl

udop

osid

smily

lo a

dua

lso

lucl

itoo,

In w

ink

Its s

mal

lcul

lidun

ailv

is (

poop

s, a

wl

In to

npoi

sil h

lJdv

ldu0

11y

to it

milk

y pi

umpl

Cuc

ll su

clio

n is

In ti

lls)

nops

isxl

maI

sily

111

glas

s µ1

010d

1'01

11 ly

pos

III w

illin

gho

wls

hom

e ch

osen

lot I

hu o

lom

onliu

yas

soss

emm

l

lyau

s al

l woo

ing

ItoO

m lo

dinu

811

11 h

igh

sdto

ol a

isso

ssm

osos

. I lo

wov

io, o

nly

5011

10

1110

wal

ing

lypo

s w

ove

Incl

uded

ha

ilia

1993

481

1811

5511

101d

S.llu

nulls

1110

tope

nsiu

l ins

Iow

a lb

Ms

com

b of

Ms

wilt

ing

typo

ski

chol

ool 1

11 Ib

is fa

MU

k/V

111

OV

111

1110

110

11 to

w

yum

s, lo

w M

hos

lyou

sw

ill h

o 11

dJud

lo u

nion

Ilse

uss

tlann

oal a

sso5

soll1

111

ill w

antt

io

(155

5155

0(1

11.1

0191

11 p

oIlo

11lo

.

I lin

W/1

1111

1) 5

1101

1111

1 1

01 M

ilC

outh

ils la

ngua

go o

lds

istis

ossi

niss

id n

osy

1.1

Wilm

a lis

ILu

1 O

M 1

11 1

11 1

1115

0:11

01 1

0111

1110

110

01 Iw

o w

ays:

ask

ing

slud

inal

s In

wsi

lu 8

nov

o , m

omlo

lly

Ouv

olop

tit1

((st

ow (

)opo

ssum

thol

e si

onfu

tslo

ntlin

g of

Ike

read

ing

(oxl

um

usi

ng il

ia m

oo

in M

oose

ul 1

110

moi

ling

outd

o:11

ms

as a

spi

listp

susi

dIts

Mel

o as

say.

Loc

h va

illss

u

plum

p, le

dus

igne

ctJ

atic

h on

o ol

Ihe

dIsi

bscl

Ivu

Imes

ul w

illin

gle

sion

) al

a (

31.1

110

hove

l I li

o os

sily

WIi

10.1

In te

spon

se to

Hsu

WIil

mll

psom

olto

cois

os Iw

o S

1:01

115

, 011

11

101

1 1

WI 1

/1 1

1:11

1 01

11.1

1V11

.186

mid

oss

o le

a cu

twon

tions

.

Pei

loon

sanc

e le

vels

InW

illin

glid

s ya

m. o

ur Il

se M

s! ih

no.!h

a oe

olls

°11

110

CI.

AS

asse

ssm

ent I

n w

alin

g w

ill to

o

topo

olod

05

Imo

mon

nuoa

ul s

lush

:oils

teac

hlio

g ou

chul

six

leve

ls s

it pu

dlan

nuua

ruits

o

pullo

tmen

co lo

vol c

lost

alpl

lunS

Itlei

ddy

ate

qual

ny a

ndC

liara

dmis

lIcs

of e

lutio

n.

poilu

imas

icos

el s

ock

lovo

l 111

0 1/

1 le

l dos

cilp

linos

sun

iplo

yud

byla

w Iw

o ap

pium

ialu

Ins

Iho

leve

ls ta

d sl

odes

slac

hlev

ouro

nl IJ

md9

iod

by Ih

u m

odo

mai

n! s

isso

ssm

unlo

o

udud

rdaW

rud

In 1

114)

Spr

ang

ul11

993.

hl 1

1111

1111

015,

113

3 11

4101

1al

so in

clud

es o

uun

cung

iluln

ul

loll

podo

lman

cu lo

vnl

dios

cdpl

hois

11

ial 4

110

holti

onte

d to

dus

crat

)011

10 le

vols

of is

chle

vo tt

ttt ti

l In

wrii

lr1(3

ftIill

'Mam

as W

IN h

o &

Mks

totIo

nsun

sIr

ola

Win

n 11

10 C

I Ali

mou

mm

Is h

illy

Impl

ossi

onto

stl

:bus

ts d

ust:4

141m

s Ir

an In

stu

mid

In P

ail I

V.

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

116

ti

1

t'Vt

'u4

(

I!i

Eit41

Ith)3

.

TABLE C. WHWUG

-----

tutd

uiel

aiid

litg

tIUI.

puilt

niss

asic

e le

votu

.lsn

wis

Ous

list

. hau

ls. h

llodS

uIII

IJe,

Coa

uy;i

tout

*IILllUPi

iillIt

nil h

ull I

odur

nsi,c

e Ie

stul

9os

citp

lluiis

Wsb

liicj

In P

out I

V to

lisu

nu A

lto

u.h.

ui ft

i Use

Dt1IAIOII

CaU

IUID

IA(AIISI5.UISIJ$$

(liflOWOtIti

iii,u

l ths

ilu e

lspp

oIth

uetI>CS,ISIU,IIs

onil

jrs

,6U

1*ssssi.o.

ao.3o

Si

j)

)fl$

oni

CIA

$puW

Ists

stls

ainj

1us

Is, E

nglis

h ks

siçj

uaga

ails

Iluos

u lln

liIIlh

oIeu

Qyl

ittHan

i3q3

SC

O lE

O.

4e1U

38S

CO

HU

?_VV

)S8.

a')'

II,is

ttliit

ns u

l slu

iiuui

ls w

osk.

adsA

CuI

IlhIO

*i u

Ithe

esis

ssss

seul

. sai

ssot

o ItI

aut

o ttu

is6%

luIs

e.V

-

.sw

lo ts

tslli

iiI u

upon

$aS

$1

V$II0{JI

lots

ot i

uosl

ouu'

siui

uo.

uttl

Acü

sI,ii

i u,u

Isba

i uut

uj.J

Isv

%Iq

ttC1:

NLA

OE

V.

PEftCEUIAOE

%VIICLI I AUC

tcoe

ha.0

0vol

utu.

u.ei

d.ni

s.11)

ii)

Ill)

HI)

20

411

60

ItO

PERFORMANCE LEVELflE9CRtPTOI1S

II

LLV.LVVLV

5lsitlon$

isou

lur,

ussu

csss

al l

Ists

tuV

oIiu

poui

tt cl

4aIIv

uIV

anti

efiu

clIv

çl1.

It, 1110

usnu

u.o

titi

iWn

*,$I

fyO

iIa,%

I. llu

uiWIlIlt$Q I

Ooi

ufid

anI.

uI.q

suae

tul.

et

uSse

sil A

nd c

Is,I'

iuiti

soI.

vosw

ofn

thewulInia kriuwl.titjs.

ttoki

es, I

nulti

hi.,

aii4

clai

lly u

S h

l'nuS

'l I h

o

wul

ting

IskU

Iiu1I

padap1. loll.

stal

aAc'

o. p

wjw

ai. e

nd s

obje

d, U

øsl

uIuh

lliø

;151$

OX

0%1%

-p

nppr

oula

h bi

ts iw

duus

Lsn

pwsg

plh

al Is

dss

s dl

hIut

cl. v

s$u!

.il.ç

ndpv

cc.te

e. W

IIWI

itt li

d. u

nset

sui

ppof

t Ihu

li ld

raA

wits

ispp

.agu

ulel

. ,.a

uons

ant

i wel

ldiô

ien

Oitt

iiit1

thsu

u.

t.bflI

IipLi

luel

nU is

vai

laty

ot s

eulo

nos

hIui

es a

unt h

. con

voss

iluni

ol

OlatiulIlSu,.

puus

t.1tlb

oii,

Cap

hhid

hiI$

tlWl.

tind

a)O

IUht

ØC

(J4$

%ui

illth

ifl 1

0* U

AI5P

asto

uc.

V

Slu

tluni

peu1o.uflarcos

atIbis

lqvo

tuespmsd wall lu lb. deniassd. of a

w,lbln

ssljs

isio

ul. r

ise

wdl

lisij

Is p

uipo

i.tU

l.cn

hn.n

f, an

d 1o

c110

44 c

i...ly

oottn

unlc

aih

11w

wtlh

ui k

notv

kula

. v.1

0.s

anJ

thou

Ql.h

u. lb

. wih

lhu

a Id

Apl

oti t

y ha

Qud

I*ic

4.

1-.

1'up

oso.

pan

t sno

loti

Ise,

iabI

lele

, sui

oppn

,p;h

st, l

outs

tisi t

uei o

hlut

ltve

t.ius

Iqpu

11%

1%0%

J In

sss

jpo.

hlis

hjtr

i, W

Nhs

uuis

van%

Ia4s

out$

uttd

ksca

nsIu

IO,,

(Iso

wab

biti

eunp

inys

usu

uloI

y

ol $1115105%O5

Sla

ssc4

iiii s

od .s

hitIt

Øoo

d ux

ilihl

ol 0

$iIi

ø o

o,vs

silIw

Ot o

iuis

isai

.

potu

usIk

tfl,c

ep1I

oIle

oit.s

ndsp

sUlu

itjss

liIt1

ew,a

uoio

...

____

_

Slt,

doss

l pss

iosn

1flc

5 sI

li,1.

bee

fsp

oisd

to It

s, d

oiut

end.

ci a

wili

hiat

UIa

las.

ne,d

,ta

ssoU

%P

y co

Ism

sunb

ousi

laQ

use

w.1

1eç

nuw

l.dO

O. v

at,,.

..pt

,J p

kally

cih

hiou

ghi I

luu

wift

inu

Is o

ppeo

pila

boti

edap

lud

kilts

aush

l.aca

, UiP

0$C

. nd

stib

Jet.

Ills

coitu

sis.sospmboly egcuiIz.dsntl tJ.voiopacLanti slupposlod by hslesotis stintoassiipdos

so

lilY.

.17%

35%

£vs

uIlta

i) us

isi e

silit

ihis

lmnu

.4H

1 on

'pkt

yS s

ome

vp,I,

iy o

t wsl

uiic

wS

lsiu

chus

uu

!dlluisstjhi hole unny b. ocCasIonal enois,

iIi

wslIInU ueft.ds a fsuulJUssiositn$ onsiholol

1110

u.'c

cwrn

illon

s ci

wni

Iwna

r.us

ato1

suuI

Iots

, cul

pfIti

Iiffiu

fon.

ant

i els

ehhi

ssO

_V_V

V--

---

----

-- -

--

VV

_VV

VV

.__V

___

V

6luu

Innl

pos

foiu

sncu

at I

bis

tevs

ltee

pond

lisc

oasl

ssl.n

Ily h

o 11

w d

oina

atds

cia

with

,

n .¼

unsu

onl.

uqu&

ly a

dulio

uhliG

all p

eafa

of l

bs ta

sk, b

ut h

aavi

ndi

fficu

lty c

cnus

isw

stci

uV

1.11

1 Ill

will

oI a

loso

Wlo

de e

nd v

ahtig

s. lb

sw

iltin

g ni

ay o

oplib

i som

e Jn

Ikjli

. btti

shw

3tlo

sisu

nsls

nbos

cut

osis

ed. s

upou

llcln

t, os

lUoh

;uI %

hhiih

kiU

, lb.

witt

ingi

s of

lsuv

sfh

sufte

dhi

ii1.

40%

411%

ulov

olup

itist

.ni

IC

it$ih

ii pt

edIc

tAbt

e vo

cv3o

lsvy

with

sen

seln

opps

opds

uto

duol

oo.

ni w

inds

. It I

ypsi

y un

ptos

.hnp

f, ue

patll

lvs

lOnl

erto

s st

iuci

ufes

,and

lnki

ttosi

sslic

oaW

uo,io

is h

%ts

s us

e to

Ihec

onva

uiki

nsoI

Q(a

siis

srnr

.pus

usdu

nhic

si.c

upht

siIh

:eIIw

s,

Anti epollIsill.

_.-.____

V_VVV -----

Ciu

deul

pw

loun

anca

. at l

ids

leve

l oas

iypa

iibau

iy is

osi i

iio d

ejiu

wda

oI i

iWuI

llis(

2iu

iiss,

iI. T

he w

oth

isaa

bou&

iy H

an*u

tl In

oui

usIn

lusi

toS

hhig

iItw

itloi

s ks

.ciw

iosl

oI

&iv

a1ts

twai

, ond

aaua

ygdd

sasi

nto

fpnu

saIaw

ulU

ng la

sh. l

iii w

Iiltls

ujiO

I coi

iu,u

usns

i.U

I V.

131.

III.

liw

dila

si, I

s Iy

jslc

55y

hiul

ol. d

Iuos

tsts

lsed

.as

til ts

fldvs

Iupu

d. it

s nu

ty H

o vu

suis

onu

sul

ihht

llcsi

N Is

usiu

lfl,b

l,fld

II ai

lsib

lI, li

oqsa

esst

uno

us In

his

ssi

su o

l tIn

unr

won

lluts

sof

s 15

'IMS

IilI p

sunc

isad

on.

cnpt

kslh

eailo

us, u

u.iu

I ;po

ltsQ

.V

-V

__

,isiu

Is,s

st is

Ious

ssiu

uscA

I al h

is lo

yal d

o no

tsiln

ol It

ie th

itstti

ncl o

f ii w

illbn

U6s

biiiu

su, i

i

liii,

wos

k I,

usis

ossi

aly

(isill

od ii

i Cus

fluiU

tiubQ

AtIl

lU11

w w

dlei

'q k

Itow

bo.tj

9 ca

stS

val

ues,

last

S If

oth

dtdl

s tIl

lisi o

i no

ixos

copt

of u

nns

stils

uciu

, Usa

wilu

lss

Is h

aiti

Innt

,)ao

anai

l,7%

shIs

sflfl

ists

IiskI

. nod

lisl

slo'

IQlo

fsØ

(I ii

.itlm

nsis

iblia

Dai

ly ii

,a,,i

luss

sasl

asy

laill

ihy

hi ia

lssp

"'(i 5

15(5

51II

hsili

idoe

lita

ny o

,vua

e hi

slii

i) ib

O U

i Ii i

ts c

tsvo

nIhi

ii is

ol u

ssi

u,us

scs

sphl

n..e

nhlu

,i. a

nd S

pofth

usU

.

aanr

r ta

wp.

sc#i

tbsp

u ah

uow

auI,l

i,ohi

iiD,tt

Ikui

i WS

55V

sil

Odd

It, 1

017%

.15

IOI 5

5usl

).sI

ouus

j.i.i.

d i.o

.0 is

i.I u

,ola

icl u

ucu

ts. c

s is

psuS

nusu

lenc

. hew

si e

o 55

Us'

uUls

Sb.

. wok

we.

u.lc

i.d It

Ins

Sitl

iUd

11,1

1 l.i

isss

wlh

is,

lulo

si s

iubi

iiIO

iIhi

ltiul

t 100

tjuU

.i. s

Oth

.uus

ului

If s

.til5

u, a

isle

s19

15n1

5.u.

O r

.uuh

uii.i

(y O

f 5.j.

la.,

flusuiq.oiuth.d las

islassJuiif . nil...

Itiuu

s liu

hhs.

- -------- -

lip

'iii

i,ui

Ills

-I

I .I.

I

I I!1I

0111

(411

m-

wir

imvr

ipt§

tifie

ht s

Ym

mil

ttA.E

mpi

sitA

ikv

Ikhr

otal

At4

cr.v

Ass

imm

oxi.-

191

n

$. C

b111

TL

NT

AR

EA

ovtn

viE

W

Pe

Ilum

lince

1444

1

6 5 4 3 2 1

Mat

hem

atic

s

0% 0% 4% 4% 6% 12%

14%

I1%

33%

15%

16%

48%

44%

38% 1

210

.11

(1I i

h 1,

10,

I.m..4

I OS

AN

GLI

IS

_ _

1 01

1(1

0EA

CII

1111

11 If

Fle

adin

g-

----

----

----

411

IVI

0% 0% 0% 2% 3% 4% 19%

24%

26%

43%

43%

45%

26%

21%

20) 7% 0% 4%

//1/0

/./.

iftm

an

114.

= 7

7711

:1

Nul

l:1:

64r4

4421

tera

ttle0

81 s

t814

1424

:teke

r441

32 D

tkl

kv4%

Old

isc4

vv4

1 4

4047

:1I

pim

Iorn

esna

l Woo

l eve

n 0'

0110

the

woo

li eo

ns 1

4.1d

chn1

fabr

ic D

I ght

6, 6

6414

44m

4i6

.,

ospo

nmoa

rre

lya

WI

/11ig

svat

uleg

l ha

a Im

unbi

s (A

lm th

an

ET

1212

.1

19 6

4W.

Pel

lort

nom

oLa

ve 6 5 4 3 2 1

Os

7% 6%

30%

32%

35%

42%

40%

40% 3% 3% 2%

Writ

ing

70no

1111

_

1.9

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

ASSESSMENT SYSTEM:

REPORT LEVEL:

REPORT TITLE:

GRADES REPORTED:

SUBJECTS TESTED:

POPULATION SAMPLE:

ATTRIBUTES REPORTED:

Kentucky

Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS)

State, District, School

Student Assessment Curriculum Report

Grades 4, 8, 12 (beginning 1995, ICERIS "Transitional Tests"theshort answer, multiple choice, and performance itemswill he droppedback to grade 11; only mathematics and writing portfolios will berequired in grade 12)

Reading, writing portfolio, mathematics, science, social studies, artsand humanities, practical living/vocational studies

Matrix

Assessment results: number/percent meeting performance levelstandards; gender; race/ethnicity; students receiving special services:student questionnaire results: pertormance level by studentquestionnaire responses

3-12

K R

N 1

992-

93S

tude

nt th

:;ses

smen

tC

urric

ulum

Rep

ort

Sep

tem

ber

1993

[lead

ing

Mat

hem

atic

s

Sci

ence

Soc

ial S

tudi

es

Art

s an

d I l

uman

ilies

Pra

ctic

al L

IvIn

gNoc

atim

)al

Stu

dies

Writ

ing

Por

tion(

)

124

Ove

rall

Sum

mar

y of

Res

ults

Dis

ltici

:fA

YE

TIE

CO

Of a

ria:

4

Col

los

155

Per

form

ance

Lev

el

Dis

tingu

ishe

dP

rofic

ient

App

rent

ice

Nov

ice

9.5

022

60

I9

1677.0

I64

659.5

81.0

3118.0

I5

981 0

130

1386.0

15

58.5

I2

1258.0

I48

1355.0

7.5

0757.5

I10

1343.5

I52

967.5

03

I16

13

I11

11.0

1214 0

11

1040 1

40

1171.0

125

I53 48

I31

I81

I84

146

Non

-lash

ed

30.0

1

30.0

1

30.0

1

30.0

1 1

90.0

4

Ntli

r.:

resu

lts in

rea

ding

, mat

hem

atic

s,sc

ienc

e, a

nd s

ocia

l stti

tlies

are

bas

ed ti

llth

e 2

nyci

t.res

pitis

e (L

onitt

ion

awl a

tom

iincs

inin

s

in e

ach

subj

ect a

rea

Res

ults

for

ails

and

lutin

antii

es a

unt l

a al

ical

livin

g/vo

catin

nal s

tudi

es a

te h

aNei

l an

open

resp

onse

ipie

stiti

ns %

%in

ch w

et e

inle

riatt.

%vi

a% th

e M

iler

Slib

ied

;Ilea

%R

esul

ts11

0. W

1010

11ale based on leacliet

evolualiuns ul

51ud

4mis

imip

so0(

016/

4%

I. hf

ol.ln

In. A

br.0

/Ii A

V, d

olt,.

201

I im

001

Fug

htla

spe

let

ao

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE12

51m

Hal

e so

inta

ntam

7. 1

99 1

.;-

KIR

IS

1992

-93

Stud

ent A

sses

smen

t Cur

ricu

lum

Rep

ort

Sept

embe

r 19

93

licat

ling

Res

ults

Ill 4

1111

0(11

5119

d

N"Y

., 0 0

N

115.

0

"h..

Aig

nenl

iam

N

1oi/.

0

".1.

1.9

IA

Nuv

lca

11

1991

.91

1992

.93

9.5

5 968

4.1

1993

24

I IIII

yea

r yo

u 11

.1.1

5% Il

hofie

or o

r 11

11ilo

gols

he,

@ro

deo'

s. th

is y

ear

you

had

9% Ih

rofr

_ico

r or

Ires

liodo

lshe

d

Ois

lingt

lislle

dP

lulic

ieil

PA

SS

AG

E T

YP

E%

L no

tary

0

Inhu

me%

lana

i0

....

_

Pos

cile

eMoo

kplo

co0

Per

suso

lve

0

12k

8 2 1

Avo

w II

ice

Nnv

ice

6126

8036

6236

8428

`Im

o 1,

4,1

use

h16h

u1 p

aice

sita

eki

.t no

Illa

tlfw

.1.1

,e.1

sio

deni

a lu

Iiera

sy a

nd th

e lo

wes

r pe

rcen

tage

PrO

lcle

ni 1

1111

1111

mgm

lille

.1 lu

1'i a

ctiu

1 /W

ur1

'pla

ce

e A

go\

1111

,1 It

sli

.1N

1111

1'11

1, h

et c

lo..

n gi

Ns1

1.11

L11

IIIlig

ello

s II

cI a

lcgo

oly

PaU

t:4

Cod

a.16

5

1 lis

il ic

l.fA

YE

11E

CO

allu

4

Nia

them

alie

s 1d

esul

ls

I iiii

nium

slio

dP

i nlic

ieni

Am

mon

ium

aN

O91

Le

N°/

...N

"/..

N%

N%

1991

92

I5

5551

1992

-93

01.0

I31

3.0

590

1.0

5011

.15

054

1993

-94

I..ts

i yea

r y1

111

Lad

1141

, l'o

cald

eo 1

got 1

11s1

loo6

tglo

iorg

llo

ogiti

o11;

111

1ye

ar

yuu

Isag

l 11%

los

Moi

l %la

shed

Dis

iinut

tlsbe

t1P

lohc

iem

1A

ppte

nlic

eN

uwe

FIU

,'OR

T IN

GC

AT

EG

OR

Y%

%%

___ %

Num

ber,

PIU

C01

1411

08,

aa

1151

Intl

Sin

icim

ie

Spa

ce &

Illm

onsi

onsI

lly, m

id2

936

50

Me,

tfire

mee

tt

Cha

nge

end

Dal

e3

436

56

Wee

11,

111

t he

New

s' v

esrr

oiag

e or

1,,

uncl

es.,

u,Ill

elln

8ul.h

cd ,,

,,,, I

nN

umhn

, l'o

oce

an' r

e. a

nd S

lrueh

ueS

i.M

el th

e hi

Wel

it pe

t reo

llagc

of P

rogn

g Io

ta e

lI t

lithi

alliS

h1.1

1 In

S11

.4. r

h In

umns

iour

lily,

and

MeM

1111

ellio

111

l< IR

IS 1

992-

93S

ltocl

ennl

Ass

essm

ent

Cur

ricul

um R

epor

lS

ep(e

nibe

r 19

93

Dis

ltict

Geo

de:

.

165

FA

YE

I II

CII

4

Sci

ence

Res

ults

Idsl

inty

ilslie

t1

N%

Pio

lIclo

sit

N%

Apt

ueni

tco

N% sa kis

Nov

ice

n% 54 kV

1991

-92

1992

93

1993

.94

1. 5

o

56.5

ti

1258

012

85.8

1.99

1 yc

ar y

. ti l

ia,I4

% I'

stfI

rls, t

i of

1111

$1,1

siol

lent

o, 1

111.

',A

t

you

had

2% P

rotir

less

i or

DIs

tfort

elsl

o,1

UP

Pio

ficie

iilA

pptB

nlic

eN

ome

43

RE

PO

RT

ING

CA

TE

GO

RY

P114

. 0N

atur

e of

Sci

entif

icA

ciav

iiv, M

odel

sN

.b

Sca

les

Pan

ama,

Con

sisi

tcy,

end

Evo

lutio

n0

343

53

Syal

oma

02

504P

You

had

Ilse

ItIg

heat

lie

slA

gel's

ofss

Irnt

sr

1113

11og

olrlc

s1di

mly

's,'

In

l'olte

ros,

lirs

iogi

sory

, soo

ll'1

8sIlo

o 10

.1 0

1, I.

..rig

',es

te o

rAgr

of

111

1111

1411

1slie

s1In

NA

hlIt

1.11

S.Ie

nuth

t A.fil

thy.

Mol

d. &

Bra

ts

12b

1',I

I.lo

os I.

1I

..1 ,

lfe

rl ...

I I..

il11

11, I

..1

1.

Soc

ial S

tudi

es R

e_ it

s

DIs

lIngu

lslie

d

N%

Pio

fIcle

iii

1%

Am

itent

ice

Nov

ice

NI-

,N

°Jo

1991

92

1992

93

1999

94

1.5

O N29

1.5

9 1011

51.5

39 5299

2.5

IN io

I As,

yea

r ys

o 11

.,11.

1% I'

s, ft

, ice

d w

Illal

logo

likel

l otio

lool

s; 1

111i

yrio

you

lias1

111

% h

ob. l

eot i

r1/

1s1

neol

blor

,1

Rld

llnou

lslie

dP

folIc

lefil

Apt

ueitl

Ice

NO

VIC

O 6

RE

PO

RT

ING

CA

TE

GO

RY

%%

%%

Den

toce

allo

Plio

cinf

os s

nit

04

5046

Pol

itica

l Sva

letti

s

Soc

ial S

yste

ms,

Ec

lc S

vaito

na.

anti

Col

tota

t0

359

39

Ma

atal

tr

liola

llito

of

licot

vaith

r III

Ili/m

att t

111.

11,4

tyso

u in

slio

lcal

09

5339

',ins

tinct

ive

Soc

ial S

imile

s &

Iow

an/ S

hills

03

5443

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE12

9P

age

5P

I P,1

,,01

11

Clo

ado.

4

flow

lang

l. yo

u !w

ean,

Iten

iosa

y2al

l my

Isla

1114

110

111l

et S

yee

ta

Iron

s 1

In S

gra

nle

a tit

an 1

yeo

rH

id y

ust g

o 10

11.I.

1 1,

1.1

2y1

1nu

Whi

t 111

01 0

1 ..O

dor

,I0 y

440

1111

06 y

0., 1

0 e

/pn

or J

des

A41

100

1140

1 1

1 S

101

05

Ita

.a.1

..w

sly

gout

! t ..

.let

A 1

1 ho

w in

SH

y 10

,011

11 0

1 40

111

0..1

1. 0

01 1

1101

you

r 14

1,00

1 10

0,14

0,

cant

le Is

ooks

, 410

you

has

,. II

1.,.0

107

S 1

14 Is

s,t1

6 IS

16 3

00.

11 1

illu

m 3

11

!low

...e

h ee

ls. W

on il

o y

, . .

1 1

0a Il

y 44

,010

Is s

ll It

qlsy

T4.

0110

1 lo

ws,

nr

I.,.

2 3

bons

.4

5 Lo

os6

hum

s us

a

Ilus.

nin

th n

ol A

u pl

ot n

inon

, sit.

inl 0

.1 /1

1111

10.,U

li Sl

ii II

AV

I1

4100

.1 0

1104

111,

11.

.11

1101

1.1.

e0,

k

I Kar

a Ito

stle

was

1, 1

.6,1

1 do

n't a

wn.

114

.10

it14

21oi

l 101

0

1 ho

urno

n. 1

100

I10

,01

1111

u, 0

1161

1 Ile

you

111

.1 lu

I, y

sit

4410

111

1010

111

1

I fsw

inn.

.to

nna,

law

11t

o. I

w11

1of

1 0.

4117

41.

ybl

ew a

sny

al it

.. si

nesl

iow

s on

111

. &Li

eut.

1.11

111.

m o

f il.a

teal

1001

1.4

4111

1I11

411

1111

176

1,11

11,1

11 1

144

(114

001

III Il

tis 0

1 01

1y ii

lief

Vid

a?

/40.

1 of

Ills

oin

tssi

latti

cus

14.4

sna

lotIa

l I fa

ding

,/ lit

sch

ool

Sum

s ai

ls. q

uoin

s.. 0

0.14

41 n

tle.i.

11 le

as p

led

In s

choo

lN

un. o

r aw

ry la

w o

f 11s

. tit.

..win

o to

r.. a

d us

SI1

101

I 111

4110

1 10

..10

.011

flow

mal

ty o

f 11s

. 100

1111

10a

011

ILS

SO

CiI

111,

011e

0 po

i 110

0 ul

f 110

1 11

.1co

vrel

l 101

1011

1111

11.1

you

lest

inw

l 106

gho

ul 1

0 III

10 a

t any

whi

ts ',

sld

Mas

i of i

lls s

ittes

tl iii

ii ca

vese

ll .,.

l.1.,1

1 1.

0111

011

ION

111

1114

01S

1,1

Ilt q

tsen

iuns

sns

et..1

.(l 1

11 I

Irsi

ne.1

in S

clio

ulN

O04

01

esIv

1..1

the

,wee

llonf

1110

0.0.

1 11

13,1

),I l

ason

t.1 1

0 1,

1000

1

BE

ST C

OPY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

'--

----

-

0

..16

9241

416

1 61

2514

1119 96 603

1049 15

9

259

109

360

1511 /4

012

918

421

465

540 05 118

0))

7110

1049

1611

3 11

1

6911

1221

1024 23

0

1195

1015

0

119

It 66 16 I4 2

925 4

23 i 1 50 10 11 1 4

141 I

25 36 16 113

191

26 12 I5 41 14 14 21 48 409

46 419

Haw

man

y of

11,

a qu

estil

lin o

n 11

1 11

1111

C11

1111

1C11

0uet

ies1

014

1411

J tit

., yo

n la

mm

ed 1

0

pad

111,

w1

of Ik

e 90

4,11

101M

004

0111

41 1

4111

111

Sum

. of d

m s

iltaa

tion.

0U

8411

111

1010

111

Nun

. 131

1 no

. fp

low

01

ill. 1

.1.5

(1

How

man

y of

doe

titn

utlu

en tl

eolli

ngsl

ows

4114

111

1110

1 C

ov01

31 4

1 lll

ll lo

t ils

1O

Rs

lie, 5

(1.l.

7M

oe, o

f lic

e qu

anta

.. ro

sine

d n1

1101

101

S01

illy

qw

essi

ons

row

s,. O

il 11

4141

0141

1N

ow u

4 S

iBly

law

of f

l,. q

tfinf

lotts

11...

. ,.s

ay o

f 110

. 010

,011

1001

,Inl

Ing

we

410

1141

,110

10

0 40

1 y

day

Ille)

of 1

0111

1101

471

11,1

010

Isol

iols

.1..

111

4110

0 W

04 n

oses

oil

lin d

u. to

otty

',m

hos

gttla

lO

loss

of d

m 1

1041

111

1,14

4110

1 10

1111

Nom

. of 1

/04

1le1

110,

0 co

eted

. 1

. 1N

4011

1 O

f sec

y Ir

is 0

1 11

01 .1

4041

1100

sW

101,

ri 4

11.1

you

gs1

the

s A

l.:A

mt.,

you

I tflo

l llll

l 111

11ro

bt11

.11/

1.I 1

1.44

1 01

y "

Ho

1 al

, 011

1101

I 1.$

141

II4

.14,

stla

ios

inov

61.4

by

11a

11 y

ou 4

01 1

1141

eals

-nl.t

or, u

rban

411

,1I I

IMI 1

1 on

ly fa

n Ili

a in

sulto

t.110

01..1

Ico

lII

IIt"

II,.

4011

.101

01IC

S 1

401

1 us

eni 1

1 It0

tine

s us

0.0

1411

..ta

I 511

4 00

1 liS

(111

. 141

01

llow

011

014

.10

y 0

0 ic

al 1

0 Ip

le 1

0 11

0.__

__-

-

-.

...II.

' In

giuo

rt1

0, 6

104

.1(1

4up

tes

look

ing

nil 1

1110

4.0s

1100

gl.In

g 11

,110

,111

001

I1

Oca

l, to

141.

1

II m

ains

ILS

sim

l. 01

s 41

...ii.

, (1.

,,..A

h.11

0110

1. 1

1110

41)

solv

ing

mei

hrm

atio

lit 1

.101

.1

usin

g nt

allte

ssis

th a

sn.

saiii

its1.

11.e

.

1101

0101

1 1.

11 1

110

1001

SC

1,00

1 80

OH

S 0

1 11

11y

.1. 1

,01

I1,

4110

0,81

In 1

.:1.0

11

I I1,

IS-1

14A

11.

.011

001

[ove

rspi

ll m

ater

ial

I16

.111

101

4.. S

C11

0441

will

s as

1s is

/I Is

lllll

an1

16t.

Ow

l,It,

you

kiln

ed In

sch

ool I

n 11

111

or a

ny

I Ina

rneo

l In

clio

nl.

I "S

al 1

1811

111

OC

I400

1

C04

,101

101.

11.1

1 1

4110

41 1

41 .1

100

with

luso

111

III 1

WIn

g .6

111s

(ho

wm

m4.

11.1

1114

%so

ds o

f

4-1

.014

1114

11 1

1011

you

lase

no.1

to

61 I

1011

1,..d

10

1100

10

1 1

. 1 1

(ew

stal

owl 1

41 4

1100

1

11 0

4,11

,444

1 40

112

lel 1

144

.111

1,.1

10

101

I14

1101

10

tom

pinl

e 11

,0 1

SS

1T

14 1

0401

y00

044

HT

1411

1e i

1011

410,

1014

10'

1141

11nd

1 1580 12

I17

0

195

1098 35

8

1123

1 )

1449

9

011

119

1581

11/0

455 OS

519

'6,

61 26T

11 P

43 22 31 4 3 19 22 12 62 51 103 2) %

LI 6

16 IU 4 6 2

12

2 no

nine

s/ w

eek

/ 1062 49

010

96 22)

NI

1611

1191

3

2092 01

1

It, 41 19 4) 9

21 tti 46 81 IS

1411

0111

1 01

0

wee

&

0 106

631

119

455

1351

52'.

641

215

/25

a

% 11 25 30 ID 31 /0 25

9

20

DLi

ttils

0 610

1/49 46

013

114

614

/45

490

105

541

e % 25 45 18 54 26 10 19

4 /1

ilsse

r

1 116

200

150

410

249

1115

1511 41

296

1'

Iload

in_

Mat

hem

atic

s

Sci

ence

Soc

ial

5111

1110

5

Whi

tt tt

Por

tfolit

i

Dee

ding

Mal

liam

atic

s

Sci

ence

Soc

ial

Stu

dies

WI I

ding

Por

tfolio

flead

iiig

__-

-

Mat

hein

atic

s.__

SCI011C0

Soc

ial

Stu

dios

Wt g

ing

I 'or

Hol

m

Dis

lingn

Islie

rtP

rolic

ieril

//

Mirk

App

rent

ice

Nov

ice

0

Dis

tingu

ishe

d

0O

P

Fem

ale

Nov

ice

Pro

ficie

ntA

ppre

ntic

e_

2.0

81.0

1.0

15

9 0

O 1

89.0

00.8

27.5

124 5

113 0

7 4 2 9I

9

I982 0

478.0

826 0

810 0

I802 0

104 38

47

150

138

388.0

755 5

888.5

545 0

899 0

29

58 81

41

152

7.8

38 0

o s

60

8 0

1 3 0 0

138 0

_ .._

61.8

29.0

I133.0

le i

5 2 11

14

815 0

503.0

832.0

873.5

538.0

88 41

61 5 45

270.5

828.6

567.6

416.5

481 0

22

51 48

34 40

Dis

tingu

ishe

dP

rofic

ient

14

Whi

teA

1 I)

et d

ice

14

Nov

ice I

%

D15

111)

0105

110(

1

0

Pro

licle

ntNM

I-w

hite App

le' d

ico

Nov

ice

9 0

0195

811

1235.0

88

374.5

21t

0 5

021.5

4341.5

88

215.5

37

02 0

6103

56

791 6

44

9.,.1

. 015

4 0

1II .0

2145 0

26

419.0

73

I8

O62

03

096 0

55

767 6

42

0 0

03.

8/99 0

34

378

568

8 0

02320

13

1031 0

51

548.0

30

1.5

19.5

3238.0

41

I320 0 155

15.0

1243

014

829 0

48

704 0

39

2.0

023.0

4166.0

30

I371.0

I88

Dls

lblg

uisl

lecl

N

Pro

licle

rilCha

pter

I

App

rent

ice

Nov

ice

t)is

lingu

lslre

d

Nha

t-el

ttpte

rA

ppre

ntic

eN

ovic

eP

tolic

lent

o o

o4 0

1190.0

48

223.0

83

9 5

0221.0

10

1487.0

88

435.6

20

0 5

01.

0 0

083.5

18

352.0

04ea

64

117.0

8917.5

43

1032.0

4

0 0

01

50

91,0

22

324.6

78

1.8

o56.0

31187.0

84

929.6

43

0 0

04 5

I138 0

33

274 8

88

7 5

0253.0

12

1204.5

56

1606.0

32

0 0

05

0I

85 0

ie332 -0

83

I/ 0

I26

9.0

13972.0

46

I637.0

40

fj,,i.

111 pion

I alum-mar. 1111

.111

., m

e 'c

ritic

alII

,11,

0,1;

uly

in, l

osiv

i'c

wt.'

Ili..

'11

1h1

1111

1:11

1`1

Al-.

011

11. +

c itl

ia1y

m:3

ale

lias

uil

1111

11'1

.1e1

1 A

1141

111

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

133

131s.

ii...1

1411

1LN

,N.

'PA

MK

IRIS

199

2-93

Stud

ent A

sses

smen

tC

urri

culu

m R

epor

tSe

ptem

ber

1993

----

----

----

Col

ts:

165

1)Is

1dd:

FA

YE

IIE C

O

dlad

4

..N.0

11.4

1-01

1,_s

opo4

r,

l'4A

-for

mun

ceLe

vel

!feud

ing

Mat

hem

atic

sS

cien

ceS

ocha

Stu

dies

Will

ing

Por

tions

Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

pist

ingi

nstio

lio

30

01

In D

istr

ict a

t Eac

hP

rolic

iuts

ls

a2

50I I

Per

form

ance

Lev

elA

pra

'lino

6436

4662

40

Nov

ice

2154

4936

49

Per

cent

age

ofS

tude

nts

n. !s

. Ii"U

"sil"

02

oo

I

in S

late

at E

ach

Pro

fit:lo

w1

41

1I2

Per

form

ance

Lev

elA

ppro

nli(

f.63

3741

6343

Nov

ice

3061

524

I44

Per

cent

age

ofS

tude

nts

13is

tintil

ilsi l

ed3

Nat

ionw

ide

at E

ach

Pro

licio

nt6

Per

form

ance

Lev

el-

---

--

--

(dat

a no

wav

aila

ble

for

App

roi s

lice

.._

36

mat

hem

atic

s on

ly)

Nov

ice

55

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

Pag

eI

Maryland

ASSESSMENT SYSTEM: Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP)

REPORT LEVEL: State, District, School

REPORT TITLE: Maryland School Performance Report

GRADES REPORTED: All grades tested: 3, 5, 8, 9, 11

SUBJECTS TESTED: Reading, mathematics, social studies, science

POPULATION SAMPLE: Matrix

ATTRIBUTES REPORTED: Assessment results: percent meeting standard; student backgroundfactors correlated with assessment results; student participation;student attainment; rate/ethnicity; gender; attendance; dropouts; post-secondary decisions; student population characteristics; studentsreceiving special services; wealth per pupil; per pupil expenditure;number of staff; lergth of school day/year

BEST COPY AVAILP

3-19

1 3u

4

I

1

FRE

DC

KIA

IN I

Y 1

4111

1 IC

SC

I 100

1S

Vic

rler

ick

tinni

ly. w

ills

a po

pitla

tion

ill

16,1

.501

, is

Mai

yla

iirl's

inge

s1 c

ount

yla

nd a

nus.

nort

irl u

l

lirhi

calio

n is

hom

ed in

Fie

rieri

d. li

ly, t

he C

onnl

y se

al.

'111

C lu

sty

New

ell 1

4111

1L M

AN

ION

incl

ude

lwe0

1 y

-scv

en

elen

tetil

ai y

sch

ools

, len

mid

dle

scho

ols,

sev

en h

igh

scho

ols,

one

spe

cial

eilm

.alli

m c

ynic

,,on

e al

lein

aliv

e

erlit

enlio

n in

itiat

e/hi

gh s

choo

l,at

id u

ric c

at e

ci a

nd te

chno

logy

cent

er.

hnilt

ior

sio

l lac

ililie

s m

e al

so p

ai I

ol

the

rain

n 1

1 sy

stci

ll

AS

SE

SS

ED

ST

UD

EN

TK

NO

WLE

DG

E

STU

9 )

EN

T l

' HM

O H(M

AN

(1E

Scho

ol Y

ear

1992

-199

3

ST

UD

EN

T P

AR

TIC

IPA

TIO

N perc

ent

5111

1011

/10

1990

"

MD

FU

NC

TIO

NA

LT

ES

TS

011,

0E 1

1 tIN

ItiN

0111

1101

1411

a.19

93"

1114

111

If

som

e11

15U

Rfl

1114

11P

t liC

E14

f555

151

EX

SA

Ise

aIA

AE

XI S

AT

Ree

ding

Mal

liem

etic

s

Will

ing

Citi

zens

hip

9795

2,04

932

90B

O2,

063

98S

O1.

999

83

9285

1,90

125

0 0 0

00 6

92 8

117

2

94 2

MD

FU

NC

TIO

NA

LT

ES

TS

GI1

AD

E 1

1515

109

sr A

WA

RD

Is19

91..

'a19

92 'a

1993

rem

ioni

eyn

IIn

man

I fla

tus!

I E

x 1

SA

I 1m

,no

usio

1 al

iel

4,55

5rfu

EX

SA

T

Ree

ding

Mal

liem

etic

s

Wrii

rng

Clll

aeus

hlp

Per

med

All

Tea

ls

99 99 99 99 96

97 97 97 97 90

99 0

99 3

99 5

98 I

97 3

99 6

99 0

99 90 4

97 4

0 0 0

IM

AR

YLA

ND

SC

1100

4"W

e"Ifl

anto

ifina

IR

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E A

SS

ES

SM

EN

T"m

em°

elim

p06

/111

0

PR

OG

RA

M (

LIS

PA

P)1

112

EX

SA

1(a

cme

RE

SU

LTS

0 R A 3 A 0 E 5 A 0

Rea

ding

2570

2,05

0

0 l) 1) 0 11

09 9

99 4

993

98 4

972

mai

mP

ER

CE

tilLX

SA

IN

ut

N 0

1A

lai

r

4105

110

--.1

4E

X 1

SA

1

I10

Mal

lism

ollc

s25

702.

094

110

53

Soc

ial S

andl

er'

257r

2,07

013

463

Sci

ence

2571

2.07

113

353

Rea

ding

2570

I.974

125

105

Mat

hem

allc

s25

702

043

115

46

Soc

ial S

ludl

es25

702,

014

144

46

Sci

ence

2570

2 M

O15

046

4 6

40 0

Rea

ding

7570

1,60

315

183

4 6

36 3

Msl

hein

allc

s25

701.

/30

145

42

Sor

lal S

tudi

es25

701.

719

158

42

Sci

ence

2570

1.69

418

142

5344

4

29.1

0 /

5046

5

IAT

1EN

DA

HC

E R

AT

E

Fr

EA

RLY

)

Gra

des

11G

rade

s 7.

1?

1992

1993

Par

cels

Per

cent

[EX

I S

AT

es94

95 0

95 3

95 3

9694

92 0

92 7

92 7

ST

UD

EN

TS

AB

SE

NT

Few

er th

an 5

day

sM

ore

than

20

days

1892

PE

RC

EN

T

30 1 1

0

1903

PE

RC

EN

T

32.1

10 7

DR

OP

OU

T R

AT

E

(YE

AR

LY1

HA

N A

ND

a19

90" a

Pam

el

1992

Pin

cer)

,

1993

EX

I S

AT

Per

cent

EX

SM

WI

1511

Gra

des

9 -1

21.

253.

42

91

81

79

ST

UD

EN

T A

TT

AIN

ME

NT

[PR

OM

OT

ION

RA

IE

Gra

des

1-6

1111

,110

AN

D

EX

SA

T

1990

"P

alC

8111

1110

1401

Pd

1992

Par

cel/

Plo

mol

ed

1993

Per

cent

Plo

rnot

ed

Mil

4E1

888

509

298

155

412

3

EX

9898

99 6

09 8

99 5

V

1116

11 S

CR

OO

L P

RO

GR

AIA

CO

MP

LET

ION

[19

91P

erce

ntP

elic

an!

1992

"P

arce

n/C

ompl

eted

1993

Num

ber

iP

erce

nt

Com

plei

edC

onfla

ted

lialv

ersd

y ol

Ikal

land

Sys

lerit

Req

uIre

man

is

App

rove

ddi

n 11

5445

0444

119

9011

1 th

evar

Sity

& O

C.5

.411

5110

4H

eyak

emen

ts

3 9

44 7

PO

ST

-SE

CO

ND

AR

Y D

EC

ISIO

NS

_

GR

AD

E 1

2 D

OC

UM

EN

I ED

DE

CIS

ION

S T

O:

0 2

411

2V

1 1

250

9

1145

9

L1 1 66 4 5

40 44 2

41 3

'F

ewer

Tha

n 20

Shi

dent

s"

Bss

alin

s Y

ear

Dal

e

'" In

clud

es E

sem

plio

n 10

fS

peci

al E

dtic

eilo

n,E

SO

L, e

nd S

econ

dS

enta

Mer

Tre

itsle

rs

Ane

mia

lour

yea

r co

llage

Alte

r sl

a tw

o ye

ar c

olle

geA

lter

rd a

spe

ceak

zed

safe

r 01

pur

sue

spec

ializ

edhe

arin

g

Eid

er a

nnau

yine

ni p

etal

ed to

lega

lsch

ool p

rogr

am)

Elli

e' e

mpl

oym

ent P

euel

eled

to h

igh

scho

ol p

row

and

Ela

m 1

115

nahl

asy

Ent

er lu

ll te

ns 5

111p

luyi

lveu

l sea

lscho

ol

Ent

er p

ail i

lme

earp

loym

eal a

nd/o

r 14

.114

01

Oth

er a

nd n

o le

spon

se

496

12 4 35

488

167

22

1--11

1111

13

NN

W11

.4w

,..,

35 6

552

36 2

21 6

309

202

1943

28

8213

085

91

160

105

3682

4,-,

2 7

39it

60 ..

./10

016

19

5544

29

I KE

Y; E

XE

xcel

lani

,S

AT

Sal

isla

ciar

y, %

Per

cent

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

la

Fre

4ler

ielt

SU

PP

OR

TIN

G IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

Sch

ool Y

ear

1992

-199

3

ST

UD

EN

T P

OP

ULA

TIO

NC

HA

RA

CT

ER

IST

ICS

IEN

RO

LLM

EN

TF

1991

92

I19

92 9

3

Pre

Kin

derg

alle

itK

Inde

rgai

ten

Gra

des

16

Gra

des

712

(hoo

ded

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

nT

otal

Em

ollm

ent

G7T

UD

EN

T M

OB

ILIT

Y

f111

1111

115

332

2.30

0

13,6

50

11,1

86 467

21,9

35

ii40

5

2.45

014

215

11,7

11 5,a

2929

/

1992

1411

1141

111

IPE

RC

E14

1111

11

1993

MB

E It

1V

E11

1:40

11

3.93

114

24,

522

I5

2.20

99

02,

301

0 ;!

ST

UD

EN

TS

RE

CE

IVIN

GS

PE

CIA

L S

ER

VIC

ES

[Firs

t Gra

ders

wid

e K

inds

with

inE

xper

Etin

ce1

1993

[MA

SE

RI P

ER

CE

NT

114(

.147

1861

1IP

ER

CE

NT

,99

2

2,44

299

42,

417

99 6

NO

RM

RE

FE

RE

NC

ED

AS

SE

SS

ME

NT

Com

preh

ensi

ve T

eals

of B

asic

Ski

lls (

CT

13S

/4)

Sam

ple

()fa

des

3,5,

0

titat

le 3

(Ilo

ilo 5

Gla

de II

CO

MP

RE

I1E

NS

ION

1992

Nic

e99.

14.1

RE

AD

ING

1993

114.

991,

..

1119

J

1.4w

1.Po

tto.1

44

LAN

GU

AG

E

1902

Muc

k..

Vbn

em*J

))

TO

TA

L

11:9

1.3

Man

tom

1tA

log

1993

W,1

91

MA

III.E

MA

TIC

S11

112

WA

,IV

9JIh

mA

holo

lanq

1 O

TA

L

191I

-1 S.1.

99.S

.91.

)

56 0

298

53 2

54 7

268

59 1

264

6(1

265

026

1

60 5

248

68 3

62 2

251

52 61 1

61 0

510

654

64 5

205

25/

249

41 0

66 I

70 0

IJ

11811.111E911111411411140LIBEI1

1992

1993 II'L

ltUN

1

116

0 4

II0

5

126

2698

53

I

3.63

013

03.

955

I J 5

2,99

9 _1

0 7

3.41

.51

1 _1

220

/ 325

815

' /89

59 1

11.

122

511

3

522

I14

6/4

197

314

105

31/

110

154

5 1

180

54

I lam

ed E

nglis

h P

lolic

lent

Cha

pter

1F

reai

lledu

ced

Pric

e 'A

rtoi

s

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

nIn

tens

ity I

Irrt

ansI

ty II

Inte

nsity

litle

nsily

IVlit

lens

liy V

Sch

ool I

mpr

ovem

ent N

otes

Dm

I. 4

igoi

n, th

e F

ortie

th'o

imit.

Pub

lic S

, h )

)) I

Spi

el's

hoo

t mei

twel

ve o

f doe

to ig

iond

/ull

1595

1111

,11

IllIr

tted

flic

Abu

ylit

titi S

into

/ Prr

frm

mm

,rue

l'Ing

snol

o11

/o o

ne

ion

and

Iu b

e 41

1111

11W

the

1111

1 11

111

101

III

III

14 1

1111

Alm

yhm

,f11

,fo

r11

11'1

,11

wel

kin

%ho

min

id

on lo

noth

oton

tio I

ot th

een

d of

got

hic

nine

We

tow

to to

rlent

ed to

he

anum

g th

e S

tate

Irnd

rl 1

111

Slu

r /W

s 1

rnin

ge 0

1Iln

drm

rI o

neer

nig

onat

tely

on

the

high

'hom

inid

; 4Il

the

Abu

t dam

,ho

od r

1.41

1111

1111

14 4

'111

1E4

smog

' Pill

:ont

o'. W

e or

e pr

flow

ed

hi o

iler'

the

1hi

Jle,

lge

(II

1111

'16'

115

iiiii

oot t

h.lit

hoo

oft I

on ti

ll re

f ow

shod

eons

in o

no v

iew

, the

se o

etod

ot

'Ole

oIth

e ov

oid/

fina

lity

Imo±

inte

nt o

fes

t-el

and

cm, i

oolto

on fo

nd C

rifet

iono

"Woo

* ed

roo

loot

olio

n, S

ytte

no tc

hbI,

emph

asiz

e m

ohlo

n so

lvin

g an

dhi

gh le

vel t

hink

ing

lobo

hnet

non

1111

1(11

111

hutr

J ul

t the

dim

itO

f ono

ent

ire M

onon

a iii

iii I

coon

ttttt

ttto

y W

e

I 1,

1111

111W

nI

liprh

1111

1th

inoi

ninl

ioni

ltfi

r O

W 1

1111

%E

O/1

01 O

M /M

fg/0

1rp

rulit

yir

aPII

IIQ

/4,,

OT

HE

R F

AC

TO

RS

1992

1991

Wea

lth p

er p

irnU

Per

pup

a ex

pand

atue

lush

oclio

nal s

halt

per

1,00

0 pu

pils

l'iol

e551

04 ta

t sup

port

slu

ff pe

r 1.

000

popi

ls

Inst

otol

orta

l ass

isia

tils

pet 1

00(

pupi

ls

Ave

rage

tert

ullt

of s

choo

ltin

y to

r po

lIls

I m

oll,

ulsc

hool

yea

r lo

t pup

ils

$160

.779

$5.3

00

613 64 96 6 ti

1110

$116

61)

$5,"

12/

51 1

1

82 95 5 119

139

140

t

-3191111VA

II AdO

O IS

31:1

lef IR

{-0-16156'6151) 16

56 9r.

94116

14 16

14 i4(4-

51'16%

916

%1'16

lit 16%

116511651'16

56'16

51) 16

%Ira'

lit 16%

9 16

51'165S

16116

59'76

5516

501659165t16

i41616 D

6

I I3(15/)I.) .11) (1141

SI1V

X 1 IV

N011-31,111J H

1104 JO 39V

SS

Ve

16(6

SO

16

17.15776

50'1656.66

1161'L6

51'6651'66

SI 16

'51. 86xO

26

17119151'66

9651.66

(6767fi 16

1606

Sit M

I)S

ic ,VW

N111V

lily

11n 1M

31V1'

1'v

- --

--

1 I 3(1VW

.) 10 (INJ

1C II t

V191111\19 11441 )11:114111 (1N

V 1A

2V11

la 0,119,......9.

St 651

169 11 %V

IR14'6R

SiS

PA

M

56 1.6 it 96 159 1651'16

SIS

INY

50 16 5616 %9 61

5112V

iVey 111v

%S

L6 51'96 1661656.16

1101M

716711;51°16

)111,111

I 96 5116 S8 Le

51'16item

5i 1.650 96

5116Ire

.irTirfo

$1661 lid-_

_ _________3111119 II I (N

11511 1.11.41112M

(INY

IAN

YIN

I I

1.1,1,113

1,06 Ann irogfirs

iiVapn purls '05'11 '.1777) if@

lug JAIN

, Spl:1111)

III Wall,

Mai

'1,16 Antiw

itorsI nirrnalliny

,191"1% 113A

31/ ,'1'1*11"1,1 .1.1519 tpaal 7II, 41:131V

4itIrpirric Ilty11101911147VIII .4.1611

SO

.11.111V

111.111.1A

ug tcrliFs

Ifiewom

%166 I 51 66

5116

1.169 ft" %S

661 51 66

%1(6

54

it 66%

I. 665116

-it 6659 66

50'001

x(66%

1 16%

CH

51 6616 t 66

59.66

511651116

Wig

51' L6

5116-

16161474

7.41(,16 06

..

1 1 I IV/I') 111 O

hl5 111)45 111115N

1/)11) 113 15II (11.1111.11V

11

i6 I6

Si 26

50 1101

56 116

56 6656 66

1.161 66

56 66

%L

I.156 6655 66

TaT

6%

9'66

ir6i

50 001

56'66

56'6656'66

16 7476 14

IG 06

1 I311V

1I' 1 11/ 11411

1611 ')14111V 111 IV

P11111 /71111 IN

VP

lZiv1,4

............a.............,^,..........r. -..r.-s...1.^.1.1,..,.. lb IN

al .. "I

116

08 1,1 119

59 tr%

7'6R'M

il51I S

S 52 9950 10

c15 AM

)!

di% 11/1,1

iiii. Tali

50 61 55 152 w

riv II Iv

51 P6 51 R

R59 O

R ill/

11111M

%916 %

UR

%S

ilt %S

AL

itv1411

SO

16166 911

161.61'S

r Pt

31114

1111 16 59 IRS

c RI

51 91.1lv

i4 i4ii.16 ;14 66 544i

iliaI

__

___-C

. 31 1V1i' / II/ ( IN

1

1511 S /11V

1N11 IIV

V9 !V

W 111

114111 ( INV

1).71V1,1

1.66)''.if,

IrrtirScip 1711 1 )

p.p...0:1.97P

ierre In iiirj .Llcl9 lima ni

II/

1.66 .1' .1.11' 77 '16/6 /11mIrrw

sim

praN1/torprrts ita.crisi aim

.) pi 4611 ,4,161v SIL1:1

Iv'poly

prwa

Asm

trisiirc - "11111'11/:t1/11'111

elm-o %

euteiveleftreeevil ;. eel .1451,4I' ;P

al v

IVN

01131\1111S-1001 D

S -311$111(1A

i 1\111()3

asimm

ilmannum

aimillE

VE

mm

eirmanuanam

madow

irm

I6Ir. 14

-1616_

16 Dfi

- --

--

113(IV

1111 11) (IN3

1511 9N111)1M

OtlY

11411/14

P..*r r ,.. -

-, , -, .-.1P^.1 II .... I .... Id ..... ...dd.. 41

1

Si 11 51 11 5.619 1.169 loS

71616 M

ill

(Ti. I iini M

ilii F

a '. 1 06sic 109

59 SA

St It %

I It %619 5601

milIV

II IV

%116 %

6 16, 5/ 01 51 IR51111

1101M

%L 16

it 9R V

A 92 54 92

IlvIvii

5r. 16%

I SR

56 til 55 911ilvtv

%716

556 91 519$

etv

16 767616 .1606 11661

iit iii01 1(0m

') 111) (Iti15111)15 40115111/111 )

1(I 1511 (INV

IlsilVV

9

lit If. %( f6

iar65116 if 06

%5 16

59116

51'16

51 ig 51 66

'Si 96

Ife( 16

51 56

161.611

56 16161 06

tt16116

%/.16

%1 96

535 Mill

515 1 Ifc4

11114V N

iv

11111M

1 Ivry 11

IVP

4

I IV

rfi 764'4 16

.16 116116

ic?!1154111,111,54111 (IN

VIA

NY

14

1.6611, S

'1.16 Aim

irisiirsaprr

pi pit; ,1,7519 1111.1117 on si.z.ny

Torpleros istiiirtliplitigiv

flm

519 spIa.).1staaiv

1.16 ih-qo owl %

50 irepriefecsehlietealio

iirter 1A

lm 117111rs

N111,110,NE

.]spiiirtres

.1.4619 141.1a117 In 92019

14FR

WE

IZIC

K C

OU

NT

YPU

BL

IC S

CH

OO

LS

GO

AL

13

(Sys

tem

Coa

lA

nim

al In

crea

ses

in P

erce

tuag

esM

ill A

ll "E

xcel

lent

" S

tan(

lard

sA

re M

et a

t the

I lig

h S

choo

lle

vel)

MID

DI E

511

1001

I LI

NC

I IO

NA

I 1E

S1

Ni1

111/

11 S

(110

011r

1( 1

1014

A1

1E51

MA

II II

N1A

IIIS

RE

AD

ING

17 8

1119

SO --

9091

----

--91

92

92 9

3

All

761%

73.6

%10

6%

82 7

%81

6%

wit

71.5

%66

9%71

9%77

9%18

3%

Mim

i11

.5%

807%

880%

DO

%14

9%

win

ii77

.5%

131%

82 3

%84

2%81

2%

AIN

AM

III61

6%53

8%

47 6

%62

8%

S9

I%

P.V

II S

IS50

6%

164%

819%

IS 8

%14

1%

um 5

1554

.4%

46 I%

39 3

%35

4%

48 IA

143

117

88

All

31.0

%

MA

TT

IA 2

%

IfnlA

lf34

.1%

ssel

im32

.1%

At O

t AM

IN7

6%

Mill

sts

34.7

%

itlyd

Sts

13 1

%

BE

ST C

OPY

AV

Afi

81X

1

12 1

1%

29 5

%

111%

31 0

%

IS 6

%

14 IS

10 5

%

99 9

191

92

92 9

1

471%

57.

3% 6

01%

44 S

% 5

64%

578

%49

9%

419%

II 3%

311 16 9

%

31 4

%

597%

21.5

%

61 1

%

2/ V

%

62.4

%

62.1

%

129%

61 2

%

283%

1'14

FRE

DE

RIC

K C

OU

NT

YPU

BL

IC s

o10

0LS

GO

AL.

C S

lAT

EC

RIT

ER

ION

RE

FF

RE

NC

ED

TE

ST

SC

OR

ES

NA

SI.A

3' -

PIM

2 N

I 1 A

NI)

AIR

An

RE

AD

ING

(C

11A

02

9192

9191

91 9

4

Al I

44.4

%

MA

IL39

.5%

Ifrw

t49

5%

min

t46

.3%

M11

AA

IIN13

.3%

isvi

s 51

546

.4%

111W

MS

201%

NIS

PA

r -

1111

0EN

1 1

AN

DA

l101

.13

SC

IEN

CE

ICH

AD

t 11

91'1

292

9191

94

All

44.7

%

MA

IL41

11%

tIMA

I I49

.6%

min

t46

.9%

WIN

AA

IIN11

4 8%

AIA

I '45

46.8

%

111W

5t1

22.2

%

M5I

Al.

1'21

1C2N

1 3

AN

D A

IME

SO

CIA

1 S

TO

NE

S y

iltA

111

5)

91 9

2.

_9!

9191

All

45.9

%

1.1A

1141

.6%

rtm

Ati

50.5

%

wln

it47

.4%

Atli

AM

IN30

.3%

nolm

s48

8%

M S

I20

.9%

IS

(11(

1 N

hi?

1 I I

f .1t

AD

E

13 A

341)

Al))

Art

IIRC

3NT

1 A

ND

50C

IA1

5111

111t

5 (C

RA

M 3

1

Nt

9192

9291

9194

91-9

291

9193

91

Al 1

52.7

%A

ll43

.7%

MA

I I51

.1%

3,3A

3341

.1%

IIAIA

lt54

.4%

111.

1A1

t46

.5%

mot

e55

.1%

Will

i&45

.9%

AI 1

4A

A11

M2.

1.7%

Alit

AN

IS!

10.1

%

3mis

is56

.0%

MA

146

.2%

111W

515

IBA

%11

1W ti

t,16

.5%

-M

I 3 A

NI)

A11

))V

t14

1A11

IN3,

13:

13A

113

5)

91.9

1

Al I

401%

3.L1

112

.1%

11 n1A1I

48.5

%

Wlll

lt41

.3%

AI I

tA

1,11

1419

.5%

AV

II 51

542

.4%

111W

sts

18.9

%

9291

'11'

11

Nts

rAl.

1131

I Al I

I))v

r

II N

I tM

AI a

"))

All

MA

IL

IW

I 111

1

AIM

AM

IN

AV

I I S

it

111W

515

91 9

2

48.0

%45

.3%

501%

50.0

%15

.1%

50 3

%

26,2

%

92 9

391

91

BE

ST C

OPY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

.11.

1110

1.11

16

1.45

PA

I.-

1 A

NI)

AIM

)V

1

MA

IN (

(WA

DE

51

91.9

2-

-11

293

91 9

1

Al I

56.9

%

MA

IL54

.5%

131.

3m e

59.4

%

min

t59

.2%

AIN

%A

ltN.3

1.0%

1.11

11 1

1!59

.9%

1/1W

515

30.5

%

1-

1310

13-4

31

AN

D A

l)) )

VI

142A

NIM

; (C

RA

M 1

11

91.9

29)

9191

91

All

.16.

3%

MA

1126

.8%

1114

AI E

45.8

%

wllI

lt37

1%

AIN

AA

Illt

13.1

%

At/1

1 M

s38

.7%

iNw

5tS

14.6

%

t t_

N

FRE

DE

RIC

K C

OU

NT

YPU

BL

IC S

CI

'CO

LS

CO

AL

C

MS

PA

I'M

A11

1 (G

RA

DE

01

I AN

D A

BO

VE

1,15

1'A

PK

IK E

NS

t 1(

1A1

5111

111:

5 (

GU

M

I3

AN

D A

B(

NI

SE

111

MS

I'AP

PE

1W E

N)

3 A

N))

AB

OV

E

5( !I

NC

E (

GR

AD

E U

1

91-9

291

93 9

491

9291

93

93 9

491

9291

939)

'14

All

48.8

%All

44.1

%A

ll41

.3%

MA

IL47

.1%

MA

I L37

.9%

1.4A

i E35

.2%

IIMA

1 I

50.6

%I I

MA

I50

.6%

iiniA

it47

.7%

wun

l50

.7%

Wl l

ilt45

.6%

Wlll

lf42

.8%

AIR

AM

IR16

,7%

All

AM

IN20

.4%

AIR

AM

I11

15.7

%

nVll

SfS

51.0

%M

AI 5

1546

.8%

rani

sts

44.8

%

r.v

sts

18.5

%14

MI S

i S18

.8%

min

t 515

10.4

%

147

1

New York

Annually, the state administers and reports results from four separate testing systems: (1) Pupil Evaluation ProgramTestsincluding the Degrees of Reading test and a state-developed mathematics test (grades 3 and 6), a writing test ingrade 5, science in grade 4, and social studies in grades 6 and 8; (2) Program Evaluation Tests, providing means forthree parts of the grade 4 program evaluation test in science and for the total score on the grades 6 and 9 socialstudies tests; (3) Regents Competency Tests in reading, mathematics, writing, science, global studies, and U.S.history and government; and (4) Regents Examinationstests of high school course knowledge in 10 content areas.

In addition, New York's current accountability system collects and reports extensive demographic, staffing, fiscal,and progress information about students, schools, and districts.' In addition to reporting annually to the statelegislature, the State Department of Education provides districts with data that can be further analyzed and customizedinto local accountability data reports. Because data are available for customized district-level use, districts vary inwhat and in how they report information on district, school, and student progress.

Conununity District #1 in New York City, for exam, .e, reports the following information for one component of theprogram, the Pupil Evaluation Program:

ASSESSMENT SYSTEM: Pupil Evaluation Program

REPORT LEVEL: District

REPORT TITLE: Elementary and Secondary Schools Achievement Summaries

GRADES REPORTED: Grades 2-9

SUBJECTS TESTED: Reading, mathematics, writing, social studies, science

POPULATION SAMPLE: Census

ATTRIBUTES REPORTED: Three-year summaries of percent of students achieving above grade leveland/or above the "state reference point"; district descriptive characteristics

University of the State of New York/State Education Department. (February, 1994). Nel.v.

York: The state of learning; Statistical profiles of public school districts. Albany, NY: Author.

3-26

149

_NgyvAssessment System

The process for creating a new assessment system is developing under the auspices of the New York StateCurriculum and Assessment Council. The Council's April 1994 report to the Commissioner recommends newcurriculum frameworks that redefine the state's content and performance standards and develops an entirely newstatewide assessment system. Attached are flow charts describing (1) the proposed new state assessment system and(2) the projected implementation time line (Curriculum Assessment Council, April 1994, pp. 8 and 12)."

' Curriculum and Assessment Council. (April, 1994). Learning-center curriculum andassessment for New York State: Report °Utile New York State Curriculum and Assessment Councilto the Commissioner of Education and the Board of Regents. Albany, NY: Author.

3-27

150

Nav

e P

iagr

am E

valu

atio

nA

000

00 m

erits

(en

-det

nand

lIn

iegt

eled

Pet

teer

neno

e T

ithe

1.fib

MI

(iiiie

Sta

te A

sses

smen

t Sys

tet0

fJ

Co

3P

EP

Mew

ing

PE

P M

eth

4P

EI S

cien

ce

5P

EP

Will

ing

PE

P fl

eetin

gP

EP

Mat

hP

ET

Sod

et S

tudi

es

PC

P P

lead

ing

PC

P W

illin

gP

EP

Soc

ial S

tudi

esi

9 10/V

CIs

and

1 I

new

t' E

sant

a

12

1 5

1

3-5

(one

pet

yew

,on

a r

olot

Ing

basi

s)

float

ing

/ Wal

ing

Mot

h I W

ince

I T

echn

olog

y(A

IM. S

ocia

l Slis

dlaa

,,L

eah,

sic

1 6-8

(one

psi

yam

,on

a lo

isllo

g bu

ll/

Hea

ding

I W

illin

gU

tah

1 W

anes

1 T

echn

olog

y(A

ils, S

oda!

I lee

Ato

, Mam

e 'C

eles

te. e

lc )

9-12

Com

mon

Tal

ksIn

Pm

llol

loa

Mat

hsE

L A

.

Ass

essm

ent a

t Nee

l Mes

lery

Ilege

nts

App

lave

dA

000

00 m

ends

'

Met

h. W

ont',

Tec

hnol

ogy

Eng

lish,

Foi

stan

I an

gusg

es,

Soc

ial S

tudi

es, e

tc

[Lo

cal P

atna

%ha

qutr

onan

ial

Wor

k S

impl

ot,

nsla

sich

Poo

led'

,E

illiib

Illon

t

NE

W Y

OR

K S

TA

TE

PR

OPO

SED

TIM

EL

INE

1903

Clir

rieu

lum

and

Ass

essm

entP

lan

Rel

ease

d fo

r D

lact

issi

oti

1994

egn

icul

tun

F

A 0

0000

Bon

k1.

aunc

hial

eI

m D

evel

oped

and

Fie

ld M

eted

Can

oulla

tlan

and

Sta

ffD

eval

opin

ont U

nder

way

1995

New

Reg

ents

Ass

essm

ents

Dev

elop

ed &

Im

plem

en L

edC

ard

alumu

tR

ee o

urce

e A

vaila

ble

1000

New

Sla

teA

sses

amen

irru

gtam

iPi

lote

d an

d In

iple

men

tial

sa.ic

iusi

llyR

avin

wO

niIW

AC

M A

PO

pina

dlan

ol

1907

11)9

8

[000

R-1

2 Po

rtio

ligg

Impl

emen

ted

'Net

her

ficen

eina

Ref

orm

1909

A.1

.M. a

wl

Wor

kplo

cfe

IPre

Int

egra

ted

129

01)

UN

ITA

RY

DIP

LO

MA

BY

EX

HIB

ITIO

N

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE